Standing at the Intersection of Church and State

It Gets Better: Jason and Philip

2010-10-25T21:31:00.002-05:00

Ghosts of Nehemiah Scudder

2010-09-04T18:55:00.000-05:00

Introduction

American political discourse has become increasingly polarized, much of it leaning toward the so-called 'right-wing fringe.' Positions that were once considered quite extremist are now being discussed as legitimate, mainstream ideas. Some observers dismiss those promoting said positions as "crazy wing nuts". Even if they are, these people should not be dismissed so lightly.
Sometimes, it seems as though people just shake their heads at these individuals, finding them entertaining or as endearing as their "crazy Uncle Al". However, I think they should be seen as warning signals for America's political health that often go unheeded. Science Fiction provides worst-case, hyperbolic descriptions of these unheeded warnings.
Two examples of this are George Orwell's 1984, and Robert A. Heinlein's character, Nehemiah Scudder. Scudder is mentioned in several of Heinlein's stories including "If This Goes On…" and For Us the Living. George Orwell provides some vocabulary concepts in his dystopian 1984 that help describe some of the effects I am discussing. While Heinlein and Orwell have missed the mark on some of their predictions, I think that by dismissing Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and other rightwing and religious demagogues, America is putting itself in danger of a political takeover that could change the course of history.

Nehemiah Scudder

Nehemiah Scudder is a fictional televangelist created by Robert Heinlein who appears as a background character in many of his works. Scudder was a highly popular, conservative, (presumably Christian) religious demagogue who became the "First Prophet". His followers overthrew US Government and converted America to a theocracy, or religious dictatorship. According to Heinlein's Future History timeline, Scudder was elected in 2012(!) with 27% of the popular vote. 63% of registered voters voted in this fictional election. That 63% was less than half of those actually eligible. However, Scudder got 81% of the Electoral College vote, taking the presidency. In 2016, there were no elections; Scudder's religious dictatorship had begun.

Comparisons to political reality

While Scudder's story is fiction, there are many similarities to actual figures in American political discourse, including:

Glenn Beck
Sarah Palin
Michelle Bachmann
Pat Robertson
Rush Limbaugh

Pinpointing who is "most like" Scudder is not the point of this essay. Many have speculated about it, and cases can be made for lots of these figures. I am more concerned about the types of things these people are saying and the attitudes they express.

Is it patriotism or privilege?

Many of these political figures make statements in the name of patriotism that actually are contrary to the ideals America says they hold dear. They claim to be concerned about the American Constitution or items from the bill of rights, but then advocate a contrary position. For instance, they advocate religious freedom, citing the First Amendment, and then advocate banning the practice of Islam. They talk about how "all men are created equal" and then advocate positions against gay marriage claiming that it is 'granting special rights'. When a law banning discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation is proposed, they cite religious freedom and claim that they are the ones discriminated against. Plans for a community center with a room to accommodate Islamic followers built near the site of an American disaster are decried as a 'mosque'. They advocate moving the 'mosque' out of concern for the families of those killed in the disaster, yet plans for a similar center built by a Christian sect go by with hardly a mention.
They are not supporting patriotism; they are supporting privilege. Privilege is the set of laws, attitudes and customs that allow one group to benefit at the expense of another. The examples cited above are examples of a power imbalance that these people benefit from maintaining. While they often advocate for a 'smaller government', the attitudes are actually more similar to fascism. 'Fascism' is a buzzword that is thrown around, but Encarta defines it as

"Any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism"

The ideals they express often call for government to dictate a woman's right to choose when and how she is pregnant, even to the point of requiring her to carry her hypothetical rapist's baby to term. They want to dictate that immigrants to America are required to learn English and behave as "Americans", changing the way they dress, and in some cases how they practice their religion. They want to define narrowly who is an American, based on how a person's parents entered the country and how long their families have been here. These policies theoretically would be enforced by a "small government" and by social mores. While they ostensibly favor an individual business owner's rights to serve whatever customers he wanted, that business owner would be pressured to serve only the ones deemed acceptable by social standards. The centralized control of business and the roles of government would be accomplished by reliance on their interpretation of God. Sinclair Lewis said, "When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." We are headed down that road.
These demagogues claim to be Christians, and yet many attitudes they express are contrary to the Gospels they claim to follow. While they claim to support the right of a baby to be born and live, they advocate cutting programs that would help that baby's unwed, undereducated mother care for it, feed it healthy food, take it to the doctor and provide for it. They advocate ending programs that help people who have lost their jobs keep food on the table, implying that those workers are lazy and unmotivated. They seem to be more concerned with whether two men or two women get married than they are about children starving anywhere. They are less concerned about the poor, the sick, the discouraged, etc. than they are about maintaining their privilege. To maintain their privilege, they often make outrageous statements.

When Rhetoric crosses the line

The demagogues claim that they make these extreme statements to encourage thought and discussion, or for entertainment value. However, sometimes the followers who hear this rhetoric take things too far. Arizona's SB 1070, the "Papers, Please" law, is one example. The demagogues whip up such frenzy over 'illegal immigration', Mexican drug cartels, and beheaded bodies that a law requiring documentation that someone is legally in America easily passes, even when 'illegal immigration' has been dropping over the past 20-odd years. The "Ground-zero mosque"/Park 51 community center is another case. They have stoked the anti-Islam fires so much that not only is there national discussion about one community center in downtown Manhattan, but also there have been fires set and shots fired at a mosque construction site in Tennessee. The national discussion is so heated that an Islamic cab driver in New York was stabbed and had his throat slashed, just because he was Muslim.
To disguise their attitudes, these strident voices use doublespeak code words to hide what they actually mean: phrases like "Family values" to mean "anti-gay" and "Pro-life" instead of "anti-abortion". They fail to recognize that telling parents to reject their children because they are LGBT does nothing to strengthen a family or its values. They profess to be "pro life" while supporting the death penalty, and other policies that diminish the quality of that life they are in favor of.
This cognitive dissonance is illustrated in a term George Orwell coined, blackwhite. According to the "newspeak dictionary", which he included at the end of 1984:

"This word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink."

The conspiracy theories opponents spread, to try to discredit the current president and the Democratic Party, apply this concept. The "birthers" are still absolutely convinced that Pres. Obama is a Kenyan, and therefore ineligible to be President, even when an official birth certificate has been widely publicized. One birther even went so far as to sue and appeal her case all the way to the Supreme Court!
Another persistent conspiracy theory is that the recent Healthcare reform bill would institute "Death Panels" that would decide when to execute Grandma because she was too old, infirm and unhealthy to keep treating. While that was proven false, and roundly debunked, the "Death Panels" myth features prominently in many campaigns to repeal the Healthcare Reform.
Especially when it comes to discussions of gay rights, "Christianists" claim they are victims of bigotry and discrimination. They keep preaching various debunked anti-gay myths and then claim discrimination when the decision to allow gays to marry, or to explain the harm "conversion therapy" can do to people does not go their way.

Lack of critical thinking

The reason statements like the ones above take hold is the listener's apathy and desire to disengage from all of the distasteful argument. That apathy is compounded by compressing serious subjects down into sound bites. Because the argument has been summarized by that sound bite, no one stops to really dig into the argument and examine it, and they just keep passing on this flippant sound bite without realizing exactly what they are advocating.
Another factor that contributes to this is disinformation, or "truthiness".

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."—Joeseph Goebbels

Because the sound bites are not examined, and the lies uncovered, these lies are passed around repeatedly, gaining a veneer of "truthiness". They have been repeated so often that they therefore must be truth. Fox News is one of the big players in this. In addition to repeating lies, it also edits videos, mislabels particular government representatives, and presents false information to its viewers. Fox is one of the largest "news" producers in the country, and claims to be "fair and balanced." Since it makes those claims, few people question what it actually presents as "news."
This willful ignorance using the Big Lie and blackwhite, also allows false equivalencies to creep in. When discussing gay rights, Focus on Family uses discredited researcher Paul Cameron's work to present their side. However, the FOF presenter is introduced as an expert and no one questions the credentials. Since that person is an 'expert', they must therefore be presenting factually correct information. That inaccurate, discredited information is repeated multiple times, and now is a Big Lie, and "party members" are not supposed to question it.

Why is this dangerous?

People turn off and then disengage from politics. They say things like "I don't get engaged in politics. Both major parties hold equally stupid ideas and I don't want to get involved," or "They're all crooks. Why does it matter?" The ones who are not disengaged are carried away with the mob. They are influenced by the hysteria stirred up by the outrageous statements, and some extremists take the overheated rhetoric to heart and perform truly heinous actions. In the process, real, actual discourse is drowned out in all of the shouting so nothing actually is done to rectify situations like actually discussing and rectifying conflicts between discrimination and privilege. Instead, those discussions devolve into name-calling.
Sometimes, the participants try to keep the discussion civil, and refuel to stoop to their level. However, when one side is behaving outrageously and the other is trying calmly to discuss sensitive subjects, opponents end up choosing the battlefield, putting the 'sane' ones into defensive mode. Unfortunately, that usually means lost ground.

Conclusion

The situations described are a "perfect storm". In order for a Nehemiah Scudder-like shift occur, several things need to happen:

parts of electorate are disillusioned and apathetic
Others are enthusiastic, and willfully mis- or uninformed
Some are entertained by the 'crazies' and think, "Let's see what happens" and/or "It'll never happen here."

In regards to apathy and disengaging from politics, remember Pastor Martin Niemoller's poem:

When the Nazis came for the communists,

I remained silent;

I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,

I remained silent;

I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,

I did not speak out;

I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,

I remained silent;

I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,

there was no one left to speak out.

As much as we might not want to stoop to their level or not interfere, the enemies are already attacking. Do we fight back? Or do we just let them gradually chip away at the US?

Time to grab the broom and start bagging the fertilizer...

2010-07-27T15:21:00.001-05:00

News of Target's donation has gone viral. Now it is listed on Think Progress, change.org, and there are multiple Facebook and Twitter pages. To bring you up to speed, due to the 'Citizens United' decision by the Supreme Court, corporate entities are legal persons and therefore have first amendment rights. Target Corporation decided to exercise those rights by donating to a "non-partisan" group who then published an ad supporting Tom Emmer, an extreme-rightwing (teabagger?) Republican candidate for Minnesota Governor.

Among Mr. Emmer's espoused policies:

lowering/removing the Minimum wage for working-class Americans
an immigration reform law similar to Arizona's
nullifying Healthcare Reform
denying legal recognition in any way, shape or form to any couple that does not consist of one man and one woman .

Mr. Emmer has also been linked to an extremist, "Christian" rap band that advocates the death penalty for LGBT people. The man is odious, and imho, would be worse than the outgoing governor, Tim Pawlenty.

With me so far? Ok. Now Best Buy has also made donations to the same "non-partisan" group. Both Best Buy and Target have made big deals about how progressive they are, and how dedicated to their employees' equality. (They both have large booths at Twin Cities Pride every year, and are often found as sponsors on many other LGBT-friendly/supportive events as well.) Target especially has made a huge PR campaign out of its progressive policies like offering domestic partner benefits, and its many charitable works, like donating school supplies to needy children.

Now that the poop has hit the fan about the donation, this is the CEO of Target's response: (Via MinnPost)

Dear Target Team,

In the past week I've heard from some of you, including our GLBT team members, regarding your concerns with Target's recent contributions to MN Forward, an independent expenditure committee that is supported by a broad coalition of large and small businesses throughout the state, including the Minnesota Business Partnership and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce.

As you know, Target has a history of supporting organizations and candidates, on both sides of the aisle, who seek to advance policies aligned with our business objectives, such as job creation and economic growth. MN Forward is focused specifically on those issues and is committed to supporting candidates from any party who will work to improve the state's job climate. However, it is also important to note that we rarely endorse all advocated positions of the organizations or candidates we support, and we do not have a political or social agenda.

In the context of this contribution, some of you have raised questions regarding our commitment to diversity, and more specifically, the GLBT community. Let me be very clear, Target's support of the GLBT community is unwavering, and inclusiveness remains a core value of our company. Some current examples of that support include:

• Domestic Partner Benefits
• Sponsorship of Twin Cities Pride
• Sponsorship of Out & Equal Workplace Summit

In addition, Target's rating of 100% on the 2009 and 2010 Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index further demonstrates the reputation our company has earned.

As CEO, I consider it my responsibility to create conditions in which Target can thrive, and I promise to do so with the best interests of our guests, team, shareholders and communities in mind. I appreciate your input and understanding.

My response after the jump

Dear Mr. Steinhafel,

As a gay man, a family member of a Target team member, and a former semi-regular guest, I fail to see how your support of Tom Emmer's campaign through MN Forward serves the best interests of anyone but Target's bottom line. While you may not endorse any or all of his policies, by donating money that eventually goes to support him, you are participating in harming your guests, your team members, your shareholders and their communities. While the business environment may seem superficially better due to possible tax breaks or other state fiscal policies that would seemingly benefit Target, I believe this is shortsighted, and will actually have a negative effect on Target.

Whether you were supporting Tom Emmer directly, or by donating to a group who then donated to him, your support will do harm to the interests your letter indicates you are supposed to be keeping in mind. Due to his anti-gay stances, Tom Emmer supports discrimination and unequal status for LGBT Citizens. Not only is this totally counter to the policies you mention, It also will have an impact on the bottom line because due to unequal taxation and lack of legal recognition of their relationships, LGBT families have proportionally less income than a similarly situated family that is headed by an opposite-gender couple. Because that family has less income, they then have less to spend at Target. Also, many LGBT people are moving their business elsewhere, choosing other retailers or pharmacy providers due to this decision--including my husband. Because they are going elsewhere, Target's revenues are lower.

This decision also harms your LGBT team members. Tom Emmer would enact policies making it illegal to offer the domestic partner benefits you tout in your letter. Also, because those LGBT team members have to pay extra taxes on their domestic partner coverage, they are taking home less than a straight spouse's coverage, again resulting in less disposable income to spend at Target or elsewhere. Likewise, Mr. Emmer wants to lower the minimum wage. Those employees who start after the minimum wage law would go into effect would have that much less income to try and pay all of their expenses, yet again affecting their disposable income.

Due to the shrinking pool of disposable income I've described above, revenues at Target, and other stores to be sure, would decline, harming your shareholders' stock value. This would also harm your team members, because less revenue results in layoffs and store closings. Also some stockholders may be LGBT themselves or have family members who are, so they would be doubly affected.

Declining revenues also mean that Target has less money to spread into the community. This is also a double whammy because Target team members are typically drawn from the local community area. Not only would Tom Emmer's policies take money away from individuals so that they could not make individual community improvements and donations, Target has less money to do so as well, limiting it's opportunities for good PR to draw more guests.

All of the tax breaks and incentives in the world do you no good if you don't have the business to support them. I urge you to reconsider this decision and either take back your donation, or donate and publicize equal amounts to community and/or political organizations that support LGBT individuals, their families, and politicians who will enact policies supporting ALL Minnesotans, not just the wealthiest.

Sincerely,

Jason King

Share

How do we vote with our dollars when we're on a budget?

2010-07-25T14:29:00.002-05:00

UPDATE: Change.org has an article about this as well, and a petition to sign.

Recent news has come out about Target Corporation supporting an antigay candidate for Minnesota governor.

Target claims that they made a donation to a "bipartisan" group to create a better business environment, but when you look at the group's website, it is very pointedly partisan, and that group then used Target's donation to support Tom Emmer, who is about as anti-gay a candidate that you can get. Under the Citizen's United decision, corporations are legal 'people' and therefore have first amendment rights, including unlimited donations to various political candidates supporting that corporation's viewpoint. While I'm not thrilled about it, OK. I just won't shop or do business with that company, and will "vote with my dollars."

However, there are a couple of things that disturb me about Target's donation. They have been known, especially in the Twin Cities area, to be corporate sponsors of LGBT-friendly and supportive events like Twin Cities Pride, and the Minnesota AIDS Project. They have extremely gay-friendly corporate policies, and HRC gives them a 100 rating in their Shopper's guide, and recommends them as an extremely gay-friendly place to work. Why would they support a candidate whose policy positions would actively harm their LGBT employees, and undermine the causes they have supported?

Because of the situation, my partner has already moved his pharmacy account from Target, and several of my friends and associates are cancelling their Target credit cards to express their displeasure. This is what I mean by voting with dollars. They also have written to the CEO and gotten the brushoff described above, that Target did it as a business decision. I suppoort them in this and think that the LGBT and progressive communities need to make this a fully-fledged boycott.

I am concerned, though. I know in this tough economic situation, it is extremely difficult to make a boycott stick. I'm already boycotting Wal-Fart over it's poor employment practices and anti-union stances. Now Target is on the list for its ill-considered political support. Where can I shop though? It's not like my budget could support shopping elsewhere. Many times the same reasons the store has low prices or other attractive qualities to someone on a limited budget are the same things that that prospective customer is against. As an acquaintance of mine once put it--"I don't want to support policies that harm me or my friends, but I can't afford NOT to shop at those stores." What do you do when you either have to shop at one of the 'boycott' stores or do without? Is there another way to fight back? How does the little guy make himself heard in a situation like this?

For employees, they're in an even tighter spot. They could speak up and/or quit, but in this economy, no one wants to voluntarily give up their job, because it's that much harder to find a new one. The corporations have all of us little guys over a barrel, and they know it.

I don't have any answers; All I can say is to do what we can and hope that enough little people band together to make a BIG difference.
Share

BP's Spill in the Gulf as narrated by Dr. Seuss

2010-06-08T20:52:00.006-05:00

Your Means Will Shape Your End

2010-06-05T23:03:00.001-05:00

Over at Waking Up Now, Rob Tisinai has an interesting article about how what we do influences how things end up. Whether or not we debate if the ends justify the means or if the means are our ends, Rob makes the point that

Your Means Will Shape Your End: "

... The means you choose won’t determine just whether you reach your
goal — it will change the way that goal plays out when you bring it into
reality.
I made the Republicans in Congress video because I saw the party orchestrating a campaign of lies on issue after issue. These weren’t petty rhetorical overstatements, or the political sleight-of-hand we expect during a reelection bid. This was a coordinated, party-wide effort. Republicans seemed to toss out statement after statement with no regard for the truth, and if one of them gained political traction then they all started echoing it. Who cares if death panels are a vicious myth? If the lie helps us, let’s use it!

Forget for a moment whether this strategy is moral. Ask rather, If it succeeded, how would it shape the result? Republicans would have won their bid for power. But what else? The electorate would be deceived, ignorant, and just not capable of making good choices. Media institutions like Fox would be little more than ministries of propaganda. The ruling elite would rely heavily the “noble lie” strategy: if you know what’s best for the American people, then craft a story, any story, that will boost public opinion.

Weapons of mass destruction? Ooo, that’s a good one. If we push that, along with a fake link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda and Iraq, then we can invade the country, set up a democracy there, and change the whole political equation in the middle east!

You set up this structure to get yourself in power, but it doesn’t go away after the election is over. Instead you’ve got an entire deceit industry whose new chief goal is its own survival and exaltation. Once upon a time the Republican Party used buffoons like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck as political tools. Now those tools are able to frighten the hell out of party officials. In 2008, the party advanced an obscure governor to boost a presidential campaign. They told her what to say, where to be, how to dress. Now some of them beg Sarah Palin for endorsements, and she delivers them in speeches that reflect her fiction of the moment.

Your means will shape your end.

Jump over to his blog to read the rest.
Share

BP demotivator, for the win

2010-06-04T19:57:00.001-05:00

Via Rachel Maddow's Maddowblog:

BP demotivator, for the win:

Share

Memorial Day: Remembering Leonard Matlovich

2010-05-31T11:36:00.000-05:00

Via The Bilerico Project:

Memorial Day: Remembering Leonard Matlovich: "

'When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and a discharge for loving one.'

-- Technical Sergeant Leonard Matlovich was a Vietnam War veteran and recipient of the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. Matlovich was the first gay service member to fight the ban on gays in the military. The quote above is written on his tombstone.

"

Share

Hey, Arizona...

2010-05-25T22:52:00.001-05:00

Finding our Voices

2010-05-22T18:54:00.000-05:00

Today is the first ever Harvey Milk Day in California, and celebrations are planned across the US. In honor of Mr. Milk, I just finished watching the movie about his life, "Milk". One of Harvey's biggest points was that we've got to stand up and be counted. LGBT people cannot just sit on the side lines. When various anti-gay laws are proposed, we need to stand up and let people see just who it is they are affecting with those laws. We also need to remember that LGBT people come from all sorts of backgrounds. The issues facing various LGBT people also affect other communities.

Racism is an LGBT issue. There are LGBT people of color, who are doubly discriminated against both by the LGBT community, and by their 'racial community'.

Immigration status is an LGBT issue. Not only are laws like Arizona's "Papers, Please" affecting LGBT people of immigrant backgrounds, many 'T's do not have documentation that match their gender presentation due to various legal hurdles. Thus they could face jail time for having incorrect papers, or perhaps even deportation. It also affects bi-national families. If one partner in a gay family is from the US, they cannot sponsor their same-sex partner for citizenship like an opposite-sex couple can. The non-American partner then faces deportation when their visa is up, leaving the American partner to make the heartwrenching decision about breaking up the relationship or out-migrating to another country. This is why we need the Uniting American Families Act.

The economy is an LGBT issue. Despite popular myth, LGBT people tend to be at the bottom end of the earning spectrum, transpeople especially. In 31 states it is legal to fire employees simply due to their orientation or transition status, regardless of job performance or other qualifications.

There are many ways that the LGBT community fits into other groups of "us"es. Not only do we need to stand up and speak out about wrongs done to gay people, we need to speak out against injustice, period. No one is safe until we're all safe. We're all in this together. Remember Martin Niemoller's poem:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Widening one pothole on in the intersection to fill another: Religious Conservativism and its practical effects

2010-05-06T08:13:00.000-05:00

With all of the news regarding George Rekers and what he did or did not do with his rentboy, I got to thinking about how popular religious, conservative figures actually end up contributing to the social maladies that they are supposed to be fighting. I especially thought about it in relation to several prominent religious conservative politicians in my home state of Minnesota. Current Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, US Representative Michelle Bachmann, and Republican Gubernatorial candidate/Current State Representative Tom Emmer all have expressed anti-gay attitudes in their legislative habits. How do their actions contribute to social maladies like homelessness, drug abuse, and sex-work trafficking?

I was originally going to write a headline for this article that read "Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Emmer linked to sex trade and drug dealing in Loring Park", but I thought better of it. While the headline would be attention-grabbing, I don't have the direct evidence to back it up.

What I do have is circumstantial at best, but I think it is compelling.

Fact: Governor Tim Pawlenty has vetoed any pro-Gay legislation when it has come up

Pawlenty has vetoed a number of LGBT-rights bills in his career as governor. He vetoed a bill to beef up anti-bullying efforts in schools; legislation that would give control to local municipalities in deciding who could receive domestic partner benefits (twice vetoed); and a bill would have expanded current laws that allow for the use of sick time to care for spouses and dependent children including same-sex couples.

Fact: Due to his refusal to raise taxes, he has cut various educational, health and government assistance programs. While the legislature has proposed many versions of the budget, Mr. Pawlenty has rejected them and sent them back because they did not include cuts he favored. According to Minnesota Senator Ken Kelash, the delay in approving a budget has resulted in the legislature being required to make even more cuts because a Federal grant will not arrive in time to affect the budget shortfall.
Pawlenty, Bachmann and Emmer have all campaigned to remove various LGBT rights or block granting them. In 2003 and 2006, Michelle Bachmann introduced an anti-gay marriage amendment (which failed both times) and has made multiple antigay statements, implying that LGBT people are child molesters and are sexually dysfunctional.
Pawlenty and Bachmann are both self-identified conservative, evangelical Christians. While I have not seen anything from Emmer identifying his beliefs, his campaign certainly seems in line with Pawlenty's and Bachmann's publicly expressed opinions.
A 20-40% of the homeless youth in America are homeless due to anti-gay attitudes in their families. Some ran away; others were kicked out. Conservative, evangelical Christians often kick their children out when they find out that they are gay, and express other anti-gay attitudes as well. These attitudes are given credence by the various statments from Mr. Pawlenty, Ms. Bachmann, and Mr. Emmer.
Because these young people are kicked out of their homes due to conservative attitudes, and no safety net due to the budget cuts, they struggle to provide for basic needs--food, shelter. Education falls to the wayside and they often drop out of school, further complicating the issue. Now they have no skills to get better paying jobs and work their way up.
They turn to sex work and drug dealing because those "jobs" don't require an education, and are often lucrative for short periods.

In conclusion, by publicly making anti-gay statements, taking anti-gay political actions, and cutting the various saftey net programs, Minnesota's GOP stars are contributing to the decline of society.
Share

Help me create a trending topic on Twitter!

2010-04-20T23:32:00.000-05:00

I'm slowly joining the 21st century. I just signed up for a Twitter account. I'm @gayjaybird on there. I was inspired by the GetEqual activits, and by the White House's lack of response on GLBT issues. I created a hashtag and would like to get it trending on Twitter. Can you help me out by retweeting the following message:

Mr. Obama, you promised to be a "fierce advocate" with the slogan "Yes We Can." #TellUsWhen. When will you support equality for all?

Thanks!
Share

Repainting the Lane Lines

2010-04-20T21:20:00.000-05:00

We need to repaint the lane lines on Church and on State. The boundaries are getting dangerously blurred. When is it simply exercising one's personal religious beliefs, and when is it a violation of someone's civil rights?

Sarah Palin recently ranted about how the founding fathers did not believe in the separation of church and state; the first amendment notwithstanding. She objected to President Obama making a comment that "America is not a Christian Nation." (It is not. Neither is it a Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, etc. Nation)

In the early 80's and 90's, the "Religious Right" made a concerted effort to get "good, Christian" men and women involved in various governmental bodies--school boards, city councils, state and federal legislatures, etc. They felt that these "good Christians" would then make laws and decisions based on their conservative values, and reverse changes they felt were against God, like the right to an abortion or invalidating sodomy laws.

That is all fine and good. While I may not agree with their ideals they are perfectly within their rights (or lane, if you will) as American Citizens. However, these people are starting to become road hogs.

The religious conservatives in their various offices of power now exercise their power at the expense of many groups, especially LGBTs. Take the case of Clay Greene and Harold Scull in Sonoma County, CA. Harold and Clay were together for 25 years when Harold fell and broke his hip. Preparing for the future, the men had drawn up wills, healthcare proxies, advanced directives and whatnot that each designated the other as the person to make health decisions if he was incapacitated. County officials ignored this paperwork, misrepresented the relationship to the court and took control of all that the men had amassed in their time together, without trying to determine who owned what. They then terminated the lease, auctioned off all of the men's posessions and put them in two separate nursing homes. Harold later died in the home he was housed in, and Clay was not allowed to see his partner to comfort him or say goodbye. The National Center for Lesbian Rights has joined with Clay to sue the county and its officials who made these decisions. While this story is horrific enough, Joe.My.God has evidence that one of the county officials named in the complaint has links to evangelical Christianity, which is notoriously anti-gay. (Ok, the evidence might not stand up in court, but it is suggestive.)

There is also a case making its way to the Supreme Court about whether a school-based Christian law group has to admit gays. The school says that any officially school-recognized groups have to allow any student who wishes to join. The Christian Legal Society at Hastings College says that forcing them to take gays and non-believers violates their first amendment rights. This case could have a large impact on how non-discrimination policies across the board are enforced, not just the educational policies, but also in various federal funding and public policies as well.

Where is the line that separates the Church from the state? Is it in a state official acting according to his own personal interpretation of the laws based on his beliefs? Is it in federal laws that force private organizations using public funds to abide by nondiscrimination laws? The right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Where does my nose end and your fist begin?
Share

Designing Women - Julia Sugarbaker "The Candidate" RIP Dixie Carter :(

2010-04-19T13:31:00.000-05:00

Texas: Conservatives Strong-Arm Textbook Curriculum Advisory Panel

2010-02-12T12:01:00.000-06:00

Via Joe My God:

Texas: Conservatives Strong-Arm Textbook Curriculum Advisory Panel: "The Texas State Board of Education is easily the most influential group in the nation when it comes to the subjects studied in public schools. Their recommendations directly affect the make-up of the textbooks sold to school systems all over the country. Naturally, therefore, Christianists and assorted wingnuts fiercely lobby the TSBOE, including from within, to ensure that American kids are taught that ours is a purely (and exclusively) Christian nation. Here's what board member Don McLeroy brought to last month's meeting.

McLeroy moved that Margaret Sanger, the birth-control pioneer, be included because she “and her followers promoted eugenics,” that language be inserted about Ronald Reagan’s “leadership in restoring national confidence” following Jimmy Carter’s presidency and that students be instructed to “describe the causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract With America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority and the National Rifle Association.” The injection of partisan politics into education went so far that at one point another Republican board member burst out in seemingly embarrassed exasperation, “Guys, you’re rewriting history now!” Nevertheless, most of McLeroy’s proposed amendments passed by a show of hands. Finally, the board considered an amendment to require students to evaluate the contributions of significant Americans. The names proposed included Thurgood Marshall, Billy Graham, Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley Jr., Hillary Rodham Clinton and Edward Kennedy. All passed muster except Kennedy, who was voted down.

Got that? The lives of Newt Gingrich and Billy Graham will be studied by high schoolers all over the nation. But not Ted Kennedy, one of the longest serving and arguably the most influential and successful legislator in American history. He was a dirty librul, that's why!

Seven members of the TSBOE are 'quite open about their intent to advance the Christian agenda' in the nation's textbooks. Read the extensive article in this weekend's New York Times Magazine which tracks the campaign to rewrite history and train the students of the United States about the 'Christian truth' of our nation's founding. Prepare to be depressed.

Subscribe to Joe.My.God.

"

Share

Demand Question Time

2010-02-09T13:36:00.000-06:00

Via Pam's House Blend:

Tired of seeing your elected officials spinning the issues? Demand Question Time: "I think this is a brilliant idea, since our current relationship with our elected officials about the issues has devolved into a lack of accountability, with spinning and posturing and sound bites the norm. Constituent services has turned into a PR form letter generator.

It's time that these elected officials let the people see them answering questions about policy and legislation without all of the hired guns behind the curtain -- aides, consultants and pollsters ready to coach them on dodging a direct answer. We'll be able to see who the empty suits are on the Hill, and perhaps break through some of these legislative logjams.

We live in a world that increasingly demands more dialogue than monologue. President Obama's January 29th question-and-answer session with Republican leaders gave the public a remarkable window into the state of our union and governing process. It was riveting and educational. The exchanges were substantive, civil and candid. And in a rare break from our modern politics, sharp differences between elected leaders were on full public display without rancor or ridicule.
This was one of the best national political debates in many years. Citizens who watched the event were impressed, by many accounts. Journalists and commentators immediately responded by continuing the conversation of the ideas put forward by the president and his opponents - even the cable news cycle was disrupted for a day.
America could use more of this - an unfettered and public airing of political differences by our elected representatives. So we call on President Barack Obama and House Minority Leader John Boehner to hold these sessions regularly - and allow them to be broadcast and webcast live and without commercial interruption, sponsorship or intermediaries. We also urge the President and the Republican Senate caucus to follow suit. And we ask the President and the House and Senate caucuses of his own party to consider mounting similar direct question-and-answer sessions. We will ask future Presidents and Congresses to do the same.
It is time to make Question Time a regular feature of our democracy.
Please join us by signing the Demand Question Time petition.

And this is not just progressives calling for QT. Leading this effort are folks like David Corn, Nate Silver of 538, Markos Moulitsas of DKos and on the other side of the fence -- Grover Norquist, Glenn Reynolds, and Brent Bozell III.

You can follow Question Time on Twitter (#QuestionTime)

"

Share

Largest NJ Gay Advocacy Group to Stop Donating to Political Parties, Asks Members to Do the Same

2010-02-09T09:58:00.000-06:00

Via Garden State Equality:

The Board of Directors of Garden State Equality has voted to end the organization's giving to political parties, it reports:

Sending a bold signal that no political party should take the support of the LGBT community and its allies for granted, Garden State Equality’s Board of Directors has unanimously approved a new provision for the organization’s bylaws that immediately precludes Garden State Equality from giving financial contributions to political parties and their affiliated committees. Under the new policy, Garden State Equality will make financial contributions only to individual candidates and to non-party organizations that further equality for the LGBT community.

The bylaws provision asks Garden State Equality members, who make their own decisions as to individual political contributions, to refrain from contributing to parties and their affiliated committees.

“No political party has a record good enough on LGBT civil rights that it can rightfully claim to be entitled to our money on a party-wide basis,” said Steven Goldstein, chair of Garden State Equality. “No longer will we let any political party take our money and volunteers with one hand, and slap us in the face with the other when we seek full equality.”

"Our Board of Directors felt so strongly about adopting this new policy," Goldstein said, "that it unanimously decided to include it in the organization's bylaws."

Hat tip to Andy @ Towleroad and John @ AmericaBlogGay

Share

HEADLINE OF THE DAY

2010-02-09T08:43:00.000-06:00

Via MadPriest from Of Course, I could be Wrong

HEADLINE OF THE DAY: "From RECORDNET.COM:

Oh, that is disgusting. It's bad enough when Christians don't

do anything to help those sleeping on the streets of their

cities in these terrible winter conditions. But to go and steal

the shoes off the homeless and make them sleep out

barefooted is abominable behaviour. Something should be

done about it.

"

Share

Happy Birthday, Philip, My Love!

2010-02-05T09:23:00.000-06:00

Forty-one years ago today, the world was given a special gift. He has been a blessing in my life and my best friend. I have been privileged to spend the last year with him, and I hope and plan to spend many more. Philip is my lover, my partner, my husbear. He has shown me ways to be a better person, and writes about the spiritual struggles LGBT Christians have. Check out his blog at Philip's Many Thoughts.

Happy birthday, Philip. I love you!
Share

Rep. Alan Grayson To Christian Right: What About YOUR Pact With Satan?

2010-01-27T13:16:00.000-06:00

Via JoeMyGod:

Rep. Alan Grayson To Christian Right: What About YOUR Pact With Satan?:

"On the floor of Congress yesterday, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) called out the Christian right for the comments about Haiti and asked Pat Robertson, 'What about your own pact with the devil? How's that worked out for you?' Classic Grayson!"

Share

A Letter to the Editor I wish I'd written:

2010-01-26T13:25:00.000-06:00

Susan Russell over at "An Inch At a Time" has a letter to the editor that sums things up quite well:

A Letter to the Editor I wish I'd written::

"[via email -- thanks to Jerry Anderson!]
CORPORATE PERSONHOOD
The 14th Amendment was adopted to ensure the constitutional rights of freed slaves and their descendents after the Civil War. There have been roughly 325 federal court cases relative to this amendment since that time. Nineteen of those cases have actually had anything at all to do with a human being. The remaining 300 or so cases have been part of the ongoing corruption process that grants “personhood” to corporations. “Corporate Personhood” is the legal concept that grants most of the rights of natural living, breathing citizens to corporations.
Under our constitution US corporations are allowed virtually every right of humanbeings including such rights as the right to marry. This “marriage/merger” concept which flies in the face of “traditional marriage” is openly embraced by conservatives who will freely grant to a profit-making business what they flatly refuse to grant to millions of our living, breathing LGBT citizens."
Surf over to read the rest! It's a dilly!

Share

SCOTUS decides to SCREWUS

2010-01-22T13:12:00.004-06:00

From Enlightened Catholic:

SCOTUS decides to SCREWUS: " I guess SCOTUS forgot about the reasons for some of the legislation around the teapot dome scandal. Now we are really back to the future.

Shed a Tear for Democracy: Citizens United v. FEC

Robert Weissman - President of Public Citizen - Huffington Post - 1/22/10)

Today, in Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence election outcomes.
Money from Exxon, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and the rest of the Fortune 500 is already corroding the policy making process in Washington, state capitals, and city halls. Today, the Supreme Court tells these corporate giants that they have a constitutional right to trample our democracy.

.....(More here

In eviscerating, longstanding rules that prohibit corporations from using their own monies to influence elections, the court invites giant corporations to open up their treasuries to buy election outcomes. Corporations are sure to accept the invitation.

The predictable result will be corporate money flooding the election process; huge targeted campaigns by corporations and their front groups attacking principled candidates who challenge parochial corporate interests; and a chilling effect on candidates and election officials, who will be deterred from advocating and implementing policies that advance the public interest but injure deep-pocket corporations.

Because today's decision is made on First Amendment constitutional grounds, the impact will be felt not only at the federal level, but in the states and localities, including in state judicial elections. (The local impact may be exactly where the most damage is felt. Hello Walmart, hello immanent domain abuses, hello corporate towns.)

In one sense, today's decision was a long time coming. Over the past 30 years, the Supreme Court has created and steadily expanded the First Amendment protections afforded to for-profit corporations. (Important point here. Your average 501c3 isn't rolling in billions of third quarter profits like Goldman Sachs or Exxon.)

But in another sense, the decision is a startling break from Supreme Court tradition. Even as it has mistakenly equated money with speech in the political context, the court has long upheld regulations on corporate spending in the electoral context. The Citizens United decision is also an astonishing overreach by the court. No one thought the issue of corporations' purported right to spend money to influence election outcomes was at stake in this case until the Supreme Court so decreed. The case had been argued in lower courts, and was originally argued before the Supreme Court, on narrow grounds related to the application of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. (I think we really need to digest this fact. No one expected this kind of universal blanket decision from this case. It's like taking a local sodomy case and jumping it up to allow gay marriage rights. It's called right wing judicial activism like the left never ever considered.)

The court has invented the idea that corporations have First Amendment rights to influence election outcomes out of whole cloth. There is surely no precedent to support this outcome, since the court only created the rights in recent decades. Nor can the outcome be justified in light of the underlying purpose and spirit of the First Amendment. Corporations are state-created entities, not real people. They do not have expressive interests like humans; and, unlike humans, they are uniquely motivated by a singular focus on their economic bottom line. Corporate spending on elections defeats rather than advances the democratic thrust of the First Amendment.

We, the People, cannot allow this decision to go unchallenged. We, the People, cannot allow corporations to take control of our democracy

***************************************************

I haven't been this angry since our conservative court gave GW the presidency. Now our conservative court has given Exxon our democracy. I guess we can forget any real ecological, financial, or health reform. By 2014 we could truly be represented by the Senator from Koch Industries who happens to live in Texas.

What really bothers me though, is the thought that Goldman Sachs as a corporate individual apparently has the same constitutional rights I do as a human--without any of the responsibilities. Mr Sachs has no children to worry about which really effects a person's bottom line. Mr Sachs has no health problems to worry about which really effects a person's bottom line. Mr Sachs doesn't have to worry much about his house being foreclosed on, or where his next meal is coming from, or whether his car is going down the tubes. Even if Mr Sachs did have to worry about any of these humdrum issues, Mr Sachs has plenty of mine and your assets to help with such issues. Mr Sachs has already been defined by our government as 'too big to fail' where as us mere human individuals are too often defined as 'too little to care about'. SCOTUS has just decided to put us mere human individuals permanently in our very little place.

I looked up this morning what it takes to impeach a Supreme Court Justice. I think it would behoove our current government to investigate some of the members of this court. Maybe some of them have holdings in off shore accounts. Holdings which don't compute with their salaries or other perks. It's just a thought. Here's another thought--judicial malpractice.

Some angry folks are discussing a constitutional amendment to define the rights of corporate individuals vis a vis the first amendment. This could actually get bi partisan support since SCOTUS also extended this benevolence to unions. Then again it may not because it wouldn't take long for a corporate democracy to legislate unions off the face of our map, especially on the state level. I mean the greatest leverage an individual can have over other individuals is their pay check. How many Americans are really able to vote their conscience or speak their mind if it might cost them their pay check? I guess only those who have already lost their paycheck.

This is bad news folks. If this isn't stopped we will have no real democracy. If tea baggers and right wingers think this is in their best interests, just wait. Exxon only cares about how much money tea baggers are willing to pay for a gallon of gas or home heating oil. Just like the rest of us.

"

Share

Catholic Archbishops Launch New Manhattan Declaration Campaign

2010-01-15T18:25:00.000-06:00

Via Joe My God:
Catholic Archbishops Launch New Manhattan Declaration Campaign: "The authors of the anti-gay Manhattan Declaration, which calls for the disobedience of any laws granting LGBT rights, want to increase its number of signatories from 370,000 to one million. Working to help them reach that noble goal are Catholic archbishops. Via press release:

Cardinal Rigali of Philadelphia (right), Archbishop Wuerl of Washington, DC (left), Archbishop Dolan of New York and Archbishop Kurtz of Louisville reached out to all of their brother Catholic bishops asking them to spread this document throughout their dioceses and encourage their clergy and faithful to study it and join as signatories. The Archbishop of Detroit has planned a grassroots effort throughout his archdiocese. The Bishop of Phoenix has already organized a grassroots effort there. We are also receiving many reports of evangelical gatherings in a number of areas - and many evangelical pastors referring to the Manhattan Declaration in their sermons. This bold and exciting movement needs to reach 100 or 200 cities in America. Why not? Can you help? We are urging you to encourage your pastors and community leaders to do what these other cities are doing. Organize ecumenical meetings organized around the Manhattan Declaration; get other concerned citizens to join the effort. Get on the internet or phone and ask friends to join you.

After a raft of suggestions on how to increase the number of signatures (Use Facebook! Twitter! Hair salons! Barbeques!), the authors close with: 'Just think what might happen in our land if one million courageous Christians declared their uncompromising allegiance to Jesus Christ and to biblical faithfulness on some of the most urgent moral issues of our day. May God give us the strength to do what He is so clearly calling us to do. From our perspective, this is a cause worth giving every last ounce of effort and energy we have.'

And once again, the moral and Godly oppression of natural human sexuality is aided by elderly drag queen eunuchs in embroidered gowns, gaily waving their smoking purses all the way to the NAMBLA meeting.

Subscribe to Joe.My.God.

"

Share

A picture is worth 1000 words

2010-01-15T18:15:00.000-06:00

h/t (Susan Russell @ inchatatime.blogspot.com)
Share

Exporting culture war and ignoring the consequences

2010-01-15T14:28:00.000-06:00

Via Episcopal Cafe:

Exporting culture war and ignoring the consequences: "

Here is a recipe for trouble: Go to another country and culture. Take a dreadful and defining historical event grounded in one context, reframe in terms of a battle you are having at home, so can line them up on your side back home. Stir up us-versus-them rhetoric, tell people their children are at risk, and then walk away. When the results are volatile and dangerous, resulting in death and threats of death, be shocked but only after a respectful silence. Or just remain silent.

This is what American conservative Evangelicals have done in Uganda and the result is the anti-gay bill in Uganda.

In the churches in North America, the fight over sexuality has meant divided churches and, probably, disaffected members who are tired of churches who do nothing but argue. In Uganda, American culture wars have become a license to kill, including now a proposal to extend state-sanctioned killing to homosexuals and imprisonment towards those who know gays, interact with gays, or assist gays.

Both NPR and Newsweek reflect on what happens when American culture wars are exported to different cultures and political climates.

Lisa Miller writes in Newsweek.com about the limits of 'Anglican soulmating'. She says that while conservative former-Episcopalians in a rich California suburb may be impressed by the piety and theological purity of their African counterparts, it can be shocking when they see what happens when American culture wars are exported.

American culture wars are kindergarten play compared with those in places like Uganda, where democracy is a sham and tolerance rare. And American conservatives who insist on romanticizing Africans for the purity of their Christian belief must guard against escalating those wars and endangering lives—intentionally or not—by giving support and money to Christian leaders with insufficient regard for human rights. 'The culture war which has been fought in the U.S. has been exported to Africa,' says Ochoro Otunnu, a Ugandan human-rights lawyer based in New York. But, he adds, there's a big difference. 'In America you can have an open debate about homosexuality knowing full well you have an array of legal and constitutional protections. Those protections don't exist in some of the African countries—Uganda being a case in point. When this debate is conducted in public you can actually endanger an entire minority community....'

The anti-homosexuality bill now before the Ugandan parliament is a case in point. NPR's Barbara Bradley Haggerty reports on what happened how American conservative evangelicals encouraged the bills and only half-heartedly back away from its deadlier consequences:

To understand how this bill came to be, one needs to know the story of King Mwanga. In 1886, Uganda's king ordered some two dozen male pages to have sex with him, and when they refused because of their Christian faith, he ordered that they be burned to death. Every year on June 3, Ugandans celebrate a national holiday honoring the Christian martyrs and deploring the pedophile king.

Into this climate stepped Scott Lively, an American evangelical and president of Defend The Family International. In March 2009, Lively traveled to Uganda to speak, along with two other Americans from 'ex-gay communities,' about the 'gay agenda.'
'The gay movement is an evil institution,' he told Uganda's Family Life Network. 'The goal of the gay movement is to defeat the marriage-based society and replace it with a culture of sexual promiscuity.'
Then Lively, who has authored a book called The Pink Swastika, played into the fears raised by Uganda's history.
'Male homosexuality has historically been, not adult to adult; it's been adult to teenager,' he said. 'It's called pederasty — adults sodomizing teenage boys.'

Lively went on to talk to the Ugandan parliament, but says he never intended for the bill to include the death penalty, but he admires the line in the sand the Ugandan politicians are drawing. He told NPR: 'But the fact that they're willing to stand up and say, 'No, we are not going let you homosexualize our country!' — that is a step in the right direction, and I would hope that it would spread to other countries.'

Martin Minns, of CANA whose boss is Nigerian Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola, calls the lobbying and pressure from the West to stop the legislation 'megaphone diplomacy' and he says it doesn't work. He claims that his groups has been working quietly behind the scenes to change the legislation.

'It's hard for any of us who have not lived under colonial rule to realize how offensive it is for people who have won that freedom to now basically be told, 'You're fools. You're ignorant. One day you'll grow up and be like us,' ' Minns says. 'That comes across in a very patronizing way.'

Nigeria had a similar law come before their parliament a few years back, with the open support of Minns' boss, Archbishop Peter Akinola. It was withdrawn after a lot of megaphone diplomacy which included consistent international condemnation from governments and foreign ministers.

NPR interviewed Episcopal Cafe's Jim Naughton, who said he doesn't buy the stated shock and dismay of some evangelical leaders about the bill. He says that they should have known that their message, which plays one way in the USA, would play another way in Uganda:

'If you go to countries where there's already a great deal of suspicion and maybe animosity towards homosexuals, and begin to tell people there, 'Well, actually these people are child abusers, they're coming for their children, that they're the scourge that is being deposited on you by the secular West,' you're gonna get a backlash.' Naughton says it's like 'showing up in rooms filled with gasoline, and throwing lighted matches around and saying, 'Well, I never intended fire .' '

Lisa Miller talked to human rights activists and others who point to this law as the consequence of a policy of exporting American religious and political ideologies to Africa, Latin American and Asia.

Otunnu and other human-rights activists believe the political war against homosexuals in Uganda is a direct result of the legions of evangelists who landed in his country during the Bush administration, determined to fight HIV/AIDS with Christian rhetoric about abstinence and marital fidelity. 'Africa, like Latin America and parts of Asia, is culturally very conservative. But within Uganda there has never been an ideology on how to criminalize this act. This is the impact of the evangelical movement.'

"

Share