I just want to share this blog post about President Obama’s stirring eulogy this past week of the late state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, one of the nine people killed in that horrifying massacre in Charleston, S.C.
I don’t know what to add to this.
So I won’t even try.
“A Chance To Find Our Best Selves”: Obama; ‘If We Can Find Grace, Anything Is Possible’
The eruption of interpretations of the U.S. Supreme Court’s two blockbuster rulings this week brings to mind a thought about two quite famous pieces of writing.
The U.S. Constitution and the Bible have something in common. You can take from either document what you want to take from them.
The court affirmed the Affordable Care Act and gay marriage. It upheld the federal subsidies critical to the ACA and it declared that gay couples can marry legally anywhere in the United States.
“Strict constructionists” have declared that the court overstepped in both rulings. More liberal thinkers say the court ruled correctly.
It reminds a bit of the debate over Scripture between the fundamentalists and those who view the Bible a bit more, um, interpretatively.
You can read both documents in accordance with your own view of the law or of your own faith.
Furthermore, you can argue that your version of the truth is correct and the other side is wrong. How many times have you had that discussion about the Bible? I’ve had it more than a few times over many years.
I am guessing we’re entering a new phase of constitutional interpretation that will be just as fierce.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz is running hard for president of the United States and he’s now taking every opportunity to have his voice heard.
Let’s take the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that legalizes gay marriage across the nation.
What’s the junior Republican Texas senator’s take on it: It ought to be OK for county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples if it violates their religious beliefs.
Let’s hold on here, young man.
http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/27/cruz-clerks-should-be-able-opt-out-gay-marriage-li/
County clerks in Texas take an oath to uphold the law. It doesn’t offer any qualifiers, that they can opt out of fulfilling that oath if their religious faith stands in the way.
Texas county clerks do have an option if they simply cannot authorize a marriage license to a gay couple. They can resign their public office. Indeed, when New Mexico legalized gay marriage this past year, the Roosevelt County clerk did exactly that; she quit rather than do something with which her religious faith did not believe.
“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz said in an interview with The Texas Tribune, “and you look at the foundation of this country â it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”
Without government getting in the way? My goodness, senator. We all are able to do all those things. We can go to church, to synagogue, to the mosque — anywhere we wish — and pray to whichever deity in which we believe. The Supreme Court decision handed down this week say not a single word about any of that.
It merely affirms that the 14th Amendment guarantees all U.S. citizens the right to “equal protection” under the law. Thus, they are entitled to marry whomever they wish.
I have no clue what the state’s county clerks are going to do, which of them will adhere to the law and which of them will declare that they just cannot in good conscience issue marriage licenses to gay couples.
Those who refuse will be breaking the law they took an oath to uphold.
It’s interesting to me that Sen. Cruz keeps tossing the word “lawless” around to describe the Supreme Court, the Obama administration — and virtually anyone who disagrees with his world view.
Yet, he’s seeking a way for county clerks to evade the law. That’s my definition of “lawlessness.”
Let’s just dispense with the rhetorical setup: The Duggars are done as TV celebrities.
That would be the family of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, the parents of “19 Kids and Counting.” The Learning Channel has just announced it is dumping the reality TV series in the wake of reports that one of the kids, Josh, fondled and touched young girls inappropriately when he was a 14-year-old.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/tlc-%e2%80%9cdeeply-saddened%e2%80%9d-as-it-pulls-all-episodes-of-%e2%80%9919-kids-and-counting%e2%80%99-in-wake-of-child-molestation-allegations-%e2%80%93-update/ar-BBk8vEK
What’s more, Josh Duggar misbehaved reportedly with some of his sisters.
This a big deal at a couple of levels
One, Josh Duggar was a big hitter with the Family Research Council, a conservative think tank dedicated to the promotion of “traditional family values.” He’s quit his FRC post.
Two, Josh’s parents have been outspoken critics of the gay rights movement, particularly the push for “marriage equality,” and allowing gay people to marry. Jim Bob and Michelle have been harsh critics of LGBT citizens, saying that homosexuality leads to pedophilia and other immoral behavior. How can they say those things now while ignoring what’s been plainly obvious throughout all of recorded history, which is that “traditional, heterosexual” Americans are capable of precisely the same kind of behavior?
The Duggars are close friends of another Arkansan, former Gov. Mike Huckabee, who’s running for president. Huckabee has acknowledged agreement with Josh’s statement that his behavior was “inexcusable,” but adds that it isn’t “unforgiveable.” True enough. Scripture does tell us we’re entitled to grace. But that will have to come from within.
The Duggars certainly are entitled to believe what they wish politically. However, when those political beliefs run head-on into a seriously flawed personal history, well, that’s when you have to excuse yourself from the public limelight.
The Duggars have a huge following across the nation, particularly among those who have admired them for their stated belief in family tradition and their strict moral code.
That trust has been shattered, at least to the extent that their TV network benefactors — TLC — no longer feels comfortable thrusting this family into Americans’ living rooms.
A Pew Research study says fewer Americans today identify themselves as Christians than before.
It also says other religions haven’t declined in this country.
What does that mean? Well, one thing I believe it means is that we’re more diverse — religiously speaking — than at any time.
So, are we going to Hell?
Hardly.
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/why-americans-increasingly-are-questioning-religion-especially-christianity.html/
Tod Robberson, writing for the Dallas Morning News, has an interesting analysis of the Pew findings. He contends that he is not threatened by the decline in Americans associated with a given faith. He says his own non-religious upbringing hasn’t harmed his children. I get that.
I also get that one’s faith is an intensely personal thing. As one who does worship in a Christian church — on most Sundays — I am entirely comfortable in my own religious skin. My wife is as well. So are my sons. I am worrying not tiny bit about what my fellow Americans are feeling today about their faith.
Indeed, I’ve long held the view that Americans remain among the most religious people on Earth precisely because of the freedom we have to not worship if we so choose. The Pew study on Americans’ faith journey may be shocking to some, but look at what’s happening in Europe, where countries have established state religions. The people’s response throughout the continent has been to stay away from church in droves. Church attendance is a fraction of what it used to be, let alone what it continues to be across The Pond, in the U.S. of A.
I like what Robberson writes: “A mass departure from established religion in America doesnât necessarily mean millions of us are losing our way and are walking into the arms of Satan. It just means that we do not rely on preachers, priests, rabbis or imams to tell us how to live our lives. People who do attend regular religious services are otherwise guided, and good for them. They should not stand in judgment of the non-religious any more than the non-religious should stand in judgment of them.”
I’ll just keep going to church, saying my prayers to Jesus Christ and ask him to forgive me for my sins. I believe he’s done that.
Therefore, I’m good to go.
Garland police officers responded as they should have when two gunmen opened fire at a “contest” to draw the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
They shot the men dead.
http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/05/be-thankful-innocent-people-didnt-die-but-dont-tell-me-the-garland-conference-was-about-free-speech.html/
Now the debate has ensued. Were the provocateurs — the folks who sponsored a contest they knew would provoke that kind of response from Muslims — merely exercising their rights of “free speech”?
My answer? No.
They knew that illustrating the prophet is offensive to Muslims. Indeed, the group that sponsored the “contest,” an outfit called the American Freedom Defense Initiative, has been identified as an extremist anti-Muslim group.
So, do you think these folks knew what to expect when they staged this event? My guess is that they knew.
The shooters were described as Islamists. One of them, Elton Simpson, allegedly wrote a good-bye note to his friends and family before he started shooting. He knew he’d meet his end in Garland.
As Jim Mitchell of the Dallas Morning News writes in his blog: “Islamic extremism is a global curse. Cartoon contests in Garland arenât going make a bit of difference in combating it. But insensitive contests like the one yesterday will provoke lone wolves and insult an entire religion. And I ask, to what purpose? This wasnât discourse; it was a opportunity to draw offensive cartoons for the sake of drawing offensive cartoons. My idea of defensible free expression has a higher and more noble purpose.”
It’s widely established and known around the world that Muslims don’t react well when Muhammad is depicted in cartoons or illustrated simply for the sake of producing a worldly image. Do non-Muslims agree with this religious tenet? No. But it’s not non-Muslims’ place to judge how those who worship a certain religion are supposed to believe.
We should be grateful that the FBI had tipped off the Garland Police Department.
Its officers responded correctly.
Michelle Bachmann must know something none of the rest of us ever imagined knowing.
The former Republican congresswoman from Minnesota seems to know that the End Times are here. They’re about to arrive. The world is about to end.
Who’s responsible for this? You get one chance at this one: Yep, it’s Barack Obama.
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/bachmann-end-times-are-here-thanks-Obama
I’m no religious scholar, but here’s my understanding of what my Bible says about the End Times.
Put quite simply, the End Times will come without anyone knowing it’s coming. It’s just going to happen. We won’t know the end has arrived until, well, it arrives.
She told a conservative radio host that the president is lying about Islam and about the war we are fighting against Islamic extremists. Then she added that the End Times are coming as a result of the president’s deception. Bachmann said she is excited about the possibility, she said. âThe good news that I want to transition to is that, remember the prophets said in the Old Testament, they longed to look into the days that we live in, they long to be a part of these days. Thatâs why these are not fearful times, these are the most exciting days in history.â
My interpretation of Scripture suggests the End Times is a metaphor for each of our lives. If we believe in Jesus, then we’ll go to heaven to be with him when the end arrives. And I don’t believe you can predict when that moment arrives.
Then again, some politicians — such as Michelle Bachmann — seem to think they know everything.
Westboro Baptist “Church” is at it again.
The target of this gang of goofballs this time is the funeral of the late Rev. Robert Schuller, founder of the Crystal Cathedral megachurch in California.
Schuller died this past week.
Seems that Westboro “church” members believed Schuller was too tolerant of gay people. So, to carry their hateful message to this latest extreme, they plan to launch a protest at Schuller’s funeral.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/westboro-baptist-church-says-it-will-protest-schuller-funeral/ar-AAayvFr
I don’t know what to say, except that these idiotic displays of intolerance go so far beyond what Jesus Christ himself taught that it utterly baffles me that Westboro can even call itself a “church.”
Schuller, in the eyes of the Topeka, Kan.-based Westboro “church” members, had the bad form to preach a sunny form of Christianity. He brought forward messages of hope, not hate. Westboro “church” officials said he should have talked more about going to hell and, perhaps, less about going to heaven.
Westboro has created a lot of notoriety picketing funerals of fallen warriors, men and women who’ve died in battle defending the right of citizens to speak out. Westboro’s agenda, such as it is, is a fervently anti-gay message. LGBT citizens are going straight to hell, says Westboro “church” doctrine.
So, here we go again.
A crackpot cult is going to launch yet another picket.
Let’s all turn our backs on them, shall we?
The right-wing mainstream media cannot get enough of these trumped-up “wars.”
Fox News annually declares there to be a secular “war on Christmas.” The only people waging war on Christmas are the retailers who keep pushing out the notion that it’s all right to camp out overnight waiting for the stores to open on Black Friday. Get in ahead of the rush … but please don’t punch out the shopper who cuts in ahead of you to get the toy you had targeted.
Now it’s a “war on Easter.”
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/03/29/foxs-week-long-war-on-easter/193352
Please. Stop.
There is no war on Christians’ holiest holiday. It’s a figment of the right-wing mainstream media marketing geniuses who look for ways to boost their ratings, allowing their on-air personalities to brag about how they’re kicking the stuffing out of the rest of the “mainstream media.”
Churches are still informing congregants about what Scripture says about Easter, about how Jesus rose from the dead after being crucified. Believers all over the world celebrate this holiday with all due reverence. My family and I do.
“War on Easter”? It ain’t happening.
Let’s knock it off, shall we?
Let me be clear.
I detest boycotts in response to bad public policy. The Indiana legislature enacted a bad bill, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Gov. Mike Pence signed into law.
The reaction across the country has been to boycott Indiana. Business leaders are encouraging Americans to stay away, don’t do business in the Hoosier State.
What precisely do boycotts accomplish? To my mind, they inflict significant collateral damage on business owners who well might oppose the public policy that’s been enacted in their name.
RFRA is intended to protect business owners from being sued for refusing service to individuals based on “religious beliefs.” The law has been interpreted as giving license to discriminate against gay people.
Thus, the calls for boycotts have been launched.
I detest this tactic as a political response.
To my way of thinking, a more reasonable response is to send letters to the offending politicians. Leave the business owners out of this fight. They’ve been used as pawns by politicians. They shouldn’t be used as pawns by those who the politicians have offended.
If there was the textbook definition of “political football,” the business owners victimized by angry boycotts fit the bill.