I have come to believe that people as far to one side as my mother (the right wing) and I (the left wing) really have no middle ground left any longer. Nothing I say will convince her, nothing she says will convince me. It's sad... However -- I am curious about one thing, concerning the "pro-life" stance. Say you're "pro-life."
Would you have all abortion be illegal because you consider it to be the murder of an unborn human being, or would you make exceptions for rape and incest, and for situations wherein the mother's life is in danger?
Now -- if you answered "Yes, I would have all abortion be illegal," then, good luck to us both -- you go into your corner and I'll go into mine -- and we'll fight about this till the end of the world.
HOWEVER... If you WOULD make exceptions for rape and incest and when the mother's life is endangered -- what happened to "Abortion is Murder?" Is it not murder regardless of the circumstances of conception?
See, I have no animus toward people who actually believe abortion is murder. I think, if they truly believe that, then they are morally obligated to fight legal abortion. I happen to disagree with them about it being murder, and I am much more concerned with the life of the mother than of the fetus, so I feel morally compelled to fight for legal abortion. But MOST of the so-called "pro-life" people I've encountered (who, ironically, support the death penalty) WOULD make exceptions for rape and incest and when the mother's life is endangered. I just CANNOT countenance that kind of hypocrisy, sorry. What it amounts to is ignorance and chauvinism masquerading as moral concern.
Anyway, I could go on ad nauseum about this (how about the origins of the Catholic church's arguments against abortion -- and how very MODERN they are, about the long-held belief that a fetus was not a human until "quickening" -- blah blah blah) -- but I'll save it. I'm TRULY curious about the pro-life people out there in cyberland reading this, and how they feel about forcing a fourteen year old to bear the child of her own father/rapist, or a fifteen year old to bear the child of the stranger who raped her.
*****************
Gay Marriage
This election year topic, more than any other, makes me weep for humanity. When an entire minority is still disenfranchised in terms of civil rights and adequate political representation, I weep. The fact that so many otherwise intelligent, educated people still believe who someone sleeps with should determine his human rights, still believe that their God considers homosexuality an aberration, I weep. I rage, too.
Pragmatism demands that Kerry and other intelligent politicians tread carefully on this land mine-filled territory. I understand that. Certainly no one politician can afford to speak the truth and survive, politically. Witness the outrage over "don't ask, don't tell," that misguided and cowardly step in the right direction.
But, oh, how I long for the day when all of them get in a room and decide to stand together and tell the world they can lie no longer -- that homosexuality, regardless of it being a biological imperative or a "lifestyle choice," is not a crime against man or god. That all men and women, irrespective of their sexual partners, are created equal and have equal rights under every law. That the dark ages are long gone and so should be every vestige of the fear, hatred and judgment of "different." I long for the day when the collective leadership of the world tells the rest of the world to GROW UP.
Sorry. I'm pretty sure I'm preaching to the choir, here. But it drives me insane, this utter horseshit does.
I keep hearing, "Marriage is between a man and a woman, in God's eyes. "
How do I say this?
I am not a Christian or Jew or Muslim. While I do have a conception of a Higher Power that I choose to call god, I practice no religion. Therefore, I do not hold the Bible or the Koran to be the word of god.
One of the basic tenets of the separation of Church and State is that at no time shall the government of the United States of America be a theocracy. Our laws, while oftentimes influenced by religious beliefs, are not dictated by the Bible (Old or New testament) or any religious text. The definition of marriage in a religious context is not the definition of marriage in a legal context -- period. I cite the words of the civil marriage ceremony: "By the power vested in me by the (Commonwealth of Massachussetts)..." NOT: "By the power vested in me by God..."
Separation of Church and State, while difficult to maintain at times, is crucial to the continuing evolution of a nation. As a person who does not recognize the validity of the Bible or any other religious text as being the word of god, I DEMAND that the government I support with my taxes and by whose laws I abide leave the religious beliefs of its members out of the equation when making those laws. I do not demand equality or even consideration from any religion; I consider myself and every other person not affiliated with a religion to be outside the sphere of those religions. But when the laws by which I am supposed to abide are dictated by those who would encroach upon my rights as a human being through their own religious beliefs, I will PROTEST. I will FIGHT. I am not a Christian, I am not a Jew, I am not a Muslim -- KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY LIFE AND MY LAWS.
*
****************
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
I wonder, do the Bush people truly believe that they can convince anyone but the already converted of anything with their specious arguments and disingenuous tactics? Or are they merely entertaining themselves trying to work up the other side into a lather?
My take on this mockery of a dialogue is simply this: We're on one side, they're on the other side -- and neither of us will switch sides, unless our minds are open enough to consider the possibility that we may be wrong. The inherent political weakness of liberals is in their very openmindedness and willingness to consider all sides of an argument before drawing a conclusion. Immovable ideology and dogma are anathema to a liberal, by definition. Which is why the Republicans have succeeded in coercing an entire country onto their side.
Most people are inherently liberal -- but almost half of any given group of people is of below average intelligence (if you subscribe to that paradigm, which unfortunately, I do), and therefore more susceptible to propaganda. The right has the better propaganda machine thus far, and the left is averse to the use of propaganda in extreme measures by virtue of... virtue. It looks like a losing battle, doesn't it?
Propaganda is not an inherently negative tactic -- it's the only way to reach the masses effectively. In the hands of the right wing (talk about a mixed metaphor), through the use of the vast right wing conspiracy and its puppets -- the media -- propaganda has been used to convince the masses that the word "liberal" is an epithet. That even though the majority of them are not rich, taxes on the rich are unfairly applied. That although most of them would be the beneficiaries of universal healthcare, they must protect the minority who would lose the money they (the majority) put in their (the minority) pockets. It's ingenius, really. People will buy anything if it's repeated often enough and loudly enough by the pretty people on their television screens.
If you accept the premises that the majority of people have their minds made up for them by outside influences (propaganda), that "conservatives" are more adept at using propaganda because they'll say anything they need to say to make their point, that liberals are hampered by their principles in the use of propaganda (and, yes, it's all theory, and a lot to swallow whole), then it stands to reason that there is only one way for the liberal side to win in a contest of this sort: We must have principles on our side. We can only feel justified in resorting to propaganda if the propaganda is actually true and right.
Well, hallelujah. We are right, what we are saying is true. We need Carl Rove's doppelganger, now -- he is the devil, the evil twin -- there must be a good twin out there somewhere. We need someone driving our propaganda machine whose relentlessness, dedication to the cause and commitment to winning the hearts and minds of the majority matches that of the right wing. We have the message of truth; we need effective messengers. Here's hoping Air America Radio will pick up the cobwebbed gauntlet.
I have come to believe that people as far to one side as my mother (the right wing) and I (the left wing) really have no middle ground left any longer. Nothing I say will convince her, nothing she says will convince me. It's sad... However -- I am curious about one thing, concerning the "pro-life" stance. Say you're "pro-life."
Would you have all abortion be illegal because you consider it to be the murder of an unborn human being, or would you make exceptions for rape and incest, and for situations wherein the mother's life is in danger?
Now -- if you answered "Yes, I would have all abortion be illegal," then, good luck to us both -- you go into your corner and I'll go into mine -- and we'll fight about this till the end of the world.
HOWEVER... If you WOULD make exceptions for rape and incest and when the mother's life is endangered -- what happened to "Abortion is Murder?" Is it not murder regardless of the circumstances of conception?
See, I have no animus toward people who actually believe abortion is murder. I think, if they truly believe that, then they are morally obligated to fight legal abortion. I happen to disagree with them about it being murder, and I am much more concerned with the life of the mother than of the fetus, so I feel morally compelled to fight for legal abortion. But MOST of the so-called "pro-life" people I've encountered (who, ironically, support the death penalty) WOULD make exceptions for rape and incest and when the mother's life is endangered. I just CANNOT countenance that kind of hypocrisy, sorry. What it amounts to is ignorance and chauvinism masquerading as moral concern.
Anyway, I could go on ad nauseum about this (how about the origins of the Catholic church's arguments against abortion -- and how very MODERN they are, about the long-held belief that a fetus was not a human until "quickening" -- blah blah blah) -- but I'll save it. I'm TRULY curious about the pro-life people out there in cyberland reading this, and how they feel about forcing a fourteen year old to bear the child of her own father/rapist, or a fifteen year old to bear the child of the stranger who raped her.
*****************
Gay Marriage
This election year topic, more than any other, makes me weep for humanity. When an entire minority is still disenfranchised in terms of civil rights and adequate political representation, I weep. The fact that so many otherwise intelligent, educated people still believe who someone sleeps with should determine his human rights, still believe that their God considers homosexuality an aberration, I weep. I rage, too.
Pragmatism demands that Kerry and other intelligent politicians tread carefully on this land mine-filled territory. I understand that. Certainly no one politician can afford to speak the truth and survive, politically. Witness the outrage over "don't ask, don't tell," that misguided and cowardly step in the right direction.
But, oh, how I long for the day when all of them get in a room and decide to stand together and tell the world they can lie no longer -- that homosexuality, regardless of it being a biological imperative or a "lifestyle choice," is not a crime against man or god. That all men and women, irrespective of their sexual partners, are created equal and have equal rights under every law. That the dark ages are long gone and so should be every vestige of the fear, hatred and judgment of "different." I long for the day when the collective leadership of the world tells the rest of the world to GROW UP.
Sorry. I'm pretty sure I'm preaching to the choir, here. But it drives me insane, this utter horseshit does.
I keep hearing, "Marriage is between a man and a woman, in God's eyes. "
How do I say this?
I am not a Christian or Jew or Muslim. While I do have a conception of a Higher Power that I choose to call god, I practice no religion. Therefore, I do not hold the Bible or the Koran to be the word of god.
One of the basic tenets of the separation of Church and State is that at no time shall the government of the United States of America be a theocracy. Our laws, while oftentimes influenced by religious beliefs, are not dictated by the Bible (Old or New testament) or any religious text. The definition of marriage in a religious context is not the definition of marriage in a legal context -- period. I cite the words of the civil marriage ceremony: "By the power vested in me by the (Commonwealth of Massachussetts)..." NOT: "By the power vested in me by God..."
Separation of Church and State, while difficult to maintain at times, is crucial to the continuing evolution of a nation. As a person who does not recognize the validity of the Bible or any other religious text as being the word of god, I DEMAND that the government I support with my taxes and by whose laws I abide leave the religious beliefs of its members out of the equation when making those laws. I do not demand equality or even consideration from any religion; I consider myself and every other person not affiliated with a religion to be outside the sphere of those religions. But when the laws by which I am supposed to abide are dictated by those who would encroach upon my rights as a human being through their own religious beliefs, I will PROTEST. I will FIGHT. I am not a Christian, I am not a Jew, I am not a Muslim -- KEEP YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OUT OF MY LIFE AND MY LAWS.
*
****************
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them
I wonder, do the Bush people truly believe that they can convince anyone but the already converted of anything with their specious arguments and disingenuous tactics? Or are they merely entertaining themselves trying to work up the other side into a lather?
My take on this mockery of a dialogue is simply this: We're on one side, they're on the other side -- and neither of us will switch sides, unless our minds are open enough to consider the possibility that we may be wrong. The inherent political weakness of liberals is in their very openmindedness and willingness to consider all sides of an argument before drawing a conclusion. Immovable ideology and dogma are anathema to a liberal, by definition. Which is why the Republicans have succeeded in coercing an entire country onto their side.
Most people are inherently liberal -- but almost half of any given group of people is of below average intelligence (if you subscribe to that paradigm, which unfortunately, I do), and therefore more susceptible to propaganda. The right has the better propaganda machine thus far, and the left is averse to the use of propaganda in extreme measures by virtue of... virtue. It looks like a losing battle, doesn't it?
Propaganda is not an inherently negative tactic -- it's the only way to reach the masses effectively. In the hands of the right wing (talk about a mixed metaphor), through the use of the vast right wing conspiracy and its puppets -- the media -- propaganda has been used to convince the masses that the word "liberal" is an epithet. That even though the majority of them are not rich, taxes on the rich are unfairly applied. That although most of them would be the beneficiaries of universal healthcare, they must protect the minority who would lose the money they (the majority) put in their (the minority) pockets. It's ingenius, really. People will buy anything if it's repeated often enough and loudly enough by the pretty people on their television screens.
If you accept the premises that the majority of people have their minds made up for them by outside influences (propaganda), that "conservatives" are more adept at using propaganda because they'll say anything they need to say to make their point, that liberals are hampered by their principles in the use of propaganda (and, yes, it's all theory, and a lot to swallow whole), then it stands to reason that there is only one way for the liberal side to win in a contest of this sort: We must have principles on our side. We can only feel justified in resorting to propaganda if the propaganda is actually true and right.
Well, hallelujah. We are right, what we are saying is true. We need Carl Rove's doppelganger, now -- he is the devil, the evil twin -- there must be a good twin out there somewhere. We need someone driving our propaganda machine whose relentlessness, dedication to the cause and commitment to winning the hearts and minds of the majority matches that of the right wing. We have the message of truth; we need effective messengers. Here's hoping Air America Radio will pick up the cobwebbed gauntlet.