Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Thank you for your comments.
have a few questions for you based on your comments.
You said that “When will gays learn that they are only hurting their cause for mainstream acceptance by participating in lewd Gay Pride parades, in which they themselves conform to all of the most negative stereotypes about them?
How are these gays in/at the parade “playing into stereotypes” as opposed to showing the public how they really truly are? Were these gays “acting” or is this who they truly are?
You said that “In forcing these men to attend the Pride Parade, the San Diego Fire Department has only surrendered another PR coup to the Christian Right who are now running pieces like this.”
How is the “Christian Right” as you called them using this as a “PR coup”? Isn’t the objective factual truth of how homosexuals acted at this event being reported?
What do you have against people reporting the objective factual truth?
Where to begin.
I agree with you that stereotype usually has some accuracy to it when applied to any given minority. However, one must recognize that stereotype tends to exaggerate and distort the most superficial differences (and then turns these differences into moral flaws).
I would start by asking you if you actually know any gay people closely. Friends? Family? Anyone that you are close to? I would be willing to bet that you would have an entirely different perspective on ‘those people’ if you did.
I am being presumptuous, but I am willing to bet that you do not actually know anyone closely who happens to be gay. I do know a lot of gay people. I love some of them, I can’t stand others—pretty much the way I feel about any given sample of the population.
That being said, I think that a lot of gays are putting up an act at events like gay pride. For every naked dancing boy I see for a few seconds walking by at a Pride event, I personally know five more gays who shun such displays.
With regard to your remarks on reporting “objective factual truth,” I would say that the facts of this incident are not disputed, and I have no problem with them being reported as such. As you see from my original post, I actually agree with you in thinking that forcing these men (however exaggerated their claims of psychological damage may be) to march in the parade was wrong.
However, I do dispute the way that people from generally conservative religious backgrounds paint an entire swath of human beings (who happen to be in the minority ) as depraved and evil. From a minority perspective, it’s kind of scary.
Thanks for the dialogue,
The required course work includes Orientation to Homemaking, Biblical Model for the Home and Family, Nutrition, Value of a Child, Meal Preparation with Lab, and Clothing Construction with Lab, among various seminars and independent studies.
The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary offers coursework in Greek and Hebrew, in archaeology, in the philosophy of religion and - starting this fall - in how to cook and sew.
One of the nation's largest Southern Baptist seminaries, the school is introducing a new, women-only academic program in homemaking - a 23-hour concentration that counts toward a bachelor of arts degree in humanities.
The program is aimed at helping establish what Southwestern's president calls biblical family and gender roles.
What's worse, when you force other people to attend, like four San Diego firefighters who are now suing the San Diego Fire Department for sexual harassment.
I think the fire fighters are being a little mellow dramatic (maybe something they picked up from the drag queens) when they say, "I've dealt with finding bodies in burning buildings, traffic accidents with kids, but I've never been so stressed out before until this incident," nonetheless no one should be forced to attend any function against their will.
In forcing these men to attend the Pride Parade, the San Diego Fire Department has only surrendered another PR coup to the Christian Right who are now running pieces like this.
A blogger from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State picked up on the story and wrote more about the Ten Commandments Commission:
The list of endorsers reads like a veritable Who’s Who among the Religious Right. It includes John Hagee, Pat Robertson, Rod Parsley, Jay Sekulow, Benny Hinn, David Barton, Gary Bauer, Charles Colson, Roberta Combs, James Dobson, D.
James Kennedy, Tony Perkins, Rick Scarborough, Lou Sheldon, Paul Weyrich, Don Wildmon and Ted Haggard (yep, his name is still on the list).
The organization is headed by Ron Wexler, an Orthodox Jew and Israeli native whose online bio makes him sound like a tourism official.
Wexler sounds like quite a piece of work. After the Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2005, one fundamentalist writer quoted him saying, “It was revealed to me that in numerology, the numerical value of the Hebrew letters that make up the name Rita + God is equal 620. The number of all the Hebrew letters that make up the Ten Commandments is…. 620! Is there a connection?… Could this now be the spirit of God above the water? Rita + God equal 620 equal the Ten Commandments? Could this be the wake up call for the nation? Now when the Ten Commandments are thrown out of schools and out of courts, could there be a connection? Just think for a moment that there is a correlation.”
Last year, Wexler claimed to have located “an inscription of the Ten Commandments in ancient Hebrew has been dated at more than five hundred years old” at a remote mountain in New Mexico.
Reported one Web site, “This mysterious, ancient inscription of God’s foundational law for all mankind, found in the American wilderness, causes thoughtful people to wonder if God indeed had His mighty hand on the United States of America hundreds of years before it was even founded, said Wexler.”
H.RES. 598 has been refered to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. You can read text here and here.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Someone calls to me from Edom, "Sentry, how soon will the night be over? Tell me how soon it will end."Isaiah 22:11-12
I answer, "Morning is coming, but night will come again. If you want to as again, come back and ask."
Case closed. If God says morning comes after night, what's the point of teaching anything else in public school astronomy class?
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
According to Project Vote Smart, Allen received an over 90% approval rating from the Christian Coalition in 2003-2006. Allen has also been a strong supporter of anti-gay initiatives and was a sponsor of a bill to strengthen Florida’s laws against public sex. And just for additional comical relief, Rep. Allen’s Florida House webpage lists “water sports” as his recreational interest.
Wow, I might almost feel bad for this guy if I could get over the hilarious irony.
update: I thought it couldn't get any better but then I saw tonight's Daily Show and learned Rep. Allen is also the state representative for John McCain's presidential campaign. Stewart was hilarious by the way, still looking for a clip of the show.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Finstuen v. Crutcher is a great victory for gay parents who previously risked having their parental rights stripped away upon entering the state of Okalahoma.
I found two things interesting about this case. First the Court decided to base its judgment on the Full Faith and Credit Clause without even addressing the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses. The latter two are obvious points of contention to the Oklahoma statute—the law categorically rejected out of state adoption certificates granted only to couples of the same sex.
It seems the Court did not want to get into the politically risky realm of equal and fundamental rights for gays. It was probably wise on their part. This is the Heart Land we’re talking about after all—the justices probably would have been burned in effigy and/or received death threats had they decided that gays had a constitutional right to adopt and be treated as equals.
I also think the potential impact this decision may have on DOMA is interesting because the easiest challenge to DOMA is that it too violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause by saying states do not have to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states. The 10th Circuit Court in Finstuen v. Crutcher, however, seemed to be careful in its wording saying:
In applying the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between statutes and judgments. Specifically, the Court has been clear that although the Full Faith and Credit Clause applies unequivocally to the judgments of sister states, it applies with less force to their statutory laws [my emphasis].
Are they trying to set aside an exception that would allow DOMA to stand—somehow trying to classify one state’s acceptance of a same sex marriage as a ‘statutory law’ rather than a ‘judgment’, and thus not equivalent under the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Or are they trying to say that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is weaker, as a matter of fact, in cases of statutory law because of the generally accepted public policy exception?
Either way it seems the 10th Circuit tried to make their decision in Finstuen v. Crutcher just narrow enough so as not to deal a fatal blow to DOMA. However they provided just one more powerful background case to any future case that would deal with DOMA.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
I love how the religious right blames gays for the plight of the Iraqis without even mentioning that most Iraqis live in fear of getting blown up by Islamic terrorists and insurgents everyday, and don't even have reliable sources of energy, food, water, and medicine--all because of the US's unnecessary and disastrously executed war.
Blaming gays first isn't really new, unfortunately. The religious right loves to blame gays for the destruction the "American family" without even considering how straights have done a fine job ruining marriage themselves.
Holden Roberto Dies at 84; Fought to Free Angola from Portuguese Rule
Holden Roberto, one of the fathers of Angola’s independence and a staunch opponent of President José Eduardo dos Santos, died on Thursday at his home in Luanda. He was 84.
His contributions in helping free Angola from centuries of Portuguese rule were hailed by both Angola’s main opposition party, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, Unita, and the governing party, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, or M.P.L.A.
Mr. Roberto formed the country’s first nationalist movement, called the Union of Angolan Peoples, which was linked to his own Bakongo ethnic group, and then transformed it into the National Liberation Front of Angola, known as the F.N.L.A., in the 1960s.
He began an incursion into Angola on March 15, 1961, and his forces overran farms, government outposts and trading centers. Recalling the incursion, Mr. Roberto later said: “This time the slaves did not cower. They massacred everything.”
A close friend of other African-independence stalwarts, like Patrice Lumumba, the first prime minister of the Congo, and Kenneth Kaunda, Zambia’s first president, Mr. Roberto also established a political alliance with the former Zairean strongman Mobutu Sese Seko by divorcing his wife to marry Mr. Mobutu’s sister-in-law. Zaire is now known as Congo.
In April 1975, Mr. Roberto and the leaders of two other political parties signed peace accords with Portugal that led to Angola’s independence the same year.
But fighting immediately erupted and the F.N.L.A., backed by the United States, France and Zaire, fought the M.P.L.A., supported by the Soviet Union. After Cuba sent forces to support the M.P.L.A. in 1976, the F.N.L.A. was decisively defeated and abandoned its armed struggle.
The fighting did not cease, and Angola was devastated by a 27-year civil war between M.P.L.A. and Unita factions, in which about 500,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands displaced.
Mr. Roberto went into exile, notably in France and Zaire, but when he returned to Angola 15 years later, he remained involved in politics despite his failing health.
After participating in the 1992 general elections won by the M.P.L.A., he remained in the opposition, criticizing the two-party system in Angola dominated by the M.P.L.A. and Unita.
Patrick Henry's mission is to:
Aid in the transformation of American society by training Christian students to serve God and mankind with a passion for righteousness, justice and mercy, through careers of public service and cultural influence.
to promote practical application of biblical principles and the original intent of the founding documents of the American republic, while preparing students for lives of public service, advocacy and citizen leadership.
Patrick Henry College was opened in 2000. Most of the students at Patrick Henry come from conservative Christian homeschooled backgrounds. In spite of it's questionable academic credentials, Patrick Henry graduates find themselves equally situated with graduates of Georgetown and Harvard in terms of job and internship placements in the Bush Administration.
In the spring of 2004, seven of the 100 White House interns came from Patrick Henry (with a student body of 240). That's the same number that Georgetown sent to the White House that year.
The New Yorker has another good article here.
Things like this scare me a lot more than the skinheads I wrote about in an earlier post. The graduates from Patrick Henry and many members of the Republican party share the skinheads' worldview and ideology.
The difference is, the evangelicals in the Republican party are pushing their vision of a Christian Nation through legitimate democratic channels, which is far more effective (and stealthy) than waving guns around and burning crosses at a trailer park compound.
Here's a fun video clip of the shouting match that occurred last Thursday in the House after a Democratic maneuver that effectively denied the Republicans their win over a procedural motion which would ensure that illegal immigrants would not get benefits from an agriculture spending bill. Full story here.
Looks more like the British House of Commons than the US Congress.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
I watched Skinheads USA: Soldiers of the Race War tonight.
It was both scary and fascinating. While the individuals in this documentary represent a tiny subculture in the US and they have minimal legitimate influence, their brutal militancy is frightening nonetheless.
I found it interesting that the tactics of Bill Riccio, leader of the Aryan Defense Fund, replicate those of Islamic Jihadists, African warlords, and to a less extreme degree, Becky Fischer of Jesus Camp. They take alienated youth who come from poor backgrounds, with authoritarian and/or absent parents, who have nothing better to live for, and they give them hope in some cause higher than themselves. These are the kind of people who will die and commit murder for their cause.
I realize groups like this represent a small minority in the United States, and their extremism is frightening. Yet I still find that those who are in the mainstream who share their views, but not their militant tactics (large portions of the Republican party for example) are far more dangerous to those who do not share their views.
It is cases like the Aryan Nation and similar groups that really test one's belief in the virtue of American democracy and the freedom of speech. Do we allow these groups to fully express their hateful views, even while they're calling for the destruction of America as we know it?
I say we do. The more average Americans hear their message of hate, the more their views will be repudiated. If we stifle their expression we compel them to cultivate an even greater victim mentality, which only fuels their violent fervor and the recruitment of more vulnerable youth.
It’s déjà vu all over again — the GOP often slyly and sometimes audaciously whips us for political gain. The Democrats include us — sorta — but only in response to a direct question and typically in the language of careful legislative reform.
This must change...We deserve and we must demand from the Democratic 2008 presidential candidates the simple and straightforward statement that our humanity requires full respect and fair treatment by all and, further, an equally simple and straightforward condemnation of those who seek to use our lives for political gain. This needs to be said in front of all audiences — not just in front of us.
It's refreshing to see a leader of one of major gay rights organization speaking the obvious about the Democratic candidates. Don't expect the HRC to ever confront this reality.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Where you go, I will go; where you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God. Where you die, I will die — there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me, and more as well, if even death parts me from you. Ruth 1:16-17
That is one woman speaking to another (Ruth to Naomi to be exact). The religious right tries as hard as it can to demonize the love between two individuals of the same sex, but this passage shows that it was alive and celebrated in the Bible, as I wish it only could be today.
An Algerian court handed prison sentences on Tuesday to 28 businessmen and engineers blamed for the collapse of hundreds of buildings during an earthquake
in 2003 that left thousands dead.
Twenty-seven defendants were jailed for two years and fined 50,000 dinars ($714) each, while the last received three years in jail and a fine in absentia from the court in Boumerdes province east of Algiers, a judicial source said.
Measuring 6.7 on the Richter scale, the 2003 quake killed 2,300 people, injured more than 10,000 and made about 100,000 homeless. It was the deadliest in the oil-exporting country since 1980, when violent tremors killed 3,000 people.
Panic caused by the tremor quickly turned to anger as Algerians accused the government of turning a blind eye to the shoddy work of unscrupulous builders.
President Abdelaziz Bouteflika ordered an investigation, which later found serious faults in the construction of thousands of houses, apartment blocks and high-rise buildings that collapsed in the quake-prone province.
The 28 were convicted on charges including "manslaughter, fraud on the quality and quantity of construction materials and the non-respect of building standards".
They can appeal within a week against the convictions issued by judge Redouane Benabdallah, who also acquitted 10 other people.
I wonder what the consequences will be for whoever screwed up in Minneapolis yesterday? Knowing the Administration's track record for rewarding or ignoring failure, there probably won't be any.
Thursday, August 2, 2007
In Richmond v. Mississippi Dept. of Human Services, Southwick joined the 5-4 majority that upheld the reinstatement of a white social worker who was fired for calling a black employee a "good ole n****."
"[T]he opinion that Southwick joined accepted without any skepticism Richmond's testimony that her use of the racial slur was ‘not motivated out of racial hatred or animosity directed at her co-worker or toward blacks in general, but was, rather, intended to be a shorthand description of her perception of the relationship existing between the [co]-worker and [a Department of Human Services] supervisor,'" said Ralph G. Neas, president of the People for the American Way (PFAW) and Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), in a May 8 letter
of opposition to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
The four dissenting judges in Richmond recognized this as a faulty argument and a threat to civil rights: "The word "n****" is, and has always been, offensive. […] There are some words, which by their nature and definition are so inherently offensive, that their use establishes the intent to offend." The dissenting opinion was confirmed when the Mississippi Supreme Court unanimously overturned Richmond.
In another case, S.B. v. L.W., Southwick joined the 5-4 majority that denied a woman custody of her child. The majority considered the sexual orientation of the mother to be a legitimate factor in deciding custody.
But Judge Southwick even went further by joining a concurrence which held that homosexuality is a "choice that bears consequences." As PFAW and HRC stated, "the concurrence appears to have been written for the sole purpose of underscoring and defending Mississippi's hostility toward gay people and what it calls ‘the practice of homosexuality.'"
Unfortunately for blacks and gays in the 5th Circuit, Judge Southwick is likely to be confirmed by the Senate.
The real reason that we can’t have the Ten Commandments posted in a courthouse is this: You cannot post ‘Thou Shalt Not Steal,’ ‘Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery’, and ‘Thou Shall Not Lie’ in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment…..It gave me a chuckle.
Where even to begin? First, it is a horrible waste of legislative time to address a purely symbolic resolution, especially with all of the far more pressing issues the country is facing.
Second, even though it is a symbolic resolution that will have no effect on the law if passed, I find it problematic that the legislature would support an organization whose goal is to restore the Ten Commandments in public places in spite of the 1980 Supreme Court Decision Stone v. Graham, which found that the Commandments are "undeniably a sacred text," and that their public display violates the First Amendment.
Third, the language of the H.RES.598 is facetious. It seeks to congratulate the Ten Commandments Commission for “promoting and ensuring recognition of the Ten Commandments as the cornerstone of Western law.” The Commission is not actually concerned with dubious premise that the Ten Commandments are the base of Western Law, they wish to prop up the Commandments as the Word of God itself, in hopes of giving the Bible greater authority in our laws and daily lives. Their mission statement reads:
As committed people of faith, we have an obligation to stand up together for God. His law is not only a profile of His character, but also a moral mirror to show humans where we have fallen short in both honoring the Creator, and in respecting our fellow man. Therefore, as we witness the degradation of society, we must come together in a spirit of unity, harmony, and reconciliation to bring the Word of God back to the forefront of our national conscience.
Now to address this claim that the Commandments are the foundation of Western law. For starters, the first four are explicitly religious and have nothing to do with secular law.
Further, the first documentation of written law was Hammurabi’s Code, which was written in approximately 1760 BC, 1000 years before the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments actually echoes many of the provisions of Hammurabi’s Code.
Then there’s the Magna Carta. Marci Hamilton, professor of law at Yeshiva University writes a nice column on the Ten Commandments, where she writes:
The Magna Carta, which forced the British King John to give up many rights to the aristocracy, was first set down in 1215 A.D. It was the first declaration that the people's ruler was under the law, the first check on royal power, and it introduced nascent concepts of due process, jury by one's peers, freedom of religion, and no taxation without representation.With all of that being said. Americans who support the separation of church and state should reject even symbolic encroachments of religion in the public square. However we should not loose site of the substantive encroachments that the Religious Right continue to push for such as: Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives, religious school voucher programs, the teaching of Creationism in science classes, and the denial of equal rights to gay Americans.
Other monarchs agreed to future Magna Cartas, and it came to be considered central to the law of England. Even though it took a back seat during the 1500s, it was re-discovered and embraced in the 1600s to fight the tyranny of the Stuarts. Parliament used it as a wedge against the monarchs, in effect, creating the beginnings of the separation of powers we now take for granted. It is common
knowledge that the principles of the Magna Carta were carried across the
Atlantic to the New World and the colonies, and bore fruit in the United States
Constitution and state laws.
The most recent copy was recently installed with much pomp and circumstance in a handsome display in Philadelphia's Independence Visitors' Center. There is no question that the Magna Carta--which was the first written declaration of rights by landowners against the monarchy--was a strong influence on later rights declarations, including the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
The vast majority of American law, including the rules against killing and stealing, was borrowed in whole or in part from the British common law--which itself was viewed either as rising from natural law or from custom, not from the Ten Commandments.
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Albania tells Azerbaijan it will stop arms sales
Albania assured Azerbaijan on Wednesday it will take every measure to stop the sale of weapons to countries in a state of conflict, after Turkey sent back a shipment of Albanian weapons bound for Armenia.
"The Albanian government will use its authority with the utmost seriousness to take all necessary measures to prevent the sales of weaponry to countries in a state of conflict," Albanian Foreign Minister Lulezim Basha said.
Basha made the pledge in a telephone conversation with his Azeri counterpart Elmar Mamedyarov, a foreign ministry statement said.
Last week Turkey stopped and sent back to Albania's Durres port 60 containers with weapons destined for Armenia, which denied it had bought weapons from Albania.
Armenia and Azerbaijan are in a state of conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous region located within Azerbaijan's internationally recognised borders.
It broke away from Azeri control during a war in the 1990s and has proclaimed independence, though this has not been accepted internationally.
The head of Albania's state-owned weapons firm said he had sent the shipment because there was no embargo on arms sales to Armenia, press reports said.
Albania has been selling off its stock of Soviet-era weapons that were either imported from China or produced domestically, including an aging fleet of Mig airplanes.
Azerbaijan told Albania it considered the sale an act against Azerbaijan and asked the Islamic Conference Organisation to intervene on its behalf with fellow member Albania.
So we have Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey involved here (kind of confusing, too many As). I didn't know much about this dynamic, but learned the following from Wikipedia (I know, I know):
Turkeysupports the OSCE Minsk Group as a mechanism for resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and views it from the principle of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Following a UN Security Council resolution on April 6, 1993, calling for the immediate withdrawal of Armenian forces from the Azerbaijani district of Kelbajar, Turkey joined Azerbaijan in imposing the full economic embargo on Armenia
Still trying to figure out Albania's interest in arming Armenia. Besides pure profit, I'm ignorant at this point to the strategic motivations. Something to look into for later.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Pat Robertson comments:
The fact that there is nothing from there White House--there should be a major announcement. Here's Brown, and uh, talks with the President. Why don't they make a joint statement, that this is outrageous, and demand the release of these hostages. Of course the Taliban can do whatever it feels like doing, but I think they should be wiped of the face of this earth...But ladies and gentleman the prayers of God's people will prevail.
Interesting statement on many levels. First, you could hear the frustration in Robertson's voice that the Chosen President of the Christian Right was not taking extraordinary measures to save fellow Christians (who cares how many Muslims die in the mean time). And why should the he? To break with a 20 year policy of not negotiating with terrorists seems to be against the President's policy of 'staying the course'.
It's also fitting to see that Robertson wants the Taliban wiped off the face of the earth, since that is exactly how the Taliban feels about Robertson. So much for loving thy neighbor.
I do agree with Robertson on one point: the Taliban can do whatever it wants in Afghanistan since the US is sitting on a failing policy in Afghanistan where the Taliban is resurgent, reconstruction is lagging, and opium growth is at an all time high.
My favorite part comes later in the show when the 700 Club airs a segment on how Islamic terrorists are using the media to create propaganda for their theocratic cause. Money quote from their 'expert' Richard Miniter: "they want all of us, even those of us who are not Muslim, to follow their laws."
Did Robertson forget to remind his guest the mission statement of Robertson's own Christian Coalition?
The top headline from Pajhwok Afghan News is: A Dozen Killed in Fresh Violence. However that story was only available to subscribers, (I guess Afghanistan is falling behind its democratization benchmarks for freedom of the press, but no one really cares about Afghanistan anyway, so I suppose it doesn't really matter), and I wouldn't really call that breaking news in Afghanistan anyway.
The top headline available to non-subscribers is: Second South Korean Hostage Shot Dead. Pajhwok Afghan News reports:
A second South Korean hostage was gunned down Monday evening after a final deadline expired some hours ago, a Taliban spokesman said.
A district chief in the rebel-infested province confirmed receiving reports about a dead body dumped in Andar. Abdul Rahim Desiwal told Pajhwok Afghan News they were looking for the body in Chardewal area.
Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, speaking on behalf of the abductors, said they shot dead one of the male captives in the wake of the governments refusal to explicitly respond to rebel demands.
In a phone call to this news agency from an undisclosed location, Ahmadi ruled out unconditional release of the 15 female foreigners in their captivity. He accused government-appointed negotiators of using delaying tactics and trying to dupe the kidnappers.
I guess stories like this aren't all that breaking either. Oh well, hopefully something more interesting from Albania tomorrow, in the next segment of What's Going on in the Rest of the World.
But my people stubbornly refused to listen. They closed their minds and made their hearts as hard as rock. Because they would not listen to the teachings which I sent though the prophets who lived long ago, I became very angry. Because they did not listen when I spoke, I did not answer when they prayed. Like a storm I swept them away to live in foreign countries. This good land was left a desolate place, with no one living in it.Zechariah 8:11-14
Gay couples from New Mexico can marry in Massachusetts because their home state has not explicitly banned same-sex marriage, according to Massachusetts records officials.
New Mexico joins Rhode Island as the only states whose gay residents are allowed to marry in Massachusetts, the only state that allows same-sex marriage.
In a July 18 notice, city and town clerks were instructed by Stanley Nyberg, Massachusetts’ Registrar of Vital Records, to give marriage licenses to gay couples from New Mexico.
Massachusetts began marrying same-sex couples in 2004. Gov. Mitt Romney then prohibited out-of-state couples from marrying in the state, citing a 1913 law that bars Massachusetts from marrying couples who would be prevented from marrying in their home states.
This is good news for gays in New Mexico, but they still aren't totally in the clear:
New Mexico hasn’t outlawed same-sex marriage, but it hasn’t endorsed it either. Nor have lawmakers approved domestic partnership legislation, despite prodding from Gov. Bill Richardson.
But those who decide to marry in Massachusetts or elsewhere must be prepared to live with uncertainty, advocates of gay marriage cautioned Thursday.
Those marriages “will be respected to varying degrees,” warned Equality New Mexico. The group said the state, businesses and others may join the federal government in refusing to recognize the unions.
Will Governor Richardson stay true to his Youtube debate rhetoric and recognize the marriages of his gay constituents performed in Massachusetts? If he can't even take this small step (which I'd say Massachusetts has rightly foisted upon him), gays surely cannot trust him to 'achieve' his promises of civil unions, domestic partnerships, hate crimes legislation, and a repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.
This is the same Senator who placed a secret hold on a bill that was aimed at increasing government accountability by requiring the government to publish and online database of federal spending.
This is the same Senator who, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, was able to attach a $2 billion project for the 'Bridge to Nowhere'. And the same Senator who threated to resign if the funds for this monument to government waste were redirected to rebuild a major thoroughfare bridge destroy by Hurricane Katrina.
It is a relief to see that Senator Stevens seems to be unraveling from his own corruption and arrogance. It is somewhat disheartening that it had to be the FBI to do it. Where were the people of Alaska, who voted Stevens into office for six terms? Enjoying the pork projects he showered upon his state, I suppose (Alaska is number one recipient of federal pork funds, though it is the 48th most populous).
The beauty of democracy is that it is supposed to create institutionalized checks on power. Instead our democracy, through cronyism and special interests, allowed Senator Stevens to be untouchable for nearly 40 years.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Due in large part to a letter written by Governor John Corzine about two weeks ago, UPS has decided to extend health insurance benefits to civil unionized couples in New Jersey.
Just another small step toward equality—though one would have thought an unnecessary one since New Jersey’s civil unions were supposed to be equal to marriage in all but name.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Money quote from Blumenthal:
I have covered the Christian right intensely for over four years. During this time, I attended dozens of Christian right conferences, regularly monitored movement publications and radio shows, and interviewed scores of its key leaders. I have never witnessed any spectacle as politically extreme, outrageous, or bizarre as the one Christians United for Israel produced last week in Washington.
Money quote from Congressman Tom Delay (R-TX):
Obviously, it is what I live for, and I hope it comes tomorrow. And obviously we have to be connected toKind of scary
to enjoy the second coming of Christ. Israel
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
What I found is that 1) in a free-speak forum, women speak publicly about 25 percent of the time, vs. 75 percent for men and 2) when the forum is caller-led, women are called upon about one-third as often as men are (even when the caller is a woman). I've found that when there is even one man present, we women defer to him and expect him to speak first. (As everyone knows, I'm no scientist and I have no reputable data to back up these percentages; these are just my observations.)I too have noticed this trend. I think the best anecdote I can offer comes from my experiences as a member of my high school's academic quiz team. I attended an all girls school and as such our quiz team was the only all girls team in the regional circuit. The typical team from others schools were dominated by boys and usually consisted of one girl.
The one exception to this were my years at Seventeen Magazine in the late 1980s. Of the 50 people in the editorial department, 50 were female. Problem solved -- at least within those pink walls. Which is why so many women advocate for the value of single sex education. And why those against all girls schools argue, great -- but what about the bias you inevitably confront in the "real world?"
Men don't seem to consciously dominate public discussions; they don't blatantly cut women off or ridicule their views. And it's not that women don't have opinions. We certainly do. Talk to women before and after the male-dominated meetings, and it is easy to solicit opinions. We just don't share them in public. Why? The problem is stubborn and pernicious. Women hesitate to speak up. Men don't hesitate. So, by default more men speak, and more women stay silent.
It became something of a weekly anthropological observation for myself and my team, as we would watch how that one girl from the other teams was treated. The majority of the time she sat out for most of the match, only substituting in for about one of the four rounds. She did not buzz in to answer questions as frequently as the boys, but when she did she was nearly always correct. The boys, who dominated in buzzing in, had a much lower percentage in the accuracy of their answers.
During the round where the whole team was allowed to consult with one another before the captain (a boy) submitted the team answer, the girl frequently would mutter the correct answer, but would be drowned out by the frantic brainstorming by the boys on the team.
My experience on the all girls team was markedly different. There was no hesitation, no deferring to a more forceful boy.
These days the only exposure I have to trivia competition comes from the weekly trivia night hosted by one of the local bars in Charlottesville, VA where I attend college. Trivia night in college is vaguely reminiscent of my high school quiz team days—only now I find that I have become the more reserved girl that my all girls quiz team always observed with regret.
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
The Washington Post reports:
The licenses of tens of thousands of motorists in New Jersey and Michigan have been suspended because they cannot afford the fees, and little evidence has emerged that such fines improve highway safety, according to state officials and studies.
Officials in Michigan and New Jersey say Virginians should brace for problems, including clogged courts and the prospect of thousands of residents having to choose between keeping their licenses and paying their bills.
Of course we should recognize these fees for what they really are--a $65 million per year tax increase.
What concerns me the most about these new fines is the greater potential they create for police abuse and corruption, now that officers have an even greater power advantage over the citizens by having the authority to slap them with exorbitant fines for relatively minor offenses.
Coy Privette is currently the President of the Christian Action League, which represents conservative evangelicals from 15 Christian denominations in NC. From the Christian Action League's website:
We discourage the promotion and use of beverage alcohol and other drugs, pornography, sexual immorality and other sinful practices that not only undermine the spiritual lives of those who participate in them, but also undermine the strength of our State and National character.
One of our most important tasks is training, developing, and motivating Christians to be involved in the political process. We want to mobilize Christians to be as Jesus commanded them to be -- the salt and light of the earth. Christians are to arrests and expose such contemporary issues as abortion, gambling, suicide, sex education, homosexuality, and we provide the information and help needed to deal with these critical issues.
Why can't the Christianists work on achieving their view of morality themselves, before they start trying to impose it on the rest of us?
Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the tip.
A 7-year-old girl said she had been raped and repeatedly molested over the course of a year. Police in Montgomery County, acting on information from a relative, soon arrested a Liberian immigrant living in Gaithersburg. They marshaled witnesses and DNA evidence to prepare for trial.
What was missing -- for much of the nearly three years that followed -- was an interpreter fluent in the suspect's native language. A judge recently dropped the charges, not because she found that Mahamu Kanneh had been wrongly accused but because repeated delays in the case had, in her view, violated his right to a speedy trial.
With help from the National Association of Judiciary Interpreters and Translators, The Washington Post identified three Vai interpreters Thursday, including one in Gaithersburg. Lionbridge, a company that offers interpretation services, said it could provide Vai speakers on short notice.
A child rapist is back on the streets because of the incompetence of the prosecutor’s office. If only the people charged with bringing criminals to justice were as good at their jobs as the Washington Post reporters who broke the story and found available interpreters.
'Enhanced rights' is good, but it's still not equal rights, which will only come with marriage.
The text of the resolution reads:
No human being deserves to be tortured and victimized like David Ray Ritcheson simply because he is of a different background, race, religion, ethnic group, or sexual orientation.
I think it is significant that the House mentions sexual orientation, because unlike any of the other groups, it is the only one that is not protected by federal hate crimes legislation. One of the religious right's biggest complaint about the recent legislation that died in the Senate, was that it would codify 'immoral lifestyles' into US law. This resolution, though non-binding, shows that gays are slowly being recognized by our lawmakers.
Monday, July 23, 2007
It still frustrates. They still won't actually answer the simple question: Why do you oppose equal marriage rights? I'm sorry but I'm not interested in John Edwards' "personal journey". In fact, I'm extremely uninterested. I want to know what his argument is. He disavows the religious rationale but offers no other. If it's the "ick" factor, let us know. If you can't justify that, then live up to your own convictions. Obama was just as evasive. Richardson came closest in talking about what's "achievable." But what does that mean? The answer is: they're too afraid to say what they believe. They still smell of fear. As long as candidates are too afraid to stand up for what they believe, why should anyone support them? We're not electing a focus-group or a consultant. We're supposed to be electing a president.I concur.
I did not like what Senator Obama (D-IL) had to say:
Religion informs my values, reason dictates my outcomes...I don’t find anything inconsistent about my deep religious beliefs and my ability to use reason.
Is he implying that the non-religious lack moral values, that they somehow need to be taught by the religious? Even though Obama represents a liberal twist on faith in politics (a welcome change from the religious right), I still feel uncomfortable with the divisions he makes along religious lines.
We've got to translate our moral, our religious values into moral terms that all people can share, including those who are not believers.
Rev. Reggie Longcrier of Hickory, NC submitted the following video to Jon Edwards:
Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segeragation, and to deny women the right to vote.
So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?
I think Rev. Longcrier asks a very important question, which is, fundamentally, whether it’s right for any of our faith beliefs to be imposed on the American people when we’re President of the United States. I do not believe that’s right. I feel enormous personal conflict about this issue. I want to end discrimination, I want to do some of the things I just heard Bill Richardson talk about; standing up for equal rights, substantive rights, civil unions, what Chris Dodd just talked about, and I think that’s something everybody on this stage will commit themselves to as President of the United States.
But I personally have been on a journey on this issue. I feel enormous conflict about it. I think as a lot of people know, Elizabeth spoke at, my wife Elizabeth out a few weeks ago, and she actually supports, uh gay m-marriage [stutter], I do not, um this is a very difficult issue for me and I have enormous respect for people who have a different view of it.
Anderson Cooper, being a good moderator, pressed Edwards to answer the question, asking bluntly, "why is it OK to quote religious beliefs when talking about why you don’t support something?"
It’s not. I’ve been asked a personal question, which, I think is what Rev. Longcrier is raising. The personal questions is, do I believe, do I personally support gay marriage. The answer to that is I don’t. Uh, but I think it is absolutely wrong as President of the United States for me to use that faith basis as a basis for denying anybody their rights. And I will not do that when I am President of the United States.
Edwards still did not respond to Rev. Longcier' s question! From what I've taken from his response, Edwards believes that religion should not be used to discriminate and that he is against discrimination, but he still thinks it's right to discriminate against gays by keeping them from marrying.
Anderson Cooper then pressed Barack Obama on the issue (presumably because he is the only black candidate), saying, "the laws banning interracial marriage in the US were ruled unconstitutional in 1967—what is the difference between the ban on interracial marriage and a ban on gay marriage?"
Well I [stutter] I think it is important to pick up on something that was said earlier by both Dennis and by Bill and that is that we’ve got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law, and the civil unions that I propose would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal, uh, for same sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples.
With respect to marriage it’s my belief, uh, that it’s up to individual denominations to make a decision as to whether or not they want to recognize a marriage or not. Uh, but, in terms of, you know, the rights of people to uh, transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those civil rights that are, uh, conferred by our government, those should be equal.
Doesn't Obama, of all people, realize that separate is never equal? I wonder when gays will finally wake up and realize that none of the mainstream candidates support their full equality. Gays donate and vote for Democratic candidates overwhelmingly. When will gays stand up and hold the Democrats accountable?
The U.S. Department of Agriculture distributed $1.1 billion over seven years to the estates or companies of deceased farmers and routinely failed to conduct reviews required to ensure that the payments were properly made, according to a government report.
In a selection of 181 cases from 1999 to 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that officials approved payments without any review 40 percent of the time.
Last year, a Washington Post investigation of farm subsidies found more than $15 billion in wasteful or redundant spending in other farm payments, including $1.3 billion to people who do not farm and $817 million to farms that use loopholes to exceed limits.
The $1.1 billion the US government paid dead farmers is more than the 2006 budget allotted for:
-The Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ($22 million)
-Refugee programs ($889 million)
-International disaster and famine assistance ($579 million)
-Iraq relief and reconstruction fund ($10 million)
-USAID operations ($794 million)
-Nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining, and related programs ($396 million)
-Naval petroleum reserves operations ($22 million)
-Uranium enrichment decontamination ($110 million)
-Nuclear waste program ($148 million)
-Emergency energy preparedness ($164 million)
-Food safety and inspection ($830 million)
-Consumer product safety commission ($62 million)
-Medicare prescription drug administrative expenses ($770 million)
-Armed forces retirement homes ($300 million)
-Affordable housing program ($307 million)
-High-intensity drug trafficking areas program ($200 million)
Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and a critic of farm subsidies to wealthy farms requested the GAO report. Ahead of the report's release, Grassley remarked, "Farm payments are meant for those who need some help getting through the tough times...clearly there are loopholes that should be closed and laws that need to be followed."
Too bad the Senator doesn't practice what he preaches.
According the Environmental Working Group's Farm Subsidy Database, Grassley recieved over $225,041 in USDA subsidies between the years of 1995 and 2005. Grassley's son Robin has received $653,833 over the same period.
Oh the irony.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
The LA Times reports:
This is similar to a Virginia case where the Virginia Court of Appeals found that Jonathan Stroud did not have to continue supporting his ex-wife Debra Stroud after she entered a lesbian relationship. In their divorce settlement Mr. Stroud agreed to pay $4000 a month to Ms. Stroud until she remarried. Unlike California, the Virginia court found that the lesbian relationship did resemble the effects of marriage (in spite of the Virginia anti-gay marriage amendment), and canceled Mr. Stoud's support agreement.
Ron Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman — and had taken her last name — when he agreed to pay her $1,250 a month in alimony.
What he didn't know was that the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was supposed to mirror marriage law, Garber said.
State marriage laws say that alimony ends when the former spouse remarries, and Garber reasons he should be off the hook, given that domestic partnership is akin to marriage. But an Orange County judge has decided that registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must pay.
"This is not about gay or lesbian," Garber said. "This is about the law being fair."
The case, which Garber intends to appeal, highlights gaps between the legal status of domestic partners and of married couples, an issue the California Supreme Court is considering as it ponders whether to legalize same-sex marriage.
From an Equality Virginia Press release:
In the case of Jonathan Stroud v. Debra Lyn Stroud, the Court chose to recognize a relationship between two women as a marriage-like relationship under the definition of cohabitation. However, they made this determination in the context of ending Mr. Stroud’s obligation to provide spousal support to his former wife.These cases reveal how the lack of clear legal definitions for gay couples exposes couples straight and gay alike to the whims of judges, dare I say "activist".
“While we applaud the decision to legally recognize two women as a couple in a marriage-like relationship in the shadow of the so-called ‘marriage amendment’, it is quite ironic that the Court chose to recognize this relationship in order to remove a marriage benefit when the state has consistently denied recognizing the right to provide marriage benefits to gay and lesbian couples,” said Dyana Mason, Equality Virginia’s Executive Director. “It’s going to be very interesting how the Virginia Supreme Court responds to this case if it is appealed.”
Friday, July 20, 2007
However, it is becoming clear that civil unionized couples in New Jersey do not recieve equal recognition or benefits as married couples. New Jersey governor John Corzine has written a letter to UPS requesting that they change their employee benefits policies to reflect New Jersey law. UPS maintains that they do not have to provide benefits to civil unionized couples because they are governed by federal law, where DOMA reigns supreme. Interestingly enough however, UPS does provide benefits to gay marriaged couples in Massachusetts, the only state where gays are allowed to wed. This undermines UPS's DOMA argument, since DOMA applies equally in Massachusetts as it does in New Jersey.
The Washington Post also takes note of the problem:
A recent study by Garden State Equality, New Jersey's leading gay advocacy group, indicated that as many as one in eight of the 1,092 same-sex couples who have registered for civil unions there have been denied all or part of the benefits they hoped to gain from the law. That is particularly significant because New Jersey, as the first state outside New England to approve civil unions, was seen as a bellwether in gauging how they would take root outside the bluest of the blue states.
As cases like these become more prevelant, hopefully lawmakers and the population at large will realize that civil unions are a seperate institution that are not, and can never be, equal to marriage.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The Sunday Herald reported on the rape, torture and execution-style murder of gay rights activists Sizakele Sigasa and Salome Masooa:
Sigasa, 34, a prominent lesbian rights activist, was shot six times in her head and collarbone. Her underpants had been used to tie her hands behind her back, and her ankles had been tied together with the laces from her own trainers. Masooa, 23, had been shot through the back of her head.Reports like these make me thankful that although gays do not have full legal equaltity in the United States, we at least are not subject to this form of brutality.
The pair had left a Soweto party to take a friend home on the night of the attack. Their bodies were later discovered near their car by a jogger. Alhough no arrests have been made, in a country where daily murders are commonplace, gay rights
organisations said the killings were driven by "lesbophobia".
The Joint Working Group, the umbrella organisation for South Africa's gay and lesbian associations, said the murders were part of a growing epidemic of hate crimes. In the past two months there have been two other murders of lesbian women in black townships. Simangele Nhlapo, a member of a support group for women living with Aids, was raped and murdered; her two-year-old daughter was raped and left with both her legs broken. In another incident, 16-year-old Madoe Mafubedu, living openly as a lesbian, was raped and repeatedly stabbed until she died.
I guess that's if you don't take into account:
Kenneth Cummings Jr, murdered by a man who says he was carrying out God's "code of retribution"
Danny Overstreet, shot to death by a man "looking to waste some faggots"
JR Warren, beaten to death by three teens before being run over
PFC Barry Winchell, beaten to death while sleeping
Fred Martinez Jr, beaten to death with a boulder
Billy Jack Gaither, beaten to death before being set on fire
Gary Matson and Winfield Mowder, shot to death in their home
Sakia Gunn, stabbed to death by two men
Steven Haataja, burned to death
Andrew Anthos, 72 years old, beaten to death with a metal pipe
The list goes on and on.
The FBI reports that there were 1,213 gay victims of hate crimes in 2005. This makes them the second largest group targeted by hate after blacks. Yet unlike blacks, gays are not covered by federal hate crimes legislation.
One can argue about the merrits of hate crimes legislation itself, but to exclude the second largest victim group is indefensible.
Shirtless Hunks Bagging Groceries then became the number four searched term on Google.
More to come on the influence of Colbert...
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Oh course, Christian publishing is not new. Influential evangelical, Tim LaHaye's Left Behind series, which deals with end-time prophesies set in modern day, was something of a phenomenon, selling over 60 million copies and landing on the top of several best-sellers lists, including the New York Times and USA Today.
Michelle Goldberg writes about the series:
The most popular novel in America right now is one in which the world is tyrannized by the former secretary general of the U.N., who operates from Iraq, and his global force of storm troopers, called "peacekeepers." Revered rabbis evangelize for Christ, repenting Israel's "specific national sin" of "[r]ejecting the messiahship of Jesus." Much of the world is deceived by a false prophet, part of the inner circle of the Antichrist, who seems a lot like the pope -- he's a Catholic cardinal, "all robed and hatted and vested in velvet and piping."
Here we see the market revealing to the vast size and influene of the Evangelical movement in America today.
I only wonder how the prevelance of apocolyptic fiction as described above will influene the movement. One hopes people won't start taking fiction for fact, like Presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
See here for a link to Florida's related paper.
I have not read the book or the article yet so I cannot comment, but it certainly is an interesting thesis.
According to their website, Christians United for Israel is "a national Christian grassroots movement focused on one issue: supporting Israel." What they do not tell you is that their fervent support comes out of their literal reading of Bible, specifically the End Times prophesies from the Book of Revelation. Evangelicals like this believe that the Jews' re-population of the Holy Land is a key step on the road to Armageddon (where the Jews along with all of the other non-Christians will suffer the tribulations before spending eternity in hell).
Christians United for Israel was founded by Reverend John Hagee.
As CEO of the nonprofit Global Evangelism Television, Hagee makes roughly $1 million a year.
In response to the devastation of Hurricaine Katrina, Hagee remarked:
I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are--were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade on the Monday that the Katrina came, and the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing.Unfortunately, pandering to the likes of Hagee et al. is what you need to do these days to win the Republican nomination for President
My only ask was that if his daughter doubted my tolerance to her orientation that I would hope that he would help make it clear to Mary that this is a--I was just worried about--the reason I'd federalized the issue is because I was worried about the courts' defining the issue and that we'd end up with de facto marriage that was not traditionally defined, I guess is the best way to put it.
Yes, that is an actual quotation from the President of the United States.In case you need a translation: it's not that Bush is intolerant of gays, he's just intolerant of the recognition of gay relationships.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Who only knows what devastation could have been wreaked today had a bomb gone undetected. This will surely reaffirm the President's policies that protect our nation. Republicans that have been faithful to the President should be looking forward to hefty improvements in their polling numbers.
(Perhaps this comes as a divine warning for arresting good Christians who "stand for Jesus" as the Senate Sergent-at-Arms did last week during the Senate Morning Prayer Service, as delivered by the Hindu guess chaplain.)
The kicker: the potential 'bomb' turned out merely to be the cremated remains of a passenger's loved one.
That's a winner.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Saturday, July 14, 2007
What's really interesting about those "17 rules" is that they reflect the "traditional" stance of fundamentalist Christians in the United States. Prior to the Roe v. Wade (or the Civil Rights Movement, depending on who you ask), fundamentalists were essentially disengaged from American politics. This is partly a function of Jesus' admonition to be separate from the world, and it's partly a function of the fundamentalist eschatological viewpoint, regardless, it's certainly nothing new and I think it is another example of a growing fissure in the Christian Right, which is nowhere near as monolithic as it is made out to be.I agree on nearly every account, with a few qualifications. The Christian Right is certainly not any single entity. It is an umbrella term, which comprises many denominations, all with their own traditions and theological tenets. I generally like to avoid the term Christian Right (as we are seeing more religious rhetoric among the left and because it leaves out those who are not Christians, but nonetheless adhere to a similar world view) favoring instead, fundamentalism. Research done by the University of Chicago's Fundamentalism Project points out five ideological characteristics of Christian fundamentalists:
I also agree that similar forms of religiosity have been found throughout American history. The influence of religious fervor in American politics ebbs and flows, generally in connection to the historical and social context of any given era. We saw this in the past with both the First and Second Great Awakening.
1. Fundamentalists are concerned "first" with the erosion of religion and its proper role in society;
2. Fundamentalism is selective of their tradition and what part of modernity they accept or choose to react against;
3. Fundamentalists embrace some form of Manicheanism;
4. Fundamentalists stress absolutism and inerrancy in their sources of revelation; and
5. Fundamentalists opt for some form of Millennialism or Messianism.
President Bush, among many others, have called this current wave a "Third Awakening". The first two lasted only roughly thirty years, so one could hope that this relatively recent surge in fundamentalist involvement in politics will soon run its course.
What concerns me about this movement is that for the first time religious fundamentalists occupy high positions in all three branches of government, including the Presidency, and have wide reaching influence ranging from foreign policy to Supreme Court nominations.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Does this mean the evangelicals will sit out this election like they used to, before Karl Rove made them the key to any successful Republican candidate?
One could only hope... unless, that is, your idea of good government is one based on the Bible as interpreted by power hungry politicians.
"all the intercourse I had as a military officer was the best".
No idea what he was actually talking about...I won't ask, I just wish he wouldn't tell.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Well yesterday, the House of Representatives passed H.RES.287, to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the first use of the name "America", and for other purposes.
H.RES.287 was introduced by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) on March 29, 2007. I'm proud to see that the House, under the brave leadership of Rep. Hastings, has taken this step in commemorating such a milestone in the history of our great nation.
So what else has the Honorable Alcee Hastings been up to lately? Besides introducing H.RES.183, expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States Postal Service should issue a postage stamp commemorating the Fisk Jubilee Singers, to the House in February (which was referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, in case you were wondering); and recovering from his 1989 Senate conviction and removal from office for bribery and perjury?
He has been appointed as co-chair of the national Clinton campaign!
Today the House Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs held a hearing on US-Pakistan relations with regard to the war in Afghanistan. Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs was the sole witness.
The front page of today's Washington Post reports that the Bush Administration's National Counterterrorism Center has written a threat assessment report stating that al-Qaeda is gaining strength and has established a safe haven in the tribal areas of western Pakistan, on the Afghan border.
A large portion of the over three hour hearing entitled "Pakistan at the Crossroads; Afghanistan in the Balance," was devoted to the Pakistan's ungoverned tribal region of Waziristan, where al-Qaeda has allegedly established a safe haven and where militants are freely crossing the Pakistan-Afghan border.
When Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) asked Secretary Boucher to comment on the intelligence report, Boucher replied that he was not familiar with the report. Congressman Van Hollen pressed him, incredulous that the Washington Post had more to say about a report with potentially huge policy implications than the “top analyst for South Asia in the State Department."
"I guess the Washington Post was briefed before me," Boucher quipped.
Like Congressman Van Hollen, I find this lack of adequate intelligence at the State Department disconcerting.
Then again, what good are intelligence reports if our nation's leaders don't even bother to read them, and vote to authorize war anyway.
So I thought it could be fun to try a regular installment of a random verse from Word of God. Today's installment comes from Psalm 68:12
"Kings of armies did flee apace: and she that tarried at home divided the spoil"
So does this mean God is telling me to stay home and blow off work tomorrow? Sweet.
I can see how Biblical Literalists have a good time cherry picking verses in isolation and out of context in order confirm their preexisting prejudices and predilections now.
I came across this opinion piece from the Associated Baptist Press by David Gushee, Professor of Moral Philosophy at
Gushee reminds his fellow Baptist readers that “we have an audience of one and that we are accountable to Christ alone.” One wonders where constituents fit in...He then goes on to outline his rules:
1. Christian leaders must not officially or unofficially endorse political candidates or a political party.
2. Christian leaders must not distribute essentially partisan or single-issue voter guides that purport to be apolitical or nonpartisan.
3. Christian leaders must not publicly handicap or comment upon the political horse race.
4. Christian leaders must not provide private or public advice to particular politicians, parties, or campaigns concerning how they can strategize in order to win evangelical or Christian votes.
5. Christian leaders must not calibrate their public teachings or writings in order to affect the outcome of political elections or to gain and hold the support of politicians.
6. Christian leaders must not attend political rallies or campaign events of one candidate or party unless they are prepared to attend rallies and events of all candidates and parties.
7. Christian leaders must not invite political candidates to speak in church pulpits or on church grounds unless they are prepared to invite all political candidates of all parties to do so.
8. Christian leaders must not identify the potential or actual victory of any politician as a victory for God or God’s kingdom.
9. Christian leaders must limit their direct contact with politicians or staff in order to avoid even the appearance of undue loyalty or involvement.
10. Christian leaders must not engage in voter registration campaigns or get out the vote efforts aimed at mobilizing the voters of one political party rather than another.
11. Christian leaders must not direct the funds of their organizations toward direct or indirect support for a particular political candidate or party.
12. Christian leaders may not sidestep these rules by drawing a distinction between their activities as a “private individual” over against their service in their public role.
13. Christian leaders must offer Christian proclamation related to the large number of public issues clearly addressed by biblical principles or direct biblical teaching.
14. Christian leaders must encourage Christian people toward active citizenship, including studying the issues and the candidates and testing policy stances and candidates according to biblical criteria.
15. Christian leaders must model and encourage respectful and civil discourse related to significant public issues as well as political candidates.
16. Christian leaders must model and encourage prayer for God-ordained government, its leaders and their policies.
17. Christian leaders must teach and model respect for the constitutional relationship between religion and the state as spelled out in the First Amendment.
It represents a mark distinction from the rhetoric of the big-wigs of the religious right like Dobson, Kennedy, Falwell, Robertson et. al, in its subtlety and in that it seems to take some of the actual teachings of Christ into account rather than falling into the rubric of yet another political -ism.
It is still disturbing, nonetheless, for those of us who believe in the model and the virtue of the separation of church and state (regardless of whether or not that was the original intent of the Founders, as many Christianists now dispute). In other more volatile regions of the world which lack democratic institutions, religious fundamentalists take control of the governments through violence. In
In other more volatile regions of the world which lack democratic institutions, religious fundamentalists take control of the governments through violence. In
For good reads on the subject see:
American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On
The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, How to Get It Back by Andrew Sullivan
The Fundamentals of Extremism: The Christian Right in
Certainly more to come from me on this topic.