My point-of-view regarding the passing of Prop 8 in California banning same-sex marriages is not so much concerned about the morality of the issue, nor is it so much concerned with the semantics of making a distinction between civil unions and "the institution of Marriage." (My opinion, for what it's worth, is that same-sex couples should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, except they should not be allowed to marry in a church that forbids same-sex marriages.) My focus will not even address the mindset of the various soulless, misinformed, sheep-like, or mean-spirited people who voted 'yes.' Instead, I wish to focus on the mindset of the religious organizations who contributed to the $35 million kitty (at last count) spent to help defeat efforts to treat gays like actual human beings.
My father has many good qualities, and one of the few I actually assimilated from him was a healthy dose of skepticism, which I had in abundance early on when it came to politics, academia, sports, culture, and Madison Ave, but not in matters of organized religion. My father, while dutifully taking me to our local Catholic church on Easter Sunday and on Christmas morning, always questioned the hearts of the priests, disgusted by the constant requests for money. From my teen years through adulthood, I passed this off as Archie Bunker-esque rantings and attended Mass almost every Sunday, each week dropping a relatively generous donation into the basket(s). My father liked that I attended Mass, but never withheld his feelings about the collection basket and charities in general. I ignored this, as well as an observation by a female friend who attended church with me that the charismatic head priest of my Catholic parish drove a very nice Cadillac.
My feelings started to change when my parish, led by this same priest, pushed for a multi-million dollar church to be constructed where a functional rustic church in existence for almost 100 years was standing. This initiative and the accompanying money drive took a life of its own and, the nanosecond after the virulent, yet doomed legal opposition to the new church from long-time parishoners was defeated, the charming old church was razed and replaced by a larger, charmless building.
These changing feelings came to a head during the molestation scandals that recently rocked the Catholic Church, when, literally, hundreds of millions were paid by Catholic dioceses to settle lawsuits stemming from the quiet shuffling from parish-to-parish of priests accused of molesting minors. I was baffled that the dioceses had such a resevoir of loot! Wasn't this money supposed to be actively used for missionary and charitable work?
Fast forward to 2008, where the side of bigotry rejoices that, for the $35 million spent, at least they were on the winning team. However, wouldn't this money have been better spent actually following Christ's example of compassionate works of healing the sick and feeding the poor? For example, $35 million could pay for 140,000 cleft surgeries, if the www.smiletrain.org website is to be believed, or pay to build in the country, ahem, on the continent of Africa 500 hospitals dedicated to helping to reconstruct the clitorises of African women circumsized against their will. Or, judging by my Acme supermarket receipt, $35 million could give 3.5 million people one 1/2 gallon of Tropicana Orange Juice, a Healthy Choice French Bread Pizza, and a 2-lb box of Uncle Ben's Rice. Or, agricultural education and equipment that would allow people all over-the-world to become self-sufficient. Or, to support the downtrodden at home. You get the idea.
Although I don't purport to have any higher understanding of Jesus Christ than what the Gospels say, I would imagine He would be appalled at the hundreds of millions spent by churches to address lawsuits, and the tens of millions more spent by churches and parishioners to encourage people to vote to deny gays even a secular marriage. The majority of churches and a good number of churchgoers have badly lost their way, veering far, far away from the church's original mission of worship, spreading the Word, and charitable works. One can speculate for days the cause of this loss-of-perspective. I, personally, no longer give money to any religious entity not given the highest rating by charity watchdogs and, as a person who agonizes over how many dollars he can afford to donate to the various charities he likes or is touched by, am disgusted by Organized Religion. I don't see the rationale behind continuing to allow these groups to enjoy a tax-exempt status.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Republicans (originally posted 11/18/2008)
In self-penned liner notes on his second album "I Ain't Marching Anymore" (1965), folksinger Phil Ochs wrote, "A century from now, intelligent men will read in amazement about the murder of Caryl Chessman and wonder what excuse for a society flourished in these times" to introduce a didactic anti-capital punishment song titled Iron Lady. Well, I don't know about that- putting people to death for various transgressions has been a time-honored tradition for thousands of years (Hammurabi's Code, the Holy Bible) and, 43 years after Ochs's recording (a much more upbeat anti-capital punishment song is Ochs's Paul Crump, recorded earlier), a significant segment of the American population is still fairly comfortable with a murderer getting his/her just desserts (Jesus, it may be recalled, saved an adulterer from being stoned to death. No similar passage was cited of Jesus rescuing a murderer from death. Now THAT would have been a revolutionary teaching!) However, while I believe society will still be sanguine about capital punishment 57 years from now, I hope that, "a century from now, intelligent (people) will read in amazement" that today's version of the Republican party could win Presidential elections and, even in a "landslide" loss such as 2008, could still earn over 55 million popular votes (are there THAT many people with incomes over $250,000?) For, although the leaders of and the money behind the Republican party have the interests of a very small subset of the population at heart, a large segment of the population gets duped into voting for this evil force come Election Day.
Clearly, the true Republican party platform, regardless of their campaign slogans and feigned empathy, is to foster an economic environment favoring the rich. Do not be fooled by the collapsing stock market- oil companies are turning record profits, CEO salaries and bonuses are as huge as ever, and sports teams are as valuable as ever. Of course, unemployment is rising, 401Ks are devalued, the deficit is increasing, and this affects the well-to-do how? If profits are down (NOT losses, mind you, just not as staggering an amount of profits from quarter-to-quarter) or stock prices are sinking (an occurence based upon perception, not upon actual capital), the powers-that-be cut costs not by reducing the salary ratio between CEOs and employees, but by slashing benefits, salaries, and bonuses, or by eliminating jobs entirely. And, yet, middle- and lower-class people still vote for a party quite content with these developments.
What's almost as odious about the Republicans are the conventions they hold once every four years. No, not just the us-against-them tone of all of the speeches or the facade about caring for all Americans. No, I'm talking about the video that invariably gets played every four years highlighting the grand tradition of the G.O.P. by showing past Republican commander-in-chiefs, as if to suggest that, say, John McCain, George W. Bush, et al, have some tangible lineage to past Republican presidents. The video usually first shows the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Well, all of Lincoln's decisions as president, first-and-foremost, were meant to reunite the country, hardly a paradigm for the divisive campaigns and policies of the most recent Republican politicians. Lincoln was in favor of the separation of Church and State and favored a progressive tax. Also, Lincoln crafted the Emancipation Proclamation, still the greatest Civil Rights initiative in U.S. history. (After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the second greatest Civil Rights initiative in our history, LBJ told an aide "We (meaning the Democratic party) have lost the South for a generation." The Southern bigots flocked to the Republican party, where they reside to this day.) So, no dice on Honest Abe.
The next president invoked is typically Theodore Roosevelt, a shining example of the supposed Republican belief in the rugged individualism Republicans use as an excuse to widen the gulf between rich and poor. However, although TR was indeed a unique individual, many of his policies are decidely-at-odds with today's right-wing. Yes, his hunting expeditions and the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine fall-in-line with, say, the Bush-Cheney group. However, Roosevelt was also a regulator whose anti-trust measures, support for child labor laws, and support for the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug Acts of 1906, plus his creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, were progressive and decidely anti-big business (but NOT anti-Capitalist). One could imagine a Rush Limbaugh prototype, if radio was around back then, disclaiming how any one of these measures would be disastrous to the economy because it would raise the costs of doing business (at least Sean Hannity sounds like he can barely keep a straight face when he regurgitates the Republican supply side s---). Even more impressive and anti-today's Republican ("drill, drill, drill!") was his preservation of over 200 million acres of forestland from development. Yes, a Republican made conservation a priority. (Oh, irony!)
The election of Democrat Barack Obama is encouraging. However, after the Republican convention in Minnesota earlier this year, reputable polls had the Presidential race within the margin-of-error, and it took an economic crisis for the country to turn Democratic, as it did during the 1932 and 1992 elections. However, after Bill Clinton left the country in 2000 with the largest budget surplus in U.S. history, the country rewarded this achievement by voting Republican in that year's Presidential election, and I have no doubt the country will do the same in the future.
Clearly, the true Republican party platform, regardless of their campaign slogans and feigned empathy, is to foster an economic environment favoring the rich. Do not be fooled by the collapsing stock market- oil companies are turning record profits, CEO salaries and bonuses are as huge as ever, and sports teams are as valuable as ever. Of course, unemployment is rising, 401Ks are devalued, the deficit is increasing, and this affects the well-to-do how? If profits are down (NOT losses, mind you, just not as staggering an amount of profits from quarter-to-quarter) or stock prices are sinking (an occurence based upon perception, not upon actual capital), the powers-that-be cut costs not by reducing the salary ratio between CEOs and employees, but by slashing benefits, salaries, and bonuses, or by eliminating jobs entirely. And, yet, middle- and lower-class people still vote for a party quite content with these developments.
What's almost as odious about the Republicans are the conventions they hold once every four years. No, not just the us-against-them tone of all of the speeches or the facade about caring for all Americans. No, I'm talking about the video that invariably gets played every four years highlighting the grand tradition of the G.O.P. by showing past Republican commander-in-chiefs, as if to suggest that, say, John McCain, George W. Bush, et al, have some tangible lineage to past Republican presidents. The video usually first shows the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln. Well, all of Lincoln's decisions as president, first-and-foremost, were meant to reunite the country, hardly a paradigm for the divisive campaigns and policies of the most recent Republican politicians. Lincoln was in favor of the separation of Church and State and favored a progressive tax. Also, Lincoln crafted the Emancipation Proclamation, still the greatest Civil Rights initiative in U.S. history. (After signing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the second greatest Civil Rights initiative in our history, LBJ told an aide "We (meaning the Democratic party) have lost the South for a generation." The Southern bigots flocked to the Republican party, where they reside to this day.) So, no dice on Honest Abe.
The next president invoked is typically Theodore Roosevelt, a shining example of the supposed Republican belief in the rugged individualism Republicans use as an excuse to widen the gulf between rich and poor. However, although TR was indeed a unique individual, many of his policies are decidely-at-odds with today's right-wing. Yes, his hunting expeditions and the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine fall-in-line with, say, the Bush-Cheney group. However, Roosevelt was also a regulator whose anti-trust measures, support for child labor laws, and support for the Meat Inspection and Pure Food and Drug Acts of 1906, plus his creation of the Department of Commerce and Labor in 1903, were progressive and decidely anti-big business (but NOT anti-Capitalist). One could imagine a Rush Limbaugh prototype, if radio was around back then, disclaiming how any one of these measures would be disastrous to the economy because it would raise the costs of doing business (at least Sean Hannity sounds like he can barely keep a straight face when he regurgitates the Republican supply side s---). Even more impressive and anti-today's Republican ("drill, drill, drill!") was his preservation of over 200 million acres of forestland from development. Yes, a Republican made conservation a priority. (Oh, irony!)
The election of Democrat Barack Obama is encouraging. However, after the Republican convention in Minnesota earlier this year, reputable polls had the Presidential race within the margin-of-error, and it took an economic crisis for the country to turn Democratic, as it did during the 1932 and 1992 elections. However, after Bill Clinton left the country in 2000 with the largest budget surplus in U.S. history, the country rewarded this achievement by voting Republican in that year's Presidential election, and I have no doubt the country will do the same in the future.
Choosing a Candidate (orig. posted 10/26/2008)
In line with items in tow for purchase, I smiled at the plain, yet lovely blonde cashier in her mid 40's and dropped the goods on the belt. She smiled back and asked if I had found everything I was looking for. I was surprised by the question, having previously been asked that only at Trader Joe's in Wilmington, but pressed on with an honest answer: "No, I wasn't able to. I was unable to find a vice-presidential candidate." Then, I remembered, ah-ha!, I was shopping at Target and not Wal-Mart. "I apologize. Wrong store," I said. The woman, perhaps interested in me a moment ago, shook her head, mentally chalked me up as a nut, and completed the transaction by tentatively, yet politely wishing me a nice day.
For the reader perplexed by this dialogue, I can do no better than to quote an Associated Press story dated October 18: "Clad in a green kilt and knee socks and wearing a READ MY LIPSTICK button, Ephrata resident Brett Gilbert, 56, called (Sarah) Palin "my kind of person" in part because she's a hunter and has a child in the military. "She's real," said Gilbert, a vehicle damage appraiser. "I mean, the other day, she had to stop at Wal-Mart and buy diapers."
(No, I am not making this s--- up, at least not the second paragraph.)
I soldiered on in my search for a proper vice-presidential candidate and went to a local Wal-Mart. I lurked in their sporting goods section, waiting for someone to buy hunting accessories. A few people did, and I followed them throughout the store, waiting for one of them to pick up diapers as well. If they had, I would have asked them if they had a child in the military and, if so, would have asked them why they were not running for national office, since they obviously had all the necessary qualifications. Unfortunately, after a few days of stalking various Wal-Marts, I abandoned my efforts.
An absurd effort on my part, perhaps, but not as absurd as the reasons some people give for casting their votes. It's become a cliche, but people really have been quoted as saying that they voted for President Bush (as opposed to Kerry) because he's the type of guy you could have a beer with. Of course, President Bush's Administration has overseen the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, plus 9/11, and the least empathetic response to a humanitarian disaster in our history. No news on whether Bush had a beer with those widowed, displaced, or unemployed as a result of his decisions. A McCain Administration promises more of the same but, hey, he and that Sarah babe are "real Americans," whatever that means. The more complex the times get, the more of an emotional need many people have for the "plain talk" McCain and Palin (Palin=plain is an anagram, BTW) offer that they can understand.
(Of course, on the opposite end of the spectrum, people who vote for a candidate because of an abstract notion of change without being able to articulate any specifics should also be censured.)
Mr. Gilbert, you look for someone who speaks to your level, as if insinuating that you, too, could be president. I'll opt for the candidate who's the smartest, the most specific in his ideas, and the most utilitarian. I mean, Ralph Nader.
For the reader perplexed by this dialogue, I can do no better than to quote an Associated Press story dated October 18: "Clad in a green kilt and knee socks and wearing a READ MY LIPSTICK button, Ephrata resident Brett Gilbert, 56, called (Sarah) Palin "my kind of person" in part because she's a hunter and has a child in the military. "She's real," said Gilbert, a vehicle damage appraiser. "I mean, the other day, she had to stop at Wal-Mart and buy diapers."
(No, I am not making this s--- up, at least not the second paragraph.)
I soldiered on in my search for a proper vice-presidential candidate and went to a local Wal-Mart. I lurked in their sporting goods section, waiting for someone to buy hunting accessories. A few people did, and I followed them throughout the store, waiting for one of them to pick up diapers as well. If they had, I would have asked them if they had a child in the military and, if so, would have asked them why they were not running for national office, since they obviously had all the necessary qualifications. Unfortunately, after a few days of stalking various Wal-Marts, I abandoned my efforts.
An absurd effort on my part, perhaps, but not as absurd as the reasons some people give for casting their votes. It's become a cliche, but people really have been quoted as saying that they voted for President Bush (as opposed to Kerry) because he's the type of guy you could have a beer with. Of course, President Bush's Administration has overseen the biggest economic disaster since the Great Depression, the biggest foreign policy disaster in American history, plus 9/11, and the least empathetic response to a humanitarian disaster in our history. No news on whether Bush had a beer with those widowed, displaced, or unemployed as a result of his decisions. A McCain Administration promises more of the same but, hey, he and that Sarah babe are "real Americans," whatever that means. The more complex the times get, the more of an emotional need many people have for the "plain talk" McCain and Palin (Palin=plain is an anagram, BTW) offer that they can understand.
(Of course, on the opposite end of the spectrum, people who vote for a candidate because of an abstract notion of change without being able to articulate any specifics should also be censured.)
Mr. Gilbert, you look for someone who speaks to your level, as if insinuating that you, too, could be president. I'll opt for the candidate who's the smartest, the most specific in his ideas, and the most utilitarian. I mean, Ralph Nader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)