I haven't done a random thoughts in a while and since there's quite a bit going on, I thought I'd give it a go.
1. Must be election time again
Remember the color codes? Yellow for be on edge. Orange for start to panic. Red for duck and cover, etc. We have fortunately left this little exercise in maintaining power by scaring the shit out of the populace behind. Or have we?
As the election nears, suddenly terror attacks are all the rage. It seems every week we hear reports of one attack or another broken up by law enforcement just in the nick of time. In the past few months we have heard about terrorists with guns and bombs in Washington, blowing up bridges in Cincinnati, and the latest version of the underwear bomb (this one fits into briefs instead of boxers). Add to this the stories about would-be terrorists hiding bombs inside their body and in pets on airplanes and you would think that we were under high alert all the time.
Of course what all these "attacks" have in common is they all involve either informants or undercover agents for the FBI or CIA. I'm starting to think that if it wasn't for these agencies, Al Qaeda may not be active at all.
This isn't anything new, of course. Once again, the Obama administration is taking a page from GWB when it comes to foreign policy. In 2004, I fully expected a "red" warning in the weeks running up to election. Of course they didn't need to because Bin Laden did the work for them by releasing an ominous video just before the election which served the administration's purposes just fine.
Ever since 9/11, we have looked for real leadership in this nation. Instead of leaders we keep having charlatans selling us security in exchange for our rights. In 2008, we thought we were getting an FDR. But instead of "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," we got another dose of "The only thing we have is fear."
2. Stop!
There are a lot of reasons to criticize Mitt Romney. If you don't feel you have enough, wait minute and he'll say something to add to your cache.
But there is one thing that I am hearing more and more commentators on the left using and that is attacking his faith. STOP! We're better than this, people. There is absolutely no reason to make Mittens's Mormonism an issue in this race and the more it is done, the more it is going to give rise to a backlash against the left.
Let the right turn themselves into pretzels over their own discomfort with Romney's religion. We simply do not need to engage in this type of outrageous bigotry.
3. A Winning Strategy
Amid all of the bluster and non-issues that are being portrayed in the media's coverage of the presidential election, there is one issue out there that almost no one is talking about. It also just happens to be an issue that is ripe for the picking for the President's reelection team.
One thing has been constant in every election across the world so far this year and that has been the people's rejection of austerity in favor of economic policies focusing on growth and jobs. This election should be about the same thing.
It is clear that the Romney camp is a fan of austerity measures. This will become abundantly clear if he picks someone like Paul Ryan, the biggest proponent of such measures, as his VP pick. They are promoting economic measures which focus on slashing government spending and programs, raising taxes on the poor and middle class, and cutting taxes for the wealthy. It doesn't seem to matter that these policies have never worked anywhere and are currently throwing the UK and most of Europe back into recession.
In his first term, Obama has been all too eager to give into neo-Liberal economic policies and focus ostensibly on deficit reduction rather than job creation. So it is quite possible that he won't be willing to go all in against these austerity measures like he should.
We know from his first campaign that Obama is a master at populist rhetoric even if he isn't willing to follow through with populist policies once elected. He could pull this off and if he and the Democratic party ride the wave of anti-austerity opinion, they could end up taking back the house as well.
Of course whether he and the rest of the democrats would follow through on this once elected remains to be seen and past performance does not leave me feeling optimistic.
4. Silver Lining of the Week
I'm trying to be more of an optimist. So, rather than ranting and raving about what an absolute idiot Jamie Dimon is, or how evil he is, or how his head should be chopped off, I will look on the bright side of his bank's $2 Billion loss on a wild bet from a division which was supposed to be helping the bank avoid losses.
On the bright side, at least this guarantees that he won't be Obama's treasury secretary in a second term. See, there's hope for the economy yet.
5. My Cheap Unfunny Pundit Schtick
I've noticed that in order to be accepted in the pantheon of punditry that you have to have a rhetorical gimmick that you and your fans think is hilarious but in reality is pretty unfunny. You also have to use it ad nauseum just so your base can yuck it up as much as possible while getting maximum eye roll from everyone else. An example would be Sarah Palin's "lame stream media". There's another right wing asshole whose name I can't remember who always says "New York Slimes.". Funny stuff, right? I mean it must have taken you all of 10 seconds and the comedy sensibility of a 12 year-old to come up with those.
So, taking a cue from these pillars of political commentary, I've decided to join the fray. I've done it in the past a little by referring to Fox News as Fox Comedy (ok, I wasn't trying to be funny, I just didn't really think that they were really serious. I mean, c'mon, right?).
So, because I want to be accepted by this esteemed fraternity, I will from now on refer to Republicans as Banana Republicans and Democrats as Plutocrats. See, aren't I funny? I can hear your knees slapping already, right? I know!!!!
On second thought, perhaps I'll just stick to not trying to insult the intelligence of my audience, as small as you may be.
'Til next time...
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Cease and Desist
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOEL SCHWARTZ
May 10, 2012
Rev. Sean Harris
Berean Baptist Church
Fayetteville, NC
RE: Cease and desist
Dear Rev. Harris:
I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Jesus Christ. Yes, that Jesus Christ. The Big Kahuna, the Son of Man, your Lord and Savior, THE Jesus Christ.
It has come to my client's attention that you have been making certain statements and encouraging certain behaviors while invoking His name. Specifically, in a recent sermon, my client states that you encouraged your flock to crack the wrists of boys when they display effeminate behavior, then to punch said boys when they play with dolls. Furthermore, you then encouraged your congregation to make said boys dig a ditch because this is what boys do. You went on to state that when their daughters start acting butch they were to rein them in and make the walk, talk, dress, and smell like a girl. Again, I reiterate that this was all done in my client's name.
It goes without saying that my client is rather upset by your invoking of His name in order to encourage such un-Christlike behavior. Mr. Christ takes His name and reputation very seriously. By attributing this type of behavior to Him, you have harmed my client's reputation in His community and caused serious damage to Him.
We have no choice but to demand that you cease and desist from any further such invocation of my client's name thereby further damaging my client's reputation in the community. If you insist on continuing to invoke my client's name for such despicable behavior we will have no choice but to take action against you. My client has authorized to file suit against you for defamation of character, violation of my client's right of publicity, and for placing my client in a false light publicly. If this doesn't convince you, my client has invoked his rights as a Diety, wherein he can, well, just trust me, you don't want to go there (does the word "smite" mean anything to you?).
You are not alone in this. My client has retained me to send out quite a few of these letters to others in your position. I've been quite busy lately and this work now accounts for my entire practice. But, don't worry, my client has deep pockets. He's got more money than God. Well, actually, he has exactly as much money as God.
But, I digress. In summary, I expect that you will comply with my client's demands. Failure to do so will result in you hearing from me again, or you may just be hearing from my client directly.
Yours very truly,
Joel Schwartz, Esq.
May 10, 2012
Rev. Sean Harris
Berean Baptist Church
Fayetteville, NC
RE: Cease and desist
Dear Rev. Harris:
I am writing to you on behalf of my client, Jesus Christ. Yes, that Jesus Christ. The Big Kahuna, the Son of Man, your Lord and Savior, THE Jesus Christ.
It has come to my client's attention that you have been making certain statements and encouraging certain behaviors while invoking His name. Specifically, in a recent sermon, my client states that you encouraged your flock to crack the wrists of boys when they display effeminate behavior, then to punch said boys when they play with dolls. Furthermore, you then encouraged your congregation to make said boys dig a ditch because this is what boys do. You went on to state that when their daughters start acting butch they were to rein them in and make the walk, talk, dress, and smell like a girl. Again, I reiterate that this was all done in my client's name.
It goes without saying that my client is rather upset by your invoking of His name in order to encourage such un-Christlike behavior. Mr. Christ takes His name and reputation very seriously. By attributing this type of behavior to Him, you have harmed my client's reputation in His community and caused serious damage to Him.
We have no choice but to demand that you cease and desist from any further such invocation of my client's name thereby further damaging my client's reputation in the community. If you insist on continuing to invoke my client's name for such despicable behavior we will have no choice but to take action against you. My client has authorized to file suit against you for defamation of character, violation of my client's right of publicity, and for placing my client in a false light publicly. If this doesn't convince you, my client has invoked his rights as a Diety, wherein he can, well, just trust me, you don't want to go there (does the word "smite" mean anything to you?).
You are not alone in this. My client has retained me to send out quite a few of these letters to others in your position. I've been quite busy lately and this work now accounts for my entire practice. But, don't worry, my client has deep pockets. He's got more money than God. Well, actually, he has exactly as much money as God.
But, I digress. In summary, I expect that you will comply with my client's demands. Failure to do so will result in you hearing from me again, or you may just be hearing from my client directly.
Yours very truly,
Joel Schwartz, Esq.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Do North Carolina's Marriage Laws Violate Religious Freedom?
Jennifer and Renee met in college. They have maintained a monogamous relationship for many years, settled in the same city, have lived together and made a life together. They recently found a church in the city in North Carolina where they live which welcomed them as full members of their church and they have become active in their church's life. Recently, they decided that they wanted to solemnize their relationship and have their minister perform a wedding ceremony in their new church. They knew it was not legal for them to get married in North Carolina, but they wanted to have the ceremony nonetheless. They spoke with their minister and he had some hesitation. "You know, I can't perform a marriage ceremony without a marriage license and you can't get one of those in North Carolina," said the minister.
Undaunted, they went to their register of deeds and applied for a marriage license and were of course denied. They returned to their minister and after much thought and prayer, he decided that he would go ahead and perform the ceremony. "What harm could it do," he thought, "it's not a legal marriage, but I want you two to feel like you are full and equal members of our church community as we all consider you to be."
The ceremony was quite the event and even got coverage from the local media.
The next day, however, the minister found himself under arrest and facing a fine and possible imprisonment for performing the ceremony.
Sound far fetched? Well, under North Carolina law the above scenario appears to be quite possible.
And I'm not even talking about the wrong-headed and unnecessary constitutional amendment that the religious right came up with to try to spur turnout to the polls. I'm talking about the regular, old, run of the mill North Carolina statutes that cover the process that one has to go through to get married.
North Carolina's marriage laws are quite antiquated and painfully heterosexual. They are contained in Chapter 51 of the General Statutes.
According to North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) Chapter 51-1 the requisites for a marriage are as follows:
A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:
(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and
b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or
(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
So, let's look at that first statute a bit. We know that it's only for boys and girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls. You have to be serious (No Elvis impersonators here!). And the only persons who can perform a marriage are a magistrate, an ordained minister, or an Indian Chief. OK. Sounds fairly innocuous.
The next section 51-1.2 states that marriages between persons of the same gender (interesting use of the wrong term -- I think they meant sex), even if performed in other states, are not valid in North Carolina. You know, for those for whom that whole thing in the preceding section about being between a man and a woman wasn't clear.
Of course, if those two sections still weren't quite clear enough, the Amendment to the state constitution stating that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only yadda, yadda, yadda...OK, we get it. The State really doesn't like gay people. Enough, already! (Except of course, that a lot of us do, but that's beside the point).
It starts to get a little bit dicey, though when you look further down in the statutes. Section 51-6 states that a Solemnization without a license is unlawful. "No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solmnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant." OK, those of us who have read the constitution are starting to get a little uncomfortable now.
If that wasn't bad enough, the next section, 51-7, makes doing so a criminal offense. "Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
WHOA, NELLY!!!!!! HOOOOOOOOLD EVERYTHING RIGHT THERE, MISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says in its very first sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Usually government intrusions into religion arguably violate the first clause -- the establishment clause -- as they seem to be an attempt to write into law the beliefs of one religion at the expense of others. But North Carolina's marriage laws seem to violate the second clause -- the free exercise clause.
Many religions accept and celebrate gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered members and clergy. Three mainstream protestant religions in America, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA), now accept openly gay members and clergy. Along with this many Jewish congregations along with Unitarians and various other denominations recognize and accept gay members and celebrants. Along with this, in the States where it is legal, many of these religious congregations also perform same sex marriages as part of their beliefs.
But what if a minister of any of these, or any other religion wants to perform a ceremony for their members, even though it won't have any legal affect, simply because they want to celebrate and solemnize for their own religious purposes their members relationship, commitment and love for one another and recognize their relationship as being equal to the heterosexual members of their congregation and in the eyes of God as they believe? What right does the government have not only to tell a minister that he or she doesn't have the right to do this, but that if they do, they can go to jail and have a criminal record?
This certainly gives support to the Libertarian argument that the State has no business in marriage to begin with. They argue that marriages should be left to the realm of religion and not be a matter for the State at all. Of course, this would never happen because if it did, then same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere (which I would add would be fine for most Libertarians, the Paul family notwithstanding).
Look, I'm fine with the State of North Carolina saying that for a marriage to be recognized by the State and for the couples who want to have the legal protections that the State grants to married couples that they have to follow the statutes set forth (actually, I'm not fine with it, but I think they have a right to do so). But where I think North Carolina crosses the line is dictating to religious leaders how and to whom they can grant the blessings of their church, and in many, if not most religions, marriage is one of the major blessings that a church can bestow on its members. To deny this fundamental right to religions in our state, and even criminalize the performing of a ceremony outside of the dictates of the State, I believe is a clear violation of the prohibitions set forth in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I'd love to see this put to the test. It certainly would cause some consternation among the anti-gay citizens of our great state and that is always a good thing. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others on this subject and whether or not you agree with my analysis of this issue.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and discuss this.
Undaunted, they went to their register of deeds and applied for a marriage license and were of course denied. They returned to their minister and after much thought and prayer, he decided that he would go ahead and perform the ceremony. "What harm could it do," he thought, "it's not a legal marriage, but I want you two to feel like you are full and equal members of our church community as we all consider you to be."
The ceremony was quite the event and even got coverage from the local media.
The next day, however, the minister found himself under arrest and facing a fine and possible imprisonment for performing the ceremony.
Sound far fetched? Well, under North Carolina law the above scenario appears to be quite possible.
And I'm not even talking about the wrong-headed and unnecessary constitutional amendment that the religious right came up with to try to spur turnout to the polls. I'm talking about the regular, old, run of the mill North Carolina statutes that cover the process that one has to go through to get married.
North Carolina's marriage laws are quite antiquated and painfully heterosexual. They are contained in Chapter 51 of the General Statutes.
According to North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) Chapter 51-1 the requisites for a marriage are as follows:
A valid and sufficient marriage is created by the consent of a male and female person who may lawfully marry, presently to take each other as husband and wife, freely, seriously and plainly expressed by each in the presence of the other, either:
(1) a. In the presence of an ordained minister of any religious denomination, a minister authorized by a church, or a magistrate; and
b. With the consequent declaration by the minister or magistrate that the persons are husband and wife; or
(2) In accordance with any mode of solemnization recognized by any religious denomination, or federally or State recognized Indian Nation or Tribe.
So, let's look at that first statute a bit. We know that it's only for boys and girls, not boys and boys or girls and girls. You have to be serious (No Elvis impersonators here!). And the only persons who can perform a marriage are a magistrate, an ordained minister, or an Indian Chief. OK. Sounds fairly innocuous.
The next section 51-1.2 states that marriages between persons of the same gender (interesting use of the wrong term -- I think they meant sex), even if performed in other states, are not valid in North Carolina. You know, for those for whom that whole thing in the preceding section about being between a man and a woman wasn't clear.
Of course, if those two sections still weren't quite clear enough, the Amendment to the state constitution stating that a marriage between one man and one woman is the only yadda, yadda, yadda...OK, we get it. The State really doesn't like gay people. Enough, already! (Except of course, that a lot of us do, but that's beside the point).
It starts to get a little bit dicey, though when you look further down in the statutes. Section 51-6 states that a Solemnization without a license is unlawful. "No minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solmnize a marriage under the laws of this State shall perform a ceremony of marriage between a man and woman, or shall declare them to be husband and wife, until there is delivered to that person a license for the marriage of the said persons, signed by the register of deeds of the county in which the marriage license was issued or by a lawful deputy or assistant." OK, those of us who have read the constitution are starting to get a little uncomfortable now.
If that wasn't bad enough, the next section, 51-7, makes doing so a criminal offense. "Every minister, officer, or any other person authorized to solemnize a marriage under the laws of this State, who marries any couple without a license being first delivered to that person, as required by law, or after the expiration of such license, or who fails to return such license to the register of deeds within 10 days after any marriage celebrated by virtue thereof, with the certificate appended thereto duly filled up and signed, shall forfeit and pay two hundred dollars ($200.00) to any person who sues therefore, and shall also be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor."
WHOA, NELLY!!!!!! HOOOOOOOOLD EVERYTHING RIGHT THERE, MISTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution says in its very first sentence "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Usually government intrusions into religion arguably violate the first clause -- the establishment clause -- as they seem to be an attempt to write into law the beliefs of one religion at the expense of others. But North Carolina's marriage laws seem to violate the second clause -- the free exercise clause.
Many religions accept and celebrate gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgendered members and clergy. Three mainstream protestant religions in America, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, and the Presbyterian Church (USA), now accept openly gay members and clergy. Along with this many Jewish congregations along with Unitarians and various other denominations recognize and accept gay members and celebrants. Along with this, in the States where it is legal, many of these religious congregations also perform same sex marriages as part of their beliefs.
But what if a minister of any of these, or any other religion wants to perform a ceremony for their members, even though it won't have any legal affect, simply because they want to celebrate and solemnize for their own religious purposes their members relationship, commitment and love for one another and recognize their relationship as being equal to the heterosexual members of their congregation and in the eyes of God as they believe? What right does the government have not only to tell a minister that he or she doesn't have the right to do this, but that if they do, they can go to jail and have a criminal record?
This certainly gives support to the Libertarian argument that the State has no business in marriage to begin with. They argue that marriages should be left to the realm of religion and not be a matter for the State at all. Of course, this would never happen because if it did, then same-sex marriage would be legal everywhere (which I would add would be fine for most Libertarians, the Paul family notwithstanding).
Look, I'm fine with the State of North Carolina saying that for a marriage to be recognized by the State and for the couples who want to have the legal protections that the State grants to married couples that they have to follow the statutes set forth (actually, I'm not fine with it, but I think they have a right to do so). But where I think North Carolina crosses the line is dictating to religious leaders how and to whom they can grant the blessings of their church, and in many, if not most religions, marriage is one of the major blessings that a church can bestow on its members. To deny this fundamental right to religions in our state, and even criminalize the performing of a ceremony outside of the dictates of the State, I believe is a clear violation of the prohibitions set forth in the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
I'd love to see this put to the test. It certainly would cause some consternation among the anti-gay citizens of our great state and that is always a good thing. I'd love to hear the thoughts of others on this subject and whether or not you agree with my analysis of this issue.
Thanks again for taking the time to read and discuss this.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
My Journey of Faith
Ronald Reagan famously said when asked why he switched parties, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me." That sentiment aptly describes some of my feelings about the Catholic Church, a church in which I was baptized, raised, confirmed and married. It is a church which provided me with the moral background which has guided me throughout my life, gave me a first rate education throughout elementary and high school, and kept taking me back time and again when I would leave it and then eventually be drawn back for various reasons. It is also the church to which I find myself no longer able to call myself a member because I simply can no longer justify the divergences in our philosophies and beliefs.
My religious journey has been one which has been as heart wrenching as it has been joyful, as agonizing as it has been rewarding. I share it with you here not to convince you of any particular belief is "correct" as there is no such thing as far as I can see or to criticize any particular belief. I share it simply to help me make some sense of everything that has happened so far and perhaps to seek understanding both in myself and in others.
I was blessed to be raised in a parish outside of Syracuse, NY that was led by an incredible priest who saw his duty as not only spreading the word of God, but leading his congregation to live God's word by seeking justice in our community and in the world. Fr. Tom McLaughlin was not your ordinary priest. An Irish Catholic priest who preached more like a black Baptist minister, it was not surprising that he said that the closest he ever felt to his faith was when he marched with Martin Luther King in Selma, Alabama. Fr. Tom was nowhere near traditional and he at times ignored the dictates of the bishops, especially when those dictates tried to bring particular political issues into the pulpit. But where other parishes were closing or having to consolidate, we had to build a bigger church because parishioners were standing outside the doors of our small church at all three Masses on Sunday.
I loved my church. Not just my parish, but the church as a whole. I saw the Catholic Church as one that welcomed all people. One that stood for justice in our society and was a church of love and inclusion.
As I grew older, as with many young adults I grew away from the church. Like many people gaining new knowledge and insight, inevitably there are conflicts and often those conflicts lead to contempt. Church grew less and less important to me. I questioned my faith. I looked at other religions taking bits of truth where I found them.
For years I drifted, short on faith, rarely attending church. When I lived in the DC area, there was a Catholic church literally across the parking lot from my apartment. But I think I attended mass there twice, both when my then girlfriend who was a little less conflicted with her faith was visiting me.
Still, whenever I would move to a new community, the first thing I would do would be to find the nearest Catholic Church. Some of it was a sense of obligation, some of it was a sense of finding a social circle with similar backgrounds - a sort of tether on which to secure myself. But ultimately the doubts would get the best of me and I would fall back into my drift.
The next big step in my journey would involve a relationship which would eventually become my first marriage. She was raised Presbyterian and I would attend with her and her family most weekends. This was the first church in which I saw a woman leading worship as the interim associate minister at the time was a woman. I enjoyed my time at that church and although I couldn't quite buy the whole predestination thing, I did find the community welcoming. We were eventually married in that church (complete with kilt and bagpipes) but at our new home together we went back to our drifting ways.
It wasn't until the shock of 9/11 and the following week long coverage of the subsequent outpouring of bereavement and mourning that I returned to church. I followed the tragedy of Fr. Mychal Judge's death as he was ministering to his beloved firemen. I watched his funeral Mass as well as the funeral Mass of Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson. The latter Mass was held at the very church in Arlington, VA that I had attended on those couple of occasions, across the parking lot from my apartment. We felt we needed to attend a service that Sunday, but I made the request that we go to the Catholic church because I wanted something with which I was familiar.
After that, I started attending Mass regularly. As my marriage deteriorated for reasons having little to do with faith, my devotion to the faith in which I was raised became stronger. I found myself praying regularly seeking guidance (something very rare for me). I purchased a Bible and read the passages listed in the church bulletin daily. After we separated, I started a relationship with a Catholic woman who like myself had a somewhat rocky relationship with her faith. We attended church together regularly. That relationship eventually ran its course, and I met the woman who would become my wife and true partner in life. She, too, was Catholic and our shared faith helped cement our relationship. I had my first marriage annulled by the Catholic church and Celena and I exchanged our vows during a full wedding Mass on May 14, 2005.
So why is it, after all that the faith that raised me, formed me, and has played such a major role in my life have I at the age of 41 found myself leaving the Catholic church for another? Well, for the most part it comes down to finding the Catholic church to have become more dogmatic, more exclusive, and simply less accepting of any kind of debate among its ranks. It is hard to have a conversation when one side stops listening.
There are several examples in just the past weeks that illustrate my disenchantment with Catholicism. In the news in the past weeks were the Vatican's very serious rebuke and investigation into American nuns who were apparently focusing too much on social justice and ministering to the sick and poor and less time on dogmatic political ideas; the Catholic League (which let's face it with one dude with an Internet connection and a Rolodex of media contacts) calling for a boycott of the Daily Show because he made fun of the nonexistent War on Christmas; and a bishop in the Midwest who likened President Obama to both Hitler and Stalin during a sermon. The church which was once so welcoming was becoming increasingly dogmatic and intolerant of diverging views.
Unfortunately, the joy which I once found in my religion had been replaced by an increasing despair. Furthermore, I worried about my daughter and what she would face in the future if this trend continues as I expect it to. I did not want her to be raised in a church in which she would be seen as less than equal as anyone else and I did not want her to be not accepted or even worse to become intolerant of others who may be different from her.
But I don't mean for this to be a diatribe about the Catholic church. I have many friends and family who have found great faith and solace in the Catholic church. I will be forever grateful for the support the church gave me and my family during the ordeal of my mother's recent death. The church has a lot of good in it and for those who continue to find comfort and good in it, I have nothing but respect and well wishes.
You see, this is not a journey of loss, but a triumph of rediscovery of a faith which I thought dead and gone. It is a story of joy overcoming sadness and despair. It is a story of rebirth in which I rediscovered the tremendous love that faith in Christ brings.
There are three instances in which I can pinpoint in which I truly felt myself filled with the Holy Spirit. The first was the weekend of my confirmation (my parish obviously did a pretty good job on that one). The second was during the lowest period of my divorce when I was living in an efficiency apartment with a Murphy bed and awoke one morning to pouring rain, near freezing temperatures and could only think to myself "What a beautiful day". The third was the first Sunday I attended Mass at the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Shelby, NC (and for that matter every Sunday since on which I have attended).
What I experienced in my attendance at Redeemer was a reawakening of my faith. My experiences with what I perceived to be an ever shrinking and exclusionary Catholic church left me doubting the beliefs with which I had grown and even doubting my belief in God. I felt that there was something wrong with me since I was constantly told that the beliefs I knew in my heart to be true were wrong.
My wife and I sought out a place in which we could raise our daughter in a religious tradition. We valued the morals that our Catholic upbringing instilled in us, but we had stopped attending Mass at our local church due to severe disagreements we had with the current pastor of that parish. We had tried other parishes in neighboring communities, but none seemed to be a good fit and were a significant distance from us as well.
I first was drawn to Redeemer after reading that they were hosting a discussion against North Carolina's Amendment One which would enshrine in the state's constitution discrimination against gays and lesbians as well as harming any number of other domestic relationships.
Although I had for years advocated for LGBT rights and have had many close friends who are gay, I had been raised in a religious tradition which shunned and condemned gays and lesbians and treated them as a form of evil. I often wondered why so many of my gay friends identified themselves as Christian as the two things seemed mutually exclusive to me based on my religious background and tradition. Of course, as was made clear to me upon attending my new church, the reason they identify as Christian is because God's love encompasses all of us in all of our individual selves as important and valued members of His family and celebrates our humanness fully and openly.
I soon realized that it wasn't the message, but the delivery system that had alienated me. My faith with which I had struggled my entire life was suddenly stronger than ever. I was filled with a sudden sense of joy. The dissonance that I felt for years sitting in the pews of the various Catholic parishes I attended was replaced by a sense of calm and peace, as the realization that I could at once be fully committed to my faith while at the same time holding the beliefs I have on social and political issues fully settled on me.
I am grateful to Mother Valori Sherer, Deacon Pam Bright and all of the wonderful members of my new church community for welcoming me and my family with open arms and making us feel welcome and for building such a loving and welcoming community of faith. Most of all, though I thank my very understanding and ever patient wife for making this journey with me even though it has been even more difficult for her and even though she is not where I am yet in her journey. I thank God for her courage and understanding throughout all of this.
This has been my journey of faith. Although it may end up somewhere different than yours, I hope everyone reading this can find the love, peace, and joy that I have found on my journey. Whether it is a journey of faith or of non-faith, of whatever denomination or religion, the truth is there to be revealed to you as it is meant for you to find it. The search can be painful and fraught with fear and desperation, but the result can be worth much more than all the hardships.
This journey has made me more confident in myself, closer with my wife and my daughter, better able to see Christ in all those with whom I come in contact daily, and more loving in everything I do.
Thanks be to God.
My religious journey has been one which has been as heart wrenching as it has been joyful, as agonizing as it has been rewarding. I share it with you here not to convince you of any particular belief is "correct" as there is no such thing as far as I can see or to criticize any particular belief. I share it simply to help me make some sense of everything that has happened so far and perhaps to seek understanding both in myself and in others.
I was blessed to be raised in a parish outside of Syracuse, NY that was led by an incredible priest who saw his duty as not only spreading the word of God, but leading his congregation to live God's word by seeking justice in our community and in the world. Fr. Tom McLaughlin was not your ordinary priest. An Irish Catholic priest who preached more like a black Baptist minister, it was not surprising that he said that the closest he ever felt to his faith was when he marched with Martin Luther King in Selma, Alabama. Fr. Tom was nowhere near traditional and he at times ignored the dictates of the bishops, especially when those dictates tried to bring particular political issues into the pulpit. But where other parishes were closing or having to consolidate, we had to build a bigger church because parishioners were standing outside the doors of our small church at all three Masses on Sunday.
I loved my church. Not just my parish, but the church as a whole. I saw the Catholic Church as one that welcomed all people. One that stood for justice in our society and was a church of love and inclusion.
As I grew older, as with many young adults I grew away from the church. Like many people gaining new knowledge and insight, inevitably there are conflicts and often those conflicts lead to contempt. Church grew less and less important to me. I questioned my faith. I looked at other religions taking bits of truth where I found them.
For years I drifted, short on faith, rarely attending church. When I lived in the DC area, there was a Catholic church literally across the parking lot from my apartment. But I think I attended mass there twice, both when my then girlfriend who was a little less conflicted with her faith was visiting me.
Still, whenever I would move to a new community, the first thing I would do would be to find the nearest Catholic Church. Some of it was a sense of obligation, some of it was a sense of finding a social circle with similar backgrounds - a sort of tether on which to secure myself. But ultimately the doubts would get the best of me and I would fall back into my drift.
The next big step in my journey would involve a relationship which would eventually become my first marriage. She was raised Presbyterian and I would attend with her and her family most weekends. This was the first church in which I saw a woman leading worship as the interim associate minister at the time was a woman. I enjoyed my time at that church and although I couldn't quite buy the whole predestination thing, I did find the community welcoming. We were eventually married in that church (complete with kilt and bagpipes) but at our new home together we went back to our drifting ways.
It wasn't until the shock of 9/11 and the following week long coverage of the subsequent outpouring of bereavement and mourning that I returned to church. I followed the tragedy of Fr. Mychal Judge's death as he was ministering to his beloved firemen. I watched his funeral Mass as well as the funeral Mass of Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and wife of Solicitor General Ted Olson. The latter Mass was held at the very church in Arlington, VA that I had attended on those couple of occasions, across the parking lot from my apartment. We felt we needed to attend a service that Sunday, but I made the request that we go to the Catholic church because I wanted something with which I was familiar.
After that, I started attending Mass regularly. As my marriage deteriorated for reasons having little to do with faith, my devotion to the faith in which I was raised became stronger. I found myself praying regularly seeking guidance (something very rare for me). I purchased a Bible and read the passages listed in the church bulletin daily. After we separated, I started a relationship with a Catholic woman who like myself had a somewhat rocky relationship with her faith. We attended church together regularly. That relationship eventually ran its course, and I met the woman who would become my wife and true partner in life. She, too, was Catholic and our shared faith helped cement our relationship. I had my first marriage annulled by the Catholic church and Celena and I exchanged our vows during a full wedding Mass on May 14, 2005.
So why is it, after all that the faith that raised me, formed me, and has played such a major role in my life have I at the age of 41 found myself leaving the Catholic church for another? Well, for the most part it comes down to finding the Catholic church to have become more dogmatic, more exclusive, and simply less accepting of any kind of debate among its ranks. It is hard to have a conversation when one side stops listening.
There are several examples in just the past weeks that illustrate my disenchantment with Catholicism. In the news in the past weeks were the Vatican's very serious rebuke and investigation into American nuns who were apparently focusing too much on social justice and ministering to the sick and poor and less time on dogmatic political ideas; the Catholic League (which let's face it with one dude with an Internet connection and a Rolodex of media contacts) calling for a boycott of the Daily Show because he made fun of the nonexistent War on Christmas; and a bishop in the Midwest who likened President Obama to both Hitler and Stalin during a sermon. The church which was once so welcoming was becoming increasingly dogmatic and intolerant of diverging views.
Unfortunately, the joy which I once found in my religion had been replaced by an increasing despair. Furthermore, I worried about my daughter and what she would face in the future if this trend continues as I expect it to. I did not want her to be raised in a church in which she would be seen as less than equal as anyone else and I did not want her to be not accepted or even worse to become intolerant of others who may be different from her.
But I don't mean for this to be a diatribe about the Catholic church. I have many friends and family who have found great faith and solace in the Catholic church. I will be forever grateful for the support the church gave me and my family during the ordeal of my mother's recent death. The church has a lot of good in it and for those who continue to find comfort and good in it, I have nothing but respect and well wishes.
You see, this is not a journey of loss, but a triumph of rediscovery of a faith which I thought dead and gone. It is a story of joy overcoming sadness and despair. It is a story of rebirth in which I rediscovered the tremendous love that faith in Christ brings.
There are three instances in which I can pinpoint in which I truly felt myself filled with the Holy Spirit. The first was the weekend of my confirmation (my parish obviously did a pretty good job on that one). The second was during the lowest period of my divorce when I was living in an efficiency apartment with a Murphy bed and awoke one morning to pouring rain, near freezing temperatures and could only think to myself "What a beautiful day". The third was the first Sunday I attended Mass at the Episcopal Church of the Redeemer in Shelby, NC (and for that matter every Sunday since on which I have attended).
What I experienced in my attendance at Redeemer was a reawakening of my faith. My experiences with what I perceived to be an ever shrinking and exclusionary Catholic church left me doubting the beliefs with which I had grown and even doubting my belief in God. I felt that there was something wrong with me since I was constantly told that the beliefs I knew in my heart to be true were wrong.
My wife and I sought out a place in which we could raise our daughter in a religious tradition. We valued the morals that our Catholic upbringing instilled in us, but we had stopped attending Mass at our local church due to severe disagreements we had with the current pastor of that parish. We had tried other parishes in neighboring communities, but none seemed to be a good fit and were a significant distance from us as well.
I first was drawn to Redeemer after reading that they were hosting a discussion against North Carolina's Amendment One which would enshrine in the state's constitution discrimination against gays and lesbians as well as harming any number of other domestic relationships.
Although I had for years advocated for LGBT rights and have had many close friends who are gay, I had been raised in a religious tradition which shunned and condemned gays and lesbians and treated them as a form of evil. I often wondered why so many of my gay friends identified themselves as Christian as the two things seemed mutually exclusive to me based on my religious background and tradition. Of course, as was made clear to me upon attending my new church, the reason they identify as Christian is because God's love encompasses all of us in all of our individual selves as important and valued members of His family and celebrates our humanness fully and openly.
I soon realized that it wasn't the message, but the delivery system that had alienated me. My faith with which I had struggled my entire life was suddenly stronger than ever. I was filled with a sudden sense of joy. The dissonance that I felt for years sitting in the pews of the various Catholic parishes I attended was replaced by a sense of calm and peace, as the realization that I could at once be fully committed to my faith while at the same time holding the beliefs I have on social and political issues fully settled on me.
I am grateful to Mother Valori Sherer, Deacon Pam Bright and all of the wonderful members of my new church community for welcoming me and my family with open arms and making us feel welcome and for building such a loving and welcoming community of faith. Most of all, though I thank my very understanding and ever patient wife for making this journey with me even though it has been even more difficult for her and even though she is not where I am yet in her journey. I thank God for her courage and understanding throughout all of this.
This has been my journey of faith. Although it may end up somewhere different than yours, I hope everyone reading this can find the love, peace, and joy that I have found on my journey. Whether it is a journey of faith or of non-faith, of whatever denomination or religion, the truth is there to be revealed to you as it is meant for you to find it. The search can be painful and fraught with fear and desperation, but the result can be worth much more than all the hardships.
This journey has made me more confident in myself, closer with my wife and my daughter, better able to see Christ in all those with whom I come in contact daily, and more loving in everything I do.
Thanks be to God.
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Dear Lord, We Have Seven More Months of This?
I remember several years ago when there was great consolidation of media outlets into the hands of just a few large corporations that there were great concerns voiced by many about the resulting threat to journalistic objectivity. These warnings were largely ignored.
Next, there was the combining of news divisions with entertainment divisions within these large corporations. There were many saying that hard news would be tossed aside for sensationalistic "if it bleeds, it leads" tabloid style journalism. Again, ignored.
Shortly thereafter came the rise of the cable news stations and the 24-hour news cycle which took the earlier developments and put them on steroids and combining the sensationalism and profit motive with political editorials disguising themselves as news.
Put all of these together and you have the 2012 election in a nutshell. It seems that most of the "news" organizations would rather gin up controversy, looking for ratings rather than the truth. They end up treating the campaign more like a reality show than a serious event resulting in the choice of a person who is arguably more powerful than any other human on earth.
In the last weeks, we've seen several examples of this. Two in particular stick out - the Romney etch-a- sketch comment and the Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life comment. Both of these were essentially non-events. Both were throw away comments, one by an advisor to Mitt Romney about the truth that every candidate has to change their positions between the primary and general elections and the other making a point about how out of touch somebody with a couple of Cadillacs, a few mansions, and an elevator for her car is with the average American woman.
But in our über-sensationalist, infotainment news industry, these become what passes for serious news taking up hours of our daily coverage while anything discussing serious issues is thrown aside.
Combine the need for ratings with the unbelievable laziness of the modern television journalist and the presentation gets even worse. During my recent battle with my own digestive system, I spent the intermittent conscious moments of my day watching various news programs. Needless to say, I was less than impressed with the quality of the information put forth as newsworthy or even as fact.
One such report was of the "study" released last week stating that the President's health care law would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the deficit. This was reported as if it was an independent non-partisan government report. The graphic showing the amount of the increase listed the author's name. Since I had nothing better to do than lay in bed and run to the bathroom, I did a quick search of the individual. Within 5 minutes I was able to see that far from being objective this was a report put out by a think-tank funded by the Koch brothers and the study was for lack of a more apt term, a lie. But millions of viewers of ABC News think that Obamacare is going to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the deficit because the news said so and apparently there was no one in the news division willing to take the 5 minutes that I did to figure this out.
Then there is the arrest of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. It amazed me how the shooting of an unarmed black teen could become such a raging controversy where we were actually having debates across our television dials over whether the unarmed black teen should have been shot to death. Seriously.
I was hoping that once the arrest was made that some of the sensationalism of the story would die down. Boy was I wrong. The morning after the arrest, all of the mainstream media outlets were showing George Zimmermann's receipt from the jail's commissary, including commentary on the size of his underwear (large) and his favorite snack food (Fritos). Apparently there were no adults in charge who were there to inform the networks that this was not news and was in fact trivializing an unimaginable tragedy wherein a young man's life was senselessly cut short.
So, we have seven more months of this kind of tawdry, embarrassing, scandal making coverage to go before we elect a President. Combine this with the billions of dollars of super PAC ads, all of which will make Himalayas out of the mole hills of differences between the major party candidates and I think we may end up with an electorate even more fed up with our political process than we have now. Yes, that may in fact be possible.
So, I think I may just take the rest of the campaign off. I'd simply rather read a book, or play with my daughter, or watch Syracuse sports, or a million other things than watch ginned up controversies between the campaigns of two well heeled conservatives vying to see who can better help Wall Street bankers get richer, trample on our fundamental rights, and bomb the hell out of this week's newest enemy of the state. Why do I care? Hell, why do any of us?
Next, there was the combining of news divisions with entertainment divisions within these large corporations. There were many saying that hard news would be tossed aside for sensationalistic "if it bleeds, it leads" tabloid style journalism. Again, ignored.
Shortly thereafter came the rise of the cable news stations and the 24-hour news cycle which took the earlier developments and put them on steroids and combining the sensationalism and profit motive with political editorials disguising themselves as news.
Put all of these together and you have the 2012 election in a nutshell. It seems that most of the "news" organizations would rather gin up controversy, looking for ratings rather than the truth. They end up treating the campaign more like a reality show than a serious event resulting in the choice of a person who is arguably more powerful than any other human on earth.
In the last weeks, we've seen several examples of this. Two in particular stick out - the Romney etch-a- sketch comment and the Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life comment. Both of these were essentially non-events. Both were throw away comments, one by an advisor to Mitt Romney about the truth that every candidate has to change their positions between the primary and general elections and the other making a point about how out of touch somebody with a couple of Cadillacs, a few mansions, and an elevator for her car is with the average American woman.
But in our über-sensationalist, infotainment news industry, these become what passes for serious news taking up hours of our daily coverage while anything discussing serious issues is thrown aside.
Combine the need for ratings with the unbelievable laziness of the modern television journalist and the presentation gets even worse. During my recent battle with my own digestive system, I spent the intermittent conscious moments of my day watching various news programs. Needless to say, I was less than impressed with the quality of the information put forth as newsworthy or even as fact.
One such report was of the "study" released last week stating that the President's health care law would add hundreds of millions of dollars to the deficit. This was reported as if it was an independent non-partisan government report. The graphic showing the amount of the increase listed the author's name. Since I had nothing better to do than lay in bed and run to the bathroom, I did a quick search of the individual. Within 5 minutes I was able to see that far from being objective this was a report put out by a think-tank funded by the Koch brothers and the study was for lack of a more apt term, a lie. But millions of viewers of ABC News think that Obamacare is going to add hundreds of millions of dollars to the deficit because the news said so and apparently there was no one in the news division willing to take the 5 minutes that I did to figure this out.
Then there is the arrest of George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin. It amazed me how the shooting of an unarmed black teen could become such a raging controversy where we were actually having debates across our television dials over whether the unarmed black teen should have been shot to death. Seriously.
I was hoping that once the arrest was made that some of the sensationalism of the story would die down. Boy was I wrong. The morning after the arrest, all of the mainstream media outlets were showing George Zimmermann's receipt from the jail's commissary, including commentary on the size of his underwear (large) and his favorite snack food (Fritos). Apparently there were no adults in charge who were there to inform the networks that this was not news and was in fact trivializing an unimaginable tragedy wherein a young man's life was senselessly cut short.
So, we have seven more months of this kind of tawdry, embarrassing, scandal making coverage to go before we elect a President. Combine this with the billions of dollars of super PAC ads, all of which will make Himalayas out of the mole hills of differences between the major party candidates and I think we may end up with an electorate even more fed up with our political process than we have now. Yes, that may in fact be possible.
So, I think I may just take the rest of the campaign off. I'd simply rather read a book, or play with my daughter, or watch Syracuse sports, or a million other things than watch ginned up controversies between the campaigns of two well heeled conservatives vying to see who can better help Wall Street bankers get richer, trample on our fundamental rights, and bomb the hell out of this week's newest enemy of the state. Why do I care? Hell, why do any of us?
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Why Obama's Waiver of NDAA Provisions Means Squat
There were great "Huzzahs!" across the liberal landscape last week as President Obama announced that he had signed a "waiver" of some of the most troubling of the provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012. According to the announcement, the new rules which deal with Section 1022 of the law (previously Section 1032 as set forth in the original Senate bill). The White House announced that this section already is inapplicable to United States citizens and the President was waiving the applicability to legal resident aliens. Furthermore, the President was allowing for those who are required to be held under military custody to be transferred back to civilian custody when necessary..
Immediately following this announcement, both the liberal and mainstream press hailed this as a win for civil liberties (see the Huffington Post article on the announcement here). Posts on Reddit as well as on Facebook and the twitterverse were celebrating Obama's "veto" of the NDAA detention provisions. Once again President Obama was a friend to freedom and was living up to his promises to be the champion of civil liberties and the Constitution on which he campaigned in 2008.
Except that he isn't and his "rules" do no such thing.
I have previously discussed this bill on this blog in my post "We Are All Well and Truly F***ed" which can be found here. As pointed out there, this section of the NDAA only deals with the requirement that anyone covered under this bill be detained by the military and held indefinitely in military custody. It is true that this section does not apply to U.S. citizens and under these rules the President is agreeing that he is not going to apply this to legal permanent resident aliens either. Of course this does not prevent him from doing so if he changes his mind, which he can, of course, do since he is the one making the rules in the first place.
But what is genuinely appalling about the pass that the President is receiving on this is that nothing in these rules addresses the biggest and most troubling aspect of this law in the first place. That is that the President is still given the authority under this law to detain and hold indefinitely without charge or trial anyone, including United States citizens, who is deemed by the President in his sole judgment to be a terrorist or to have committed a belligerent act against the United States. Let me state that again so that you out there who are so scared of a Rick Santorum presidency that you are willing to buy any of the bullshit that the Obama campaign is shoveling at you: NOTHING IN THESE RULES CHANGES THE PRESIDENT'S ABILITY TO DETAIN AND HOLD INDEFINITELY WITHOUT CHARGE OR TRIAL ANYONE, INCLUDING UNITED STATES CITIZENS, WHO IS DEEMED BY THE PRESIDENT IN HIS SOLE JUDGMENT TO BE A TERRORIST OR TO HAVE COMMITTED A BELLIGERENT ACT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
This law sets up a despotic presidency and it was supported by almost all of the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Much was made in the media of the opposition to the bill by the FBI and CIA who said that it would harm their ability to pursue terrorist suspects in the United States. But, again, most of this coverage missed the point. The FBI and the CIA are all for indefinite detention without charge. It makes their life easier. They just didn't want the military to have all the fun, they wanted in the game themselves. Thus the changes to the law which cut out the requirement that the detention be by the military.
So, all of this celebrating among liberals over this decision of President Obama to do an about face and suddenly embrace individual liberties was all for nothing. The fact that the implementation of rules which have no effect on the very law which caused all of the rightful rancor among civil libertarians on both sides of the political divide in the first place, is being hailed as proof that a second Obama term would be much different than the first shows a lot about those doing the celebrating. It shows that the left is either willfully blind to what is happening due to their fear of a truly draconian right wing Presidency or it shows that they really didn't understand this law in the first place. Either conclusion is troubling.
If the left is being willfully blind to the abuses of the Obama administration in the realm of civil liberties, it shows a lack of real concern over these issues in the first place. It is one thing to vote for someone knowing that he is not the real deal because his opposition is so horrible, it is truly another to hail your choice as someone who truly believes in what you do. If you are voting for Barack Obama because you really believe that he is a civil libertarian and will fight for individual rights and liberties in his second term, you are stupid and there is nothing I can do for you. If you know this is not the case, but you are going to proclaim that he is such because he passed some meaningless rules regarding the worst piece of legislation he signed then you are a liar and any authority you claimed to have on these issues is forever forfeited.
It is also quite possible that those hailing this decision simply never understood the NDAA or its ramifications for the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans in the first place. This would certainly make sense since if people on either side of the political spectrum understood what this legislation, along with a whole host of other attacks on our civil liberties that have occurred over the last decade, there would have (or should have) been a revolution by now. Of course those on the left are not immune from the extraordinary lack of engagement in political and civil affairs that has seemed to become the norm for American citizens. Since 2001, the United States has seen the implementation of the largest Federal bureaucracy ever devised whose sole purpose is to restrict liberty and engage in unprecedented collection of information (read: spy) on American citizens in the history of our republic in the Department of Homeland Security, the unprecedented transfer of wealth to the richest individuals in the nation, as well as the largest criminal conspiracy ever to be pulled off in the banking meltdown of 2008, all done with the seal of approval of our Federal government. All the while, the only thing that the average American citizen seemed to care about was how cheap his gas was going to be and who was going to survive on this week's Dancing With the Stars. We get the government we deserve, and what we deserve right now is either Barack Obama or one of the four idiots who are battling to lose to him.
Look, I get that Barack Obama might be the lesser of two evils in 2012. But don't try and convince me that the lesser of two evils isn't evil.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
STFU, Rush Limbaugh
Everyone has heard the vile and offensive statements targeting Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke. There is certainly no need to rehash them here. But what is behind them? Why would this bloated, aging loud mouth attack such a seemingly undeserving victim? Is it just entertainment as Rick Santorum suggests? Is it a desperate attempt to seem relevant? I believe it is something more. Rush Limbaugh is the right's champion and this is the warning shot to any woman that dares question their anti-woman agenda.
When the president announced that his administration was adopting rules requiring that insurance companies provide birth control without charge as preventative care the radical right saw an opportunity to foment outrage among their constituents with the type of wedge issue on which they count to bring out the vote in a presidential election year. They were running out of these types of issues. In the past a commercial showing blacks taking jobs away from whites or a constitutional amendment stopping godless sodomites from getting married was enough to bring out the army of voters to assure a competitive GOP race. But something happened on the way to 2012. You see the country just isn't racist, bigoted, or hateful enough for this type of easy cheap theatrical stunt to work anymore.
So, the GOP took the issue of contraception coverage (something insurance companies support) and turned it from an issue of women's health into a question of religious freedom. You see the administration wasn't allowing large employers who were affiliated with a religious institution to be exempted (although the churches themselves are). Suddenly, all of the presidential candidates and the white male congressional leadership (well, ok, I guess you could consider Boehner to be orange) was practically falling over themselves to portray the president as someone who was going to force you to give up your religious beliefs and send you to reeducation camps if you disagreed.
Of course, once again, they overplayed their hand. Rick Santorum went so far overboard, saying JFK wanted to make him throw up and accusing Obama of promoting a phony theology, that he not only blew a double-digit lead in Michigan, ultimately losing to Mitt Romney, but he even lost the Catholic vote.
In possibly the stupidest move of any, House Oversight Committee chairman Darryl Issa held a hearing on the opposition to the contraception requirement and heard from a panel of all male religious leaders. The Democrats on the panel had requested that Ms. Fluke testify in the hearing. Issa refused stating she was unqualified on the issue (odd since she was the only one there with ovaries).
The resulting scene of conservative old men, many in clerical collars, was a made for social media event. Fresh off their rebuke of the Susan G. Komen foundation's decision not to fund Planned Parenthood, progressives flooded Facebook and Twitter with outrage against the completely out of touch GOP leadership. As Republicans were introducing legislation exempting any employer from covering contraception or anything else the didn't want to cover because of moral objection, the Democratic leadership was winning the day by simply showing the stupidity of the Republican leadership doubling down on an issue they had already lost.
Nancy Pelosi convened a hearing at which Ms. Fluke was finally allowed to give the testimony not allowed by Issa. She told of her friend who suffered from a painful and dangerous condition in which her ovaries became enlarged due to cysts forming on them. The condition would have been easily treated with birth control pills. However since they were at Georgetown, a Catholic institution, birth control was not available at the campus health center or covered under their student health coverage. Her friend's condition went untreated, resulting eventually in her friend losing her ovaries. Pretty compelling story.
Enter Limbaugh. Raging in his usual bloviating, drug-addled style, Limbaugh went on the offensive. Labeling Ms. Fluke a slut and a prostitute, Limbaugh attacked her unmercifully. After receiving the expected criticism from the usual corners, he went further saying that she should film her sexual conquests so that he could make sure he was getting his money's worth for paying for her contraception. He went on in this fashion day after day and he will next week too. You see for Rush Limbaugh, being an asshole means never having to say you're sorry.
Rush has suffered some repercussions because of this. A few advertisers have dropped their sponsorships. There were some timid rebukes coming from Republicans. But the advertisers will be replaced and Rush need not worry about the GOP coming down too hard on him. After all they count on this sniveling wretch to get their true message out to the faithful.
But, you see, this unlike the other previous methods discussed was not a rallying cry to conservative church goers to get out the vote. No, this was something much more sinister. Limbaugh's audience for this hideous attack was not his listeners. It was a warning to any woman who dares speak out for her own rights and her own body to do so at your own risk. The message was clear: stand in our way and risk being labeled a slut, a prostitute, a whore, a pornographer. Your reputation will be left in the dust and you will be subjected to public ridicule in the worst way imaginable.
This is nothing new. How long have women been told to stay in their place? Every woman who has challenged their repressors has been labeled the same way. Many have turned back or been cowed by the unrelenting attacks. But change has been brought about by those who were strong enough to stand up to the assaults and suffer the barbs, enduring for the cause. And as they stood up more and more stood with them.
So we now are all called to stand with Sandra Fluke, our sister who had the audacity to dare to speak the truth to power. We must remain strong for her and for our mothers and sisters who have fought and continue to fight these battles. But most of all we must stay strong for our daughters who will bear the consequences of our decisions today for good or for bad.
So it is the time to stand together and say that we will no longer be intimated by the Rush Limbaugh's of the world.
So STFU Rush Limbaugh.
When the president announced that his administration was adopting rules requiring that insurance companies provide birth control without charge as preventative care the radical right saw an opportunity to foment outrage among their constituents with the type of wedge issue on which they count to bring out the vote in a presidential election year. They were running out of these types of issues. In the past a commercial showing blacks taking jobs away from whites or a constitutional amendment stopping godless sodomites from getting married was enough to bring out the army of voters to assure a competitive GOP race. But something happened on the way to 2012. You see the country just isn't racist, bigoted, or hateful enough for this type of easy cheap theatrical stunt to work anymore.
So, the GOP took the issue of contraception coverage (something insurance companies support) and turned it from an issue of women's health into a question of religious freedom. You see the administration wasn't allowing large employers who were affiliated with a religious institution to be exempted (although the churches themselves are). Suddenly, all of the presidential candidates and the white male congressional leadership (well, ok, I guess you could consider Boehner to be orange) was practically falling over themselves to portray the president as someone who was going to force you to give up your religious beliefs and send you to reeducation camps if you disagreed.
Of course, once again, they overplayed their hand. Rick Santorum went so far overboard, saying JFK wanted to make him throw up and accusing Obama of promoting a phony theology, that he not only blew a double-digit lead in Michigan, ultimately losing to Mitt Romney, but he even lost the Catholic vote.
In possibly the stupidest move of any, House Oversight Committee chairman Darryl Issa held a hearing on the opposition to the contraception requirement and heard from a panel of all male religious leaders. The Democrats on the panel had requested that Ms. Fluke testify in the hearing. Issa refused stating she was unqualified on the issue (odd since she was the only one there with ovaries).
The resulting scene of conservative old men, many in clerical collars, was a made for social media event. Fresh off their rebuke of the Susan G. Komen foundation's decision not to fund Planned Parenthood, progressives flooded Facebook and Twitter with outrage against the completely out of touch GOP leadership. As Republicans were introducing legislation exempting any employer from covering contraception or anything else the didn't want to cover because of moral objection, the Democratic leadership was winning the day by simply showing the stupidity of the Republican leadership doubling down on an issue they had already lost.
Nancy Pelosi convened a hearing at which Ms. Fluke was finally allowed to give the testimony not allowed by Issa. She told of her friend who suffered from a painful and dangerous condition in which her ovaries became enlarged due to cysts forming on them. The condition would have been easily treated with birth control pills. However since they were at Georgetown, a Catholic institution, birth control was not available at the campus health center or covered under their student health coverage. Her friend's condition went untreated, resulting eventually in her friend losing her ovaries. Pretty compelling story.
Enter Limbaugh. Raging in his usual bloviating, drug-addled style, Limbaugh went on the offensive. Labeling Ms. Fluke a slut and a prostitute, Limbaugh attacked her unmercifully. After receiving the expected criticism from the usual corners, he went further saying that she should film her sexual conquests so that he could make sure he was getting his money's worth for paying for her contraception. He went on in this fashion day after day and he will next week too. You see for Rush Limbaugh, being an asshole means never having to say you're sorry.
Rush has suffered some repercussions because of this. A few advertisers have dropped their sponsorships. There were some timid rebukes coming from Republicans. But the advertisers will be replaced and Rush need not worry about the GOP coming down too hard on him. After all they count on this sniveling wretch to get their true message out to the faithful.
But, you see, this unlike the other previous methods discussed was not a rallying cry to conservative church goers to get out the vote. No, this was something much more sinister. Limbaugh's audience for this hideous attack was not his listeners. It was a warning to any woman who dares speak out for her own rights and her own body to do so at your own risk. The message was clear: stand in our way and risk being labeled a slut, a prostitute, a whore, a pornographer. Your reputation will be left in the dust and you will be subjected to public ridicule in the worst way imaginable.
This is nothing new. How long have women been told to stay in their place? Every woman who has challenged their repressors has been labeled the same way. Many have turned back or been cowed by the unrelenting attacks. But change has been brought about by those who were strong enough to stand up to the assaults and suffer the barbs, enduring for the cause. And as they stood up more and more stood with them.
So we now are all called to stand with Sandra Fluke, our sister who had the audacity to dare to speak the truth to power. We must remain strong for her and for our mothers and sisters who have fought and continue to fight these battles. But most of all we must stay strong for our daughters who will bear the consequences of our decisions today for good or for bad.
So it is the time to stand together and say that we will no longer be intimated by the Rush Limbaugh's of the world.
So STFU Rush Limbaugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)