The Hotline's Wake-Up Call today said, "Number of days since we've had a good caught-in-the-bathroom-mid-solicitation scandal: 40." I mean, seriously, is this the party we want defining morals and winning elections because they are bringing religion back to government (since we Democrats supposedly have none)?
This is unacceptable. Just this summer we've had Senator Vitter, FL State Rep. Bob Allen, the Chair of the Indiana Young Republicans, and now Senator Craig (and who could possibly forget last year's Rep. Foley affairs?).
It's important to realize that I am not saying Republicans are evil and should be completely ignored as moral leaders. I am sure there are perfectly respectable ones out there, they just don't seem to be running for President. Even as they all say they will work to ban gay marriage, promote abstinence-only education, and ensure the teaching of creationism, these men can't be separated from their past of divorces, infidelity, and other indiscretions.
So, what am I saying? I'm saying that I hope that soon people will realize that even politicians represent the diverse, and human, population of our country. Maybe we can see that even politicians make mistakes and so we should be more careful to cast judgment on people's lifestyles and try to legislate the choices people are making in the way they live. No, I don't think we should hope for cheating spouses and rampant divorce, but I think we have to accept the right of all people to make such choices as free-thinking individuals (and ensure that those who have harmed others are punished rightfully).
I hope that one day both Republicans and some Democrats can stop worrying about and legislating against the gay population of our country, and that then their friends and coworkers can stop hiding in bathroom stalls and start living a healthier, happier life in the open. I also hope that the next generation of moral leaders in our country are not those who say certain things and then act in a different way. I hope that our generation will be one of leading by example. I hope that ours will live good, honest lives so that others will be influenced and understand how to do the same.
Falwell, the man who accused the Tinky Winky of being gay and blamed 9/11 on pagans, gays, and the ACLU (among others) has died.
Although I feel terribly for his family, for whom this has to be incredibly sudden, I can't help but wonder where his evangelical followers will go from here. Will Dobson take further control (which could be either good or bad, as he has begun to voice his disappointment in the way that President Bush has promised the evangelicals all sorts of things that he refuses to carry through on)? Or will someone new rise up? -- I don't see many young charismatic rising stars in the evangelical movement right now, so that, if nothing else, seems unlikely.
Does Falwell's death toll the beginning of the end of the evangelical movement? Or, perhaps, does it toll only the further mainstreaming of that movement, in which all our political leaders are evangelical leaders, and all our religious leaders take determined stands on politics, and in which we no longer need Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons to support the evangelical cause?
Democrats need to get religion now more than ever. We have our opportunity. Let's make sure the hole gets filled with an evangelical leader who preaches our values: ending poverty, ensuring the equality of all people, the power of peace, and caring for the environment (someone who can support evangelical Richard Cizik in the face of the steadfast opposition of Dobson and other evangelical leaders). The Bible can be used however one wants it to be -- let's play the game of politics and seize the opportunity to use it to our advantage.
I just read an engrossing article on a suit that is being brought against the University of California by Calvary Chapel Christian School, a K-12 institution. The University of California decided at the end of 2005 that a number of courses (among them an intelligent-design-based biology course and an English class that taught only from an anthology) would not count toward their admission requirements.
I like the way the blogger puts it: "Calvary had a choice here. They could choose other textbooks. Or they could turn this into a big church/state legal fight. Guess which option they picked."
Read the rest of the blog. It's biased, as the world of blogging is wont to be, but it raises some good questions about the duties of public educational institutions. The question at the heart of the issue is which is the greater public good: the right of the educational institution to decide what best serves its raison d'etre (sufficient academic preparation in high school, which leads to university and post-graduate success)? Or the right of the religious institution to decide what best serves its raison d'etre (subordinating one's self to God, with all the good that can arise from that)?
At Georgetown, we sit neatly at the top of this debate -- between religion and politics and higher education. More than the specific issue in question, we also need to come to terms with this issue as a society -- and as Democrats. While we reach out to Christians and try to reform the country's religious discourse into one that we can win (see: Obama), at the same time, we must have our own priorities firmly in mind.
So I ask: Where do you stand on church/state/education issues, and where should the party be moving on them? Where does Georgetown stand? Have we (or any other institution you know about) ever refused to accept course(s) from a parochial school because of lack of academic rigor?
On the 26th, the House approved a bill, 244-173, that would deny compensation of legal fees to successful challengers to government Establishment Clause violations.
What does that mean? Any money the ACLU and other individuals and organizations spend on attorneys in combating unconstitutional relations between church and state must now come out of their own pockets -- when it can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per case to ensure that our democracy doesn't gradually become a theocracy under the influence of the religious right. Recompensation for fees in successful suits ensures that those whose constitutional rights are violated always have the opportunity to go to court to contest those violations, regardless of whether they are rich enough to afford the attorneys themselves (as they often are not).
As lack of success in court entails no compensation, there is an incentive to bring serious cases and a disincentive to bring frivolous cases. This bill, the Public Expression of Religion Act (PERA, H.R. 2679, brought by Rep. John Hostettler, R-IN) undermines this safeguard in our system. It simply protects our government's unconstitutional use of religion, even in egregious cases of brazen discrimination.
Although I understand the fears of the American Legion and other groups who mobilized in favor of the bill, concerned with the allowance of religious symbols on veterans' graves and other issues, I believe there is a line between religion as public (the Ten Commandments do not belong in courthouses) and as personal (at gravesites) that the courts would not overlook were the issue to arise.
I can only hope that it will be incredibly difficult to gain Senate approval on this measure due to the upcoming recess and to intelligent, forward-thinking Senators, as the success of this measure, and the 26 Democrats and 218 Republicans who voted in favor of it, makes me fear immensely for the future of our country.
Are you sitting down? If not, you might want to, because I have some very disturbing news for you: you’re going to hell. Yes, you, you Godlesscommieterrorist-lovingfreedom-hatingtofu-eatingliberal, you.
Well, according to Ann Coulter, anyway. Her latest book, Godless (due to come out next week), aims to “expose” the startling fact that liberals hate God. Yes, all of them. And religion. And they hate Jesus, too. And cotton candy and sunshine and flowers…
Amazon.com offers the following description of Godless:
GODLESS is the most explosive book yet from #1 New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. In this completely original and thoroughly controversial work, Coulter writes, “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’ ”
GODLESS throws open the doors of the “Church of Liberalism.”
Darn it, Ann, you caught me. And everyone knows that if Ann Coulter tells me going to hell, well then, goshdarnit, it must be true!
