Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Computer Illiteracy
Because I am computer illiterate the survey I wanted to post on my blog has posted in a weird spot - specifically at the bottom; the way bottom - no farther than that! Okay..anyway, if you want to read it, go there. Sorry for the stupidity - Felix where are you when I need you to explain this to me?!?!
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Happy Birthday to Me!!
Happy Birthday to me! Happy Birthday to me! I turn twenty-six today! Yay! Sort of. Shut up all of you who are younger than me and will, as my dad put it, are not on the short side of thirty. Or something to that effect. Nick took me out to dinner and a movie on Friday to celebrate because I have to work all this weekend - including today. And he's surprised me with books from my Amazon wishlist. And he's making me breakfast - isn't he sweet!? Anyway, wanted to brag a little bit. That's pretty much my post; just celebrating me for a day.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
A Rant about Religion Based Off of Exhaustion and Frustration
For some reason I have been in a somewhat anti-religion state of mind. Perhaps it is the attack on Harry Potter. Perhaps it is the idea that a religion can take away my autonomy of action and thought - a pharmacist can decide for me that birth control is wrong; the Pope and 200 other men in Rome know better than me about whether I can support a baby, handle having and caring for one; that they can decide about something so personal and inherent to MY body and MY life based on a patriarchal tradition and a dogma that's not even based on biblical references. Perhaps it is because a sexist patriarchal religion such as Catholicism can dictate to a woman what her vocation can be -even if she knows that her god wants her to be, she can't because of sexism 2,000 years ago declared it to be so. Perhaps hearing about the Mormon religion's new bout with selling young girls into polygamous marriages - based on the bible and tradition (just like Catholicism, I don't know why they're not following it?)But I rant and rave, and next week I will be attempting to succeed at my Wiccan Rede and Calling the Corners, hoping to get a blessing from the goddess and god and thinking about how Jesus was a great guy and all. Anyway, I found this funny quote/joke. Thought I'd post it. Please bear with my rant. I only slept about 4 hours last night and worked since 7 this morning. I'm exhausted.
Atheist: n, A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Atheist: n, A person to be pitied in that he is unable to believe things for which there is no evidence, and who has thus deprived himself of a convenient means of feeling superior to others.
—Chaz Bufe, The American Heretic’s Dictionary
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Must be Jealousy
It must be jealousy at work here - Potter is more popular than the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps?
POPE'S TOP EXORCIST SAYS HARRY POTTER IS 'KING OF DARKNESS'
WebPosted Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:16:40
---Pope Benedict XVI's chief exorcist, Rev. Gabriele Amorth, has
called fictional wizard-in-training Harry Potter the "king of
darkness, the devil."
Amorth made the statement about the star of the best-selling children's
series by British author J. K. Rowling during an interview with Vatican
Radio during the week.
"Magic is always a turn to the devil," said the Roman Catholic priest,
according to Britain's Daily Mail newspaper.
Amorth, who is also the president of the International Association of
Exorcists, said the series contains many positive references to "the
satanic art" of magic and makes no distinction between black and
white magic.
The Harry Potter series has sold more than 300 million copies worldwide
and four of the books have been made into films.
Rowling has revealed that two main characters will die in the seventh and
last instalment, due to be published soon. It's expected to include a
showdown between the teen wizard and his malevolent nemesis, Lord
Voldemort.
"A price has to be paid, we are dealing with pure evil here," Rowling
said during a British chat show interview.
Amorth compared the Potter character to dictators Stalin and Hitler,
saying they were possessed by the devil.
"You can tell by their behavior and their actions, from the horrors they
committed and the atrocities that were committed on their orders. That's
why we need to defend society from demons," said Amorth, who has
reportedly performed 30,000 exorcisms.
Pope also slammed Potter
Amorth's criticisms of Potter weren't the first to emerge from
the Catholic Church, which has never been a fan of the series.
Benedict voiced his disapproval of the character and series before he
became Pope in April 2005.
Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, he wrote a supportive letter
in 2005 to the author of a book Harry Potter - Good or Evil? In it,
sociologist Gabriele Kuby had argued that Harry Potter series distorts
young people's ideas about the battle of good versus evil.
"It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter because those
are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort
Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly," Ratzinger told
Kuby in his letter.
Copyright (C) 2006 CBC. All rights reserved.
POPE'S TOP EXORCIST SAYS HARRY POTTER IS 'KING OF DARKNESS'
WebPosted Sun, 03 Sep 2006 14:16:40
---Pope Benedict XVI's chief exorcist, Rev. Gabriele Amorth, has
called fictional wizard-in-training Harry Potter the "king of
darkness, the devil."
Amorth made the statement about the star of the best-selling children's
series by British author J. K. Rowling during an interview with Vatican
Radio during the week.
"Magic is always a turn to the devil," said the Roman Catholic priest,
according to Britain's Daily Mail newspaper.
Amorth, who is also the president of the International Association of
Exorcists, said the series contains many positive references to "the
satanic art" of magic and makes no distinction between black and
white magic.
The Harry Potter series has sold more than 300 million copies worldwide
and four of the books have been made into films.
Rowling has revealed that two main characters will die in the seventh and
last instalment, due to be published soon. It's expected to include a
showdown between the teen wizard and his malevolent nemesis, Lord
Voldemort.
"A price has to be paid, we are dealing with pure evil here," Rowling
said during a British chat show interview.
Amorth compared the Potter character to dictators Stalin and Hitler,
saying they were possessed by the devil.
"You can tell by their behavior and their actions, from the horrors they
committed and the atrocities that were committed on their orders. That's
why we need to defend society from demons," said Amorth, who has
reportedly performed 30,000 exorcisms.
Pope also slammed Potter
Amorth's criticisms of Potter weren't the first to emerge from
the Catholic Church, which has never been a fan of the series.
Benedict voiced his disapproval of the character and series before he
became Pope in April 2005.
Then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, he wrote a supportive letter
in 2005 to the author of a book Harry Potter - Good or Evil? In it,
sociologist Gabriele Kuby had argued that Harry Potter series distorts
young people's ideas about the battle of good versus evil.
"It is good that you enlighten people about Harry Potter because those
are subtle seductions, which act unnoticed and by this deeply distort
Christianity in the soul before it can grow properly," Ratzinger told
Kuby in his letter.
Copyright (C) 2006 CBC. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Something that will annoy people and may get me shot
Okay, this list was one I thought quite hilarious. So far, things are going good here. My dad sold my car and so I will be getting some money to go into a savings account soon - I always feel better when I have some money in savings, just in case. My niece liked her birthday present. My dad is retiring and sounds so excited about it and healthier..probably from that stressful weight of working for Stonhard lifting. I have actually gotten some notes done for my thesis - nothing substantial yet, but at least it is progress. And people have complimented my for defending my viewpoints about certain sticky issues, which I like because even if they do or don't agree with me, at least they're open-minded enough to say, yeah she has a point or at least maybe, yeah, she's defending her ideas in a good way, not in some fanatical, anti-science, anti-religion, etc. way. Okay, the list. While I thought it was funny, and had some points, others won't. I am not meaning to offend, but some people may see it as anti-religious.
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
Date: 2006-06-02, 1:10PM MST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
Date: 2006-06-02, 1:10PM MST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Thursday, August 31, 2006
Just loving sarcasm
Things Republicans Believe: A truthful and sarcastic list
1. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is a solid defense policy
2. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
3. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
4. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s and John Kerry did in the 1970s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
5. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
6. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
10. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
11. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
12. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
13. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
1. A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is a solid defense policy
2. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
3. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
4. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s and John Kerry did in the 1970s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
5. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
6. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
10. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
11. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
12. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
13. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Again with the gay marriage
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Victory!! And I Helped!
Well, the FDA just approved over-the-counter access to the "morning-after" pill! And I helped by writing and emailing my senators and congressmen/women! I feel so proud to have been part of that: women are now able to prevent pregnancy if something happens; like the condom breaks, or she is raped! How wonderful. Thank goodness for birth control.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Honey, Salsa, and Pears
Well, it's been a rather busy week. The title refers to the fact that Nick and I have fallen in love with shopping for certain grocery items at the Farmer's Market. There's one that is right across the street. There, we found this fantastic, extremely fresh honey - the kind that tastes illegal, and you want to just lick the entire jar clean. It was that fantastic! Wonderful, wonderful honey! We also found great, really fresh salsa: perfectly spicy...and tried out a new type of apple and bought really great pears. In short, we are in love with this place! In other news, not much has been happening besides work and writers block - somebody please help me get over this! I can't seem to concentrate on writing my thesis!!! Work is going good: I'm getting comfortable at both places; still haven't decided about leaving one or not. Depends on schedules and such. Nick has started his first week of Library School. I am suddenly dying to be in classes, taking notes and planning for exams...I miss that. Maybe I'm just so good at being a student I don't know what else to be. My dad says that once I get my teaching certification he thinks I'll really enjoy teaching. And with the Certificate in Native American Studies, I can teach at a reservation school or a tribal college (maybe) if I want to - not much money, but I'd feel really good about myself I think. Anyway, that's that. Just for the record, I really miss my friends: Sara, Kay especially, cause there aren't really a bunch of opportunities to make new girlfriends here. Maybe at work? Or when I start classes?
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Birthdays and Such
Well, it's coming time for my dad's birthday; my niece's birthday, and in a few weeks..my birthday. I find it rather sad that celebrating birthdays goes out of style once you hit a certain age - unless you are hitting a certain age: 21,30, 40, 50, 90..What happens to those in between ages-I'd much rather celebrate a birthday at 36 than 40 - it's 4 years younger! But then, I happen to be a big fan of celebrating birthdays, spoiling people with cake, presents, or if not the traditional childhood things like cake and ice cream, streamers, presents, at least an adult dinner party, or a romantic party for two to celebrate. So few are the times when a person is spoiled just for being. I can only think of one occasion - a birthday! How nice it is just to wake up and know that one that day, people will be thinking of you - your parents (remember when he was born? )thoughts like these inspire a call, a card, a smile - well, hopefully! your siblings (man, I wish she hadn't been born! Well, maybe not ALL siblings!)your girlfriend (I am so lucky he was born!) All you have to do is just be - just have those connections-just being you is enough to celebrate. I hope.
Friday, August 18, 2006
A Return to Gay Marriage
Well, despite the enormous popularity of debating birth control, abortion, or IVF, I have decided to branch out a bit and revisit the debate over gay marriage. The whole idea that two people (no matter what their sexuality) should be able to marry is one that I am extremely comfortable with. Marriage - a commitment, before the law and your family and friends, and god (if you are of that inclination) - is that something that a freedome-loving people really want to deny to someone merely because of their sexuality? How is that really a threat to heterosexual marriage? I still haven't received an answer that I can agree with or even take seriously.
To kick off this discussion then, besides my own opinion, I have decided to print an article from the Nation from Katha Pollitt, published December 15, 2003. This will also be the kick-off to my printing her articles. Most I find thought-provoking; some I didn't agree with, some I did, and many I found absolutely hilarious. So, sit back, read, and enjoy. And if you don't enjoy this one, well, maybe future ones will strike you as funny. Or you may find them offensive. But keep an open mind - something I struggle to do sometimes, and am always a firm supporter of, and well, enjoy!
"Adam and Steve-Together at Last"
Katha Pollitt
Will Someone please explain to me how permitting gays and lesbians to marry threatens the institution of marriage? Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has declared gay marriage a constitutional right, opponents really have to get their arguments in line. The most popular theory, advanced by David Blankenhorn, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and other social conservatives is that under the tulle and orange blossoms, marriage is all about procreation. There's some truth to this as a practical matter-couples often live together, tying the know only when baby's on the way. But whether or not marriage is the best framework for child-rearing, having children isn't a marital requirement. As many have pointed out, the law permits marriage to the infertile, the elderly, the impotent, and those with no wish to procreate; it allows married couples to use birth control, to get sterilized, to be celibate. There's something creepily authoritarian and insulting about reducing marriage to procreation, as if intimacy mattered less than biological fitness. It's not a view that anyone outside of a right-wing think tank, a Catholic Marriage Tribunal, or an ultra-Orthodox rabbi's court is likely to find persuasive.
So scratch procreation. How about: Marriage is the way women domesticate men. This theory, a favorite of right-wing writer George Gilder, has some statistical support-married men are much less likely than singles to kill people, crash the car, take drugs, commit suicide - though it overlooks such husbandly failings as domestic violence, child abuse, infidelity, and abandonment. If a man rapes his wife instead of his date, it probably won't show up on a police blotter, but has civilization moved forward? Of course, this view of marriage as a barbarian-adoption program doesn't explain why women should undertake it-as is obvious from the state of the world, they haven't been too successful at it anyway. (Maybe men should civilize men-bring on the Fab Five from Queer Eye!) Nor does it explain why marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. The gay men and lesbians who want to marry doesn't impinge on the male improvement project one way or the other. Surely not even Gilder believes that a heterosexual pothead with plans for murder and suicide would be reformed by marrying a lesbian?
What about the argument of history? According to this, marriage has been around forever and has stood the test of time. Actually, though, marriage as we understand it - voluntary, monogamous, legally egalitarian, based on love, involving adults only- is a pretty recent phenomenon. FOr much of human history, polygyny was the rule - read your Old Testament - and in much of African and the Muslim world, it still is. Arranged marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, marriages predicated on the subjugation of women - gay marriage is like a fairy tale romance compared with most chapters of the history of wedlock.
The trouble with these and other arguments against gay marriage is that they overlook how loose, flexible, individualized, and easily dissolved the bonds of marriage already are. Virtually any man and woman can marry, no matter how ill assorted or little acquainted. An eighty year old man can marry an eighteen year old; a john can marry a prostitute; two terminally ill patients can marry each other from their hospital beds. You can get married by proxy, like medieval royalty, and not see each other in the flesh for years. Whatever may have been the case in the past, what undergirds marriage in most people's minds today is not some sociobiological theory about reproduction or male socialization. Nor is it the enormous bundle of priviliges society awards to married people. It's love, commitment, stability. Speaking just for myself, I don't like marriage. I prefer the old-fashioned ideal of monogamous free love, not that it worked out particularly well in my case. As a social mechanism, moreover, marriage seems to me a deeply unfair way of distributing social goods like health insurance and retirement checks, things everyone needs. Why should someone's marital status determine how much you pay the doctor, or whether you eat cat food in old age, or whether a child gets a government check if a parent dies? Still, as long as marriage is here, how can it be right to deny it to those who want it? In fact, you would think that, given how many heterosexuals are happy to live in sin, social conservatives would welcome maritally minded gays with open arms. Gays already have the baby - they can adopt in many states, and lesbians can give birth in all of them - so why deprive them of the marital bathwater?
At bottom, the objections to gay marriage are based on religious prejudice. The marriage of man and woman is "sacred," and opening it to same-sexers violates it sacral nature. That is why so many people can live with civil unions but draw the line at marriage - spiritual union. In fact, polls show a striking correlation of religiosity, especially evangelical Protestantism, with oppostition to gay marriage and with belief in homosexuality as a choice, the famous "gay lifestyle." For these poeple gay marriage is wrong because it lets gays and lesbians avoid turning themselves into the straights that God wants them to be. As a matter of law, however, marriage is not about Adam and Eve versus Adam and Steve. It's not about what God blesses, it's about what the government permits. People may think "marriage" is a word wholly owned by religion, but actually it's wholly owned by the state. No matter how big your church wedding, you still have to get a marriage license from City Hall. And just as divorced people can marry even if the Catholic Church considers it bigamy, and Muslim and Mormon men can only marry one woman, even if their holy books tell them they can wed all the girls in Apartment 3G, two men or two women should be able to marry, even if religions oppose it and it makes some heterosexuals, raised in those religions, uncomfortable.
Gay marriage - it's not about sex, it's about separation of church and state.
Hopefully you all read this far. Let the discussion begin - if it will.
To kick off this discussion then, besides my own opinion, I have decided to print an article from the Nation from Katha Pollitt, published December 15, 2003. This will also be the kick-off to my printing her articles. Most I find thought-provoking; some I didn't agree with, some I did, and many I found absolutely hilarious. So, sit back, read, and enjoy. And if you don't enjoy this one, well, maybe future ones will strike you as funny. Or you may find them offensive. But keep an open mind - something I struggle to do sometimes, and am always a firm supporter of, and well, enjoy!
"Adam and Steve-Together at Last"
Katha Pollitt
Will Someone please explain to me how permitting gays and lesbians to marry threatens the institution of marriage? Now that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has declared gay marriage a constitutional right, opponents really have to get their arguments in line. The most popular theory, advanced by David Blankenhorn, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and other social conservatives is that under the tulle and orange blossoms, marriage is all about procreation. There's some truth to this as a practical matter-couples often live together, tying the know only when baby's on the way. But whether or not marriage is the best framework for child-rearing, having children isn't a marital requirement. As many have pointed out, the law permits marriage to the infertile, the elderly, the impotent, and those with no wish to procreate; it allows married couples to use birth control, to get sterilized, to be celibate. There's something creepily authoritarian and insulting about reducing marriage to procreation, as if intimacy mattered less than biological fitness. It's not a view that anyone outside of a right-wing think tank, a Catholic Marriage Tribunal, or an ultra-Orthodox rabbi's court is likely to find persuasive.
So scratch procreation. How about: Marriage is the way women domesticate men. This theory, a favorite of right-wing writer George Gilder, has some statistical support-married men are much less likely than singles to kill people, crash the car, take drugs, commit suicide - though it overlooks such husbandly failings as domestic violence, child abuse, infidelity, and abandonment. If a man rapes his wife instead of his date, it probably won't show up on a police blotter, but has civilization moved forward? Of course, this view of marriage as a barbarian-adoption program doesn't explain why women should undertake it-as is obvious from the state of the world, they haven't been too successful at it anyway. (Maybe men should civilize men-bring on the Fab Five from Queer Eye!) Nor does it explain why marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. The gay men and lesbians who want to marry doesn't impinge on the male improvement project one way or the other. Surely not even Gilder believes that a heterosexual pothead with plans for murder and suicide would be reformed by marrying a lesbian?
What about the argument of history? According to this, marriage has been around forever and has stood the test of time. Actually, though, marriage as we understand it - voluntary, monogamous, legally egalitarian, based on love, involving adults only- is a pretty recent phenomenon. FOr much of human history, polygyny was the rule - read your Old Testament - and in much of African and the Muslim world, it still is. Arranged marriages, forced marriages, child marriages, marriages predicated on the subjugation of women - gay marriage is like a fairy tale romance compared with most chapters of the history of wedlock.
The trouble with these and other arguments against gay marriage is that they overlook how loose, flexible, individualized, and easily dissolved the bonds of marriage already are. Virtually any man and woman can marry, no matter how ill assorted or little acquainted. An eighty year old man can marry an eighteen year old; a john can marry a prostitute; two terminally ill patients can marry each other from their hospital beds. You can get married by proxy, like medieval royalty, and not see each other in the flesh for years. Whatever may have been the case in the past, what undergirds marriage in most people's minds today is not some sociobiological theory about reproduction or male socialization. Nor is it the enormous bundle of priviliges society awards to married people. It's love, commitment, stability. Speaking just for myself, I don't like marriage. I prefer the old-fashioned ideal of monogamous free love, not that it worked out particularly well in my case. As a social mechanism, moreover, marriage seems to me a deeply unfair way of distributing social goods like health insurance and retirement checks, things everyone needs. Why should someone's marital status determine how much you pay the doctor, or whether you eat cat food in old age, or whether a child gets a government check if a parent dies? Still, as long as marriage is here, how can it be right to deny it to those who want it? In fact, you would think that, given how many heterosexuals are happy to live in sin, social conservatives would welcome maritally minded gays with open arms. Gays already have the baby - they can adopt in many states, and lesbians can give birth in all of them - so why deprive them of the marital bathwater?
At bottom, the objections to gay marriage are based on religious prejudice. The marriage of man and woman is "sacred," and opening it to same-sexers violates it sacral nature. That is why so many people can live with civil unions but draw the line at marriage - spiritual union. In fact, polls show a striking correlation of religiosity, especially evangelical Protestantism, with oppostition to gay marriage and with belief in homosexuality as a choice, the famous "gay lifestyle." For these poeple gay marriage is wrong because it lets gays and lesbians avoid turning themselves into the straights that God wants them to be. As a matter of law, however, marriage is not about Adam and Eve versus Adam and Steve. It's not about what God blesses, it's about what the government permits. People may think "marriage" is a word wholly owned by religion, but actually it's wholly owned by the state. No matter how big your church wedding, you still have to get a marriage license from City Hall. And just as divorced people can marry even if the Catholic Church considers it bigamy, and Muslim and Mormon men can only marry one woman, even if their holy books tell them they can wed all the girls in Apartment 3G, two men or two women should be able to marry, even if religions oppose it and it makes some heterosexuals, raised in those religions, uncomfortable.
Gay marriage - it's not about sex, it's about separation of church and state.
Hopefully you all read this far. Let the discussion begin - if it will.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
I'm Baaaack!
Hello! I had such a blast in Colorado and seeing my family too. Some highlights:having lunch with Kay (barely! I was running out of time); liquid cocaine shot on Thursday night; seeing the entire city of Canon City from Skyline Drive on Friday night; white water rafting on Saturday - swimming down (sort of), falling off, getting psyched up for a Class IV that we weren't expecting; seeing Royal Gorge from a train that same day; petting a cute little beagle puppy on Sunday; playing with my niece and nephews and spending time with dad. Finally getting home and seeing Nick!!! I had a great time and it was a total blast. The people were funny, strange, cool, and just plain fun.
I got back and got my schedule - not sure how long I will continue at the Gap - not enough hours; so stay observant, I may not have that discount anymore. I am planning on really working on my thesis hard, so I can at least have a really rough draft - or most of my chapters done, by my birthday. I wonder who will remember when that is? :-) And in future posts, I will be posting articles from Katha Pollitt. So, that's an update on my life so far. I have to work tonight!
I got back and got my schedule - not sure how long I will continue at the Gap - not enough hours; so stay observant, I may not have that discount anymore. I am planning on really working on my thesis hard, so I can at least have a really rough draft - or most of my chapters done, by my birthday. I wonder who will remember when that is? :-) And in future posts, I will be posting articles from Katha Pollitt. So, that's an update on my life so far. I have to work tonight!
Monday, August 07, 2006
Trip
Well, I am off tomorrow for a week of fun...at least I hope it will be fun. I plan on seeing my dad and stepmom, my brother and sister-in-law and the kids and then off to Colorado with my younger sister to go white-water rafting and have a blast. Long drives, but totally worth it. I also got to see Alyssa, Kaylin and Judy this weekend. That was fun too! I am excited. My jobs seem to be going well...no huge paychecks or anything, but eventually, I will have steady income and some great clothes! That's really about it.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Jobs and stuff
I start training for my new job today- at the Children's Place. Should be interesting. Two hours of training and then 16 hours of work this weekend. Yikes! I just hope I am up for it. Talked to Jackie last night, and she gave me our itinerary for the trip to Colorado. We get to go white water rafting, and then gambling in Cripple Creek. I hope I win big! Ha! Sad news from Kansas though - my sister-in-law had a miscarriage; don't know much more than that, but I heard that she is doing okay. Nick saw John Kerry last Friday- here for a cancer symposium. Well, technically he saw just the back of his head, but it's still exciting. I know I would have been excited. I have been rereading the Harry Potter series, hoping to absorb as much as possible until next summer and the 7th year finally comes out. Oh, and I finished reading an interesting book of essays...read it if you are able to: it's called Jesus is Not a Republican. Really good book; some funny and thought-provoking essays. Well, that's really all. I'll post more later.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Well, I haven't been posting that much - and I think everyone is really getting busy. I know that I am scheduled finally to start working at the Children's Place. I guess, too that I start training on a really busy weekend so that should be exhilarating and terrifying at the same time. There's a big bicyclist race coming through Iowa this weekend called the RAGBRAI - Lance Armstrong will be riding through even and about 10,000 people will be in the park and along the roads to watch. Next year, Nick is planning on competing - or at least riding in it..it's a bicycle race across the state. Totally cool! Of course, I have to work that night so it will really be difficult getting out of the parking lot. But yay for the money! That's about it really, except that I have been thinking about high school a lot lately, probably cause school stuff is coming out and I haven't seen my friends for awhile. So, I was thinking - if any of you who knew me in high school would, email me or post a memory on my blog. I'd appreciate the trip down nostalgia lane.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Okay, so I didn't get much of a response to the last few articles I posted. But this is something that really bothers me about the pro-life movement - it lies. Oh, not everyone; probably not the majority even. But there are enough of the people that do to really make things that much harder. This article is from the US House of Representatives. Waxman is a Democrat from California so his is going to be a bit biased toward pro-choice; but when a member of Congress leads a federally funded study and finds out about these things, it really should make people thing, despite his bias. Just think of the the percentage of those that lie- 80% of "crisis pregnancy centers" lie to women in order to futher their own ideas about morality and force it on others!
Public Health
Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers Mislead Teens about Abortion Risks
Monday, July 17, 2006 --
A new study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman finds that federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.
87 percent of the centers reached by investigators provided false or misleading information about abortion. Under the Bush Administration, pregnancy resource centers, which are also called “crisis pregnancy centers,” have received over $30 million in federal funding. The new report assesses the scientific accuracy of the information they provide. Female investigators, who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds seeking advice about an unintended pregnancy, telephoned the 25 pregnancy resource centers that have received capacity-building funds from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Twenty of the 23 centers reached by the investigators (87%) provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion. According to the report:
The centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer. There is a medical consensus that induced abortion does not cause an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this consensus, eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk. One center said that “all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years," while another told the caller that an abortion would “affect the milk developing in her breasts” and that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion.
The centers provided false and misleading information about the effect of abortion on future fertility. Abortions in the first trimester, using the most common abortion procedure, do not pose an increased risk of infertility. However, seven centers told the caller that having an abortion could hurt her chances of having children in the future. One center said that damage from abortion could lead to “many miscarriages” or to “permanent damage” so “you wouldn’t be able to carry,” telling the caller that this is “common” and happens “a lot.”
The centers provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion. Research shows that significant psychological stress after an abortion is no more common than after birth. However, thirteen centers told the caller that the psychological effects of abortion are severe, long-lasting, and common. One center said that the suicide rate in the year after an abortion “goes up by seven times.” Another center said that post-abortion stress suffered by women having abortions is “much like” that seen in soldiers returning from Vietnam and “is something that anyone who’s had an abortion is sure to suffer from.”
False and Misleading Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers
Printer Friendly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Government Reform Minority Office | United States House of Representatives | RSS | Contact Us
Some documents are in .pdf format. Download Adobe Reader. | Photos of Rep. Waxman: [c] 2004 Kay Chernush
Public Health
Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers Mislead Teens about Abortion Risks
Monday, July 17, 2006 --
A new study released by Rep. Henry A. Waxman finds that federally funded pregnancy resource centers often mislead pregnant teens about the medical risks of abortion, telling investigators who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds that abortion leads to breast cancer, infertility, and mental illness.
87 percent of the centers reached by investigators provided false or misleading information about abortion. Under the Bush Administration, pregnancy resource centers, which are also called “crisis pregnancy centers,” have received over $30 million in federal funding. The new report assesses the scientific accuracy of the information they provide. Female investigators, who posed as pregnant 17-year-olds seeking advice about an unintended pregnancy, telephoned the 25 pregnancy resource centers that have received capacity-building funds from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Twenty of the 23 centers reached by the investigators (87%) provided false or misleading information about the health effects of abortion. According to the report:
The centers provided false and misleading information about a link between abortion and breast cancer. There is a medical consensus that induced abortion does not cause an increased risk of breast cancer. Despite this consensus, eight centers told the caller that having an abortion would in fact increase her risk. One center said that “all abortion causes an increased risk of breast cancer in later years," while another told the caller that an abortion would “affect the milk developing in her breasts” and that the risk of breast cancer increased by as much as 80% following an abortion.
The centers provided false and misleading information about the effect of abortion on future fertility. Abortions in the first trimester, using the most common abortion procedure, do not pose an increased risk of infertility. However, seven centers told the caller that having an abortion could hurt her chances of having children in the future. One center said that damage from abortion could lead to “many miscarriages” or to “permanent damage” so “you wouldn’t be able to carry,” telling the caller that this is “common” and happens “a lot.”
The centers provided false and misleading information about the mental health effects of abortion. Research shows that significant psychological stress after an abortion is no more common than after birth. However, thirteen centers told the caller that the psychological effects of abortion are severe, long-lasting, and common. One center said that the suicide rate in the year after an abortion “goes up by seven times.” Another center said that post-abortion stress suffered by women having abortions is “much like” that seen in soldiers returning from Vietnam and “is something that anyone who’s had an abortion is sure to suffer from.”
False and Misleading Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers
Printer Friendly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee on Government Reform Minority Office | United States House of Representatives | RSS | Contact Us
Some documents are in .pdf format. Download Adobe Reader. | Photos of Rep. Waxman: [c] 2004 Kay Chernush
I have already started training for my job at the GAP and just for anyone who likes to shop there - I have some coupons for Friends and Family Days (30% off on a certain weekend in August, 35% off if you open a GAP card) so if my close friends/family are interested, let me know, email me your address and I will try to send you them. So far, no word on scheduling for my job at Children's Place. I can't wait, in a few weeks I get to go on vacation with my sister! YAY! I actually had a plan of what I was going to talk about today, but for some reason my mind went blank and my chosen topic is now reduced to the mundane details of my life. Very mundane, cause nothing really exciting is happening. It's raining..that's a relief cause now maybe I can run without having to carry oxygen! It's been so hot and humid, it's hard to breathe. Anyway, that's all. Not much going on...
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
No comments at all?!
I was so disappointed to read no comments. It must be I am annoying people and not stimulating discussion. I need to broaden my debate interests. In other news..things are good!
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Another interesting discussion?
What the Research Shows: Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Sex Education Does Not Protect Teenagers' Health (5/4/2005)
There is no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only sex education, which teaches students to abstain from sex until married and generally only teaches about contraceptive failure, reduces the rate of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Moreover, research indicates that many of these programs do not help teens delay having sex. Yet the federal government has funneled well over half a billion dollars since 1997 into abstinence-only programs, steadily increasing funding in recent years to more than $165 million annually.
On the other hand, evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs that provide information about abstinence and contraception can help delay the start of sexual activity in teenagers and increase condom use among sexually active teens. Yet there is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sexuality education.
Studies show that most abstinence-only programs do not help teens delay having sex, and some show evidence that these programs actually deter teens who become sexually active from protecting themselves from unintended pregnancy or STDs.
A recent review of program evaluations in 11 states (AZ, CA FL, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, OR, PA, WA) indicates that after participating in abstinence-only programs, teens are less willing to use contraception, including condoms. And in only one state, did any program demonstrate any success in delaying the initiation of sex.
D. Hauser, Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact, Advocates for Youth, September 2004.
Many abstinence programs include "Virginity Pledges," whereby teens sign cards promising to remain virgins until they are married. While data suggests that under limited circumstances, teens who sign a pledge may delay sexual intercourse, 88 percent still have sex before marriage. Recent research also shows that pledgers' rate of STDs does not differ from the rate of nonpledgers because pledgers are less likely to use condoms at first intercourse or to be tested for STDs.
H. Brückner and P. Bearman, "After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges," Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (2005) 271-278.
A recent Congressional report found that widely used federally funded abstinence-only curricula distort information, misrepresent the facts, and promote gender stereotypes.
More than 80 percent of the abstinence-only curricula reviewed contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.
The curricula reviewed misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing STDs and unintended pregnancy. They also contain false information about the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, promote gender stereotypes, and contain basic scientific errors.
"The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs," Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, December 2004.
Parents want schools to teach comprehensive sexuality education and do not think taxpayer dollars should be spent on abstinence-only programming.
More than 85 percent of Americans believe that it is appropriate for school-based sex education programs to teach students how to use and where to get contraceptives.
National Public Radio, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, Sex Education in America, January 2004.
70 percent of Americans oppose the use of federal funds for abstinence-only sex education programs that prohibit teaching about the use of condoms and contraception for the prevention of unintended pregnancies and STDs.
Advocates for Youth and SIECUS, "Americans Oppose Abstinence-Only Education Censoring Information on Contraception," 1999.
Comprehensive sexuality education helps teenagers delay sex and protects their health.
A review of a large body of evaluation research on programs to prevent teenage pregnancy found conclusive evidence that comprehensive sex education programs do not increase sexual activity or hasten the onset of first intercourse. To the contrary, several of these programs have been shown to delay the onset of sex or increase condom or other contraceptive use among sexually active teens.
Douglas Kirby, Ph.D., Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, May 2001.
In an evaluation of 19 sex education programs, 12 programs - 11 of which included information about abstinence and contraception and 1 of which is an intervention for elementary school children and their parents - helped delay timing of first sex; 11 programs increased condom use among sexually active teens.
Advocates for Youth, Science and Success: Sex Education and Other Programs That Work to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2003.
The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention note that "research has clearly shown that the most effective programs [to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS] are comprehensive ones that include a focus on delaying sexual behavior and provide information on how sexually active young people can protect themselves."
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Fact Sheet: Young People at Risk: HIV/AIDS Among America's Youth, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, March 2002.
There is no conclusive evidence that abstinence-only sex education, which teaches students to abstain from sex until married and generally only teaches about contraceptive failure, reduces the rate of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Moreover, research indicates that many of these programs do not help teens delay having sex. Yet the federal government has funneled well over half a billion dollars since 1997 into abstinence-only programs, steadily increasing funding in recent years to more than $165 million annually.
On the other hand, evidence shows that comprehensive sexuality education programs that provide information about abstinence and contraception can help delay the start of sexual activity in teenagers and increase condom use among sexually active teens. Yet there is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sexuality education.
Studies show that most abstinence-only programs do not help teens delay having sex, and some show evidence that these programs actually deter teens who become sexually active from protecting themselves from unintended pregnancy or STDs.
A recent review of program evaluations in 11 states (AZ, CA FL, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, OR, PA, WA) indicates that after participating in abstinence-only programs, teens are less willing to use contraception, including condoms. And in only one state, did any program demonstrate any success in delaying the initiation of sex.
D. Hauser, Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact, Advocates for Youth, September 2004.
Many abstinence programs include "Virginity Pledges," whereby teens sign cards promising to remain virgins until they are married. While data suggests that under limited circumstances, teens who sign a pledge may delay sexual intercourse, 88 percent still have sex before marriage. Recent research also shows that pledgers' rate of STDs does not differ from the rate of nonpledgers because pledgers are less likely to use condoms at first intercourse or to be tested for STDs.
H. Brückner and P. Bearman, "After the promise: the STD consequences of adolescent virginity pledges," Journal of Adolescent Health, 36 (2005) 271-278.
A recent Congressional report found that widely used federally funded abstinence-only curricula distort information, misrepresent the facts, and promote gender stereotypes.
More than 80 percent of the abstinence-only curricula reviewed contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.
The curricula reviewed misrepresent the effectiveness of contraceptives in preventing STDs and unintended pregnancy. They also contain false information about the risks of abortion, blur religion and science, promote gender stereotypes, and contain basic scientific errors.
"The Content of Federally Funded Abstinence-Only Education Programs," Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform - Minority Staff, Special Investigations Division, December 2004.
Parents want schools to teach comprehensive sexuality education and do not think taxpayer dollars should be spent on abstinence-only programming.
More than 85 percent of Americans believe that it is appropriate for school-based sex education programs to teach students how to use and where to get contraceptives.
National Public Radio, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, Sex Education in America, January 2004.
70 percent of Americans oppose the use of federal funds for abstinence-only sex education programs that prohibit teaching about the use of condoms and contraception for the prevention of unintended pregnancies and STDs.
Advocates for Youth and SIECUS, "Americans Oppose Abstinence-Only Education Censoring Information on Contraception," 1999.
Comprehensive sexuality education helps teenagers delay sex and protects their health.
A review of a large body of evaluation research on programs to prevent teenage pregnancy found conclusive evidence that comprehensive sex education programs do not increase sexual activity or hasten the onset of first intercourse. To the contrary, several of these programs have been shown to delay the onset of sex or increase condom or other contraceptive use among sexually active teens.
Douglas Kirby, Ph.D., Emerging Answers: Research Findings on Programs to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, May 2001.
In an evaluation of 19 sex education programs, 12 programs - 11 of which included information about abstinence and contraception and 1 of which is an intervention for elementary school children and their parents - helped delay timing of first sex; 11 programs increased condom use among sexually active teens.
Advocates for Youth, Science and Success: Sex Education and Other Programs That Work to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, HIV & Sexually Transmitted Infections, 2003.
The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention note that "research has clearly shown that the most effective programs [to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS] are comprehensive ones that include a focus on delaying sexual behavior and provide information on how sexually active young people can protect themselves."
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, Fact Sheet: Young People at Risk: HIV/AIDS Among America's Youth, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention, March 2002.
I love the Bill of Rights
Please read both articles, there's another one about a student - they're taken from the ACLU website (there's a link on my blog). Isn't it cool?
ACLU of West Virginia and Americans United Seek Removal of High School Portrait of Jesus (6/28/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
CHARLESTON, WV - The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and Americans United for Separation of Church and State today asked a court to order the removal of a large portrait of Jesus prominently displayed outside the principal's office at Bridgeport High School, saying that the display is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
"The Constitution's ban on government endorsement of religion is good for both government and religion. It keeps religion free and allows government to represent us all," said Andrew Schneider, Executive Director of the ACLU of West Virginia. "In violating that ban, Bridgeport High School is interfering with the right of all students to freely express their religious beliefs."
The current debate dates to a March meeting of the Harrison County Board of Education, when a local resident, Harold Sklar, submitted a formal request that the portrait be taken down. However, this is not the first time the display has been questioned. Sklar had asked for the portrait's removal several times over a 10 year period, but his requests were ignored.
Schneider noted that even if the portrait reflected the beliefs of a majority of individuals, the United States Supreme Court ruled unequivocally in 1943 in a landmark West Virginia case that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that fundamental liberties like freedom of religion are not subject to the whims of a majority.
"School officials are flouting the First Amendment principle of church-state separation and in the process providing students a shoddy civics lesson," said Richard Katskee, Assistant Legal Director of Americans United.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, seeks to remove the portrait and obtain damages as well as reasonable attorneys' fees.
ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song (6/5/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.
The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.
"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."
In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.
The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.
"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."
The ACLU of New Jersey has participated in other cases involving the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature.
The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.
ACLU of West Virginia and Americans United Seek Removal of High School Portrait of Jesus (6/28/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
CHARLESTON, WV - The American Civil Liberties Union of West Virginia and Americans United for Separation of Church and State today asked a court to order the removal of a large portrait of Jesus prominently displayed outside the principal's office at Bridgeport High School, saying that the display is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
"The Constitution's ban on government endorsement of religion is good for both government and religion. It keeps religion free and allows government to represent us all," said Andrew Schneider, Executive Director of the ACLU of West Virginia. "In violating that ban, Bridgeport High School is interfering with the right of all students to freely express their religious beliefs."
The current debate dates to a March meeting of the Harrison County Board of Education, when a local resident, Harold Sklar, submitted a formal request that the portrait be taken down. However, this is not the first time the display has been questioned. Sklar had asked for the portrait's removal several times over a 10 year period, but his requests were ignored.
Schneider noted that even if the portrait reflected the beliefs of a majority of individuals, the United States Supreme Court ruled unequivocally in 1943 in a landmark West Virginia case that the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that fundamental liberties like freedom of religion are not subject to the whims of a majority.
"School officials are flouting the First Amendment principle of church-state separation and in the process providing students a shoddy civics lesson," said Richard Katskee, Assistant Legal Director of Americans United.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, seeks to remove the portrait and obtain damages as well as reasonable attorneys' fees.
ACLU of New Jersey Defends Second-Grader's Right to Sing Religious Song (6/5/2006)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
NEWARK, NJ -- The American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey today filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case seeking to uphold an elementary school student's right to religious expression.
The Frenchtown Elementary School student, whose initials are O.T., wanted to sing the song "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. School officials refused to allow the student to sing her song, saying it would give the impression that the school favored religion. “O.T.” remains anonymous to protect her privacy.
"There is a distinction between religious expression initiated or endorsed by school personnel, and speech initiated by individual students," said ACLU of New Jersey cooperating attorney Jennifer Klear of Drinker, Biddle & Reath in New York. "The Constitution protects a student's individual right to express herself, including religious expression."
In its brief, the ACLU argued that no reasonable observer would have believed that the school endorsed the religious message behind the student's song, and that the school therefore had no right to deny her choice of song.
The talent show was open for anyone from the 1st through 8th grades who wished to play a solo instrument, dance, perform a skit or sing karaoke. Students were permitted to select their own songs or skits.
"We are dedicated to protecting the right of individual religious expression," said ACLU of New Jersey Legal Director Ed Barocas. "O.T. has our full support in defense of her right to sing a religious song in the talent show."
The ACLU of New Jersey has participated in other cases involving the right of individual religious expression, including recently helping to ensure that jurors are not removed from jury pools for wearing religious clothing and that prisoners are able to obtain religious literature.
The case, O.T. v. Frenchtown Elementary School, was filed in federal court in Trenton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)