Test Your Religious Beliefs
Posted on February 18, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
This is one of my favorite online tests. I don’t always get the same result but I always get similar results.
Beliefnet.com’s Belief-O-Matic asks 20 questions, sometimes with some subtle choices, and you can mark each answer you give as being important or unimportant to you on a scale of 1-3. From your answers they rank you according to the percentage they think you match a number of religious groups. This is my latest result:
- Liberal Quakers (100%)
- Unitarian Universalism (99%)
- Secular Humanism (85%)
- Neo-Pagan (82%)
- Theravada Buddhism (82%)
- Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (81%)
- Mahayana Buddhism (76%)
- New Age (76%)
- Taoism (75%)
- Orthodox Quaker (67%)
- Reform Judaism (62%)
- Jainism (59%)
- Nontheist (57%)
- New Thought (54%)
- Scientology (53%)
- Bahá’í Faith (50%)
- Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (45%)
- Hinduism (42%)
- Sikhism (39%)
- Seventh Day Adventist (34%)
- Islam (29%)
- Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (29%)
- Orthodox Judaism (29%)
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (28%)
- Jehovah’s Witness (17%)
- Eastern Orthodox (16%)
- Roman Catholic (16%)
No test is perfect and there is one question, where you can mark multiple broad answers, that shifts my results dramatically. My first try at the test ranked me as 100% secular humanist.
Where this test fails most is that it does not, and perhaps can not, take into account all of the quirky ways we construct our belief systems. I am in this strange place where I do not have a strong or particular belief in a deity, but believe we should behave morally and respectfully toward others. This is not my quirk.
Some days I call it my “Do no harm” religion, because as a humanist, vegetarian, and environmentalist, who believes that Western consumerism (especially in the U.S.) is the root of many ills, I can feel reasonably good about myself to the extent I am true to those principles. Without much effort, however, one begins to realize that none of us can actually do NO harm — squashing bugs is a ready example, but there are much more consequential ones that pop up with some regularity — so then it begins to look like many religions, where there is an unattainable ideal that one is always working (more or less) toward.
My quirkiness comes in when I acknowledge that while I am nearly atheist, or deist or strictly humanist, I believe in the power of corporate ritual. I don’t mean IBM or Wal-Mart corporate, I mean the body, a body of people, or a congregation. And this is hard. Wal-Mart actually has big “C” Corporate rituals, celebrating the company and perhaps ideals like customer service. But I’m talking about finding in the absence of a belief in a benevolent god-consciousness, ritual that is meaningful and rewarding just the same.
Sometimes I can almost do it in the Episcopal church, especially in a very liberal one. In such a situation, I can participate in a Christian ritual, familiar to me from my childhood in the Methodist church, and with a tradition that goes back to the formation of the early church. When I can free myself of Christian dogma, be mindful in a roomful of similarly mindful or prayerful people, there are universal truths to be found and beauty and maybe something mystical as well. When the setting and practice are right one can believe s/he experiences the Holy.
A liberal church is necessary for my own practice of faith, because if I’m in a more traditional (read conservative) congregation, where others believe I must believe exactly as they do (dogma) then I begin to feel out of place. That disconnect with others in the congregation creates loneliness rather than connectedness for me, and then the same words and music that move me to transcendence, move me to listen to their literal meanings and become distracted from any presence of the Holy.
I’m always interested in the Quakers, my BeliefNet match, and have generally known for years that they were a potential religious home. I’ve attended interfaith and charity functions in the local Friends Meeting House in Washington D.C. but have never gone to one of their regular meetings. I always believe that I need to attend with someone familiar with their ways, but suspect I could be quite at home there quickly. Whether their practice of silence could affect me as deeply as the words and music I was raised with is unknown. I suspect it might be better, as the words of the creeds and hymns can be pretty distracting outside the much broader context.
I like this test because it points me to the Quakers, where I’ve not been, as well as to the Unitarians, an occasional church home. I think that it could be useful to others, especially those who practice faith in a dogmatic tradition who might, in honesty, believe differently. I hope it will serve as a catalyst, as it suggests for me, for people to explore other faith traditions. I suspect most of us benefit from such mind-expanding adventures.
Sphere ItSchwarzenegger Plans to Veto Gay Marriage Again
Posted on February 17, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
Arnold Schwarzenegger, Gray Davis’s usurper, says if the California Legislature passes a marriage equality bill for a second time he will veto it a second time.
Speaking to a YMCA youth conference, he’s quoted by the San Jose Mercury News, saying,
I wouldn’t sign it because the people of California have voted on that issue.
This is a cynical statement and points to yet another failing in the California’s long history of experimenting with direct democracy. Earlier I gave my opinion on the danger of the initiative process:
The problem is that the states have gotten some pretty rotten laws and constitutional amendments through these methods. For whatever reason some well-financed special interests have been able to fund both the initiative process and all the media buys needed to get measures to pass. Sometimes the special interests are industry groups; sometimes they are majority population groups.
The outcomes of such basic issues should not be awarded to the best financed side, or the one with the best tv commercials, and not necessarily to the side who best frames their argument. In most cases the law recognizes that justice is independent of popular opinion.
A favorite quote from Mercury News comes from Geoffrey Kors, of Equality California:
How would the governor feel if his right to marry First Lady Maria Shriver had been put to a popular vote?
Not much in it, but the mind races! Let’s put to a popular vote whether a cynical, Republican, politician, accused womanizer, and body builder, should be allowed to marry Shriver, a journalist, daughter of the Peace Corps founder, and scion of the Democratic Kennedy clan?
Imagine a well-financed opponent’s ads, the dark music, the xenophobia (Arnold’s Austrian roots), and tons of ugly innuendo for all alleged unwholesome aspects that could not be stated outright. Ms. Shriver would be painted in wildly exaggerated contrasts. Additionally, voice-overs would opine about how such a union would soil the memories of her martyred uncles and all the good work of the Peace Corps.
I couldn’t predict the outcome of such a referendum, but the advertising would get more views than American Idol. I suspect that Arnold and Maria would be allowed to marry; but, I also suspect that the vote would be uncomfortably close because of the power of money and advertising.
Clearly such basic human relationships as Shriver-Schwarzenegger should not be put to popular vote, and neither should those of gays and lesbians.
Sphere ItBernstein: Bush disinformation unprecedented
Posted on February 15, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
From TheRawStory: Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein says the lack of truth and candor from the Bush administration is unprecedented in his experience. This president has a record of dishonesty and obfuscation that is Nixonian in character in its willingness to manipulate the press, to manipulate the truth…That’s the real story [the press] should have been writing.
Time for Hillary, Edwards, and Obama to “Grow a Pair” on GLBT Issues
Posted on February 15, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
I’m no more homophobic than the next gay man — that is to say, while I’ve internalized the negative and stereotypical images and language that I’ve been exposed to all of my life, I have the intellect and the discipline to compartmentalize and not to be defined by them. I truly and fully embrace my gay identity, including traits that apply more particularly to my group. My identity is drawn from the richness of all human experience as well as the richness of glbt experiences. In the larger world, I can feel connected to Olympic athletes, missing children, soldiers in battle, breast cancer patients and American Idol contestants without living their experiences. Likewise, I can feel connected to Log Cabin Republicans, drag queens, and lesbian moms. I have an additional, particular connection with the second group: we all have had to find our own ways in understanding gender and human sexuality.
It’s time to help the population at large to understand the interconnectedness of all humanity and how the experience of one group can inform many.
This is not the work for politicians or one political party. This kind of change in the zeitgeist has to be accomplished at many levels. Hollywood, when at it’s best, has begun to normalize the treatment of gay and lesbian subjects, producing both gay-themed programming, as well as including gays and lesbians in ensemble shows. They’re far from perfect, but they’ve made huge improvements and have provided the most visible positive images mainstream America has seen.
Additionally we have to do what we can, ourselves. The most effective way is for all glbt folks to come out, to make ourselves known. We don’t have to behave any certain way — act normal — whatever that is. In a perfect world, if everyone were out, we would demonstrate a diversity that reflects the other demographics we also belong to. It would never be a question of how gay folks “act.” It would be easy to see we’re just as boring or fun as everyone else.
I say it is not up to the politicians, but each could do better. It’s pretty easy to argue that glbt equal rights is the most needful civil rights issue of our times. All other groups deserve fairness as well, but glbt people are the folks against whom it is still legal and accepted in many circles to openly discriminate and to express open hostility.
Certainly all the Democratic frontrunners give lip-service to the idea that glbt folks should be treated equally under the law — but with caveats. It’s time for some real leadership from these would-be leaders. It’s time to lose the qualified support and offer some real support. It’s not too different from a call for all glbts to come out. In this case, if all these politicians would say aloud what they already know, they each provide political cover for all.
How refreshing it would be if just one candidate, male or female, behaved as if they had some balls.
Sphere ItThe Important Work of Government: Elevating Ronald Reagan
Posted on February 13, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick is catching some flack. He’s catching some flack from political hack Grover Norquist. The reason for Patrick’s flack? It seems he has the good sense not to sign a proclamation naming Feb. 6 “Ronald Reagan Day.”
According to the Boston Globe:
Thirty-three governors — 20 Republicans and 13 Democrats — inked the agreement to recognize Reagan’s birthday in their states, Norquist said. The 17 remaining governors either didn’t reply or refused outright; Patrick was a frank “no,” Norquist said.
It is not enough for Norquist’s “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project” to seek to name a major landmark in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia as well as in each of 3067 countries. They also want a calendar day. Wikipedia lists over 60, buildings, schools, roads, and parks named for the Republican icon.
The Washington DC area is home to two of the most prominent as well as the most ironic successes of the misbegotten legacy project. Like George W. Bush, Reagan preached small government while spending increased and his administration ran up record (for then) deficits. When the most expensive and largest U.S. government building after the Pentagon opened in 1998 it was named for the then still-surviving Reagan. National Airport was also renamed for him — though one of Reagan’s most notable attacks on labor (and there were many) was the firing of all the air traffic controllers who went on strike.
Norquist’s argument for why Patrick should sign such a proclamation, according to The Globe, was that Reagan won the electoral vote in Massachusetts twice. If we begin awarding calendar days to everyone who wins elections, we’ll soon have a calendar stuffed with meaningless commemorations.
It’s pretty obvious, given the 50-state coordinated effort, that the effort to win a proclamation, which could otherwise carry all the weight of a “pet your cat day,” is to get a national holiday for the second most dangerous president of a generation. There are several stand-out presidents who faced great challenges or achieved great things. Still, there’s no FDR day, no JFK Day, nothing for the tremendous achiever LBJ, tarnished by Vietnam, not even a day for Thomas Jefferson, whose ideas and philosophies so shaped the nation. A Ronald Reagan Day would be nothing but a myth around an ideology, lionizing, maybe, a remarkable man, but hardly a great president or contributor to the common good.
It’s traditional to consider such naming commemorations 25 years after the death of a prominent or popular figure. That allows the test of time to say whether, indeed, the person has a legitimate, memorable legacy, and what that legacy means to others. The Ronald Reagan commemoration began well before his death, and never sought popular support.
Instead, such unseemly commemorations have been early and rapid and have been kept “under the radar” (air traffic controllers, beware). There is almost no news of new official govt. action on the many namings until someone like Deval Patrick has the courage to stand on principle.
Politicians have to pick their battles. Few have the popularity and support to resist the opposing party on a commemoration when there is other meaningful work to accomplish. Others may see little harm in granting political opponents a symbolic win, especially if it improves the chance for support on their own initiatives.
Thus we revise history. We grant the civic equivalent of sainthood to the undeserving.
Ronald Reagan was a popular president. It does not necessarily follow that he was a good president. His optimism was welcome after a dark period when American hostages were held in Iran. Some believe his “Morning in America” cheeriness combined with an aggressive foreign policy, social conservatism, and huge deficit spending set the stage for the second coming of modern conservatism or neo-conservatism under which the country suffers today.
It’s clear that there are much more important things to do than to actively deprive Republicans of their patron saint. I hope leaders will not acquiesce too easily when faced with the challenge. Cape Canaveral regained it’s name when grief subsided over the Kennedy assassination, in favor of tradition. It will be much more difficult once history decides on Reagan if there are hundreds of landmarks to reconsider.
[This article was updated 2/18/07 for clarity.]
Sphere ItCan We Have a Nation When Only Partisans Are Served?
Posted on February 8, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
How frightening is this?
mcjoan of the Daily Kos writes:
…there’s news of a “bloggers roundtable” that occurred yesterday with Major General Kenneth Hunzeker, the Army officer in charge of the Iraqi police training program. Who attended this roundtable? Googling reveals no reports other than one by RedState’s AcademicElephant.The contributing editors at Daily Kos weren’t invited to this conference call. There’s no mention of it in any of the blogs on the left side of the blogosphere that I could find, so presumably no other left bloggers were invited, either. It would appear that the Pentagon has gotten into the game of partisan politics….
I find, so far, no corroboration that this roundtable actually happened, just the one source. If it is true, there is something dangerous about a report that the Pentagon, itself, or even a lone general, is taking partisan politics to the people. This is my gut—I have no guesses about what’s going on here.
It is truly f’d up that the administration has thoroughly politicized the output of EPA, OSHA, and a few dozen other acronyms. If the administration now encourages the military to talk only to writers and media who pass a political litmus test, where do such actions lead? If the military and the executive branch serve only Republican partisans and not the nation as a whole, can we have a nation or do we have a fascist state?
mcjoan is not the only blogger who interpreted the report this way. In a comment to AcademicElephant’s story, a blogger from the right calling himself Marcus Traianus from “The Minority Report” says:
Surely, a simple blogger does not have unfettered access to this type of first hand information. In point of fact it seems like this was a special “appeal” to a wider audience. Why is that? Anyone care to take that question?
I want to know the answer to that question as well.
Sphere ItBush’s Extraordinary Protection of Extraordinary Rendition
Posted on February 8, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
According to the Washington Post, the U.S., Britain, Spain, and Italy have refused to sign a long-negotiated accord on secret detentions. The U.N. treaty has 58 other signers. It is hardly surprising as failure to cooperate with other nations is a hallmark of the Bush administration. What would be surprising is if this administration did sign such an agreement, given the practice of “extraordinary rendition.”
Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic Online says:
The United States is defined by its refusal to indulge in such totalitarian, police state practices. Well, it was. But not under this president. The U.S. won’t sign.
It seems clear that the Bush, Rice, Gonzales, and Cheney, cabal will sign no documents that might limit their power overseas or get them in trouble down the road. But why would they also refuse to sign an agreement prohibiting the use of child soldiers?
At a separate gathering, a non-binding accord banning the use of child soldiers was signed here Tuesday by representatives of 58 countries, including African nations that have been harshly criticized by the United Nations and human rights groups for arming children. The United States did not participate, saying that it objected to some of the wording of the documents but that it remained committed to its treaty obligations on the issue.
Would the “cabal” secretly arm children for oil as well?
And why the fuss over creating legal hurdles in the first place, isn’t the thrill of extraordinary rendition the idea of doing something outside or above the law and feeding cabal members’ “master of the universe delusions?” How much more thrilling would it be with another layer of protection for common folks that must be penetrated?
Sphere ItTime To Get Off Our Asses and Do Something
Posted on February 6, 2007
Leave a Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
I’m talking to me and I’m talking to you. Some folks are doing everything they can. This is for the rest of us. I sit in my comfy dining room or home office and tap away posting blog entries. It’s great for venting bile and preaching to the choir. Most of my hits in the last few days have been from buzzflash.com, definitely the choir, and digg.com, again, a very sympathetic audience. While I hope to provide useful arguments, focus attention, sharpen a point or two, or even help some liberal allies feel like they’re not alone, I have to acknowledge that I’m not doing all that I can, nor all that is required of me if I’m to walk the walk.
Today Republicans in the senate managed to muster, with Joe Lieberman’s help, enough votes to cut off debate on the non-binding resolution against escalation in Iraq. It’s pretty messed up. Reports are that there are enough republican votes to actually pass the weakened resolution if too many Dems don’t defect because of its lack of teeth. One can only conclude that some of those who would vote both ways were only looking for political cover. These guys and gals must be put on record regarding their current support for the war. In 2008 a third of the Senate is up for reelection. The majority of Americans are against the war. Let’s hold their feet to the fire.
Last week, many of us learned that the administration is consolidating power by hobbling federal agencies, including EPA and OSHA, by requiring all their output to pass through the scrutiny of hand-picked political appointees. Anything the administration doesn’t like, no matter how vital to the public good, will not see the light of day.
The week before, we began hearing how U.S. Attorneys were being fired all over the country and being replaced with folks more in goose-step with the administration’s distorted views.
I’ve been blogging for about 45 days and the effort can be consuming. Tonight I’m worried that I’m ignoring the most effective paths available to me to effect change. One of those is the direct route, that of calling, emailing, and writing letters to my senators and representatives. It can be hard to cut through the noise these days; I should do all three. We all must get involved. We still, at least for now, have national elections available to us every two years. We shouldn’t have to wait. Congressional leaders must be required to lead and to provide oversight and sanctions where needed.
I’ve never supported impeachment; I’m less certain now. What I desire most is to stop the destruction of our nation with the constant erosions of civil liberties, government accountability, the environment, and international standing. If the damage can’t be stopped any other way or if others believe it is the only way to achieve justice, I would hardly speak against it. The toughest thing about impeachment is that we’d have to go for a two-fer, which is unprecedented. I guess Cheney could be indicted and forced to resign.
My call to action is just that: a call to action. Advocate for peace, for environment, for accountability, or for justice. Advocate for impeachment or for reform. We all have to make our own choices. Just get off your ass and do something, and I’ll promise to do the same.
Call or Write:
U.S. House of Representatives
The U.S. Senate
Chip in or get involved:
American Civil Liberties Union
The Democratic Party
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights Watch
MoveOn.org
NAACP
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
National Organization for Women (NOW)
Natural Resources Defense Council
Oxfam America
People For the American Way
U.S. PIRG
Test Your Political Point of View
Posted on February 4, 2007
13 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
Here’s a bit of fluff for a Sunday diversion. The graphic shows my own outlook determined by the questions. I actually think it’s dead-on—with about a thousand caveats. Who wants to be boxed in? One of the reports suggests what famous people and characters your views resemble. I was happy to find myself in the company of Gandhi. That admirable placement, of course, demonstrates the shortcomings of such a test. If Gandhi had engaged in such a trivial test, he might come out in the same place in a quadrant as I do, but it says nothing of intensity or depth of commitment to the choices one makes. It takes these added components and probably something extra, still, to be truly great and so admired.
| You are a Social Liberal (76% permissive) and an… Economic Liberal (8% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Andrew Sullivan’s Amazing Intellect Falls Prey to Bush-Think
Posted on February 3, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
On the eve of his move to the more prestigious Atlantic Monthly, conservative standard bearer undermines scientific standards in defense of AEI
The basics: Exxon-funded American Enterprise Insttiute (AEI, in acronym-speak) offered $10k to scientists to write papers that refute the proposition that human activity causes global warming.
More basics: Legitimate science does not start with the desired conclusion and seek evidence in its support, filtering out all evidence to the contrary.
The only very slightly gray area: In the process of interpreting the evidence scientists find, they’ll propose a “conclusion,” that is, a hypothesis, which is then tested against variables and missing data, seeking both to prove and disprove the validity of their hypothesis. At this stage of inquiry a scientist worth her salt does not prejudice the outcome by valuing one result over the other. I learned this in 10th grade science in an underperforming school.
This is where Exxon, AEI, the administration, and now, seemingly, Mr. Sullivan, are trying to confuse people. In their rhetoric, they treat the search for, not evidence, but arguments, against “climate change” (codespeak for global warming) as if these are the kind of neutral test of hypothesis a scientist does.
First, the inquiry is not neutral. There are big bucks at stake for Big Oil, AEI, and their political payees. Second, Global warming is WAY beyond the hypothesis stage.
The next stage in legitimate scientific inquiry is theory. This is where the science on global warming now stands. Republicans and those who own them try to obfuscate the concept of theory.
Try this: “It is my theory the sun will rise tomorrow.” Do I know this? Well sunrise is dependent on the rotation of the earth as well as many other near-constants. It is also subject to variables. What if an asteroid strikes the Earth overnight? There’s a variable. How likely is that? So my theory that tomorrow will come like any other day, feels a lot like fact. There’s a lot of support, evidence, for my theory.
The obfuscators try and confuse people by treating theory as mere hypothesis.
The theoretical has already stood up to rigorous scientific tests. Scientists of good integrity don’t actually seek facts. They seek all of the above—evidence, hypothesis—the whole scientific method. The end product of science is not fact, it’s theory. Facts are for the arrogant and close-minded.
All this is to say, the support for global warming as theory is rather strong. Science is always open to new evidence, but the introduction of minor conflicting data points does not negate the preponderance of data that support the theory, new data supports new inquiry; that is all. The rest of the story is that the efforts of AEI and Exxon smell of dishonesty, or at the very least truly bad science.
What did Andrew Sullivan do to earn a headline? It’s the man bites dog thing, isn’t it? Bush, AEI, and Exxon are expected to behave in a certain way. The unexpected is worth a comment or two. I’m generally impressed with Sullivan’s ability to cut through the BS and find what’s real. I know he is ideological, but liked to believe he valued truth over partisanship.
In response to one writer he calls an hysteric Sullivan writes:
He sounds like a member of the curia, not a scientist. There’s something creepy about the notion that a scientific report must not be subject to scientific criticism, regardless of how it’s funded. If the studies are flawed, attack the studies. It is as if climate change has become a doctrine to be defended rather than a hypothesis to be debated.
The errors, overlooking the choice of “hysteric,” are that the criticism being sought was not scientific. Again, you don’t start with the conclusion. More shocking is the misuse of “hypothesis.” The science is reaching maturity and something near consensus. These “errors” sound like the tricks the administration employs in its misinformation machine. I did think better of Sullivan.
Sphere ItGod Bless Molly Ivins
Posted on February 1, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
Read also: Remembering Molly Ivins, John Nichols, The Nation
Molly Ivins was an original. Tonight, the angels in heaven have a new reason to speak truth. Molly will be taking names and setting records straight—with humor, warmth and the occasional devilish barb.
Molly died today, January 31, 2007, aged 62, after a long battle with cancer.
from Peter Rothberg via Yahoo:
In the second-to-last syndicated column she’s been able to write she declared herself on an “old-fashioned newspaper campaign” and vowed to use every column she had to “write about this war until we find some way to end it.”
In that column Molly wrote:
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders. And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war.
Following are excerpts from Gary Cartwright and Bill Moyers on the Texas Observer website. That site seems a bit overwhelmed tonight at 2 a.m. on the East coast, midnight in Texas.
Gary Cartwright of Texas Monthly:
Molly Ivins was an unabashed patriot, and it drove right-wingers nuts. Conservatives somehow got it fixed in their brains that patriotism meant being in lockstep with their ideology, that dissent was treason. Molly made a career of reminding them otherwise, always careful to point out how cute they were when they acted like fools.
Bill Moyers:
In the celestial light she glows as irrepressibly and vividly as she did here on Earth, where she made the mighty humble, the wicked ashamed, and the good ol’ boys reach for the barrel to hide their forlorn nakedness. And, oh, the stories she must be telling as we speak.
I never had the pleasure, Molly, but your passing leaves an emptiness of an unexpected size. Your memory leaves equal portions of warmth and goodwill.
Sphere ItWhy Should Gays and Lesbians Have to Behave?
Posted on January 30, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
I’ve been on this gay and lesbian marriage and civil unions kick for a while. I blame it on Andrew Sullivan for writing Virtually Normal. Actually, I’m generally careful to frame the question as “marriage equality.” I find I begin to lose people pretty quickly if I start out honestly. Gay marriage as a term seems to shock people. Marriage equality still begs questions. Some may think it means the woman can be on top sometimes. It can be titillating for the straight and straight-laced.
I like the way (for a politician) Hillary framed her answer to a general question about glbt civil rights. She said in the second of her “conversation” web chats after announcing her candidacy, “I support civil unions.” Other candidates rush to take marriage off the table before allowing for some separate-but-equal formula. She was affirmative and probably provided the fairest answer she believed she dared.
I’ve propagated my qualified satisfaction with Hillary’s answer over several blogsites, especially trying to get the distinction in front of other candidates and those who influence them. I repeated my post about Hillary’s response pretty much verbatim on a “blog” area on the John Edwards site. I had no idea what would happen, but assumed that mild dissent would be tolerated and answered. I was half right. I was answered.
After receiving an email saying my post had been “hidden” because it “did not receive enough votes,” a person with no profile and no “blog” posts who called him/herself “neverlosehope” posted this:
The MSM presentation of ‘Gay’ activism has created a stereotype of hedonism that gets conflated into this issue and just compounds the problems. I do think this is partly the fault of gay activism itself though - you don’t really see the brazen carnival atmosphere of let’s say straight hedonistic ’swingers’ for instance in SINGULAR events like the Stonewall parade event in NYC or Southern Decadence in New Orleans — and events in San Franciso etc…which creates a visceral opposition of gay culture generally and is then specifically applied as opposition to other efforts like this that would otherwise be a legitimate libertarian agenda. [text of entire comment here]
The alarms went off. I’ve no idea who “neverlosehope” is. S/he probably thought she was being helpful somehow. I don’t know whether she is connected with the official campaign. Benefit of the doubt, I’ll say not.
It really doesn’t matter on what site I found the comment. I’ve heard versions of this old saw my whole gay life. You certainly hear this kind of stuff from conservative politicians. Unfortunately, I’ve heard it in the media as well.
Where does it say every member of a group facing discrimination have to behave in a certain way to gain basic civil rights? Do we cancel marriage rights for all because of the way people behave at Mardi Gras or Times Square on New Years’ Eve? Get real! Is the writer arguing that no one should ever actually have to see gay men or topless lesbians?
The African American civil rights movement was not a single movement. During their greatest period of struggle there was the huge MLK non-violent civil disobedience group, all dignified and inspiring, but there were also folks with dissenting views. Some of them challenged the status quo with their own brand of radicalism.
Sufferagettes were not all sent home to bake cookies before they got the vote.
GLBT folks are oppressed specifically because of our sexual natures. We are not barred from lunch counters, so quiet sit-ins where we’re not invited isn’t the same kind of protest for us. When society rejects us for our sexual natures, our sexual natures become the means of our protest. And please, in today’s jaded society, is a gaggle of drag queens, leather daddys and topless women so terribly shocking?
Sphere ItIs Netroots Community Just Another Political Monolith?
Posted on January 29, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
I love the netroots / Kos community. It is a beautiful thing that there is a strong, net-organized, progressive movement, especially coming up from among younger voters who, as a demographic, have been underrepresented in political debate and voting. It tends to be an idealistic group as one would expect. Because I want to celebrate their idealism and activism, I get distressed at times to see the netroots group fall into the same old traps.
Says Kos:
Ahh, Yesterday I wondered where the WSJ got the notion that Hillary had scored significant victories in the “netroots primary”, since all objective evidence suggests that Hillary, in fact, has little online support.
For some among that group, it’s not cool to like Hillary Clinton. It is very cool to like John Edwards. The old trap is the piling on effect, rather than independent thought and decision-making. It’s easy to take the shortcut of being influenced by a trusted opinion. Right now, there’s plenty of time to form our own opinions and defend them.
Hillary gets trashed pretty constantly, Edwards gets a pass on a record that is to my mind less inspiring. Both are talented, strong candidates. Both have very similar voting records and agendas. (his short voting record may be a bit more conservative.) When they speak she sounds establishment, like a senator; he sounds populist and an idealist. On substance there’s way less difference.
From the idealists, it’s surprising that Barack Obama doesn’t seem to be getting attention beyond his due. He is absolutely inspiring as a speaker. I certainly have my moments of wanting to sit as a disciple at his feet. I don’t really know him on substance yet, though. Stay tuned.
Strange that these same idealists are not in a hurry to see the first woman president. I know I am. Having witnessed the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, HW Bush, Bill Clinton, and shrub (W Bush appellation in honor of Molly Ivins — get well xoxo). Jimmy Carter is a great man, but his presidency did not inspire. Bill Clinton, The Best President of a Generation, like Kennedy before him, had classic man troubles.
Who wouldn’t be ready for a woman to take charge?
I’d first tell my netroots friends to keep doing what you’re doing — writing, inspiring, organizing, and contributing. Next I’d suggest that if you’re inclined to be critical, be critical thinkers first.
Sphere ItIn Honor of American Peace Activists
Posted on January 28, 2007
1 Comment | buzz-it! | Huff it!
“You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.”
Sphere ItI Like Being Gay
Posted on January 28, 2007
2 Comments | buzz-it! | Huff it!
There was a book that was helpful to me in the early 1990s that I thought of yesterday, in my desire to explore something more of faith or humanism on Sundays, rather than political speech. The book was On Being Gay
The date of the chapter is significant because when I found it, I had a good laugh, realizing what a different place I’d been in 15 years ago. The book, though dated, is still affirming, especially for someone beginning the journey of coming to terms with being gay or lesbian. One paragraph starts, “I like believing the studies which indicate gay folk are generally smarter, more creative and more sensitive than nongay folk.”
I guess the operative word is “believing.” So, even then, McNaught wasn’t asserting empirical truth. It was more about building a personal myth, or engaging in a bit of Stuart Smalley self-help psychology. There are more paragraphs that still ring particularly true.
McNaught talks about the pioneering aspect of being gay that reflect well my life in Appalachia. Gay people are often called to live life and define relationships, love, morals and ethics on our own terms. While anyone may do this—when presented with a “correct” path through life, it is very easy to stay on course unquestioningly. When gay people find they don’t fit the models we see, we learn to question not only the sexual and relationship mores but to question everything. Those of us who aren’t particularly strong can come a bit unglued at this point and make some bad choices, but I rarely talk with anyone who had such an experience early on, and doesn’t value the lessons they had to learn on their own, and the strength gained from coming through it.
Another quaint-but-true thing he mentions about being gay is the knowing looks of “fellow travelers” we exchange when out and about. McNaught calls it
a twinkle and a smile which results not from [the more mundane aspects of personal identity]. It is a secret smile which only gay men and lesbians exchange.
Today, less and less people live closeted lives, and we talk about gay television, gay politics, and gay friends out in the open. Still, in unfamiliar places, such exchanges happen all the time.
Additionally, I find in my adult years, that I can be in a gathering where I know a fair number of the people in attendance, and will be “out” to a greater or lesser degree to everyone I know. Still, if it is a largely straight crowd it can be uncomfortable to be “assumed straight” by anyone new you might meet. To let people know your orientation, right off the bat, can seem like “too much information” or a political statement where none was called for. Even in these familiar places, a knowing look can mean worlds.
Many of us feel a special connection and understanding of Gay and Lesbian historical figures. Some of them may have thought of themselves as having a particular sexual identity, others we can only identify by their relationships or reputations or the product of their work. Still it has always been good to have a history to connect with, especially for those of us whose own legacies will be expressed similarly, rather than through family lines.
It was affirming to be able to feel somehow connected to some of the great leaders, writers, composers, painters, philosophers, and sculptors across the ages. What was lacking in my youth was current examples of beautiful, intelligent, and creative gays and lesbians. These days that is less of a problem with prominent leaders like Barney Frank, and Jim Kolbe, and actors and celebrities, some out for years, and others popping “out” everywhere. We’ve celebrated the mainstream success of k.d. lang, Ellen DeGeneres, Melissa Etheridge, Nathan Lane, Elton John, Rupert Everett, and Sir Ian McKellen for years. OK, I don’t remember the men’s coming out, but I can’t remember when any of them were truly in the closet either. I’m sure they can. Now we have T.R. Knight, Lance Bass, Rosie O’Donnell, and Neil Patrick Harris to add to the list. It ’s always fun to see new folks identified, especially when it’s their own choice.
There’s been a few scandalous outings recently with great cringe value, most notably Ted Haggard and Tom Foley. The stories of those who come out in disgrace can be told rather honestly from the point-of-view of people who were hiding or denying who they were, some living quite hypocritically. What’s the moral of these stories?
This Sunday morning post, then is not without it’s own controversies, but the overall feeling I get from exploring these issues is quite affirming. It’s about how far glbt people have come and how far society has come. It makes me incredibly happy to know that young folks who are only now reaching an age when they’ll understand the social-sexual models of “one man, one woman,” don’t fit them, they’ll see good, successful, modern lives as well as the historical models that while maybe not providing answers, will provide for them some clues to help them own their own differences and that, in the end, things will be alright.
I do like being gay. My uniqueness, while perhaps not absolute, is genuine.
Sphere It« go back — keep looking »
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « May | ||||||
| 1 | ||||||
| 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 |
| 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 |
| 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | ||||||
- Pages displayed : 93194
- Unique visitors : 58665
- Pages displayed in last 24 hours : 146
- Unique visitors in last 24 hours : 74
Powered by FireStats