Maquinna's Poop du Jour

Life Through Jesus Goggles

Sometimes when I'm on my lunch break at work, I'll dive headfirst into the otherworld known as Chat. I find it's a good way to distract myself from my own projects and concerns for a short while. I admit it straight out: most of the chat rooms I've been in are pure shite. Typically they're filled with illiterate welfare cheating trailer park housewives, or simply cheating housewives (and husbands). That's amusing for about five minutes, tops, and then I'm out of there to find a room that doesn't have someone blaring "Sweet Home Alabama" through the mic like it's the best thing that ever happened to music, or isn't all about people showing off their willies and ta-tas on cam.

Sidenote: I find cam pervs boring and pathetic. Truly. What on earth makes someone think I would enjoy seeing their pasty, pimply, flabby genitalia on a 1" x 1" square of my screen? Zzzzzzz. Crazier, people PAY for live cam of this.

Despite the categories laid out in Chat - "Social Issues", "Love and Romance", "Hobbies and Interests" (and the less vague "Adult Playground"), people who create rooms place them wherever the hell they feel like it. For that reason, it's just as common to find rooms with names like "Muhammedans We Fear You not! Bring It!" (what the hell does that mean?) in a category like "Meet New Friends". There are, of course, many different rooms that are supposed to be discussions about world politics, foreign policy, and religion, but generally I leave those as soon as I enter. Loud Middle Eastern radio programs don't really work in my office.

One room I tend to hang out in more frequently is called Soap Box Politics. It tends to be quite amusing for me, a shameless bleeding heart liberal, because so many of its inhabitants are much further to the right of the spectrum. There are a few people who are actually intelligent, and despite their conservative natures, I find them interesting to discuss issues with. The vast majority, however, so undermine the conservative cause that I can virtually feel the more well-read and evolved right wingers cringing over their keyboards. It's a squirmy feeling that I've come to realize is brought on by the rantings of those wearing Jesus Goggles.

Yeah, that's right, I'm not a Christian, but even though I don't see why anyone subscribes to formal religion (any religion), I don't have issues with those for whom religion is an important part of their life, provided they don't try to push their agenda on the rest of us. And that's where Jesus Goggles become really tedious. No topic, no matter how banal, can be discussed without these folks clamouring to convince us that whatever Jesus had to say on the subject (or better yet, their interpretation of whatever Jesus had to say on the subject) is the only acceptable point of view. They can't look at anything - whether it's the wife-beating asshole next door (turn the other cheek, woman. Obey your husband. I shall love my neighbour, even if he does wrong) or a Superbowl, ahem, 'wardrobe malfunction' (Oh my God. Did you see that? I'm writing the network. Look, look! A human nipple! God will destroy them for this. Change the channel, that's better, we'll watch something with machine guns ripping apart innocent civilians instead, those boys are on God's mission bringing freedom to the world)...

OK, maybe I'm getting a little carried away here. Nah.

Yesterday this little cretin in Chat (handle of 'HeyRichie'), wearing Jesus Goggles, challenges me to come up with a topic, any topic, that demonstrates how religion, when mixed with politics, undermines the rights of individuals. His assertion is that it's just fine to mix religion with politics, because that does the most good for everyone.

You gotta be kidding, I said. What about gay marriage?

HeyRichie: gays don't have the right to marry, that's not a legal definition of marriage

Maquinna: Whose definition? From where?

HeyRichie is quiet for a moment, plainly googling. He comes back with: "Marriage: the legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife."

Maquinna: Where did that come from?

HeyRichie: dictionary.com

Maquinna (while looking up the entry): I don't think anyone uses dictionary.com to support legal definitions. Besides (having now found the entry), you've only used the first of 5 definitions on that page. What about number 4, that specifically talks about same-sex marriage?

HeyRichie: marriage is a religious event.

Maquinna: Marriage doesn't belong to religion. What about civil marriages? If my boyfriend and I (and I'm a woman) go down to City Hall tomorrow and get married, would you agree that we are married?

HeyRichie: yeah but that's a man and a woman. Jesus didn't say it could be two men or two women.

Maquinna: But it wouldn't be a religious marriage. God wouldn't be involved. So if you recognize a civil marriage between a man and a woman, why should religious principles dictate what marriage is or isn't?

HeyRichie: the church shouldn't have to marry gay people.

Maquinna: I'm not saying they should. I think all religions have a right to decide what beliefs and principles they should support within their own churches and with their own people. But that shouldn't interfere with the ability of gay people to be married in civil ceremonies or in religious places that support gay marriage. That would be allowing religion to dictate to the rest of society.

HeyRichie: the church won't see them as married

Maquinna: How will a church see me, if I get married in a civil ceremony, or if I get married in a some other church outside of their own? They still consider me married, just not in their church. It's not up to religion to decide who is married and who isn't. It's up to society. That's why religion and politics must remain separate.

HeyRichie doesn't respond.

As far as I'm concerned, the discussion is over. I've made my point, albeit against someone completely unable to support a simple argument.

A little while later, I get a PM (private message) from another person in the room, who I won't name. He says:

"I hope you know that just because I'm a republican, it doesn't mean I'm a jesus freak."

All I can think is that be glad the jesus freaks are on your side, buddy. They seem to be helping you elect governments these days. Apparently over 80% of Americans have a strong belief in God, and more than 60% believe religion should play a role in politics. Two-thirds of Canadians and Koreans, and only one third of Australians, consider God an important part of their lives, but in all three countries virtually no one thinks religion should be mixed with politics. I'm sure those statistics make citizens of all four countries feel somewhat vindicated.

posted by Maquinna @ 10:45 a.m.