Bloggers
Diana Hsieh
Gina Liggett
Ari Armstrong
Paul Hsieh
Blog Links
Recent Comments
RSS Feed
RSS by E-Mail
Blogroll
NoodleFood
Principles in Practice
Ari Armstrong
Wall of Separation
Archives
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
|
| | |
| Monday, March 8, 2010 |
The Separation of Church and State
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 AM   
I want to strongly recommend this recently-released lecture by Onkar Ghate on "The Separation of Church and State," given at OCON in 2009. It was particularly stellar.
The Separation of Church and State
By Onkar Ghate
With religion on the rise in America, maintaining the separation of church and state is now a pressing issue. This talk begins with an examination of the contemporary debate about the principle of separating religion from government. Dr. Ghate argues that both sides of the contemporary debate are mistaken and explains why today even most well-meaning Americans are unable to mount a tenable defense of the principle. To understand what the principle actually means, Dr. Ghate then considers some of the history behind the principle, focusing on John Locke's crucial contributions. Finally, Dr. Ghate sketches what a full philosophical argument for the separation of church and state looks like.
(86 min., with Q & A)
Audio CD; 2-CD set: $20.95 For an understanding of the philosophic foundation of the secular government, including the problems with the standard attacks on and defenses thereof, you won't find anything better. Most people in the audience were surprised and delighted by the discussion of John Locke on faith. I wasn't surprised, but I was delighted! I've always taught a class on "Faith and Reason" in my Introduction to Philosophy courses, and Locke is undoubtedly the highlight. While he defends faith, his defense is such that faith cannot sustain any foothold in cognition. (Locke is far, far better than Thomas Aquinas on this issue... but that's a subject for a future podcast.)Labels: Politics, Religion, Separation of Church and State
|
 E-mail Diana Hsieh
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments
|
| Wednesday, March 3, 2010 |
Conservative Deceit about Christian Liberty
By Ari @ 10:00 AM
[From Ari Armstrong's blog:] Some of my fellow Coloradans wish to outlaw the birth control pill and subject my wife to the death penalty if she takes it, yet today David Limbaugh dismisses as "paranoia" concerns about "the intersection of Christianity and the public square." Limbaugh is amazed by "how much [critics] fear something that represents such a little threat to them."
Let us review, shall we? Many Christians in the United States advocate the following political goals:
- Outlaw all abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and risk to the woman's health, from the moment of fertilization, with criminal penalties extending to execution.
- Outlaw all fertility treatments, birth control (including the pill), medical research, and medical treatment that may involve the destruction of a fertilized egg.
- Impose mandatory waiting periods and ultrasounds before a woman may obtain an abortion. (This is a marginal step toward the goal of complete prohibition.)
- Outlaw all expression involving consenting adults that is arbitrarily deemed "obscene." (Various Christians want to outlaw all material deemed pornographic.)
- Force Americans to subsidize religious institutions for "faith based" welfare.
- Expand welfare (the forced redistribution of wealth) because of Biblical principles of helping the less-well off.
- Imprison American adults for consuming various drugs, including marijuana taken for medical purposes, regardless of the level of police powers necessary to achieve this goal. (Some Christians even want to return to alcohol prohibition.)
- Require religious prayer and religious instruction at tax-funded schools.
- Deny equal protection under the laws to homosexuals, including the right to form romantic contracts and adopt children.
A few Christians want to execute homosexuals and adulterers and explicitly call for theocracy (see Christian Reconstruction or the comments of a Christian radio host.)
No, nothing to worry about!
Limbaugh makes a couple of basic mistakes in his article. First, he pretends that the only relevant issue is freedom of expression. Second, he pretends that the only debate is between "the left" and Christian conservatives. Obviously the left with its campaign censorship laws and media controls at least matches conservative Christianity in its hostility toward free expression. Unfortunately, as seen with President Obama's expansion of President Bush's "faith based" welfare, the left increasingly mingles politics with religion as well.
True, many Christians fight for liberty in at least some areas. Whether that effort flows from Christian doctrine, or is ultimately incompatible with it, is a debate for another day. But for Limbaugh to dismiss as "paranoia" concerns about the efforts of many Christians to base politics on religion is ludicrous.Labels: Christianity, Politics
|
E-mail Ari
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, February 8, 2010 |
Christianity and Totalitarianism
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 AM
William Stoddard recently posted the following remarks in a comment thread on NoodleFood.
When you say that "If the Church had the weapons of the 20th century, God (metaphor) only knows how many they would have killed," I would go further than this.
We have, shall we say, a Christian myth about how God runs the world and what he intends for it, one that many Christians believed was literally true. And what it says is this:
God is a self-appointed dictator who cannot be voted out of office, and who makes the law by unilateral decree
God constantly watches everything human beings do, both directly and through a secret police corps of angels appointed to watch over us
At any time, we can be taken into God's hands by death and called before him to be judged
Under his law, we are automatically guilty and cannot defend ourselves against his charges
When found guilty, we will be sent to a concentration camp where we will be tortured forever, without hope that death will release us
Those who affirm that these actions are signs of God's justice and love, and plead for mercy, will be let off and assigned to join a propaganda corps that spends eternity praising God, and that is permitted to see the tortures of the damned perfectly in order more fully to enjoy their own salvation
If someone you loved on Earth goes to Hell, your salvation entails rejoicing both at their being in Hell and at your being in Heaven apart from them
In sum, Christianity envisioned all the horrors of totalitarianism, millennia before human dictators achieved the technological capability to realize them on Earth. And said that they were desirable; indeed, it called them the Good News. These striking parallels between the theology of Christianity and the practice of totalitarianism make clear -- yet again -- that political freedom cannot be founded on the Christian faith.Labels: Christianity, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Thursday, December 17, 2009 |
Conservative Sees the Light on Pragmatism
By Diana Hsieh @ 10:00 AM
Crossposted with permission from The American Individualist.
Conservative Sees the Light on Pragmatism
By Joseph Kellard
Over at the conservative commentary site townhall.com, I was intrigued to read "Principle vs. Pragmatism," a column by Ken Connor, who is unknown to me.
Halfway through reading this column, I thought that perhaps a conservative has come to see the light about the destructiveness of pragmatism. Heck, he even invokes Aristotle:
"The truth of the matter is that when it comes to the most fundamental questions about human society, culture, and government, the middle ground is not a sensible place to occupy. When it comes down to the fundamentals, things are either right or they are wrong; to suggest that they may be right for me and wrong for you is nonsense. Moral relativism comes into conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction when operating at the level of fundamental values."
But, alas, the light this conservative was seeing came from Heaven.
"There are, as our forefathers recognized, certain universal and self-evident truths. Human beings, for example, have been endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life. It is, therefore, wrong to murder an innocent human being, regardless of whether they are in the womb or in a nursing home. The act of murder is wrong regardless of who makes the decision to carry it out (mother, doctor, family) or how it is denominated (abortion, mercy killing, euthanasia). The character of an act is not changed by the rhetoric that accompanies it or the person who performs it. Such an act cannot be both right and wrong--right for you and wrong for me. It is either right or wrong--period.
"There are certain principles that define the world view of Christian conservatives, principles that we are unwilling to budge on …"
Connor goes on to invoke God and "other principles" that he and other Christians will not compromise on, without noting what those alleged principles are exactly.
Since Connor's basis of morality is God's arbitrary commandments and not the one-and-only reality from which principles are rationally derived, Lord only knows what those "other principles" of his may be, but you can safely bet that they are not a proper foundation for freedom.Labels: Christianity, Politics
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, December 14, 2009 |
The Religious Left: Obama and Black Liberation Theology
By Gina Liggett @ 10:00 AM
New Home Church is Politically Correct for Religious Leftist Obama
President Obama finally found a home church last June after breaking his 20-year-old spiritual ties with his former pastor, the venom-spewing Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The First Family now belongs to the same non-denominational Christian church attended by former President G.W. Bush, Evergreen Chapel at Camp David. It was probably more politically palatable for Obama to align with a church open to hundreds of military personnel with sermons delivered by a Navy Lieutenant chaplain, than to join another church that proselytizes Black Liberation Theology.
As we know, for decades the Religious Right has been bludgeoning the wall separating church and state. Now the Religious Left has made its national debut, with President Obama as the poster child. While leftist Christianity may seem like an oxymoron because of the Marxist influence on the American Left, it's actually a perfect marriage of irrational ideas. Defenders of capitalism and freedom have at least as much cause to worry about the Religious Left's agenda as the puritanical obsessions of conservative evangelicals.
The newly-empowered Religious Left is egalitarian, tribal, anti-reason, and deeply anti-capitalist. And unlike the Religious Right which focuses on the soul and the glory of heaven, the Religious Left promotes activism in Jesus's name in the here and now. In examining Black Liberation Theology, which has been our President's spiritual bedrock for over 20 years, it becomes very clear where he will take America -- despite the eye-rolling stunt to appear more worthy of the title "Commander-in-Chief."
Foaming at the Mouth: What the Reverend Wright Says to America and Obama
Months before the 2008 Presidential election, the media let a spitting, scratching cat out of the bag: Reverend Jeremiah Wright. YouTube videos of his pugilistic, outrageous sermons shocked many Americans, ultimately leading to Obama disavowing his relationship with the fire-breathing Reverend.
You may remember Reverend Wright's infamous sermon in the late fall of 2001 in which he blamed American friendship with Israel for the 9/11 attacks by Islamic terrorists:
Last year's conference in Africa on racism, which the United States would not participate in because somebody dared to point out the racism that still supports both here and in Israel. I said that dirty word again... Don't be skerd! Don't be skerd! You don't see the connection between 9-1-1-0-1 and the Israeli-Palestinian?! Something wrong?! You wanna borrow my glasses?" Or how about the "chickens come home to roost" sermon in which the Reverend expands his sphere of contempt for American foreign policy and his blatant multiculturalism to imply that America deserved 9/11.
... We have moved from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents. We want revenge, we want paybacks, and we don't care who gets hurt in the process. Now, I asked the Lord, "what should our response be, in light of such an unthinkable act?" ... I heard Ambassador Peck on... Fox News... This is a white man... and an ambassador! He pointed out that what Malcolm X said ... was in fact true: that America's chickens are coming home to roost! We took this country, by terror, away from the Sioux, the Apache, the Arawak, the Comanche, the Arapaho, the Navajo. Terrorism! We took Africans from their country to build our way of ease and kept them enslaved and living in fear. Terrorism! We bombed Grenada and killed innocent civilians, babies, non-military personnel. We bombed the black civilian community of Panama with stealth bombers and killed unarmed teenagers and toddlers, pregnant mothers, and hard-working fathers! We bombed Qaddafi's home and killed his child. Blessed are they that bash your children's head against a rock! We bombed Iraq! We killed unarmed civilians trying to make a living! We bombed a plant in Sudan to pay back for their attack on our embassy, killed hundreds of unarmed people ... We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon. And we never batted an eye... We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans. And now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost! Violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred, and terrorism begets terrorism. And then there is Reverend Wright's best example of what he thinks the American political system and capitalism are all about:Who cares what a poor, black man has to face every day in a country and a culture controlled by RICH, WHITE, PEOPLE. ... Jesus was a POOR, BLACK man who lived in a country and who lived in a culture controlled by RICH, WHITE, PEOPLE. ... It just came to me within the past few weeks why so many folks are hating on [candidate] Barack Obama. He doesn't fit the model. He ain't WHITE. He ain't RICH. He ain't PRIVILEGED. ... Hillary fits the mold. Europeans fit the mold. ... Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. ... I'm so glad that I got a God who knows what it is like to be a poor, black man in a country and a culture controlled by and run by RICH, WHITE, PEOPLE. ... [Jesus] never let [his enemies'] hatred dampen his hope. When the Reverend is not at the pulpit arousing the envy and resentment of his mostly-black congregation, he credits Black Liberation Theology in forming his views. The founder of Black Liberation Theology in the 1960s, James Cone, explains that it is essentially about doing Jesus's work for the poor and oppressed in the here and now, as applies specifically to black oppression in America. In a 2008 NPR interview he said: Black Liberation theology sees God as primarily concerned with the poor and weak ... in society. It's not just for black people. ... Justice for the poor is the very heart of what God is about. ... The white church didn't talk about blacks struggle for justice. ... The gospel isn't about going to heaven; it's about justice and peace. ... Salvation in the Bible means being delivered from bondage. ... Jesus was crucified ... because he disturbed the consciousness of the people. He also explains that it is blacks who don't love themselves, and that the justice Jesus fought for is for them too, in this way merging Malcom X's Black Power with Martin Luther King's Christianity.
Now decades past the Civil Rights era, Reverend Wright has exploded the tenants of "Jesus Justice" into a tirade of rage against what he considers the symbols of an evil America: war (regardless of the reasons for it): cultural repression (regardless of American ideals of freedom and individual rights); and racism (regardless of the fact that America has eliminated the evil of slavery and made quantum leaps in correcting past legalized oppression of blacks).
Yet still, proponents of the various permutations of Black Liberation Theology profess that America should be transformed into a society characterized by:
1. Mysticism: That Biblical Scripture, not a Constitution, should be the law of the land.
2. Socialism: That taking care of the "poor" and "oppressed," rather than promoting capitalism and the freedom of individuals, should be the social mandate.
3. Racism: That identity is based on race, rather than on the metaphysically given primary, the individual; and
4. Multiculturalism: That we should consider as morally equal to America all societies, such as World War II-era Japan and Germany, Palestinian terrorists, primitive tribal societies, dictatorial Libya, etc. etc. Obama Disavows Wright but Not the Ideas
If there is any doubt about whether or not the Reverend Wright had a profound influence on Obama's present-day thinking, there should not be. In a 2007 interview, Obama said:
During this holiday season and during this political season I'm continually reminded that the values that I learned at Trinity (Wright's church) and as part of the UCC (United Church of Christ) community are values that can't just stay in church but have to be applied outside of church. ... I realized that Scripture and the words of God fit into the values I was raised in... [W]hat was intellectual and what was emotional joined, and the belief in the redemptive power of Jesus Christ, that he died for our sins, that through him we could achieve eternal life -- but also that, through good works we could find order and meaning here on Earth and transcend our limits and our flaws and our foibles -- I found that powerful. As a poignant summary of Obama's creed: "Race is a central test of our belief that we're our brother's keeper, our sister's keeper ..."
How the theology of Obama translates into the policies of his Administration will be the subject of my next post.Labels: Christianity, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, April 6, 2009 |
The Meaning of Animal Husbandry
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
This bit of news is too funny not to blog: Larcenia Bullard -- Florida state senator, Vice-Chair of the Agricultural Committee, and former teacher -- was confused about the meaning of "animal husbandry." Here's what happened during a discussion of a law that would outlaw bestiality:
Rich's legislation would target only those who derived or helped others derive "sexual gratification" from an animal, specifying that conventional dog-judging contests and animal-husbandry practices are permissible.
That last provision tripped up Miami Democratic Sen. Larcenia Bullard.
"People are taking these animals as their husbands? What's husbandry?" she asked. Some senators stifled their laughter as Sen. Charlie Dean, an Inverness Republican, explained that husbandry is raising and caring for animals. Bullard didn't get it.
"So that maybe was the reason the lady was so upset about that monkey?" Bullard asked, referring to a Connecticut case where a woman's suburban chimpanzee went mad and was shot. Wow. Sadly, the funny of that story is marred by the fact that such laughably ignorant politicians wield astonishing powers over nearly every facet of our lives, usually with little regard for individual rights. (Via Pope Hat.)Labels: Politics
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, March 30, 2009 |
A Free Market of Ideas
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Rob Abiera of The Morality War published an excellent letter in the Oklahoma Gazette last week in defense of separation of church and state in a capitalist economy:
In his article, "Conspiracy 'synthesis'", in the March 11th Oklahoma Gazette, Ben Fenwick quotes state Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, referring to a plot to destroy "our economic basis of free enterprise".
Rep. Ritze's bill to put a monument to the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state Capitol proves to me that he hasn't got the slightest idea what freedom really is, much less free enterprise.
What do people such as Ritze, state Rep. Sally Kern and state Sen. Randy Brogdon think would happen to religion under a system of completely free enterprise? Religions would have to compete on a free and open market just like everything else. That means laws granting favoritism to one religion over another would be forbidden, just as they currently are under the U.S. Constitution's separation of church and state.
That people such as Ritze don't see this and persist in attempting to tie their favorite religion to support for "free enterprise" is evidence enough for me that these people are no real friends of freedom - economic, religious or otherwise.
Rob Abiera
Oklahoma City Labels: Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, March 2, 2009 |
Renfroe Should Resign Over Bigoted Remarks
By Ari @ 12:01 AM
(Reposted:) In a just world, State Senator Scott Renfroe's constituents would rise up and throw the bum out of office. If he had a lick of sense, he would resign. Of course, if he had a lick of sense, he wouldn't have called homosexuality an abomination and a sin comparable to murder on the Senate floor in a blatant attack on church-state boundaries.
I have seen no sign of Renfroe's repentance, however, and so I call on the Republican Party of Colorado to publicly condemn Renfroe's remarks. It's the right thing to do, and it's also the prudent political move, if the GOP wishes to be taken seriously as a political force in Colorado.
At issue is a "bill to allow gay and lesbian state employees to share health benefits with their partners," reports the Denver Post. Here I do not wish to discuss the arguments for and against the bill, but only to condemn Renfroe's tirade against it.
Mike Littwin has written about the sorry affair for the Rocky Mountain News. And my good friends over at Progress Now Colorado, having actually discovered a wolf this time, have posted the entire speech on YouTube. Following is the complete transcript:
Transcript of State Senator Scott Renfroe's Speech to the Senate on February 23, 2009
Thank you madame chair. Members, I also come down here to oppose this bill. Look at some of the declarations in the bill, some of those arguments used here to do this, I guess.
Number One, is that there are employers that offer this are at a competitive advantage over those employers that do not offer such benefits. And, number one, employers, that's the private sector, and I believe in that choice, and the private sector should be allowed to do that. And businesses should have that opportunity to choose how they run their business and what they want to do.
The state, on the other hand, we are here to represent the people of Colorado, and do the state's business. And like Senator Brophy said, the state did actually speak almost directly to this issue two years ago, and the last three years we've had bills that contradict what the people of the state of Colorado voted on directly in 2006. So with that, I think that part of the declaration should be considered, in that what the will of the people was.
And, for me personally, I guess I oppose this bill because of what the vote of the people was. And then I also oppose this bill because of what my personal beliefs are. And I think that what our country was founded upon was those beliefs also.
You know, in the beginning, God created our Earth, and the structure for creation, when you have God, you have the Son, and then you have the Holy Spirit, you have that trinity. You also have that same trinity, which is in my opinion a mimic over to what we have within the family. You have the father, the husband, you have the wife, and then you have the children. And I think when you look at that scenario, that is what we were created for. And I think that's what the Bible says.
Through the whole beginning of Creation, it talks about how things were created, and that it was good, it was good, it was good. It says over and over, that it was good. Then we get to verse 18 in Genesis 2, "The Lord God said it is not good for man to be alone. And so he made him a helper, suitable for him. And that was woman."
And then if you go on, and talk about that, God blessed them and said, "Then be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea, over the birds, over the sky, over every living thing that moves on the earth."
And then in Genesis 9 he said to Noah again, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." And I think that that goes back to this whole picture of family, which God created us for. And we need to honor that.
Homosexuality is seen as a violation of this natural, created order. And it is in a sense to God, the creator, who created men and women, male and female, for procreation.
Leviticus 18:22 says, "You shall not lie with a man as one lies with a female. It is an abomination."
Leviticus 20:13 says, "If there is a man who lies with a male as though to lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act, and they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
Then Romans 1:18: "For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteous men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness."
And that's what we're doing here. We're suppressing the truth. The truth is what the family was created for in the beginning. That is the a husband, a wife, and children. And that is why we are here, and this goes against that. And this is just a continuation of the traction of the family.
And I say all that to back up my beliefs in where we're going with this. I believe government is here, we are here, to create the laws of our land, and when we create laws that goes against what Biblically we are supposed to stand for, I think we are agreeing or allowing to go forward a sin which should not be treated by government as something that is legal.
And that is what we are going to do with this, and what we've done in the past. We are taking sins and making them to be legally okay, and that is wrong. That is an abomination, according to scripture.
And I'm not saying that this is the only sin that's out there. Obviously we have sin, we have murder, we have all sorts of sin. We have adultery, and we don't making those legal, and we would never think to make murder legal.
But what I'm saying that for, is all sin is equal. That sin there is as equal to any other sin that's in the Bible, to having wandering eyes, to coveting your neighbor's things. Whatever you do, that sin is equal, and it can be forgiven because of that.
So with that, I think I need to go back and say that I stand in my belief, that this is wrong, and we should not condone it as a government. And I think the verses that I quoted you in Leviticus back that up in a strong way, and I'd ask you to vote no on this bill. Renfroe here explicitly calls for the laws of Colorado to be based on Old Testament scripture. This, obviously, violates the separation of church and state. The proper purpose of government is to protect individual rights, not enforce religious dogma, whether or not the majority agrees with it. Murder and theft are properly illegal because they violate individual rights. Homosexuality between consenting adults does not. Moreover, many Coloradans reject Renfroe's religious views or his particular interpretation of Christianity.
For Renfroe to quote a religious text calling for the murder of homosexuals is outrageous, and it is wrong. It is no more appropriate than if a member of some other religion took the floor and read different texts calling for murder.
By Renfroe's account, the divine purpose of marriage is procreation. Never mind the fact that many heterosexual couples choose not to have children or cannot have them. Are their marriages similarly tainted in Renfroe's account?
Renfroe's claim that the 2006 election had anything to do with the bill at hand is nonsense. That year, voters banned gay marriage and voted against domestic partnerships. I think the majority was wrong on both counts, but that has no direct connection to extending benefits to the partners of state employees.
Renfroe's tirade illustrates why the Republicans are the minority party in Colorado. In attempting to impose their religious doctrines by force of law, such Republicans undermine individual rights and alienate mainstream voters.
Again I call on the Republican Party of Colorado to publicly condemn Renfroe's remarks. Whether the party does so will say a great deal about whether the party wishes to win competitive elections here again. And, more importantly, whether it deserves to win.Labels: Homosexuality, Politics
|
E-mail Ari
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Wednesday, January 28, 2009 |
End Government Prayers
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Here's a surprisingly good letter to the editor recently published in the Colorado Springs Gazette on prayer at government meetings:
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Government-sponsored prayer sidelines those of different faiths
The case for respecting the true spirit of religious freedom by ending publicly sanctioned prayer was eloquently and rationally made by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center ("Civil religion no longer fits nation of many, varied beliefs," Opinion, Jan. 19).
The activist religious right sometimes makes hysterical claims that the moral foundation of our culture is threatened without such state-sponsored displays of faith, or that eliminating official prayer "kicks God out of the public square."
They either fail to understand and sympathize with everyone's religious freedom, or don't value others' equal rights and want their own personal religious beliefs to be espoused as official state policy.
The absence of official prayer never precludes individuals from offering their own personal prayers. Many devout people of faith recognize that the separation of church and state protects their religious freedom, as well as others'. Numerous Christian principles themselves argue against pressing religious observances onto others, not least of which is Jesus' admonition to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
We should no more start a City Council meeting with a statement that God does not exist than begin with a sectarian religious prayer. Either is dismissive of a cross-section of our citizenry. Let's not wait for a court decision to end state sponsored public prayer; let's do it out of the goodness of our hearts.
Barb Ferrill Van Hoy, Executive director Citizens Project Colorado Springs Labels: Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, January 26, 2009 |
A Nice Segue into the Freedom of Choice Act
By Gina Liggett @ 12:01 AM
President Barack Obama has signed an executive order eliminating Bush's "global gag rule" on U.S. funding of groups abroad that provide abortion services or counseling, of groups that provide family planning if they also provide abortion services, and of groups lobbying to reduce abortion restrictions. The original order was a product of the conservative social agenda of the Reagan administration, and has been one of the Religious Right's favorite political victories. The Religious Right is not happy about Obama's action, and is worried that Obama's next move will be the passage of the Freedom of Choice Act.
I think that would be a perfect next step. The Freedom of Choice Act was introduced in 2004 and again in 2007 by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), but never passed. In summary The Freedom of Choice Act:
Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health. Prohibits a federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (1) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (2) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information. Provides that such prohibition shall apply retroactively. Authorizes an individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to obtain appropriate relief, including relief against a governmental entity, in a civil action. Despite the bill's limiting of abortions past the point of "fetal viability" only when the health or life of a woman is at stake (unrestricted abortion rights should apply at anytime during the pregnancy) this is a critically important and sweeping piece of legislation. It will help codify the absolute right to abortion, and help thwart the Religious Right's piecemeal actions to eviscerate abortion access across the country.
During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. I'm going to hijack a term misused by the Religious Right and say: Let's build on this Pro-Life momentum and advocate for passage of the Freedom of Choice Act.
I have written the following letter to Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) urging her to reintroduce her bill as soon as possible.
Dear Senator Boxer,
Let's build on the momentum of President Obama's executive order rescinding the "global gag rule." Please reintroduce your very important piece of legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act. The Religious Right has attacked a woman's fundamental right to choose in every possible way, at every level of government. It is time to codify a woman's right to choose--permanently and absolutely. This really is a pro-life issue in the correct sense of the term: for the woman whose rights are violated by anti-abortion measures. President Obama has promised to sign your bill. Please reintroduce it as soon as possible! Thank you. Labels: Abortion, Politics
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, January 19, 2009 |
Hot Damn!
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Eugene Volokh reports that South Carolina state senator Robert Ford -- a Democrat -- proposes a bill against "dirty" language, including the following provisions:
It is unlawful for a person in a public forum or place of public accommodation wilfully and knowingly to publish orally or in writing, exhibit, or otherwise make available material containing words, language, or actions of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature. And:
It is unlawful for a person to disseminate profanity to a minor if he wilfully and knowingly publishes orally or in writing, exhibits, or otherwise makes available material containing words, language, or actions of profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious, or indecent nature. Violating either provision would be a felony -- with the potential for five years in prison: "a person who violates [either provision] is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Ah well, at least the Bible would be banned along with Atlas Shrugged -- and almost everything else, including swearing within earshot of your 17-year-old kid.
The bill is currently in committee. While I'm sure it won't go anywhere, the fact that such legislation could even be proposed in 21st century America is mind-boggling.Labels: Law, Politics
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Wednesday, January 14, 2009 |
Duty of Sexual Restraint?
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reports the following:
Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, a leading candidate for the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee (RNC), is coming under fire Monday for making remarks this summer that gays and lesbians suffer from a "compulsion" that can be "restrained."
"You can choose to restrain that compulsion," Blackwell told radio host Michelangelo Signorile, a gay and lesbian advocate, this summer during the Republican National Convention. "And so I think in fact you don't have to give in to the compulsion to be homosexual."
"I've never had to make the choice because I've never had the urge to be other than a heterosexual," Blackwell added, "but if in fact I had the urge to be something else I could have in fact suppressed that urge."
Another RNC chairman candidate, Chip Saltsman, saw his bid derailed after circulating a CD to RNC voters that critics said was racially insensitive toward President-elect Obama. The worst part of this statement is not Blackwell's bizarre hypothetical that if he did have homosexual urges, he knows that he could resist them. If by that, he means "I could remain celibate for the rest of my life," then sure, a person could do that. But the question is "Why?!?" In particular, why should gays and lesbians cut themselves off from the possibility of healthy, loving, fulfilling sexual relationships for their whole lives?
Ultimately, the only answer is because God forbids it. According to scripture, he commanded, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). We are supposed to obey without question, whatever the cost to our own personal happiness -- just the faithful Abraham does in the story of the Binding of Isaac.
Of course, politicians are welcome to embrace the religious values of obedience and sacrifice, if they so choose. However, such beliefs ought to be regarded by all as private and personal -- not as relevant to public policy. After all, in a free society, every person has the right to enter into whatever consensual sexual relationships he wishes. The government has no business legislating sexuality.
Unfortunately, that's not the view of politicians today, particularly not in the GOP. So the worst part of this interview is that a person seeking the top job of a major political party in America -- a country founded on the principle of inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness -- would suggest that gays and lesbians have any kind of obligation to suppress their sexual desires. Given today's climate of pervasive statism, the step from such publicly-expressed opinions to attempting to restrict or even forbid gay and lesbian relationships is very, very short.Labels: Homosexuality, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, December 29, 2008 |
Overturning Stem Cell Nonsense
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Good news from The Denver Daily News:
U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., and Michael Castle, R-Delaware, chief architects of legislation expanding stem cell research, led a bipartisan group of lawmakers yesterday in sending a letter to President-elect Barack Obama, urging him to immediately remove existing federal barriers to embryonic stem cell research by executive order upon taking office.
DeGette and Castle recently introduced new stem cell legislation overturning President Bush's executive order, updating previous legislation to ensure that it is current with the field of stem cell research and bringing the National Institutes of Health to the forefront.
"I am excited that we are on the brink of expanding stem cell research under a responsible, pro-science administration," said DeGette, vice chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. "After two vetoes of strong bipartisan legislation that would have overturned President Bush's restrictions, millions of patients and their families can now finally have hope again. I look forward to working with the Obama administration to develop a robust research agenda in America."
The letter from DeGette and Castle states a need for strong federal leadership by NIH in carrying out a responsible stem cell research program due to the fact that there is no overarching set of federal guidelines to serve as a standard. The letter goes on to reference diseases that stem cell research may affect.
"Medical and scientific research, including embryonic stem cell research, holds great promise for alleviating the suffering of the 100 million American patients who are living with devastating diseases - from Parkinson's disease to spinal cord injuries to diabetes - for which there are no good treatments or cures."
Opposition remains steadfast
The stem cell debate is a very controversial one due to the involvement of human embryos. The use of embryonic stem cells for research ties into the abortion issue and raises the debate on exactly when a human life is defined.
"Part of responsible science is making sure we're respecting every life involved," said Kristi Burton, who championed the "personhood" ballot initiative that would have defined life as beginning when a human egg is fertilized. That issue failed this November. "There are effective ways to pursue stem cell research without using embryos. I support finding cures to diseases without destroying life. Why not choose the way to protect life and find cures?"
DeGette and Castle want to immediately revoke the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. They want NIH to establish guidelines based on scientific needs and an outline determining eligibility for federal funding of stem cell lines that are already in existence. Some organizations are adamantly opposed to the use of federal funding.
"If his (Obama) record is an indicator, we expect the directive to be rolled back, though we do not support that," said Ashley Horne, federal policy analyst for Focus on the Family. "We believe that is it fiscally irresponsible and ethically wrong to use the federal money for treating human embryos, which has not been proven to be effective." For a good analysis of the morality of embryonic stem-cell research, see the op-ed The Anti-Life Opposition to Embryonic Stem Cell Research by David Holcberg and Alex Epstein.Labels: Politics, Stem Cell Research
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, December 22, 2008 |
Paul Hsieh LTE on GOP in Christian Science Monitor
By Paul Hsieh, MD @ 12:01 AM
The December 17, 2008 Christian Science Monitor featured an article on the internal debate within the Republican Party entitled, "Young Republicans seek a new kind of party".
I sent them the following LTE in response, which they published in the December 22, 2008 issue:GOP's 'social conservatism' alienates young Republicans
In regard to the Dec. 17 article, "Young Republicans seek a new kind of party": I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004, but not in 2008, because I was finally fed up with the ever-increasing influence of the religious right on the Republican Party – especially on issues such as abortion, stem-cell research, and gay marriage.
If the GOP returned to affirming individual rights, limited government, and fiscal responsibility, then I would be glad to support it again.
But as long as they support the toxic "social conservative" agenda of the religious right, then they will continue to alienate many young and independent voters and lose elections. And deservedly so.
Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo. Labels: LTE, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Wednesday, December 17, 2008 |
A Profile in Influence: The Family Research Council
By Gina Liggett @ 12:01 AM
The next in my profiles of religious right organizations is the Family Research Council, founded by James Dobson of Focus and the Family and headed by Tony Perkins.
The Family Research Council (FRC) doesn't even pretend to be an "educational" organization. Its intent has always been to change the culture to comply with their religious perspective through passing legislation at the federal and state levels:
Since its inception in 1983, Family Research Council has been shaping public policy, as it relates to our nation's families and our religious freedoms, in Washington D.C. and in state capitals across the country. We have successfully crafted and promoted policy initiatives.. There is so much going on with this organization, that I almost don't know where to begin. But let's start with their "25 Pro-Family Policy Goals."
Before the 2008 election, he FRC encouraged pastors to pass around their 25-point proposal for a new America. This booklet contains so many proposals to regulate our most private lives, that it's beyond the scope of this post to describe it in detail. Needless to say, it is worth reading to get the impact of how broadly the Family Research Council is targeting their efforts. Below is a sampling of some of the FRC's goals in summary form:
- Prohibit embryonic stem-cell research.
- Prohibit women from voluntarily donating their eggs for research or to infertile couples.
- Ensure that pro-abortion judges (whom they call "activist") are not appointed.
- Further restrict access to abortion.
- Support "faith-based" programs in prisons.
- Require the teaching of "creationism" in the schools as a companion to the teaching of the facts of evolution.
- Censor the publication of adult pornography to "protect children."
- Require the teaching of "abstinence before marriage."
- Pass and uphold state and federal constitutional amendments defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
- Promote the maintaining of a marriage through the manipulation of divorce laws.
- Prohibit gays from joining the military.
What is striking about the Family Research Council's approach in selling their plan is the scare tactics and disinformation they use to justify their proposals. For example, in their recommendations that restrict access to abortion, they claim that women are not being given proper informed consent before their procedure:
The failure to provide information concerning the risks of abortion for women's reproductive and overall health represents a major gap in the promotion of true health care. This is just a laughable and flagrant falsehood, as there are already very strict regulations and ethical requirements concerning informed consent about any surgical-type procedure. And Planned Parenthood, enemy number one at the FRC, educates its clients about all their options concerning pregnancy, including those preferred by the religious right.
Another example is the FRC's distorting claims about embryonic stem-cell research:
The claims made for embryonic stem cells are wildly oversold and exaggerated, and cruelly give patients and their loved ones false hope. Meanwhile, the real facts about their potential are ignored or distorted. In 27 years of embryonic stem cell research, not a single patient has been treated. This is a ludicrous statement. There is absolutely no false promises being made whatsoever. The science explicitly brands itself as being in the "early stages" of basic biological research in the field.
And as a science-based, fact-based education will teach you (as opposed to one based on mythical stories like creationism), it is a long, arduous road from basic biological research to actual application of treating disease. Moreover, President Bush implemented one of the religious right's favorite policies by restricting federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research back in the early 2000s, slowing the whole process down.
Besides the FRC's basic 25-point framework, this organization has begun to change its strategy. Not deterred by the underwhelming support for religious candidates and initiatives this November, the FRC has already begun to broaden their base of support beyond the Republican Party. The FRC's plan is stated in a new book, "Personal Faith Public Policy," by Harry R. Jackson, Jr. and Tony Perkins: While some argue that evangelicals lose influence when they fail to vote as a bloc for a particular political party, the ability to seed both parties and operate as a political 'free agent' could prove to have a much greater impact on actual public policy. In their book, they advocate expanding FRC's influence beyond the traditional so-called "pro-family" activities to: "immigration policy, poverty and social justice, racial reconciliation, and global warming."
The Family Research Council is soliciting a $250,000 matching donation. They have the money -- they have the determination -- they have the networking -- and they have a broadening political strategy to foster a new America in their religious image. Let's keep our eyes and ears out for this group, and counter their influence with pro-reason and pro-reality values.Labels: Christianity, Politics
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Wednesday, December 10, 2008 |
Dobson Insists on Faith-Based Politics
By Ari @ 12:01 AM
(Reposted:) James Dobson of Focus on the Family makes two main argument in a recent posting that was brought to my attention by 5280 magazine. First, the religious right didn't really lose in the last election, and second, the religious right should continue to make explicitly religious arguments to advance their faith-based politics.
As I've pointed out, the religious right got trounced in Colorado. Voters rejected McCain and his evangelical running mate, picked a United States Senator who penned a particularly eloquent defense of the separation of church and state, ousted a House member known for her faith-based views, rejected an anti-abortion candidate for state senate, and defeated the "personhood" initiative (which Dobson endorsed) by 73 to 27 percent. The religious right hardly could have taken a worse beating.
To "refute" this obvious fact, Dobson points out that voters in "California, Florida and Arizona voted to define marriage in their constitutions as the union of one man and one woman..." But that hardly proves Dobson's point. Defining marriage as heterosexual is hardly the same thing as endorsing the religious right's vicious anti-homosexual agenda. It is common to want to restrict "marriage" to heterosexual couples and still confer full legal rights to homosexual couples. In this case, many voters side with the religious right by coincidence.
Dobson simply ignores all of the other electoral outcomes.
But here is the more substantive point: Dobson calls on Christians to attempt to enforce their distinctly religious views through politics. Dobson rejects Barack Obama's stance that political policies must be based on "some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.” Dobson calls on Christians to reject the "invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs."
And what are Dobson's priorities? "We will continue to stand up for the sanctity of human life, the sacredness of marriage and the right to have a say in the principles that will continue to guide this nation founded on biblical principles."
Banning abortion is his first priority; discriminating against homosexuals is his second. (No serious person protests Dobson's right of free speech; that's hardly the issue.) And Dobson frankly admits that both these causes are particularly religious in nature. With an agenda like that, it's no wonder that most Americans (particularly in the Interior West) have rejected the faith-based politics of Dobson and the Republican Party.Labels: Christianity, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Ari
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, December 8, 2008 |
Focus Offers Obama Nightmare
By Ari @ 12:01 AM
(Reposted:) Westword pointed to a document from Focus on the Family titled, "Letter from 2012 in Obama's America." I figured I'd take a peek.
The document purports to describe events that could happen. "Many of our freedoms have been taken away by a liberal Supreme Court and a Democratic majority in both the House and the Senate," the letter predicts. How might this happen?
Obama could select three Supreme Court justices who are "far-Left, American Civil Liberties Union-oriented judges." (Apparently the ACLU is still a scare word in some circles.) What is the harm in that? Does Focus on the Family worry about eroded economic liberties? Eroded personal liberties? After all, the purported concern of the letter is freedom.
The answer is no:
The most far-reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court's stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual "marriage" was a "constitutional" right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex "marriage" violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The first thing to notice is that such a ruling would in no way restrict "our freedoms" in any way, unless by "freedom" Focus on the Family means the freedom for the majority to impose controls on the minority. Such a ruling would expand the freedoms of some. My freedom is in no way restricted if my gay friends get married. This hardly raises a blip on the Scarometer.
I am not much concerned whether gay couples go the route of "marriage" or "domestic partnership." But what is interesting is that this is the top concern of Focus on the Family, even though such a ruling would have no practical significance for the day-to-day lives of most Americans.
The Court might also further violate rights of contract and free association in the name of anti-discrimination. Obviously I'm against that. However, conservatives have hardly taken a consistent position on the matter.
Government-school training on the virtues of homosexuality? I doubt it. If it were a problem, the solution is to separate school and state. But, generally, evangelicals have been more interested in capturing tax-funded schools for their own purposes, not restoring liberty in education. Those who want school prayer and the tax-funded teaching of creationism can hardly whine when their opponents want to capture the same system for their own purposes.
"There are no more Roman Catholic or evangelical Protestant adoption agencies in the United States." It's unclear to me why religious organizations should have the "freedom" to place children according to religious doctrine. Those organizations don't own the children.
Outlawing "offensive" speech from the Bible? Well, if the justices are ACLU types, we hardly need to worry about that. The irony of the evangelical movement whining about censorship is palpable. The evangelical movement poses the much more dangerous threat to free speech.
Controls on doctors? Again with the hypocrisy. Hello! Focus on the Family wants to throw doctors in prison -- or worse -- for performing abortions. I share the concern about controls on association and contract. But the religious right hardly offers a better alternative than the left.
Focus on the Family's concern with fertility treatments is especially laughable. Remember that Focus praised Amendment 48, which would outlaw most fertility treatments because they involve the destruction of fertilized eggs.
Focus on the Family then tries to argue that outlawing abortion and censoring pornography is somehow consistent with freedom. Notice that, in the same document, the same organization laments censorship of religious speech even as it advocates censorship on religious grounds.
For demographic reasons -- evangelicals tend to be more rural and suburban -- the religious right sides with gun ownership. Well, that's great. But in the general context of faith-based politics, such a right is practically meaningless, as the greatest threat to our liberty is the government.
Focus on the Family worries about Obama's foreign policy and health policy. But of course George W. Bush, the evangelical president, was a complete disaster on both fronts. (Bush did allow Health Savings Accounts, but at the cost of a massive expansion of health entitlements.)
The letter's closing paragraph states, "I still believe God is sovereign over all history, and though I don't know why he has allowed these events, it is still his purpose that will ultimately be accomplished." In other words, all of this concern expressed by Focus on the Family about freedom is merely a front. The organization doesn't fundamentally care about freedom; it cares about seeing God's alleged will imposed on earth.Labels: Christianity, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Ari
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Friday, November 28, 2008 |
Ted Haggard in the Pulpit Again
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Ted Haggard -- the disgraced figure of the religious right from Colorado Springs -- has returned to the pulpit:
Earlier this month, a guest took the pulpit at Open Bible Fellowship in Morrison, Ill., a 350-member church surrounded by cornfields. The speaker was an insurance salesman from Colorado named Ted Haggard.
The former superstar pastor, disgraced two years ago in a sex-and-drugs scandal, had returned — this time as a Christian businessman preaching a message that was equal parts contrition and defiance. Haggard linked his fall to being molested in second grade and apologized again.
His two sermons were posted, fleetingly, on Haggard's Web site under one word: "Alive!"
While his exact plans remain unclear, Haggard is unmistakably making himself a public figure again, nine months after his former church said he walked away from an oversight process meant to restore him. Christian ethics are impossible to practice. Jesus explicitly demands that a person renounce all the values that make life on earth possible: reason, wealth, planning, pleasure, justice, and more. As a result, the worst kind of power-lusting fakers -- like Ted Haggard -- are sure to rise to the heights of power. Only they can maintain the necessary fraud. And like his disgraced predecessors, Ted Haggard can't seem to let go of his once-great power to bend people to his dishonest will.Labels: Christianity, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, November 24, 2008 |
Religious Right Is Set Back
By Gina Liggett @ 12:01 AM
The Religious Right has been trying to breach the wall of separation of church and state for 30 years, and has enjoyed especially close access to the White House during the two Bush Administrations. They have achieved significant successes: Bush's faith-based initiatives, the partial-birth abortion ban, the passage of parental-notification laws, the Bush appointments of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and the constitutional amendments against gay marriage just passed in Florida, Arizona and California. There are doubtlessly many other successes I've left out, especially at the state and local level.
But this election, there have been some defeats; and I think it is important to highlight them in the battle between those who want to create a Christian theocracy and those who value not only religious liberty, but freedom from religious-based morality.
The first is the significant rejection by Colorado voters of Amendment 48. The passage of that amendment would have granted full legal rights to a fertilized egg, resulting in a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and the opening of a Pandora's box of legal wrangling over everything from birth control to fertility treatments to inheritance rights.
Washington state passed the nation's second assisted suicide law in the country. Now individuals who are suffering and who rationally decide to end their life with dignity have more opportunity to do so humanely. This is a "right-to-life" issue: the right to choose to control your life, and that includes ending interminable suffering. Evangelicals who want to prevent people from taking their own life into their own hands are deeply "anti-life."
Another attempt to severely ban abortion in South Dakota failed. Proponents tried to make a previous draconian abortion bill more palatable by allowing rape and incest victims or women in danger for their health to have an abortion if necessary. For anti-abortion Christians to decide on behalf of a woman what reason is good enough to justify an abortion is a negation of her right to life. An fetus has no rights to a woman's body without her consent under any circumstances.
Finally, candidates favored by the Religious Right suffered some losses at the polls. In five of eight Senate races, the Religious Right's favorite candidate lost (Colorado, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina and South Dakota); and two races are in a run-off (Georgia and Minnesota). In eleven races for the the House, six incumbent Representatives favored by the Religious Right were ousted (Colorado, Florida, Idaho, North Carolina, Michigan and Virginia). And three incumbents held off religious challengers (Indiana, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania). This means that it will be more difficult for evangelicals to forcibly decide for all of us that we should abide by a biblical morality.
While we must be ever-vigilant in upholding this most sacred of principles--the Separation of Church and State--these defeats of the Religious Right show that it can be done.Labels: Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Friday, November 21, 2008 |
Paul Hsieh LTE on Compassionate Conservatism in WSJ
By Paul Hsieh, MD @ 12:01 AM
The November 14, 2008 Wall Street Journal printed my LTE supporting the November 7, 2008 OpEd that former House Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey wrote on the future of the Republican Party.
His piece was: "'Compassionate' Conservatism Was a Mistake"
My LTE (no longer available online) read as follows:Compassionate Conservatism Is Dead. What's Next?
Dick Armey is right. Americans still want small government. Voters in Colorado rejected three tax measures to provide more social programs "for the children." But they also resoundingly rejected the antiabortion Amendment 48 (which would declare a fertilized egg a legal "person") and defeated pro-life conservative Republicans Marilyn Musgrave and Bob Schaffer.
This indicates that the Republicans would do well by turning away from the divisive "social conservative" agenda favored by the religious right and instead reaffirm limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual rights.
Otherwise, the Republicans will continue to alienate many young and independent voters and continue to lose elections.
Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo. Labels: LTE, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Wednesday, November 19, 2008 |
How The GOP Lost My Vote
By Paul Hsieh, MD @ 12:01 AM
The November 13, 2008 Denver Post has published my OpEd on the Republican Party."How the GOP lost my vote"
Paul Hsieh
After a resounding electoral defeat, in which voters in this once-red state rejected Republicans McCain, Schaffer, and Musgrave, the Colorado Republican Party will undoubtedly be asking themselves, "Why did we lose?"
I want to let them know that they lost the vote of many former supporters (including myself) because they have chosen to embrace the Religious Right.
I voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004. I believe in limited government, individual rights, free market capitalism, a strong national defense, and the right to keep and bear arms - positions that one normally associates with Republicans.
But I didn't vote for a single Republican in 2008. I've become increasingly alienated by the Republicans" embrace of the religious "social conservative" agenda, including attempts to ban abortion, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage.
The Founding Fathers correctly recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But freedom of religion also implies freedom *from* religion. As Thomas Jefferson famously put it, there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. Public policy should not be based on religious doctrines.
Instead, the government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.
If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others. Other women must have the same right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves.
The Religious Right's goal of outlawing abortions would violate that important right, and sacrifice the lives of actual women for clumps of cells that are only potential (but not yet actual) human beings, based on religious dogma. As a physician, I find that position abhorrent and deeply anti-life.
In his October 24, 2008 radio broadcast, Rush Limbaugh told pro-choice secular supporters of limited government such as myself that we should leave the Republican Party. Many of us have already taken his advice and changed our affiliation to "independent."
The Republican Party stands at an important crossroads. The Republican Party could choose to follow the principles of the American Founding Fathers and promote a limited government that protected individual rights but otherwise left people alone to live their lives.
This includes affirming the principle of the separation of church and state. If they did so, I would happily support it.
Or the Republican Party could instead choose to become the party of the Religious Right and seek to forcibly impose the religious values of one particular constituency over others (thus violating everyone else's rights).
In that case, it will continue to alienate many voters and lose elections -- and deservedly so.
Even though I no longer regard myself as a Republican, I definitely regard myself as a loyal American.
My parents immigrated legally from Taiwan to America over 40 years ago. They had very little money, but they worked hard, sent two children to college and medical school, and are now enjoying a well-earned and comfortable retirement.
Their life has been a real-life embodiment of the American dream. America is a beacon of hope to millions of people around the world precisely because our system of government allows honest, hard-working people to prosper and thrive.
Our system is a testament to the genius of the Founding Fathers, who recognized that the proper function of government is to protect individual rights, such as our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Hence, I believe the Republican Party should choose the first path - the path of limited government, separation of church and state, and protection of individual rights.
This is the America that brought my parents from a ocean away in hopes of a better life for themselves and their children. This is the America I want to live in. And this is the America I want the Republican Party to stand for.
Paul Hsieh is a practicing physician in the south Denver metro area and co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM). He lives in Sedalia. Labels: Abortion, Op-Ed, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Friday, November 14, 2008 |
Southern Baptist Convention: For the Separation of Church and State, But...
By Gina Liggett @ 12:01 AM
The next in my series of profiles of the Religious Right is the political arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.
The Southern Baptist Convention, with a yearly revenue over $200 million dollars, represents over 42,000 Baptist churches in the U.S., holds an annual convention, and sponsors missionary campaigns all over the world to spread their gospel and build more Baptist churches. The Southern Baptists explicitly lay out their basic beliefs, such as the Bible being written by divinely-inspired men, that those who accept Christ as their savior will go to Heaven and those who don't will go to Hell, and that a "wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband," etc, etc.
The Southern Baptist stance on "Religious Liberty" is this: "Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal."
Even Richard Land, the head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, speaks like a strong advocate of church-state separation -- but not because he's a man of reason, but because it would ultimately threaten religious belief: "I do not want state-sponsored religion, because state-sponsored religion destroys religion. And it interferes with what I call, and Pope John Paul II called, the 'sacred sanctuary of the soul.' No government has a right to interfere with a person’s relationship with God."
That ideal would be compatible with what the Founding Fathers wrote in the freedom-of-religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. But actions speak louder than words. And Richard Land and his Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission have been on the front lines of the religious invasion of Republican Party politics for years.
Joining other Religious Right activists' frustration with getting the Republicans to advance their public policy agenda, Richard Land said in 1998: "The go-along, get-along strategy is dead. No more engagement. We want a wedding ring, we want a ceremony, we want a consummation of the marriage."
It was time for the Religious Right to consolidate their forces and push the Republican party to impose Christian morals on society by outlawing abortion, censoring pornography, prohibiting marriage between homosexual adults, reintroducing prayer in the schools, obtaining tax deferrals for tuition at religious and private schools, and eliminating financial support for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Looking to the 2000 election, Land said, "It's time for candidates who will not only work with us, but for candidates who are us." Well, they got their man, George W. Bush, and Richard Land couldn't be happier with the results: "There's no question this is the most receptive White House to our concerns and to our perspective of any White House that I've dealt with, and I've dealt with every White House from Reagan on." The Bush administration has been right in step with what the Southern Baptists claim the bible says about their most significant social issues of "abortion,.. homosexuality,.. [and] anti-obscenity enforcement."
Much to their dismay, the Bush administration is over. The fact remains that the Southern Baptists are blatant hypocrites when comes to their dogma about religious freedom. Despite their self-interested credo supporting the separation of church and state, they nonetheless have deeply entrenched themselves within the Republican political machinery to impose a religious morality on all Americans. Consider Land's own words about the Religious Right's fight against gay marriage:
We believe that marriage is a divinely ordained institution... In a representative democracy like the United States, if we believe that certain lifestyles should be affirmed and other lifestyles should be merely tolerated, we have a right to have that made into law. And that's not called a theocracy... We want a federal marriage amendment to keep the judiciary from forcing a secularist agenda on this country that this country does not want in the area of marriage. The only way to protect ourselves from that, given the current power of the judiciary, is to trump the judiciary by passing an amendment to the Constitution, which is aimed like a rifle -- not a shotgun, but a rifle -- at same-sex union. What could better exemplify not only this hypocrisy but what Ayn Rand calls the corollaries of faith and force? The Southern Baptists have lost their poster-boy, but they haven't lost the will to fight. And neither should we.Labels: Christianity, Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Wednesday, November 12, 2008 |
Paul Hsieh's Letter to the Editor on the Republican Party
By Paul Hsieh, MD @ 12:01 AM
In the wake of their massive 2008 electoral defeat, the Republican Party is going through a process of self-examination.
Some Republicans, such as former House Majority leader Dick Armey (now chairman of FreedomWorks) are arguing that the Republicans should turn away from the agenda of the Religious Right, and instead stand for small government and fiscal responsibility.
Mr. Armey states his case in this November 7, 2008 OpEd in the Wall Street Journal, "'Compassionate' Conservatism Was a Mistake".
Other Republicans, such as former Congressman J.C. Watts (at one time the number 4 ranking Republican in the House), argue that the Republican Party needs to cater more to the Religious Right.
Mr. Watts states his case in this November 9, 2008 OpEd in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Winning football and winning politics".
I believe that Dick Armey is on the right track and J.C. Watts is on the wrong track. Hence, I was pleased when the November 11, 2008 Las Vegas Review-Journal printed my LTE on this topic (fourth one down the page):GOP recipe
J.C. Watts is prescribing the exact wrong formula for the Republican Party's problems (Review-Journal, Nov. 9).
I'm an independent voter who supports strong national defense, fiscal responsibility and individual rights (including Second Amendment rights). But I did not vote Republican in 2008 precisely because of their alliance with the Religious Right.
Americans still want small government. In my home "swing" state of Colorado, voters rejected three tax increases to provide more social programs "for the children." But they also resoundingly rejected the anti-abortion Amendment 48 (which would declare a fertilized egg a legal "person") and defeated pro-life conservative Republicans Marilyn Musgrave and Bob Schaffer.
If Republicans reaffirmed the principles of limited government and separation of church and state, then I'd be happy to support them again. But if they stay in bed with the Religious Right, they will continue to alienate many independent voters and lose elections. And deservedly so.
PAUL HSIEH
SEDALIA, CO Labels: LTE, Politics
|
E-mail Paul Hsieh, MD
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Monday, November 10, 2008 |
Time to Speak
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
GOP aims to rebuild, refocus:
Colorado Republicans, sifting through the ashes of three disastrous election cycles, are in the midst of a vigorous debate over how to win again in a state where their future looks bleak.
That struggle is likely to play out over the next few months, key players say, starting with a fight over the party's leadership.
Insiders say big defeats Tuesday at the presidential, Senate and House levels could play out two ways: an invigorating period of rebuilding and new ideas or a divisive fight over the party's direction that could debilitate it for years. The Democrats might be the big winners in 2008, but advocates of individual rights should take advantage of the Republican defeat by clearly and forcefully arguing for a separation of the GOP from Jesus. You can tell your state and local Republican Party officials that they will continue to lose elections unless they reject the theocratic ambitions of the religious right.
To win, the GOP must become the party that champions fiscal responsibility and individual rights. More particularly, as Ari Armstrong has argued, the Republican Party can form a winning coalition based on (1) religious freedom, (2) freedom of speech, (3) free trade and economic freedom, (4) immigration sanity, and (5) a foreign policy for America. If the GOP does that, it might just recover from the evangelical legacy of "W."Labels: Politics
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Thursday, November 6, 2008 |
Election Results
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
Ari Armstrong has a great review of Colorado's election results vis-à-vis the religious right. In essence, "by hitching their party to the religious right, Republicans have driven themselves to overwhelming losses." I couldn't be happier about that!
In particular, Amendment 48 -- the measure that would have granted full legal rights to fertilized eggs -- was beaten by a stunning margin: 72% against and 27% in favor (91% of precincts reporting). That means that such "zygotes are people too" measures likely won't be tried again in the near future. Or, if they are, they likely won't gather much support.
I'm quite pleased with the small part that the Coalition for Secular Government played in the defeat of Amendment 48. Unlike the "No on 48" campaign, we focused on the fundamental philosophic issue, namely whether a zygote (or fetus) is a person. You can find the full list of our op-eds, letters, to the editor, and press releases at the bottom of this page. Our issue paper -- Amendment 48 is Anti-Life -- was downloaded over 3700 times.
Go read Ari's blog post for the full details, plus more good news for secular government in Colorado. Also, in another blog post, he argues that the Republican Party can create a new winning coalition -- if it embraces the right principles. I hope they're listening.Labels: Amendment 48, Politics
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Friday, October 31, 2008 |
Gay Marriage Should Be Recognized by Law
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 PM
The Ayn Rand Institute just published a good press release on California's Proposition 8, arguing that it should be opposed on the ground of the separation of church and state:
Church and State: A Marriage Not Made in Heaven
October 31, 2008
Washington, D.C.--Californians will soon have the chance to vote on Proposition 8, which would define marriage in the state constitution as being only between a man and a woman, denying marriage to same-sex couples. The proposition is heavily supported by the religious community. Said one religious leader who supports the measure, "We believe it is a religious issue as well as a political issue. That's where we feel the Church must have a word."
According to Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, "Regardless of how one thinks 'marriage' should be defined, there's a much graver issue at stake: this is a flagrant attempt to inject religion into politics.
"As our Founders understood, religion is properly a private matter--not a legitimate basis for government action. The government's only role is to protect our rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Under our secular political system, individuals are free to hold any religious views they wish, but they cannot impose their views on the rest of us. That is the meaning of freedom of religion.
"Once we accept the view that the 'Church must have a word' in the political sphere, we are accepting a principle completely opposed to freedom. If gay marriage can be barred because, as one supporter of Prop. 8 put it, 'I don't think God has ordained it,' then why, for instance, can't speech that similarly offends religionists also be banned? Indeed, this is the very principle that motivates the religious right's crusade against broadcast 'indecency'--and the brutal principle that recently led the Afghani government to sentence a journalism student to 20 years in prison for blasphemy.
"The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of liberty. It protects our right to live by our own judgment, free from the dictates of ministers and mullahs. To protect that right, we should oppose any attempt to bring religion into politics." I wholeheartedly support gay marriage. Why? As I explained in this NoodleFood post:
The essence of marriage is the total integration of two lives: sexually, legally, socially, financially, geographically, sexually, morally, etc. The fact that most marriages involve two people with contrasting genitalia is not of any grand significance. My husband's and my relationship is likely to be far more similar to that of a loving gay couple also living by the philosophy of Objectivism than to many common types of straight marriages. My marriage does not much resemble that of a couple voluntarily celibate to better worship God, that of a couple together only due to fear of being alone, that of a couple prone to violent arguments, or that of a couple prone to cheating, for example. Such people can marry -- and they ought to be able to do so. And if such a diversity of relationships counts as marriage, then surely a loving, stable gay couple should be able to marry too.
In short, I see no rational basis whatsoever to limit marriage to just straight couples. In fact, I'm quite certain that gay marriages would be recognized in every state in the union were it not for the faith-driven (and often frighteningly hateful) hostility of fundamentalist Christians to homosexuality.Labels: Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Thursday, October 30, 2008 |
Does God Want Higher Taxes?
By Ari @ 12:01 AM
Reposted:) The Denver Post reports:
Rabbi Joel Schwartzman of Congregation B'nai Chaim in Morrison gathered with faith leaders from across the state in support of Amendment 59.
Called "Embracing the Common Good," the campaign has mobilized more than 2,500 Colorado congregations, including Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews, to vote in favor of the amendment, which focuses on the creation of a savings account for public schools.
"If you're Jewish, you vote for this," Schwartzman said. Oh, really? I suspect I could come up with a list of quite a few Jewish people who intend to vote against it, and who would take Schwartzman's condescending attitude with offense. His comment is rather like telling all blacks, whites, Hispanics, Catholics, Muslims, etc. that they will "vote for this," whatever "this" is.
While there is a Judeo-Christian impetus toward altruism, which often manifests as support for the welfare state, quite a few religious people don't approve of higher taxes and don't think God demands them. I wonder why Sally Ho, author of the report, didn't talk to some of those people.
But the broader point is that the alleged will of God, however that's interpreted by various groups, should have nothing to do with politics.
At least House Speaker Andrew Romanoff offered a nonsectarian argument for the net tax hike: "We believe budgets are moral documents which must embody the common good and reflect our shared responsibility to each other." Romanoff's view is not tied to any religion (though it is indirectly inspired by Judeo-Christian altruism); it is a bald assertion of leftist collectivism. I do agree that we have a "responsibility to each other:" we have a responsibility to respect each other's rights. Romanoff believes that the majority has the "responsibility" to seize by force the wealth of the minority and redistribute it to others. But legalized theft hardly makes society as a whole better off.
As for me and my house, we advocate individual rights.Labels: Politics
|
E-mail Ari
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Wednesday, October 29, 2008 |
Beauprez Reminds Voters of Schaffer's Faith-Based Politics
By Ari @ 12:01 AM
Reposted: Bob Beauprez, former congressman and failed candidate for governor, has reminded voters that U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer opposes abortion and embryonic stem-cell research. Yet Beauprez's own faith-based politics cost him big in 2006, when he earned only 40 percent of the votes. While Beauprez made a number of campaign mistakes, his own commitment to faith-based politics, as well as an even more pronounced commitment by his running mate, alienated many moderate Republicans and independents. Will Beauprez bring the same magic touch to Schaffer's race?
Mike Riley reviews Beauprez's efforts for the Denver Post:
Former U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez is blanketing the state with recorded calls that take aim at Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall... The calls are targeted at Catholic voters...
Voters who receive the robo-calls hear Beauprez's voice talking about the "five non-negotiables" of Catholic doctrine — opposition to abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, embryonic stem-cell research and human cloning.
He tells listeners that Udall is on the wrong side of each, and he lauds Udall's opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer. It's not clear that the calls will help Schaffer even among Catholics. One recent poll found that 51 percent of Catholics believe "Abortion should be legal and solely up to the woman to decide." More broadly, Beauprez reminds voters that the Republican Party in Colorado is all about imposing sectarian dogma by law.
What's repulsive is that Beauprez calls his faith-based policies "values issues." What is valuable is a government that respects individual rights. One that violates individual rights by enforcing religious law destroys values.Labels: Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Ari
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
| Friday, October 24, 2008 |
More Religious than the Religious Right: The Chalcedon Foundation
By Gina Liggett @ 12:01 AM
Americans United for Separation of Church and State conducted a recent study contradicting media reports about the decline of the Religious Right's influence. According to this study, not only do many of these organizations have multi-million dollar (and in some cases growing) budgets, but also plenty of political influence. And these organizations mean it when they say: "Are we losing America unless we take action now? The answer is yes!"
I will be doing a series of profiles of some of the major Religious Right organizations in America. My goal is to inform readers about who these various players are and how they plan to change America according to their religious beliefs. The question for rational people who want to preserve the Constitutional principle of the separation of church and state is: "Are we losing America if we allow the Religious Right to succeed? The answer is yes!"
My first profile is the Chalcedon Foundation (pronounced, Kal-SEE-don). Calling itself an "educational institution," it was founded in 1965 by Rousas John Rushdoony, considered by many to be the father of the "Christian Reconstructionist" movement. This sector of the Religious Right is most analogous to Islamic fundamentalism in its promotion of an American (and eventually world-wide) Christian theocracy. But the difference is that the Chalcedon Foundation hopes to achieve their heaven-on-earth by promoting Christianity through scholarship and education so that people "embrace" biblical ideas rather than having them "imposed" by government.
The Chalcedon Foundation explicitly and unabashedly declares: We believe that the whole Word of God must be applied to all of life. It is not only our duty as individuals, families and churches to be Christian, but it is also the duty of the state, the school, the arts and sciences, law, economics, and every other sphere to be under Christ the King. Nothing is exempt from His dominion. We must live by His Word, not our own. Created as a response to the "prevalent evils of the modern world," particularly secular humanism, Christian Reconstructionists believe that it is necessary to "return to Biblical Law, ... exercising dominion and reclaiming lost spheres of authority for Christ the King." So, they say, "the role of every earthly government including family government, church government, school government, vocational government, and civil government is to submit to Biblical law."
There are several areas the Chalcedon Foundation emphasizes in order to elucidate how they will "work for godly cultural change across the entire spectrum of life." My assessment of each point follows in italics.
1. They believe that "sinners are saved solely on the ground of Christ's substitutionary, atoning death and law-keeping life, the passive and active obedience of Christ... [N]o law-keeping or works of any kind that man can perform could in any way secure or contribute to his justification or acceptance before God."
Biblical law and faith in God is absolute, and human-derived morality is "cursed." Therefore, a reality-based, reason-based philosophy of life is out of the question.
2. While the Christian Reconstructionists believe that "the Christian state should enforce Biblical civil law... and that the responsibility of Christians is to exercise dominion in the earth for God's glory," they explicitly renounce a desire to achieve this by political means. They claim that it is God -- not political-social change -- that will make men virtuous and thereby create a Christian society.
Although they actually go as far as to say that the purpose of the state is to protect "life, liberty and property" (no mention of the pursuit of happiness), what can only result is a dictatorship of the majority of converts. In their own words, "there can be no Christian society of any significance or longevity unless a large number of its members are Christians."
3. Christian Reconstructionists disavow the power of human "efforts, ingenuity, and strength...to bring in the kingdom of God on the earth," claiming that such would constitute a form of "humanism."
They are, in effect, saying that human action for human benefit is impotent, advocating instead passive reliance on faith in God's mandates.
4. They deny advocating state persecution for religious beliefs: "Biblical civil legislation is for a covenanted nation, not for modern, secular Western democracies at war with God. Our first objective is to work to Christianize them."
In other words, once the majority convert to the proper Christianity, then they will simply do what the Bible says should be done with non-believers.
5. Children of Christian parents are considered "saved," but they still must be taught the gospel: "We nourish and bathe them in the gospel and the Faith and train them up as Christians (Eph. 6:1-4), as God's property (Ezek. 16:8, 20-21)".
Children are to be obedient to Christian teaching; their lives are not their own; and forget any dreams of pursuing happiness as an end in itself.
6. The Chalcedon Foundation's promotion of Christian "scholarship" means: "The Bible forbids and condemns godless, faithless scholarship, not godly faithful scholarship (1 Cor. 1:18-31; 1 Tim. 4:13)."
This total rejection of the human mind and reality-based knowledge is the epitome of the "faith" versus "reason" divide that has condemned humanity to a life of misery for centuries in the past.
7. Here's the final clincher: "A guiding principle of Chalcedon, in fact, is its devotion to maximum individual freedom under God's law."
This is the ultimate contradiction-in-terms. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, freedom exists when a society upholds the individual's right to his own life and the pursuit of his happiness according to his independent judgment, uncoerced by others or the state. But in the Christian Reconstructionist's world, man is defined as a sinner whose life belongs to God, who accepts only faith in God's word as knowledge, who dutifully condones a society governed strictly by God's biblical laws, and who obeys the moral commandments of the Bible. Such a man can have no individual freedom. Chalcedon's Christian nation would be a Christian dictatorship.
The Chalcedon Foundation had a booth at this year's Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., where the most elite and well-connected of the Religious Right pow-wowed. A writer for Americans United observed that the Christian Reconstructionists's presence at the Summit was unprecedented, an indication that the Religious Right cares less about appearing "mainstream" to Americans and more about changing the culture.
The Chalcedon Foundation's attempt to appeal to Americans by saying they're for freedom and against imposing their views politically is not to be believed. Everything they stand for, everything they hope for, can only lead to one thing: Christian dictatorship. Their ideas must be trounced at every opportunity.Labels: Politics, Religion
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
PermaLink ()
Comments
|
|
