Jackson Free Press

Rick Perlstein of The Village Voice writes:

No matter what claims George Bush makes to another term now, we can't know without seeing Ohio's provisional ballots what voters here intended to say. By law, those ballots can't be counted until 11days after the election. Already the pundits are calling for John Kerry to let it go, to pull back from seeking a full accounting. There's a very good chance that even if the provisional ballots—perhaps 250,000 in all—are counted, Bush will still have won re-election by a very small margin. Two or three percentage points in that single state will probably have made all the difference. And if Bush manages to pull it out—maybe he won't—in the next four years a thousand theories will bloom about what factors might have made those few points fall his way instead of Kerry's.

Here is one that you probably won't be hearing on CNN, rooted in my reporting of the last two years.

It begins with the figure of Minister James Dobson, the radio preacher and the mover and the shaker behind the outfit called "Focus on the Family." Dobson has devoted his recent broadcasts to the proposition that a certain bill Senator Edward M. Kennedy wishes to pass, with the intention of providing federal penalties to thugs who beat up people for reasons of sexual orientation, is actually an opening wedge to anti-Christian pogroms. Dobson and his cohorts have been railing that is not just a step but a giant leap down the same slippery slope that found a Swedish minister named Ake Green sentenced to prison for preaching against homosexuality from his pulpit.

Here's a version of that line, from the Maryland Family Values Alliance, which claims—and the claim is typical in evangelical circles—that passage of Senator Kennedy's bill "would literally throw open the door to attacks against people of faith, who could be prosecuted with federal monies for expressing their views on homosexuality!"

Or Google a text entitled "The Freedoms Christians Might Lose in This Election," by Dr. John Ankerberg. It is one of a nearly limitless train of sermons that tie a vote for John Kerry, the bill from Ted Kennedy, and the fate of Ake Green into a single, smoldering, horrifying knot.

Now go to senate.gov, type in S. 966 after clicking the tab reading "Legislation and Records," and read Kennedy'sbill. Read it forward, backwards, sideways, inside out, and see for yourself that it says nothing of the kind.

Think about the fact that George Bush has relied on the diffusion of lies like this in order to win his majority tonight; that he couldn't win without the widespread diffusion of such lies.

Previous Comments

ID

85903

Comment

I don't know about y'all, but I'm ready to rumble about "morals," and what this word means to various people. Let's talk.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T09:55:14-06:00

ID

85904

Comment

My rumbling is going to have to wait until thursday or friday. Today, I'm catching up on all the work that didn't get done yesterday.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-03T10:14:25-06:00

ID

85905

Comment

I hear you. Actually, I'm too tired to rumble much today, but we do need to on this. There is so much work to be done, and the silver lining today is that it is going to become painfully apparent to more people. American freedoms as we know them are in serious trouble, but my eternal optimism says that now, finally, people will be forced to realize just how serious. It's going to be painful to get there, and Lord help on the Supreme Court.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T10:17:44-06:00

ID

85906

Comment

I personally think a better word to use rather than "morals" is "values." And it seems that the values of a Northeastern liberal senator were less attractive to the majority of Americans than those of a conservative Texas governor/president. There were statements from both sides of the debate that weren't worth the time to read. I would also state, for every lie or exaggeration or half-truth or fact-twist found on a lips of a religious or conservative or Republican person, there will be at least one or more corresponding lie or exaggeration or half-truth or fact-twist found on a anti-religious or liberal or Democratic person. While it seems that I was correct in predicting a Bush victory, I think it is worth stating that an argument could be made against him - I wasn't buying it, but an argument could be made. I hope Kerry supporters will be angry for a couple days and then come to the realization that Bush won again - and let's find a way to work together - for a better Mississippi...

Author

Fielding

Date

2004-11-03T10:22:51-06:00

ID

85907

Comment

Fielding, I figured you'd find your voice again this a.m. Why don't you list those values that Bush supports that Kerry doesn't, and let's discuss them, one by one. Please. And don't use the word "anti-religious" here. That's a lie told by the religious right, and it's not going to help your case. It's not about anger, Fielding. It's about how to keep America from becoming a theocracy that takes away all of our freedoms. But we have to be angry whenever someone tries to take away our freedoms that our "angry" founders wisely gave us. This is an extremely radical president -- the so-called "Culture War" at this point is between the radical right and everyone else. Everyone else can't roll over and let the radical right have this country.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T10:27:24-06:00

ID

85908

Comment

Kerry just conceded. The new day is offically here. Everyone go get some exercise. That's the first thing Todd did this morning is rouse me out of bed to go for a long walk. Nader's wish is coming true.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T10:31:40-06:00

ID

85909

Comment

Andrew Sullivan today on Karl Rove's gay card: I've been trying to think of what to say about what appears to be the enormous success the Republicans had in using gay couples' rights to gain critical votes in key states. In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all. Their legal ability to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to have legal protections for their children has been gutted. If you are a gay couple living in Alabama, you know one thing: your family has no standing under the law; and it can and will be violated by strangers. I'm not surprised by this. When you put a tiny and despised minority up for a popular vote, the minority usually loses. But it is deeply, deeply dispiriting nonetheless. A lot of gay people are devastated this morning, and terrified. We have seen, and not for the first time, how using fear of a minority can be so effective a tool in building a political movement. The single most important issue for Republican voters, according to exit polls, was not the war on terror or Iraq or the economy. It was "moral values." Karl Rove understood the American psyche better than I did. By demonizing gay couples, the Republicans were able to bring in whole swathes of new anti-gay believers into their party. With new senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, two of the most anti-gay politicians in America, we can only brace ourselves for what is now coming. FEDERALISM WORKS: At the same time, gays can still appeal to the fair-minded center. After fanning the flames of fear for much of the year, the president himself recently came out in favor of civil unions. That puts him at odds with the initiatives passed so easily across the country. I do not believe a majority exists for denying gay couples legally protected relationships. The national exit polls showed that 27 percent support marriage rights, 37 percent support civil unions and only 35 percent want to keep gay couples from having any rights at all. There are still many states where it is safe to be a gay couple or an openly gay person. We have the right to marry in one state, and in that state, pro-equality legislators were all re-elected handily. In California, we are on the brink of having almost-equality under the law. Around the civilized world, gay relationships are increasingly accepted as worthy of dignity and respect. The passage of so many anti-gay amendments in so many states reduces the need, by any rational measure, for a federal amendment that would scar the Constitution with discrimination. We need therefore to be even more emphatic about the need for a federalist response to an issue best left to the states. If we can avoid the FMA, we can live to fight another day.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T10:35:51-06:00

ID

85910

Comment

More Sullivan: Cheap, easy victories based on untruth and fear and cynicism are pyrrhic ones. In time, they will fall. So hold your heads up high. Do not give in to despair. Do not let the Republican party rob you of your hopes. This is America. Equality will win in the end.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T10:36:46-06:00

ID

85911

Comment

My first thought this morning was how could anyone in this country really think, much less believe, that George W. Bush is a truly moral man? According Merriam Webster online, moral means of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior. What could be right about how he's behaved in conducting this country's business, from No Child Left Behind to the war in Iraq to the weakening of protections of our environment? And that's just a miniscule representation of the areas of Americans lives that the man has messed with while supposedly applying his ethical, virtuous, righteous, noble (all synonyms for moral at Merriam-Webster online) self to the job. Bush ethical, virtuous, righteous, noble? More like delusional.

Author

Lynette Hanson

Date

2004-11-03T10:40:57-06:00

ID

85912

Comment

People are defining "moral" as the right to tell other people how to live their livesónot in helping the poor and doing good deeds. And there's nothing "moral" about that. It's like Jim Crow all over again, using bigotry to further political ends. The source of the Southern Strategy's bigotry may have shifted, but it's the same old game and, ironically, the result still hurts the people who were targeted during Jim Crow, while benefitting the very same people. And we've got to fight it all over again. America is better than this. As Sullivan said above, "In time they will fail." And as Bob Moses says, "Freedom is a struggle."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T10:45:48-06:00

ID

85913

Comment

so much for extending an olive branch, I guess... "The 7-Hour Presidency of JFK2 Let the vicious backbiting begin. "This year, Kerry voters were angrier, so angry that they lined up at the polls as soon as they could in the morning and got disproportionately counted by the NEP survey-takers. Unfortunately, they could only vote once, and their vote was cancelled by the less angry Republicans who sauntered in later in the day. Just a theory." Mickey Kaus - Slate "We're witnessing the political equivalent of Gettysburg. The Democrats needed to win this election to turn their prospects around. They needed the White House to win back the Supreme Court. They needed a pliable Senate to water down or halt the House Republicans. They failed, utterly. The Democrats and all of their institutions (the media, academia, unions, Hollywood, etc.) threw everything they had into this election. Their 527s outspent the Right. They knocked Nader off a vast number of ballots. They juiced turnout to unprecedented levels. They created documentaries. The lied about the draft. They lied about their candidate. They lied about stolen munitions. They fabricated memos. They even got an assist from the now completely discredited exit polls. And they lost." Robert Moran NR online yes, freedom is a struggle, and the values of the majority of the country seem to have won this struggle - again - I don't always chime in on the posts I see, but I do try to keep up with your point of view even though I often disagree and by the way, the term "anti-religious" is a legitimate label... just because you don't agree with someone and their "morals" or their "values" doesn't make them a bigot, Donna -

Author

Fielding

Date

2004-11-03T11:06:28-06:00

ID

85914

Comment

Um, if they're bigoted about gay people, then yes, they are bigots. 'Anti religous' probably needs defining before we fight over it. And, is that quote from Moran supposed to be an olive branch? Losing isn't changing my mind about anything...

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-03T11:20:20-06:00

ID

85915

Comment

so much for extending an olive branch, I guess... Hmmm, Fielding, I never said I would reject an olive branch from you. I just didn't see you offering one. You're standing in a far-right corner, it seems, holding an olive branch two inches in front of you, telling us the rest of us if we come all the way over there and accept your "values" that you'll work with us. Where are you willing to go to reach this so-called unity? The same question for Bush? Not far, it seems, at least so far. You have come on here and flippantly said that it's about "values," not "morals," as if that's supposed to just explain everything away. You haven't actually talked about what those "values" are, although I've asked you, and now you're offended because I believe that someone who is bigoted enough against gay people to want them discriminated against in federal or state law is a bigot. I suppose you would argue that's their "values," not bigotry. The Christians who supported slavery and then Jim Crow argued then that the right to discriminate against black people was their "values." You do know where the "Mississippi values" phrase originally came from, right? And, Fielding, "anti-religious" is ONLY a legitimate term to use for people who are actually "anti-religious"ónot for ones who happen to disagree with your definition of religion. And I know very, very few people who are "anti-religious," although I know many extremely religious peopleóChristians and otherwiseówho do not believe it's the government's job to legislate religion -- not that the government can do such a thing. So please don't throw easy labels around here, including "angry" and "anti-religious," and then accuse others of not taking your "olive branch." That's patronizing and disingenuous, at best.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T11:42:02-06:00

ID

85916

Comment

Also, here's an example of "vicious backbiting" if I've seen one yet today: The Democrats and all of their institutions (the media, academia, unions, Hollywood, etc.) threw everything they had into this election. Their 527s outspent the Right. They knocked Nader off a vast number of ballots. They juiced turnout to unprecedented levels. They created documentaries. The lied about the draft. They lied about their candidate. They lied about stolen munitions. They fabricated memos. They even got an assist from the now completely discredited exit polls. Uh, you quoted this above, Fielding. Nice.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T11:43:40-06:00

ID

85917

Comment

I don't profess one bit to being a "political person," so I don't know why I'm expressing myself here. Actually, I do know. It's the profound sadness I feel at the outcome of this election that made me click on the link to this forum. I so much wanted change, and now that's gone. I'm sad. And it has, in large part, to do with the war in Iraq. I'm remembering when I first heard about Vietnam, back when I was in the 7th grade and my social studies teacher, a great big guy named Mr. White who reminded us all of Yogi Bear, told us that he might be called to fight in Southeast Asia. By the time I was a sophomore in college, my high school crush had been shot in the head in Vietnam, saved from certain death only by his jawbone's deflecting the bullet, spending six weeks wearing a pair of scissors on a chain around his neck so that he could cut open his wired-shut jaws if he started to choke. Later, on a field trip to Washington, D. C. with my elementary-school-aged sons and their classmates, we toured the Vietnam Memorial where the vivid physical evidence of lives lost, brain power never to be used again for the good of humanity, almost made me fall to my knees, looking at my own little boys and wondering what in the world would their future bring. Now that they're 29 and 26, I know what's here--men and women dying and being maimed in Iraq, parents and other loved ones aching, being torn into shreds by grief, not just Americans, either. And as I look around at the middle school where I work, I wonder how many of these young people will end up in Iraq, years from now. I'm saddened beyond measure for them.

Author

Lynette Hanson

Date

2004-11-03T11:51:14-06:00

ID

85918

Comment

Wow. I didn't realize how crappy I would feel today in the wake of Kerry's loss. I was really expecting the turnout to be much different than the results showed. This election really united a lot of different groups (who normally don't have much to do with one another) in an effort to remove the president from office. I felt so good about what was happening. Four years ago, I turned to my friend James and we relayed to one another how scared we were that George W. Bush was going to be running our country. Today, that fear has manifested iteself into something much greater. It is so frustrating to think how many people actually went yesterday and checked the box next to Dubya's name. The politics of fear has an unsettling kind of power in this country. The GOP truly scared up a win in this election. I vow not be discouraged though. My voice is only going to get louder in the next four years.

Author

kp

Date

2004-11-03T11:53:10-06:00

ID

85919

Comment

I know, Lynette. My heart breaks for our current and future soldiers as well, and I'm not believing that they will all have a choice. Democrats did not "lie" about a draft; the administration has talked about plans for one. We know this. And common sense tells us how much one might be needed in one form or another. On this point, ignorance is bliss until the day one, or one's family member, is called up. BTW, Fielding, here is the definition of "bigot" and "bigotry": big?ot?ry †† †P†††Pronunciation Key††(bg-tr) n. The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance. Source: The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition bigotry Big"ot*ry, n. [Cf. F. bigoterie.] 1. The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them. 2. The practice or tenets of a bigot. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary bigotry n : the intolerance and prejudice of a bigot [syn: dogmatism] Source: WordNet Æ 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T11:57:08-06:00

ID

85920

Comment

I vow not be discouraged though. My voice is only going to get louder in the next four years. Good for you, KP. This is what we must do: Keep talking about what matters, promote unity in whatever we can without sacrificing true American ideals of freedom and pluralism, focus on the local and improving our own postage stamps. It also doesn't help to get into yelling matches with people who have no interest in hearing anything except what they believe already. But I do not believe that's the majority, although they're damned loud and have Karl Rove feeding them lines. Stay focused on deeds and helping people even when yuck-yucks call you a "damned liberal" and believe that American ideals are stronger than zealotry. Yesterday was a battle and a test of us all, I believe. Keep the faith.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T12:00:54-06:00

ID

85921

Comment

Thanks for the true defnition of bigotry, Donna, because on that subject... I wanted to mention in my previous post about the other thing that suprised me about the elections last night....this gay amendment issue. Now I didn't have much faith in the majority of Mississippians vote to begin with, but 86 FREAKIN Percent voted yes for this asinine amendment???? That's why I left Alabama immediately after graduation from UA. I didn't realize the hypocracy in Mississippi had grown so ridiculous in the 5 years I've been gone.

Author

kp

Date

2004-11-03T12:07:24-06:00

ID

85922

Comment

That's why I left Alabama immediately after graduation from UA. I didn't realize the hypocracy in Mississippi had grown so ridiculous in the 5 years I've been gone. I know, KP, the target of bigotry has been shifted, but make no mistake (or excuse), it is still the textbook definition of bigotry. BUT, and here's the important part, don't leave. Or don't cut and run, as some would say. Freedom and America are worth fighting for, with style and grace and determination and information (like the real definition of bigotry). The future is for the passionate, as Bruce Springsteen said. BTW, since Fielding basically accused Democrats above of being big, fat liars, be sure to keep up with the actual facts and distortions, by both camps, at http://www.factcheck.org . They are going to keep going after the election. Hopefully, they will factcheck the president every day from now on out.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T12:17:11-06:00

ID

85923

Comment

Factchecking is the way to go, for sure. Next is posting the truth, or the links to where to find the truth. That way, citizens can make up their own minds without the bias and interference of special interest groups, be they the media, PACs or just people of good hearts who have been fed untruths ny the unscupulous.

Author

Lynette Hanson

Date

2004-11-03T12:21:21-06:00

ID

85924

Comment

this weather fits my mood well. the few non-W supporters where i work are optimistic, despite what's transpired. this Sutton Impact sums it up nicely... http://villagevoice.com/issues/0444/sutton.php onward.

Author

Jay

Date

2004-11-03T12:47:19-06:00

ID

85925

Comment

Wow, that's an amazing cartoon, Jay. Thanks! Here's an optimistic piece from Wiretap writer Adrienne Maree Brown that I like: We won! [...] Now is the time to work the network of our will. No one thought we could mobilize an ëapatheticí constituency. From Portland to Tallahassee to Cincinnati ñ we did it, we turned out not only young voters but young mothers, young black men, young folks from the most disenfranchised communities in the country. And no one thought we could make it sexy. In Albuquerque they rocked bikinis in the snow. In Milwaukee they spit fresh spoken word to keep the long lines of young folks at the polls. Now comes the challenge. It has been our love for each other and our need for better lives for ourselves that got us this far. Our work is not done. Long-term plan y'all: donít sleep. Now we sit on our hands and we close our eyes and we will it into being. We must not budge until we get our way. We must not move until each and every one of our votes are counted. We must maximize this victory of ours by lobbying and marching and running our folks for office and making sure we carry our power past the election. We have done all we can do today. But what a gorgeous and powerful tomorrow awaits us.[...] I want to write these words to my generation: Have hope. We are willing to work hard. We are prepared to stand all day and all night and shout and call each other and text message and blog and and hope hope hope against all odds that being right and strategic will change our lives. Do not lose hope now, no matter what the polls say, no matter what the results are. We are stronger than we have ever been, and our strength will only grow as we come to understand that our victories are not for one party or another but for young people all over the globe.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T12:52:49-06:00

ID

85926

Comment

Re that cartoon: It's funny how every Bush supporter we hear from says *they* don't support the nasty stuff. So who's supporting the nasty stuff then? The bigotry? The southern strategy? The Patriot Acts? The profiling of Muslims and Arabs? Seems it's always someone else's fault. I have a feeling that we're not the only ones feeling a little dreary today; truly moderate Republicans must be wondering just what monster they've built -- a monster that now has a mandate to change the U.S. into a theocracy? I suspect there are some new and interesting coalitions on the horizon. There's some more hope. Keep the faith.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T12:55:55-06:00

ID

85927

Comment

My daughter and I grieved over the phone together this morning. We had such hope that maybe there could be a change. I see that she(kp) has written also thinking may it will help ease the anger/pain and other feelings that I am experiencing as the news people keep interrupting the soap operas I'm trying to use as an escape. The fact that black people in Ms could support a gay marriage amendment screaming prejudice and that does not even occur to them just amazes me.

Author

Debbie

Date

2004-11-03T13:00:21-06:00

ID

85928

Comment

Maybe this is a good time to mention the Speaking of Faith program on NPR from last Sunday. This one is about Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian theologian in Germany who tried to help assassinate Adolf Hitler several times and was executed in prison three weeks before the Third Reich fell. This is a fascinating program and interview with a filmmaker who has done a documentary about his life and Christian teachings. I want to get the film and maybe do a screening somewhere. YOu can listen to the entire program at that link. In the show, they talk a lot about Bonhoeffer's faith, even amid insurmountable (for him) odds, and how he defines faith: One passage from a speech: There is no way to peace along the way of safety. For peace must be dared, it is itself the great venture, and can never be safe. Peace is the opposite of security. To demand guarantees is to mistrust, and this mistrust in turn brings forth war. To look for guarantees is to want to protect oneself. Peace means giving oneself completely to God's commandment, wanting no security, but in faith and obedience laying the destiny of the nations in the hand of Almighty God, not trying to direct it for selfish purposes. Battles are won, not with weapons, but with God. They are won when the way leads to the cross. He also wrote, not long before he was killed: "I discovered later, and I'm still discovering right up to this moment, that is it only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. By this-worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures, experiences and perplexities. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world. That, I think, is faith."

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T13:07:48-06:00

ID

85929

Comment

that repost from adrienne maree brown was INCREDIBLE. just what i needed. from www.indyvoter.org (she is program director): ï November 4th, 2004 is declared a National Day of Love and Sustainability. Take care of yourselves and each other. We're in this for life. onward.

Author

Jay

Date

2004-11-03T13:14:17-06:00

ID

85930

Comment

It is also remarkable when you comprehend just how much evil that the German churches went along with during Hitler's reign, just as U. S. churches justified slavery (and later Jim Crow) in the U.S. Without drawing a comparison between the leaders themselvesówhich would be unconscionable; Bush is no Hitleróit is possible to consider that extreme religious fervor has been used to justify many things. And, this is where the hope is: iif German people of faith can come back from being so far gone, we have to keep the faith that those who are using religion for selfish means in this country will not have long-term success. This task should be easier. (No, Fielding, that's not "anti-religious"; that is as pro-faith as you can get.) More interesting passages. First a Romans verse that Hitler used as a basis for his "preaching": For there exists no authority except from God. And those who exist have been appointed by God. Therefore, he who resists authority resists the ordinance of God. The following passage is an extended transcript of the audio clip of Hitler that was excerpted from the 2003 documentary Bonhoeffer: The German people are no longer the people without honor, the people of disgrace, self destructive, narrow minded, with little faith. No, God, the German people have become strong again in their spirit, strong in their will. Lord, we do not let you go. Now bless our struggle, our liberty, and with that our German people and our fatherland. My whole point is that religious faith should NEVER be infused with bigotry, as it too often has throughout history. It's a treacherous road. And make no mistake: History usually decides what is "bigotry" after the fact; people never admit it in their own beliefs.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T13:17:06-06:00

ID

85931

Comment

along spiritual/faith lines and discussions, sojourners is a great resource, too. www.sojo.net GOD IS NOT A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN.

Author

Jay

Date

2004-11-03T13:17:33-06:00

ID

85932

Comment

ï November 4th, 2004 is declared a National Day of Love and Sustainability. Take care of yourselves and each other. We're in this for life. I love it. This is basically what my editor's note is about this week; Randy should have it on the site soon. This is a wonderful message: Love, don't hate; and as I write this week: have compassionate for the non-compassionate. They need it the most, and are the most dangerous if they don't get it. It's time for a bit of Zen. The funny thing is, with all the Bush supporters accusing me/us/Dems of being "angry" and of "hating" Bush, that's not it at all. I fear Bush, and the hatred and the culture of fear that he has spread so far. And I am praying that he goes into his second term actually seeking out the middle and unity. The signs, so far, are not good and his, yes, angry base is going to expect lots of red liberal meat to chomp on, but let's pray nevertheless. Regardless, each of us plays such an important role, and it starts at home. We've all, of various parties, worked together to do remarkable things of late here in Jackson; let's keep up the good fight. Yes, defend freedoms and actual morality every change youóand call out bigotry every time you hear itóbut look forward, stay positive and believe, believe, believe. American ideals are too strong to be torn down in four, or eight, years. I think. I hope. I pray. Keep the faith.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T13:23:34-06:00

ID

85933

Comment

GOD IS NOT A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN. No, he's not, Jay. I love Sojourners. And I suspect he wouldn't approve of how he's being used these days, just as he didn't during Jim Crow, Hitler German, slavery, etc. By the way, I love all y'all if I hadn't mentioned it already. There is nowhere I would rather weather this storm than from right here in Jackson, Miss., a progressive city filled with compassionate people and hope. Thank you all.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T13:34:53-06:00

ID

85934

Comment

This tenets used to build this country do work, despite hateful things like discimination in all its guises. If you want proof of how America works, go into any school--even those deemed failing by No Child Left Behind-- and experience the teachers striving to educate the young, see the young whose eyes light up with pride and joy at the recognition of their efforts. Yes, you can do that right here in my hometown. So, to those who are carrying the torch of involvement, I say look to the future and work on the present, just like teachers and students do every single day. And, like Donna says, I cannot think of a better place to do so than Jackson, crossroads of the South.

Author

Lynette Hanson

Date

2004-11-03T13:56:35-06:00

ID

85935

Comment

Jay, I went to the indyvoter link you provided. I like this list of things we can all do: So what to do now? ï Celebrate our work - there were lots of local victories and youth were the top anti-bush vote ï Strengthen our movement, LOVE EACH OTHER, donít let them break our spirit. ï Document your stories - we are learning from them and have built an amazing base to work from for next time.† ï Wherever you live, continue with post-election plans in your local community ï Demand systematic investigation of voting irregularities in local places nationwide - e.g. provisional balloting issues, absentee ballot issues, discrepancies with exit polling data, voting machine problems, polling places moved ï Expose incidents of voter suppression - send reports to us at [email][email protected][/email] ï Wear BLACK or a BLACK ARMBAND this week ï The League hereby declares November 4th, 2004 a National Day of Love and Sustainability. Take care of yourselves and each other. We're in this for life. I wear black about every day, but otherwise it's an inspiring list. Maybe we should all wear red, white and blue like Jakob's Converses instead. ;-) Also, one idea we just hatched is to do a series of panel discussions about religion and spirituality, and separation of church and state. I'd like to do one later in November, perhaps, or early December. Ideas on panelists and potential specific topics for different panels are most welcome.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T14:25:29-06:00

ID

85936

Comment

Also, all, there is a just-wonderful book I highly recommend to you all. I can't imagine a better week to (re)read it: "Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time" by Paul Rogat Loeb. This is a inspiring book about people who work to make a difference in their communities (actual anecdotes that are delightful) and the challenges they face -- including times like these when there seems to be very light to guide them. It's paperback, St. Martin's Griffin, 1999. I don't know if Lemuria still has it; try them first and mention they should order a few, perhaps. Or you could order it online. The book's Web site is http://www.soulofacitizen.org . I'm reading it tonight, I just decided. BTW, one of the stories in it is about Parents for Public Schools starting right here in Jackson to try to reverse the trend of re-segregation and the hard work of those folks -- some of my favorite people on the planet. I can't think of a better time to just start something new. A new volunteer project, a new blog, finding a young person to mentor, something. Why don't y'all post some ideas as you think of them, or places that need volunteers? There are a lot of people passing by the site looking for hope and inspiration today, and somewhere to put pent-up energy and frustration. Let's give them, and each other, support and hope. BTW, a good friend (and a good Baptist) who supported Kerry just brought up a copy of the CD "Ohio" (Over the Rhine) in honor of picking up and moving forward. He's the one who helped me come up with the idea of the religious forums. I do love Jackson. Onward, all. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T14:33:38-06:00

ID

85937

Comment

Oooo, I haven't read Loeb's new book: Paul Rogat Loeb's newest book is The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear (Basic Books, 2004), recently named by The History Channel and The American Book Association as the #3 political book on their Top Ten list for Fall 2004. Let's see if Lemuria has this one. Dave, you out there? ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T14:36:50-06:00

ID

85938

Comment

Ladd, You say, "It is also remarkable when you comprehend just how much evil that the German churches went along with during Hitler's reign...if German people of faith can come back from being so far gone, we have to keep the faith that those who are using religion for selfish means in this country will not have long-term success." Thanks for pointing out that Bush is no Hitler in the middle of that quote, but I must point out one very stark difference between the Christian church in Germany during the 1930s and the church in America that turned out in droves yesterday. The Church in Germany was EXTREMELY liberal. They had been heavily influenced by the Tubingen school and the idea of "Higher Criticism" which became rampant in Germany in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Basically, they believed similar to the way Knol does about the Bible. They chose the parts of the Bible that they liked and fit their lifestyle and decided they were all right, but the parts they did not like they simply explained away as human errors, addittions, or misunderstandings. Most CONSERVATIVE Christians believe ALL of the Bible (in context). Therefore, while we do accept Paul's writings and are adamantly opposed to homosexuality, we also must accept the Bible when it tells us to love our neighbors. Conservative Christians, in our wildest dreams, would never consider exterminating homosexuals in concentration camps or even discriminate against them in any way. I know the homosexual community sees it as discrimination, but as we see it, we are not discriminating. We are merely refusing to give special rights to people simply because they choose to live what we believe to be a sinful lifestyle.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T14:38:10-06:00

ID

85939

Comment

Wow, this book sounds great. Here's the summary. Also, we should bring Loeb here; he's touring for his new book. I'll start the wheels turning: THE IMPOSSIBLE WILL TAKE A LITTLE WHILE: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear Basic Books $15.95 September 2004 ISBN 0-465-04166-3 People need hope more than ever in difficult political times---like these. That's why I've created this anthology, mixing my own essays with the voices of some of the most eloquent writers and activists around. Think Nelson Mandela, Maya Angelou, Arundhati Roy, Tony Kushner, and Vaclav Havel. Alice Walker, Jonathan Kozol, Diane Ackerman, Susan Griffin, and Marian Wright Edelman. Cornel West, Terry Tempest Williams, Jim Hightower, Desmond Tutu, and Howard Zinn. I believe readers will draw strength from their ideas on how we keep on working for a more humane world, replenish the wellspring of our commitment, and continue no matter how hard it sometimes seems I've included pieces that explore the historical, political, ecological and spiritual frameworks that help us to persist-- with concrete examples of how people have faced despair and overcome it. Some directly address our current time. Others examine what it was like to confront South African apartheid, the Eastern European dictatorships, or Mississippi's entrenched segregation. Political hope and personal hope are intertwined, of course. What lets us work for change is related to what keeps us going day after day when our personal lives get difficult. So some pieces straddle both. But I've focused on the kind of hope that takes us beyond merely personally surviving and carving out the best private life we can. I believe this book will help people find common solutions and see the world clear-eyed--acknowledging the destructive power of greed, fear, and shortsighted expedience, resisting any temptation to complacency or sentimentality, yet acting with courage to make change. I believe it will help us, in the words of Sojourners founder Jim Wallis, to learn how to believe in spite of the evidence, then watch the evidence change.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T14:39:45-06:00

ID

85940

Comment

Hey, I feel like I've made a great discovery in Loeb's new book. Here's the first two grafs of the introduction; then I'll stop. ;-D A few years ago, I heard Archbishop Desmond Tutu speak at a Los Angeles benefit for a South African project. Heíd been fighting prostate cancer, was tired that evening, and had taken a nap before his talk. But when Tutu addressed the audience he became animated, expressing amazement that God chose his native country, given its shameful history of racial oppression, to provide the world with an unforgettable lesson in reconciliation and hope. Afterward a few other people spoke, then a band from East L.A. took the stage and launched into an irresistibly rhythmic tune. People started dancing. Suddenly I noticed Tutu, boogying away in the middle of the crowd. Iíd never seen a Nobel Peace Prize winner, still less one with a potentially fatal disease, move like thatówith such joy and abandonment. Tutu, I realized, knows how to have a good time. Indeed, it dawned on me that his ability to recognize and embrace lifeís pleasures helps him face its cruelties and disappointments, be they personal or political. †††††††† Few of us will match Tutuís achievements, but weíd do well to learn from someone who spent years challenging apartheidís brutal system of human degradation, yet has remained light-hearted and free of bitterness. What allowed Tutu, Nelson Mandela, and untold numbers of unheralded South Africans to find the vision, strength, and courage to persist until apartheid finally crumbled? How did they manage to choose forgiveness over retribution while bringing to justice the administrators and executioners of that system? What similar strengths of spirit drove those who challenged Americaís entrenched racial segregation, or the dictatorships of Eastern Europe and Latin America? What enables ordinary citizens of today to continue working to heal their communities and strive for a more humane world, despite the perennial obstacles, the frequent setbacks?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T14:41:39-06:00

ID

85941

Comment

Well, that's like when I was at Mississippi State back in the late '60s and the biggest Baptist church in town merely withdrew its support of the Baptist Student Union on campus because an African-American student had enrolled and appeared interested in attending BSU activities. Who knew the word merely could carry such a disgusting connotation?

Author

Lynette Hanson

Date

2004-11-03T14:42:59-06:00

ID

85943

Comment

So, M, you don't wear synthetic fibers or eat shellfish, I guess. The bible starts with 2 conflicting stories about creation, for pete's sake. Right there at the start of Genesis. It's impossible to believe everything that's in it. Everyone picks and chooses. And what special rights are you talking about M? The right to visit your partner in the hospital? Gaa.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-03T14:44:07-06:00

ID

85942

Comment

So, M, you don't wear synthetic fibers or eat shellfish, I guess. The bible starts with 2 conflicting stories about creation, for pete's sake. Right there at the start of Genesis. It's impossible to believe everything that's in it. Everyone picks and chooses. And what special rights are you talking about M? The right to visit your partner in the hospital? Gaa.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-03T14:44:07-06:00

ID

85944

Comment

Here we go again, M. But that's OK. I welcome the dialogue. We are merely refusing to give special rights to people simply because they choose to live what we believe to be a sinful lifestyle. Let's break it down. Who exactly is refusing to give "special rights"? And what is "special" about those rights? Also, how do you think the Bush administration is doing on the "deeds" part? What else needs to be done?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T14:44:53-06:00

ID

85945

Comment

sorry for the double post, ya'll. Must be a might twitchy, today.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-03T14:45:32-06:00

ID

85946

Comment

Also, M, please define "liberal" for me. If we're going to really talk, we should get the glossary in place first.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T14:46:17-06:00

ID

85947

Comment

Kate, Actually, I don't see the first three chapters of Genesis as conflicting at all. In fact, I think they fit like a glove. And yes, I do accept the first 11 chapters of Genesis, which the "Higher Critics" would not. And know, I don't pick and choose from the Bible. I have to follow all of it. That is really not the point though. The point is that because we do believe the entire Bible, then we must follow it (again in context). That means that we are to love people. Furthermore, Anyone can set up a legal document giving anyone they want rights of attorney or other privileges that must be honored by law, even by the hospitals. I see no problem with that. I just don't think that the privilege of marriage should be given to someone, just because they choose to engage in aberant behavior.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T14:50:08-06:00

ID

85948

Comment

Kate, I would also say that it is a dangerous thing to grant "minority status" to groups based on actions they choose to partake in. If we consider homosexuals a minority, then why not alcoholics. After all, they were born with a predisposition to alcohol dependency. Should we give them special privileges because they are a group of people wgho all share a tendency to drink too much?

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T14:52:45-06:00

ID

85949

Comment

I really thought before last night that things would be different. The overwhelming number of people who chose Bush show that Bush is not really the problem, though. America is. When we were attacked, it wasn't just because of Bush - it was our mass consumerism, our willingness to buy into things (both fiscally and mentally). I stood in line to vote last night while the people behind me talked about God and hating ho-mo-sex-u-als. "They want to take the Bible out of evvvvv-re-thing. You know, why don't they start working on Thanksgiving and Christmas if they want to do that. I want my mail on Christmas." And then "The People want ho-mo-sex-u-als out of here. I don't want my kids to come in contact with any of them." All the while, I'm forced to stand in front of these people for way too long. Mississippi voted 86 percent to ban gay marriage. I can't believe that much of my state wishes I had no rights. People like that wouldn't go away just because Kerry was elected. If Bush appoints biased judges and enacts all sorts of rules, we can still overcome them. The Civil Rights era will not be undone. Fleeing to Canada won't help - we can't let people rot in their own narrow-mindedness. We must act more now more than ever. Start educating people, enacting justice in smaller ways and eventually it will spill out. I'm depressed, too, about this, but I won't give up hope. I will work to turn this country around. Who's with me?

Author

casey

Date

2004-11-03T14:52:51-06:00

ID

85950

Comment

M, you as a conservative christian have the right to believe as you want about homosexuality...... What I have a problem with is working that belief into the goverment as a way to deny rights to people who are not exactly like you and yours. I also find ironic that promoting refusal of certain rights to certain people. Yeah, that's real Christian......Love your neighbor as yourself???

Author

kp

Date

2004-11-03T14:55:01-06:00

ID

85951

Comment

Ladd, In my post referring to the German church in the 30s as liberal, I am referring to "liberal" in theological beliefs. They had a very low view of Scripture, whereas most Christians who are conservative theologically have a very high view of Scripture and consider it to be the inspired Word of God without error. People try to poke wholes in the idea of inerrancy all the time. Many would not agree that it is without error. I am just pointing out that we believe it to be in fact the very Word of God.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T14:56:46-06:00

ID

85952

Comment

KP, I am not asserting that basic rights should be denied to anyone. I am talking about "special" rights. I think marriage is a special right granted to couples because they are providing a positive benefit for society by providing what most would agree is the best environment in which to rear the next generation. They provide a benefit to society therefore government should encourage it. However, I see no benefit to society as a whole coming from homosexuality.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T15:00:43-06:00

ID

85953

Comment

Thanks for your definition of liberal; seems to be narrowly defined in your world. Do you have other definitions for it as well? Also, please don't forget my first question as it is very important to a real discussion: "Who exactly is refusing to give "special rights"? And what is "special" about those rights?"

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T15:02:01-06:00

ID

85954

Comment

I have to get some work done. I'll try and check back later tonight. I imagine I am stirring things up again. I know I am very much in the minority on this blog, but I will try to get back before too long.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T15:02:18-06:00

ID

85955

Comment

LAdd, check out the post I just sent. Also, I realize that the definition I used of liberal needed to be put in the theological context I was using it in. This is not my definintion, but is widely used among Christians in referring to where they stand theologically. We consider ourselves theologically liberal, moderate, or conservative based primarily on what we believe about the Bible. I've got to go for now.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T15:05:37-06:00

ID

85956

Comment

We want you to "stir things up," M, as long as you are respectful, as you tend to be. (We all mess up from time to time, ) Seriously, if there is ANYTHING this election proved, it is that this country needs to have a serious conversation about church and state, and religion and spirituality. If we don't, we're going down a theocratic road. Some folks don't mind that, clearly, but others prefer the system we have. So let's rumble about it. You wrote: . After all, they were born with a predisposition to alcohol dependency. Should we give them special privileges because they are a group of people wgho all share a tendency to drink too much? Are you familiar with the excuses given for slavery, Jim Crow, etc., and the arguments about "special privileges"? If you're going to use the language of Jim Crow, don't get upset when people start equating this bigotry with that one.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T15:06:54-06:00

ID

85957

Comment

So, M. Was man created before woman, or was man created at the same time as woman? Because my bible has both, in Genesis, as two separate and conflicting stories. Which one is right? Which one do you choose?

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-03T15:09:50-06:00

ID

85958

Comment

Ladd, I would point out again that there is a very big difference between slavery which was forced upon people and the homosexual lifestyle which is a choice.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T15:11:28-06:00

ID

85959

Comment

Kate, Man is a term that can be used generically for "mankind." There is no contradiction here. Now, I really have to go

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T15:12:25-06:00

ID

85960

Comment

I'm depressed, too, about this, but I won't give up hope. I will work to turn this country around. Who's with me? Don't despair, Casey. A whole lot of people are with you. I think the warning bells are ringing. It's time for real dialogue -- and facts and education. Part of our country's problems is the contempt-for-facts that has been instilled in people by extremists. It bodes poorly for the U.S. if every time someone doesn't like what they read, true or not, they simply "discredit" it by calling it "liberal media." And the corporate media are going to be even more afraid to report facts now, probably. The Clarion-Ledger's pathetic endorsement of Bush and the gay-marriage amendment, I fear, are signs of the Contempt for Information and killing-the-messinger that lies ahead. But, stop a moment and imagine the battles that people like Desmond Tutu and Bob Moses and Malcolm X and Dr. King and Ghandi and Chaney, Goodman and Schwerner, and, and so many others fought, and how many moments like this they faced. Many, like the German theologian above and CGS and Dr. King, died before they saw any of the results. There is no reason to lose any faith. Last night should strengthen your resolve, if anything, to preserve American freedoms and principles, not give them up to people who only read the words they want to hear. Doesn't work that way. Can't.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T15:13:42-06:00

ID

85961

Comment

I would point out again that there is a very big difference between slavery which was forced upon people and the homosexual lifestyle which is a choice. No, it's not, M. Not that it should have to be in order for homosexuals to have equal rights. Has it crossed your mind that other people disagree with your "facts" and we have a right to? Our government isn't there to push your religious views.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T15:15:33-06:00

ID

85962

Comment

M, you will also note that none of us "angry" folks are trying to limit your rights in anyway. It is you, and those with your ideas, who are the aggressors, in this case.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T15:18:54-06:00

ID

85963

Comment

M., then why does the Bible say in one story that Eve was created from Adam's rib, and in the other say that the two "men" (to use your generic term - maybe they were gay?) were created simultaneously. Really, I'm curious how you reconcile this with the notion that 'everything in the bible is true and literal.' And, can I point out that alcholics aren't denied the right to marry. or visit their partners in the hospital. This is not about special rights. This is about the basics of right to exist in society as equal members. Because they are people. People, I tell you! Stepping away from the internets now...

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-03T15:23:31-06:00

ID

85964

Comment

"Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.

Author

kp

Date

2004-11-03T15:26:16-06:00

ID

85965

Comment

In the past week, I'd been telling everyone if George Bush won this election I was moving to Canada... Ms. Sarah Anderson has convinced me otherwise http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1103-28.htm

Author

kp

Date

2004-11-03T16:06:28-06:00

ID

85966

Comment

I heard some people saying they wanted to leave the U.S., too, and I hate it (although I understand not wanting to be a part of bad stuff). You know what: This is my country, I am a patriot, and I believe in its ideals, even as people try to twist them into their personal agendas. I'm not packin'; I'm stayin'. This is work to do, and we're doing GREAT work right here in Jackson. ;-D Do NOT cut and run, y'all. It's time to step up. To me, when Mississippi voted to keep the Confederate flag emblem, it was a sign that we knew what work needed to be done. This election is a sign that Americans need to talk a whole lot more about religion, faith, spirituality and why the founders need that government could not enforce anyone's religion, even as individual leaders can be shored up by faith. Democracy begins in conversation, as John Dewey said. Let's talk, and therefore think. We've been getting calls, e-mails and visitors all day who are so inspired now. Maybe that is the grand plan ó to make people care again.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T16:18:42-06:00

ID

85967

Comment

Also, and then I'm signing off hell or highwater, I want to tell you guys how meaningful your posts and comments and e-mails have been to me personally today. Wake-up calls are hard, and they're supposed to be. I feel really inspired right now; I can't imagine how many plans have been hatched today alone. Remember, please post your ideas about the changes we can make. For one, I'm going to bring the Chaney, Goodman & Schwerner petition back to the top. This state needs justice in that case, even as we now work to educate people out of a new stage of ignorance and bigotry. If they could do it then, we can do it now.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T16:21:59-06:00

ID

85968

Comment

I respect your opinions, Donna, though I believe some of them are wrong-headed, but there is no way on God's green earth that there will be a theocracy created in the US. That seems to be one of your bigger concerns and I'm telling you - and anyone else - that it ain't gonna happen. You are delusional - seriously - if you believe that it will. I'm not trying to be offensive here, but damn - there are much larger and more important issues to discuss and deal with before "the US as a theocracy" is even on the horizon of events. I feel bad that you're hurting due to your candidate lost, but pick yourself up and fight for what you believe in - which is the tenor of what you're saying... Did I mope and complain because Clinton - a true liar and load of horse dump - got elected over a man who was IMHO so much better? No - I fought against his domestic policies as with as much vim and vigour as I had in me - because he was wrong on so many issues... I didn't do anything to publicly criticize his foreign policy because I believe politics stops at the water's edge - we are all Americans. I am glad Bush won and did what I could to help make that happen - and would do it again because he is the right man at the right time - Perhaps you took it wrong in my first post earlier in the thread - but I was trying to be nice and gentlemanly about Bush's win - if you didn't see that, more's the pity. Good luck to you and Todd - and I would be glad to help you with any project we can agree on - and if we don't agree, then game on. But I'm not a immoral man or even misguided - we just have different "values" and priorities on certain issues -

Author

Fielding

Date

2004-11-03T17:24:31-06:00

ID

85969

Comment

Fielding, your posting is offensive. Do you see people here "moping and complaining"óor is that what the Republican playbook today says to say to any non-Republican (I'm not a Democrat, if you recall) who is unhappy with the election? Fielding, stop patronizing me and listen to what I'm saying if you're going to talk here. Take some hints from M Brady -- that conversation serves a purpose, other than trying to put people who don't agree with you into a little box so you throw them in the trash. I am not "hurting due to (my) candidate lost," or however you said it: I am hurting because the country is in trouble. And, thanks, again for the requisite Clinton bash -- I supported his impeachment, remember. That one ain't sticking on this wall. Please, Fielding, if you want to have a dialogue, then talk about something real. What are the "values" that Bush supports that Kerry (and all the other ogres who bash) does not. Please, Fielding. As it is, you're wasting my time. There is nothing "nice and gentlemanly" about your postings today. Go back and read them. M Brady's, on the other hand, are respectful and inquisitive. "Values," Fielding, talk about them. Please. I'm sick of sound bites.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T17:32:53-06:00

ID

85970

Comment

WOAH! I canít even begin to respond to all of this (obviously!). But I will touch on a few aspects! The Gay Marriage Ban Amendment Hinds' opposition to the gay marriage amendment was 33%, in the neighborhood of Arkansasí "Big Two" Counties: Pulaski (Little Rock) and Washington (Fayetteville, home of Univ of Ark.). Hindsí opposition was also greater than all but one of La. parishes during that stateís own amendment ban (Orleans was at 45%, considerably higher than what I suppose would be the national average). The metro opposition in Arkansas was higher than that of the Jackson metros (Metro L.R. at 31%, Fayetteville at 29%). Nevertheless, the high Hinds figure does show that the City of Jackson, where the vast bulk of the Hinds population lives, has REAL POTENTIAL for becoming at least a REGIONAL (if not national) center of relative tolerance...IF we know how to argue our case correctly with Mississippians, especially religious ones. It will take a lot of work and creative argument planning to do so, but a more broadly tolerant society is possible in Mississippi's largest metro area. BTW, I'm not gay, but personal experience makes me fully agree with Dr. Richard Florida that tolerance of all kinds of people can be a critical element for enhancing an area's quality of life...and job market too. See the following links for more: The Secret to Jackson's Future Creative Class Rising So, what is my take on what Jackson should do? Well, consider that of the phrase "God, Gays, and Guns", "God" is what captures the souls of people most. Therefore "God"should be the focal point. See the following of my previous posts on this site for more details. I put up quite a number of posts about God and Government: [Lott] Opposing Homosexual Marriage (Jul 17 3:18 pm, 3:26 pm, and 3:37 pm) Clinton LeSeuer (Oct 12 5:46 am, Oct 16 6:19 am, plus subsequent responses on Oct 16 to TCStein. Also, Oct 22 8:23 pm and todds Oct 23 12:21 pm offers great additional information as well)

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-03T17:58:51-06:00

ID

85971

Comment

More from Loeb; I'm really diggin' this. With all of the positive response from everyone today, and offers to help get the religion panels going, I'm hummin' with hope as the day ends. Loeb: We often think of social involvement as noble but impractical. Yet it can serve enlightened self-interest and the interests of others simultaneously, giving us a sense of connection and purpose nearly impossible to find in private life. "It takes energy to act," says Pete. "But it's more draining to bury your anger, convince yourself you're powerless, and swallow whatever's handed to you." We often don't know where to start. Most of us would like to see people treated more justly and the earth accorded the respect it deserves. But we mistrust our own ability to make a difference. The magnitude of the issues at hand has led too many of us to conclude that social involvement isn't worth the cost. Such resignation isn't innate or inevitable. It's what psychologists call learned helplessness, a systematic way of ignoring the ills we see and leaving them for others to handle. We find it unsettling even to think about crises as profound as the extinction of species, depletion of the ozone layer, destruction of the rainforests, and desperate urban poverty. We're taught to doubt our voices, to feel that we lack either the time to learn about and articulate the issues or the standing to speak out and be heard. To get socially involved, we believe, requires almost saintlike judgment, confidence, and character--standards we can never meet. Our impulses toward involvement are dampened by a culture that demeans idealism, enshrines cynicism, and makes us feel naive for caring about our fellow human beings or the planet we inhabit. CHANGE Happens --Slowly.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T18:16:24-06:00

ID

85972

Comment

More from Loeb: Before refusing to give up her bus seat to a white person, (Rosa) Parks had spent 12 years helping to lead the local NAACP chapter. The summer before, she had attended a 10-day training session at the Highlander Center, Tennessee's labor and civil rights organizing school, where she'd met older activists and discussed the Supreme Court decision banning "separate but equal" schools. Parks had become familiar with previous challenges to segregation: another Montgomery bus boycott, 50 years earlier; a bus boycott in Baton Rouge two years before Parks was arrested; and an NAACP dilemma the previous spring, when a young Montgomery woman had also refused to move to the back of the bus. The NAACP had considered a legal challenge but decided the unmarried, pregnant woman would be a poor symbol for a campaign. In short, Parks didn't make a spur-of-the-moment decision. She was part of a movement for change at a time when success was far from certain. This in no way diminishes her historical importance, but it reminds us that this powerful act might never have taken place without the humble, frustrating work that preceded it. We elevate a few people to hero status --especially during times of armed conflict--but most of us know next to nothing of the battles ordinary men and women fought to preserve freedom, expand democracy, and create a more just society. Many have remarked on America's historical amnesia, but its implications are hard to appreciate without recognizing how much identity dissolves in the absence of memory. We lose the mechanisms that grassroots social movements have used successfully to shift public sentiment and challenge entrenched institutional power. Equally lost are the means by which participants eventually managed to prevail.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T18:18:00-06:00

ID

85973

Comment

Loeb, cont: Think about how differently one can frame Rosa Parks' historic action. In the prevailing myth, Parks--a holy innocent--acts almost on a whim, in isolation. The lesson seems to be that if any of us suddenly got the urge to do something heroic, that would be great. Of course most of us wait our entire lives for the ideal moment. The real story is more empowering: It suggests that change is the product of deliberate, incremental action. When we join together to shape a better world, sometimes our struggles will fail or bear only modest fruits. Other times they will trigger miraculous outpourings of courage and heart. We can never know beforehand what the consequences of our actions will be. NOT FOR SAINTS --Only ''It does us all a disservice," says Atlanta activist Sonya Tinsley, "when people who work for social change are presented as saints. We get a false sense that from the moment they were born they were called to act, never had doubts, were bathed in a circle of light. But I'm much more inspired learning how people succeeded despite their failings and un-certainties." Enshrining our heroes makes it hard for mere mortals to measure up. Because we can't imagine that an ordinary human being might make a critical difference in a worthy social cause, many of us have developed what I call the "perfect standard": Before we take action on an issue, we must be convinced not only that the issue is the world's most important, but also that we have perfect knowledge of it, perfect moral consistency, and perfect eloquence with which to express our views. As a result, we refrain from tackling environmental issues because they're technically complex. We don't address homelessness because we aren't homeless. Though we're outraged when moneyed interests corrupt our political system, we believe we lack the authority to insist that campaign financing be reformed. More, from Utne Reader

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T18:19:29-06:00

ID

85974

Comment

Howard Dean sent this message of hope to supporters today: What You Won't Hear on TV Today Montana, one of the reddest states, has a new Democratic governor. First-time candidates for state legislatures from Hawaii to Connecticut beat incumbent Republicans. And a record number of us voted to change courseómore Americans voted against George Bush than any sitting president in history. Today is not an ending. Regardless of the outcome yesterday, we have begun to revive our democracy. While we did not get the result we wanted in the presidential race, we laid the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leaders. Democracy for America trained thousands of organizers and brought new leadership into the political process. And down the ballot, in state after state, we elected Dean Dozen candidates who will be the rising stars of the Democratic Party in years ahead. Tens of millions of us are disappointed today because we put so much of ourselves into this election. We donated money, we talked to friends, we knocked on doors. We invested ourselves in the political process. That process does not end today. These are not short-term investments. We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." We will not be silent. Thank you for everything you did for our cause in this election. But we are not stopping here. Governor Howard Dean, M.D. That King quote is my new e-mail signature quote.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-03T18:28:54-06:00

ID

85975

Comment

M Brady said, "Kate, I would also say that it is a dangerous thing to grant "minority status" to groups based on actions they choose to partake in." That's the problem, and ignorance, of most homophobes I come in contact with. They see "gay" and automatically their dirty little minds divert to the sexual ACT of being gay rather than to the human being that IS gay. Who the hell said abstinence was reserved only for straight people???? I can assure you I didn't wake up one morning and say to myself, "I guess I'll start butt pirating today because it is a choice I have the right to make and I could also learn excellent fashion tips from Joe Homo!" While HAVING gay sex may be a choice for those who think it's fashionable these days, BEING gay isn't a choice. It wasn't for me and it wasn't for any other homosexual who has walked the face of this planet, ever!

Author

Jo-D

Date

2004-11-03T18:35:58-06:00

ID

85976

Comment

I agree, Mr. Jody, and I base that in part on my late cousin, Bobby, who died a horrible death via HIV. How anyone with two brain cells to rub together can conclude sexuality is a "choice" is beyond my ken; feel free to blame my parents for raising me to examine issues with a critical, objective eye. Labelling has long been effective for Dominionists and we cannot expect their hate-speak to change soon. Let them exist in their dual worlds of hatred while proclaiming to love you. Our nation is in the hands of a man suffering from an obvious temporal lobe disorder, and thus, we must be prepared to fight. Folks, the battle is about to reach our doorstep. Nationally, the brownshirts are euphoric and already discussing their plans in various hate blogs. Locally, Jackson is our best bet. Let us exist as a beacon of civilization in the midst of this state, and let others envy us as we continue to build an attractive, vibrant city from within. Rankin County folks will have to come here for a party, as before, so my fears of massive entertainment nightspots along Lakeland have been voted out. Onward, Farish Street! We won't be making plans to visit Memphis just to see a well-lit, safe downtown at night.

Author

corrosiongone

Date

2004-11-03T19:39:22-06:00

ID

85977

Comment

Also Check out my Clinton LeSeuer post, Oct 23 1:28 pm for some Louisiana figures. Full parish by parish figures are found at the Louisiana Secretary of State's site, Elections Division. Morals vs. Values I'm not sure of the distinction between the two, but if pressed I'd say something like this. MORALS: Outwardly expressed behaviors and other actions. These behaviors/actions are based upon values which are assumed to be true. VALUES: Ideas of correct behavior that are assumed to be true, whether actually true or not. Here, I'd divide values (and by extention, "Morals") into two broad categories: religious and secular (in many cases, there will be overlap between these two) Secular Values This does NOT mean "militant atheists who want to squash all public expression of deistic beliefs". NOR does it mean "necessarily atheistic" in any sense. In this case secular values simply means "the basket of values in which appeals to supernatural authority are not necessary, based on the proposition 'human life and dignity are paramount to everything else'. Debates do occur over exactly what constitutes "life", "dignity", and almost everything else. But that does not in any way render incorrect the essential proposition. Religious Values This basket contains the set of values that one can only find in religions. These are faith-based values that are outside the realm of human rationality. As with secular values, debates do occur in the religious basket as to exactly what constitutes true religious values", and likewise this does not render incorrect the essential definition I have given. Some will say that even secular values have their origins in a Deity of some sort. As a Christian (moderate-to-liberal Presbyrterian if you are curious), I subscribe to this theory. HOWEVER, I do distinguish between values that ought to be the concern of the government alone (secular values) and those that ought to be the concern of religious bodies (religious values). So if I subscribe to the view that even secular values have their origins in a Deity of some sort, then why do I bother to distinguish between those that ought to be enforced by governments and those that do not? I already gave the secular reasons in my previous posts linked to this thread. Now, I want to approach this from the religious point of view that i experienced throughout my life (various forms of Protestantism - Methodist, Southern Baptist, and Presbyrterian)

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-03T20:43:22-06:00

ID

85978

Comment

America is a Christian Nation Although a strong atheist, Bertrand Russell did have a point in "Why I'm Not a Christian" when he effectively said that nations can be "Christian" only in the geography book sense in which you look color-coded maps of the world and see different colors for Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. I see something similar when Rev. Gregory Boyd in "Letters from a Skeptic" writes to the effect that nations cannot be Christian, only individuals can be. In fact, when the Declaration of Independence uses the phrase "endowed by their Creator", notice that the docutment says "creator", NOT "God". Since the document's composer himself (Thomas Jefferson) is well known to have been skeptical toward religion, he could hardly have meant "God the Father Almighty, maker of Heaven and Earth, and Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord". I think Jefferson simply meant by Creator "That which created us, whether an intelligent supernatural being or merely nature". Understand that this says NOTHING about the truth or falsity of Chrisitanity or any other religion. This simply is a matter of whether Thomas Jefferson intended the USA to be a "Christian Nation". At any rate, the Declaration of Independence was simply a set of underlying philosophical principles - NOT the basis for government (that is in the Constitution). Besides, the Constitution itself (the LEGAL/PROCEDURAL framework) says NOTHING about God, Jesus, or any other deity. The most it does is allow freedom of religious beliefs for all, even if your beliefs about religion are "no belief in it at all"

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-03T20:59:10-06:00

ID

85979

Comment

Kate, Could you elaberate on what you mean when you refer to "the two 'men' ...were created simultaneously." I am not sure what verse you are referring to or where you are coming from on this. I know this really isn't the right blog for this conversation. I'm just curious to see where you are coming from. The real point I was trying to make is that many Christians like myself do accept the entire Bible, (Obviously, you have every right to disagree with me), and therefore we are very different from the church in Nazi Germany that went along with Adolph Hitler's genocide. I really did not mean to get into a debate on the veracity of the Bible, but I will be glad to. If you are interested, maybe we can find an appropriate blog to discuss it in.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T21:22:53-06:00

ID

85980

Comment

It certainly wasn't a choice for me to be gay. I mean, honestly, why would I decide to completely limit my dating options, encourage lots of people to hate me without knowing me and consequently spend a good three years of my life crying, thinking I was going to hell? Nope, I never woke up and thought being gay was a great idea. I just could not could not could not help being attracted to women. And this DOES NOT mean I walk around thinking, "oooh I'd like to get her naked." Rather, it's the same courting process involved with many straight couples. There are qualities intrinsic in women beyond boobs and no penis that precipitate attraction. I'm not at home fighting off my lust for boys so that I can carry on my good ole lesbian lifestyle, M. Why oh why would you ever even think we queers just up and choose it?

Author

casey

Date

2004-11-03T21:26:53-06:00

ID

85981

Comment

Mr. Jody Renaldo, Let me clarify my position. I mentioned this earlier in the Clinton LeSueur blog, but I do not dispute that some people have an attraction to members of the same sex. They do not choose to be, they just are. At the same time, other men are attracted to women they are not married to. They do not choose to be they just are. My problem is not with the attraction. It is with giving in to the attraction. If we give in to every natural desire that we have, we would be living like animals. (please do not mistake that comment to mean that I am calling homosexuals animals). It is the behavior, I am referring to. Just because we have a desire, it is not always best to act on those desires. We all have desires that we have to say "no" to. Some as minor as over eating, others as major as extramarital affairs or substance abuse. Again, it is not the desire or as I would call it "temptation" that is wrong, only the acting on the temptation.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T21:31:54-06:00

ID

85982

Comment

so then we should just not date anyone ever?

Author

casey

Date

2004-11-03T21:34:03-06:00

ID

85983

Comment

God will bless this nation if we follow His Laws This is a HUGE topic - both in terms of philosophical consequenses AND the sheer volume of material even amateur philosophers and theologians can write about. I spoke of this at fair length on the Clinton LeSeuer Thread, my Oct 12 5:46 am post. Related to this, isn't a Christian, however truly well meaning, insisting that Civil Law Codes conform to the Bible effectively telling God "I'm not patient enough to wait for Your judgement upon my fellow human being in the end, so I'm gonna to take matters into my own hands!!"? Furthermore, isn't this kind of assumption implying that YOU YOURSELF are trying to PREEMPT GOD's perrogatives, and therefore claiming you have all the perrogatives that God Himself has? Is this not effectively claiming that YOU YOURSELF are God (thereby violating the first commandment )? I could be mistaken, but I have a difficult time coming to any other conclusion about this matter. If any Christian out there can convince me otherwise, I'm perfectly open to consider your point of view.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-03T21:35:08-06:00

ID

85984

Comment

Casey, I don't think I ever implied that dating was wrong. Perhaps you think that dating and sex go hand in hand? I know that it is absolutely possible to date and have very meaningful relationships without having a sexual relationship. In fact, I would suggest that the relationship is more meaningful when the couple is abstinent, because then you know that the relstionship is based on a love for the person rather than just the person's body.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T21:40:19-06:00

ID

85985

Comment

So homosexuals should never have sex again? And what all falls under the blanket of sex for you? Do derivatives of sex like kissing? I mean, don't you think that's really a lot to ask? I'm certainly not going around having sex with a lot of women, but within loving, long-lasting relationships, how can you expect to forego sex forever? Would you do that in your heterosexual relationship?

Author

casey

Date

2004-11-03T21:44:11-06:00

ID

85986

Comment

Actually yes! As a Christian, I believe that sex is a wonderful thing, but it is only positive when exercised within the marital union of a man and a woman. If a heterosexual is in a loving relationship with someone that they are not married to, then I believe they should abstain. If they never marry, then lifelong abstinence is indeed the answer.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T21:49:57-06:00

ID

85987

Comment

btw, I feel a little guilty, because I am letting the discussion get away from the intent of this blog. I don't mind explaining my views on the homosexual versus heterosexual lifestyle, but I hate to mess up the stream of the blog. Is there a better place to discuss it?

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T21:52:07-06:00

ID

85988

Comment

Oh, I'm not sure really. I just talk whereever. I saw this comedianne recently who said "If they want us (gays) to stop having sex, let us get married!" And I laughed at first, thinking she meant like married people quit having sex once their married, but also it speaks volumes about promiscuity, etc. Maybe if we were allowed to enter into those unions, though, the problem of promiscuity would subside greatly.

Author

casey

Date

2004-11-03T21:55:01-06:00

ID

85989

Comment

Perhaps you are right.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T21:58:59-06:00

ID

85990

Comment

Philip, I was just reading over your comment: "isn't a Christian, however truly well meaning, insisting that Civil Law Codes conform to the Bible effectively telling God 'I'm not patient enough to wait for Your judgement upon my fellow human being in the end, so I'm gonna to take matters into my own hands!!'? Furthermore, isn't this kind of assumption implying that YOU YOURSELF are trying to PREEMPT GOD's perrogatives, and therefore claiming you have all the perrogatives that God Himself has? Is this not effectively claiming that YOU YOURSELF are God (thereby violating the first commandment )?" I see your point. Christians do not have the right to arbitrarily choose certain actions to condemn and others to praise. You are correct that it is God's place to judge actions not any man's. That is why I point back to the Bible, which I believe to be His word. When God, in the Bible, says something is wrong, then I must agree with it whether I like it or not. Therefore, I nor any Christian speaking out against homosexual behavior, are the ones judging. According to the Bible we believe that God has already judged those actions, and has offered a better alternative.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T22:05:18-06:00

ID

85991

Comment

Philip, Also, it is not correct for a Christian to wish God's judgment on anyone, nor is it correct for us to sit back and wait for that day to come without giving out a warning. It is not God's will to have to punish anyone with eternal judgment, nor should it be ours. 2 Peter 3:9, God is, "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T22:08:47-06:00

ID

85992

Comment

MBrady: Also, it is not correct for a Christian to wish God's judgment on anyoneÖ (emphasis mine) Philip: On this part I wholeheartedly agree. Itís the next part where I have a problem with it, at least in a governmental context. MBrady: .. nor is it correct for us to sit back and wait for that day to come without giving out a warning. Philip: Where two believers who know each other are concerned, I generally agree (depends on the context, though). But just who should do the warning? The government? No, for all the reasons I talked of so far. Even believers acting on their own accord should only give warnings only to fellow Christians whom they intimately know!. The church has every right to take positions on these issues within a theological context, but they have NO business lobbying governments concerning merely personal sins. If governments ought not interfere with the Church positions, then what right does the Church have to interfere with the government's positions? This goes back to the issue of believers' enforcing their morals on everyone else using the governmental law codes, and all the First Commandment problems associated with it. MBrady: It is not God's will to have to punish anyone with eternal judgment, nor should it be ours. Philip: Agreed, but I was addressing the PERROGATIVES of believers to punish sinners, specifically in a governmental context. ìWillî is irrelevant in this instance.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-03T23:07:51-06:00

ID

85993

Comment

M Brady said: If a heterosexual is in a loving relationship with someone that they are not married to, then I believe they should abstain. If they never marry, then lifelong abstinence is indeed the answer. Well, thank god I am getting married Saturday. Lifelong blue balls just isn't my idea of a peaceful life. Even though I'm getting married Saturday and my government, and 86% of Mississippians, isn't going to regonize it personally or legally, does that mean I still shouldn't ever have sex? Even if my wedding is by an ordained minister?

Author

Jo-D

Date

2004-11-03T23:14:25-06:00

ID

85994

Comment

Philip, I understand, and I agree with you: "just who should do the warning? The government? No" I know this blog is related to the government, but I did not mean to imply that it is governments role. You are right that it is the role of Christian individuals not government. However, government should have a role in encouraging values that benefit the society as a whole. I think that marriage between a man and a woman provides those benefits to society by propogating and rearing the next generation. Completely aside from religious belief's, this is a plus for any society and should be encouraged.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T23:15:31-06:00

ID

85995

Comment

Philip, In a sense, it is government's duty to punish sin, when that sin is a detriment to society. That is why we have punishments for everything from speeding to murder. Romans 13:4 says that the government does not bear the sword in vain. "For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;" Romans 13:3

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T23:19:37-06:00

ID

85996

Comment

Jody, I was abstinent for years before I got married. It is very possible. Furthermore, I had a very content and happy life and even though it doesn't sound "peaceful" to you, I can assure it was. I would not go back and change it for anything in the world. It has made my relationship with my spouse that much sweeter. btw, You can buy ordinations online, or you can find a ordained ministers who stand for anything or stand for nothing. An ordination certificate is only as good as the man who holds it. In my opinion, the Bible is what determines the definition of marriage, not someone's ordination certificate.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-03T23:24:56-06:00

ID

85997

Comment

The bible defines alot of things.. abominations are equal and plentiful.. as laying with another man as with a woman is, so is your latest haircut and facial shave.. save the "bible" for the choir.. ;) Want to protect the supposed notion of "sanctity" of marriage? Pass laws defining prison sentences for adultery... pass constitutional amendments banning divorce... let's all be good little puppets and live by all of "word"...

Author

Jo-D

Date

2004-11-03T23:33:24-06:00

ID

85998

Comment

As for the 2 Peter verse: God is, "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Also your line "When God, in the Bible, says something is wrong, then I must agree with it whether I like it or not. That still doesn't prove God's word ought to be incorporated into our Civil Law Codes. As I said before, governments cannot change the hearts, minds, and souls of non-believers. This makes government laws irrelevent to the condition of the person's soul. If someone wants to see a person saved, then they should simply live the kind of Christian life whose behavior ORGANICALLY ATTRACTS people to them. That's all they can do! The rest is up to God Himself Alone, not the believers! Incorporating "Christian Morals" into law codes do not cause a person to be saved, or even be particularly encouraged to follow Christ or any other deity (based on my experience, I don't find Mississippians behave in such a way that makes them statistically more likely to go to Heaven than people in decisively non-Bible Belt Seattle despite that Mississippians have strong devotion to Christianity. But that's just my own honest non-finger-pointy opinion). Nor does a completely secular government prevent people from submitting to Jesus Christ (There had to be several believing Christians in Moscow in 1975, which had a TRULY explicit anti-Chrisitan government in those days; to say nothing of undeniably less anti-Christian Belgium and Sweden, though they have considerably more atheists than conservative Christians) Given that the presence or absence of "Christian Morals" in our law codes does not correlate with how many people are saved, I'd call laws based on "Christian Morals" in general, and the Gay Marriage Amendment in particular (plus the laws against Sex Toys for heterosexuals, "dry laws", etc. and so forth) oppressive toward those who choose not to follow Christ. Is this REALLY Christ's idea of the kind of society Christians ought to favor? To be blunt, it sounds perilously closer to Pharaiseeism than true Christianity. Sorry to be harsh, but that's the way I call it.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-03T23:37:29-06:00

ID

85999

Comment

Jody, you say, "save the "bible" for the choir.. ;)." I respect your right not to believe the Bible or even to misrepresnt it as you did. btw, the shave and haircut bit - not cutting hair was not for all followers of God, only those who took a special vow called the Nazarite vow. The Bible actually teaches the opposite: 1Co 11:14 "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him." That is neither here nor there. The point is that a large number of Americans believe that moral values are good for society, and we voted accordingly yesterday. You can vote against these morals if you wish, but we have the same right to vote for them.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T00:01:03-06:00

ID

86000

Comment

Philip, "Sorry to be harsh, but that's the way I call it." I don't mind you being harsh. It does seem a little like "Pharaiseeism." However, I would argue that if you put religion aside, the "Gay Marriage...Amendment "(plus the laws against Sex Toys for heterosexuals, "dry laws", etc. and so forth" are still good for society. I don't know if you heard many of the advertisements put out by NOAL in Rankin County's election this week, but they make a convincing argument. I live in a town on the edge of a wet county. Many of our best citizens have moved to the county seat in the next county, because it is dry and a nice place to live. In return, they send us their worst citizens every Friday and Saturday night to hang out and get drunk in our bars and joints. Like clockwork, every weekend our police officers are called to break up fights, stabbings, even shootings and murder on a fairly regular basis, and almost always it is people that are not from our town, but we bear the expense and the crime. From a person who lives in town famous for joints, believe you me there are some issues that just make since - religion or no religion.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T00:11:20-06:00

ID

86001

Comment

MBrady: However, government should have a role in encouraging values that benefit the society as a whole. Philip: ONLY to the extent that those values are provable beyond reasonable doubt. Governments ought to enshrine into law only those truths about humanity and the world that are provable beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise what rational basis do we have for enacting laws at all? At least with violent crimes and such, all you have to assume is the universally held truth that human life and happiness are both of inestimable value. Now you may argue that these truths themselves come from God (and as a Presbyrterian, I agree). However, not everybody believes in God, or even God as Christians understand Him to be. By contrast, many religion-based values (especially those concerning personal sins that hurt no third party human being), are improvable, even if they are true. Therefore, itís impossible to convince everybody that these laws ought to be enacted. MBrady: I think that marriage between a man and a woman provides those benefits to society by propogating and rearing the next generation. Philip: What if the man and woman can and do remain voluntarily child-free? If you base those reasons on procreation, then if you follow those beliefs about marriage out to their logical conclusion, then you have to deny heterosexual child-free-by-choice couples the right to marry as well. If you believe that child-free heteros have the right to marry, then you have effectively admitted that procreation is irrelevant to the issue of marriage. MBrady: Completely aside from religious belief's, this is a plus for any society and should be encouraged. Philip: Who would you say are better parents for an adopted child, a stable, committed gay couple who is not prone to violenceÖ or a heterosexual couple with lots of marriage problems, spousal abuse, and is generally dysfunctional?

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-04T06:12:28-06:00

ID

86002

Comment

M, the two different genesis verses: Genesis 1:26-27: The God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, an over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." Please note that this happens AFTER God creates all the animals and fish and whatnot. Then we have Genesis 2:7: "then the Lord God formed man fromthe dust of the gorund and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." then there's a whole bit about garden of eden, and adam being lonely, and God searching for a partner for man by creating all the animals. Then there's Genesis 22: "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to man." So, 2 stories. In one, humankind is the culimation, the last thing created. In the second, we get man, then animals, then woman. Please tell me how both are literal and factual, when they are contradictory? This is one example of what I mean when I say that it is impossible for anyone to take the whole of the bible as literal and factual, because there are contradictions in it. M., you asserted yesterday that true conservatives take the whole bible into account. Help me with this.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-04T06:58:20-06:00

ID

86003

Comment

Quote for the day: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." -Thomas Jefferson

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-04T08:11:43-06:00

ID

86004

Comment

From the C-L (boooo! hisssss!): "I've heard people say, 'If you're a Christian, you vote for Bush and if you voted for (Sen. John) Kerry, it's obvious you haven't been saved,'" said Marty Wiseman, professor of political science at Mississippi State University. "That kind of talk concerns me a lot." ... Leslie B. McLemore, professor of political science at Jackson State University, said exit polling across the nation showed 23 percent of voters said moral issues were more important to them than the economy or the war in Iraq. Those voters included 10 percent of African Americans who backed Bush, he said. McLemore said Republicans manufactured the gay-marriage issue to whip up support for Bush, who failed to get the votes of 4 million evangelicals in the 2000 election. Source

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-04T08:42:45-06:00

ID

86005

Comment

In trying to decide whom to vote for in the presidential election, I went to the libertarian cadidate's website. I found his position on gay marriage interesting. Basically, he said that government should not be in the business of defining what marriage is; this is a proper function for churches and other religious institutions. But since the government had created this legal arrangement called marriage, it should be available to all individuals, just as two businessmen are free to form a limited liability corporation. Since this thread began as a discussion about morals, I'll point this out. Libertarianism is fundamentally a system of morals, or a morality: an action is right or wrong insofar as it maximizes liberty for individuals.

Author

Justin

Date

2004-11-04T08:56:43-06:00

ID

86006

Comment

Kate, I will be glad to help you out. The first chapter of Genesis is a general overview of the six days of creation. It tells us that on the sixth day God created the animals. On that same day, God created mankind in His own image and told them to be frutiful and multiply. Chapter two then goes into more detail as to exactly how God created man on that sixth day. I am still not sure where you see the contradiction.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T09:01:19-06:00

ID

86007

Comment

All, very interesting discussion. I have much work to do today, so I'll let you all fend for yourselves. I'll make a couple comments, though, and then run. First, I LOVE the Jefferson quote, Knol. It's always interesting to watch people try to co-opt Jefferson to justify squelching freedom. Other than his very obvious hypocrisy over owning (and apparently loving) slaves, he is a wonderful inspiration for believing in true freedom and defending the freedom that offends you the most. That brings me to M Brady's discussion: This is an important conversation to have about fundamentalist Christianity, I believe, especially in light of Election Day. However, I'll say to M Brady: Remember that when you quote Bible verses to justify that your beliefs should be extended to others by law who don't follow your Bible, you're in the middle of one big logical fallacy, and your arguments don't carry much weight. Quoting your Bible to convince someone that your Bible should be the law of the land isn't convincing. However, the discussion of the contradictions in the Bible, and the question of whether people cherry-pick it for their own purposes, is important, so carry on. I don't share your beliefs, but I find them educational about what people are thinking. To people of other faiths, I say: Please do not feel unwelcome here because this discussion is centering around a particular faith. We are about to embark on conversations that involve many faiths, and the role of religion in society, in and out of the pages of the JFP. You are welcome to chime in here or elsewhere. And we will not allow you to be bashed by others if you do. This is a respectful conversation, even if people get snippy from time to time. That's to be expected. Our philosophy as a publication is pluralistic, and a belief in religious freedom for all. Thus, these conversations. Please join us. Carry on.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T09:54:46-06:00

ID

86008

Comment

"homosexual lifestyle which is a choice." - Brady while discussing giving others equality that may choose that path or not. Christianity is a choice... Do you still want that protected from government intrusion? Give the same respect to others is all we're asking. And, M, Kate asked you if you wear mixed fibers or eat shellfish (including shrimp and/or crawfish)... You quietly skirted that question. I think it's important to answer since you claim you take the Bible literally. Further, I'm curious which version of the Bible you take literally? Do you read it in Hebrew (one that is closest to original translations) or do you read the King James (paid for by an king's agenda) or another of the Bible's many translations? There are so many with different meanings and concepts and conclusions that it is hard to understand how anyone could take any particular one in its full, literal context at this point in space-time.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-04T10:10:39-06:00

ID

86009

Comment

Also, did anyone take note that the areas directly touched by 9/11 voted for Kerry? New York and the states that surrounding it went for Bush... California and Washington (both areas that have had to deal with elevated risks from terrorism) voted for Kerry... What does it say when the areas that are directly dealing with terrorism want Bush out of office? I'll also wage that the majority of states that went for Kerry rank higher in SAT/ACT scores.... Why the hell is that? Why are many of the creative, intelligent hubs voting for Kerry and the poor and poorly educated voting for Bush? I'm more confused by America than ever before.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-04T10:30:35-06:00

ID

86010

Comment

"Also, did anyone take note that the areas directly touched by 9/11 voted for Kerry? New York and the states that surrounding it went for Bush... California and Washington (both areas that have had to deal with elevated risks from terrorism) voted for Kerry..." Obviously I meant Kerry where Bush is emphasized above.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-04T10:31:52-06:00

ID

86011

Comment

M., I'm not buying it. In the first story, on the third day, God separates land and water, and creates vegetation "plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind" and so forth. On the fourth day, there's the living creatures. Fish, then birds, then cattle and creeping things and wild animals. Then, and only then, "male and female he created them." Compare to Genesis 2, sarting at verse r4: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the Lord god made the earth and the hevens, when *NO PLANT OF THE FIELD WAS YET IN THE EARTH AND NO HEARB OF THE FIELD HAD YET SPRUNG UP* - for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground - then the Lord God formed man fromthe dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being; And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food" and so forth. That brings us to Genesis 2:10 Then there's stuff about tree of life, rivers, etc. Then the animals, then Eve. So - the actual words in the Bible are contradictory. In one, it's oceans, then fish, then birds, then cattle, then "male and female." In the other, it's earth, then dust, then man, then plants, then Adam, then animals, then Eve. Look at the actual words, and not at what you believe. The stories are not the same. Your *interpretation* is that the second story merely provides details not found in the first.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-04T10:43:39-06:00

ID

86012

Comment

I have a question, Kate and M, and I mean it seriously. How do literal, fundamentalist Christians support the death penalty? Isn't "Thou shalt not kill" pretty clear?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T10:49:38-06:00

ID

86013

Comment

The few deeply fundamentalist, thoughtful people I've heard on this don't support the death penalty. Neither do they support abortion, nor the current war in Iraq (don't get me started on Catholic Bishops getting all upset about kerry and his stance on abortion, but ignoring the Pope's displeasure with the war on iraq). That being said, the less thoughtful and more righteous folk seem to separate the world into more of an us vs. them, and seem to think that it's at times okay to kill "them". Extremists exist in all of the Abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity, and islam) - and those extremists often want to kill other people.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-04T11:10:29-06:00

ID

86014

Comment

Ladd, I'll answer that last question and then get back to Kate and Knol. This is a good question. Exodus 20 (The Ten Commandments) does indeed say "Thou shalt not kill." The Hebrew word used for "kill" there is ratsach. It literally means "murder." A literal translation could read, "Thou shalt not murder." Capital punishment is not murder, and in fact, in the very next chapter (Exodus 21:12) we read, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." The explanation is that God forbids us as individuals to murder, but commands the government to enforce discipline to protect society. This is reinforced in the New Testament in Romans 13 where we read that the government does not bear the SWORD in vain. Obviously the sword is an instrament of death. My contention is that the death penalty actually shows a greater respect for life, because it says that human life is so precious, that if you take that life, the highest possible punishment will be exacted .

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:12:14-06:00

ID

86015

Comment

I know that this may open up arguments about Old Testament passages referring to capital punishment for sex offenders and other crimes of the Old Testament theocracy. These were laws for the nation of Israel at that time. Jesus did not advocate following these in all governments at all times. Remember the story of the woman caught in adultery. "Let him who is w/o sin cast the first stone." KAte just said that righteous folks, "seem to think that it's at times okay to kill "them". I, nor anyone I know, thinks that we should kill people for their sexual sins.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:16:48-06:00

ID

86016

Comment

M. - you're cracking me up. First you say that "Most CONSERVATIVE Christians believe ALL of the Bible" and "That is why I point back to the Bible, which I believe to be His word." And you criticize those who "pick and choose." Then you use the Old Testament to defend capital punishment. Then you say that the Old Testament passages referring to capital punishment for sex offenders are "the laws for that time." Which, to me, sounds ALOT like picking and choosing. Not to mention that you still have not reconciled my question about Genesis and the creation stories. It is impossible to take ALL of the Bible literally, because it is full of contradiction. Which was my initial point. And demonstrates, for me, why we just cannot base our government on any document that is so full of contradiction.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-04T11:25:45-06:00

ID

86017

Comment

Knol, I will answer, your question about shellfish similarly. You said, "And, M, Kate asked you if you wear mixed fibers or eat shellfish (including shrimp and/or crawfish)... You quietly skirted that question." As I am sure you know, the books of the law, especially Exodus and Leviticus, gave many rules and regulations to follow. Many of them dealt with what was lawful to eat and sanitary regulations. It is fascinating to me that thousands of years before we knew about germs and bacteria and their spread or about the dangers of uncooked shellfish etc.. the Israelites had a book of laws which protected them from these things. I believe it is because God who did know about these things gave them this book to them. Again, this was a set of laws given specifically for the nation of Israel after they were freed from slavery in Egypt. I have never said that we ought to turn the USA into an Old Testament theocracy, and do things excatly as they did them. The CIVIL law of the Old Testament has been replaced by the grace of the New Testament. However, the MORAL law is reiterated in the New Testament.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:26:25-06:00

ID

86018

Comment

KAte, Good point. I think my last post will help explain my position. I amm not picking and choosing parts of the Bible, only using them in context. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament Law. There is no longer any need to follow the RITUAL law of the Old Testament. However, the MORAL law is still in place, because it is repeated in the New Testament.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:29:14-06:00

ID

86019

Comment

M., again I say to you, that is YOUR INTERPRETATION. Where do you draw the line between ritual and moral law? You say you believe ALL of the Bible. And that you believe it to be God's written word. And yet, as you struggle with these questions, I'm hoping you see just how much you are placing your own interpretation on the texts. You give more weight to some than to others, you reject others outright, and you create consistency (as in the creation stories) that is just not there when you look solely at the words on the page. And that's my point. You cannot criticize others for "picking and choosing" and interpreting. It's impossible to take the Bible literally and factually. It's the nature of the book.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-04T11:35:11-06:00

ID

86020

Comment

The Hebrew word used for "kill" there is ratsach. It literally means "murder." A literal translation could read, "Thou shalt not murder." It sounds like you're dancing a bit with interpretation here. If that is true, then why doesn't the language of your Bible, that you take absolute literally you say, include that very-specific word rather than "kill"? So do all similar literal translations support the tenets of your particular beliefs? Are there other examples, or are you cherry-picking? The explanation is that God forbids us as individuals to murder, but commands the government to enforce discipline to protect society. I see. Then what happens if you're presented with unassailable evidence that the death penalty does not make society safer, or deter other murders? Wouldn't that mean that God would want you to reconsider how you're *interpreting* what is in the Bible? Obviously the sword is an instrament of death. "Obviously"? That is a subjective word; can such a subjective word belong in a defense of taking every single thing in one's Bible literally? Others could say that, let's see, "obviously" God wanted everyone to love each other even if they are homosexual. Or that, "obviously," God would prefer that gays commit to each other rather than be promiscuous. )These are faceitious statements, obviously, for the sake of argument; I'm not known for speaking of behalf of God. I'm not qualified. ;-D ) My contention is that the death penalty actually shows a greater respect for life, because it says that human life is so precious, that if you take that life, the highest possible punishment will be exacted . That sounds like extreme interpretation to me. You are saying that one life is more important than another, and that humans have the capacity to judge who gets killed and who doesn't. How could that be? And I would think that God would allow wiggle room for the possibility that someone was convicted unjustly. That is, imprison for life, but do not kill them in case you're accidentally killing an innocent person. I'm also intrigued by the "in context" that you mentioned in early post on this thread. Are you certain you're interpreting the homosexual passages that you believe so literally in their proper historical context? Also, M, I don't believe you ever answered my question about how you define "special rights"?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T11:40:17-06:00

ID

86021

Comment

Kate, I did not mean to ignore your last point about creation accounts in Genesis. "So - the actual words in the Bible are contradictory. In one, it's oceans, then fish, then birds, then cattle, then "male and female." In the other, it's earth, then dust, then man, then plants, then Adam, then animals, then Eve." Actually what you are calling the second account yuo say it is "dust, then man, then plants." In Genesis 2:7 we read of God creating man. Then, if you will go back and look closely the next verse is referring to a specific garden (Eden). The dust and no plants passage back in verse 4 is referring to day two of creation. "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, IN THE DAY THAT the Lord God made EARTH AND HEAVEN. no shrub of the field was yet in the earth." This is correct. The plants were not created until day three.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:41:00-06:00

ID

86022

Comment

Fielding wrote much earlier: there is no way on God's green earth that there will be a theocracy created in the US. Here are Dictionary.com's various definitions of "theocracy": the?oc?ra?cy †† †P†††Pronunciation Key††(th-kr-s) n. pl. the?oc?ra?cies A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. A state so governed. Source: The American HeritageÆ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition theocracy The*oc"ra*cy, n. [Gr. ?; ? God + ? to be strong, to rule, fr. ? strength: cf. F. th['e]ocratie. See Theism, and cf. Democracy.] 1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity. 2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. theocracy n 1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance Source: WordNet Æ 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University theocracy a word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, not of an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by him (comp. 1 Sam. 8:6-9). Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T11:42:46-06:00

ID

86023

Comment

M- What exactly is this MORAL law that replaced the ritual law? If I remember from Sunday school correctly, Jesus said that all of the scripture and law is contained in two moral laws: love God with all your heart; and, love your neighbor as yourself. What about these moral laws leads you to reject gay marriage?

Author

Justin

Date

2004-11-04T11:44:19-06:00

ID

86024

Comment

Let me try to clarify a little better about Old Testament Law and New Testament grace. This is not picking and choosing. The Old Testament (OT) law in all of its intricacy was impossible for man to live up to. Rom 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" The law of the OT teaches us that we are incapable of being perfect. Through Jesus death on the cross and subsequent resurrection, He ushered in the era of grace. However, the moral principles of the law still apply. Nine of the Ten Commandments are also found in the New Testament. Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:49:22-06:00

ID

86025

Comment

Justin, I'll answer as bluntly as possible your question.... "BECAUSE PAUL SAID SO." If you negate the Old Testament, as many Christians do, you find that Paul was the only one to really have an opinion on homosexuality... Nevermind that the letters were written to a specific civilization.... Nevermind that Paul was hell-bent on converting every soul to his form of Christianity. That's not important and, please, don't argue otherwise or we'll keep you from communion and call you a pinko commie. ;-)

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-04T11:49:54-06:00

ID

86026

Comment

I should have pointed outin my last post, that I am just pointing out my position and point of view as a Christian. I certainly realize this is ot everyone's belief system

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:50:35-06:00

ID

86027

Comment

I should have pointed outin my last post, that I am just pointing out my position and point of view as a Christian. I certainly realize this is ot everyone's belief system We've come full circle then, perhaps. If that is the case, how can you argue that the government should enforce YOUR belief system?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T11:52:59-06:00

ID

86028

Comment

Knol, I've never called anyone a "pinko commie. ;-)" And yes, PAul was an evangelist who wanted to use his intelect and his faith to draw others to his point of view. That was because he genuinely believed in Hell and did not wish anyone to go ther. He even said that he would be willing to go there himself, if only he could see his fellow countrymen saved.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:53:01-06:00

ID

86029

Comment

M., go look at the words on the page without BELIEVING that the second story is an interpretation of the first. I see big differences in the phrasing, and the chronology. "God created them, male and female" is very different to me from the whole dust, then naming animals, then rib thing. And look at the language of the first story. It's VERY clear about the order of creation. oceans, THEN plants, THEN animals, THEN male and female. The second story contradicts that order. Look at the words on the page, as if you did not KNOW already how to interpret them. At this point, I don't really care if you see it my way. What I'm trying to point out is that in the first 3 pages of the Bible, we get into some serious discussions about how to read the words. To you, it says one thing, to me another. And this does not even begin to get us into the really sticky issues, like death penalty and homosexuality. It's just creation stories. Feel free to use the bible to support your faith, but don't start dinging people for 'picking and choosing' and 'interpreting.' You're right in there with us.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-04T11:53:18-06:00

ID

86030

Comment

Ladd, Government should enforce what is best for society regardless of belief systems. However, my belief system as well as yours has an affect on what we see as best for society.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T11:54:21-06:00

ID

86031

Comment

Ladd, Back to your question on capital punishment and "Thou shalt not kill" - "why doesn't the language of your Bible... include that very-specific word rather [murder] than 'kill'?" As Knol pointed out earlier, and I have not had time to respond to yet, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. Which by the way is not the "closest" to the original. It IS the original language. This means that it must be translated, and translators have to make a judgment call as to which English word to use. It is unfortunate that the translators of the "authorized" version commissioned by King James in 1611 were not more specific. They weren't wrong, they were just not specific. Most all of the modern translations do indeed use the more specific term.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T12:01:30-06:00

ID

86032

Comment

"Government should enforce what is best for society regardless of belief systems." - M It keeps going back to that logical point and then getting irrationtional. SOCIETY is a whole... Not a fraction of the whole. How does limiting my relationship (which will exist with or without the govt's assistance) benefit my portion of society? How will those limitations benefit thw Whole? How will they benefit the "moral majority"? I need secular answers based on reason and logic... No Bible quotes, please, since I don't drink that Kool-Aid.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-04T12:01:31-06:00

ID

86033

Comment

Government should enforce what is best for society regardless of belief systems. However, my belief system as well as yours has an affect on what we see as best for society. Of course it dies. But you're ignoring the questions that you yourself bring up. No one has argued that people should not guided by their own faith, or that anyone should be "anti-religious," to use that ridiculous phrase that Fielding introduced. The whole question is whether the government should enforce the specific beliefs of one particular religious faithówhether it's allowing the 10 Commandments (but not passages from the Koran) in a government building; picking a Christian prayer to recite on a public-school loudspeaker; or taking your set of beliefs about marriage and inserting them into state and federal Constitutions. No one is arguing that an individual should not be able to pray anytime they want; that you shouldn't believe the 10 Commandments or put them in your yard or talk to everyone you know about them, including your friends in the school cafeteria; or believe that homosexuality is a sin that God will punish someone for. YOU should be able to interpret your religious text any way you choose. The question is about our country's *laws* and what is forced upon American citizens. If we allow the government to make theocratic laws on behalf of one religion, we give up religious freedom for everyone. *This* is the issue of our time, M. And once we go down the road, it's going to be very difficult to put it in reverse.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T12:01:56-06:00

ID

86034

Comment

Knol, Fair enough. I still go back to the idea that the traditional family unit where a man and a woman commit themselves to a monogamous relationship for life is best for society. It prevents the spread of sexually trasnmitted disease and fosters an environment that encourages the propagation and nurture of the next generation.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T12:04:22-06:00

ID

86035

Comment

Ladd, You say, "you're ignoring the questions that you yourself bring up." It is not on purpose, I am just having a hard time keeping up with all of the questions. I have two or three different people asking them, and there is only one of me. Please be patient.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T12:06:23-06:00

ID

86036

Comment

Fair enough. I still go back to the idea that the traditional family unit where a man and a woman commit themselves to a monogamous relationship for life is best for society. It prevents the spread of sexually trasnmitted disease and fosters an environment that encourages the propagation and nurture of the next generation. OK, you believe that, M. That's your right. But what does that have to do with our state or federal constitutions and the laws government should pass? You're not giving us a logical nexis here to explain why your beliefs need to be put in the Constitutions of the lands, but someone else's shouldn't be. How do your religious beliefs rank above all others? You can't logically argue public safety on this one, by the way, being that marriage and commitment would be the best way to stop spread of the disease you say you're so worried about. And it's a bit naive to argue that AIDS and other STDs aren't spread through marriage, especially by heterosexual partners who are unfaithful, including with homosexuals. Shouldn't adultery also be outlawed in the Constititions to further those public-safety goals as well?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T12:09:02-06:00

ID

86037

Comment

"The whole question is whether the government should enforce the specific beliefs of one particular religious faithówhether it's allowing the 10 Commandments (but not passages from the Koran) in a government building;" Actually, I don't have a problem with allowing passages from the Koran being displayed. I think they would be a little out of place in our judicial buildings, because our laws were not based on the Koran, but the Ten Commandments, whether directly or indirectly, did indeed have an impact on the laws of our nation. Nevertheless, if a county wants the Koran in their courthouse or a state in their capital buildings, I say more power to them. Just let the Ten Commandments be displayed as well.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T12:10:03-06:00

ID

86038

Comment

You say, "you're ignoring the questions that you yourself bring up." It is not on purpose, I am just having a hard time keeping up with all of the questions. I have two or three different people asking them, and there is only one of me. Please be patient. No problem. However, I think this question is very basic to the discussion, and your reasoning so farówhich comes only from inside your own religious frameworkóis avoiding the real question about why your religious should be codified in law, but not other peoples. You say just above that everyone's belief systems matter, but your argument is that yours is the one that should be law. That's my point. I wish there were more of you, too. Most people with your views just come on here to spout Ann Coulter-esque insults and then leave. You are very respectful, and I appreciate that and respect you in return.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T12:12:55-06:00

ID

86039

Comment

Ladd, You say, "it's a bit naive to argue that AIDS and other STDs aren't spread through marriage, especially by heterosexual partners who are unfaithful, including with homosexuals." Please notice that I said that the best arrangement for society is when heterosexuals remain in monogomous relationships for life. This is what is best and safest and therefore should be encouraged, and is encouraged by our secular laws. For instance, who wants to face divorce court when they have been unfaithful to their spouse? Judges tend to sympathize with the spouse who was faithful to their mate. This is also why there should not be tax penalties on people who get married versus those who just live together or go from one realtionship to another.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T12:14:51-06:00

ID

86040

Comment

evertheless, if a county wants the Koran in their courthouse or a state in their capital buildings, I say more power to them. Just let the Ten Commandments be displayed as well. It's going to get a little crowded in there as you will have to then allow every single religious view (and, er, "non-religious view) to be represented as well. ;-) And, even as you won't mind the Koran, I promise you that others will. People will then spend more of their time fighting over what's being displayed than paying attention to the actual 10 Commandments. Unworkable, M.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T12:15:17-06:00

ID

86041

Comment

Ladd, I am not saying that Christianity should be codified into law, but there are moral principles that are good for society. Millions of people across our nations heartland seem to agree with. Many also disagree, but I think even apart from the Bible, logic tells us that righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people. I've got to get some work done. I'll check back inlater.

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-04T12:17:37-06:00

ID

86042

Comment

Please notice that I said that the best arrangement for society is when heterosexuals remain in monogomous relationships for life. This is not always true, M. People should not stay in abusive relationships "for life," for instance. And you write as if homosexuality is going to suddenly disappear with these laws in place. That's extremely naive. This is what is best and safest and therefore should be encouraged, This is subjective as well. Again, it's your right to believe all these things, but the government does not belong to only you. Now, I'm leaving. So don't be offended if I don't respond for a well. Happy talk, all.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T12:18:11-06:00

ID

86043

Comment

M- I completely agree: "there are moral principles that are good for society." Just because something is good for society, however, does not mean that the government should enforce it. To take your example, a monogoumous relationship that results in marriage (the typical family) probably is the best arrangement for a well-functioning society, primarily because it provides a good environment for raising children more so than as mechanism for preventing the spread of disease. Most people in America probably agree that the family is a good thing too. Historically though, the way that this value was enforced was through social normativty, not law. Remember the big scandal when Murphy Brown had a child out of wedlock on TV? Society can enforce its values through social stigma; it doesn't need to codify every value. Moreover, I think that the law is a blunt tool, unable to make the sort of nuanced judgments involved in with these cultural value questions.

Author

Justin

Date

2004-11-04T12:45:24-06:00

ID

86044

Comment

Steven Colbert- ìWe here in New York are too close to the terrorism and the homosexuals. Only people from the red states have enough distance to see things in their perspective. So on behalf of the blue states, we would like to thank the red states for saving us from ourselves."

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-04T15:29:09-06:00

ID

86045

Comment

On a serious, and very hopeful note, here's what Sen. Arlen Spector warned Bush today: do not send us ideologue judges! You could Spector has a mandate of his own to worry about, and he's a thinker. Per AP: The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation. Sen. Arlen Specter, fresh from winning a fifth term in Pennsylvania, also said Wednesday that the current Supreme Court now lacks legal ìgiantsî on the bench. ìWhen you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely,î Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. ìThe president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster,î Specter added, referring to Senate Democratsí success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bushís conservative judicial picks. ì... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.î

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-04T15:37:14-06:00

ID

86046

Comment

Joey's comments about the Election: The Coastal area outside the South were Kerry's no matter what. Security issues had little, if anything, to do with it IMO. We keep hearing about voters choosing on the basis of values, and those areas no less when you get down to it. The only difference is that they voted to REJECT Bush's values. Actually, I'm hearing about how the Hispanic vote sealed this election - Bush got 42% of the Hispanic vote compared to only 35% last time. Certainly that tilted the scales in Florida, New Mexico, and Nevada.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-04T16:23:48-06:00

ID

86047

Comment

KNOL: Steven Colbert- ìWe here in New York are too close to the terrorism and the homosexuals. Only people from the red states have enough distance to see things in their perspective. So on behalf of the blue states, we would like to thank the red states for saving us from ourselves." And the xenophobic SEGMENT of Southerners complain about outside interference! Does this election make Southerners outside interferers in New York's affairs? That's still not to say people in other parts of the country know The South that much better though - particularly the modern South.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-04T16:32:42-06:00

ID

86048

Comment

So...does anyone here think we have enough material on these busiest threads of the past few weeks to draw up a manifesto? Something like "Why Laws Should Never Be Based Solely on Religious Morality"? It'd require organizing all the responses, counter-responses, and counter-counter-responses, of course. I'll bet there really is enough material on here for a blueprint for such a coherent manifesto; not only for Mississippi, but America as well.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-05T08:11:18-06:00

ID

86049

Comment

Introspection is great, good Lord knows y'all need it. Might want to consider, in addition to talking your brains out and writing manifestos, organizing. Take away from this week is team hustle. Mississippi a swing state? Balderdash. Jackson ceased being an accurate barometer of anything Mississippi long ago. Results are results. Population shifts have rendered Jackson, and Hinds County, meaningless in statewide and national elections. Rankin Co cancelled out Kerry's Hinds majority and delivered 14k plus to the Bush bucket by itself. Madison Co was the icing. Tri-County delivered 11% of overall Bush victory margin in state (25,220 net votes). This is a Red metro, not Blue. What do they say, talk is cheap? Until you can stablize your shrinking Jackson choir, and move votes from one column to another in Rankin and Madison, you're just coffeehousin'. Writing manifestos might make you feel good but won't, as far as Mississippi goes, get your candidates into office. GOP will win majorities in both the Mississippi House and Senate come November 2007. Your time to act, not talk, is short. Love fests at Hal & Mal's don't get it done.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-11-05T09:35:50-06:00

ID

86050

Comment

Ranch, charming as always no matter which screen name you're posting under. Don't worry about us heathens; we can manage without your derision and nastiness. You're not exactly a role model. For anybody.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T09:53:34-06:00

ID

86051

Comment

All, it was quite the Love Fest at ARtMix last night. I'm really heartened that there's so much positive energy in the air, with notable exceptions , and plans being made. The irony of all this, of course, is that gays and lesbians are getting more organized than ever, even the ones who weren't activist types before. You can't blame them: they're the middle of the new civil rights battle in America. That part is so sad. Americans are now going to be faced with homosexuality like they never have been before. It's what it took in the Civil Rights Movement. We do have to learn the same lessons over and over again, especially as people believe what they want to believe, rather than actual facts. But that's OK; that's what freedom is about: continually fighting those who want to take it away from you or others, especially those you DON'T agree with. Nothing changed this week on that point. I am happy, though, to report that we live in a city that's growing more progressive by the year, and that's an accomplishment to be proud of. And the coalitions here are very impressive. Ben Allen was in our offices yesterday and was just bouncing with glee over the Convention Center, and how people are coming together for the city. Just about everyone who posts here should be very proud of the role you're all playing in this.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T10:01:05-06:00

ID

86052

Comment

BTW, a woman whose father and grandfather were involved deeply in Mississippi's civil rights struggles came by the ArtMix table and left me a message: Labor organizer Jim Hill was executed by firing squad at the Utah State Penitentiary in 1915. Right before he was killed, he said, "Don't mourn, organize." There's your Manifesto o' the Day. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T10:02:35-06:00

ID

86053

Comment

trollin' from a Blue State, MBrady said "...the traditional family unit where a man and a woman commit themselves to a monogamous relationship for life is best for society." What evidence do you have that supports this? And if sexuality is a choice when did you chose? and if your still feeling down and out about Tuesdays results todays Krugman editorial in the NY Times is encouraging http://nytimes.com/2004/11/05/opinion/05krugman.html Ranch, Whether your friends at JFP are in the majority or not seems to miss the point. It's about standing on the right side of the issues. JFP stand proud! Hope to see you soon. I read a good book this summer and if you haven't read it I would recommend it, Moral Politics by George Lakoff

Author

bryan grundon

Date

2004-11-05T10:35:20-06:00

ID

86054

Comment

Philip. love the idea of a manifesto. But, there's probably something already written in the past 250 years about this, that we could use. My quote of the day, much paraphrased, is from the Joan Chittester book I'm reading, "Called to Question." It's from the section on christianity and ecology, talking about cycles of nature, cycles of life, and the importance of Winter. She says something like "sometimes the dark times feel like death. But really, things are gestating. It's important to nurture the darkness, so that when spring comes, newness can come forth." Chittester's a Benedictine nun, who knows a thing or two about staying in conversation with opposition over the long haul. She's been arguing with the Catholic church for 30 years about the ordination of women. Stays in the church as a nun, even though she disagrees wholeheartedly with them. There's alot to learn from people like her in these times. I feel like the most heartbreaking story nationally is the passage of all of the anti-Gay ammendments. I feel betrayed, and I'm not even gay. If on 9/12, the world declared "we are all Americans" - well, on 11/3/04, I say "we are all LGBT". (that's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered). And, to the Ranch-like folk in the world, I must point out, just because we lost the election, doesn't make us wrong. Nor does it mean we will lose every election from now until the end of time. And if we did lose every election, that still wouldn't mean we were wrong. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I'm gonna keep saying it: Gay people are PEOPLE. People are people, and deserve Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. It's that freakin' simple.

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-05T10:48:26-06:00

ID

86055

Comment

Love this quote, from the Krugman article (link above): "Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states." Do republicans vote on Values because they need them more, or what?

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-05T10:52:30-06:00

ID

86056

Comment

Here's another hopeful rant by Mark Morford -- my favorite, liberal Orgasmican (his term for sexually liberated, open-minded Americans): But here's the catch. Here's the tough part to accept. Here's what everyone who's right now on the brink of packing their bags and checking the real estate prices in Vancouver has to know and has to have drilled into their disconsolate hope-crushed souls right this minute, before it's too late: You cannot leave. You cannot drop the armor now. Why? Because you are needed, more than ever. You are mandatory to keep the energy flowing, the karmic vibrator buzzing, to keep the progressive and lucid half of the nation breathing and healthy and awake and ever reaching out to the half that's wallowing in fear and violence and homophobia and sexual dread, hoping to find harmony instead of cacophony, common ground instead of civil war, some sort of a shared love of a country so messy and internationally disrespected and openly confused its own president can't even speak the language. After all, you don't hand over all your children the first time the flying monkeys bang on your door. You don't give up your dream house just because a bunch of gangbangers moved in down the block. You become a bit more wary and alert and you stock up on the superlative porn and the expensive wine and the deepened sense of true beauty and sex and love and hope and you hunker down and grit your teeth and dig in for the long haul, and you work on making your own goddamn garden more beautiful than even you could have imagined, because, well, the neighborhood -- and the world -- needs it, more than ever. Look. No one said it was gonna be easy. No one said it was gonna be painless. And no one said it was gonna be quick. As I've noted before, the neocons have been planning this takeover for decades. The Bush regime, despite feeling like a massive indigestible incomprehensible fluke, is no accident. Full rant... Not only is he funny and creative with his usage of the English language, he is not shamed by his liberal attitude and is simply "keepin' on."

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-05T10:57:01-06:00

ID

86057

Comment

From the rant above, this has to be my favorite paragraph: And besides, most hardcore Republicans would, of course, love it if you'd leave the country, and take your gul-dang gay-lovin' tofu-eatin' tree-huggin' pierced-labia values with you. They would love it, furthermore, if the libs in the morally shredded red states would split for the coastal cities and the major metropolises of America, all those godless heathen places where the neighbors won't yank the Kerry/Edwards sign outta your front lawn and chase you down and beat you with it and call it patriotism. Remember: bullies never deserve to own the playground.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-05T10:58:16-06:00

ID

86058

Comment

Is that the same Ben Allen who served as the Right's local talk radio poster boy for the anti-gay marriage amendment? Maybe you could convince Ben to introduce a resolution to the Jackson City Council in support of gay civil unions. You know, as a tribute to what you've accomplished and Ben's personal expression of glee over how everyone is now coming together and all. Let's see how far Ben is actually prepared to go to support his new bedfellows of political convenience. Think he'll bite?

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-11-05T11:39:51-06:00

ID

86059

Comment

Ranch, I feel much compassion for you. It must be difficult to live in such a hate-filled bubble, spewing, er, "anonymous" vitriol every chance you get. I'm serious: I'm sorry for people like you. Fortunately, though, you're a minority and your sound and fury signifies nothing. Reasonable people can disagree, and I sure don't like everything Ben Allen does, or John McCain, or Arlen Spector. But there are people in the world, including these men and many others on the left and the right and in the middle, who are willing to talk and unite in spite of their differences -- rather than go around anonymously and try to tear things down because, say, they're married to a doctor and only care about tort reform. And you know what? They're the ones that matter to history, not people who peel bumper stickers off of cars and leave negative droppings all over other people's Web sites. You're a troll. Leave, please.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T11:46:14-06:00

ID

86060

Comment

Kate, No doubt that's true. Certainly these older writings can give us ideas. But this would be much more effective if we communicate in a language ordinary Mississippians and Americans can understand. This is not an insult - it's a real recognition of the fact that most people connect better when the writer uses ordinary language than polysyllabic jargon. How can a writer keep the reader's attention if they have to scurry to a dictionary every 30 to 50 words? Besides, we'd merely be accused of uncritically swallowing everything we read, reading only the books we want to read, etc.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-05T11:47:11-06:00

ID

86061

Comment

Ok Rancho, whoever you are, Iíll bite Many polls were just as inaccurate about other areas as they were about Mississippi. Didnít most polls predict New Mexico, Iowa, and even Florida, going for Kerry? Bringing in population would be nice, but actually all we have to do is offer a geographic space where those with non-conformist beliefs can feel at home and find their own voices and general authentic personality without having people raise eyebrows. Once more non-conservatives of various stripes see others like them and establish firm social connections with that crowd, that will create the critical mass necessary to attract more such people, which in turn will create a larger mass of such people. This will mean a slow but steady rise in their numbers/influence. AT WORST the amount of non-conservative influence in the area will remain stable. Fondren/Belhaven has all but finished the initial work of providing a physical space of some sort for non-conservatives (itís AMAZING what ìcoffeehousiní î can accomplish over the long haul, isnít it :P). Time to dust off the backup plan, Rancho. BTW, whatever those plans are, eventually theyíd better include a chapter called ìHow to Stabilize or Reduce Metro Jacksonís Absolute Populationî. All other things being equal, the larger the metro area, the more non-conservative it gets over the long haul (historically conservative / Bible-belt Dallas County, TX, the county just elected as sheriff a Hispanic Lesbian Democrat with barely any controversy at all). As for the time frame? If we could wait 44 years for our Cold War labors to bear the fruit of the crumbling wall and another two for the final lowering of the Hammer & Sickle from the Kremlin, then surely we are capable of working patiently for decades. Iím sure you see my point.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-05T11:51:48-06:00

ID

86062

Comment

"Do republicans vote on Values because they need them more, or what?" I don't know. When you ask them to even list the values (er, Fielding), they accuse you of being "anti-religious" and (inevitably) a child of The Clintons. Fielding, can we please, please talk about the values that Bush's supporters hold that Kerry's don't? If you're going to throw around such hurtful accusations, the least you can do is say what they are so other people can talk about it. Or, is just about the easy sound bite?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T11:51:53-06:00

ID

86063

Comment

So...does anyone here think we have enough material on these busiest threads of the past few weeks to draw up a manifesto? Actually, Todd and I already have something in the works. Let's talk about it in in e-mail. More soon.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T11:52:42-06:00

ID

86064

Comment

Thanks, Philip. Patience is a virtue, you know. And I'm patient. You think I'd start a progressive newspaper in Jackson, Miss., if I thought things happened overnight? Although, I must say, I have been shocked at how fast progressivism and creativity are happening here. People just needed to find each other. Another wonderful, close-to-home example is the Civil Rights Movement. We've beat bigotryóat least on the law books, for the most partóonce in this state. We'll beat it again. Education, and conversation, are key. And trolls ain't gonna stop it. Salut!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T11:55:30-06:00

ID

86065

Comment

BTW, Philip, you are SO an honorary Jacksonian. ;-D

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T12:05:53-06:00

ID

86066

Comment

Donna, slightly more than honorary...more like an "almost hometowner". Don't forget that my La Delta hometown is only 90 miles from Jackson (lots of your TV and radio stations come in loud and clear there). Monroe isn't THAT much closer (70 miles)

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-05T12:21:39-06:00

ID

86067

Comment

One more thing, Philip, while you're on the subject of coffeehousin'. What is really happening here is the spread of *positive.* Our popularity is due as much as anything to a smart conservative readership that knows that the JFP is not (a) rabid left wing, (b) nasty, negative and vindictive like other papers and (c) is respectful of different viewpoints, but not personal attacks. That is, what is NOT cool is people sitting around bitching and moaning and insulting other people, as has been so popular among some people in the past. The positive voice is much louder here now. The whiners don't seem to know what hit them. What is sad are the people who don't how to hold a conversation without being negative. I just can't stand to be around those people and, fortunately, with all the positive going on here, there is no reason to be. They're becoming irrelevant here.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T12:22:48-06:00

ID

86068

Comment

One more thing and I gotta fly to a lunch to plan our new Religion & Society discussion series. ;-) My inbox is filled with positive e-mails and great ideas. It's as if people are on fire to get involved and make a difference. I feel more hopeful at this moment than I have in ages, even though my heart hurts for our gay friends and neighbors. However, they're on fire, too, to effective positive change. It's so heartening. The civil rights movement continues, as if it ever ended. Also, progressive Christians and other people of faith are so offended about the ignorant bigotry toward them that contends that if you didn't vote for Bush that you're "anti-religious." This is one of the stupidest notions I've ever encountered, and it's about to be countered from what I can see. It's going to be a very interesting period in our history, I predict. It's about deeds, stupid!

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T12:29:57-06:00

ID

86069

Comment

Great to hear that about the JFP. Sounds like you all are coming along well. In other matters... I sent you a long e-mail about that church-state matter late last night. It took me two nights to organize my thoughts and write them out. As for lack of civility and intelligent discussion? Don't get me started on political chat rooms!! Yes, they ARE what you expect them to be.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-05T12:38:23-06:00

ID

86070

Comment

Concerning my Nov 03, 04 5:58 pm post on this thread. I'm sorry to say, but the 33% for Hinds is apparently false. It should be DISREGARDED. More accurate figures are found on this thread (the Nov 5 8:05 am entry). Actually, it was this reevaluation of Jackson's opposition to the gay marriage amendment and metros that compelled me to bring up the "manifesto" idea (judging by the figures, we need something like this more than most other places, believe me!)

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-05T13:09:44-06:00

ID

86071

Comment

"No, the Democratic Party was defeated by itself. It pretends to be the party of the "little guy," but in fact it has been taken over by an intellectual elite who have a deep contempt for ordinary people. They say in effect, "We love you, but you are too stupid to know what is best for you. Give us your vote and we'll take care of you. Don't look for the enduring principles of life in the Bible. We'll feed them to you in The New York Times."" Democratic Party defeated by itself as published in the Red Metro's morning edition of the Clarion-Ledger.

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-11-05T14:18:07-06:00

ID

86072

Comment

[sarcasm]Gee, Ranch, that's convinced me! I was wrong! I'm a republican now! Thanks *so* much for the deep insight. You make being a republican sound so uplifting and joyful. If everyone who voted for Bush is like you, well, I just don't know how I've lived without your affection for so long.[/sarcasm]

Author

kate

Date

2004-11-05T14:38:12-06:00

ID

86073

Comment

I sent you a long e-mail about that church-state matter late last night. It took me two nights to organize my thoughts and write them out. I know, Philip. Thank you. I haven't had time to read it, yet, but I will this weekend. BTW, I just came back from a great lunch to make plans for our religion-society discussion series and perhaps a film series. It's rolling. More details coming soon. Also, for all of you sending great ideas my way in e-mail, I can't act on them all right away and some of them aren't appropriate for us to do. However, get them rolling yourselves and send us information. We will help you promote your various efforts at reconciliation, as we can call it. I am so encouraged by all this. Thank you all. I'm sorry to say, but the 33% for Hinds is apparently false. That's too bad, but it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. The work and the determination are the same regardless. And statistics take nothing away from the progress happening all around us. ;-D As for The Clarion-Ledger (boo! hiss!), I don't trust anything I read in it. There have been one too many uncorrected errors for me to put any stock in about anything they write. As far as I'm concerned, it's a Virginia carpet-baggin' corporate rag trying to get our money and that doesn't care much about facts or the actual people of Mississippi. They proved that last Sunday. Can you tell I'm mad at them?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T14:55:09-06:00

ID

86074

Comment

All the olive branches coming from the radical right are very heartening: AP: Conservatives went wild at Specter, who also just won re-election. "The value voters who gave the Republican Party increased majorities in the House and Senate clearly affected the presidential race and are owed judicial nominations that reflect their values, traditional families and pro-life," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "value voters"? "owed"?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T15:34:17-06:00

ID

86075

Comment

It does seem that what the right thinks is unity is that Bush's 51 percent gives him a "mandate," and that means the other 49 percent should give into bigotry against gays and the government establishment of religion and anything else the radical right wants. That's would be funny if it weren't so absurd.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T15:37:22-06:00

ID

86076

Comment

Well, well, well. The spread is now up to 5% and 4.66 million votes. Mandate city friends. No nuance to those numbers. George W. Bush has a mandate all right. The Democrats have only delusion. As for humility, the Democrats did everything in their power to take this election, from lying about the President, comparing him to Hitler, forging documents to slander him, and trying to intimidate voters with thousands of lawyers sent to launch ìpre-emptiveî challenges to votersí rights. Itís well past time for the Democrats to find their humility, and show the President the respect and cooperation he has more than earned. Yes, there is a Mandate

Author

RanchHuevos

Date

2004-11-05T15:46:49-06:00

ID

86077

Comment

I don't even have to reply.... I'll let James do it... "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." - James Madison They knew what happened when a govt was controlled by the Church... Hell, isn't that why the fled Europe in the first place? These are the people that are out to destroy America as we know it. They claim we want to re-define marriage... Well, I say they want to redefine America and Liberty!

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-05T15:47:27-06:00

ID

86078

Comment

Hey Bryon, welcome back! That Krugman piece has a lot of good stuff in it. More: President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda. Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism. This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback. I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality. Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes. So what should the Democrats do?[...] Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.[...] Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage. [emphasis added] [...] What they (Democrats) need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T15:49:16-06:00

ID

86079

Comment

More Krugman: Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will. It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. ... But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T15:49:54-06:00

ID

86080

Comment

Ranch, what's your point? Are you saying that Bush owes nothing to the near 40+% of voting America? The tax-paying 40+%? And y'all call us pinko commies? You're laughable at best!

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-05T15:51:42-06:00

ID

86081

Comment

Itís well past time for the Democrats to find their humility, and show the President the respect and cooperation he has more than earned. Ranch, the president has to earn the American people's respect. And we've heard this type of rhetoric before, like right here in Mississippi back in the 1960s when the "majority" wanted to close the public schools rather then integrate them, and chided all the "liberals" and "communists" who were in the minotiry because they wouldn't get with, er, God's program. No way, sister. No one of substance or who believes in American democracy and freedom is going to stand aside and watch the Constitution obliterated or bigotry chiseled into law. If George Bush wants "respect and cooperation," he'd better step up and earn it by supporting real American ideals and freedom. If not, it won't take long at all to lose that 2-percent spread in that so-called "mandate." You can gloat until the cows come home, but people who care for American ideals will fight for them. I promise. But your response does tickle me. It seems that you're worried. Why else would you even bother with these heathens if you think the, er, mandate is so strong? Ranch, learn some manners and feel free to join in a respectful dialogue about unity and compromise and shared ideals. Otherwise, I'm going to start deleting your comments because they're useless and offensive on a board where people care so much about this country. And I don't really care what you say about it. It's my site. ;-)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T16:00:16-06:00

ID

86082

Comment

... or 5 percent, or whatever it ends up being. It doesn't matter. This is America, and we're not going to give up our ideals. Give us liberty, or give us death, remember?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T16:02:14-06:00

ID

86083

Comment

And if such a mandate exists that Bush owes strict allegiance to the radical fundies, I'm sure the IRS will understand if all Kerry voters decided to hold all their taxes... Right? I mean, certainly, a mandate can exist for both parties? Let's be absurdist about it? Think you could fund your war and shut down abortion clinics and handle the gay marriage court challenges without our tax dollars? Could you fund the new prisons to house all the liberal, pinko commies that decided not to hand taxes over to a government that blantantly disregards the Whole over a small fraction? Let's set mandates... Please.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-05T16:03:04-06:00

ID

86084

Comment

From the Columbis Dispatch: A computer error involving one voting-machine cartridge gave President Bush 3,893 extra votes in a Gahanna precinct. Franklin County's unofficial results gave Bush 4,258 votes to Democratic challenger John Kerry's 260 votes in Precinct 1B, which votes at New Life Church on Stygler Road. Records show only 638 voters cast ballots in that precinct. Matthew Damschroder, director of the Franklin County Board of Elections, said Bush received 365 votes there. The remaining 13 voters who cast ballots either voted for other candidates or did not vote for president. Damschroder said he received some calls yesterday from people who saw the error when reading the list of poll results on the election board's Web site. "It's why the results on election night are unofficial,'' Damschroder said. The error would have been discovered when the official canvass for the election is performed, he said. Election workers will start certifying the official election results later this month. The final, official tally will be available by the end of the month.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T16:04:54-06:00

ID

86085

Comment

Good column by Thomas Frank in the New York Times. I really agree with him here. You cannot out-Republican Republicans and shouldn't try: Thirty-six years ago, President Richard Nixon championed a noble "silent majority" while his vice president, Spiro Agnew, accused liberals of twisting the news. In nearly every election since, liberalism has been vilified as a flag-burning, treason-coddling, upper-class affectation. This year voters claimed to rank "values" as a more important issue than the economy and even the war in Iraq. And yet, Democrats still have no coherent framework for confronting this chronic complaint, much less understanding it. Instead, they "triangulate," they accommodate, they declare themselves converts to the Republican religion of the market, they sign off on Nafta and welfare reform, they try to be more hawkish than the Republican militarists. And they lose. And they lose again. Meanwhile, out in Red America, the right-wing populist revolt continues apace, its fury at the "liberal elite" undiminished by the Democrats' conciliatory gestures or the passage of time. Like many such movements, this long-running conservative revolt is rife with contradictions. It is an uprising of the common people whose long-term economic effect has been to shower riches upon the already wealthy and degrade the lives of the very people who are rising up. It is a reaction against mass culture that refuses to call into question the basic institutions of corporate America that make mass culture what it is. It is a revolution that plans to overthrow the aristocrats by cutting their taxes.[...] The culture wars, in other words, are a way of framing the ever-powerful subject of social class. They are a way for Republicans to speak on behalf of the forgotten man without causing any problems for their core big-business constituency.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T16:11:10-06:00

ID

86086

Comment

What to do? More Franks: Against this militant, aggrieved, full-throated philosophy the Democrats chose to go with ... what? Their usual soft centrism, creating space for this constituency and that, taking care to antagonize no one, declining even to criticize the president, really, at their convention. And despite huge get-out-the-vote efforts and an enormous treasury, Democrats lost the battle of voter motivation before it started. Worse: While conservatives were sharpening their sense of class victimization, Democrats had all but abandoned the field. For some time, the centrist Democratic establishment in Washington has been enamored of the notion that, since the industrial age is ending, the party must forget about blue-collar workers and their issues and embrace the "professional" class. During the 2004 campaign these new, business-friendly Democrats received high-profile assistance from idealistic tycoons and openly embraced trendy management theory. They imagined themselves the "metro" party of cool billionaires engaged in some kind of cosmic combat with the square billionaires of the "retro" Republican Party. Yet this would have been a perfect year to give the Republicans a Trumanesque spanking for the many corporate scandals that they have countenanced and, in some ways, enabled. Taking such a stand would also have provided Democrats with a way to address and maybe even defeat the angry populism that informs the "values" issues while simultaneously mobilizing their base. To short-circuit the Republican appeals to blue-collar constituents, Democrats must confront the cultural populism of the wedge issues with genuine economic populism. They must dust off their own majoritarian militancy instead of suppressing it; sharpen the distinctions between the parties instead of minimizing them; emphasize the contradictions of culture-war populism instead of ignoring them; and speak forthrightly about who gains and who loses from conservative economic policy. What is more likely, of course, is that Democratic officialdom will simply see this week's disaster as a reason to redouble their efforts to move to the right. They will give in on, say, Social Security privatization or income tax "reform" and will continue to dream their happy dreams about becoming the party of the enlightened corporate class. And they will be surprised all over again two or four years from now when the conservative populists of the Red America, poorer and angrier than ever, deal the "party of the people" yet another stunning blow.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T17:16:41-06:00

ID

86087

Comment

I thought you might find this interesting, county by county voting results; http://electoral-vote.com/ It seems that rather then a country divided by north/south, coasts/heartland etc.. The division is urban/rural. Hinds vs. Madison/Rankin seems to be the rule.

Author

bryan grundon

Date

2004-11-05T18:38:30-06:00

ID

86088

Comment

Happy, happy weekend, all. I'm really going to try to stay offline and tend to my personal life a bit. I've really enjoyed this dialogue this week, though, and I'm very inspired. It's wonderful being part of the community with all of you. Keep the faith, Donna

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-11-05T19:22:02-06:00

ID

86089

Comment

also here is the National Council of Churches election study guide http://www.ncccusa.org/electionyearprinciplesguide.html

Author

bryan grundon

Date

2004-11-05T19:32:37-06:00

ID

86090

Comment

I know this is a few days late, but an ecumenical I-Worm.Bagle.y silenced my free-speech machine here. Uhm, that was my hero JOE Hill (born Joel Hagglund) who was executed in Utah. But I am glad he is still in the memory banks. He had a note smuggled out the night before his execution that read "Don't waste your time mourning- ORGANIZE!" Gibbs M. Smith's excellent biography "Joe Hill" is still in print; I've even seen it at Lemuria. Wallace Stegner also wrote a fine novel about Joe Hill titled "The Preacher And The Slave", dealing with a fictional friendship Hill had with a Lutheran minister in San Pedro, CA. It's been reissued as "Joe Hill", and is a very good tale of the life of the IWW rank and file before the First World War. And, to all Paul Robeson fans, we know he sang the best version of "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night". Cheers.

Author

corrosiongone

Date

2004-11-06T06:00:39-06:00

ID

86091

Comment

In his speech Friday to the Urban Land Institute, Clinton attributed Kerry's loss to the Democrats' failure to counter how Republicans portrayed them to rural and small-town voters. "If we let people believe that our party doesn't believe in faith and family, doesn't believe in work and freedom, that's our fault," he said. Democrats "need a clear national message and they have to do this without one big advantage the Republicans have, which is they won't have a theological message that basically paints the other guy as evil." Clinton gave Bush and the Republicans credit for the election victory. "The Republicans had a clear message, a good messenger, great organization and great strategy," he said. "The Republicans did a better job of turning out those who were already registered who hadn't voted" as well as bringing out their base. Full Story

Author

kaust

Date

2004-11-06T13:38:56-06:00

ID

86092

Comment

Knol... "I don't even have to reply.... I'll let James do it... "What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." - James Madison They knew what happened when a govt was controlled by the Church... Hell, isn't that why the fled Europe in the first place? These are the people that are out to destroy America as we know it. They claim we want to re-define marriage... Well, I say they want to redefine America and Liberty!" Well, Knol, that's the thinking that led to the "evil" Christians coming out and voting for Republicans instead of Dems. From what I've heard after the election, leading Dems seem to think that Christianity is an ultra right wing conspiracy. Seperation of church and state is a must but you have to go about it in PC kind of way. You have to be soooo sensitive to every race, religion, etc. unless that religion is Christianity. In that case, blast away. Well, it pissed enough of these Jesus Belt people off to get their pasty white asses out of their Lazy Boys and get them to the polls. And if this attack on Christian values continues, the Dems could stand to lose a lot of African American votes as well.

Author

jlp

Date

2004-11-10T19:21:37-06:00

ID

86093

Comment

jlp:You have to be soooo sensitive to every race, religion, etc. unless that religion is Christianity Philip: That part is sad but true. But the anti-Religion extremists are beside the point. EVERY viewpoint has its wacko nutballs, including the racist Christian Identity movement. Now you will say they are not truly Christian - and I 1,000% agree. In the same way, militantly viscious attacks against Christianity are not truly progressive, open-minded people either. LET'S ALL STOP LISTENING TO THE EXTREMISTS!! P.S. Had DeKlerk and Mandela listened to their extremist elements for whatever reason, South Africa would have VERY likely plunged down into a race war!

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-10T20:53:49-06:00

ID

86094

Comment

While we are throwing Madison quotes around, I thought I'd throw these into the mix: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." (1778) "Religion is the basis and foundation of government." (June 20, 1785)

Author

M Brady

Date

2004-11-10T20:55:34-06:00

ID

86095

Comment

"Madison Quotes" likely refers to the quotes Knol and I posted on the Values and Voters Page, posted Nov 10th My response to MBrady will be posted on that thread

Author

Philip

Date

2004-11-10T21:05:39-06:00

ID

86096

Comment

M, again, in what context was our oft quoted Mr. Madison speaking in these quotations? Do you have a link?

Author

Jen

Date

2004-11-15T14:37:30-06:00