I realize I should be excited about the California Supreme Court's decision to remove the ban on same-sex marriage...but the skeptic in me simply won't allow it. I'll explain my thinking after the following excerpt on today's ruling.
SAN FRANCISCO -- -- The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.
The state high court's 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.
Schwarzenegger, who has vetoed two measures that would have authorized same-sex marriage, today said he would abide by the court's ruling.
"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," he said in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."
But as early as November, voters could be asked to render their opinion on an amendment that would again attempt to ban same-sex marriage.
A coalition of religious and conservative activists has submitted 1.1 million signatures to qualify the amendment, which would say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Andrew Pugno, an attorney for the initiative's sponsors, said the Supreme Court decision is a boost for the measure because opponents have been saying there is no real threat that same sex marriages will happen.
"This decision draws a line in the sand and makes it clear that this is the last chance for voters to have a say," Pugno said. "This is proof positive for voters that the courts are out of control and the voters have to step up."
First, the timing of this ruling isn't advantageous. As we approach a critical election in which the Democrats are poised to take the presidency as well as additional seats in the house and the senate, giving the rabid right wing an issue to rally around is apt to boost the GOP's fundraising, motivate evangelicals to get out and vote, allow John McCain to exploit the differences between the GOP and the Democratic Party with regards to same-sex issues (including forcing the Democratic nominee to clarify his or her position on the ruling and same-sex marriage), and give supporters of an amendment to add a ban on same-sex marriage to the California constitution ample ammunition to fund and promote their ballot measure (every right wing organization is going to pour money into this ballot initiative).
Secondly, I believe that the mood of voters had changed since the 2004 election. That change included less of an emphasis on values driven politics and more of a focus on issues that endear voters to the Democratic Party. Today's ruling may return us to the days of God, guns, and gays...with a particular emphasis on gays. Should that happen, it would allow the detractors of the Democratic party to reemphasize the fact that they are generally in favor of extending more rights to gays, accepting of court rulings that expand rights even if the voters wouldn't vote to approve them, and in favor of appointing more judges with similar views.
Let's look at the chronology to better understand the shift that took place since 2004 and the likelihood that this ruling could facilitate a step backwards in terms of renewed voter resistance. Following on the heels of Massachusetts allowing gay marriage as a result of a 2003 court ruling, in February of 2004, San Francisco and other municipalities began issuing marriage licenses to gays. While all of these actions felt empowering and led to numerous celebratory moments, it was short lived (except in Massachusetts) and likely assisted in the passage of amendments to ban same-sex marriage in eleven states.
Following the 2004 election, Iraq, the economy, and other issues pushed the values agenda to the back burner as voters focused on other concerns. The 2006 election supports that contention as there was a clear shift away from the values agenda. As we've approached the 2008 election, the general perception has been that God, guns, and gays had fallen into disfavor with voters (or at least been overtaken by other priorities) and would not play a significant part in this election cycle.
If one believes that history repeats itself...and that the U.S. has a history of vacillating between left and right (in a manner reminiscent of a pendulum) when it comes to issue of morality...this ruling could create the momentum needed to effect a shift to the right...or at the very least a halt to the current swing leftward. While these back and forth swings seem inevitable, the timing of this ruling may be the accelerant that sets in motion the unfavorable shifts noted above...sooner than they would have otherwise occurred. That would be a classic example of an unintended consequence...but an unwelcome and unfortunate one no less.
Look, I also believe that the affording of rights can't always be scheduled for maximum advantage...nor should they be delayed accordingly. History will undoubtedly view this ruling as one of the important steps in the chronology of granting gays equal status. Nonetheless, the journey between now and then may well include events that (similar to this ruling), at the time they occur, seem to be a step forward but that ultimately precipitate a temporary step backwards. As such, the soldiers need to be prepared for the times when retreat and retrenchment are the order of the day.
Today is a time for celebrating...but tomorrow may be another story. It is imperative that we remain vigilantly mindful of the impact our actions will have on the ever shifting political terrain. This means that it is essential for us to be aware of the positions each of the combatants holds on the battlefield. In the end, regardless of the victories and defeats, the march towards equality must never cease. Today we've won a battle...tomorrow the war proceeds.
On the one hand, I can't wait for George Bush to be out of office...and on the other, I'll miss watching Keith Olbermann literally eviscerate the president on a regular basis with eagerly anticipated Special Comments. Lest there be any doubt, this iteration may well be one of Olbermann's best. Never let it be said that Olbermann pulled any of his punches in tonight's tongue lashing.
Olbermann's inspiration for tonight's tirade was an interview the president gave yesterday. In that interview, the president waded into the ill-conceived war in Iraq and all the justifications we've come to expect, his never ending effort to portray the Democrats as weak on terror and therefore likely to invite another terrorist attack should they win in November. As if that weren't enough, the president had the temerity to suggest that he has given up playing golf in deference to the families who have lost sons and daughters in his never ending wars.
This evening's Special Comment video is divided into two parts Consider this first part a warm up...because Keith certainly saves the best for last.
Most of us are familiar with the expression, "Be careful what you wish for", though I suspect it rarely keeps us from spending our time hoping to achieve or attain the things we seek. The fact that the California Supreme Court is set to rule tomorrow on whether the state can deny gays the right to marry will likely be a defining moment in our understanding of the concept of the double edged sword.
On the one hand, those who have waited years to have their relationships recognized may see a favorable ruling as the culmination of a dream come true. On the other hand, a favorable ruling will undoubtedly be seen as a nightmare to those who have expended untold energy seeking to prohibit any recognition of same-sex relationships. Hence, how the two sides absorb the outcome will likely have more meaning than the actual ruling.
The California Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the legality of the state's ban on gay marriage.
The justices today posted a notation on the court's Web site that the ruling in the civil rights challenge to the same-sex marriage ban will be posted at 10 a.m. Thursday. The Supreme Court heard arguments in five consolidated legal challenges in March, and had until early June to rule on the issue.
The long-awaited ruling is a crucial test of the simmering public, social and legal debate over gay marriage, triggered in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed thousands of gay and lesbian couples to wed before the courts put a halt to the marriage licenses.
A ruling in favor of gay marriage could stoke a political firestorm in the fall if a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage in California makes it onto the ballot. A decision on whether the initiative qualifies for the ballot is expected in June.
As such, tomorrow will bring both the culmination of hopeful expectations and the delivery of disappointment. Needless to say, that means the ruling is apt to inspire one side while inciting the other. How those perceptions are played out in terms of focus found or fear infused will likely have more to do with deciding the future of gay marriage.
So where will that leave us? Frankly, it leaves us where we've always been...needing to find the means to communicate with those we don't understand in order to remove the misconceptions that serve to maintain what has to be viewed as an untenable status quo.
In the end, without real change, today, tomorrow, and the day after are one and the same so long as the issue of gay marriage remains a zero sum equation in the minds of the combatants. Tomorrow will have a winner...but we'd all be wise to realize that it may not be a victory.
Focus on the Family, the empire of demagogue James Dobson, has launched a new video feature that gives outsiders an insight into the values they embrace...and they undoubtedly place a lot of value on the acquisition of cash...especially if it can be used to further their fundamentalist agenda.
The Colorado Springs based organization now produces two video segments - one is called Stoplight and the other Turn Signal...catchy metaphors for their desire to put a "stop" to anything they deem in conflict with their Bible based bloviations and to direct people to "turn" away from secular sensibility and accept the dogma they deem to have been sent to them from the divine director.
In the following segment of Stoplight, Stuart Shepard muses on the government's economic stimulus checks and how the money, unjustly taken from voters to fund a flawed government, could be put to better purposes. Of course those purposes include items like banning same-sex marriage and appointing more right leaning judges as well as eliminating a woman's right to choose.
And don't forget the most important purpose...donating more money to Focus on the Family so that Dobson and his disciples can lead lavish lives that support the contention that God rewards good people...with material wealth (prosperity theology). Yes, God thinks the best way to nurture the soul is to stuff a load of cash into the checking account.
You see, the folks at Focus on the Family are strong proponents of marriage...especially the one that unites them with money and the intoxicating power it brings. Apparently they have an updated understanding of the expression, "Charity begins at home". Yes, Jesus was a nice guy...but he could have been far more effective if he had been a well-heeled snappy dresser with a stable of lawyers and lobbyists. After all, apostles and the downtrodden are so passe.
The following video asks an interesting question - Is religion battered woman's syndrome? While provocative on its surface, the creator of the video makes a number of thoughtful observations.
More than an effort to connect religion with battered woman's syndrome, it is an attempt to force people to consider the pretext upon which they adopt their religious beliefs and to what extent that may be a flawed construct.
In my opinion, all too often people accept the religious beliefs of their parents without ever taking the time to fully understand exactly the meaning of the concepts they're assimilating into their own understanding of the world in which they live.
No doubt beliefs can serve a valuable purpose in a person's life...but they can also preclude the individual from exploring other possibilities...particularly if one has adopted their beliefs as a result of blind acceptance or forcible infliction. Hence, the similarity to the process by which a woman is able to adjust her thinking to accept the abuse of her abuser and forego her rightful ability to make determinations on her own and in her best interest.
I am always amazed at the seeming lack of suspicion with regards to religious ideology. Time and again I witness people refusing to take much of anything they encounter on face value...yet those same individuals are somehow able to compartmentalize their faith such that it is beyond reconsideration or reproach.
I've always felt that the fear of death, and the unknown quality it holds, is an immensely powerful tool in the arsenal of religious institutions. Regardless, it's as if people abdicate large swaths of their lives in order to avoid the fear of losing them. In the end, isn't that little more than a subservient march towards the very death they fear?
Come to think of it, perhaps the comparison is insufficient. After all, many women find the strength to break free of their overlords. The same isn't always true of those who acquiesce to other iterations of divine beings.
No doubt there is a fine line between fact and fantasy. What we know for sure today is that the GOP is in trouble following losses in three congressional districts that by any measure should have been safe Republican seats. That brings us to fantasy...and there may be no better person to explain the degree to which the GOP is living in a fantasy world than the inimitable Alan Keyes.
Keyes has been an outspoken member of the GOP for a number of years. Keyes is also the man the GOP chose to run in the 2004 Senate race against Barack Obama. He is rabidly anti-gay and, as you will see from the video, he is also obsessed with his role in putting an end to all abortions. Let me be clear, I think we should do what we can to reduce the number of abortions...so long as those efforts empower women; not take away their right to choose.
As you watch Keyes explain that his political career is metaphorically similar to an abortion, I will remind you that this is the same man who has disowned his own daughter because she happens to be gay. In his own words, even though he "procreated" her in a "joyful and ecstatic moment" during which he "invited" her into the world, he has exterminated her from his life. Isn't that also the equivalent of aborting his child?
You see, in the end, I believe that voters have been able to see that much of the rhetoric proffered by the GOP is simply a mishmash of inconsistencies and incoherent arguments that lack reasonability and rationality. So the next time someone asks you what you think is wrong with the GOP, suggest that they have become, as Alan Keyes believes, the political equivalency of an abortion...they invite people into their world and then they stab them in the back...metaphorically, of course.
Democrat Travis Childers won Tuesday's Mississippi special election runoff for Sen. Roger Wicker's ® former House seat, handing Democrats the biggest of their three special election takeovers this cycle and sending a listless GOP further into a state of disarray.
Childers led GOP candidate Greg Davis 53-47 with more than 90 percent of precincts reporting. Turnout increased substantially over the 67,000 voters who cast ballots in the April 22 open special election, with more than 100,000 voting in the runoff.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), issued a somber and self-reflective statement following the loss, saying Republicans were "disappointed" and that they need to prepare to run against Democrats campaigning as conservatives.
Cole added that "the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward-looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our presidential nominee, but time is short."
Now I understand that Rep. Cole has to respond to the defeat and I'm sure it's difficult to craft a palatable rationale. Regardless, it's hard to imagine the words "forward-looking agenda" and GOP in the same sentence.
After all, they have John McCain, a supposedly kinder, gentler version of George W. Bush, running as their presidential nominee...and he bills himself as the man who intends to keep his predecessor's endless war racing full steam ahead. If that's their notion of a forward-looking agenda, they might as well pull out the "mission accomplished" banners and see if they're more effective the second time around.
The GOP also faces a campaign cash disadvantage that leaves them in a position they haven't experienced in modern times. This, coupled with a disenchanted electorate, provides the Democrats with an arsenal of weapons that is both formidable and foreboding.
Both national party House committees plugged more than $1 million into the race, and spending by the candidates and outside groups like GOP-backing Freedom's Watch pushed the race over $5 million total.
The NRCC's investment was particularly painful given its stark cash disadvantage with less than six months to go until the November election.
The NRCC had just $7.2 million in the bank as of March 31. It spent $1.3 million in Mississippi.
Notwithstanding, it's too early for the Democrats to let down their guard or uncork the champaign. While there is reason to be hopeful that the party will take back the White House and increase their majorities in the House and the Senate, a lot can still happen between now and November.
Needless to say, I suspect the GOP may be contacting Nancy Reagan's astrologist in hopes of having something to look forward too. Hey, perhaps astrology could be the cornerstone of their forward-looking agenda? Nah, come to think of it, the first Bush already tried selling "A thousand points of light".
It was bound to happen. Despite the president's numerous statements that he doesn't want to wade into the 2008 election, his remarks today not only signal that he's reneged; they reflect his intention to employ the same tactic that he and the GOP used so successfully in the run up to the 2004 election. If you haven't already guessed, let's just say that it's time to scare the bejeebers out of the voters by raising the prospect of a terrorist attack should the Democrats prevail in November.
WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday he was disappointed in "flawed intelligence" before the Iraq war and was concerned that if a Democrat wins the presidency in November and withdrew troops prematurely it could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States."
He acknowledged concerns about leaving the unfinished Iraq war to a Democratic successor. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have said they will bring troops home if elected.
Bush said his "doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States."
This ominous message of potential doom comes from the same man who stood on an aircraft carrier nearly five years ago and declared "Mission Accomplished". I don't know about anyone else, but I'm still trying to figure out which George Bush we're supposed to believe...the one who thought the war in Iraq was a cake walk or the one who thinks the bogeyman is lurking around every corner.
Since I love metaphors, it's worth noting that the president's daughter was married at the family ranch in Texas over the weekend. While I wish her well in her marriage, unfortunately I can't say that America's eight year relationship with George W. Bush was all that successful. As is often stated when speaking about a troubled marriage, the honeymoon has been over for quite some time. I for one can't wait to part ways.
While John McCain has chosen to avoid a repudiation of Pastor Hagee's endorsement of the presumed GOP nominee, it appears that the damage control has commenced. Today, Hagee issued a written apology to Catholics and the apology was accepted by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Ahh, yes...a marriage made in heaven...isn't that wonderful?
Like many evangelical pastors, John Hagee is no stranger to controversial statements. With his endorsement of the Arizona Senator, many of the remarks attributed to Hagee have resurfaced...and they are every bit as incendiary as the words that were spoken by Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright...though they haven't garnered near the attention. In the following video clip, Hagee is seen calling the Catholic Church "The Great Whore".
Not to fear. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and none may be stranger than Hagee and Donohue. Take a look at today's exchange of pleasantries.
"Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful," Hagee wrote, according to an advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire. "After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism."
In the letter, addressed to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and one of Hagee's biggest critics, Hagee pledges "a greater level of compassion and respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ."
Hagee's letter explains some of the harsh words he has used when describing the Catholic Church. "I better understand that reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the 'apostate church' and the 'great whore' described in the book of Revelation" -- both terms Hagee has employed -- "is a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary," he wrote.
Donohue, in a response to Hagee's letter, accepted his apology. "The tone of Hagee's letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed," Donohue wrote.
Hagee is also known for his derogatory remarks directed towards gays...particularly his assertion that Katrina was simply a matter of God punishing the people of New Orleans. Hagee argued that the upcoming gay pride parade led to the devastating hurricane. His statement in that regard follows.
All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they 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 there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would 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. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
Hagee, subsequent to endorsing McCain, sought to step back from his comments by issuing the following statement.
"As a believing Christian, I see the hand of God in everything that happens here on earth, both the blessings and the curses. But ultimately neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise. No matter what the cause of the storm, my heart goes out to all who suffered in this terrible tragedy. There but for the grace of God go any one of us."
Unfortunately, according to the Dallas Morning News, the seeming retraction apparently left a bad taste in the pastor's mouth and that led him to offer the following response to a caller, who asked during a radio appearance, why the pastor had backed away from his comments in the face of criticism.
Hagee said he hadn't. As for the Katrina, he said, God controls hurricanes and "God always punishes unconfessed sin."
Now there seems to have been some confusion at the time. While Hagee was attributing Katrina to the gay pride parade, one of his fellow evangelists, Pat Robertson, was speculating that God was angry because Ellen Degeneres, a lesbian originally from New Orleans, had been chosen to host the upcoming Emmy Awards.
As it turned out, despite all of these revelations and proclamations, the French Quarter, the epicenter of gay life in New Orleans, weathered the storm with minimal damage. Since we know that God controls all natural disasters, I guess we're left to conclude that the good Lord had an off day and simply misfired, leaving the gays unpunished and free to plan the next years parade.
Unfortunately, I had my phone turned off so I missed my own call from the Almighty - otherwise I might have been able to report my own communications and clear up any of the confusion that remains.
So where does this leave us? Well, I can't help but see politics as a numbers game. As such, it's far more important to make nice with the Catholics than with the LGBT community, since the Catholics comprise a larger voting block and they are certainly more closely aligned with the positions of the GOP than the gays and the Democrats. Besides, demonizing gays has always been an effective weapon in the arsenal of people of faith.
That brings me to the protection of marriage...one of the quintessential issues for Christians. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that today's events demonstrate that even a marriage of convenience trumps a same-sex marriage. Therefore, it is far easier for evangelicals and Catholics to kiss and make up, under the umbrella of the GOP, than it would be for any of them to alter their stance on portraying gays and gay marriage as the source of all that ails society.
The funny thing is...I've always thought that Christians frowned upon acts of prostitution...and engaging in a menage a trois. Little did I know that God would rather bless the union of three trick-turners than the loving relationships of two homos. It just goes to show that politics and prostitution have a lot in common...and if you think about it...they have maintained a long standing and fruitful connection. After all, isn't staying together through thick and thin...while procreating more of the same...what marriage is supposed to be about?
With this newfound awareness, I know you'll understand my need to excuse myself...I've got to go confess my sins...I just can't bear to be the one with the sullied soul who causes the next calamity.
I don't really know that much about Gnarls Barkley outside of their hit song Crazy from a couple years back. Going On is from their new album The Odd Couple. I came across the music video for the song by chance and found it to be a refreshing deviation from what we would typically expect to see.
As I understand it, the video was filmed in Jamaica. BoingBoing summed it up with the following.
John Paul sez, "My sister Wendy went to Jamaica to make a music video for Gnarls Barkley. I've always found it fascinating how she listens to songs and just fantasizes about what imagery or story goes with the music, and then struggles to make the video happen in an incredibly short time frame and on a tight budget. This video is maybe her finest. The imagery comes out of her head, partly inspired by a trip we made to Africa, partly inspired by Jamaican dance hall glory.
While the song has an upbeat tempo, the story told in the song is much darker and deeper and perhaps that's what makes the combination of the minimalist video format with the traditional energetic dancers all the more intriguing. The videos coloration is muted except for the occasional yellow text...all of which is likely intended to allow the subtle though obvious symbolism to emerge...and does it ever!
Note that the video opens with a scene reminiscent of The Last Supper and proceeds to incorporate the use of a door as a representation of the cross that Jesus carried. Along the way, most of the "followers" drop off leaving only the protagonist and one woman to complete the journey. Once the door (cross) is put in place and opened, we see the woman toss a rock through the opening as if to represent Thomas, the doubting follower. As the rock passes through the door, a kaleidoscope of color (heaven) appears after which the man (Jesus) jumps through the doorway...soon followed by the woman.
I've included the lyrics below so readers can sync the imagery with the words. Oh, by the way, I really like the sound and the song as well. Let me know what you think.
Going On
I've seen it with my own eyes
How we're gettin' otherwise
Without the luxury of leavin'
The touch and feeling of breath
And times you're both technically
Something you've got to believe in
Connect the cause and effect
One foot in front of the next
This is the start of a journey.
And my rhyme is already gone
Somehow this doesn't concern me.
And you can stand right there if you want
But I'm going on
And I'm prepared to go it alone
I'm going on
To a place in the sun that's nice and warm
I'm going on
And I'm sure they'll have a place for you to oohoohooo
Anyone that needs what they want, and doesn't want what they need
I want nothing to do with
And to do what I want
And to do what I please
Is first vual my to do list
But every once in a while I think about her smile
One of the few things I do miss
But baby I've to go
Baby I've got to know
Baby I've got to prove it
And I'll see you when you get there
But I'm going on
And I'm prepared to go it alone
I'm going on
May my love lift you up to the place you belong
I'm going on
And I promise I'll be waiting for you oohoohooo
Freedom is
Still I try I never know what to do
Don't follow me...
Jonny McGovern is one of the cast members of Logo's The Big Gay Sketch. The show features a number of comedy skits that focus on all things LGBT. McGovern is a stand-up comic who often plays a character called The Gay Pimp.
In the following video, The Gay Pimp shares his latest creation, a music video for the song, Don't Fall In Love With A Homo...an ode to straight women who might be tempted to fall for their male gay friends. McGovern and friends want straight women to know that doing so is a recipe for disappointment. They also want them to know that there are plenty of lesbians who would be happy to oblige their need for amorous adventure. Needless to say, all of this is an ideal subject for a tongue-in-cheek video.
I think it's pretty funny but I'll offer a word of caution that it contains adult language that some may find offensive.
In this episode of The Onion News, the network takes a look at the Gap's new clothing line...the one that is made by kids for kids. Nothing like American children being able to wear the right tags...even if those tags are sewn on by children in sweat shops.
After all, isn't that why we Americans are the envy of the world...what with giving our children generous allowances to buy the products they need instead of having to sell them into virtual slavery to make those products.
Yes, without capitalism, what would parents in third world countries do with their children? Thank goodness we provide the demand that allows them to be productive individuals. Otherwise, they might spend their time playing video games, participating in club sports, and trying to one up the neighbor's children by wearing the latest fashions.
Now if we can only get these same foreign children trained in providing first rate customer support for American companies that have been "forced" to hire adults in third world countries. Thank goodness these folks are willing to do the jobs that Americans won't do.
It certainly makes one feel good to know that we're continuing our efforts to prove our unyielding commitment to assisting the underprivileged people of the world...at a significant profit to U.S. corporations, of course!
The gall of the religious right never ceases to amaze. Time and again, they demonstrate that hypocrisy is an essential element of their ideology. While many of these zealots frequently demonstrate their willingness to preach one thing and do another, their latest endeavor seems determined to take it to a whole new level.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal advocate for the right wing, is calling on churches to voice their positions on political candidates en masse on September 28th in order to create the grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the current tax code. As it now stands, the IRS guidelines prohibit churches from directly endorsing or rejecting political candidates in order to maintain their tax exempt status. The ADF wants to overturn the provision on the grounds that it circumvents their First Amendment rights and is therefore unconstitutional.
The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., will ask the clergy to deliver a sermon about specific candidates Sept. 28. If the action triggers an IRS investigation, the legal group will sue to overturn the federal rules, which were enacted in 1954.
Under the IRS code, churches can distribute voter guides, run voter registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak at their congregations.
However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly.
The Alliance Defense Fund said Friday that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional limit on free speech and government intrusion into religion.
"Churches have for too long feared the loss of tax exempt status arising from speech in the pulpit addressing candidates for office," the ADF's white paper on the campaign confirmed. "Rather than risk confrontation, pastors have self-censored their speech, ignoring blatant immorality in government and foregoing the opportunities to praise moral government leaders.
"ADF believes that IRS restrictions on religious expression from the pulpit, whenever the IRS characterizes it as 'political,' is unconstitutional. After 50 years of threats and intimidation, churches should confront the IRS directly and reclaim the expressive rights guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution," the group said.
"The intimidation of churches by leftist groups using the IRS has grown to a point that ADF has no choice but to respond," said Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the ADF. "The number of threats being reported to ADF is growing because of the aggressive campaign to unlawfully silence the church.
Where to begin. First, I doubt the courts would rule in favor of the ADF since churches have always had the option to forego their tax exempt status. The bottom line - they elect their tax status knowing the conditions. I personally believe they shouldn't be tax exempt and it wouldn't surprise me if this misguided effort opens the door to discussing that possibility.
Beyond that, the dividing line between church and state is a complex matter that has been addressed numerous times by the courts. I suspect that the ADF believes that the shift to the right in the Supreme Court under the Bush administration may be to their benefit. Regardless, there is ample precedent that would need to be ignored in order for ADF to prevail.
Setting aside the legal argument, I want to focus on some of the inconsistent positions that emanate from the religious right...positions that lead me and many others to decry their penchant for hypocrisy. Two issues jump off the page.
The first is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush and his supporters have argued that the government shouldn't provide funding for such research. The rationale for their objections is predicated upon ethical concerns that have their origin in religious doctrine. At the same time, he and those who support the ban on federal funding loudly note that they aren't preventing state and private funding for this research.
Hence the inconsistency is revealed. On the one hand, the religious right believes that it is appropriate for the president to deny funding for research that could assist numerous Americans that have no religious objections to the use of embryonic stem cells. They argue that those in favor of doing so can still conduct the research...just without the endorsement (funding) of the federal government. In other words, no one's rights are being denied so long as the research is allowed to proceed. If you favor it, fund it privately...but your federal government isn't going to use your money to do so.
On the other hand, those who endorse the logic in the above argument believe the federal government shouldn't be allowed to prohibit churches from engaging in partisan politicking in exchange for granting them an exemption from taxation. Where does that leave us? Well, it says that these individuals want the government to forego funding research that conflicts with their religious beliefs while also allowing them to use the pulpits of the churches they support to influence the outcome of elections...without those churches ever being required to pay taxation. If that isn't wanting to have it both ways, what is?
Contrast that with the secular citizen who pays taxes and wants the government to fund research that might save lives and one begins to see the absurdity of the system these religious demagogues favor. Truth be told, many of these religious organizations have already established "arms length" political entities that circumvent the IRS codes. Anyone who doubts their aspirations for the establishment of a theocracy ought to think again. The ADF directive is simply the next step in a well-crafted agenda.
The second item that illuminates the inconsistency in the rationale of the religious right is gay marriage. Proponents of measures to ban same-sex marriages contend that same-sex couples can achieve many of the same benefits that are afforded to married couples by utilizing the appropriate legal documentation. Of course they fail to mention that the lion's share of benefits cannot be achieved through any means...especially those that relate to taxation.
At the same time, they argue that the preservation of the institution of marriage and it's religious connotations is reasonable so long as the government isn't preventing gays from forming the relationships they choose. In other words, it's reasonable to restrict marriage to one man and one woman so long as the government allows gays to form the relationships they choose. The bottom line message to gays - you elect your tax status knowing the conditions.
When gays assert that this is an unfair system, the religious right is the first to cite those objections as evidence of the militant homosexual agenda and the desire of gays to force society to accept and embrace their alternative lifestyle.
Again, we begin to see the inconsistency. On the one hand, the religious right argues that the government has no obligation to recognize same-sex unions...and those who enter into them do so knowing the precedent conditions. You want a gay spouse, you don't benefit from the advantageous tax status afforded to recognized marriages. On the other hand, they want the government to recognize religious doctrine when determining whose marriages will receive beneficial treatment while also wanting their churches to receive preferential tax status absent conditions...conditions that are simply intended to uphold the separation of church and state.
Similar arguments can be made with regards to the religious right's positions on a number of issues. This includes a woman's right to have an abortion and the rights of an individual or their family members to make end of life decisions. Time and again, the religious right seeks to insert and impose their beliefs on those who do not share them while simultaneously asking the government to adopt a laissez-faire mentality with regards to monitoring the separation of church and state.
I find it amusing that those who routinely point out that the spiritual realm supersedes all else spend so much of their time in the pursuit of all things political and material. Then again, the newly emerging prosperity theology suggests that the attainment of success (wealth and worldly measures) is undoubtedly evidence that one is appropriately aligned with the Lord.
Silly me...why on earth would I conclude that any of the above positions are hypocritical. I just pray that God will help me abandon rational and reasoned thought in favor of the fabrications that come with faith. I need to accept that the teachings of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with today's Christianity. Come to think of it, maybe that's the reason the religious right insists that everyone has to be born again.
In the following video clip from The Daily Show, Lewis Black shares his skepticism regarding the recently authorized stimulus checks that are intended to jump start our stalled economy. Needless to say, Black has some choice words for a program that he views as a waste of taxpayer money that he can endorse...as opposed to the endless war in Iraq.
Black laments that the government has skimped on the allowance for children...stating that he can get easily get more than $300 dollars for them on the black market. He's also of the opinion that consumers will spend their windfall on the same junk that has led us into this mess. Black closes by telling us he's spending his $600 dollars on lottery tickets.
OK, forgive my disdain for the content of the video below, but how does the story of a 41 year old woman whose pregnant with her eighteenth child merit being a Mother's Day story on The Today Show? When did we reduce motherhood to a quantitative measurement? I'm sorry, but I just don't equate the number of children one births with the determination that a woman is a super mom. In fact, on virtually every imaginable metric, I find the choice to have eighteen children to be an example of short-sighted and self-centered aggrandizement.
The fact that this family believes that God is deciding how many children they will have only makes recognizing them on Mother's Day all the more misguided. Yes, they're entitled to their faith and to have all the children they want, but presenting that election as evidence of selfless devotion seems to ignore the obvious. Perhaps being the poster family for Christian values is a noble pursuit, but I fail to see how it is in the best interest of the mother's health, the children's well-being, or the world's already limited resources.
Having eighteen children also strikes me as a demonstration of faith that Jesus would have viewed with skepticism. In my estimation, he would have chosen the obscure single mother...who is raising a disabled child and struggling each day to make ends meet...as representative of maternal sincerity and sacrifice.
I never understood Jesus to be interested in those who sought the center stage to announce the fact that they were engaged in empathic endeavors. In fact, I think Jesus instructed that acts of sacrifice would, by their nature, provide all the reward one would ever need. Further, I believe Jesus thought that those who imagine the rewards before commencing to act weren't actually making a sacrifice and didn't deserve any of the recognition.
Look, the Duggar's may well be wonderful people, but in the end, I suspect this family's choice isn't properly motivated nor is it representative of the sacrifice that we should associate with motherhood. In our me first, top of the heap, number one or nothing chain letter society, this looks to be another example of the thinking that underlies our pyramid scheme psychosis...a pathetic pathology that values victory and despises defeat while routinely diminishing and discarding our humanity. It is the one characteristic we should cherish...the one thing we all share equally...and the first thing we set aside in our race to capture and claim the perceived pinnacle.
I don't know how many children the Duggar's will end up with...but I'm willing to concede that they win the award for churning out more children than most would ever consider. I'll also stipulate that their God is aware of their willingness to bear as many children as Mrs. Duggar's body can endure.
Beyond that, I'm not willing to conclude that having eighteen children makes Mr. & Mrs. Duggar exemplary parents, conscientious Christians, or honorable humans. The skeptic in me says their actions betray their intentions. If I'm right, they may have won the battle but lost the war. At least they have enough children to build their own perfect pyramid.
If you've never seen Pam Ann perform, you don't know what you're missing. I first saw her on a cruise a few years back and thought she was hysterical. The following videos give the viewer a sense of her...
I remember when Richard Carmona was appointed as the U.S. Surgeon General by George W. Bush. At the time, it was uncertain as to his actual ideological leanings though he seemed to be a thoughtful individual. As it turned...
I don't generally watch Glenn Beck nor do I usually find his observations to be palatable. The following video is a notable exception. In this clip, Beck discusses the impact of $200 a barrel oil with Byron King, an...
With the passage of the Patriot Act, the potential for the government to abuse its newfound authority to snoop on its citizens was expanded. Unfortunately, along with that expansion came the ability to prevent those who contest such inquiries...and...
Don't be fooled by the religious right's assertion that they simply want to protect marriage and the family. Implicit in their efforts to pass legislation and constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage is an intention to slam the door...
This is priceless. The following video is apparently a legitimate advertisement for men seeking to overcome their homosexuality. The fact that it is filled with homoeroticism only reinforces my belief that many of these men are tortured Christians with...
The following series of videos comprise the 48 Hours special title The Lord's Boot Camp. Much like the previous documentary, Jesus Camp, the piece chronicles a group of teen aged children; including their attendance at a Christian boot camp...
We've all heard about the images of Jesus, Mary, or some other godly persons face being found in the strangest of places...whether it be on a pancake, a potato chip, a section of tree bark, or the reflection on...
