A Full House For and Against ‘Religious Freedom’
Dated: September 2015
Recently, I read *TheMostRelevant article published by the Huffington Post [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/candace-cameron-bure-raven-symone_55bfc488e4b0b23e3ce39541] called “Candace Cameron Bure Opens Up About Fight With Raven (Symone) Over Anti-Gay Controversy.” The article describes Bure’s defense regarding her remarks in a small fight with Raven Symone on The View where Bure defended that bakery from Oregon’s allegedly illegal decision not to make a cake for a lesbian couple based on their religious beliefs, saying that because they were true Christians, they couldn’t bake the cake for such blatant and obvious death-dealers and rapists of our children. "And in the same way if something, you know, conflicts with someone's deeply held religious beliefs,” Bure said. “We should have the freedom to not have to deal with that or be associated with it. Just as on the opposite side, they don't have to either. It's, again, what makes our country so wonderful."
The way Cameron puts this is elegant, reasonable and, in my always unbiased view *AlwaysUnbiased , evidence that her argument is not based in irresponsibility, ignorance or xenophobia, like most liberals (like me) would love to argue, but perhaps just a little emotionally misplaced (evidence for that being the fact that she’s not the actual (in this case, gay) person who’s denied service for retarded reasons #IUsedThatWordForAReason ). Anyone has the right to refuse service, it’s called democracy, it’s called life; but turning it into a policy issue is where people get oppressive, aggressive and, more than anything, confused (and especially so after the supreme court has already made a decision). We’ve been hearing about this ‘freedom’ thing since we were kids, yet, given this need for people to feel its definition includes the fact that ‘freedom is also my ability to take away your freedom’, the human understanding of ‘freedom’, at its base, is not apparently fully evolved or developed in all of us. Rather than run through a million scholastic and expropriated researched ‘facts’ and opinions based on other’s (justified, true or otherwise) views in-my-own, I think I’ll take a ‘personal’ here. You’re welcome, conservatives (I’ll pray for you) ;D.
Before any understanding of this idea, this needed ‘freedom’ thing, for me, was compromised and attached a label meant to simplify its already inherent and natural implications on the human life I used to know, as implied by not being completely free (from random, unwanted introspection or personally biased conversations etc.), I would watch TV with my friends after school: DBZ, That 70’s Show, Celebrity Death Match, Gilmore Girls, all the 'juices' boys need to become men. But there was one in particular that had a profound impact on me /> *Jackass =D. I fuckin’ loved that show *ItWasAnIncomparableLove . Some dudes made a show where they eat feces and throw themselves in front of cars and do terribly ‘offensive’ #PCOverMeaning #WordsOverMeaning things in public and they made millions of dollars doing it! They glued pubes to each others’ faces, they preached to Californian God-lovers ‘Keep God out of California’ and they once had a guy take a cab to the airport with just one black bag, clearly filled with something ‘not-cool’ (a body), dressed as a Muslim and making some very questionable and scary remarks to the cabbie on the drive there (don’t worry, karma came back around). It was awesome =D.
I may think it’s because they take life too seriously, but, somehow, not everybody liked Jackass /> however, I’ve gotten over it (albeit with much difficulty :/). In the same vein, when people talk too seriously in conversation, people get over it. Now, maybe it was only because Jackass made money ($) that its haters were forced to do this- said haters eventually got over it as well. I can only imagine the type of personal disquiet with which they had to proceed with this at the time, but when they saw Jackass on TV, they turned it off. At some point, it became simple, it was natural.
Although it oftentimes takes a decent amount of time for people to get used to something they’re not used to, it’s stupid, in this moment, and redundant, to try to ruin or, more accurately, take away, someone else’s personal perspective of a show (or: anything for that matter), if they like the show, just because you don’t like it or don’t get it. You’re ultimately just spewing out hate, ignorance or envy for no reason, or a reason not planted in time (only in your head) /> same way I accidentally do it sometimes to people who listen to country music and the same way the KKK does it to decent, innocent human beings (fucking racists (not me, the #KKK(ShitStains)) question: what is country music’s main demographic? #<JokeXD).
So when it comes to the douchebags out there who want to tell others how to live their lives and throw a tantrum when ignored, there is no better example on their stupidity or the invalidity of their argument than the Supreme Court’s recent ruling to make marriage between two people of the same sex legal. With freedom as defined by individual, privatized freedom before Societal (in nature and evolution, people come before societies), wouldn’t America, if it were really as in favor of Absolute freedom as it has always claimed to be (or originally was), have done this a long time ago (make gay marriage legal)? It might seem as though perhaps America’s ‘freedom’ only comes after it takes into consideration the opinions and judgments ($) of the people with the most money or the most power and the loudest voice, but maybe that’s either a little cynical or too political (or concluding…). Or maybe there are just too many people out there who, for whatever reason, think that what something someone else does in the privacy of their own personal lives somehow affects them (the shit-talkers) in theirs?
If the majority of individual minds in a society are confused about what ‘freedom’ means (for example: that Individual freedom and Societal freedom are somehow interlaced, to the core, and unalterable within the confines implied by the simultaneous evolution of both), that’s going to come out in its policies and accidental cases of oppressing innocent people; when this confusion of the Individual mind vs. the Societal mind is catapulted outward by, and drenched in, whatever medium is naturally combining the two (in this case, policy (something that, coincidentally, has a lot to do with freedom)) . This is obvious, given that the Individual mind cannot be, by definition, the Societal (because the Societal is a conglomeration of many, individuals) and because, based on the fact that they both exist and are observable in the real world, there always has to be something to bridge the mental gap between the two, but does this go even deeper? Does this hole made by #TheConfusionOfFreedom permeate a more evolutionary problem, one less inherently biased by the separation with which humanity has used to progress forward over the past few hundred years so quickly?
With humanity’s inability to move past its obsession with words over matter, it’s not too surprising how long it’s taking for gay marriage to be legal across the board (both on the planet and in people). People have had to cling to what they know in order to deal with the change they can’t control, and the growing knowledge of that, not nearly as ‘there’ as before, not nearly as defined as other, more simple things, along with the advent of evolution (remember: Darwin discovered evolution only about 150 years ago), is going to make moving on in a natural, yet still timely, manner more difficult, again, because of 'clinging' simply existing as a thing.
There are two arguments here: the first is that people should be able to refuse service-as-defined to anyone for any definitive reason (non-governmental service as there is no argument to refuse any type of quasi-government service to someone (barred a terrorist or something)(like healthcare?)) which is absolutely true; you can’t control what someone does with her/his own business or personal belief structure. That argument is easy, simple, *Instinctual /> it exists solely in the Individual mind, though its necessary integration into society negates this personal aspect for reasons of staying on point. The second is that, given what we've been able to observe about human character and intellectual life over the past hundred years or so, it's time for people to stop being assholes, and recognize when blind emotion, or belief structure, is appropriate.
The second might ironically be more complicated :/.
There have been several shops and businesses throughout the country who have decided to deal with this blow to their self esteem in the best way that they know how: by being a Fucking asshole (sorry to be insensitive here guys, but you’ve been dealing insensitivity far worse and for a much longer period of time against many groups of people including coincidentally #UnplannedIrony , gay people and their right to happiness, so, like you do to anyone who doesn’t think like you, I really don’t give a flying fuck about you or your allegedly 'gigantic' penises anymore #BIGHands =P). Personally, so long as you’re not hurting anyone in any way, I don’t understand how letting other people have the right to be happy affects me at all, but everyone’s entitled to their own opinions and chosen complications, right? It is within this growing societal plain that this aspect of the argument goes in and out, as well as this place of attachment to biased egos (when so many are hurting, there needs to be a change), where this fear of what you don’t know is justified… ‘so long as they aren’t hurting anyone…’
Now you think I'm an asshole? You have every right to think that homosexuality is blasphemy and sinning and that it’s going to send all of humanity straight to Hell for the rest of eternity, but, unfortunately for fascists and white supremacists, as evidenced by simple math (1=1) that means that other people have that right to their own opinions as well #WhatComprisesTheSocietalMind . It also means that, to some of them, instead of damning and judging every happy person not cheating on their wives or Gods with alter boys, they just feel better being with someone, romantically or not as it really doesn’t matter #Don’tPhysicallyHurtOtherPeople , of the same sex. And just because a book written hundreds of years ago which claims monotone to be the gift of God says that that’s a sin, doesn’t make it a sin for someone who doesn’t believe in that specific meaning of those words (or who prefers something written with a little more taste :/).
One’s Individual mind is not the only mind in society, and the Societal mind (Societal-Mind, Societal/Mind = not 'society', and different from 'the collective' or 'the proletariats' or whatever other names idiots have tried to attach to it (I'm purposefully being a dick here, I do enjoy, and get a lot from, reading a lot of those people) (for a more detailed analysis on what I'm trying to get at here, I would suggest reading Plato's Parminides, or, to a certain extent (and more so for a much better wording of what I might be trying to say with this whole post (as well as for a lot more (i do like this one a lot)), Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism) is necessarily many individual minds, which means that compromise, an evolving-in-love/forgiveness/an awareness of reality's societal faculty, and not competition, an evolving-in-survival-and-instinct societal faculty, is the only way (as far as we can tell right now…) to help other human beings, that being the entire point of civil-ization in the first place (civil (adjective): definition (according to Google): 1. Of or relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters; 2. Courteous and polite (#Also:TheMeaningOfThisEssayXD )
The argument against a widespread acceptance of a new world order (not so new, actually) on the basis that God apparently doesn’t grow or evolve in such a complex way as the creatures she made, even though she/he supposedly invented the idea of growth and evolution in the first place (God rules over and created everything, right?), is ridiculous and redundant, and especially hypocritical if the person making said argument claims to disagree with the views of extremism. Sins are relative, at least so long as we all have the ability to think for ourselves, which apparently, many people think, despite not having the opportunity to come to this conclusion without it, that this ‘individual thinking’ should be eradicated (whether they realize it or not), but the relativity with which we so readily judge sin and miracle doesn’t exist without that difference between subject and object #RelatableToTheTitle, a difference, #Again,UnplannedIrony , our ‘godly men’ so often tend to ignore when describing their ‘God’s ideals - not their own-
In fact, and this is totally related, like, *TheMostRelated /> my personal one-man religion of #I’mTheManism says that all people named Dave deserve to die and have their fingernails cut off, but does that mean it’s the right thing to do? Moreover, is your needed opinion of this only so convoluted because you personally know someone named Dave? Further, if there were more followers of #I’mTheManism , who took its teachings to such extremes, killings of Dave’s and damning them to burn in Hell for all of eternity would be much more of a normal thing or thought, which might make those-who-believe-in-it-less-extremely to then begin to indulge further, out of a subconscious, tribal need to feel part of the group (and: especially a group which they chose to be in) and to eventually, after not being able to take that specific aspect in that same extreme way those who follow the mantra so naturally, start leaning towards something a little more unthinkable (like murder or authoritarian dystopia) simply as a result of feeling like an outkast #OutkastIsThaShit .
Regardless of my religion and contrary to my passionate supposed absolutism to it, I don’t think that all people named Dave deserve to die and have their fingernails cut off, (unless his tour bus takes a big ol’ shit on me from a few hundred feet above #NeverForget #BustedStuffBustedShitBustedLife ), despite the beautiful and personally life-saving meanings and passages of my religious texts, but it’s certainly not because I think myself to be a sinner or that I’m going against the teachings of my beloved #I’mTheManism , it’s because I realize that killing people is wrong, stupid /> and is actually in conflict with the whole reason I was so affected by the religion in the first place (because it helped me - meaning: if they're willing to let it, it can help others in some way as well /> so long as they're fucking alive).
The reason I follow #I’mTheManism so closely is because it’s done something to help me get through some really tough times, not because I’m stupid enough to think that the One True God would consider me big or smart enough to consider talking to me personally through a book, so much so that my personal interpretations of it should be considered absolute in a wider sense. That’s in conflict with the original idea! God is the only idea that can be considered absolute (or: as far as we understand out conception of the universe right now), not the words or ideas we currently need to use to attempt to understand her/him. In fact, I’m pretty sure that both the Bible and the Koran consider that a ‘sin’, or a big quality of an ‘infidel’, this ignorance of God’s 'absolute' power (or, for the scientifically inclined: mother nature's wrath #FuckYouC.C.Deniers ), now that I think about it…
The shop that Candace Cameron Bure is referring to isn’t the only place that has done something similar to this, nor the only one that has gotten some major media attention. There was that pizza shop in Illinois, a caterer somewhere (several) [http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/04/01/indiana-family-pizzeria-wont-cater-gay-weddings/70813430/] and who could forget Clint Eastwood’s famous speech on Cait Jenner at The Guys’ Choice Awards [http://www.etonline.com/news/165783_clint_eastwood_mocks_caitlyn_jenner_during_spike_tv_guys_choice_awards/]. With so many of these places and peoples coming up as of late, I find myself forced to try and understand their logic, and one part I do currently understand is the argument that in order for a country to really be free, its businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone. We all have the right to refuse service (just like conversation or likeability) to anyone we want, for whatever reason and this should never, nor do I think it can, ever change (until we do). Choosing who you serve and who you don’t serve is one of the basic functions of true capitalism (as opposed to America’s neo-authoritarian capitalism (which has been around far longer than the idea of a 'President Trump' has been, just saying)), one of the many inevitable (and one of the oldest) mediums between the Individual and Societal minds, and the liberal argument that someone should be punished for employing this natural right exists only because it confuses the fact that shitty people need to stop being shitty people, Individually, with an ignorance implying that one can change the way someone else thinks, personally (again, Individually) with a law #ConfusionOfTheSocietalMind #MindControl:TrueAuthoritarianism .
My second argument, then, the #MoreComplicated one, although directly relating to the first argument, isn’t based in the fact that 'we shouldn’t be letting these people do this' (refuse service), as that’s a moot point: it has to happen, it’s going to happen, it’s called the ability to think and act for yourself- even if you are a racist/homophobic/doesn’t-get-laid-enough prick-child of Charles Manson kid-diddler-in-the-name-of-God (again, sorry Catholics, but facts are facts (and diddlers are diddlers (put em’ in fucking jail))). This is not a political issue, it's a psychological one, and a personalized individual one at that. We need to try to figure out a way to get rid of these people, their entire existence (feeling offended yet?)!, as they, in their infinitely circling contradictions and hypocrisies, hinder, and put into question, our Societal mind's very existence (if the societal mind is nothing but a mere conglomeration of individuals, and in this case: individuals who believe that all people have the right to the pursuit of happiness), as implied by their unwavering backlash against its growth /> our job is to figure out how to stop them from thinking int he way in which they do in the first place. Yes, I said (in italics to emphasize 'being a dick', and giving them a taste of their own medicine) get rid of these people, because freedoms for human beings and the prospect of hope and happiness for loving families and Individuals comes before freedoms for businesses, religions and other possibly-power-induced institutions, like 'society' or 'the tribe' or 'the collective' (or at least they should (or at least, so said Jesus #PraiseTheLordWhoPreachesDeathAndSufferingToAllThoseNotWhiteAndStraight #LoveYourFuckingNeighbor,Dick)).
Both businesses and people have the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want; our role as the more morally advanced intellectuals who understand 1 ≠ 2 isn’t to take back the past or to literally force someone to change the way she/he thinks in the privacy of her/his own mind, it is to #LearnAndLetLearn , regardless of the potential for negative outcomes (because we have none of those now #Sarcasm ). However, it also certainly isn’t to sit still and let the fuck-brains rule the world either. How do we stop this in real-time? The answer to this question is not one that I, nor do I think any One person ever will, have, but in a world still so hung up on definitions and understanding misunderstandings, should we be making a mockery or a role model out of the assholes out there on TV and on the Internet to whom black is apparently white and life is strictly a competition (in 2015)? Even if they do deserve all the negative bullshit hopefully spun upon them in their personal lives as a result of such mockery or punishment (btw, it probably won’t), it makes no difference. In fact, this only makes them feel safer in their way of thinking or, perhaps even more so, like they need to more ardently and publicly defend and promote it #Trump2016 #KimDavisTheSupremeRuler(PrayForHer) .
For example: Every time I hear some asshole metalhead trying to get a Dave Mathews Band fan to shoot himself, or vice versa, simply because of her/his musical taste, I put my head down and feel sorry for the perpetrator because clearly something in his life has gone wrong, as evidenced by his inability to let things go, and one day, he’ll probably pay for it (like when he realizes how awesome Cannibal Corpse is (or: how awesome that DMB Busted Stuff album is (I guess)). So long as I don’t try to rush that understanding just to make myself feel smart and important, it’ll eventually happen regardless #LifeOfAnOptimist , and even if it doesn’t, larger issues like the acceptance of a grand new idea steeped in love, acceptance and natural, personal bias are never things that happen overnight. That’s the entire point of the mere existence of history as its own entity!
If it’s freedom for a business to publicly denounce its services to gays then, surely, it’s freedom for gays to publicly announce their love, and if it’s freedom to design law and basic societal functionality on ‘religious freedom’, then it’s certainly the same freedom for crazy Muslims to publicly kill and rape people on those same ‘religious’ grounds. Society does not conform to individuality just because the Individual is better than another Individual at expressing her/his views. Its views, no matter how refined, luxurious or quantitative, can never permeate the confines of the fact that it symbolizes the One in the equation 1 ≠ 2 (or: 1x = ∞), One of many though all infinitely different, the Societal being the infinite ∞ with no distinctions or differing factors aside from, simply, what number it is #NoPersonality (theoretically) . While the universe is being perceived by the Individual, and is then created within/by that perception, it is simultaneously created for the Societal, it is then perceived outside-of/objectionably by, and for, its subsequent creation (its subsequent creation then being the individual, to then restart the circle). To be a real troll #FuckYou , everything in life and the universe is a circle, not a square #PunForSexualIdentity? .
So: to now really run you fuckers over here #FuckYouFOREAL , I ask the haters again, more directly, just to emphasize my irrelevant and too-controversial conclusion: what’s the difference between saying that it’s okay for Christians to discriminate against Gay people on the ‘religious freedom’ principle and saying that it’s okay for ISIS to mutilate women for the same reason (that their religion says it’s okay)? Sure, ISIS literally kills people and that’s obviously very shitty, and is a little different (than attempted life-long psychological torture carried out subconsciously and in large numbers for longer than a millennia?), but I don't want to offend the PC crowd (just the 'deplorables'? #LookAround,Islam-UnquestionedIsPrettyFuckingBad ) could it be argued that Christianity, or certain people in it, have been evolving a manipulation tactic to get the-people-they-don’t-like to kill themselves?
Considering which religion runs this country (media) and 75% of the people in it ($), I’m guessing that we’ll never find out. But as an ardent follower of #I’mTheManism (#Stamosism #GetTheFuckOffMyLawn #Primate(Band):TotallyBetterThanDMB:/) and the lessons it can teach us if thought about individually, critically and deeply/spiritually-yet-in-the-real-world, and of course as a supporter of people being happy regardless of their personal views or beliefs on Cannibal Corpse #EitherReadBetweenTheLinesOrLearnWhatRealMusicIs , I really don’t give a tossed flying donkey salad with shit-croutons (like little pieces of shit instead of croutons). Clearly, however, people are hurting out there - everywhere - so I kinda have to give at least a stationary salad as we all kinda do if we want to live up to ‘God’s expectations’, or our own, personal right to search for happiness ourselves. As much as I want to be, and as much as I feel like I (always </3) am #IndividualityTakenTooFar? , I am not alone on this planet, and neither are you. Personally, and by this point after seeing so much bullshit just on the TV only today let alone in real life, I find that rather comforting :p.