Recently at my mother's house (reason #1 why I haven't posted in 2 weeks) I was having a conversation with my step-dad.
Me: Did mom tell you what I'm taking next year?
Dad: Nah, what are you taking?
Me: history, required intro English, topics in English: women and modernism, deductive logic-
Dad: *laughing heartily* Well that's a contradiction right there!
Me: *eyebrow's raised* And why's that?
Dad: Because modern women aren't logical! *more laughter*
Me: *stunned silence*
Where to start with this? Social blunder #1, I am a "modern woman" and a philosophy major. I am the exact opposite of the demographic that would find that funny. Social blunder #2, giving false information is not funny, it is usually considered ignorant and people respect you less. Way to go, dad.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Why I Am A Feminist
This week while looking at Feministe’s Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday, I read this blog: http://nicefeminist.wordpress.com/2009/07/10/25-reasons-why-i-am-a-feminist/
It inspired me to write my own reasons for being a feminist. So, here are the 25 reasons why I am a feminist:
1. Because I never want another girl to have to be molested by her step-brother when she is twelve years old.
2. Because when I was seventeen my mother said any didn’t have any friends- because none of the people I spent time with were female.
3. Because when I have a conversation with my male friends it becomes their conversation, and I am left sitting there, silent, trying and failing to get a word in.
4. Because a potential person is still considered more important than an actual one.
5. Because if our friends knew what my fiancé is like when it’s just the two of us, he wouldn’t be friends with them anymore. They wouldn’t be friends with someone who is so “whipped”.
6. Because liking stuffed animals and Fallout III is somehow scandalous.
7. Because as sweet and respectful George has always been, he is still only now starting to understand why sexist humor is indeed, not humor.
8. Because if I walk around in public topless with my large fiancé whose chest is as big as mine, I will be arrested for indecent exposure and people will wonder why he let me do that.
9. Because there is a size zero in women’s clothing.
10. Because when I’m a mother and I work, I’ll be a “working mom”, but no one will ever suggest that my husband is a “working father”.
11. Because when I express my sadness in a healthy way, by crying, then I am overemotional. When my fiancé express his anger through intense rage, he is just being a “man”.
12. Because when I moved in with George my family was shocked and appalled, but his could care less.
13. Because when I told my step-father I had lost my virginity, he was disappointed. When his son told him he lost his virginity, all he had to say was, “way to go”.
14. Because I can’t walk down the street alone at night.
15. Because there are still people out there who think women have equality and we should just stop complaining.
16. Because there are people in the world who think they have the right to make decisions for you about your sexuality.
17. Because according to the majority of people, my morality lies between my legs.
18. Because when I was fifteen, despite that I was wearing a dress, I was mistaken for a boy because of my short hair.
19. Because “girly” or “queer” are insults in this country.
20. Because according to people in the marketing business, women do not buy things unless they are pink.
21. Because it’s more acceptable for me to cross gender boundaries than it is for my fiancé, because masculinity is more valuable than femininity.
22. Because when my fiancé wears clothes with holes and stains people look at me and wonder why I let him wear that.
23. Because when I call someone on their offensive jokes, I’m just another humorless feminist.
24. Because everyone laughed when my best friend gave her son a doll.
25. Because most people don’t think about these things.
It inspired me to write my own reasons for being a feminist. So, here are the 25 reasons why I am a feminist:
1. Because I never want another girl to have to be molested by her step-brother when she is twelve years old.
2. Because when I was seventeen my mother said any didn’t have any friends- because none of the people I spent time with were female.
3. Because when I have a conversation with my male friends it becomes their conversation, and I am left sitting there, silent, trying and failing to get a word in.
4. Because a potential person is still considered more important than an actual one.
5. Because if our friends knew what my fiancé is like when it’s just the two of us, he wouldn’t be friends with them anymore. They wouldn’t be friends with someone who is so “whipped”.
6. Because liking stuffed animals and Fallout III is somehow scandalous.
7. Because as sweet and respectful George has always been, he is still only now starting to understand why sexist humor is indeed, not humor.
8. Because if I walk around in public topless with my large fiancé whose chest is as big as mine, I will be arrested for indecent exposure and people will wonder why he let me do that.
9. Because there is a size zero in women’s clothing.
10. Because when I’m a mother and I work, I’ll be a “working mom”, but no one will ever suggest that my husband is a “working father”.
11. Because when I express my sadness in a healthy way, by crying, then I am overemotional. When my fiancé express his anger through intense rage, he is just being a “man”.
12. Because when I moved in with George my family was shocked and appalled, but his could care less.
13. Because when I told my step-father I had lost my virginity, he was disappointed. When his son told him he lost his virginity, all he had to say was, “way to go”.
14. Because I can’t walk down the street alone at night.
15. Because there are still people out there who think women have equality and we should just stop complaining.
16. Because there are people in the world who think they have the right to make decisions for you about your sexuality.
17. Because according to the majority of people, my morality lies between my legs.
18. Because when I was fifteen, despite that I was wearing a dress, I was mistaken for a boy because of my short hair.
19. Because “girly” or “queer” are insults in this country.
20. Because according to people in the marketing business, women do not buy things unless they are pink.
21. Because it’s more acceptable for me to cross gender boundaries than it is for my fiancé, because masculinity is more valuable than femininity.
22. Because when my fiancé wears clothes with holes and stains people look at me and wonder why I let him wear that.
23. Because when I call someone on their offensive jokes, I’m just another humorless feminist.
24. Because everyone laughed when my best friend gave her son a doll.
25. Because most people don’t think about these things.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Monday, July 13, 2009
I Am Not a Lady- Sexism and Language, Part 1
George: “I love you naked lady”
Me: “I am not a lady”
George: “You do indeed have a vagina”
Me: ”But I am not a lady. I have worked very hard to ensure that people do not view me as a lady, and yet you confine me to this title on the basis of my genitalia.”
To be fair, he really is trying. He always understands when I point something out to him that is sexist and he apologizes; it is very hard to undo years of misogyny culture damage. Even I find myself saying things like this sometimes.
Why do I find lady offensive? Because I am not a lady. I do not embody the qualities of a lady, except that I do have a vagina. However, as society often tells us, lady-ness is not defined by a person’s vagina-having status. According to society, gays and inadequately testosterone-ridden males are ladies. Dykes and inadequately estrogen-ridden females are not. According to the top two definitions on dictionary.com, a lady is:
1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady.
2. a woman of high social position or economic class: She was born a lady and found it hard to adjust to her reduced circumstances.
I am crass and blue-collar. I must admit that as a scholar and an English major, I am articulate and do have a large vocabulary, but I feel that I am still far from ladylike in my language. I am loud and sometimes obnoxious if that’s what it takes to get my point across. I’m only polite/shy/quiet with my father-in-law, but that’s just because he’s a mite scary. Also, my “well-spoken”-ness doesn’t so much have to do with any trace of being ladylike, but it’s more that I am well educated- something very un-ladylike indeed.
Me: “I am not a lady”
George: “You do indeed have a vagina”
Me: ”But I am not a lady. I have worked very hard to ensure that people do not view me as a lady, and yet you confine me to this title on the basis of my genitalia.”
To be fair, he really is trying. He always understands when I point something out to him that is sexist and he apologizes; it is very hard to undo years of misogyny culture damage. Even I find myself saying things like this sometimes.
Why do I find lady offensive? Because I am not a lady. I do not embody the qualities of a lady, except that I do have a vagina. However, as society often tells us, lady-ness is not defined by a person’s vagina-having status. According to society, gays and inadequately testosterone-ridden males are ladies. Dykes and inadequately estrogen-ridden females are not. According to the top two definitions on dictionary.com, a lady is:
1. a woman who is refined, polite, and well-spoken: She may be poor and have little education, but she's a real lady.
2. a woman of high social position or economic class: She was born a lady and found it hard to adjust to her reduced circumstances.
I am crass and blue-collar. I must admit that as a scholar and an English major, I am articulate and do have a large vocabulary, but I feel that I am still far from ladylike in my language. I am loud and sometimes obnoxious if that’s what it takes to get my point across. I’m only polite/shy/quiet with my father-in-law, but that’s just because he’s a mite scary. Also, my “well-spoken”-ness doesn’t so much have to do with any trace of being ladylike, but it’s more that I am well educated- something very un-ladylike indeed.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Men Speak Out
…is an AMAZING book. I’m about a hundred pages from the end and I can tell this is going to be one of the best books I have ever read. It is a collection of essays written by feminist men about “gender, sex, and power”. The book is divided into four sections and I must say I devoured the first one, “Masculinity and Identity”. The other sections are “Sexuality”, “Feminism”, and “Points and Perspectives”. I highly recommend this book to anyone who enjoys feminism. Trigger warning though! Some of the essays are highly disturbing, and some viewpoints are conflicting, so obviously you may not agree with all of them. I sure didn’t. Again, the book is Men Speak Out: views on gender, sex, and power.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Monday, July 6, 2009
My Reading List
I have a few books on the reading list right now and I’m going to be catching up on my reading a bit over the next few weeks. Just wanted to post the books that I'm going to be reading; and when I'm finished reading, reviews will be coming!
Dreams From My Father… Barack Obama (I know it’s old but I wasn’t in to politics when it came out)
The Audacity of Hope… Barack Obama (same as above)
Lord Save Us From Your Followers… Dan Merchant
Men Speak Out… Shira Tirrant (currently reading this book and I love the first essay so far!)
When I get some more on the list they will definitely be reviewed here.
Dreams From My Father… Barack Obama (I know it’s old but I wasn’t in to politics when it came out)
The Audacity of Hope… Barack Obama (same as above)
Lord Save Us From Your Followers… Dan Merchant
Men Speak Out… Shira Tirrant (currently reading this book and I love the first essay so far!)
When I get some more on the list they will definitely be reviewed here.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Nancy Morgan on the “Feminist Meltdown”
Call me a glutton for punishment but, at times, when I have nothing to do I scour the web with my handy dandy stumble upon browser for “conservative politics” pages. Subsequently, as I read, I tear their fallacies apart. If the article/blog/what have you is disturbing or intellectually inept enough it may find its way to my blog. In the wee hours of this morning I had the pleasure of finding this gem:
http://rightbias.com/News/052107melt.aspx
I find this woman’s utter lack of comprehension of feminist ideologies amusing at its best, frightening at its worst. I found myself laughing, mostly, with the exception of just a few sentences. I know I shouldn’t let it get to me, but the things that come out of conservatives’ mouths sometimes just floors me. One particular sentence which lit a fire under my ass is, of course, “By going along with the fiction that men and women are equal…”
*sigh* I defy you to prove to me that men and women are not equal beings. Yet I can produce evidence of countless ways in which men and women are equal. Ms. Morgan goes on to say that equality has caused lower standards in our firehouses, police departments and military, yet she fails to provide any evidence of this.
Ms. Morgan exhibits all the traits of the classic anti-feminist, making her a perfect example. I find it most funny however, that she does not possess the most common trait of the anti-feminist: she is not male. What is so funny to me is that the very thing she speaks out against is the very same thing that has given her the power to speak out. Without feminism, it would have been blasphemous for her to get a head for politics.
From the very start of her post she exhibits one of the most common and at the same time most fallacious tactics of anti-feminists. She begins her post by talking about the horrors of misogyny that take place in other countries and about how American feminists are busy fighting for things like gay marriage instead of combating what she considers to be the real malignancies to women. This is a classic distraction/straw man technique. She fails to address the fact that feminists fight all kinds of intolerance and inequality, including the violence in other countries, as well as the violence here at home. Feminists fight for equal rights, big or small.
And the things she considers to be insignificant and/or immoral are far from unimportant. She mentions the lobbying to change the definition of marriage to include lesbian, gay, and transgendered relationships. Violence in other countries does not taking away from the fact that discrimination against the so-called “abnormal” sexuality in this country is appalling.
“Meanwhile, their American sisters are busy lobbying for hate crime penalties for anyone who dares to hurt the feelings of a gay or transgendered person.” There are two things wrong with that sentence. The fight for hate crime legislation is a necessary and important one. Also there seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of the term “crime”. Moving down a paragraph I am greeted with possibly the craziest misinterpretation of the pro-choice movement I have ever seen: “This would make legal the practise of killing a baby in the mother's birth canal.” The delusions of that sentence are so laughable it’s not even worth commentary.
Ms. Morgan goes on to suggest that the glass ceiling theory is delusional and empowerment through works like “The Vagina Monologues” is a painful reminder to women who have suffered vaginal abuse. She then states that women’s studies and queer studies courses “teach that men are bad, Christianity is outdated, and traditional values are merely a social construct designed to keep women down.” One out of three isn’t bad. Her final attempt at straw man tactics harps one of my personal favorite feminist fights. She claims that our attempt to change society’s views of masculinity is an attempt to “make shameful any vestige of manliness”. She even goes so far as to say that it is a common practice of feminists to “dope up” boys “to keep them from displaying male traits”. Delusional people are so funny to me!
As I said before, she then ends her attempt at the straw man technique in favor of outright feminist hate. Ms. Morgan begins to talk about how feminists are entirely responsible for things like the decline of the traditional family structure, insinuating as anti-feminists often do that anything but a nuclear family is inherently immoral. She engages in the usual slut-shaming, of course, for what would an anti-feminist post be without a remark on the morality of women being confined to their sexuality.
As I said at the beginning of this post I found this article hilarious with the exception of a few sentences. The other two sentences are ones in which Morgan actually implies that a woman does not have the right to her own body. I find this, not shocking as with the idea that men and women are not equal beings as before, but sickeningly disturbing. She says that “[Men] are compelled to keep up with the latest politically correct semantics or risk legal action. Think Duke Lacrosse.” and “Just as you're both ready to engage in that first kiss, he pulls back and asks your permission… Another neutered male - thank you, feminists.” It is disgusting to think that she actually believes that if a woman is raped she is just being too pc, and that the simple act of respecting a woman’s personal space automatically means that a man is sans testicles.
Overall, this is the article of a delusional, hypocritical and disturbingly socially backwards woman who is apparently in desperate need of a dictionary since she can’t even define the simple word “feminist” correctly.
http://rightbias.com/News/052107melt.aspx
I find this woman’s utter lack of comprehension of feminist ideologies amusing at its best, frightening at its worst. I found myself laughing, mostly, with the exception of just a few sentences. I know I shouldn’t let it get to me, but the things that come out of conservatives’ mouths sometimes just floors me. One particular sentence which lit a fire under my ass is, of course, “By going along with the fiction that men and women are equal…”
*sigh* I defy you to prove to me that men and women are not equal beings. Yet I can produce evidence of countless ways in which men and women are equal. Ms. Morgan goes on to say that equality has caused lower standards in our firehouses, police departments and military, yet she fails to provide any evidence of this.
Ms. Morgan exhibits all the traits of the classic anti-feminist, making her a perfect example. I find it most funny however, that she does not possess the most common trait of the anti-feminist: she is not male. What is so funny to me is that the very thing she speaks out against is the very same thing that has given her the power to speak out. Without feminism, it would have been blasphemous for her to get a head for politics.
From the very start of her post she exhibits one of the most common and at the same time most fallacious tactics of anti-feminists. She begins her post by talking about the horrors of misogyny that take place in other countries and about how American feminists are busy fighting for things like gay marriage instead of combating what she considers to be the real malignancies to women. This is a classic distraction/straw man technique. She fails to address the fact that feminists fight all kinds of intolerance and inequality, including the violence in other countries, as well as the violence here at home. Feminists fight for equal rights, big or small.
And the things she considers to be insignificant and/or immoral are far from unimportant. She mentions the lobbying to change the definition of marriage to include lesbian, gay, and transgendered relationships. Violence in other countries does not taking away from the fact that discrimination against the so-called “abnormal” sexuality in this country is appalling.
“Meanwhile, their American sisters are busy lobbying for hate crime penalties for anyone who dares to hurt the feelings of a gay or transgendered person.” There are two things wrong with that sentence. The fight for hate crime legislation is a necessary and important one. Also there seems to be some confusion as to the meaning of the term “crime”. Moving down a paragraph I am greeted with possibly the craziest misinterpretation of the pro-choice movement I have ever seen: “This would make legal the practise of killing a baby in the mother's birth canal.” The delusions of that sentence are so laughable it’s not even worth commentary.
Ms. Morgan goes on to suggest that the glass ceiling theory is delusional and empowerment through works like “The Vagina Monologues” is a painful reminder to women who have suffered vaginal abuse. She then states that women’s studies and queer studies courses “teach that men are bad, Christianity is outdated, and traditional values are merely a social construct designed to keep women down.” One out of three isn’t bad. Her final attempt at straw man tactics harps one of my personal favorite feminist fights. She claims that our attempt to change society’s views of masculinity is an attempt to “make shameful any vestige of manliness”. She even goes so far as to say that it is a common practice of feminists to “dope up” boys “to keep them from displaying male traits”. Delusional people are so funny to me!
As I said before, she then ends her attempt at the straw man technique in favor of outright feminist hate. Ms. Morgan begins to talk about how feminists are entirely responsible for things like the decline of the traditional family structure, insinuating as anti-feminists often do that anything but a nuclear family is inherently immoral. She engages in the usual slut-shaming, of course, for what would an anti-feminist post be without a remark on the morality of women being confined to their sexuality.
As I said at the beginning of this post I found this article hilarious with the exception of a few sentences. The other two sentences are ones in which Morgan actually implies that a woman does not have the right to her own body. I find this, not shocking as with the idea that men and women are not equal beings as before, but sickeningly disturbing. She says that “[Men] are compelled to keep up with the latest politically correct semantics or risk legal action. Think Duke Lacrosse.” and “Just as you're both ready to engage in that first kiss, he pulls back and asks your permission… Another neutered male - thank you, feminists.” It is disgusting to think that she actually believes that if a woman is raped she is just being too pc, and that the simple act of respecting a woman’s personal space automatically means that a man is sans testicles.
Overall, this is the article of a delusional, hypocritical and disturbingly socially backwards woman who is apparently in desperate need of a dictionary since she can’t even define the simple word “feminist” correctly.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Friday, July 3, 2009
New Preamble to the Constitution
So I was stumbling upon conservative politics pages just for a laugh and came across a blog post titled “A New Preamble to the Constitution” in which a conservative makes a “Bill of Non-Rights”. Here is the original link:
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2009/new-preamble-to-the-constitution/
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
No is saying that you do. No one.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended.. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be..
Again, no one is disagreeing.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
Since when do you not have the right to be free from harm? And if you don’t have that right, why is it a bad thing to believe that you should?
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ..
No, you don’t have the right to FREE food or housing, and no one is saying that you do. You DO, however, have the right to food and housing.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.
We all have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you are sick and you need health care to make you better then it is only fair that you get said health care. We all pay our taxes, and health care should be just another service offered like police, firemen, teachers, etc. If the nation’s teachers were all privatized would you call it socialism if we tried to ensure all children got to go to school? What if we extended the idea the public health care is socialism to our teachers? Our firemen? Our cops?
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
No one is saying you have the right to physically harm anyone else. In fact liberals are often outraged at the thought of it. Thinking you don’t have the right to harm other people doesn’t mean you have to believe that those who do harm deserve death.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
Where are you getting the idea that people believe this?
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
No you don’t have the right to a job, but when you can’t afford to get vocational training and/or higher education then there s no “opportunity” to take advantage of.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
No one is disagreeing here.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
I'm actually not going to disagree with this one. I think that English should indeed be our official language and you should have to learn it to become a citizen. However, I wouldn’t have said that so harshly, particularly the “go back to where you came from” bit.
(Lastly…..)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
Not one of our founding fathers was a Christian. Our country was founded on the right to believe whatever you want to, not on a belief in God. The phrase only was first used on our coin during a strong Christian uprising during the civil war, in 1864. It became the official US motto after an act of congress in 1956. The constitution calls for the separation of church and state, and so nothing which comes from the government should be endowed with any religious motto or emblem.
http://www.theabsurdreport.com/2009/new-preamble-to-the-constitution/
ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.
No is saying that you do. No one.
ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended.. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be..
Again, no one is disagreeing.
ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.
Since when do you not have the right to be free from harm? And if you don’t have that right, why is it a bad thing to believe that you should?
ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes ..
No, you don’t have the right to FREE food or housing, and no one is saying that you do. You DO, however, have the right to food and housing.
ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.
We all have the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you are sick and you need health care to make you better then it is only fair that you get said health care. We all pay our taxes, and health care should be just another service offered like police, firemen, teachers, etc. If the nation’s teachers were all privatized would you call it socialism if we tried to ensure all children got to go to school? What if we extended the idea the public health care is socialism to our teachers? Our firemen? Our cops?
ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.
No one is saying you have the right to physically harm anyone else. In fact liberals are often outraged at the thought of it. Thinking you don’t have the right to harm other people doesn’t mean you have to believe that those who do harm deserve death.
ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.
Where are you getting the idea that people believe this?
ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.
No you don’t have the right to a job, but when you can’t afford to get vocational training and/or higher education then there s no “opportunity” to take advantage of.
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.
No one is disagreeing here.
ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!
I'm actually not going to disagree with this one. I think that English should indeed be our official language and you should have to learn it to become a citizen. However, I wouldn’t have said that so harshly, particularly the “go back to where you came from” bit.
(Lastly…..)
ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!
Not one of our founding fathers was a Christian. Our country was founded on the right to believe whatever you want to, not on a belief in God. The phrase only was first used on our coin during a strong Christian uprising during the civil war, in 1864. It became the official US motto after an act of congress in 1956. The constitution calls for the separation of church and state, and so nothing which comes from the government should be endowed with any religious motto or emblem.
|
Bookmark this post:
|
|
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
