Unfortunately I often spend--quite possibly I should say waste--time reading articles on HuffPost (Huffington Post) on AOL; and further, reading and replying to the comments that other readers/users post.
I get saddened and frustrated by all the comments by homophobes, every time there's an article even remotely having to do with anything gay. They make the same tired, old comments--homosexuality is unnatural, it's a sin--and they point to their Bibles as telling them so. Never mind that they choose to pay attention to only some parts of the Bible and ignore others.
I argue with these people, by way of my comments on what they say and then their attempts at refuting me--etc., etc.
It's futile. As I said in a previous posting here, their logic is typically faulty, and you can't get them to understand that because they have little or no notion of logic, or of what is or is not faulty reasoning.
Then, in light of the recent shootings in Aurora, Colorado, I wrote that the United States has a problem with the wide and easy availability of guns and ammunition. To me the situation is quite clear--but not so to the gun-rights boys.
I provoked the argument they have used so many times in the past: cars can kill people, too, so would you ban cars?
I tried to point out that this is a faulty analogy. There is this important and fundamental difference between cars and guns: Cars do not have the primary purpose of killing people, but guns do.
So that is what I replied to the person who tried to make the comparison with cars. But he denies that his analogy is faulty.
As is so often the case with Right-wing types, they use faulty arguments and false "facts"; and their minds are so closed (not that closed minds are the sole property of those on the Right) that they cannot or will not acknowledge when their arguments are shown to be flawed.
You can get some really absurd and nonsensical comments out of them. One, recently, was writing about the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution. There is no 28th Amendment. The moral here is not about the general level of intelligence (low!) but how people can think and believe really wacky things.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Richard Stein
Showing posts with label Religious Right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religious Right. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Get God into Government?
As American politics approach the famous or infamous "Iowa caucuses," of course that is very much in the news. One particular item of comment concerned which candidate so-called Evangelical voters are going to favor. Accordingly, the news reporters interviewed a few such.
One of them said, "We've got to get God back into this country." Another said, "We have to get God into government."
I dearly wish I could have asked them exactly what they meant. But absent that, my reaction would be to say that America is not a theocracy, never has been, and anyone who thinks that a theocracy is in any way desirable should look at the example of Iran, where the opinions of the ruling ayatollahs trump the views of the more secular organs of government such as, indeed, President Ahmadinejad. Considering the freedoms that prevail in Iran—or rather the lack of them—should make anyone think twice before wishing for a theocracy in this country. (But they'd probably try to argue that a Christian theocracy is a good thing even if a Muslim theocracy is a bad thing.)
I have a feeling that these respondents, if I were to expostulate with them on the notion of church-state separation, would give me the standard Religious Right line that church-state separation is a "myth." And I would point out that it was Thomas Jefferson who, in a famous letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state. (And the idea has even earlier roots, going back 150 years earlier still, to Roger Williams who was exiled from the Bay Colony in Massachusetts and established Rhode Island to provide religious freedom.)
If I did have my hypothetical chance to interrogate these same (presumably) caucus-bound Republican voters in Iowa, I have a feeling that before too long we'd hear that they want to see things like a return of prayer to the public schools; posting of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, city halls, etc.; total outlawing of abortion and same-sex marriage. These have been issues for, and aims of, the Religious Right for a long time—in some cases for decades.
Just as an aside, when they helped elect Ronald Reagan, and maybe ditto for George W. Bush, they were very disillusioned that these objectives of theirs were not realized. That those policies were not enacted, even by presidents whom these people thought were one of them or at the very least largely on their side, shows that these are not popular (in the original sense) or mainstream positions.
I think some polls have shown that about one-third of American voters consider themselves Evangelicals. Even if that is so and is not an inflated statistic, that number still is not a majority. Yet this minority aspires to political power such that it can trample on those who don't agree with it. The majority in the US gets to wield power via elections; but when it comes to rights (e.g. the civil rights of minority groups), the government is set up so that the majority cannot impose its religious views or practices on a minority. Nor a minority on the majority. The arbiter of any disputes about that is our court system.
Some of the earliest polities in America—for example, the seventeenth-century colony settled by Puritans in Massachusetts—were in fact set up as theocracies. A dissenter such as Roger Williams was kicked out of Massachusetts and went on to found Rhode Island. But the Framers of the Constitution, a century and a half later, in envisioning the shape of a federal government, wanted to avoid any government like that.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Update, January 4, 2012
This posting received a comment from a faithful follower of this blog. While I have the power to moderate all comments—that means I can allow or not allow a comment to be posted—I am pledged to allow dissenting opinions to be expressed on my blog.
However, I have to object to what was said; and I at first did so by writing a comment myself, commenting on the reader's comment.
However, I think I will use this avenue, an "update" to my original posting, to further express my refutation of what this person says.
He accuses liberals of being opposed to "school choice." Now, what exactly is school choice?
First, the term is a euphemism of the sort that I particularly hate because it obscures what is really being talked about. To me that is deceptive and downright evil.
"School choice" means what are also called school vouchers. Vouchers are given to parents of school-age children who can take them and use them as payment for school tuition; that is, tuition at private schools, and that usually means parochial--religious--schools.
So, school vouchers are beloved by the Religious Right. I, however, am strongly opposed to them. They allow tax money—my tax dollars—to be used to pay for religious education. I don't think I should be forced to pay for religious, sectarian, doctrinal education—which might, for example, teach Creationism instead of evolution. I believe that breaches the Constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State.
Here is an interesting slant on school vouchers from the article on that subject in Wikipedia:
An interesting alternative, which does not seem to me to be as objectionable, is called "education tax credits." This basically says that if you pay to send your children to private school, you don't have to pay taxes which go to finance public schools. That seems fair, but I'd hasten to add that by the same logic, people such as myself, who have no children, probably should not pay for public schools, either.
There was an important ruling by the Supreme Court: in "2002 in a landmark case before the US Supreme Court, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, . . . the divided court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled the Ohio school voucher plan constitutional and removed any constitutional barriers to similar voucher plans in the future. . . " [Wikipedia, ibid.].
However, in Florida vouchers were struck down:
One of them said, "We've got to get God back into this country." Another said, "We have to get God into government."
I dearly wish I could have asked them exactly what they meant. But absent that, my reaction would be to say that America is not a theocracy, never has been, and anyone who thinks that a theocracy is in any way desirable should look at the example of Iran, where the opinions of the ruling ayatollahs trump the views of the more secular organs of government such as, indeed, President Ahmadinejad. Considering the freedoms that prevail in Iran—or rather the lack of them—should make anyone think twice before wishing for a theocracy in this country. (But they'd probably try to argue that a Christian theocracy is a good thing even if a Muslim theocracy is a bad thing.)
I have a feeling that these respondents, if I were to expostulate with them on the notion of church-state separation, would give me the standard Religious Right line that church-state separation is a "myth." And I would point out that it was Thomas Jefferson who, in a famous letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, wrote of a "wall of separation" between church and state. (And the idea has even earlier roots, going back 150 years earlier still, to Roger Williams who was exiled from the Bay Colony in Massachusetts and established Rhode Island to provide religious freedom.)
If I did have my hypothetical chance to interrogate these same (presumably) caucus-bound Republican voters in Iowa, I have a feeling that before too long we'd hear that they want to see things like a return of prayer to the public schools; posting of the Ten Commandments in courthouses, city halls, etc.; total outlawing of abortion and same-sex marriage. These have been issues for, and aims of, the Religious Right for a long time—in some cases for decades.
Just as an aside, when they helped elect Ronald Reagan, and maybe ditto for George W. Bush, they were very disillusioned that these objectives of theirs were not realized. That those policies were not enacted, even by presidents whom these people thought were one of them or at the very least largely on their side, shows that these are not popular (in the original sense) or mainstream positions.
I think some polls have shown that about one-third of American voters consider themselves Evangelicals. Even if that is so and is not an inflated statistic, that number still is not a majority. Yet this minority aspires to political power such that it can trample on those who don't agree with it. The majority in the US gets to wield power via elections; but when it comes to rights (e.g. the civil rights of minority groups), the government is set up so that the majority cannot impose its religious views or practices on a minority. Nor a minority on the majority. The arbiter of any disputes about that is our court system.
Some of the earliest polities in America—for example, the seventeenth-century colony settled by Puritans in Massachusetts—were in fact set up as theocracies. A dissenter such as Roger Williams was kicked out of Massachusetts and went on to found Rhode Island. But the Framers of the Constitution, a century and a half later, in envisioning the shape of a federal government, wanted to avoid any government like that.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Update, January 4, 2012
This posting received a comment from a faithful follower of this blog. While I have the power to moderate all comments—that means I can allow or not allow a comment to be posted—I am pledged to allow dissenting opinions to be expressed on my blog.
However, I have to object to what was said; and I at first did so by writing a comment myself, commenting on the reader's comment.
However, I think I will use this avenue, an "update" to my original posting, to further express my refutation of what this person says.
He accuses liberals of being opposed to "school choice." Now, what exactly is school choice?
First, the term is a euphemism of the sort that I particularly hate because it obscures what is really being talked about. To me that is deceptive and downright evil.
"School choice" means what are also called school vouchers. Vouchers are given to parents of school-age children who can take them and use them as payment for school tuition; that is, tuition at private schools, and that usually means parochial--religious--schools.
So, school vouchers are beloved by the Religious Right. I, however, am strongly opposed to them. They allow tax money—my tax dollars—to be used to pay for religious education. I don't think I should be forced to pay for religious, sectarian, doctrinal education—which might, for example, teach Creationism instead of evolution. I believe that breaches the Constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State.
Here is an interesting slant on school vouchers from the article on that subject in Wikipedia:
In some Southern states during the 1960s, school vouchers were used as a method of perpetuating segregation. In a few instances, public schools were closed outright and vouchers were issued to parents. The vouchers, in many cases, were only good at privately segregated schools, known as segregation academies.[6] Today, all modern voucher programs prohibit racial discrimination. [Wikipedia, s.v. school vouchers]Public school teachers and teacher unions such as the National Education Association oppose vouchers. For all of the arguments both in favor of and against vouchers, see the Wikipedia article.
An interesting alternative, which does not seem to me to be as objectionable, is called "education tax credits." This basically says that if you pay to send your children to private school, you don't have to pay taxes which go to finance public schools. That seems fair, but I'd hasten to add that by the same logic, people such as myself, who have no children, probably should not pay for public schools, either.
There was an important ruling by the Supreme Court: in "2002 in a landmark case before the US Supreme Court, Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, . . . the divided court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled the Ohio school voucher plan constitutional and removed any constitutional barriers to similar voucher plans in the future. . . " [Wikipedia, ibid.].
However, in Florida vouchers were struck down:
In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court struck down legislation known as the Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), which would have implemented a system of school vouchers in Florida.[67] The court ruled that the OSP violated article IX, section 1(a) of the Florida Constitution: "Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools" [Wikipedia, ibid.].
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Population Control, Conservatives, and Christianity
I have written about the problems of growing world population before. The current estimate of the number of people on Earth has reached 7 billion. The human species, compared to other species with which we share the planet, has been extremely successful in these last couple hundred years and human populations have exploded as medicine has reduced infant mortality, conquered many diseases, and lengthened life expectancy.
Through advances in agriculture (use of new strains of crops, use of fertilizers and pesticides, etc.), productivity of food crops has been increased miraculously, so that the population disaster that was predicted at the end of the eighteenth century has been staved off. But for how long can population growth continue without bringing on catastrophe? Short-term and local droughts and famines are already causing starvation in many places on Earth. And millions more are malnourished.
And the ability of the world to feed its booming population is by no means the only reason to be concerned about the growth in numbers of humans. More people means more demand not only for food but also for water, timber, fiber, and fuel. Destruction of rain forests to produce timber and to make new farmland accelerates global warming because it means fewer trees to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
The larger share of population growth has been in less-developed countries. But as living standards increase, these populaces have greater expectation of eating a Western-style, meat-heavy diet (and along with that, consuming more energy and producing more greenhouse gases). And the production of animals for meat uses more grain—several times as much, depending on the animal—than if that grain were consumed directly by people.
What needs to be done is to control fertility. The modern world can offer a number of tools for preventing pregnancy. But Republicans in Congress have shown opposition to (1) funding of birth control pills by health insurance, as will be provided by the recent health-care reform law when its provisions go into effect; and (2) funding of family planning in other countries by the US, directly and via the United Nations.
One columnist for The Washington Times was quoted in The Reporter, a publication of Population Connection:
So we learn from this that birth control is not only anti-Christian but anti-God. He uses the accusations "socialist," atheist, and even "pagan." It's hard to believe that even one person believes this.
For many such extreme conservatives and Religious Far-Right types, any ideas of stewardship of the planet—recycling and conserving resources, protection of wildlife habitat, avoiding overfishing, and so forth—are at best unnecessary because of their views that (1) the Bible says that God gave Adam the right to use (and presumably exploit to any degree whatsoever) the Earth and all its creatures; (2) we don't need to be so concerned about Earth because this is all a transient and transitory existence and we should focus on the next world.
Another reason is one I have suggested earlier: they are simply anti-sex and believe (this has been, as I see it, a strain in Christianity since very early times and, pending anyone correcting me on this, I ascribe it to St. Paul) that any sex is evil, and sex—and only in certain positions—is less bad only if performed within monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
Unfortunately this is not a new trend in American social and political life, and there were in fact laws making contraception illegal that were enacted in 1873 and overturned by the US Supreme Court only in 1965. Like Prohibition, these have been instances where an extreme strain of moralizing has been successful in passing laws that affect us all.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Through advances in agriculture (use of new strains of crops, use of fertilizers and pesticides, etc.), productivity of food crops has been increased miraculously, so that the population disaster that was predicted at the end of the eighteenth century has been staved off. But for how long can population growth continue without bringing on catastrophe? Short-term and local droughts and famines are already causing starvation in many places on Earth. And millions more are malnourished.
And the ability of the world to feed its booming population is by no means the only reason to be concerned about the growth in numbers of humans. More people means more demand not only for food but also for water, timber, fiber, and fuel. Destruction of rain forests to produce timber and to make new farmland accelerates global warming because it means fewer trees to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.
The larger share of population growth has been in less-developed countries. But as living standards increase, these populaces have greater expectation of eating a Western-style, meat-heavy diet (and along with that, consuming more energy and producing more greenhouse gases). And the production of animals for meat uses more grain—several times as much, depending on the animal—than if that grain were consumed directly by people.
What needs to be done is to control fertility. The modern world can offer a number of tools for preventing pregnancy. But Republicans in Congress have shown opposition to (1) funding of birth control pills by health insurance, as will be provided by the recent health-care reform law when its provisions go into effect; and (2) funding of family planning in other countries by the US, directly and via the United Nations.
One columnist for The Washington Times was quoted in The Reporter, a publication of Population Connection:
Free birth control. . . is about consolidating the sexual revolution. The post-1960s left has been at war with Christianity. Its aim is to erect a utopian socialist state—one built on the rubble of Judeo-Christian civilization. In fact, liberals want to create a world without God and sexual permissiveness is their battering ram. Promoting widespread contraception is essential to forging a pagan society based on consequence-free sex.
So we learn from this that birth control is not only anti-Christian but anti-God. He uses the accusations "socialist," atheist, and even "pagan." It's hard to believe that even one person believes this.
For many such extreme conservatives and Religious Far-Right types, any ideas of stewardship of the planet—recycling and conserving resources, protection of wildlife habitat, avoiding overfishing, and so forth—are at best unnecessary because of their views that (1) the Bible says that God gave Adam the right to use (and presumably exploit to any degree whatsoever) the Earth and all its creatures; (2) we don't need to be so concerned about Earth because this is all a transient and transitory existence and we should focus on the next world.
Another reason is one I have suggested earlier: they are simply anti-sex and believe (this has been, as I see it, a strain in Christianity since very early times and, pending anyone correcting me on this, I ascribe it to St. Paul) that any sex is evil, and sex—and only in certain positions—is less bad only if performed within monogamous, heterosexual marriage.
Unfortunately this is not a new trend in American social and political life, and there were in fact laws making contraception illegal that were enacted in 1873 and overturned by the US Supreme Court only in 1965. Like Prohibition, these have been instances where an extreme strain of moralizing has been successful in passing laws that affect us all.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Male-to-Male Sexual Abuse
Today on AOL there was a news item about an episode of the TV show "Law & Order: SVU," which I have never watched. The article was about the show's dealing with a taboo topic, male-to-male sexual violence. To put that even more bluntly, that would be a man raping another man. Yes, it can happen but it's rare. I think it's more the rarity than the taboo nature which is the reason you don't normally hear about it. (I believe I recall one news item that in fact was in our mainstream newspapers some years ago, about a man who got attacked in a downtown parking garage.)
Anyway, I knew--I just KNEW--that there would be a comment on the article that sought to tar all gay men with the (doubtless new to them) brush! The person wrote something like, "And this is why we need gays in the military?"
The online articles on AOL (which I confess to spending a lot of time reading, these days) normally allow the posting of comments, and replies to others' comments. In this instance I didn't see any provision for writing my rebuttal to that comment, so I'm using my blog as my forum.
As I hope nearly anyone would recognize, that's a ridiculous comment. Gay men do not typically go around raping other men. A large fraction of men raping men undoubtedly goes on in prisons; and it's well known that even that is not a result of the rapists' being gay. Sociologists (or whichever branch of scholarship studies such matters) call that "adventitious homosexuality," meaning that men will turn to other males when they don't have any other sexual outlet available. These men don't consider themselves gay, and once they are out of prison the resort to exclusively heterosexual behavior.
Religious Right and other homophobic types try to blame gay men for child sexual abuse, when statistics have shown, over and over, that the percentage of men abusing girls is much higher than for boys. But those people all too often don't care about facts and prefer to keep repeating the same misconceptions, distortions, and out-and-out lies.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Anyway, I knew--I just KNEW--that there would be a comment on the article that sought to tar all gay men with the (doubtless new to them) brush! The person wrote something like, "And this is why we need gays in the military?"
The online articles on AOL (which I confess to spending a lot of time reading, these days) normally allow the posting of comments, and replies to others' comments. In this instance I didn't see any provision for writing my rebuttal to that comment, so I'm using my blog as my forum.
As I hope nearly anyone would recognize, that's a ridiculous comment. Gay men do not typically go around raping other men. A large fraction of men raping men undoubtedly goes on in prisons; and it's well known that even that is not a result of the rapists' being gay. Sociologists (or whichever branch of scholarship studies such matters) call that "adventitious homosexuality," meaning that men will turn to other males when they don't have any other sexual outlet available. These men don't consider themselves gay, and once they are out of prison the resort to exclusively heterosexual behavior.
Religious Right and other homophobic types try to blame gay men for child sexual abuse, when statistics have shown, over and over, that the percentage of men abusing girls is much higher than for boys. But those people all too often don't care about facts and prefer to keep repeating the same misconceptions, distortions, and out-and-out lies.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Growing Up Gay 50 Years Ago
This posting represents a departure for Mourning Dove Hill. My profile lets on that I am gay but I have not discussed that or any gay matters in a post. So here goes:
When I was growing up—my teen years were in the 1950s, a time that, strangely, is often romanticized—the word gay was never heard. (I first heard it in 1963, when it was explained to me as a code word, a word that you would slip into a conversation to let the other person know you were gay; and if he understood, of course he was gay too.) The popular culture of the time—songs and so forth—depicted a world in which 100 percent of men were attracted to women. In other words, gays didn't exist. For that reason I, and thousands of other young males growing up in small towns in that era, were able to believe, each of us, that we were the only ones in the whole world who were "different" in that way.
Heterosexual males have 50 percent of the population that they can pursue. (Well, we have to exclude the women who are too young, and I was going to add "and women who are married," but let's not be naïve; that doesn't stop a lot of men.) On the other hand, a gay man has to find a partner among the three or five or whatever percent of the male population who share his sexual orientation. I, like millions of others, learned that the major cities had significant gay enclaves, and so wanted to move to the big city. The pickings are a little better there!
The social conservative/Christian/evangelical community keeps insisting that being gay is a "choice." (Here, and in so many other cases, I have become more and more convinced that they do not really believe what they say. They really just are repelled by the idea of gay sex and will find any reason whatsoever—for instance that it's a choice, or that the Bible proscribes it—to justify a prejudice which at heart is disgust stemming from their sexual puritanism.) If you examine this idea with a modicum of reason, it can't possibly hold up. Why would someone choose to be gay when
If there is a greater incidence of alcoholism and other such problems among gays and lesbians, it very likely is due to the burden we must cope with, that of dealing with society's homophobia. The 1968 play (and 1970 movie) The Boys in the Band—one of the first plays to depict gay characters—leaves us with the sentiment, voiced by one of the characters, "If only we didn't hate ourselves so much."
The San Francisco Chronicle said, when the film version of The Boys in the Band was revived in 1999,
Of course it's a good thing, if it's true. I believe the Chronicle is saying that gays and lesbians growing up today do not have the baggage of internalized homophobia. I am sure it is correct that it's easier for young gays and lesbians today: there is greater societal acceptance of homosexuality and certainly it's a subject much more out in the open. A young GLBT person today can find others like himself or herself far more easily.
But not all of us of the Boys in the Band generation are yet gone from this Earth.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
When I was growing up—my teen years were in the 1950s, a time that, strangely, is often romanticized—the word gay was never heard. (I first heard it in 1963, when it was explained to me as a code word, a word that you would slip into a conversation to let the other person know you were gay; and if he understood, of course he was gay too.) The popular culture of the time—songs and so forth—depicted a world in which 100 percent of men were attracted to women. In other words, gays didn't exist. For that reason I, and thousands of other young males growing up in small towns in that era, were able to believe, each of us, that we were the only ones in the whole world who were "different" in that way.
Heterosexual males have 50 percent of the population that they can pursue. (Well, we have to exclude the women who are too young, and I was going to add "and women who are married," but let's not be naïve; that doesn't stop a lot of men.) On the other hand, a gay man has to find a partner among the three or five or whatever percent of the male population who share his sexual orientation. I, like millions of others, learned that the major cities had significant gay enclaves, and so wanted to move to the big city. The pickings are a little better there!
The social conservative/Christian/evangelical community keeps insisting that being gay is a "choice." (Here, and in so many other cases, I have become more and more convinced that they do not really believe what they say. They really just are repelled by the idea of gay sex and will find any reason whatsoever—for instance that it's a choice, or that the Bible proscribes it—to justify a prejudice which at heart is disgust stemming from their sexual puritanism.) If you examine this idea with a modicum of reason, it can't possibly hold up. Why would someone choose to be gay when
- People like them revile us.
- It's harder to find a partner among that much smaller population.
- There might be discrimination in finding a job, etc. In spite of all the progress and nondiscrimination legislation passed in many jurisdictions, it's still a disadvantage to be gay.
- Gays and lesbians don't have equal rights, including the right to marry their partners (in most jurisdictions); their partners may not be able to visit them in the hospital when they are gravely ill; and their partners don't automatically inherit property or Social Security benefits as do spouses in married heterosexual couples.
- Many gays and lesbians were raised in, and still wish to be affiliated with, churches that tell them that they are sinners. What damage does this do to one's psyche?
- It's well documented that GLBT teen-agers are subjected to verbal and physical harassment by their peers and even teachers. And there is a higher rate of suicide among GLBT teens than among their straight peers.
If there is a greater incidence of alcoholism and other such problems among gays and lesbians, it very likely is due to the burden we must cope with, that of dealing with society's homophobia. The 1968 play (and 1970 movie) The Boys in the Band—one of the first plays to depict gay characters—leaves us with the sentiment, voiced by one of the characters, "If only we didn't hate ourselves so much."
The San Francisco Chronicle said, when the film version of The Boys in the Band was revived in 1999,
. . . in the attitudes of its characters, and their self-lacerating vision of themselves, it belongs to another time. And that's a good thing.
Of course it's a good thing, if it's true. I believe the Chronicle is saying that gays and lesbians growing up today do not have the baggage of internalized homophobia. I am sure it is correct that it's easier for young gays and lesbians today: there is greater societal acceptance of homosexuality and certainly it's a subject much more out in the open. A young GLBT person today can find others like himself or herself far more easily.
But not all of us of the Boys in the Band generation are yet gone from this Earth.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Excuse Me, But--Aren't Catholics a Minority?
Some voices on the political Right are complaining against those who, in their view, advocate imposing "minority mores" on the rest of us. I have to think that they are talking about things like gay rights and same-sex marriage.
Consider that, recently, it was the influence of Roman Catholics who succeeded in getting the Stupak amendment added to the health-care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. This amendment prohibits coverage for abortion in any federally-administered health insurance.
And a week or so earlier, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, donated $185,000 to further the passage, in Maine, of Proposition 1, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. Plus, the Catholic bishops had done much the same in California, helping to assure passage of Proposition 8, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. They not only used dollars but lobbied heavily--and in California they were notably joined in that effort by the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
Leave aside for the moment the issue that, supposedly or theoretically, church groups are barred from political action or advocacy, at the peril of losing their tax-exempt status—which is apparently never enforced against the Catholic Church or any right-wing church, although an action for removing the tax-exempt status was brought against a minister who had spoken on the other side of the aisle during the reign of George W. Bush.
The people complaining, as quoted above, about "minorities" who want to impose their mores on the majority must not have been talking about U. S. Roman Catholics—although, last I heard, Catholics were a minority—as are Mormons, for that matter. Catholics just happen to be a wealthy and well-organized minority, not to mention sufficiently powerful that they will not be ignored by politicians.
So, as always, the Right is hypocritical: they inveigh against the very things that they themselves are guilty of. It's "if you want rights, you are a minority who does not speak for Us. But when it's us—well, disregard the fact that we are not the majority, just because we happen to be right!"
Well, if they mean Right—Amen to that.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Consider that, recently, it was the influence of Roman Catholics who succeeded in getting the Stupak amendment added to the health-care reform bill in the U.S. House of Representatives. This amendment prohibits coverage for abortion in any federally-administered health insurance.
And a week or so earlier, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, donated $185,000 to further the passage, in Maine, of Proposition 1, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. Plus, the Catholic bishops had done much the same in California, helping to assure passage of Proposition 8, which overturned same-sex marriage in that state. They not only used dollars but lobbied heavily--and in California they were notably joined in that effort by the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons).
Leave aside for the moment the issue that, supposedly or theoretically, church groups are barred from political action or advocacy, at the peril of losing their tax-exempt status—which is apparently never enforced against the Catholic Church or any right-wing church, although an action for removing the tax-exempt status was brought against a minister who had spoken on the other side of the aisle during the reign of George W. Bush.
The people complaining, as quoted above, about "minorities" who want to impose their mores on the majority must not have been talking about U. S. Roman Catholics—although, last I heard, Catholics were a minority—as are Mormons, for that matter. Catholics just happen to be a wealthy and well-organized minority, not to mention sufficiently powerful that they will not be ignored by politicians.
So, as always, the Right is hypocritical: they inveigh against the very things that they themselves are guilty of. It's "if you want rights, you are a minority who does not speak for Us. But when it's us—well, disregard the fact that we are not the majority, just because we happen to be right!"
Well, if they mean Right—Amen to that.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Dr. Tiller Worse than Hitler?
An article in the Associated Baptist Press (online) quotes Wiley Drake, the former second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who was speaking on his radio show.
Drake says that Dr. George Tiller, the recently murdered abortion doctor, was "far worse than Adolf Hitler."
"This man, George Tiller, was far greater in his atrocities than Adolf Hitler," Drake said. "So I am happy. I am glad that he is dead. . . ."
I guess that in his view, a couple thousand fetuses-- as long as, or presumably since, they were going to be born to Christian families--outweigh six million Jews who, after all, were only Jews.
On the other side of things, my attention was called to one Frank Schaeffer, who was quoted in The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html) as saying:
"My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America. "
It's certainly nice to see that one of these loonies has come to his senses. It might be very interesting to read his book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All -- or Almost All -- of It Back.
Drake says that Dr. George Tiller, the recently murdered abortion doctor, was "far worse than Adolf Hitler."
"This man, George Tiller, was far greater in his atrocities than Adolf Hitler," Drake said. "So I am happy. I am glad that he is dead. . . ."
I guess that in his view, a couple thousand fetuses-- as long as, or presumably since, they were going to be born to Christian families--outweigh six million Jews who, after all, were only Jews.
On the other side of things, my attention was called to one Frank Schaeffer, who was quoted in The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html) as saying:
"My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America. "
It's certainly nice to see that one of these loonies has come to his senses. It might be very interesting to read his book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All -- or Almost All -- of It Back.
Copyright © Richard Stein 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
