The Conversation We Need to Have About Gay Rights

Tags

essay, gay rights, marriage equality

I have a friend who often wonders why people care about the personal lives of other people. Why does anyone care whether somebody chooses to be single or married, have children or not, wants to sleep with this one or that one? Yet, it is undeniable that some people do care. Perhaps it is nothing more than powerless people attempting to force their lives on others in some vain attempt to feel superior, because their choices are “right” and that makes them feel better about themselves.

Some small few no doubt have deeply seeded religious notions (however wrong I may adjudge them) that urges them to compel others to live as they do, while paying lip service to a “religious freedom” that they conveniently reserve only for themselves. A great many more use religion as a shield to their own perhaps unconscious fears that they have certain stirrings which occur when the subject comes up, stirrings contrary to their definition of fitting into their particular group.

As polling suggests, the country continues to move more and more strongly in the direction of marriage equality. And the small, but adamant religious right, continues to voice its disapproval. But if it were this alone, we could all be content to “let the hater’s hate” with their pretense of “hating the sin, while loving the sinner.” Life always contains such out of the mainstream extremes so it seems.

But it is of course not “this alone.” This vocal and increasingly violent speaking segment continues to come up with innovative ways of making their animus known and felt. In reddish states across the nation (some six at the present with another half-dozen who have recently turned down such legislation), Republicans attempt to legislate bigotry in the face of a growing certainty that marriage equality will soon be the law of the land.

Republicans in general and those who appear to be running for President, reel like drunken sailors attempting to negotiate a rational path that both satisfies the “law or the one anticipated” and their growingly hostile base which insists on purity on this issue as on others. Of course there ends up being nothing rational at all in their stance.

Bush, Rubio, and Cruz are more than vocal in their support of the new mantra, that somehow there must be laws to protect the “religious” rights of people not to engage with gay people in their businesses if they don’t want to. There is no doubt that Huck, and Christie and Paul, and certainly Carson and Jindal agree as well. The fact that the argument is farcical is of no import. It “sounds” good, and that is always enough for the Right to pursue against a populace usually too busy with daily life to seriously disassemble the argument.

It’s all about religious freedom and not discriminating against Christians they intone. But is it?

As Jon Stewart pointed out, the florist who can’t bring themselves to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding, doesn’t even ask the trice about-to-be married man or woman, whom arguably Jesus would call adulterers. It doesn’t inquire into the criminal background of the pedophile, or the swindler before selling them a bouquet for their home. It doesn’t inquire of the drug dealer, murderer, before selling them the “wedding special.” All these instances are surely as egregious to God as the couple who has the temerity to love without benefit of the “right” plumbing arrangements.

These pieces of legislation are simply ruses to make you and I abide by somebody else’s personal preferences or to guard against their personal fears. Naming it “God’s will” doesn’t change a thing.

People talk about “deeply held religious beliefs” on the part of the florist or photographer. How is one to make that determination? By asking? By church attendance? By tithing amounts?

People talk about “next church’s will be forced to perform marriages against their tenets.” Really? Who has ever asked for that? There is no law in this country that attempts to interfere directly in church operations. Is anyone stopping the Westboro Baptist church from preaching hate every Sunday? Has anyone suggested that we should?

People talk about forcing people to serve others against their religious views. Well, yes, they are being told that. They are serviced, those businesses, by fire and police, they pay taxes, they receive water and electricity, the meet building codes, and sanitation requirements. They are in a fact engaged in a public endeavor, using city and state services. They are in a phrase, engaged in commerce, a public event. As such, this is simply one more general requirement of engaging in a public business–NOT DISCRIMINATING AGAINST PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT THEM YOU DON’T PERSONALLY LIKE. Live with it, or get out of public sector business.

People like Rubio and Bush and Cruz attempt to draw some lines, such as “well we don’t mean they can’t be served in a restaurant.” Why not? How is that different from a florist? Which businesses are magically exempt? Will Hobby Lobby and it’s fakery about being offended by contraceptive care when it buys most of its inventory from abortion friendly China get the exemption?

People say that being gay is a choice. The question always becomes, so when did you “decide” to be straight? But putting aside the “gotcha”, why do religionists insist upon this “choice” thing? The weight of the evidence is that there is a genetic component which probably is in some way triggered by one’s environment. Or perhaps it is all genetic. Whatever it is it is not a choice, for even in today’s liberalizing environment, who would choose gayness with all its inherent problems? Surely more gays today are happy with their gayness, but at the point of decision would they have chosen this fight? Precious few of us desire to be martyrs.

The reason the religionists need gayness to be a choice is that is simply solves a lot of theological problems for them, and thinking makes religionists heads hurt. If it’s not a choice, then God made gays that way and it must be good if you read Genesis literally. So explain why God makes gay people and then demands of them to ignore the most basic of human needs and desires–sex? They can’t of course, so therefore, it must be a choice. It keeps the theology tidy.

And of course, if Gay is not a choice, there goes the argument that “gays are out recruiting your children” argument. It makes as much sense as saying that people who love surfing go out recruiting your children to be surfers.

This is just painful to write. Because as I type away, laying out the arguments, I try to imagine what it must feel like to be the subject of such an essay. People talk about gays and blacks and browns and women, and all minorities fighting for equality as if they were subjects on a chessboard. I say “the gays” or “women believe” as if they were some homogeneous pat of butter to be added or subtracted to the mix of human stew.

This sort of thing needs to stop being discussed because we need to stop putting people in these awful categories of “people like me” and “people not like me.” It’s all artificial, all just a disguise for our own hates and fears, and confusion.

People are people. Love is love. Let people work out for themselves whom they love. Let them live as they choose with whom they love. Let them arrange their love in whatever form works for them, and mind your own freakin’ business. Nobody wants to watch you groping and rolling in your bed with your love.

Don’t get me started on “then somebody will want to marry a horse,” crap. Just don’t.

As my husband says, the doorbell has still not wrung with my government-issued gay husband that I have to marry. Isn’t that enough for you bigots?

 

I Feel So Loved

Tags

best arguments for abortion?, sharing the stupid, the loons, white men speak, white people in danger

I mean seriously people, I (we) are the subject of so much warfare these days. There is a war against America (of which I am a card-carrying member), a war on women (yep, got the requisite lady parts), and now a war on whites (even with a tan uhuh, still basically bleached out fish-belly colorless blah hued).

I don’t know whether to order my AK-47 or start hoarding canned peaches. Do you think fatigues look good on pale-face?

It’s not everybody who can be worth being a subject of abject hatred rising to the level of open war ya know.

I was sitting in my front yard just watching the sun rise, when I heard it blurted on the TV–“GOP warns of growing war on white people”. Well I gotta tell ya, I immediately ducked inside and took cover. While drones may not be smart enough to tell civilians from combatants, I figure it can sure recognize  colors. MY SKIN BETRAYS ME–doncha know that tanning is but a stealth move?

That black guy in the WHITE house (WTF with that?) is all to blame. And the Democrats of course, who have (the white ones at least) been brainstrained of their senses into complicity.

See? Doesn’t the picture here make you feel all nostalgic?

I mean unlock the doors and throw up the shades, this is AMERICA for goodness sake, home of the white people, with just a few of them variously colored folks mixed in as ya know, gardeners, maids, and bus drivers, to make it look pretty. After all, it would be pretty bland if the whole country were non-stop WHITE. Boring! Just an accent of color here and there, just enough, not too much to make people nervous.  Like this:

See the difference?

Wholesome?

and then,

Scary!!!!

And it’s not just black folk, it’s brown too.

Hey, I know from personal experience. Virtually every one I hire to do work around my house, speaks NOT ENGLISH.

I just know they are plotting how to murder me in my bed! Or at least how to take over my whiteness and make it brown-ness. Even some of my neighbors (actually most of them) are ya know, shall we say, overly tanned.

That can’t be good. Heaven knows, New Mexico has been white for well, as long as I can remember anyway, and things are not looking good these days. Between the blacks, the browns, the reds (anybody wanna explain where that designation came from) and the yeller’s, I’m feeling damned uncomfortable most all the time. I mean how DARE these NON-WHITE persons act like it’s theirs. Seriously, cheeky to the max!

And don’t think it’s just me.

Here’s a smattering of brilliant rhetoric from those erudite thinkers who comment at Breitbart.

Dennis pointed out:

White Guilt. Whites have been subtly conditioned to believe they are the root of all problems. They have; however, been the force behind all modern advances in medicine, sanitation, food, comfort, etc. I don’ see the african, mexican, middle-eastern nations making big advances in civilization, do you?

You got me there fella. Oh, damn, using the alphabet aren’t we? Ever been to the pyramids? Machu Picchu? Birthplace of humanity?

Nedarc warns:

Yes I know, and some would call it a ‘stretch’ but I think this is one reason Liberals want an unarmed population which gives the Criminal a situation like “shooting fish in a barrel” syndrome, and then if the Perp. is a Black and the Vicim White (which is the most common) the MSM Never mentions the race unless it is a White Perpetrator… THIS ALONE SHOULD PROMPT EVERY WHITE ADULT TO GET A GUN !!!

Would that be liberal whites or liberal blacks? I’m stuck on “shooting fish in a barrel” being a “syndrome” Is that in the DSM? That stupid MSM, always a black thing, but hey anything to support your local gun seller!

Marbran reminded us:

The left will not stop until they have destroyed this nation and instituted full socialism/communism. They crave to be at the top, away from those smelly unwashed masses that they have brought into this country. UFB.

Which is it, socialism or communism? You guys gotta choose one or the other, it can’t be both. Why does “poor” always mean “smelly”?  Did the left bring “them” into this country? Or perchance was it WHITE plantation owners? Pesky facts.

momsense preaches to her kids that:

White Libs are the ones instituting the anti-white racism. They think that if the savages go native they and their perks, property and privileges will still be safe, and life will still be good. Unfortunately, as always, the working class will be the ones exterminated– just as they always have been the ones to bear the brunt of all the integration fiasco.

Gotta be impressed with Breitbart. Plain unadulterated, in-your-face racism is gladly accepted to their pages. Integration was a fiasco, and no doubt utterly to blame for your ugly self.

However Dan Poole thinks beauty is just skin deep:

From 1776-1965, America’s population was 85% White:15% non-white. Some years it reached as high as 89%. As such, it was us Whites who built this country, sustained it, and made it a nice place to live. We are being cleansed from our own home as a direct result of the 1965 immigration act, and in 20 years time, we will become a minority. The country will become like Honduras, Venezuela, etc. as the White population continues to shrink.

The war on Whites is a war on who we are. It is not an attack on “beliefs” or “principles.” It is an attack on an entire race – our race. It is an attack derived from fanatical hatred and jealousy. What they are really against is the existence of White people like us.

One last thing: While there are individual exceptions to this rule of nature (wolves in sheeps clothing, so to speak), the truth is that on the whole, our “skin color,” as it’s derisively called, is a reflection and an expression of who we are inside. It is not some random, irrelevant coating. The rich, beautiful history of Europe is not the result of “ideas” or “systems,” it is the result of the people who inhabit the continent – and those people are all of the same race and all share the same general phenotype. That is no coincidence.

Now that’s a celebration of stupid! But oh, it feels so good to be a mechanic and still know that you are better than the anyone of color who is curing cancer, defending your country, ruling their country, entertaining millions worldwide, or going into space. Yeah, living in a dream is pretty darn nice. You must feel sooooo special.

snapperman belched:

Without the white man, the US would be Liberia or Venezuela.

Aww, who let the dog out?

tobytylersf pointed out how WHITE MEN suffer:

Obviously you don’t work in an American office, where over 64 percent of all managers nowadays are women.

I personally haven’t had a white male boss since 1993. How about you?

to which M Smith noted:

I personally have had nothing but males since 1999, except for a brief stint with a bimbo in 2007. She giggled a lot and tried to pretend she was under 50, flirting with all the married guys. Didn’t know squat.

Does this mean you won’t defend me in the war boys?

See? I’m not alone. All these find simians recognize as I do that white folks are in grave jeopardy. The question is, from what are they in jeopardy? Methinks atrophied brain cells.

And life somehow trudges on.

I AM My Sister’s Keeper

Tags

citizenship, editorial, humanity, poverty, the religious right, women's rights

As with so much with me, a number of widely disparate notions traverse my synaptic receptors before it dawns on me–the greater issue–that is.

Thus it starts with the insanely stupid Hobby Lobby decision, brought to us by five Catholic men who have probably long-since stopped depositing seed in the fertile womb of any woman married to or otherwise.

A perusal of but a few of the rags that pass for “right-wing” blather turns up gems such as “you want to have your fun and make me pay for it”, “keep your legs together or pay for it yourself”, or this upside-down logic, “if you can’t afford contraception, you can’t afford to have a baby anyway!”

Hey there brain-dead XY’er, umm, it seems that you fundamentally misunderstand some rather basic stuff. One,  if women are using contraception to “have fun” well guess who they are having fun with? Second, contraception coverage under an insurance plan is not a “gift”, it is a benefit owed to the employee in lieu of a bigger paycheck. Taxpayers have nothing to do with it bozo. Third, umm, under this theory why are you still getting your I-can’t-get-it-up-without-ya Viagra in your insurance plan? If you want to have fun, pay for it? And fourth, uh, contraception is the way you avoid a pregnancy you cannot afford stupid.

I am post-menopausal, yet this fight is my fight. For I am a woman. For I am a human being.

Some many years ago, when I still worked for a living, I had a work colleague. “B” as we shall call him was an African-American male and law schooled at U of M. “B” was inordinately proud of his U of M alumni status and wore a lapel pin announcing his alumni status virtually every day.

One day, “B” wandered into the law library (which contained a lunch room at one end) where a number of us (mostly women, Black and white) were discussing affirmative action and how we all were grateful for the opportunities it had given us as both women and women of color to advance in various professions. Added to that were the men and women before us who had labored on our behalf to ensure that we as young women had more opportunities than their generation.

“B” was asked if he too were grateful for the boost given him in his pursuit of a better life. He exploded in a vehement denial of being such a recipient. He got where he was, “by his own talents and abilities” and was beholden to no one for his success. We all were shocked, attempted to argue with him, but B left the room quickly in disgust at our suggestion.

I am retired and no longer work. Yet this fight to level the playing field is my fight.  For I am a woman. For I am a human being.

A friend just a day ago, talked about how she and her family had needed food stamps and other forms of public assistance to get by for a time in the past. All who know her, know she is a hard-working mom, a dedicated wife, a thoroughly responsible person. She puts a face on all “those” people that the Right so snidely likes to look down upon as “takers” and as developing a culture of expectation that the government will take care of them. She belies that picture assuredly.

I can echo that story by one of about my housekeeper who is struggling, working from sun-up to sun-down to raise six children all the while in the midst of a divorce from their father who continues to refuse to pay one penny toward their care as a way to punish her for putting him out for his drinking, drugging, and abusive ways. She receives what aid she can from where she can, and we struggle to find better ways to help her.

I am not receiving assistance, and if all goes as it seems to be, I never shall. But this fight is my fight. For I am a woman. For I am a human being.

How does this all tie together?

Only in one respect. Read Matthew 25.

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, 36naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’ 37Then the righteous^* will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ 40ⁱ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’ 41^{* j} Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42^k For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ 44^* Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ 45He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’

There are many who say that we are genetically wired to care about each other. Certainly humans are not meant to be alone like the cheetah or polar bear. We have found camaraderie and safety in numbers. We have sacrificed some independence, some freedom for the protection of those numbers. Somewhere in that movement from tribe to village to town and city, we have learned to care about the needs of others, not just ourselves. Beyond our concerns for the progeny we bear, we care for the old, and for the disabled.

Recently remains of a Down’s Syndrome child was found among early human burial remains. The skeleton suggests that rather than kill or expose these disabled babies, they were cared for until their natural death. Similarly we find the remains of elderly who certainly could not have survived without help from others.

From this we learn that the desire to care for each other is ancient. We seek to serve each other,  either by genetics or at the very least by the call of the most perfect prophet the world has known–Jesus Christ.

Unlike our Right-wing evangelicals who twist scripture to reflect a Jesus who counsels against government assistance, eschews the minimum wage, and Paul who taken out of context tells us that those who will not work will not eat, we respond to what is in our hearts and/or in our DNA, called to reflect that what we do to others we inevitably do to ourselves.

When I hear the voices of hate-bearing sanctimonious condemnation, when I listen to their explanation that we are “coddling” and “creating a dependence culture”, I am not sure what comes first to me, the tears of grief that people can drape themselves in the flag while waving the bible in order to hide from the world their true self-centered motives, distorting Christ and his sermon of empathy and love, or the flashes of red-hot anger that wish to explode in slapping such people across the face as hard as I can, watching the self-satisfied holier-than-thou smugness fade as the cheek brightens into a red imprint.

We do what is right because it is right, quite simply. Women as poor as they may be deserve as good health care as the CEO of GM. Everybody gets to where they are in life due to the helping hands of untold dozens if not tens of dozens, and lack of means is no definition of worthiness or lack of it. Dr. Ben Carson has become the darling of the Right with his claims that government assistance to the poor, is akin in some measure to a return to slavery. Well Dr. Carson was the recipient of plenty of that assistance as a child and young adult, and that assistance gave him the opportunity to study hard and do all the things he had to do to achieve great success. He did not do it alone and he would be the first to be offended had his mother or he been treated as something less than the kids who grew up in better circumstances.  How soon we forget from whence we have come.

How soon we fall victim to our own greed for the “good life” and turn our backs on all those who are left behind. How soon we forget that but for the “grace of God, go I”. How soon we twist self-righteous religiosity into some sort of club with which to bludgeon all those who don’t do as we say, while we do as we wish, crying out to God when caught, that we too are sinners, but somehow still not sinners like those awful others. 

So we will gladly pay a little more if it means that everyone has a decent minimum. Everyone should have a home, clothing, medical care, quality education, and a job at a fair and living wage. We will do it because we don’t see the world as them and us, but as we.  It is the human thing to do quite simply. And you will never dissuade us otherwise, though you may win a battle here and there. You will not win in the end, because

WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU ENVISION US AND YOU TO BE.

 

 

Convincing Those Who are Oblivious

Tags

brain research, conservatives, liberals, psychology, public issues, sociology

I spend a lot of time thinking.

I write a lot about the things I’m thinking about.

People who think like me, read what I write, and they think it’s pretty okay.

People who don’t think like me, don’t read me, but if they did, they wouldn’t agree with me.

Which is curious, since much of what I think about and write about is pretty well substantiated by actual things called facts.

It would seem evident that my facts should trump your fact-less opinion. But it doesn’t. Because you dismiss my facts. You don’t even waste the time to think about them, you simple use your magic eraser and voilà they are gone.

My husband, the great thinker, The Contrarian, reminds me that people are on a continuum. People are not neatly packed into the left or right or middle. It’s all bleeding all over the place. But we are dealing with averages after all.

“Recent converging studies are showing that liberals tend to have a larger and/or more active anterior cingulate cortex, or ACC—useful in detecting and judging conflict and error—and conservatives are more likely to have an enlarged amygdala, where the development and storage of emotional memories takes place.  More than one study has shown these same results, . . . .”

This has been known for some time. It ends up suggesting that these truisms are mostly true for liberals:

Liberals, according to this model, would be likely to engage in more flexible thinking, working through alternate possibilities before committing to a choice. Even after committing, if alternate contradicting data comes along, they would be more likely to consider it.

On the other hand, conservatives respond rather differently:

“. . .[W]hen faced with an ambiguous situation, conservatives would tend to process the information initially with a strong emotional response. This would make them less likely to lean towards change, and more likely to prefer stability. Stability means more predictability, which means more expected outcomes, and less of a trigger for anxiety.”

You see the dilemma?

Liberals continue to pepper conservatives with facts, and conservatives respond with concerns about values and things that affect them personally. They give you anecdotal information that they see as equally valuable in how they should respond.

Case in point. I know a person who is conservative and a fundamentalist. She is opposed to the ACA because it stems from President Obama, and pretty much is in agreement with all the known Tea Party positions regarding, abortion, gay marriage, guns, and so forth. I’ve never seen her seriously out of alignment with them on any issue.

At one point in her life, her health situation became serious enough that she applied for Medicaid. She was denied as “not eligible”. She self-reported that a “neighbor” couple got Medicaid however. She then went on to explain that God saw fit to have her denied because obviously He had other plans for her.

Let’s try to reconcile this. First, this woman has quoted her pastor as approving statements that call the American poor “akin to the rabble of Rome”. Her remark about her neighbors getting their Medicaid seemed offered as an example of  people who got what they didn’t deserve at least as much as she did. Yet, her application for Medicaid doesn’t define her as a “taker,” because of course she felt that in her situation, she “deserved” it.

However, when Medicaid denied her, that would mean she was not deserving, and thus one of those who was trying to get what she didn’t deserve, thus a taker. Since she cannot see herself as a taker, she is a qualified applicant denied what she deserved by a loving God who had other plans for her.

That’s the way you twist the world to fit your beliefs. People who get government assistance are still takers because they are not deserving, while good people like herself are denied. God has a plan and someday she will understand.

The example is instructive. It will do no good for me to  give her facts about how well Obamacare is actually doing now. She will not be impressed with knowing that in several states, competition between carriers has actually doubled, making it likely that premiums will come down even more in ensuing years. Eight million plus new insured will not do the trick either, since they are like her neighbor, people who shouldn’t get it, and could get their own if they would only get a job.

She might, on the other hand, be persuaded that it’s the Christian thing to do, that a healthier country means that everyone will benefit in myriad ways. Playing to her sense of Christian charity should work. But alas it does not to the fundamentalist. Jesus did in fact make it most clear that we were “our brother’s keeper” and he again and again emphasized to his disciples that here brother meant the truly marginalized. His examples of the marginalized he considered “brothers” were people of other nationalities,  victims of disease, women, those in employment to the oppressors, and sexually active persons.

Some how Jesus’ teachings about carrying for the prisoner, the sick, the hungry, the unclothed, got mixed up. I would take another post to untease the tangle of Pauline and pseudo-Pauline doctrine that is both misunderstood and mis-applied to these teachings to get where we are today with the evangelical right, namely that government should not proffer  programs for the needy, instead, they, the evangelicals should, so they can weed out all those who are not deserving, i.e., the lazy, the takers, the rabble, reserving charity for the “truly needy” which is essentially someone who has suddenly through no fault of their own, “fallen on hard times”, from which, if given just a little help for a short while, they will recover and once again be productive citizens.

That leaves us with appealing to self-interest and values, but here too we run into trouble. Let’s take the issues of food stamps and a living wage as examples. Regularly we are told that food stamps are misused by uncounted numbers of people who are “too lazy” to work. (Facts are to the contrary of course, but facts don’t matter.)  These people are taking advantage of “us” through taxes when they could just as well get a job.  But on the other hand, conservatives are essentially against any minimum wage, arguing that it impinges on an employers right to pay what he/she deems appropriate, and that such a law interferes with free markets. These are values conservatives hold dear: working and free markets.

However, if you wish people to work, but allow business owners to play unfair low wages, doesn’t that put us into the food stamp business? Logic says that if you want people to work you need to pay them enough to care for themselves and their families. So you should support a requirement of a fair living wage.

But again, logic is not the point. Conservatives can and do hold opinions on things that are in considerable conflict. Remember, it is liberals who have to reconcile conflicting beliefs, not conservatives.

While it is easy to say that the way to change the mind of a conservative is to forget facts and give them arguments that appeal to their self-interest and values, such is not always possible as we can see, or at least it requires a great deal more finesse than one would think.

It would seem then, that the answer lies in education. Only by teaching our youngsters that the mind has a way of creating reality to suit its own comfort zone, can we set about the business of giving them the tools that will allow them to avoid the pitfalls of their own predilections.

In this no doubt liberals also have something to learn. The focus  in this essay has been on explaining why liberals can’t change the minds of conservatives with facts. But they too have positive points to contribute. In a stable compromising world,  we could do what we have mostly always done, bring out the best in each other.

What is most important to remember, is that no individual can be utterly pigeon-holed by this analysis. We change over time as well. We do have free will, and the ability to overcome our own negative tendencies. These are generalities across a spectrum. Genetic predispositions are just that, predispositions, over come again and again by serious study, and life experiences. We would do well to remember that.

(Do read the link–it gives a lot more detail and links to further study)

Bring on the Christianists!

Tags

Christianists, religion

There is a troubling amount of evidence that even at the highest levels of elitism within the Republican party, there exists a strain of what can only be described as Christianistism.

That’s a mouthful. Christianist: a person who professes to be a follower of the Christian faith but fails to actually follow the tenets of Jesus, using the appellation of “Christian” to mask their own personally held beliefs while claiming that such beliefs are Christian.

Got that?

Of course all too many of our teabagger friends profess to be Christians, yet fall into the odd category of those who are against feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, and tending the sick. They support GOP efforts to reduce food stamp allotments, unemployment insurance payments, blocking health care to the uninsured, discrimination against the LGBT community, and the reduction of women’s autonomy from state regulation, to name just a few.

But their “leaders” also have this dangerously intellectually indefensible attitude as well. One never things of the Kochs as men who are Christian necessarily. They support public TV for instance, especially science shows, recognizing that their “base” the teabaggers, are probably fairly unaware of this fact since the Tea People are not known for their penchant for education or higher-brow television fare. But the Kochs are an exception I think.

George W. Bush came on the scene spouting “compassionate conservatism” and certainly made known his deeply held Christian beliefs. Yet, he sent men and women into war, resulting in American deaths numbering over 4,000 and Iraqi deaths nearing now, possibly some 1.4 million persons. One would expect a Christian to use violence as a last resort and not the first. Nobody today is unaware that there was at bet highly questionable “evidence” and even less reason to invade that country.

Upon completion of his two terms, Bush, unlike his Democratic predecessors, did not seek some manner to work for the betterment of society and the world at large. Instead he engaged in a self-absorbed dedication to being a painter, exhibiting as at least one expert pointed out, a sort of charming childish ability. Some would argue that same childish charm was his main offering as President.

Mike Huckabee, once upon a time, an actual pastor, seems to be nothing more than a Christianist. He has at various times indicated a belief that the President of the United States was born in Kenya, made impassioned pleas to send money to his group designed to “end Obamacare” while telling lies aplenty about the program. His television ad claimed the ACA was “rammed down the throats of the American public” and done in “back rooms”.  Today he is spouting that living in America is no better than living in North Korea.

I may be wrong, but I have always thought that being a good Christian starts with being a person who tells the truth. It certainly doesn’t mean being a person who lies for one’s own benefit, to further one’s own career.

Charles Keating passed away a few days ago. You remember him don’t you? Keating is most remembered for his eye-balls deep involvement in the savings and loan scandals of the 1980’s. Certainly his Catholicism didn’t prevent him from playing fast and loose with the laws regarding making money. Yet he used his “Christian” beliefs as the fulcrum upon which he pushed his social agenda regarding pornography. His Citizens for Decent Literature provided the framework for future conservative social agenda forays into the public sphere.

At one point in time, Keating, in his pursuit of purity, put out a documentary that gave all sorts of statistics about the influence of pornography on the society. Years later, he admitted that he had made them up. Another liar.

Ted Cruz has exploded onto the stage as the savior of the extreme Right.

He spouts a brand of anti-immigrationism, anti-health care, and just plain anti-progressivism that is both stunning and audacious.

 

Yet Ted also draws the mantle of Christianity around his shoulders. He has it on good authority. His father is a preacher, a preacher of such vile hate and vitriol that many wonder that Ted does not shush him up for fear he will so inflame the sensible middle as to make Ted’s future Presidency utterly untenable.

But Ted not only doesn’t stop the old man, he embraces the theology that his father espouses. That theology is nothing less than what is known as Dominionism, the belief that certain people (Ted included) but all Christians who think as they do at least, are destined to be the kings of the world, ruling in the name of their very strange notion of Jesus.  People who don’t believe as Ted does are those to be ruled.

And the earth? Oh the earth and all it contains, are theirs to  rule over as well. Dominated in fact. Ted’s Christianist army is the wrestle control and subdue the earth. That means exploiting all it’s resources as if they are unlimited. For as this brand of Christianist believe (so very conveniently) God will never let the supplies end, or will give us something better when they do. There is no possibility that we will ruin our own planet with these people. They have twisted the Good Book to assure themselves that that can’t happen.

Imagine, we are all at the mercy of their admittedly uneducated, self-serving conclusions of a copy of a copy of a copy, of a copy of dozens of independently written documents over the span of 1,000 plus years, which was argued over and voted upon by other humans tossing in some documents and tossing out others, and then translated again and again by mostly unknown other humans for various purposes and reasons. They would have us believe that their personal opinion about the meaning of obscure phrases and words, means that we don’t have to do a thing about climate change, or much of anything actually, except get ready for the big fight in Israel where the final battle will take place.

This is not Christianity, this is opportunism.

And the fear is that far too many sadly uneducated, gullible, trusting, needy souls are buying into this rhetoric and will prevent those of us who are rational, thinking, caring and compassionate people from doing what needs to be done to actually if not in the name of Jesus, at least in His spirit, do what is morally right:

For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.’

As Gandhi said,

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Gandhi was wrong. These are not Christians but Christianists. And there is a difference.

Are You Too Good to Be True?

Tags

Christians, giving, religion, right-wing fundamentalists

I find a lot of hubris among Christians. I have a right to speak on it, since I consider myself one.

I find a lot of so-called Christians who claim to know a lot about God. They tell me what God wants all the time. They tell me that the bible is “his word”, not quite in his own handwriting, but near enough.

All the while, I find that they don’t seem to have read it very carefully, although they are certainly masters of the quote. You know what I mean. You say something, and they say: “The bible says. . . . ” a quote that appears to prove their point.

So maybe if you are a real Christian, one of those born-again types, maybe on the way out of your born again experience, they give you the code book, you know, the one entitled “1001 Sayings of God: All you need to get by in a Secular world.”

I came to that conclusion because as they say, when you have eliminated all the impossibilities, what remains, no matter how improbable, must be true. And I have eliminated all the other possibilities. It is the only way you can claim to “know the bible” yet be so ignorant of so much in it. At least the Jesus parts.

That’s what I find so bizarre. It’s true you know. Among the great mass of basically unchurched or poorly churched, “I can read for myself, thank you”, you find an inordinate reliance on what Paul said, and very little about what Jesus said. Even when what Jesus said is attested sometimes by three Gospel writers, while Paul never met the living man.

It’s very true that the Gospels are not history and aren’t meant to be so. They were evangelizing documents, meant to state the case of the believing community of which they were from. They were “this is what we believe and why”. Paul is an entirely different genre. First, many of his letters were not written by him, but the writer wishes to claim Paul’s authority. So read agenda into that. Second, Paul is often writing to address problems within a local church, problems we are mostly unaware of, so therefore it’s very hard to judge the breadth of his statements.

The point is not to discuss Paul, but rather to remind folks of something Jesus talked about as regards “doing good”.

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. (Matthew 6:1-4)

See I gave it to you in the KJV version!

If you read Jesus, you find that a good deal of his anger is directed at Pharisees, those who would be similar to the born-agains in our time. They talked God and rules of Torah all day and night. They made sure everyone saw how pious they were. They demanded strict adherence to the rules of Judaism, so much so in fact that they regularly turned their back on God’s people as being sinful and untouchable. Certainly the undesirables were denied much as being “unclean”.

Our born-agains are similar. They are always talking God, always praising God, always talking about what God hates and that if you aren’t like them you are condemned. They hate the sin, but “love the sinner” which amounts to shunning the sinner and making the sinner’s life miserable all the while lovin’ him to death in their hearts. Which feeds exactly no one, nor shelters them, nor cures  them.

But the Pharisaic failing that I find worse, and maybe Jesus did too, was the degree to which they strutted about showing off how pious they were by comparison. They would have called it “setting a good example” no doubt, but Jesus just seemed to find it prideful.

I know that atheists and agnostics are as committed to good causes as the believer. I know they give of their money and their time. They care about the earth and the poor. The see it as a human thing to do–help their neighbor. Unfortunately the right-wing evangelical often does it for less honorable reasons–it’s the way to salvation. So it gets personal with them. They do it not because they are human but because they are told that there ain’t no heaven without it.

And that’s not terrible. It still serves the cause. The rich, often from a sense of guilt, throw money around philanthropically speaking. They build wings on hospitals and show up at “events” to lend their celebrity. That too still serves the cause.

But what about that Matthew thing?

About not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing? See that’s the part about NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT A GENEROUS PERSON YOU ARE. Who needs to know that? God already does, I’m sure you would agree. And making me feel small by comparison is certainly no way to encourage me.

See Jesus said that that makes you no different from a Pharisee, or a criminal among other criminals. And your reward is the pats on the back you receive from each other, not what you are ostensibly working toward: salvation.

And you want to know what? If I think of the instances when somebody has told me “chapter and verse” about all the things they have done for the unfortunate, you know what? EVERY time, it was a “born again” type, a “the bible is the WORD of God” type, a “holy roller” who tells me that they read the bible every single day and praise God all day and night. And it was always in response to their saying something racist, or at least selfish in that they didn’t want to pay taxes to help some “other” group. It was their “defense”.

And how un-Christ like is that? I guess they missed Matthew 6: 1-4.

You tell me.

As Gandhi said,

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

I have to agree.

By the by, there is a book about losing sight of the purpose of giving called, The Spiritual Danger of Doing Good, by Peter Greer. Some may like to take a look.

They’re All Bums–Well Most of Them

Tags

Catholic Church, filibusters, gun control, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, pedophilia, President, senate, wacko right

Yeah, you heard me.

I try to get away from the idiots but they just keep coming. There is no end to the incompetent, self-serving bull crap going on in Washington. I mean it makes your head swirl.

First we got old Wayne La pee pee Pierre and his survivalist mentality. How’s this for logic: we can’t do background checks (which he FULLY endorsed in only 1999) because criminals won’t come in to submit to them.

Why shock me to death Whiney Wayne. I guess we shouldn’t have laws against bank robbery either, cuz you know, the bank robber he’s just not going to obey it.

Why can’t we have limits of the types of weapons that are sold? “Because we can’t trust these people,” according to Wayne. These people being the operative word here, as in “liberals” or “blacks” you know. Just because they say they won’t take shotguns and hunting rifles and regular handguns, “they” might just be lying.

Just as you Wayne lie to your constituents when you tell them that “who knows, the next disaster like a tornado the government might not show up, and well, people will have to defend themselves from marauding hoards.” Yeah you utter base excuse for a human being. That is so likely to happen.

If gun manufacturers can’t come up with better arguments than that, well, you deserve to be pistol-whipped boys.

BITE ME!

And then there is the king wimp of them all, Mr. Harry Reid, you know the soft-spoken little twit that Democrats are somehow forced to accept as Majority Leader in the Senate?

Why Harry, when asked about his support for gun safety legislation, says, “these are all things we need to take a look at.”

Take a look at ?

Where the hell have you been for the last two months you mealy-mouthed sucker on the NRA teat?

You’re the freakin’ MAJORITY leader. You’re in charge of what gets brought to the floor. You’re supposed to be a good guy remember? What is there to “understand” about high-capacity clips? Shall we ban anything over 10, or anything over 6? Boy that took a lot of time to “study.” And doesn’t it behoove somebody on your staff to have actually read Diane Feinstein’s bill? Is it so much different from the last one you enacted? What exactly do you do all day, other than feed lettuce to the Turtle Man?

Get off your stupid ass and DO something, and while you are at it:

BITE ME!

Speaking of whom, or what, or it, Turtle Man McConnell, I hear tell you are gonna filibuster the President’s nominee Richard Cordray once again to head up the Consumer Protection Division? This after you all admit there is not a damn thing wrong with his qualifications. This is solely because you don’t like the agency. Well that’s a new one.

Never in the history of the Republic has a party filibustered a nominee simply because they don’t like the agency he or she is going to head. Now we understand that those beholden to big business want no part of protecting consumers. No that would be wrong, You’re the party of rugged individualism. People have to take care of themselves. I mean it can’t cost too much to have a lab test done to find  that the damn medicine that  Pfizer produces won’t kill me, immediately, or grow hair on the bottom of my feet in two years.

This crap is absurd. And your pal Harry, God bless his stupid little head, was so scared of your wrath that he ignored the real opportunity to put an end to this insane misuse of the filibuster when he had the chance. Jimmy Stewart is crying in heaven today.

So Mitch?

BITE ME!

And Harry?

BITE ME AGAIN!

The President mentioned that he went skeet shooting at Camp David. Of course the insane Right, went insane, insinuating that the President was lying. Not because they hate him, of course, and if he cured cancer, they would see it as a Muslim Brotherhood Plot. No. Not for that reason. They don’t trust him, since he’s done so many darn things that were illegal and well everybody knows all of our FREEDOMS are hanging by a threat.

So he no doubt lied about the skeet shooting, for some reason, but reasons don’t matter, and are too hard to figure out, so let’s just say he lied, because well Black people have a habit of doing that, *nudge nudge*.

So the White House produces a picture of the present firing a gun that all agree is the type used for skeet shooting.

So of course, IT’S A FAKE!

It’s another conspiracy folks and the survivalists sure do love them some conspiracy.

BITE ME! ALL OF YOU!

Some of you may have heard of Archbishop Roger Mahony, retired from the archdiocese of Los Angeles in 2011 after having served since 1985. He and his top aide, Thomas Curry were both implicated in covering up child abuse by a series of priests. Just released documents show they actively attempted to protect priests from prosecution and withheld their names from police.

They have, in their retirement, been stripped of all public and administrative duties. This was done by now Archbishop  Jóse Gomez.

Children, we are told were threatened if they told the truth of what happened to them.

There was one way that a Church which claims to be the holder of the Keys of St. Peter and THE church of  Christ, (which you may or may not buy. I don’t and I am a Catholic), and that is to expose and drive out of the priesthood anyone who assaults a child. Period. End of discussion. You can offer them all your prayers and whatever, but first you REMOVE THEM FROM THE PRIESTHOOD. They are not fit to be priests. They are not some common sinners. They are predators of innocent children.

To all you who make excuses for my Church and it’s utter failing in this matter, I say:

BITE ME!

Oh, and I’m in a darn good mood today. The Ravens won, I walked the dog, the housework is done, the Contrarian cleaned the oven, and he’s taking me out to lunch. I’m happy as a clam. You don’t want to see me when I’m hot. No I suspect you don’t.

Related articles

• Will Harry Reid’s Filibuster Deal With McConnell Bite Him On the You-Know-What? (themoderatevoice.com)
• Photo of Obama Shooting Skeet Stirs Controversy (usnews.com)
• Harry Reid: “I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold” (washingtonpost.com)