Racial and Religious Hypocrisy

I sincerely can NOT believe all of the bullsh*t hypocrisy we have to deal with these days. How is it that some radio and television personalities can say whatever the hell they want and never catch sh*t, while others are burned an effigy? For example, take a look at all of the wind that the racism sails have been catching lately.

First, it was the “N word” tirade that Michael Richards let fly against two black hecklers in November of 2006. Now, it’s this Don Imus mess with the Rutgers women's basketball team and his “nappy-headed hos” comment. Well, Richards’ career is effectively ruined and, as of yesterday, Don Imus was fired from CBS (…shortly after gettin’ sh*t-canned by MSNBC). I should make a couple of quick comments before I continue with this.

If anybody has a problem with me typing “black” instead of “African-American,” let it go. I use the word “black” in the same way that people use “white” to classify me. I mean, I can’t speak for all of us fair-skinned folks, but I say and write “black” instead of “African-American,” not because I’m prejudiced against them, but because it saves f**king time. One syllable versus seven or five letters versus fifteen, not including the hyphen. I won’t lose sleep if someone calls me white instead of Caucasian, so don’t throw a tizzy if I say black, okay?

Secondly, when I say “first” in the context of “....first, this happened, then, this other thing happened,” I’m not saying that the Michael Richards tirade was the first incident of racism in our nation’s history, so I don’t wanna hear anything like, “Racism existed a long time before Michael Richards was even born.”

I know this. I’m not an idiot.

I just don’t feel like writing a thesis on slavery, apartheid and racism as a prologue to a f**king blog article. Just so everybody knows, I’m not a racist and have never discriminated against anybody on account of immutables such as nationality, ethnicity or skin color. However, what does piss me off is having to be exposed to the same double-standard over and over and over and over again.

So, Michael Richards? Yeah, it doesn’t look too good for him, does it? Two black guys heckled Richards at a comedy show last year and he decided it was time to say something about it. But instead of being cool about it, he launched a barrage of hateful words against them. One word that came up repeatedly was the dreaded six letter N word. Frankly, he could have just avoided this entire mess by responding the way Dane Cook did on his “Retaliation” CD.

Some ass-clown was being loud and, right in the middle of his skit, Dane Cook told the guy to shut the f**k up and that, if he didn’t stop, Cook would have him thrown out of the building. Simple and effective, right? No slurs.

So, was Richards wrong for saying what he said? Of course he was!

He’s clearly got some deep-seated issues. Sure, he apologized and said stupid sh*t like he was “appalled” at what he did and was eager to start the healing process, but how the hell can somebody be appalled at what comes out of their own mouth? Richards also made an “apology” on Letterman which, if you heard it, sounded like the most disingenuous apology in history.

What he did was wrong. I’m not denying that, but what I want to know is whether or not the black community should have been as outraged as it was when this happened.

I mean, if the N word is so hateful and disparaging, then why the f**k are black people still allowed to use it? Oh, so it’s perfectly fine for blacks to call other black people “n*gger,” but white people can’t use the same word, not even in a brotherly or otherwise amicable way? Surely, not all black people use the N word to cut down other black people, but it's an unwritten rule that, under no circumstances is a non-black person permitted to use that same exact word, regardless of it’s context.

Double-standard? You bet your ass it is!

The N word is a disparaging racial slur, so why should anybody be allowed to use it? Yet, I hear it in rap music, I see it on TV and as long as the word is uttered by a black person, nobody says sh*t about it. Denzel Washington, who I have a tremendous amount of respect for as an actor, used the N word at least ten times in Training Day, but you don’t see Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton losing their minds about that, do you? If the N word is so horrible, then maybe everybody should stop f**king using it.

If blacks stop using the word altogether, then they have cause to become outraged when anybody else uses it. If one black guy calls another black guy a “n*gger,” then in my opinion, he should be dealt with as swiftly as Michael Richards was. Otherwise, we not only have a major double-standard going on, but guess what! Now we have racism on the other side of the fence with blacks being racist against non-blacks.

So, the newest story that’s been making the rounds as of late is how Don Imus got canned for using the term “nappy-headed hos” on the air to describe the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Not the nicest of things he could have said, but since when has Don Imus been a nice guy? For that matter, when has he ever gone an entire day without making disparaging comments about somebody?

He’s been on the air for, what, close to forty f**king years? Can anybody cite a year within that time that Don Imus hasn’t been a complete a**hole? He made a career out of insulting people, so what made this comment on this day any different? Because he used terms that are usually reserved for black people. Now, I don’t know about you, but the first time I’d ever heard the term “nappy-headed,” it was uttered by a black person. Same thing with the word “ho” outside of the garden tool translation.

Now, this could be my ignorance, but I always thought that “nappy-headed” was a term used to describe a particular hair style. Perhaps the term was abused in the days of slavery and I’m just not aware of it. I couldn’t honestly say. As for the word “ho,” I rarely hear men of any skin color use this word. Usually, only women use it and again, the vast majority of these women seem to be of African-American descent. All the more reason why Imus’s use of the word just seemed so out of place.

But here’s what I don’t get.

The Rutgers women were quoted as saying sh*t like Imus had, “…stolen a moment of pure grace from us” and how everybody felt such, “…great hurt, anger and disgust….” I mean, sure it wasn’t a very nice thing to say, but are you f**king serious? This is Don f**king Imus! How do you live in this country and not know that Don Imus is an a**hole? Of course he’s gonna say hurtful things. Well, maybe not so much now as he's unemployed, right?

And if you’re gonna get “hurt” and “saddened” anytime anybody says something that’s doesn’t tickle your ears with kindness, you’re in for a rough f**king life. The reality of our world is that everybody is judged by others and if you’re not industry-standard “beautiful,” then be prepared to catch sh*t for it once in a while.

It’d be one thing if, say, your children were caught on camera and people phoned in to tell you how fugly they all are, but we’re talking about an NCAA basketball team!

You’re on TV!

People are gonna see you because you put yourself in a position to be seen. Of course people are gonna judge your appearance from time to time. I didn’t say it was fair, but it is the reality of our society.

So, let’s recap.

First, Imus apologized for the remark (....something I still can’t believe he did). Then, MSNBC and CBS Radio suspended him for two weeks, even though he didn’t technically break any of the FCC’s rules regarding things you can’t say on the air. Next, everybody fires his ass before the suspension is even up.

And why?

Because everybody rallied against the radio stations to sh*t-can Imus and the stations caved. And I’m talking everybody! From the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and National Association of Black Journalists to Al Sharpton, Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama, everybody with a political or social agenda joined in the roast because they smelled blood in the water.

Even the National Organization for Women hunted his sorry ass down!

Along with “racist,” N.O.W. also managed to throw words like “sexist” and “misogynistic” into the list of descriptive adjectives regarding his comments. So now, it isn’t just a black thing anymore. His comments managed to piss off an entire gender! Sh*t, if this keeps up, he’ll be on the f**king gallows by June!

So why am I so pissed off about this whole situation?

It’s not because Imus was fired, I can tell you that. I'll shed a dry tear for that bastard. I’m glad that people are taking racism against African-Americans more seriously. What pisses me off is that this type of outrage is NEVER voiced when someone sh*ts on Jesus or Christians. Or better yet, nobody does anything when outrage is voiced.

Why is it that certain groups of people have a battalion of defenders at the helm and ready for warfare while other groups are left high and dry? Why is it that some negative comments are summarily dismissed and others are condemned to high hell? I’m aware that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but that rule never seems to apply to Christianity anymore.

Rosie O’Donnell can ridicule Jesus and Christians on “The View” anytime she wants and, no matter how many people step forward to complain about how offensive her remarks are, her fat ass is allowed to remain on the air. I don’t even think anybody gives her a slap on the wrist when she does this sh*t.

Example: In late September of 2006, the hosts of “The View” drank wine, made fun of the alcohol’s effect on Mel Gibson and said that all of the priests at their churches were drunk. Then, they went a step further and started making fun of the Eucharist, which if you know Thing One about Catholicism, that’s about as taboo as taking a dump on the Qu’ran in front of a Muslim. And being an ex-Catholic, Rosie O’Donnell knows this (...or should know this) very well.

There are some things you just don’t joke about.

Speaking of Muslims, it was only a few weeks before that when O'Donnell compared Christians (...with whom she never agrees) to Muslim terrorists, presumably because of the Catholic church's no nonsense stance on homosexuality. Rosie loves to rip into Catholicism and Christianity, but God help you if you even touch the subject of her lesbian lifestyle.

And it doesn’t end there.

A couple of years ago, Penn Jillette went on Showtime, referred to Mother Teresa as “Mother F**king Teresa” and called the nuns who worked with her “f**king c*nts.” Viacom (who owns Showtime) received several complaints about Jillette’s remarks.

So did they respond?

Absolutely! They said that Jillette was exercising his “artistic freedom.” Viacom went on to extol the virtues of “tolerance” and seemed completely unbothered by Jillette's incendiary words.

“Well, that’s cable TV. Public radio is different.”

Oh, really?

Okay, how about just last year on CBS radio? Jillette went back on his attack, stating that Mother Teresa “…had this weird kink that I think was sexual…” This time, he even managed to compare her to Charles Manson as he claimed that Mother Teresa, “…got her kicks watching people suffer and die.” And based on the context of his words, it was clear that the “kicks” he mentioned were sexual kicks.

Wow, well something must have been done about that!

Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Then, there was Bill Maher in 2005. Maher went on HBO at the time of the death of Pope John Paul II and said, “For those who could not make the funeral, the Vatican has asked that in lieu of flowers, just stop touching your d*ck.” He even went on to say that the whole story of Jesus, the Virgin Mary and the Resurrection was, “…grafted from paganism.” Naturally outraged, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights wrote to HBO about this.

HBO’s response?

No, Bill Maher didn’t get fired. Far from it. HBO said, “….it’s a free country, and people are free to say silly things—even on HBO.” Wow, well that's good to know. I'm sure that's exactly what they told Don Imus right before they handed him his pink slip.

If people really were free to say “silly things” like that, Imus would have never been fired in the first place.

My point is that I don’t think it’s unfair that Don Imus is standing in the unemployment line. I think it’s unfair that jerkoffs like Rosie O’Donnell, Penn Jillette and Bill Maher aren’t in line with him. Maybe they would be if, instead of being called “f**king c*nts,” the nuns were referred to as being “nappy-headed hos.”

But, somehow I doubt it.

My Take on Ephesians 2:8-9

I’ll start off with a little disclaimer:

I’m not a theologian.
Never have been.
Probably never will be.

Then again, the fact that I don’t zap people with a magic wand or fight dragons doesn’t disqualify me from reading a Harry Potter book or having an opinion about it. So, with that said, I want to take a look at a Bible passage that has literally caused several hundreds of years’ worth of arguments between Catholics and Protestants:

Ephesians 2:8-9

If you have a King James Bible handy, grab it. If you’re like most people, you’ll probably wind up coughing and/or sneezing from the dust you kick up by moving your Bible from wherever it’s been, but no matter. Here’s how my Bible reads:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Some Protestants have taken these words and used them to explain that just doing good things won’t get you into Heaven, but that faith in Jesus is, by itself, sufficient. Some Catholics will go on to read the next verse (10), which says,

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

To the average Catholic, this translates to needing to do charity work or perhaps volunteering some time to work for the church. In short, we need to do good deeds because faith in Jesus isn’t sufficient. I believe both sides are a little off the mark. I’ll explain with a visual image that seems to make sense (…at least to me).

Let's say you have a small table and, in the center of that table, sits an empty glass. You’re thirsty and you have a pitcher of water. Pouring water on the surface of the table won't fill the glass, right? All you'll do is make a mess and waste water. Furthermore, you won't be able to quench your thirst by drinking from that glass because, duh, it'll still be empty. At best, you could grab some paper towels, wipe down the table and maybe clear off some dust. That’s the most you could hope to accomplish with a wet table and an empty glass.

However, by filling the glass with an abundance of water, you'll not only have a full glass to drink, but if your glass can't contain all of the water that it's receiving, it will overflow, spilling water on the table. Both examples will get the table wet, but if your primary goal is to quench your thirst, then pouring water on the table is relatively pointless. On the other hand, a glass that is overflowing with water will, by cause and effect, make the table wet.

So, how does God tell the difference between true Christians and people who just say they’re Christians?

Well, only God can answer that question for sure, but if it were up to me to spot the true, blue Christian, I’d look for the dude with the wet table AND the full glass.

Why?

Because God made that table wet… and in my opinion, this is how people will know if you have the love of God in your heart. If the symbolism’s throwing anybody off, think of the water as representing God’s love and the glass as representing the human heart. The spilled water on the table represents your good deeds which, like the water on the table, you can do regardless of whether or not Jesus resides in your heart.

What finite human heart can contain the infinite love of the LORD? None can, so if God has filled your heart with His love, He’s not just gonna give you enough to satisfy your own needs. He’s gonna give you enough love to spread the wealth and actually make you WANT to love and help others. By filling a man’s heart with God’s love, the good deeds that are now within his heart to want to do are actually a very positive after-effect. If you truly have Jesus in your heart and soul, you’re just moved from within to do good for others and it's not something you have to fake.

Doing good deeds because you think they’ll help earn your way into Heaven is like dumping water on your table and leaving your glass empty. If your heart lacks the love of the Lord, then the good deeds you do are relatively worthless in the spiritual sense. God will see your empty glass and know that the water on the table didn’t come from Him.

I’m not saying that this is the correct interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9, but it’s the one that makes the most sense to me. Much like the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, the Ephesians passage reminds me of just how pointless it is to have faith without good works or conversely, to do good works with no faith. The full and complete Christian will have both and I doubt either Catholicism or Protestantism would argue with me on that.