Let’s take this for what it is: Perry’s doubling down because he knows his Prez campaign is kaput and he wants to make sure he’s still in the good graces of his core base back home.
But even within that context, this is ridiculous. Children can pray in school whenever they want, as long as they are not disruptive. If Perry thinks that kids can’t pray, I suggest he lead a campaign of civil disobedience, getting kids to pray in their public schools. The public would become quickly sympathetic to his point of view thanks to the resulting riots, police beatings and pepper-spraying of praying students, pictures on the front page of the newspapers…
Oh wait, that wouldn’t happen. BECAUSE KIDS CAN PRAY IN SCHOOL, and they already do, presumably before and during tests. What Perry seems to be frothing about is Supreme Court cases like Engel v. Vitale (1962), in which it was deemed unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools. And many, many other cases in which it has been found unconstitutional for public officials to force prayer on students, regardless of whether they are religious or not.
Do you see the difference between the two? Because Perry apparently can’t.
You can’t force people to pray in school. State officials can’t force your kids to pray in specific ways, to specific god(s), and saying specific words at state-required times. And you also cannot prevent kids from praying, as long as they’re not disruptive. That’s the situation we find ourselves in today, and Rick Perry finds it unacceptable. But other than frothing evangelicals that seem bent on forcing their religious beliefs on everyone else in the country, almost everyone else seems to be fine with it… unless they are presented with lies like “it’s illegal for children to pray in school, therefore we need a constitutional amendment to let them.”
In 2000, Larry Peterman of Provo, Utah was charged with selling obscene material at his “Movie Buff” chain of video stores. A jury found him not guilty: his defense demonstrated that in Utah County, a place that often boasts of being the most conservative area in the nation, the amount of porn being viewed on pay-per-view and at local hotels was “disproportionately large” compared to the rest of the country. Since obscenity is generally legally defined by local community standards, what Peterman was selling could not be classified as “obscene”, because local residents were watching METRIC CRAPLOADS of the stuff. This led to the word “Pornmons” being coined, which I just did.
That’s what I think of when I see Mitt Romney on TV. And now you will too.
In a very moving and historic speech at the United Nations headquarters in Geneva to celebrate Human Rights Day, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called for the protection of rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, and discussed President Obama putting into place a U.S. Government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad. Here’s a link to the transcript if you prefer to read it.
This was a great speech, in that it didn’t shy away from recognizing that the U.S. also still has a ways to go in its path towards providing full, equal human rights to those who still suffer from abuse and discrimination thanks to bigotry and small-minded homophobia. Read the whole thing, it’s worth it for the sense of historical context it provides for the long struggle for equal human rights for all.
“The Obama Administration defends the human rights of LGBT people as part of our comprehensive human rights policy and as a priority of our foreign policy.”
That sounds like a great idea, President Obama and Secretary Clinton, so let’s make sure it’s not just words: let’s see a repeal of DOMA, and a formal recognition of equal rights for gay marriage at a Federal level. Let’s have the U.S. set lead by setting a shining example, and show the world we can overcome centuries of abuse, hatred and bigotry by recognizing and celebrating our common humanity.
Texas Governor, failed Presidential candidate and Separation of Church and State denier Rick Perry immediately pandered to his religious fundamentalist conservative base by responding “This administration’s war on traditional American values must stop.”
That’s right, Perry: if you’re talking about “traditional” pre-21st century “values” like homophobia, discrimination, bigotry and hatred, then there’s an open war going on right now against them.
And you’re on the wrong side.
P.S. to Minnesota readers: Vote “No” on the Marriage Amendment next November, and you too can brag to your grandchildren that you were on the right side of history when human rights were on the line.
So now we know what being “liberal” means for social conservatives. Newt’s being accused of being one, because he had a relatively humane response to a question on immigration, one that recognized the difficulty of the issue and the ethical and financial problems associated with separating families.
Liberal: someone who makes a humane, considered response that takes into account multiple sides of a difficult issue, shows some compassion and doesn’t assume every problem has a clear-cut, black and white solution.
Don’t get me wrong: Newt “cleared up” his remarks after the debate, probably at least in part due to the howling fantods unleashed by his almost-human response. He’s not a liberal.
But by the above definition, I am. And the people I vote for will be too. And if your philosophy on practically ANY issue is simple, black and white, then I’m probably not voting for you. There are too many complex issues on this planet and in this country that require careful, considered thought, and do not have a simple answer. The reality is that if there were a simple answer, they wouldn’t be issues any more: we would have already fixed them.
Life is complex. Ethical behavior is complex. Responsibility is complex, and morality is complex. If being a liberal involves understanding that and recognizing the difficulty and nuance of navigating the solution, instead of bumperstickering the answers, then count me among the liberals.
Keith Mason, co-founder of the group Personhood USA, which pushed the Mississippi “personhood” ballot measure, said before the vote that a win would “send a message” to the rest of the country. But now he says he intends to renew efforts in the state.
So I guess his group’s initiative loss also sends a message, but he chooses to ignore it.
My message to Mason is that if you can’t get this initiative to pass in one of the most conservative states in the nation, you should give it up. But I’m guessing he’ll ignore my message too.
Hmmm… I’m cautious about this one. While I vehemently agree that it’s undemocratic to have the loudest voice be the one that has the most money, there are a LOT of bad ways to implement this, and I don’t automatically trust the Senate to do it in a good way that respects overall freedom of speech.
The right to participate in elections and support a candidate is a critical part of democracy, and there is a fine line between allowing unlimited spending and allowing only certain voices to be heard. Freedom of speech is a critical issue, and in my opinion the SCOTUS had no choice but to to rule the way they did on Citizens United, given the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech that any other ruling might have entailed. As unpopular as the decision was (I don’t particularly like it), it was the Constitutionally-aligned one to make.
To clarify: I hate the amount of money in politics, I really dislike the fact that corporations can spend all they want to buy elections, I hate that they can do so anonymously. But I also believe we can’t implement restrictions on this type of activity without a lot of careful consideration and forethought: I don’t get the impression we’ll get that.
I agree with the motivation, I can see where they are going with this and agree with the general direction, I just hope they don’t over-reach in way that ends up having unintended negative consequences for our freedom of speech.
”It’s impossible,” said Pride.
“It’s risky,” said Experience.
“It’s pointless,” said Reason.
“Give it a try,” whispered the Heart.
“Your legs don’t bend that way,” screamed your Hips.
“What the hell where you thinking?,” yelled the Officer.
“You’re going to need extensive therapy,” counseled the Surgeon.
“What am I, the Brain? Why did you even listen to me, dumbass? I’m just a big stupid muscle!” gasped the Heart as you held its Head underwater.
Thank you, Congress, for taking up these bills of utmost importance. You apparently don’t have the time to pass anything of substance about jobs or the economy, or even a resolution to honor the troops who killed Osama bin Laden, but this… this issue gets your full attention. Congress will only work 109 days this year, so this is clearly a substantive issue that is imperative be addressed before dealing with minor issues like massive unemployment.
Exactly what danger was this motto in that it needed to be re-affirmed? Wasn’t it dedicated in 1956 as a stand against those godless Commies? And exactly what does it help today, when the stand being made is not against foreign powers intent on dominating the world, but against domestic atheists who just want to ensure that religion isn’t forced upon them by a government that was founded on a separation of church and state?
What a pointless waste of time, resources and taxpayer money. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was supposed to lead the way banning this sort of pointless resolutions when the Republicans assumed the majority this year, but quite predictably his office had “no comment” on this one. And speaking of changes these guys were supposed to make when they took control (under the chant of “Jobs, Jobs, Jobs! That’s all we’re going to focus on!”), what about the resolution that all new pieces of legislation introduced must be accompanied by a statement pointing where in the Constitution the proposal’s authority derives from? Funny enough, the Constitution doesn’t mention God at all.
It’s truly, truly shocking that this Congress has single digit approval ratings. Where could that come from?
If I were to believe Katherine Kersten’s latest screed, I would expect to page through the rest of the newspaper and find report after report detailing how gay marriage opponents are being attacked, beaten, or bullied into suicide merely for expressing their views. Instead, what I find are story after story about gay people being attacked, beaten and bullied into suicide for being who they are, and editorials like Kersten’s calling for even more discrimination. Her victim card gambit is practically Orwellian in the way it claims the mantle of suffering on behalf of the very people who have been responsible for discrimination and abuse.
But then she ratchets up the ironic rhetoric another notch, and doubles down on the claim: she is, if we are to believe her, just like someone speaking out against Jim Crow laws in the South.
She misses completely the point that Jim Crow laws were meant to maintain status quo oppression against a group that wasn’t allowed to freely marry the people they loved, using the exact same reasoning she uses to in her rally calls in opposition to gay marriage. The fact is, there ARE a lot of similarities between the situation then and now: the mistake Kirsten makes is understanding what side of the fence (and history) she stands on.