An Eyeopener…..I, Racist


This was posted on Facebook by a very dear friend of mine. Left me in tears, speechless and as a white woman feeling a responsibility to try to share this with as many people as I possibly can.

 

What follows is the text of a “sermon” that I gave as a “congregational reflection” to an all White audience at the Bethel Congregational United Church of Christ on Sunday, June 28th. The sermon was begun with a reading of The Good Samaritan story, and this wonderful quote from Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s Americanah.

Credit for this speech goes to Chaédria LaBouvier, whose “Why We Left” inspired me to speak out about racism; to Robin DiAngelo, whose “White Fragility” gave me an understanding of the topic; and to Reni Eddo-Lodge who said “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race” long before I had the courage to start doing it again.


couple weeks ago, I was debating what I was going to talk about in this sermon. I told Pastor Kelly Ryan I had great reservations talking about the one topic that I think about every single day.

Then, a terrorist massacred nine innocent people in a church that I went to, in a city that I still think of as home. At that point, I knew that despite any misgivings, I needed to talk about race.

You see, I don’t talk about race with White people.


To illustrate why, I’ll tell a story:

It was probably about 15 years ago when a conversation took place between my aunt, who is White and lives in New York State, and my sister, who is Black and lives in North Carolina. This conversation can be distilled to a single sentence, said by my Black sister:

“The only difference between people in the North and people in the South
is that down here, at least people are honest about being racist.”

There was a lot more to that conversation, obviously, but I suggest that it can be distilled into that one sentence because it has been, by my White aunt. Over a decade later, this sentence is still what she talks about. It has become the single most important aspect of my aunt’s relationship with my Black family. She is still hurt by the suggestion that people in New York, that she, a northerner, a liberal, a good person who has Black family members, is a racist.

This perfectly illustrates why I don’t talk about race with White people. Even — or rather, especially — my own family.


love my aunt. She’s actually my favorite aunt, and believe me,
I have a lot of awesome aunts
to choose from. But the facts
are actually quite in my sister’s favor on this one.

New York State is one of the most segregated states in the country. Buffalo, New York, where my aunt lives, is one of the 10 most segregated school systems in the country. The racial inequality of the area she inhabits is so bad that it has been the subject of reports by the Civil Rights Action Network and the NAACP.

Those, however, are facts that my aunt does not need to know. She does
not need to live with the racial segregation and oppression of her home.
As a white person with upward mobility, she has continued to improve
her situation. She moved out of the area I grew up in– she moved to an
area with better schools. She doesn’t have to experience racism, and so
it is not real to her.

Nor does it dawn on her that the very fact that she moved away from an increasingly Black neighborhood to live in a White suburb might itself be a aspect of racism. She doesn’t need to realize that “better schools” exclusively means “whiter schools.”

I don’t talk about race with White people because I have so often seen it go nowhere. When I was younger, I thought it was because all white people are racist. Recently, I’ve begun to understand that it’s more nuanced than that.


understand, you have to know
that Black people think in terms
of Black people.

We don’t see a shooting of an innocent Black child in another state as something separate from us because we know viscerally that it could be our child, our parent, or us, that is shot.

The shooting of Walter Scott in North Charleston resonated with me because Walter Scott was portrayed in the media as a deadbeat and a criminal — but when you look at the facts about the actual man, he was nearly indistinguishable from my own father.

Racism affects us directly because the fact that it happened at a geographically remote location or to another Black person is only a coincidence, an accident. It could just as easily happen to us — right here, right now.

Black people think in terms of we because we live in a society where the social and political structures interact with us as Black people.

White people do not think in terms of we. White people have the privilege to interact with the social and political structures of our society as individuals. You are “you,” I am “one of them.” Whites are often not directly affected by racial oppression even in their own community, so what does not affect them locally has little chance of affecting them regionally or nationally. They have no need, nor often any real desire, to think in terms of a group. They are supported by the system, and so are mostly unaffected by it.

What they are affected by are attacks on their own character. To my aunt, the suggestion that “people in The North are racist” is an attack on her as a racist. She is unable to differentiate her participation within a racist system (upwardly mobile, not racially profiled, able to move to White suburbs, etc.) from an accusation that she, individually, is a racist. Without being able to make that differentiation, White people in general decide to vigorously defend their own personal non-racism, or point out that it doesn’t exist because they don’t see it.

The result of this is an incessantly repeating argument where a Black person says “Racism still exists. It is real,” and a white person argues “You’re wrong, I’m not racist at all. I don’t even see any racism.” My aunt’s immediate response is not “that is wrong, we should do better.” No, her response is self-protection: “That’s not my fault, I didn’t do anything. You are wrong.”

Racism is not slavery. As President Obama said, it’s not avoiding the use
of the word Nigger. Racism is not white water fountains and the back of
the bus. Martin Luther King did not end racism. Racism is a cop severing
the spine of an innocent man. It is a 12 year old child being shot for playing with a toy gun in a state where it is legal to openly carry firearms.

But racism is even more subtle than that. It’s more nuanced. Racism is
the fact that “White” means “normal” and that anything else is different. Racism is our acceptance of an all white Lord of the Rings cast because
of “historical accuracy,” ignoring the fact that this is a world with an
entirely fictionalized history.

Even when we make shit up,
we want it to be white.

And racism is the fact that we all accept that it is white. Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan in Star Trek. Khan, who is from India.
Is there anyone Whiter than Benedict fucking Cumberbatch? What?
They needed a “less racial” cast because they already had the
Black Uhura character?

That is racism. Once you let yourself see it, it’s there all the time.

Black children learn this when their parents give them “The Talk.”
When they are sat down at the age of 5 or so and told that their best
friend’s father is not sick, and not in a bad mood — he just doesn’t
want his son playing with you. Black children grow up early to life in
The Matrix. We’re not given a choice of the red or blue pill. Most white people, like my aunt, never have to choose. The system was made for
White people, so White people don’t have to think about living in it.

But we can’t point this out.

Living every single day with institutionalized racism and then having to argue its very existence, is tiring, and saddening, and angering. Yet if we express any emotion while talking about it, we’re tone policed, told we’re being angry. In fact, a key element in any racial argument in America is the Angry Black person, and racial discussions shut down when that person speaks. The Angry Black person invalidates any arguments about racism because they are “just being overly sensitive,” or “too emotional,” or– playing the race card. Or even worse, we’re told that we are being racist (Does any intelligent person actually believe a systematically oppressed demographic has the ability to oppress those in power?)

But here is the irony, here’s the thing that all the angry Black people know, and no calmly debating White people want to admit: The entire discussion of race in America centers around the protection of White feelings.

Ask any Black person and they’ll tell you the same thing. The reality of thousands of innocent people raped, shot, imprisoned, and systematically disenfranchised are less important than the suggestion that a single White person might be complicit in a racist system.

This is the country we live in. Millions of Black lives are valued less than a single White person’s hurt feelings.

White people and Black people are not having a discussion about race. Black people, thinking as a group, are talking about living in a racist system. White people, thinking as individuals, refuse to talk about “I, racist” and instead protect their own individual and personal goodness. In doing so, they reject the existence of racism.

But arguing about personal non-racism is missing the point.

Despite what the Charleston Massacre makes things look like, people are dying not because individuals are racist, but because individuals are helping support a racist system by wanting to protect their own non-racist self beliefs.

People are dying because we are supporting a racist system that justifies White people killing Black people.


see this in how one Muslim killer is Islamic terror; how one Mexican thief points to the need for border security; in one innocent, unarmed Black man shot in the back by a cop, then sullied in the media as a thug and criminal.

And in the way a white racist in a state that still flies the confederate flag is seen as “troubling” and “unnerving.” In the way people “can’t understand why he would do such a thing.”

A white person smoking pot is a “hippie” and a Black person doing it is a “criminal.” It’s evident in the school to prison pipeline and the fact that there are close to 20 people of color in prison for every white person.

There’s a headline from The Independent that sums this up quite nicely: “Charleston shooting: Black and Muslim killers are ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs’. Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill’?”

I’m gonna read that again: “Black and Muslim killers are ‘terrorists’ and ‘thugs’. Why are white shooters called ‘mentally ill’?”

Did you catch that? It’s beautifully subtle. This is an article talking specifically about the different way we treat people of color in this nation and even in this article’s headline, the white people are “shooters” and the Black and Muslim people are “killers.”

Even when we’re talking about racism, we’re using racist language to make people of color look dangerous and make White people come out as not so bad.

Just let that sink in for a minute, then ask yourself why Black people are angry when they talk about race.

The reality of America is that White people are fundamentally good, and so when a white person commits a crime, it is a sign that they, as an individual, are bad. Their actions as a person are not indicative of any broader social construct. Even the fact that America has a growing number of violent hate groups, populated mostly by white men, and that nearly *all* serial killers are white men can not shadow the fundamental truth of white male goodness. In fact, we like White serial killers so much, we make mini-series about them.

White people are good as a whole, and only act badly as individuals.

People of color, especially Black people (but boy we can talk about
“The Mexicans” in this community) are seen as fundamentally bad.
There might be a good one — and we are always quick to point them
out to our friends, show them off as our Academy Award for “Best Non-Racist in a White Role” — but when we see a bad one, it’s just proof that
the rest are, as a rule, bad.

This, all of this, expectation, treatment, thought, the underlying social system that puts White in the position of Normal and good, and Black
in the position of “other” and “bad,” all of this, is racism.

And White people, every single one of you, are complicit in this racism because you benefit directly from it.

This is why I don’t like the story of the good samaritan. Everyone likes to think of themselves as the person who sees someone beaten and bloodied and helps him out.

That’s too easy.

If I could re-write that story, I’d rewrite it from the perspective of Black America. What if the person wasn’t beaten and bloody? What if it wasn’t so obvious? What if they were just systematically challenged in a thousand small ways that actually made it easier for you to succeed in life?

Would you be so quick to help then?
Or would you, like most White people, stay silent and let it happen?

Here’s what I want to say to you: Racism is so deeply embedded in this country not because of the racist right-wing radicals who practice it openly, it exists because of the silence and hurt feelings of liberal America.

That’s what I want to say, but really, I can’t. I can’t say that because I’ve spent my life not talking about race to White people. In a big way, it’s my fault. Racism exists because I, as a Black person, don’t challenge you to look at it.

Racism exists because I, not you, am silent.

But I’m caught in the perfect Catch 22, because when I start pointing out racism, I become the Angry Black Person, and the discussion shuts down again. So I’m stuck.

All the Black voices in the world speaking about racism all the time do not move White people to think about it– but one White John Stewart talking about Charleston has a whole lot of White people talking about it. That’s the world we live in. Black people can’t change it while White people are silent and deaf to our words.

White people are in a position of power in this country because of racism. The question is: Are they brave enough to use that power to speak against the system that gave it to them?

So I’m asking you to help me. Notice this. Speak up. Don’t let it slide. Don’t stand watching in silence. Help build a world where it never gets to the point where the Samaritan has to see someone bloodied and broken.

As for me,
I will no longer be silent.

I’m going to try to speak kindly, and softly, but that’s gonna be hard. Because it’s getting harder and harder for me to think about the protection of White people’s feelings when White people don’t seem to care at all about the loss of so many Black lives.

Online Sellers of Firearms Trust Buyer To Be Honest About Felonies


This is from a gun broker online site, It is in the list they provide on how to buy from them. The key words here are the last sentence…..

“Anyone who is legally allowed to own firearms, ammunition, knives, and gun accessories is allowed to buy or sell them here. It is your responsibility to be in compliance with all Federal, state, and local laws when using this site.”

Really just take someones word for whether or not they are a convicted felon? Really?
You know, when serving someone buys alcohol the seller is equally responsible if not more, they are required to see verification of age with a photo ID. When you go to a Casino they are required to do the same. If either of those places is found to have neglected to ask for a photo id, found to accept one that states the customer is not of legal age or presents an ID that is not considered valid the seller is held responsible.
Jesus Christ this country has it shit bass ackwards.
The loop hole is here, the online dealer doesn’t have to do a background check because it is not handing the gun to the buyer directly, they ship the purchased weapon to a local gun store that has a Federal Firearm License (which they do require a copy is sent to them to put on file). The buyer then goes to that store and picks up the gun. The local gun store does not have to to a background check because they technically aren’t selling the gun, they just have a package that they haven’t opened to hand to the buyer. The buyer only has to show a printed receipt with the package number to pick it up, no photo ID required. Not even proof of age. The only stipulation is that the laws of the state shipped to are followed.
For instance the state of Arizona only prohibits the shipment of stun guns and tasers.
Now, if the local dealer doesn’t even know what is in the package, as they do not open it, then again trust is placed in the buyer to be following the laws of the state when ordering the gun. The online seller is not responsible for not shipping forbidden weapons, buyer is trusted to check the their state laws before buying and trusted to not buy anything on the prohibited list.
I don’t even have the words for the anger this ‘Really’? factor.

The Constitution; Flawed or Just Outdated?


I have to say it is both. But for the sake of argument let’s just say it is just outdated; there is usually less offense taken from this perspective but there is offense taken none the less. I am constantly amazed and offended when so many people get so deeply offended at any criticism of this document. As if it were sacred scripture or something. That however does not floor me as bad as the offense people take at any hint of criticism of any of its writers.

Let’s just consider what should be undisputed facts and not my opinions, this document was written by politicians, it was written to or towards the English Crown; or at the very least with the King in mind. It was meant to define to the King what the new system of government these revolutionaries where setting up I would think as a show that they weren’t going off half cocked but that they had a plan. Regardless it was written by men who just won the freedom to govern themselves, men who were now free from English rule.

The Constitution was written for a government that would govern 13 independent colonies. Leaders of this revolution were awarded colonies to govern on their own,  independent of each other without a Federal government in the respect that we have today, this aspect is the source of one of it’s biggest flaws I will get to shortly. But their were only 13 colonies not 50 states. It was written in 1787 before there was a president, two years before and it was written by the Continental Congress. At that time the colonies had governors who were appointed by the King. Continental, important term here because it refers to a body of government in the North American Continent i.e. a separate one from the one on the European Continent. It was written by a Congress who wanted to be able to have authority of the colonies that were governed by the Crown. These men did not want those appointed governors to have any authority over them. Remember this was all done in succession from the Kings rule. These were all men with a common goal of independence.

Those fact are key here, especially the fact that these were men with a common goal. They were working together; this is not the mindset of today’s Congress, but then again they are still of the mindset of not being ruled by anyone; remember their was no President at the time and wanted the king to have no authority over them. They didn’t want a future President to either, they still had a nasty taste in their mouth from the monarchy.

To my main point. Those men were working together, they had a common goal; why would the allow for a Congress of different goals and ideals, and one that had 4 times the number of members in it when writing this document? It is obvious to me that they never considered the possibility that there would ever be 50 states, resulting in a larger body of government of men who were not trying to reach a goal of independence? This document was a war-time set of rules, not a document defining a set of rules for a completely independant  nation. (Here is a good place to point out that at the time only white Christian men who owned land had the right to vote, in other words all votes were cast by men of the same mindset, values and ideas). I sincerely doubt these men ever considered a nation of such diverse religious and political beliefs. These men allowed for men of different variations of the Christian faith, men with a belief in god. Yes they allowed for differences in the worship of god but they assumed everyone believed in god in the first place. They left no room for non believers. This fact is abundantly clear by the Declaration of Independence which yes does not mention religion or even suggest religiosity, it does specifically mention god and it does directly refer to god.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

These first words were specifically directed at the king; a king who believed he was appointed by god. The founding fathers were disputing the fact that the king was any better than they were.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

These words were also directed at the king; a king who believed he was given the authority to speak for god to them. They were telling this king that only god had that authority, that god never gave any man that authority. They were not just taking authority away from the king they were giving authority back to god.

But back to the political body of Congress itself. The Constitution was written with a common goal in mind. these men considered that there would someday be differences in political agendas, which is why the allowed for it in the Bill of Rights. they considered that men would worship god in their own way, and they may have even considered there would be men who wouldn’t worship at all but they did not allow for this in these documents; not believing in god was a crime punishable by death in this new America, these rights they were assuring were for god fearing (white) men only. In other words they never considered that citizens that weren’t white, god fearing and male would ever have the right to vote or would ever be voted for; that women or non white, non believing men or women would ever be part of this body of government. These differences in beliefs result in differences in politics. I am pretty sure they didn’t consider that Congress would be voting on abortion rights; gun control (remember they wanted citizens armed in a country that was occupied by the king’s army). They weren’t considering that someday Americans would seek to arm themselves against them, they were men who shared the desire to not be ruled by a foreign monarch, men who wanted to make sure that no one would ever have authority over them; remember there was no president at the time, they I believe assumed that the future president they were allowing for was, like them, a man with the same goals of being free from foreign rule, while not leaving room for error if this elected president was in fact an agent of the crown who could then take back the authority they had taken away; remember the governors of the colonies were all appointed by the king; they were forming this new government from the top down, not the bottom up. They fulling intended these governors would be replaced with elected ones with the same end goal of separation from the crown.

 

So let’s look at the holes these fact created in this sacred document.

  • any member of Congress can filibuster. A filibuster is nothing more than a member of Congress running out the clock. It isn’t as painless as a quarterback running out the clock to prevent the opposing team from getting another chance to score; for starters the House play clock is several hours in comparison to the NFL’s 15 min quarters. Congress’ strategy to prevent the opposing side from scoring is to talk until the clock runs out and there is no time for a vote. Ted Cruz once read Green Eggs and Ham and talked about his kids for over 14 hours to run out the clock.
  • Congress can also decide to vote against a bill without even reading it. This is equivalent to a judge passing sentence without a trial because he knows that a jury won’t convict. In other words the whole democratic majority rule thing doesn’t apply in Congress, defeating the whole reason the people elect politicians to represent them in the first place.
  • A bill for background checks for someone buying a firearm for example can also have in it a section that states abortion would become illegal if the bill passes. Let’s walk past the fact that one law has absolutely nothing to do with the other; a Senator who was elected because of their policy on gun control would most like vote no on this bill because they also have a right to choose policy. These deliberate conflicts in policies are intended to do exactly what they end up doing; prevent the passing of legislation put up for a vote by the opposing party. And these conflicting parts of a bill can be tacked on to a bill that has already been submitted by the opposing party leaving no room for them to choose not to submit it. In other words legislation is voted on so no one can argue that a bill was not considered.
  • The Presidential duty to appoint judges, emphasis on the word DUTY. By rules of this very Congress the President has an obligation to make sure our judicial system has enough judges to assure Americans their 5th Amendment right to due process, and the right to a fair trial. The idea of this system is that everyone is entitled to an unbiased judgement from the courts. A judge isn’t supposed to have personal views influence decisions; they are supposed to pass judgement based on the letter of the law. In the case of the Supreme Court of the United States however this is the  highest authority of what the letter of the law is. The President has a duty to appoint these judges but according to democratic policy Congress is supposed to approve this appointment to assure that once again the majority will rule, to assure that one individual does not have absolute authority. Today’s Congress has simply decided they again won’t do what is the thing under  job description for Senators and vote for the people who voted for them, are flat-out refusing to do their job. The majority doesn’t rule then does it? Any other employee in any position in any other establishment would and should be fired for refusing to do their job. Hell my 3-year-old twins grandson’s get sent to the wall when they refuse to do what they are supposed to. Imagine if a teacher refused to teach, a teacher that just sat at their desk in a classroom of students saying nothing. Imagine a fireman who refused to turn on the hose he was holding standing in front of a burning building full of people who were locked inside. Imagine a pilot of a commercial airline refusing to fly the plane full of passengers who had no way of getting off the plane. Imagine a mother refusing to parent a child, a parent who just sat there watching tv while their baby was lying in a crib unable to feed itself. Imagine a President who refused to get out of bed; who decided they didn’t want do anything all day while an enemy troops were landing on our shores. Imagine a bank manager who refused to unlock the doors; who decided they just wanted to sit in their office all day playing solitaire on their computer. All these people would lose their jobs. But; no one can fire a member of Congress. Even Presidents can be impeached for minor violations like lying about an affair, but a member of Congress? Nope, they can spend 14 hours reading a children’s book to the most powerful assembly of elected officials in the worlds most powerful nation.

I would be willing to bet that our founding fathers; while writing our founding documents; while founding our system of government considered that their successors would be such immature, irresponsible, apathetic and deceitful manipulators of their hard work; of their dreams and of their ideals.

 

The Bathroom Battle Won; Mic Is Dropped And She Has Walked Away


I am sharing a post I saw on Facebook. Like I said, drop the mic and walk away; there is nothing more to say;

This woman, Kasey Rose-Hodge, just shut down the whole bathroom conversation in magnificent style!

“Dear creepy heterosexual men guarding our bathrooms,

My entire life, I’ve been told to fear you in one way or another. I’ve been told to cover my body as to not distract you in school, to cover my body to help avoid unwanted advances or comments, to cover my body as to not tempt you to sexually assault me, to reject your unwanted advances politely as to not anger you. I’ve been taught to never walk alone at night, to hold my keys in my fist while walking in parking lots, to check the backseat of my car, to not drink too much because you might take advantage of me. I’ve been told what I should and shouldn’t do with my body as to not jeopardize my relationships with you.

I’ve been warned not to emasculate you, to let “boys be boys”, to protect your fragile ego and to not tread on your even more fragile masculinity. I’ve been taught to keep my emotions in check, to let you be the unit of measure for how much emotion is appropriate and to adjust my emotions accordingly. I’ve been taught that you’re allowed to categorize women into mothers/sisters/girlfriends/wives/daughters but any woman outside of your protected categories is fair game.

So to those of you who think you’re being helpful by “protecting” me and my fellow women, you’re like a shark sitting in the Lifeguard chair. I wasn’t uncomfortable until you showed up at the pool and the only potential predator I see is you.

Your mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives and daughters don’t need you to walk them to the bathroom for safety. Your fathers, brothers, friends and sons need to walk themselves away from their own double standards. Women are sexually harassed and sexually assaulted on school campuses, on the street, at their jobs, on the Internet, in their own homes, in ANY public place. And it has been excused or ignored for so long because of what you and I are taught from the first years of our interactions with each other: You, as a male, are not accountable for your own actions. It’s MY responsibility, as a female, to not “provoke” you. But then you get to Knight-In-Shining-Armor your way through life for those in your protected categories and I am expected to applaud you. Why the outrage now over bathrooms? Why aren’t you outraged every single day?

If you’re telling me that there are high volumes of boys and men out there, in schools or in general, who are just waiting for a “loop hole” to sexually assault girls and women, we have bigger problems on our hands than bathrooms. The first problem would be your apparent lack of knowledge of how often it happens OUTSIDE of bathrooms, with no “loop holes” needed. This isn’t about Transgender bathroom access. This is about you not trusting the boys and men in your communities and/or fearing that they’re all secretly predators. Why do you have this fear? How many fathers have panicked when their daughters started dating because they “know how teenaged boys can be because they used to be one”? How many times have girls been warned “boys are only after one thing”? A mother can bring her young son into the women’s restroom and that’s fine but a father bringing his young daughter into the men’s restroom is disturbing because men are assumed to be predators and “little girls” shouldn’t be exposed to that.

So instead of picking up your sword and heading to Target or the girls’ locker room to defend our “rights”, why don’t you start somewhere that could actually make a difference? Challenge your children’s schools to end sexist dress codes and dress codes that sexualize girls as young as age 5. Advocate for proper (or any) sex education classes in all public schools by a certain grade level. Focus more on teaching your sons not to rape vs teaching your daughters how to avoid being raped. Stop asking “How would you feel if that was your mother or sister?” It shouldn’t take the comparison to clue you in to what’s right or wrong. Question why you’re more worried about your daughter being around men than your son being around women in bathrooms and dressing rooms. Stop walking by Victoria’s Secret with no problem but covering your son’s eyes if a woman is breastfeeding in public. Stop treating your daughter’s body as some fortress you’re sworn to protect as if that’s all she’s got to offer the world.”

– Kasey Rose-Hodge

Pass it on!

To Pray or Not To Pray…That Is The Question


Recently the Church of Satan in Phoenix challenged the City Council when the tried to requested to say the opening prayer at a City Council Meeting. The City Council opens every public meeting with a prayer; a Christian prayer. The Council members reacted by holding an emergency meeting to decide what to do. They took a vote; not a vote on whether or not to let the Satanists say the opening prayer, this of course would have ended up in the State Supreme Courts where chances are the Council would have lost. They took a vote on whether or not to ban prayer all together at their Council meetings. The council voted 5 – 4 to ban prayer, rather than let the Satanists have their say. Talk about cutting of your nose to spite your face.

So who really won? Many say the Church of Satan really won, claiming that a ban on prayer is what they really wanted. Some say the Council and it’s Christian members one by not letting the Satanists say the prayer. I would say us Atheists and the Secular won this one. Let’s here if for no public prayer at Council meetings.

Another Post About Flags


I understand made points about being overly politically correct, I really do and often times political correctness flat out pisses me off, for obvious reasons but also because tip toeing around hurt feelings more often than not prevents issues from being faced, dealt with or resolved., However…..I really believe this isn’t about offending anyone, it’s about whether or not we have grown up since the days of slavery, since the days of papal rule, since the days of medical and scientific ignorance and since the days of plain ignorance. It’s about learning from our mistakes. Yes there are those that take any point to far, like the moving of a grave of a Confederate Soldier. I don’t support certain ‘flag removing’ because it offends black people, I support it because gestures like waving a flag means something, to everybody. A flag represents what you stand for, what you believe in, what you represent and what you would defend to keep. These things are the reasons we humans came up with flags. Flags are a universal symbol that in one glimpse states important and sometimes life or death qualifying beliefs. The whole point is that one does not need to ask what another’s view, politics, religion and ideals are in the eyes of any that would threaten those things. A flag in battle shows whose side you are on and what you are willing to die and kill for. A flag in battle can save your life or cost it. A flag in front of a building tells you if those inside are friend or foe, think about US embassy’s in foreign countries; the Old Glory tells any American they can be safe there, get help and even be defended against harm or any injustice that may be done to you there. A flag is a symbol of pride, sometimes what you are proud of is a crime against humanity; slavery was not offensive it was morally wrong and inhumane. My great great grandfather Joshua B Mabery was a well-known, wealthy land….and slave owner. I am proud of my heritage and do not apologize for my ancestors offenses, by the same token I, we have grown as a Nation and as human beings; we no longer own slaves. Flying flags proudly that represent this inhumane way of life says to me that if you could you would, that though you suffered defeat and the law of the land says you can no longer enslave another human being that is the only reason you don’t. This in not ‘offensive’ or politically incorrect it is immoral and dehumanizing. This is not a slip of the tongue it is a slap in the face not only to black people but to any human being that fought and died for their right to be treated as what we had no right to disallow them…….human beings. If you truly in your heart of hearts don’t see black people or any Peoples as less worthy than yourself then no one should have to make you take down a flag that says otherwise, that flag would have been folded up and put away a long time ago….

Congressional Prayer Caucus; Violating The First Amendment


Congressman J. Randy Forbes, Founder & Co-Chairman
Senator James Lankford, Co-Chairman

Congressman Robert Aderholt
Congressman Brian Babin
Congressman Andy Barr
Congressman Gus Bilirakis
Congressman Rob Bishop
Congresswoman Diane Black
Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn
Congressman Jim Bridenstine
Congressman Bradley Byrne
Congressman John Carter

Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Congressman Mike Coffman
Congressman Doug Collins

Congressman Mike Conaway
Congressman Kevin Cramer
Congressman Rick Crawford 
Congressman Jeff Duncan
Congresswoman Renee Ellmers

Congressman Stephen Fincher
Congressman John Fleming
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx

Congressman Trent Franks

Congressman Scott Garrett

Congressman Louie Gohmert
Congressman Bob Goodlatte
Congressman Morgan Griffith

Congressman Gregg Harper
Congressman Andy Harris
Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler
Congressman French Hill
Congressman Richard Hudson
Congressman Tim Huelskamp
Congressman Bill Huizenga
Congressman Randy Hultgren
Congressman Robert Hurt
Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins
Congressman Bill Johnson

Congressman Sam Johnson

Congressman Walter Jones

Congressman Jim Jordan

Congressman Mike Kelly
Congressman Steve King

Congressman John Kline
Congressman Doug LaMalfa

Congressman Doug Lamborn
Congressman Bob Latta

Congressman Daniel Lipinski

Congressman Patrick McHenry
Congressman David McKinley
Congressman Jeff Miller
Congressman John Moolenaar

Congressman Randy Neugebauer
Congresswoman Kristi Noem
Congressman Alan Nunnelee

Congressman Stevan Pearce
Congressman Scott Perry 

Congressman Robert Pittenger
Congressman Joe Pitts
Congressman Mike Pompeo
Congressman Bill Posey 

Congressman Tom Price
Congressman Dave Reichert
Congressman Reid Ribble
Congressman Scott Rigell
Congresswoman Martha Roby
Congressman Phil Roe

Congressman Mike Rogers
Congressman Peter Roskam

Congressman Dennis Ross

Congressman Ed Royce
Congressman Steve Russell
Congressman Paul Ryan
Congressman Matt Salmon

Congressman Steve Scalise
Congressman Adrian Smith
Congressman Chris Smith

Congressman Lamar Smith

Congressman Steve Stivers
Congressman Marlin Stutzman
Congressman Lee Terry
Congressman Glenn Thompson
Congressman Mike Turner

Congressman Fred Upton
Congressman Tim Walberg
Congressman Randy Weber
Congressman Joe Wilson

Congressman Robert Wittman

Congressman Todd Young

Christian Congress, Christian Nation


First Prayer of the Continental Congress, 1774

The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774The Prayer in the First Congress, A.D. 1774

O Lord our Heavenly Father, high and mighty King of kings, and Lord of lords, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers on earth and reignest with power supreme and uncontrolled over all the Kingdoms, Empires and Governments; look down in mercy, we beseech Thee, on these our American States, who have fled to Thee from the rod of the oppressor and thrown themselves on Thy gracious protection, desiring to be henceforth dependent only on Thee. To Thee have they appealed for the righteousness of their cause; to Thee do they now look up for that countenance and support, which Thou alone canst give. Take them, therefore, Heavenly Father, under Thy nurturing care; give them wisdom in Council and valor in the field; defeat the malicious designs of our cruel adversaries; convince them of the unrighteousness of their Cause and if they persist in their sanguinary purposes, of own unerring justice, sounding in their hearts, constrain them to drop the weapons of war from their unnerved hands in the day of battle!

Be Thou present, O God of wisdom, and direct the councils of this honorable assembly; enable them to settle things on the best and surest foundation. That the scene of blood may be speedily closed; that order, harmony and peace may be effectually restored, and truth and justice, religion and piety, prevail and flourish amongst the people. Preserve the health of their bodies and vigor of their minds; shower down on them and the millions they here represent, such temporal blessings as Thou seest expedient for them in this world and crown them with everlasting glory in the world to come. All this we ask in the name and through the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son and our Savior.

Amen.

Reverend Jacob Duché
Rector of Christ Church of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 7, 1774, 9 o’clock a.m.

 

This was the first prayer said before a Congressional session. Here is the prayer they said on the 15th of May 2015;

05/15/2015
Reverend Patrick J. Conroy, S.J.

We give You thanks, O God, for giving us another day.

We ask Your blessing upon this assembly and upon all to whom the authority of government is given.

The issues of these days and in coming months remain complicated and potentially divisive. Endow each Member with wisdom and equanimity, that productive policies and solutions might be reached for the benefit of our Nation.

Please send Your spirit of peace upon those areas of our world where violence and conflict endure, and threaten to multiply. May all Your children learn to live in peace.

And, may all that is done within the people’s House this day be for Your greater honor and glory.

Amen.

Tell me again we are not a Christian Nation.

Presidential Thought of The Day That Tells Us What The President Really Thinks


From the Prayer Caucus government website https://forbes.house.gov/prayercaucus/

This ‘daily thought’ expresses the idea of America that has not changed since it’s founding with one small, cosmetic, and condescending guise of not only freedom of religion but of freedom from religion. It is meant to appease the secular and atheist population of These United States of America but it actually does in endorse her contempt, intolerance, and ‘holier than now’ moral superiority those of no faith. This daily thought is a reflection of what is thought daily by those of faith; what is assumed and presumed by those of faith; that everyone believes in god not matter how or where they worship him and even if they don’t worship him; but believing him none the less. Sure our gracious founding fathers fought and died for their religious freedom and for that freedom of fellow Americans taking oaths to protect this freedom at any and all costs while overlooking or perhaps even looking past the possibility of anyone wanting the freedom of no religion at all thus assuring no one could make them worship at all but no where, no where in any document written that gave birth to our nation and systems of laws and justice is there any promise or consideration made for someones right to not believe in god at all.

Read what Obama didn’t write down, hear what he didn’t say and think about what he thought. He thought he was being politically correct and including the secular and non-believers, I think he was excluding us.

My comments throughout are in red letters, yes, sarcastically like Jesus’ words.

05/07/2015

“Presidential Proclamation –– National Day of Prayer, 2015

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2015

– – – – – – –

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

When women and men of all backgrounds and beliefs are free to practice their faiths without fear or coercion, it bolsters our religious communities and helps to lift up diverse and vibrant societies throughout our world. In America, our Nation is stronger because we welcome and respect people of all faiths, he doesn’t say ‘and people of no faith’  and because we protect the fundamental right of all people to practice their faith how they choose, to change their faith, or to practice no faith at all, he doesn’t say or to have no faith at all and to do so free from persecution and discrimination he doesn’t say from exclusion or forced inclusion. Today, as we pause in solemn reflection, we celebrate the religious liberty the secular and non-believers don’t celebrate religious  liberty, we don’t have religion we cherish here at home, and we recommit to standing up for religious freedom around the world the secular and the non-believing would not commit to  standing up for religious freedom, many of us like my self who are anti-theists would only commit to not standing up for any of them or commit to standing against all of them.  .

For many of us, prayer is an important expression of faith –– an essential act of worship and a daily discipline that allows reflection, provides guidance, and offers solace. Through prayer we find the strength to do God’s work: to feed the hungry, care for the poor, comfort the afflicted, and make peace where there is strife. In times of uncertainty or tragedy, Americans offer humble supplications for comfort for those who mourn, for healing for those who are sick, and for protection for those who are in harm’s way. When we pray, we are reminded that we are not alone –– our hope is a common hope, our pain is shared, and we are all children of God. He isn’t acknowledging those of us who do not believe in god; a pretentious gesture meant to purposely say that even though they are morally superior to non-believer they graciously give all people consideration with absolute pity for us who just don’t know any better.  Those of us who do not believe in god do not share this common hope, those of us who do not believe in gad have a common hope that no one else would either, believers do not share our pain and they are the cause of ours; and no we are not all children of god. There is no god. 

Around the globe, too few know the protections we enjoy in America. Millions of individuals worldwide are subjected to discrimination, abuse, and sanctioned violence simply for exercising their religion or choosing not to claim a faith. Presumptuously condescendingly saying we have faith we just don’t claim to. Communities are threatened with genocide and driven from their homelands because of who they are or how they pray Once again excluding concern for those of us who are threatened with genocide and driven from our homelands because of who we are or that we don’t pray, stating consideration for those that do pray. The United States will continue to stand against these reprehensible attacks, work to end them, and protect religious freedom throughout the world Add another deliberate exclusion of the phrase protecting freedom from religion throughout the world.. And we remember those who are prisoners of conscience maybe just a hint of the suggestion that conscience belongs only to those that have faith; fair enough to say giving the deliberate restating repeatably this thought is of the faithful and or those of any faith; not of no faith–– who are held unjustly because of their faiths or beliefs Is this to say that there aren’t any non-believers who are held unjustly because or their lack of faith and no beliefs? –– and we will take every action within our power to secure their release again restating their is no power used to secure the release of non-believers being held captive by the faithful. .

In the face of tremendous challenges, prayer is a powerful force for peace, justice, and a brighter, more hopeful tomorrow. is this to say that us non-believers don’t want peace or worse that we prevent it? That we are unjust with no hope for or of tomorrow?  Today, as we join together in fellowship, we seek to see our own reflection in the struggle of others, to be our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers, and to keep faith –– in one another, in the promise of our Nation, and in the Almighty he had up until the Almighty. .

The Congress, by Public Law 100–307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a “National Day of Prayer.” Can we call upon him to issue a proclamation designating the second Thursday in May as a “National Day of No Prayer”?

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2015, as a National Day of Prayer. I invite the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths  How about we citizens thank ourselves in accordance with our own ideas, and consciences and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings for our hard work, and I join all people of faith yet again an exclusion, maybe even a stand against of non-believers in asking for God’s continued guidance, mercy, and protection because we can’t ask god since we don’t believe in him; from their judging eyes don’t accept him and therefore aren’t worthy of his mercy and not deserving of his protection as we seek a more just world.Slightly suggesting we non-believers are un just. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this sixth day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand fifteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty–ninth.

BARACK OBAMA”

Berkeley In The Sixties


514AHVBP8ML

 

This is a great look at the most progressive college campus during the radical sixties. Interviews with actual protesters who had a hand in the great political rallies that led to the draft protests, the Vietnam War protests, Womens Rights movements and Civil Rights……plus much much more.

I give it  5 stars.

It is available on Netflix

Is The Supreme Court Ruling On Hobby Lobby Right Or Wrong?


I know that my readers and those that know me will assume they know which side of this issue I am on. But they will be wrong.  I have never been shy about my contempt for religion and though this Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby’s objection to the company insurance covering 4 kinds of  ‘contraception’ on grounds of protecting their religious freedom I don’t necessarily see this as a religious issue; and the Supreme Court doesn’t see it as only a religious issue, it is a moral one.

It is important to understand that the objection is not against all contraception, it is against Plan B (the morning after pill), Ella (which works up to 5 days after sex) and 2 different IUD’s (Intra Uterine Devices). The argument is that these are aborticides and not contraception. Though I can see their view on Plan B and Ella I do not agree that IUD’s are aborticides, none the less this is the argument.

Here is the section of the ruling that I find to be the most important;
(3) HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverage and contraceptive method she uses. But RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs.The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. In fact, this Court considered and rejected a nearly identical argument in Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707. The Court’s “narrow function . . . is to determine” whether the plaintiffs’ asserted religious belief reflects“an honest conviction,” id., at 716, and there is no dispute here that it does. Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 672, 689; and Board of Ed. of Central School Dist. No. 1 v. Allen, 392 U. S. 236, 248–249, distinguished. Pp. 35–38.

Let’s pull out this sentence and look at it on it’s own; The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. From that sentence let’s pull out the words moral philosophy. 

I will say that my own personal views on abortion are very conflictive. I think that morally abortion is wrong except in cases of incest and rape. However I do agree with a woman’s right to choose, to a point. This all boils down to ‘when life begins’ dilemma. I am of the opinion that an embryo is not ‘alive’ but a fetus is, this means that after 8 weeks I think abortion is murder. I also feel that by 8 weeks there is no reason why a woman would not have made the decision to have a baby or not. That being said the difficulty lies in what is moral and what is immoral. I find it rather hypocritical of Christians to preach morality given the immoral acts of God throughout the Bible. However we happen to agree on the immorality of abortion, but disagree on when life begins. I admittedly commend the owners of Hobby Lobby for standing by their convictions.

BUT; when I pull out this sentence It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable. I have to say hold on. It is this stance of the Court that enables acts like female genital mutilation to not be illegal. Morality must be judged when it is inflicted on another human being. I a woman wants to cut off her own clitoris that is her business, but when she cuts of the clitoris of another female this is immorality at it’s peak. The same applies to circumstances involving keeping someone alive by artificial means and a loved one wants to pull the plug but another loved one cries it is against their religion to do so. If the person being kept alive would not want to be kept alive that way then pull the plug, in turn if the person being kept alive had the religious belief that it would be wrong then don’t do it. This goes for acts of rape and incest as well as any oppression of any other human being or acts of violence against them. One cannot commit an immoral act upon ones self.

 

 

Supreme Court Rules Town Council Prayer Constitutional


The Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing the Town Council in Greece N.Y. to continue their practice of prayer before their monthly Town Council meetings, ruling it was not unconstitutional. It was the opinion of the justices that because the council welcomed all faiths who wanted to invoke prayer at the meetings they weren’t violating the First Amendment. It was their opinion that it wasn’t the fault of the council that the town was predominantly Christian and that they should not be expected to extend the invitation to clergy outside the county. The council was more than willing to welcome and in fact encouraged  Buddhists, Hindu’s, Jews, Muslims and even Atheists who wished to invoke prayer before council meetings to do so, I guess the fact that Atheists don’t pray escaped them.

It was also the opinion of the courts that they would uphold the long-standing tradition of seeking guidance from our creator when making political decisions that was started by our founding fathers over 200 years ago. They actually applauded those who were wise enough to seek this divine wisdom that would help them to uphold our countries morals and values that have shaped our political system from the beginning.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that deny a womans access to birth control and to legal and safe abortions. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies laws prohibiting same-sex marriages. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws regarding the teaching of creationism in public schools while prohibiting the teaching of evolution. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that weren’t passed concerning the violence against women. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that keep effective pain relieving drug marijuana away from those with cancer and other chronic pain patients.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect the religious practice of female genital mutilation. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect the religious practice of polygamy involving underage girls that are denied education past the eighth grade. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect priests found guilty of raping children. These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that protect commanding officers who don’t prosecute  rapists in the military.

These morals and values are the same ones that have led to the policies and laws that don’t provide freedom from religion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Manhattan Declaration


Manhattan_Declaration_full_text

First a note, I refuse to capitalize the words catholic, christian, christianity, bible or god. That being said….

I recently became aware of this document when researching the current Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Case. This document written by

Drafting Committee
Robert George Professor, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
Timothy George Professor, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
Chuck Colson Founder, the Chuck Colson Center for Christian Worldview (Lansdowne, VA)

This is a committee of the catholic church and evangelical christians.

is a vital document used in cases like the Hobby Lobby suit and the recently vetoed bill that made to Gov.  Brewer’s desk here in Arizona that looked to allow christian businesses to refuse services to gay customers.

Instead of stating all the obvious civil rights issues I am going to dissect this document using their bible to do it.

This documents preamble begins with citing that theirs is a 2000 year old tradition of resisting tyranny. I stand firm that the worst tyrannical leader in history is god. They try to add to their self-righteousness by acknowledging, very vaguely, any past ‘indiscretions’ by some christian institutions, and claim a christian heritage from those that rescued discarded babies from the trash heaps of Roman cities, those who risked their own lives by helping those struck with the plague and those that rather than deny their faith died in the coliseum. They continue on to say that it was christians that saved not only their literature but that and the art of western culture after barbarians invaded Europe. They don’t however say when.  Here I must begin to interject. History very clearly tells us that the church burned unapproved art that got by their all-seeing eyes to be created in the first place. And the church is solely responsible for the book burnings of non christian literature all throughout history. They also claim sole responsibility for ending the slave trade in Europe. Next is the boast of the hundreds of societies that help the poor, imprisoned and child laborer. I stand alongside the late great Christopher Hitchens that christians have made a career out of the exploitation of the poor.They even go so far as to claim that it was the christians that challenged the royalty of Europe that made modern democracy possible. Really? Wow. But there’s more. They say they have a devotion to human dignity by working to end human trafficking and sexual slave trades. Next is one of my favorite claims. The work they do in Africa to help end Aids. Help? Sure with conditions. The church has conditions that if aids victims practice abstinence and monogamy they will receive their help. They actually claim scientific studies show that the use of condoms has not stopped the spread of aids AT ALL. They have the nerve not to distribute condoms because it promotes promiscuity and does nothing to prevent the spread of aids. They have that audacity to enforce their contraception beliefs on victims of aids.

Now for their declaration, they declare to fight for the rights of the unborn, the sick and the elderly. In other words against abortion, contraception, DNR’s  and assisted suicide. Then there’s the protection of the sacred institution of marriage where they don’t stop at same-sex marriages but continue marching on against divorce, against premarital sex, against cohabitation and against polygamy.

First they tear into stem cell research claiming that there will be mass production of embryos produced to be destroyed. This boils down to the when life begins debate and the actual ‘production’ of embryos. This is not conception from procreation.  And one could argue that the embryos are not destroyed they are transformed into new life as new cells. This is a practice that saves lives. It can prevent people from suffering cure a number of horrific diseases. They are being hypocrites. Their issue with this is really about science creating life instead of god. The argument that global warming can’t be true because only god can destroy the earth man cannot is behind this view, theirs is the view that mankind cannot create life only god can. Well obviously since the splitting of the atom and the industrial revolution mankind can destroy the earth, and obviously science has proved through stem cell research that we can also create life.

Medically speaking life does not begin until the embryo becomes a fetus. That’s my argument there.  Here though I must throw in my question as to who exactly is going to support all these unwanted children? Who is going to raise them? If women get abortions because they can’t care for them stopping the abortion isn’t going to change the fact that these children won’t be cared for. They will either be condemned to a life of abuse, neglect and poverty. But then again a life time of suffering is essential in christian dogma. And what about the pregnancies that are a result of rape and incest. I refuse to adhere to statistics that are supposed to reflect the number of these pregnancies because it is a fact that only a small percentage of rapes are reported let alone make it to court. That however is another issue but a directly related one. Now, if the christians could fix that problem…they can however fix the other problem of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place by not fighting the use of contraception. Without contraception, even in the perfect christian delusional world where only married people have sex denying women the ability to control how many children they will have and when is condemning us to a life of legalized prostitution. This is the ultimate oppression of women, it results in a womans inability to obtain an education and to embark on a career or even have a minimum wage job in an economy where it is next to impossible to live above the poverty line without two incomes. And lets not leave out the fact that this ensures countless numbers of children that will be born into and live in poverty lapse of proper nutrition and education. Oh but wait, without the poor who would the christians exploit. Seems to be a little to convenient for their cause.

Now to assisted suicide. This is one of the most blatant forms of abuse there is. These servants of god who claim to spend their life putting an end to suffering are doing anything but yet again. Forcing a person to live in pain is well, fucked up. Speaking as a person who has chronic pain due to spinal stenosis and who has a family history of early onset Alzheimer’s they have no right to condemn me. If I inherit the Alzheimer’s gene, which it is a sure bet either me or one of my two sisters will, I have asked my family to either help me end it when I lose all moments of clarity or to look the other way when I decide it is time. How dare they say that they would be saving me by forcing me to live in a state of dementia and undeniable pain. How dare they impose that on me. And what right have they got to tell anyone that their lives would be of quality if they were only breathing because of artificial means. Aren’t they playing god here themselves? If god has ceased my breathing let me die, not that I believe god has that ability or uses it, who are they to play god?

Now let’s look at their views on marriage and divorce.  I have always defended the Westboro church, you know the god hates fags people, in that they are right. Not right in their actions but in that god does hate fags. The bible very clearly states that he who lies with another man as he lie with a woman shall be put to death. I don’t think there is any way to misinterpret that. This bullshit they spew about not hating the sinner just the sin, well that doesn’t and can’t apply here. God offers no forgiveness of options of repent and be forgiven on this one. This sin is to god so bad that when Lot offered up his virgin daughters to the men that wanted to rape the male guests in his house god destroyed the city of Gomorrah for that attempt of the sin of sodomy but spared Lot before doing so for offering his daughters rather than commit the sin of not protecting a guest in one’s house. That says to me pretty plainly which god sees as the greater sin. For that matter offering up daughters against their will is something god did from the beginning. He himself in a sense raped Mary, or at least his spirit did when it impregnated her without her consent. And I will use scripture against them as they are using scripture for their defense.

Throughout the book of Genesis alone there are numerous condoned, encouraged and even ordered occasions where barren wives gave maidservants to their husbands so that they could have children.  Sarah did it for Abraham,  even after he let the Pharaoh of Egypt take her after lying and saying that she was his sister so that the Pharaoh wouldn’t kill him so that he could have his wife. Sarah gave Abram a woman named Hagar. After Sarah regretted this decision Abram told Sarah she could deal with Hagar as she pleased and Hagar ended up fleeing from them. Well god directly intervenes by sending an angel to convince Hagar to return telling her that she will give birth to a son and promises her many more if she obeys. She does. Ismael is born. Then god decides that he will give Sarah who is not of the age that she has ceased to bleed, god gives back her bleeding so that she too can conceive and give Abraham another son. I must add here the fact that Sarah is also Abraham’s half-sister, they have the same father but different mothers. This decadence is what the christians claim will happen if they don’t put an end to same-sex marriages and sex out of wed lock. Abraham’s story is not over yet. He sent a servant to the house of his kindred to fetch a wife for his son Isaac. It is important to note that Abraham insists that his son marry a daughter from his father’s house. Abraham’s servant took an oath to take his master’s brother’s daughter to be Isaacs wife. In other words Isaac was to marry his first cousin. Out of this marriage comes a son, Jacob. Jacob wants to marry a girl named Rachel but to do so he must be her fathers servant for seven years, which he does. He ends up getting tricked into marrying the older sister Leah but asks to live seven more years as a servant to ‘pay’ for Rachel which he does. Well Leah bears Jacob children but Rachel is barren so Rachel gives him her handmaid Bilhah and she bears Jacob sons. Then when Leah could no longer bear sons she gave her handmaid Zilpah to Jacob to wife and conceive more sons. Their decadence goes even deeper but don’t relate here. Jacob is rewarded with wealth and lands for his fruitful multiplying. And we’re still in Genesis. This is the sanctity of marriage that christians are fighting to preserve?

 

Whatever.

The Government Shutdown


I asked my 17 year old daughter, who is a senior depending on scholarships and student loans for college, this question “How do you feel about this shutdown knowing that there is a very good chance it will delay your starting college next year?” She responded with this “I asked my friend who didn’t know much about it what he thought. I explained to him that basically the Republican’s don’t like ObamaCare and that they wanted to remove contraception from the Act.” To which she said his response was “You mean the President is letting this happen over a couple of pills?”

Now I must take responsibility for some of my daughters lack of complete understanding. I am an old fed up feminist who is always feeding my daughters the injustices against women arguments. It is true that I firmly believe that women’s rights play a huge role in this fight because the Right Wing Republicans emphatically fight agianst our right to choose, against insurance covering the cost of contraception and against women’s equal rights in general. Not only does the Affordable Care Act cover those issues but it also for the first time in history make it illegal for insurance companies to charge women more than men for health insurance. Being a woman has always in a way been considered a pre-existing condition. Women need annual pabtsmears, annual mammograms, are likely to become pregnant at some point in their life requiring prenatal care and so on. I stand firm on my belief that this plays a major role in their posisition.

But, there is so much more to it than that. I am going to say what no one else has. It is no secret the Right Wingers hate Obama and will do whatever it takes to bring him down. Including making the repercussions of this shutdown his fault so he will go down in history with bad marks, but lets ask why they hate him so much. He is black. Plain and simple it is a race thing. Why else would his citizenship be continuously questioned? Why else would he be accused of being Muslim? Why else would being Muslim be a bad thing? These Right Wingers will do anything at the cost of anybody to make him look bad.

Why is it okay for Obama not to negotiate my daughter asked. Well first off it isn’t just him. The Senate refuses to negotiate as well. If the Tea Party is allowed to get away with this what’s next? A shutdown to try to appeal other laws they don’t like? Gay marriage? Abortion laws? Let’s not overlook the fact that they attached to the funding bill the Affordable Care Act that has already been voted on, passed and made into law. It has already gone into effect. There is nothing that the Senate or the President can do anyway. Let’s also not forget that the Tea Party hates government. They are the ones who are anti-American. They are the one’s acting like fascist tyrannical leaders who don’t give a damn about the population.

They are no better than terrorists.

In the past those who stood up for principles, for what was right did so at a dear cost to themselves and many. It has always been the great ones who were willing to lose everything to fight injustices. The Tea Party isn’t standing for any principle, for any just cause or for any point other than to make sure they hurt Obama at any cost.

 

Huma Wiener…Victim, Enabler or Part of the Problem?


Huma Wiener is part of the problem. The problem is men who have no respect for women, marriage, social responsibility. Don’t get me wrong, I am not judging or condemning (or supporting) ‘sexting’ or online porn. I am not saying that porn or ‘sexting’ is responsible for her husband Anthony’s behavior. If Wiener was a single man this wouldn’t be an issue or a discussion, but Anthony Wiener is married. The problem is her role as a ‘supportive wife’ and the role of ‘good mother’. She stated that she forgave her husband for his ‘sexting’ on the internet and that she did it for her family, her son. There are two parts to my response. First is looking at the politics of this. Wiener’s and many other views are that what happens in his private life has nothing to do with whether or not he is or will be as good mayor. It has everything to do with Anthony Wiener’s qualifications. He lied about sexting, he lied about how often and he lied about when he lied. He even spent over 40,000 dollars of campaign donations on investigation of who hacked his account and who was sexting as him. He shows no shame, remorse or embarrassment for any of his actions. This is a very clear picture of the man’s integrity, character and respect for the truth. How could anyone possibly believe this man would ever be honest about his actions as mayor? He cheated on his wife, yes I said cheated because that is what his behavior was, why would anyone believe he wouldn’t cheat the public or the government? Character counts remember? He obviously has very poor judgement, he obviously has little self-control and he obviously has no problem spending other people’s money to cover up his lies. Second, Huma stated she forgave her husband for the sake of her family and for her son.  Various media personnel who have commented on this have supported Huma with the explanation that she was trying to let her son’s father have some dignity and that would allow Anthony Wiener to be a good dad. Really? What Huma Wiener is doing is raising another lying sexually deviant man who has little respect for women. What she is doing is telling her son that it’s okay to lie, cheat (yes, online sexting and online chatting is cheating) and to break the law (yes, misuse of campaign funds is a crime). What she is doing is setting the bar for the level of respect her son will have for her and for women in general. If she wants to do what’s right for her son she needs to tell Anthony Wiener she is filing for divorce and she should testify against him when he is charged with the misuse of his campaign funds. What she needs to do is not forgive this man for acts he has no remorse for…and behavior he will repeat again and again and again.

 

The 911 Calls by Zimmerman


I want to isolate the 911 calls made by Zimmerman from the rest of the trial. Over a 9 year period he made 47 911 calls while on ‘Neighborhood Watch‘.  4 times to report a neighbor had left a garage door open and that wasn’t like him, 3 times because he saw a pit bull outside, 3 times to report a pot hole in the street, once to report someone who was hanging out at the pool was trashing the bathroom, once to report a neighbor was always hanging out in front of his own house with his garage door open, once to report a unfamiliar vehicle had been driving around the complex for 5 minutes and once to report a man who was not hired to serve food at a party he, Zimmerman, was hosting at the club house was serving food anyway and wanted to get paid. The others were to report black males various ages he didn’t recognize walking around the neighborhood, to report fire alarms going off, to report several kids ages 4 – 11 were playing in the street, to report loud music coming from the club house during a party, to report his landlord was asking for rent when the house was in foreclosure, to report a woman yelling, to report his roommate had people over he didn’t like and other as ridiculous calls. Not one of the 47 calls was an actual ’emergency’. Isn’t it a crime to dial 911 if there is not an emergency? That aside, if I were on the jury, after hearing Zimmerman’s account of what happened with Martin I would consider the fact that maybe just maybe, based on 9 years of 911 calls and the context of these call that maybe Zimmerman over reacted…just maybe.

 

Presidential Speech By A Black Man


I cannot even fathom the repercussions of President Obama’s speech on race and the Stand Your Ground law as it had to do with the Zimmerman verdict. Already there are comments about this not being his place past official sympathy for Trayvon Martin‘s family. I say it is absolutely his place to speak on ‘racial’ issues, he is a black man.  It’s past time to STOP being ‘politically correct’ and high time the ‘race discussion’ was started by the President. To many Presidents have danced around this issue. JFK didn’t think twice about civil rights until he had to. And we haven’t really come very far since then. As a black man who better to put this discussion up front than Obama? It’s no different from Hilary speaking out about the oppression of women. The reaction of the white supremacist groups will be testimony to just how much it was his place to make this a political issue. Racial politics are alive and well with the GOP and in every state.

 

The Middle Ground Is Where Gun Reform Is


It seems to me that the main point that is argued against imposing background checks when purchasing guns is the concern that the government will use the individuals information against them some how. There seems to be a mistrust of our government. I am not going to say there is no reason to mistrust nor am I going to say there is a reason to trust our government. That is not the issue here. So here’s my proposal. Appropriate federal funds to finance the NRA and let the NRA build and maintain the database with the information that is submitted for background checks. Let the NRA have access to information that flags felons, those on the terrorist watch list, those on the no fly list, those convicted of domestic  violence etc.

Problem Solved.

 

ACLU Profiles Joe Arpaio’s Officers As A Racial Profilers


The ACLU charges of Racial Profiling against Sheriff Joe Arpaio are discriminatory profiling in it’s own right against the  Sheriff’s department. They made this statement in regards to Arizona’ “show me your papers” law signed by Gov Brewer;

“The new law, which will not go into effect for more than 90 days, requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their “papers” at all times. The law also makes it a state crime for immigrants to willfully fail to register with the Department of Homeland Security and carry registration documents. It further curtails the free speech rights of day laborers and encourages unchecked information sharing between government agencies.

“Forcing local police to demand people’s papers and arrest those who can’t immediately prove their status will do nothing to make us safer,” said Dan Pochoda, Legal Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “What it will do is divert scarce police resources to address false threats and force officers to prioritize immigration enforcement over all other public safety responsibilities”.

I will address rather lengthy views I have on this issue of immigration laws in the very near future. But for now I have a short but to the point question.

By saying that officers are going to neglect their other responsibilities or protecting other citizens from ‘real crimes’ that threaten our safety by ‘prioritizing’ immigration enforcement is assuming that they will racially profile just because the work for Joe Arpaio who  is known for tough immigration law enforcement, ‘immigration law’ being a key point. He is the Sheriff and these are ‘law enforcement’ officers.

Isn’t that it’s own form of ‘profiling’?

Why Arizona HB 2467 is Wrong


Let me start by saying that don’t have a problem with anyone who would or has taken any oath of allegiance to God or Country, including our President. I do however have a problem with not having the choice. And before I get a comment that my daughter has a choice, being given an ultimatum is not freedom of choice.

First and foremost, ‘So help me God”. Yes that does mean something and yes it matters. No matter what context that statement is used. It does have stronger implications when it applies to an oath of allegiance that could take away life or liberty. Which brings me to the other issue. To swear this oath of allegiance to defend the Constitution when women after 200 years, for that matter since the very founding of this country to not have equality and protection from that very same Constitution is unfathomable. To break that oath would be treason, a crime in some states that is punishable by death or at the very least punishable by incarceration.

And before there are any eyes rolling and thoughts of dramatics on my part remember this. Men, yes I mean MEN, and religion  throughout history, are responsible for every war ever fought anywhere in the world that has cost over  millions lives all totaled, for the Crusades where thousands of people were slaughtered; tortured; burned; hung and disemboweled; beheaded and tortured for not believing in this very same God, for the Holocaust where not just 6,000,000 Jews were systematically exterminated; tortured; starved and experimented on but millions of ‘not normal’ people with disabilities as slight as a crooked nose; the mentally handicapped and those of non-Aryan or German blood, for the Inquisitions; Spanish and Catholic where hundreds of thousands of people were tortured; burned and brutally slaughtered across Europe where towns burned to the ground and whole communities of Jews were walled up in the Ghetto’s some less than a hundred yards from the Vatican gate and right below the Popes window, for the trial and convictions resulting in burning at the stake or hanging of countless women accused of being witches, for the enslavement of tens of thousands of black people, for countless lynchings of black people, for the ongoing suppression; violence; rape and human trafficking of countless women and children, for Female Genital Mutilation, for unspeakable treatment of animals, for the use of Atomic bombs that instantly and slowly; painfully and unnecessarily killed over a hundred of Japanese civilians, for over 1500 Hydrogen bomb tests that kills a countless number of marine life; and indigenous Peoples that rely on the oceans for their food and the slow and painful deaths; deformities and health problems beyond belief of our military personnel who were defending that very same Constitution.

And I’m dramatic? I put nothing inhumane past human beings.

Until that Constitution is rewritten, yes rewritten not ratified; not amended; not added to or altered but rewritten to include every American regardless of race, religion, sex or sexual orientation I will not swear an oath to it.

As far as God is concerned nothing will ever make that happen. Nothing.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 845 other followers

Post Calendar

April 2017
M T W T F S S
« Feb    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
%d bloggers like this: