There's been a lot of debate lately over the question, Is the United States of America a free nation or a Christian nation? Take a minute to ponder and possibly be frightened by the fact that no one ever asks if it's a free Christian nation. Which should to a degree answer the question.
And the answer is, it's a free nation founded by people of different Christian faiths. I really don't know why this is so hard for people to understand. The First Amendment to the Constitution reads Freedom of Religion. It does not say Freedom of Religion as long as that religion is Christianity.
This is one area where the founders were far more forward thinking than those who seek to shape our laws and future today. They knew that using religion to make and enforce laws was a bad idea. The reason they knew this was because, that's how things were done in England at the time. If a new king or queen came to power whose religion was different than their predecessor people's very way of life changed drastically. Those who didn't practice the religion of the king or queen were persecuted. If they were brave enough to practice a religion other than that of the king or queen they had to do so secretly, risking death to do so.
This issue with religion caused great turmoil in a time and country where rulers came to power through their bloodlines. Which usually meant they'd go long periods of time under the rule of one religion before some distant branch of the family took over and changed religions. Imagine the havoc that would be wreaked upon our country when our leaders change every few years. The fact that our laws are determined by a group that is a mix of various religions is why religion is to be kept out of the process.
Consider how much trouble we have getting the Republican and Democratic parties to agree and imagine what it would be like if everyone was fighting for religious control. Sure our government is predominantly Christian but, which branch of Christianity should have control. Each branch practices the religion a different way. All of them follow different parts of the Bible more strictly than other parts. Which one should be the dominant one? Do you see the problems that would arise if that was how the government was run?
This is precisely why the founders made a nation founded on freedom and on religious freedom. They wanted people to be able to practice their religion as loosely or as strictly as possible without fear of punishment.
So the next time you go to church and/or dis someone else for their religious beliefs remember they are exercising the same right you are. Remember that if you aren't careful your particular branch of Christianity could suddenly become the "bad" religion. Remember the same freedoms that allow you to go to church a couple times a year are the same ones that allow others to go weekly or not at all. And just as you wouldn't like being forced to go every week they wouldn't like being told when they can, can't or have to go to church. Or which things they are suppose to adhere to more strictly than others. Nor would any of them (or you I'm sure) like being told that you can't practice a certain religion.
Most importantly always remember it's a free nation.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Third Party Candidates Good or Bad?
The answer is that third party candidates are both good and bad.
They are good because they bring different topics to the table. Just like in big party primaries when you have people who don't have a chance of winning but, they have a topic they are more versed in and push for that the rest of the candidates are forced to talk about. That is why third party candidates are good for the political process. And there are some places where they have managed to win seats in their state governments and even at the federal level. I am all for third parties in certain instances. And hopefully someday there will be a truely strong Independent party that is a threat to the Democrats and Republicans and then there might really be such a thing as bi-partisanship in government.
However, they are bad because of the people who think voting for them makes a statement and will somehow cause change. This is not true nor is it a good idea if you really want things to change in our governement. See the only real way to get change is to get rid of your incumbent and get someone new in there. If you have 3000 people voting for someone who won't win there will never be change. I get voting for the people that you think most represent the things you believe in. However, sometimes you really need to vote for someone who will win.
If you can get that incumbent out of office who has been there for 4 or 5 terms then the next time around you have a better chance of maybe seeing that 3rd party candidate get elected. It may be a small chance but, it's a better chance than while there is still a multi-term incumbent in office. Now you might think that doesn't make since. But, think about it. If someone has only been in office one term their hold isn't as strong. The next election is rather open. This gives the 3rd party candidate a bigger appeal. It gives them more room to have their voices heard. Even if they don't win that time around they may pull more votes which gets more attention and eventually they will win a seat. And if you really really believe in 3rd party candidates the best thing to do is work to get them into your state government and then move up to the federal level.
The other problem with 3rd party candidates is that a lot of times they are big party losers. What I mean by that is they are a former Democrat or Republican who couldn't win the primary or even get the support of their party. So instead of staying in the party and trying again later they throw a fit like a little kid and go play by themselves. They take their views that are mostly like one of the big parties and then make a platform of the things that differ from their old party. They aren't truly independent because if elected they would side with which ever party they came from. They of course end up not getting elected and often hurt the person who has the best chance at offering change by winning. And so just like the little kid on the playground they are left by themselves with no one to play with and everyone is worse off.
Eventually Independents will have a big impact on our government it's just a matter of if the country can survive until then not getting enough new voices in from certain areas. And I know what I'm talking about because it has happened the last two elections in my district. Especially the last time. If people hadn't voted for the 3rd party candidate we would have gotten rid of our evil incumbent representative. I'd seriously consider voting for a 3rd party candidate but, right now I know they wouldn't beat her and my focus is on getting her out of office.
They are good because they bring different topics to the table. Just like in big party primaries when you have people who don't have a chance of winning but, they have a topic they are more versed in and push for that the rest of the candidates are forced to talk about. That is why third party candidates are good for the political process. And there are some places where they have managed to win seats in their state governments and even at the federal level. I am all for third parties in certain instances. And hopefully someday there will be a truely strong Independent party that is a threat to the Democrats and Republicans and then there might really be such a thing as bi-partisanship in government.
However, they are bad because of the people who think voting for them makes a statement and will somehow cause change. This is not true nor is it a good idea if you really want things to change in our governement. See the only real way to get change is to get rid of your incumbent and get someone new in there. If you have 3000 people voting for someone who won't win there will never be change. I get voting for the people that you think most represent the things you believe in. However, sometimes you really need to vote for someone who will win.
If you can get that incumbent out of office who has been there for 4 or 5 terms then the next time around you have a better chance of maybe seeing that 3rd party candidate get elected. It may be a small chance but, it's a better chance than while there is still a multi-term incumbent in office. Now you might think that doesn't make since. But, think about it. If someone has only been in office one term their hold isn't as strong. The next election is rather open. This gives the 3rd party candidate a bigger appeal. It gives them more room to have their voices heard. Even if they don't win that time around they may pull more votes which gets more attention and eventually they will win a seat. And if you really really believe in 3rd party candidates the best thing to do is work to get them into your state government and then move up to the federal level.
The other problem with 3rd party candidates is that a lot of times they are big party losers. What I mean by that is they are a former Democrat or Republican who couldn't win the primary or even get the support of their party. So instead of staying in the party and trying again later they throw a fit like a little kid and go play by themselves. They take their views that are mostly like one of the big parties and then make a platform of the things that differ from their old party. They aren't truly independent because if elected they would side with which ever party they came from. They of course end up not getting elected and often hurt the person who has the best chance at offering change by winning. And so just like the little kid on the playground they are left by themselves with no one to play with and everyone is worse off.
Eventually Independents will have a big impact on our government it's just a matter of if the country can survive until then not getting enough new voices in from certain areas. And I know what I'm talking about because it has happened the last two elections in my district. Especially the last time. If people hadn't voted for the 3rd party candidate we would have gotten rid of our evil incumbent representative. I'd seriously consider voting for a 3rd party candidate but, right now I know they wouldn't beat her and my focus is on getting her out of office.
More On ENDA
Not that he's ahead but, Barney Frank needs to shut-up and stop digging his whole deeper. Last week he gave a statement to Congress again proving that he really doesn't care about the transgendered community. There are several things that could be commented on but, I will just focus on two of them.
In his statement he said that we've been dealing sexual orientation predjudice and fighting it since the Stonewall riots of 1969. And that the predjudices towards the transgendered are newer. A little history lesson for Mr. Frank, it was the transgendered and crossdressers the police were after that night at Stonewall. The transgendered community has been dealing with the predjudice just as long and they've had to take it from those who should support them as well. The difference is that they aren't going to take it anymore and the rest of the LGBTQ community is finally starting to fight for and with them, rather than against them.
In regards to lobbying efforts by the LGBTQ organizations and individuals in the last couple weeks Mr. Frank said "Where were they when we needed them? I'm glad to see the activity now - I just wish it was not so late." The answer is, we were there. Everyone was involved. However, they were focused on the hearings and getting the bill through committee and onto the floor. They were told it would be a tough fight but, that it would pass. So they worked on making sure people didn't pull their support rather than aggressively pursuing people for votes and scaring them. The organizations and community were then blindsided by Mr. Frank's decision to pull the gender identity portion of the bill. Had he made it clear months ago that, that was a possibility people would have done hard lobbying and educating.
I think that was his plan all along. Put gender identity in to get stronger support from the organizations. Then pull it at the last minute. And he expected everyone to just lay down and take it. Only to his dismay that isn't what happened. He talks about people in Congress telling him and the others behind the bill what they wanted to hear. Which is exactly what he did to the community. He told us what he needed to, to get the big chunk of support and then changed it at the last minute to get what he wanted.
There's a couple of questions being over looked in all of this. Those questions are:
1) If people having jobs, not being on public assistance, taking care of their families, and everything else that ripples from being employed is such a fundemental part of the platforms for both parties how can either side justify allowing anyone to be fired or not hired for anything other than their ability to do the job?
2) Why is there such a rush to pass it by the end of this year? Now that people know the truth is their any harm in waiting a couple months while we do some more lobbying and educating. After all Mr. Frank has said that the whole reason for this is that there hasn't been enough education on the subject. Maybe we get more votes, maybe we don't. But what difference does it make if a fully inclusive ENDA or a sexual orientation only one is passed and vetoed this year or early next year? You never know what can happen in a few months.
In his statement he said that we've been dealing sexual orientation predjudice and fighting it since the Stonewall riots of 1969. And that the predjudices towards the transgendered are newer. A little history lesson for Mr. Frank, it was the transgendered and crossdressers the police were after that night at Stonewall. The transgendered community has been dealing with the predjudice just as long and they've had to take it from those who should support them as well. The difference is that they aren't going to take it anymore and the rest of the LGBTQ community is finally starting to fight for and with them, rather than against them.
In regards to lobbying efforts by the LGBTQ organizations and individuals in the last couple weeks Mr. Frank said "Where were they when we needed them? I'm glad to see the activity now - I just wish it was not so late." The answer is, we were there. Everyone was involved. However, they were focused on the hearings and getting the bill through committee and onto the floor. They were told it would be a tough fight but, that it would pass. So they worked on making sure people didn't pull their support rather than aggressively pursuing people for votes and scaring them. The organizations and community were then blindsided by Mr. Frank's decision to pull the gender identity portion of the bill. Had he made it clear months ago that, that was a possibility people would have done hard lobbying and educating.
I think that was his plan all along. Put gender identity in to get stronger support from the organizations. Then pull it at the last minute. And he expected everyone to just lay down and take it. Only to his dismay that isn't what happened. He talks about people in Congress telling him and the others behind the bill what they wanted to hear. Which is exactly what he did to the community. He told us what he needed to, to get the big chunk of support and then changed it at the last minute to get what he wanted.
There's a couple of questions being over looked in all of this. Those questions are:
1) If people having jobs, not being on public assistance, taking care of their families, and everything else that ripples from being employed is such a fundemental part of the platforms for both parties how can either side justify allowing anyone to be fired or not hired for anything other than their ability to do the job?
2) Why is there such a rush to pass it by the end of this year? Now that people know the truth is their any harm in waiting a couple months while we do some more lobbying and educating. After all Mr. Frank has said that the whole reason for this is that there hasn't been enough education on the subject. Maybe we get more votes, maybe we don't. But what difference does it make if a fully inclusive ENDA or a sexual orientation only one is passed and vetoed this year or early next year? You never know what can happen in a few months.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The 14th Amendment
Lately a lot of people give lips service to what is known as the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment. Most notably in the last few years it is the basis for most lawsuits in regards to forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation and is what we in favor of same-sex marriage point to in our fight for equality. It is used by other people and groups who often win there cases while we lose ours.
People are always saying that the "Equal Protection Clause" doesn't apply to LGBTQ people. They have various reasons for why it doesn't apply. The two most common are 1) that the founders didn't intend for it to protect people based on their sexual orientation. Anytime people start talking about what the founders intended I have to laugh. I always wonder exactly when they sat down and had a conversation with the founders. And 2) that sexual orientation isn't a protected class so it doesn't apply to them.
People could not be more wrong with either of these arguments and it proves that either they haven't read the 14th Amendment or they are counting on the majority of the population never having read it. (There really should be a required course in middle school and/or high school on nothing but the Constitution.)
Anyway, just so people know the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. Which is actually almost 100 years after the Bill of Rights (that would be the first 10 Amendments) was ratified. Which means a whole other group of progressive forward thinking people were behind it. Also it was ratified long before there was such a thing as a "protected class" in this country.
There's five sections to the 14th Amendment. Section 1 being the so-called "Equal Protection Clause" and it reads as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now that you've actually read it (possibly for the first time) I ask you exactly how do you figure it doesn't apply to certain citizens of the country. Because I've read it serveral times an can not find anything about it only applying to "protected classes". It applys to all citizens. Pure and simple if any one person is granted a protection or liberty then all persons have to be afforded those same things.
It's not that hard to figure out that state governments and the federal government are in violation of this on a daily basis. And that the courts themselves are constantly violating. Which makes me wonder how many of those judges have actually read the Constitution.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA)
The sudden notion that this bill will not pass if it includes gender identity is very odd. Anytime a bi-partisan bill goes for months with all indications that it will pass and then suddenly when it gets crunch time it supposedly needs a major change to pass it is a bit suspect.
I'm not even going to go into my big tirade about the HRC and them supporting it without the gender identity provision and then trying to reverse course after all the other LGBT (or if your more progressive LGBTQ) groups made it clear they wouldn't support it. Mainly I'm not going to do that because that post would end up being way too long. The short version though is that the HRC is a two faced organization that hurts the entire LGBTQ community and other organizations with their wishy-washiness.
Disclaimer: Before reading any further please note that I am not trying to insult any portion of the community. I have friends all over the spectrum and have to date have found them to be very accepting of transgendered people. But, there is a portion of the community that wants nothing to do with trans people and that bothers me. Even those who don't support the trans people would still find support from me and all my friends in their fights for equality. Also incase you might be wondering I am not trans.
Back to the subject at hand. What really hurts about this is that it is Barney Frank an openly gay man doing this and trying to make excuses for why it is okay. First off for him to say that the Transgendered leadership in this country is hurting the movement by not realizing the truth of the matter and how hard the fight is, is completely unacceptable. Yet it shows a greater problem in the community and that is the in fighting.
Sure the G and L portions will take all the help they can get in the fight. Including from the transgender people but, when it comes to fighting for those transgendered people too many people in high positions seem to still be too willing to throw the T part under the bus. Luckily there is a younger more understanding portion of the LGBTQ community that is willing to fight for the ideal of equality for all. People who actually believe that an injustice for one is an injustice for all.
And now for the extremely radical and possibly inflamatory portion of the post. In his statement reqarding removing the gender identity provision Mr. Frank said: "The question facing us – the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice – is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap. I believe that it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we’ll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today."
The Mr. Frank since women are traditionally more accepting of peoples sexual orientation and men generally just love the idea of two women together I have a question for you. Would it be okay to pass a change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell that makes it okay for lesbians to be openly in the military but, not gay men? Because you know it's more important to pass something with a major gap as we work towards the ultimate goal than not getting it passed at all.
I'm not even going to go into my big tirade about the HRC and them supporting it without the gender identity provision and then trying to reverse course after all the other LGBT (or if your more progressive LGBTQ) groups made it clear they wouldn't support it. Mainly I'm not going to do that because that post would end up being way too long. The short version though is that the HRC is a two faced organization that hurts the entire LGBTQ community and other organizations with their wishy-washiness.
Disclaimer: Before reading any further please note that I am not trying to insult any portion of the community. I have friends all over the spectrum and have to date have found them to be very accepting of transgendered people. But, there is a portion of the community that wants nothing to do with trans people and that bothers me. Even those who don't support the trans people would still find support from me and all my friends in their fights for equality. Also incase you might be wondering I am not trans.
Back to the subject at hand. What really hurts about this is that it is Barney Frank an openly gay man doing this and trying to make excuses for why it is okay. First off for him to say that the Transgendered leadership in this country is hurting the movement by not realizing the truth of the matter and how hard the fight is, is completely unacceptable. Yet it shows a greater problem in the community and that is the in fighting.
Sure the G and L portions will take all the help they can get in the fight. Including from the transgender people but, when it comes to fighting for those transgendered people too many people in high positions seem to still be too willing to throw the T part under the bus. Luckily there is a younger more understanding portion of the LGBTQ community that is willing to fight for the ideal of equality for all. People who actually believe that an injustice for one is an injustice for all.
And now for the extremely radical and possibly inflamatory portion of the post. In his statement reqarding removing the gender identity provision Mr. Frank said: "The question facing us – the LGBT community and the tens of millions of others who are active supporters of our fight against prejudice – is whether we should pass up the chance to adopt a very good bill because it has one major gap. I believe that it would be a grave error to let this opportunity to pass a sexual orientation nondiscrimination bill go forward, not simply because it is one of the most important advances we’ll have made in securing civil rights for Americans in decades, but because moving forward on this bill now will also better serve the ultimate goal of including people who are transgender than simply accepting total defeat today."
The Mr. Frank since women are traditionally more accepting of peoples sexual orientation and men generally just love the idea of two women together I have a question for you. Would it be okay to pass a change to Don't Ask, Don't Tell that makes it okay for lesbians to be openly in the military but, not gay men? Because you know it's more important to pass something with a major gap as we work towards the ultimate goal than not getting it passed at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)