The Gaytheist Agenda

With many thanks to Ebon, frequent commenter to the Gaytheist Agenda, who provided this wonderful cheat sheet.

When the Cali ruling was handed down, I created a quick cheat-sheet for dealing with those who would argue against it. Since I noticed at least one person using one of the arguments I dealt with, I thought you might like a copy of it:

“The judges overturned the will of the people” ~ It is not the job of the judicial branch to uphold the wishes of the majority. There is a very good reason why very few states and virtually no civilised nations elect judges and that is because it would open them to the same pressures as politicians face. Judges are deliberately
insulated from the political process to ensure that they don’t have to follow “the will of the people”. The judges were asked to rule on whether the state’s ban on same-sex marriage conflicted with the state constitution’s ban on discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. They decided it did. making that decision was their only responsibility. Not enforcing the will of the people, not following the prevailing political winds, simply stating the law as they understood it. If the judiciary’s only function was to rubber-stamp “the will of the people”, there would be little point having them. The judicial branch is independent to guard against the tyranny of the majority, not to enable it.

“Activist judges / legislating from the bench” ~ The phrase “activist judges” has only ever meant “a decision I disagree with”. Of the seven judges who made this decision, six were appointed by Republicans and California currently has a Republican governor, not the kind of people normally slandered with cries of judicial activism. As anyone who has ever studied law knows, it is utterly impossible for a judge to avoid legislating from the bench. In any case at all (except Bush V. Gore), the decision establishes a legal precedent. By the principle of stare decisis (roughly “the court stands on it’s previous decisions”), that precedent then has the force of law to all lower courts unless and until it is overturned, thus establishing law and thus, legislating from the bench. That is how the legal process is supposed to work. It is, in a very real sense, the essence of what judges do. Further, the cry of activism can only ever have any weight (beyond the previously mentioned “decision I dislike”) if a decision is made without firm legal reasoning. In this case, the legal reasoning was entirely sound. The wording of both the State Constitution and the marriage act were exceedingly clear and the court also drew on the decision made in Loving which established the right to marriage as a fundamental right. That is a well-reasoned, well-thought out judicial opinion.

I’ve noticed that it’s only the RWers who bemoan Activist Judges/Legislating from the Bench. I’ve never heard that come from anybody on the Left. You know the one time I didn’t hear it? Bush vs. Gore. Nobody on the Right was whining about Activist Judges then.

“Now people will be able to marry children/dogs/box turtles” ~ First off, there is no evidence whatsoever that gay people abuse children any more frequently than hetero people and a certain amount of evidence suggesting exactly the opposite. Secondly and more importantly, marriage is (shorn of the religious connotations) a state-sanctioned contract. Children cannot consent to a contract, nor to sexual intercourse so when one is asked “where do we draw the line?”, the appropriate answer would probably be “at people who are able to give consent”. While we’re on the subject, animals are also judged unable to give consent so leave that one at home too.

Rational people like you and I know that, as do people who have basic knowledge of logic. But the RW likes to prey upon those who don’t and use the time-honored slippery slope fallacy. Of course it’s very effective on its target audience.

“They’re free to marry someone of the opposite sex, like anyone else so same-sex marriage is a special right” ~ There is a reason the phrase “one size fits all” appears in no known constitution or bill of laws anywhere. If you wish to apply that argument, one can as easily shut down every church except the Satanists, not our fault if you choose to be something different or we could enforce vegetarianism, not our fault if you like a steak. Quite apart from the absurdity of the argument, it becomes rather more sinister when you flip it around: If the government can say I only have the right to marry a woman, why can it not say I only have the right to marry some women? Or this woman? Or this aardvark? A reasonable argument can be made for limiting marriage to two people out of sheer practicality and the need to maintain a tax base but beyond that, allowing the state to decide which people can marry sets a dangerous precedent.

They’re always going on about these “special rights” that we want. Funny how we ask for exactly what they have, yet we’re asking for “special rights”. If they aren’t special for them, how are they suddenly special when we want them? It’s like when they have protection from hate crimes based on their religion, but when we ask for protection based on our sexual orientation or gender identity suddenly they start claiming that’s a “special right” or that it will discriminate against them. What the…?

“Marriage has always been between a man and a woman” ~ So was child labour, so was miscegenation, so was slavery. Everything is “always” until we decide it’s something else. The satirist Terry Pratchett once described tradition as “the name we give to something daft we’ve been doing a long time”. His point was not that tradition is inherently a bad thing but that holding a tradition simply because it had always been a tradition was absurd. Until quite (shamefully) recently, it had “always” been legal to force sex upon one’s wife. And then the world grew up and realised that was foul and changed it. Humanity is not static, what was done does not have to continue to be done. If humanity had stuck with what it had “always” done, we would be eating our meat raw and living in a tree. Respect the last by all means but don’t be a slave to it and, when necessary, be willing to learn from it’s mistakes.

Very good point. But they’re wrong about marriage having always been “between a man and a woman”, and they’re hoping everybody is as ignorant as they are. Historically marriage has included polygamy, polyandry and even–yes–same sex marriage. So it definitely has not always been “between a man and a woman”.

“God says it’s immoral” ~ Got God’s fax number? Willing to share it? Then it’s just your opinion. You may have an elderly book that says your god feels this way but I have a book which says otherwise and since neither of us can prove our case or disprove the others, let’s just leave everyone’s gods out of the equation. Or, to quote Sir Francis Walsingham: “Is your god such a worldly god that he must play at politics?”.

God says a lot of things are immoral, sinful, abominations, etc. Of course any time they’re brought up they have excuses as to why those things are no longer applicable, only apply to Jews, are taken out of context, were eradicated by Jesus (though if you try to use that they say he fulfilled the law rather than eradicating it) or whatever. The excuses are endless. But of course the verses that they use against gay people are etched in stone because “God’s word is forever”. I swear their brains are like pretzels because the logic they use is so incredibly convoluted it couldn’t be any other way.

“It’s unnatural” ~ So is wearing clothes, driving cars, modern medicine, corporations and American Idol. The life of man in a state of nature is nasty, brutish and short. The entirety of human existence has been a flight away from nature, a drive to modify nature to our own ends. That is what has made us the dominant species on the planet and, because we never know when to stop, is killing the planet. Homosexuality has been observed in at least a hundred species (last time I checked, it may be even more now). If animals in the state of nature do it, it is natural by definition.

Homosexual behavior has been observed in about 1,500 animal species to date. It’s definitely a natural occurrence.

“It will encourage homosexuality” ~ You can’t encourage an inborn trait. All the
evidence, while not entirely conclusive yet, indicates that homosexuality is almost certainly innate. More to the point, what do you think is going to happen? Are otherwise hetero kids going to notice two guys getting married and think “I’m cured, I want the boys!”. If gay people have been being gay and living as gay and coming out as gay despite the ban on same-sex marriage and despite the phenomenal pressures to be straight and conform and despite the (decreasing but still very prevalent)threat of physical violence, we can safely assume that suppressing gay people hasn’t worked.

Just like their hateful “ex-gay” reparative therapy doesn’t work. It doesn’t stop them from hawking it though.

“It will destroy the sanctity of marriage” ~ OK, first off, let’s talk about that sanctity. Last time I checked, the divorce rate was around fifty percent and around eighty percent of married people (men and women) will cheat at some point in their married life so marriage doesn’t currently seem to be very sanctified anyway. Secondly, do you honestly believe that gay people getting married will have any effect on hetero marriages (beyond the minuscule effect on tax revenues)? Straight people are not going to stop getting married purely because marriage is no longer exclusive to them, the human mind doesn’t work that way.

If Britney Spears’ 55 hour marriage didn’t destroy the “sanctity of marriage” then nothing will.

Ebon, I can’t thank you enough for this wonderful resource. I’m sure it will come in handy time and time again.

 

I’ve mentioned Specialist Jeremy Hall two times previously. Well, he’s in the news again over his lawsuit against the army.

FORT RILEY, Kan. — When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.
…..

Specialist Hall’s lawsuit is the latest incident to raise questions about the military’s religion guidelines. In 2005, the Air Force issued new regulations in response to complaints from cadets at the Air Force Academy that evangelical Christian officers used their positions to proselytize. In general, the armed forces have regulations, Ms. Lainez said, that respect “the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.”

To Specialist Hall and other critics of the military, the guidelines have done little to change a culture they say tilts heavily toward evangelical Christianity. Controversies have continued to flare, largely over tactics used by evangelicals to promote their faith. Perhaps the most high-profile incident involved seven officers, including four generals, who appeared, in uniform and in violation of military regulations, in a 2006 fund-raising video for the Christian Embassy, an evangelical Bible study group.

“They don’t trust you because they think you are unreliable and might break, since you don’t have God to rely on,” Specialist Hall said of those who proselytize in the military. “The message is, ‘It’s a Christian nation, and you need to recognize that.’ ”
…..

That old “Christian Nation” canard. America is not, and never has been, a Christian Nation. Sadly the revisionists will never tire of repeating that as they hope repetition will make it true.

Complaints include prayers “in Jesus’ name” at mandatory functions, which violates military regulations, and officers proselytizing subordinates to be “born again.” After getting the complainants’ unit and command information, Mr. Weinstein said, he calls his contacts in the military to try to correct the situation.

“Religion is inextricably intertwined with their jobs,” Mr. Weinstein said. “You’re promoted by who you pray with.”
…..
Specialist Hall said he did not advertise his atheism. But his views became apparent during his second deployment in 2006. At a Thanksgiving meal, someone at his table asked everyone to pray. Specialist Hall did not join in, explaining to a sergeant that he did not believe in God. The sergeant got angry, he said, and told him to go to another table.
…..
Though with a different unit now at Fort Riley, Specialist Hall said the backlash had continued. He has a no-contact order with a sergeant who, without provocation, threatened to “bust him in the mouth.” Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.

There are definite and serious violations of Church/State Separation involved here. And the sergeant who claimed Hall had no freedom of religion because he had no religion reminds me very much of this individual who claimed the Constitution doesn’t protect atheists. How hateful some people can be.

I now move on to this letter I came across which makes a common false assertion about atheists.

I read with interest your recent story about 23-year-old U.S. Army Specialist Jeremy Hall who calls himself an atheist and feels harassed because his superiors challenged him in his ability to lead people of faith in combat conditions.
Advertisement

This young man’s convictions and character must be very weak if he had to resort to a lawsuit and a lawsuit in a time of war. Atheist means simply “no god.” If he feels this is a fact, why argue? It should be moot to him.

I suspect, however, that this young man doubts his atheism and senses that there may indeed be a God with whom he must reckon with and the fight is not with his superiors but his heart in this matter.

We need military leaders at all levels who can respect the beliefs and convictions of the ones they lead. If, in the case of this young man, they profess no faith, respect them, too. We cannot, however, suspend any discussion of faith or our chaplaincies because of a small number of insecure atheist who should really say they are agnostic.

A dishonest atheist is just as annoying as a dishonest believer.
Walter Jackson
Millbrook

Would Mr. Jackson claim a Christian who sued an employer for harassment and threats of physical violence was weak of character? Would he think for a minute the Christian was doubting his faith? I don’t imagine he would.

So why is it that atheists are held to different standards than Christians? Why should we tolerate verbal harassment and threats of violence where others would not? Why are our intentions always called into question whenever anything like this occurs?

Maybe it’s because some people can’t fathom that others are actually content not being like them, and that all the begging and even threatening in the world won’t change things. That seems to strike a deep chord in certain people, and their reactions are very unpleasant indeed.

 

Several days ago I was reading The Friendly Atheist and came across the story of Mayor Larry Langford, who was dealing with the ever-increasing rate of crime in Birmingham, AL. His answer was to pray and to pass out Bibles to the citizens.

Langford is holding a family summit April 4, where he will hand out 5,000 bibles in English and Spanish.

“I’m gonna give you something far better than a gun to protect yourself with. I’m gonna give you the word of God,” Langford said. “He is the only source of protection you’ve got. I make no apologies for it. I serve a good God and I’m glad He found me.”

Just yesterday Ebon sent me this update on the crime-fighting tactics of Mayor Langford. It seems the Bibles weren’t enough.

Mayor Larry Langford declared Friday as “It’s Time to Pray Day” in Birmingham and will mark the event with a prayer service at Boutwell Auditorium.

Langford made the proclamation Tuesday during the City Council meeting.

“We’re going to pray for a change in this city,” he said.

During the service, participants will be given sackcloth to wear and ashes to put on their skin. The practice is mentioned in the Bible of the Bible as an act of repentance and humility.

Langford ordered 2,000 of the sacks.

“Even if you get upset, we’re still going to have it,” Langford said. “This city needs to humble itself.”

…..

“The moral fiber of this community is also our responsibility,” he said.

Langford also admonished the pastors surrounding him and others not to attend the rally for spectacle, but for a religious experience.

“Do not come looking pretty,” he said. “If you’re too cute to put a little ash on your hands, stay home. If you’re too cute to pray, stay home.”

There are definitely issues with Separation of Church and State there. Beyond that, I wonder if Mayor Langford has ever seen this study from 2005 that debunks the belief that a moral society depends on faith and religiosity.

A STRENGTHENING of religious faith is often raised as the answer to society’s ills. Peter Costello has said, for example, “that a recovery of faith would go a long way” to solving many of our society’s problems. The Prime Minister, too, has publicly argued for the societal benefits of religiosity, claiming that “the Christian religion is the greatest force for good in this nation”. Labor’s Lindsay Tanner, a self-described agnostic, seems to agree, stating that “without some kind of sustained spiritual input” our society will “degenerate into a bleak utilitarian shell that debases us all”.

Many ordinary Australians share the belief that religious faith is an indicator of morality, and it is accepted wisdom that high rates of religious practice correlate with lower rates of crime, promiscuity and abortion.

However, a study published in the Journal of Religion and Society, an American academic journal, set out to test this hypothesis and found there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and public health and social stability. The study, “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies”, compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy using data from the International Social Survey Program, Gallup and other research bodies.

“In general,” writes the author, Gregory Paul, “higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.”

A striking example of this is the US, which has the highest degrees of religious faith and the highest rates of homicide, abortion, STD infection and teenage pregnancy. The least religious countries - Japan, France and Scandinavia - have the lowest rates of violent crime, juvenile mortality and abortion….

He might also be interested in this study that shows prayer doesn’t work–at least not in the way intended.

Seeking to assess the effect of third-party prayer on patient outcomes, investigators found no evidence for divine intervention. They did, however, detect a possible proof for the power of negative thinking.

The three-year Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), published in the April 4 American Heart Journal, was the largest-ever attempt to apply scientific methods to measure the influence of prayer on the well-being of another. It examined 1,800 patients undergoing heart-bypass surgery. On the eve of the operations, church groups began two weeks of praying for one set of patients. Each recipient had a praying contingent of about 70, none of whom knew the patient personally. The study found no differences in survival or complication rates compared with those who did not receive prayers. The only statistically significant blip appeared in a subgroup of patients who were prayed for and knew it. They experienced a higher rate of postsurgical heart arrhythmias (59 versus 52 percent of unaware subjects). …

It would behoove Mayor Langford to use more proven, practical means of solving his city’s crime problem. Handing out Bibles and forcing his religious faith on the citizens is not the answer. It will solve absolutely nothing, and in fact may make matters worse.

 

The purveyors of lies, intolerance and inequality have done it. From Equality California:

They claim they did the unconscionable.

Extremist anti-LGBT organizations spent an unprecedented amount of money to pay people to collect signatures and are now saying that they succeeded in buying their way onto the November ballot.

The measure seeks to amend the California Constitution from being a document that protects all people to one that excludes us from equality.

…..

EQCA is a leading partner in the Equality for All Campaign that is made up of leadership from LGBT and allied organizations fighting this dangerous initiative.

We estimate that the opposition spent well over $1.5 million to gather signatures. This means they’re serious about spending millions more to pass the amendment. We need to prepare for what will likely be the most expensive LGBT rights ballot measure in our nation’s history. Here’s what you can do:

* Make a donation to Equality California Issues PAC. We have to match them dollar for dollar. EQCA Issues PAC is committed to fighting this and every attack on our families and our community and every dollar raised will be spent to defeat this measure.
* Tell your friends and family. Tell them why you are giving and ask them to make a donation as well.

In the coming months our community is going to be tested in ways it has not been tested before. So much hangs in the balance.

Granted, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that he is against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But we need to fight this hateful initiative tooth and nail nonetheless.

 

The handy chart from eQualityGiving will help you determine how your rights stack up in six different categories: Hate Crimes, Non-Discrimination, Marriage, Gender, Youth and Parenting. Hat-tip to Autumn Sandeen.

 

The score indicates the number of Equality Goals that have been reached in that state. Each “YES” gives 1 point. Half a point is given for partial achievement of an Equality Goal. One of the seven Equality Goals (repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”) can only be achieved at the federal level. Therefore, at the state level, the maximum score is 6.

ANALYSIS (50 states + District of Columbia):

* Half of the states satisfy none or just one of the 6 Equality Goals that are required to ensure that LGBTQ people have the same legal protections as everyone else.

* No state offers full legal equality. California would have been the first state offering full equality if it were not for the veto of marriage equality legislation by Governor Schwarzenegger.

* Only two states (California and New Jersey) achieve 5 of the 6 Equality Goals.

* Massachusetts scores only 4.0 despite that if offers marriage equality. This is because it falls short in transgender protections in hate crimes, non discrimination, anti-bullying, and providing new birth certificates.

* Passing federal legislation on an Equality Goal would increase every state score by 1.

The scores range from California’s high of 5.5 (Yay!) to the shameful low of 0.5 shared by Idaho, Mississippi and Ohio. Click here to see the chart and find out what your state’s score is!

 

People across America have been rending their garments and fretting about the psychological ramifications for the child of transgender man Thomas Beatie. In the meantime officials from Texas Child Protective Services have removed a total of 183 young women, girls and boys from the Fundamentalist LDS Church’s compound near Eldorado, TX, once again proving that faith and religiosity by no means predict–let alone guarantee–ethical behavior.

A total of 183 young women, girls and boys - 97 girls, 40 boys and 46 young women over the age of 18 - have been removed.

The investigation into the safety of the children living at the ranch was initiated after Child Protective Services were notified by someone that a 16-year-old girl had suffered physical abuse. Eighteen of the girls removed from the compound were put legally into state custody because they appeared to have “been abused or were at immediate risk of future abuse.” The rest of the children are currently staying at a local civic center until authorities find them foster homes.

…..

The community was led by Warren Jeffs , who succeeded his father Rulon Jeffs in 2002. Warren Jeffs resigned his leadership of the FLDS Church in 2007, shortly after being convicted of being an accomplice to rape by the state of Utah. It is still unknown who is leading the FLDS church. However, several enclaves can be found in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Texas, South Dakota, and in British Columbia, Canada.

It is important to keep in mind that Mormon fundamentalism, like FLDS, is considered a splinter group from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, otherwise known as the Mormons. Mormon fundamentalists embrace the doctrine and practice of polygamy, also known as “plural marriage” or “plurality of wives,” as it is generally referred to. Polygamy is not practiced by any, active contemporary member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Mormons have stopped practicing polygamy since 1890, after the Mormon Church officially disavowed polygamy.

Mormon Fundamentalists, however, believe that acceptance into the American mainstream came at way too high a price. They contend that the Mormon leaders sold them out and splintered off from the Church. Fundamentalists have formed numerous small sects, often within cohesive and isolated communities in areas of the Western United States, Western Canada, and northern Mexico.

To think, just recently State Representative Monique Davis (D-Chicago) claimed that it is dangerous for children to know atheism exists. Apparently the mere fact that some people believe in deities makes them morally and ethically superior to atheists. I have a feeling that the 183 children and young women removed from the Texas compound would disagree, as would I.

What is it that these groups can’t achieve their agendas using facts, rational discussion and cooperative effort? Oh, that’s right. The facts aren’t on their side, and why use rational discussion or cooperative effort when fear-mongering and strong arm tactics have worked so well in the past? Now The Eagle Forum of Alabama is falling back on the tried and the true to enrage local residents against immigrants in a series of workshops called What You Can do About Illegal Immigration.

 

Clearly aimed at riling up nativist fury, the fliers for the event allege that “the average illegal immigrant household receives approximately $30,000 in government benefits each year but pays only $9,000 in taxes.”

The problem, as is often the case with the “facts” nativists dredge up to illustrate the evils of immigration, is that these calculations are wildly misleading at best. The numbers above originate in a quote from Robert Rector that was posted on the website NoFreeMustang.com, a new anti-immigration site put up by the conservative Heritage Foundation where Rector is a senior fellow. The website’s title refers to the difference between the two numbers above, $21,000, which Rector alleges is the net cost taxpayers pick up for undocumented workers. “That’s like buying each of these illegal immigrant families a brand new Mustang convertible,” he claims.

Rector is almost certainly wrong, as is reflected in a fact sheet summarizing immigration studies that was put together by the Immigration Policy Center.

According to a 1997 study by the National Research Council, part of the National Academies that also includes the National Academy of Sciences, “the average immigrant pays nearly $1,800 more in taxes than he or she costs in benefits” each year — and undocumented immigrants receive far less in government benefits (for which they are ineligible) than legal immigrants. Generally, the federal government profits the most, because it gets Social Security and other taxes, while state and local governments pick up such costs as emergency medical services for the undocumented. Still, according to a 2006 study by the Texas state comptroller, even “[u]ndocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received.” A 2007 report by the Iowa Policy Project put it like this: “Rather than draining state resources, undocumented immigrants are in some cases subsidizing services that only documented residents can access.”

No surprise there. It’s a constant refrain I’ve heard that “illegals” drain the social service system and produce nothing. Yet much of the RW is very fond of “guest workers” for the lowest of the low work and treats them like slaves. They both claim they hate these individuals, yet secretly want them here so they can exploit them. It’s quite a vicious cycle.

 

That’s not all. Rector’s analysis also fails to take into account the fact that second- and third-generation immigrants increasingly benefit the United States economy, paying more and more taxes and growing the overall economy. And he ignores efficiencies that the economy gains by having these workers available to do the kind of work that most Americans shun, such as agricultural labor. The general consensus among economists is that immigrants of all types — legal and illegal — provide a substantial net benefit to the U.S. economy.

This isn’t the first time that Rector’s been wrong. In 2006, he told the far-right NewsMax.com that the proposed Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill would likely result in a minimum of 103 million legal immigrants in the next 20 years. For that to happen, nearly the entire current population of Mexico would have to migrate to the U.S. And to reach his maximum estimate of 200 million people moving to the United States in that same period, you’d have to throw in the equivalent of the current population of Central America, too.

There are many reasons the bigots put forth for opposing immigration, be it legal or “illegal”. On the surface they’ll speak of laws, the economy, etc. What is often left unsaid except by the more openly racist is that if “too many” immigrants come to the USA from places like Mexico we’ll eventually have more non-whites than we will whites, and the bigots see that as very bad indeed. The notion of the US being anything but predominantly white and English-speaking strikes terror in their hearts. Giving up their majority status, and therefore their self-proclaimed right to run things, is simply not part of their plan. (Have you ever asked yourself why there are no Minutemen and no proposals for a “wall” at the Canadian border?) The fact that Latinos tend to vote Democratic is no doubt a factor in the RW’s desire to keep our South of the Border neighbors out.

 

It’s not surprising that the Eagle Forum is touting misleading information about immigrants. In the last few years, the group has added immigration to its list of social evils, which had long centered on the gay rights movement. In 2005, the group joined the “Secure Borders Coalition.” An alliance of Christian Right groups, hard-right organizations like Accuracy in Media and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and strident anti-immigration outfits including the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, the coalition issued a statement attacking all amnesty and guest worker proposals and vowed to oppose any candidate, regardless of his or her stance on other issues, taking a different tack.

Phyllis Schlafly, who heads the Eagle Forum, has also been a major proponent of the dominant conspiracy theory now animating the anti-immigration movement — the so-called “North American Union,” a supposed plot by global elites to surrender American sovereignty in a planned merger with Canada and Mexico. Schlafly has called for a congressional investigation into the North American Union and for the disclosure of supposedly secret documents related to the non-existent union.

I get the impression that some people might simply fall apart if they didn’t have an “enemy” to hate and fight against. Hence the need to create one. Once the Cold War was over, the RW no longer had an enemy and they began looking within the US. That’s when their war on “immorality” began, and LGBTs and womens’ reproductive rights have been the target ever since. Now that those issues are less lucrative for them both financially and at the ballot box the RW is searching for new ways to whip up the masses. Enter Illegal Immigration. The Mexicans are coming, and they want your money, your jobs and your way of life.

Of course people like those in The Eagle Forum conveniently forget that their ancestors were the original “illegal immigrants”. I rather wonder if some Native Americans wish their forebears were a little stricter about border control.

 

Yes, they stink for endless reasons, such as the way they’re anti-union, pay their employees sub-par wages , peddle cheesy Chinese goods,put whole towns out of business through sleazy business practices, etc. But that’s not the topic of this post; Debbie Shank is.

Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she’s told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son’s funeral, but she continues to ask how he’s doing. When her family reminds her that he’s dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles — both personal and legal — that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart’s health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart’s health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank’s long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank’s medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family’s trust.

The Shanks didn’t notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart’s health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family’s attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

“We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to,” Graham said.

…..

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

…..

The family’s situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He’s afraid he won’t be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie’s care.

“Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?” he asked.

…..

Of course after all of the negative media publicity Wal-Mart changed its mind and decided it wouldn’t be such a good idea to exploit Deborah Shank to recoup their health insurance payout. The power of the press was on the victim’s side this time and Deborah Shank will be able to keep her small settlement (which is, from what I’ve read, barely over $400,000 after legal expenses and other fees).

 

Oklahoma has joined Texas and several other states in the dumbing down of the nation’s students. Our schools are already overburdened and underfunded. But now they’ll have to deal with students squabbling over religion and being bullied by religious zealots who insist on “converting” them to save their immortal souls. Worse yet, is what the bill will mean for the status of education itself.

The bill requires public schools to guarantee students the right to express their religious viewpoints in a public forum, in class, in homework and in other ways without being penalized. If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.

The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct. Science education becomes absurd under such a situation.

So why have tests at all? Might as well just have each student offer their opinions as to what, why and where things are. That would be as valid as anything else under this bill. After all, considering the constraints teachers will now be under they dare not challenge anything a student puts down as an answer or the student could easily come back and claim “religious discrimination”.

If a student chose to take his opportunity to speak to a group of students in a school-sanctioned assembly to tell them they must accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior or go to hell, then that student would have a right to do so, according to this bill. Especially, but not only if the student held a position of honor and authority (class officer, team captain), and was speaking in his or her official capacity, the school has clearly established religion in violation of both the U.S. and Oklahoma constitutions.

Wonderful. Enter all of the evangelists screaming about how the LGBT students, atheists, Muslims, etc, are going to hell, because the Bible says so. Expect the bullying and hate-crime rates to escalate any time now.

The same would be true if the student chose to tell the assembled students that they would not go to hell, that there is no hell and that those who promote belief in hell are liars. What if a Wiccan student chose to tell the assembled students that the only true God is Nature, or a member of a radical religious sect advocated assassination in order to preserve God’s will? According to this bill, those students would be free, in a forum supported by the school, to do so. Any or all of these scenarios would lead to lawsuits.

That would be classified by the Christians as “persecution”, of course, as it always is. Funny how when they cram their beliefs down the throats of other people its “speaking the truth” but when others reject them or speak their own beliefs its “persecution”.

The consequence of the bill will be to create havoc and promote discord in the public schools. That’s already happening in Texas, where the bill has been law for several months. Denton, Texas Independent School District, responding to the law, has decreed that no students may ever speak in assembly, to graduation, to the crowd at an athletic event or in other group function. As reported in The Denton Record Chronicle Sept. 1, the superintendent there said if no students are ever allowed to speak, then there will be no discrimination and no basis for lawsuits. Another school superintendent in Texas said, “… we’re just trying to have school, and I think this is a complicating factor” as reported by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization that has spoken out against the bill.

So they’ve already discovered by experience in Texas that this insane law doesn’t work, yet it’s still being attempted in Oklahoma? Why do the legislators in Oklahoma think the results in Oklahoma will be any different? I can safely say it’s not bloody likely.

This is a foolish bill that will result in chaos, injustices, bullying and a serious downturn in the quality of education. Particularly since it has been proven faulty in another state it’s foolish to try it in Oklahoma. If parents want to send their children to a religious school they have that right. Otherwise the best option for everyone is a secular school where all rights are respected and religion is kept strictly out of the equation.

When it comes to laws designed to protect certain groups of people, laws that protect religious people are good, while laws that protect LGBT people are bad. At least in the eyes of religious people. The worst thing is that they don’t see the inherent disconnect and bigotry in fighting against laws that protect us while supporting similar laws that protect them. Take this, for example.

ACLU Urges House Committee to Fix Flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (2/12/2008)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: (202) 675-2312, media@dcaclu.org

Washington, DC – The American Civil Liberties Union today called on the Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions subcommittee of the House Education & Labor Committee to fix the flawed Workplace Religious Freedom Act (WRFA). As written in the 110th Congress, the legislation threatens the personal and civil rights of religious and racial minorities, women, LGBT individuals, and persons seeking reproductive health care.

The stated goal of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act is to revise and strengthen existing requirements on employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees. However, the current language may have a much broader impact than intended, permitting employees to claim that they do not have to comply with state or local civil rights laws.

The current WRFA would strengthen the hand of police officers who want to pick and choose who they will protect, as well as emergency health care workers and mental health counselors who could abandon patients because their care conflicts with the worker’s religious beliefs. This legislation would make it significantly harder to get health or safety information or services. Employees would be even more likely to claim that their religion prohibits them from providing contraceptive care or HIV prevention counseling – even if the employer has no one else to provide those services. In most cases, the courts have correctly rejected these claims. The current WRFA language, however, is designed to protect these individual’s dangerous actions.

Said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the ACLU Washington Legislative Office: “The Workplace Religious Freedom Act would allow employees, for the first time since the Civil Rights Act of 1967, to use civil rights as a weapon against others. Passing this bill without the needed fixes will jeopardize not only our rights, but also our public safety and access to health care. Civil rights protections are meant to be a shield, not a sword.

“Congress can, and should, pass legislation tightly focused on strengthening federal requirements that employers accommodate workplace scheduling changes so employees can observe religious holidays, or permit them to wear religious clothing, beards or hairstyles. These two areas account for nearly three-fourths of all the religious accommodation claims rejected by federal courts in the past 25 years. A narrowly tailored bill could address these issues without any of the completely avoidable harm the WRFA could cause if passed as written.”

It seems that legislation that is vague and allows for personal bigotries to cause discrimination and harm to others, such as LGBTs, atheists and people who are not of the same faith of the practitioner, is acceptable to some. Yet many people are fighting against ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, claiming that it would violate their “deeply held religious beliefs” and force them to hire LGBT people against the tenets of their religion. Strange they continue to think their rights (to arbitrarily discriminate in the name of their chosen religion) are so much more important than ours (to have equal Human and Civil Rights) .

I don’t by any means support discrimination against people who are religious. At the same time people cannot think they can use their religious beliefs to discriminate against others. Rights must be provided equally and fairly, or else our nation is a failure.