Intolerance personified

Geez -- our Prez can't win. He's taking a step he believes is the right step for him and for the government he represents, and both sides hate him for it. Fortunately, it's only the total whack-jobs on both sides: American Atheists on one side (approrpriately abbreviated AA for their need to find a 12-step program to stop being so intolerant and ignorant), and Shirley Dobson, wife of Dr. James Dobson, poster boy for the relgious zealots on the right (you know -- hate gay people, no abortion in even the most dire cases, and in no way does evolution occur -- the Bible is to be interpreted COMPLETELY literally, including the Old Testament).

First, we have AA who say that the complete separation of church and state includes not allowing our leaders to pray publicly -- or to organize events where prayer is included (nevermind that they're not FORCING anyone to attend -- it's an optional event and they can pay homage to any religion that wants to attend as part of a prayer event). These anti-religious fanatics are every bit as zealous and unyielding in their diatribe -- no religion for anyone in public. Keep it to yourself.

I say that's malarkey (well, I say it's worse than that, but this is a public forum). Our leaders are human beings who have their own beliefs and faiths; not allowing them to demonstrate their faith is just as intolerant as forcing faith on someone. The founders who wrote the documents were largely of a Christian bent, and yet they wrote the words of the First Amendment to allow the separation of church and state such that the church (specifically the Church -- as in the various flavors of Catholic church who act with the autonomy of governments) would never rule as they had in England, France -- most of Europe, in fact. Instead, we'd have a government that based it's decisions on foundational documents and agreed upon societal values.

These societal values/norms are based on the society at large and can change with the wind and times; a great example is the gradual change to allow forms of profanity on network television. When television and radio were first born, the thought of using profanity in a public media like that was unacceptable, and the rules were written such that it was a punishable act. This included all forms of indecency -- but as the years have gone by and society has grown to accept "ass", "damn", "crap" etc as acceptable content for public radio, the rules have been amended (or at least enforced appropriately based on the times, depending on the ruling body) to realize the shift in society's views.

But there's still a fundamental basis to these societal values/norms -- and nearly all of them come from some form of religious or moral compass/guideline. Some are based in practicality, to be sure -- a murder statute is a great example. Nearly all religions have some form of law/guidance against murdering -- but it's also a practical consideration. We don't want to have people killing each other, because eventually there would be mayhem. That's why eugenics doesn't fly -- who's to say who the killees and killers should be?

But there are other, less obvious laws. Why is prostitution illegal? Are there victims? What about smoking marijuana? If these things have "victims" (which I don't believe they do), why isn't alcohol illegal? Or tobacco? Or electronic devices? Or fast food? Nearly all have a basis in religion, so for the AA group to get their knickers in a twist over a Presidential Prayer Party is plain ignorant and intolerant.

Then we have the Dobsons, to whom vitriole is a pastime and hobby (as well as a very lucrative career). Like many others in the religious right, they've no problem in hawking their wares to any who would listen and accept their hate speech as dogma. I grew up listening to several Focus on the Family programs, and there are several that I still enjoy -- Adventures in Odyssey is a particularly well done piece. Unfortunately, many other FotF products tend to head toward the less tolerant and "love"-based Christianity, straight back to the Old Testament fire and brimstone rules.

One question I've still never gotten a decent answer to -- if we're still supposed to be following all that Old Testament stuff, why are we still eating pork? Why do we not label women as unclean during their periods? (Okay, some men still do, but they're jerks). Sue Bohlin of Probe Ministries posts a reply (I haven't vetted any of it for accuracy other than the statements on this page: http://tinyurl.com/d5sbdp).

Now -- back to President Barack Obama. He's decided not to schedule a big to-do event for National Day of Prayer -- he's going to pray at home, and encourage others to do the same. He's going to sign a proclomation as many other Presidents have done. So instead of portraying his religion as a big show, he wants to keep his prayers private. Instead of having a big flashy event with reporters and drama, he keeps his faith conservative (irony intended). His predecessor wanted all the posh and pizzazz of the event and wanted it all on the news (Fox News in particular).

So let's compare these 2 men:

George W. Bush -- BIG public faith
Barack H. Obama -- private faith

George W. Bush -- lied to us, dealt in murder, torture, etc., etc., etc.
Barack H. Obama -- so far, has opened up the details about all George W's failings/lies and is making things much more publicly accessible. I've not seen (meaning I'm open to people pointing out anything I've missed, but from what I've observed, he's been open, honest and forthcoming about everything that's going on -- even the faux pas and screwups)

So -- if I had to choose between a president who lies/tortures/murders and professes a faith that isinconsistent with his actions and a president who keeps his faith to himself (as do I) and consistently lives his faith, I can tell you who I'm going to pick everytime.

As the intro to the DC Talk song "What if I Stumble" says, "The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable." The quote is from Brennan Manning, priest, friar, author and speaker -- and it's true in this case as well. Who wants to be the next George W. Bush? Who would follow that type of faith?

My Christian faith tells me that loving my neighbor as myself is one of the central tenants of my faith (Matthew 22:36-40); the type of spew and rhetoric that came from most of the religious right are as abhorrent to me as the liberalist leanings and anti-religious views espoused by the Atheist Association.

What are your thoughts on this? The CNN article that spawned my response is linked below.


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/obama.prayer/index.html

This is a very heartening story from Hawai'i, and proof why government should never become too large. These people were depending on government to help save their livelihoods, and because government becomes more inept as it grows, the bureaucratic red tape tied up this small repair that took volunteers only 8 DAYS to fix. It had already been in discussions for several months, and had a projected cost of $4 million dollars.

It's great to hear that people are doing great things with volunteer work and pitching in to make their homes, businesses, neighborhoods, and even STATE PARKS better -- maybe if all of America went back to this type of "Work Together" mentality instead of depending on a hand-out or the government to do everything but eat and sleep for them, things would improve.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/index.html

When's the last time you saw a President say the words, "The buck stops with me" or "It's my responsibility" ?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/18/obama.economy/index.html -- OUR President said that.

There are people out there who would doom President Obama to fail in his mission. I don't agree with every move he makes -- but I also really appreciate the transparency and honesty and RESPONSIBILITY that I see coming from this President -- and I dare anyone to show me a recent president with the same level of acceptance of the task before him and a better approach to it. If you say Bush, Bush, Clinton, Reagan or Carter, you're out of your gourd. How about Nixon or JFK? Nope. Maybe Lincoln. 144 years ago, 28 presidents, and 36 presidential terms ago -- can you think of someone else who's dealt as well with a bevy of misery with such strength?

If you're a hater, feel free to paste your ignorant vitriol -- but know that we're going to see through it as the rhetoric that it is. Until you can present a better solution with a higher likelihood of success, do the world a favor and cork it, eh?

Nearly going to have to rename the blog...

...because we've got a double-shot of irony -- Alanis Morrisette would be thrilled.

Today's ironical contribution is from the GOP. Before I go any further, let me say that I'm a registered Republican and that given any of the Presidential choices this past November, Ron Paul would have been my guy. His stance on Constitutional politics is not terribly popular with his fellows, but that's not surprising -- people in power want to do what it takes to stay in power -- not to make things better.

So while I'm not a fan of the government increasing in size or becoming a larger bureaucratic and social-state than it is currently, and while I'm not 100% certain that a bailout investment in the car companies or the economy is the right way to fix things, I'm also certain the Republican's protestations and proselytizing about smaller government and how they're going to "fix" things the right way (which they've screwed the pooch on for the last 8 years) are the most bitter ironic pill I've seen them try to force the American public to swallow.

Add to the irony the claims that President Obama is not attempting to keep his non-partisan approach to governing -- especially from the lips of John McCain -- and you've got a recipe for another song (except this time with real irony). Obama reached out, made trips to discuss the bills and their caveats, reached out to specific Republican Senators and House members for the past 2 weeks -- he's asked them to come to the table for a real debate and to present a better solution -- and none of them would. They hemmed and hawed about several minor pieces of the bill (several of which should have been removed before presenting the bill -- shame on the Dems for even trying to push some of that pork through!) -- instead of just coming together and stripping out the worthless stuff and putting together a bill that they could feel would benefit the most people in the most definite ways. Instead, they gave up their opportunity to do something noble and useful for the American public -- and the REPUBLICANS tried to keep us even more in this crapper we've found ourselves in. Thanks. I'll be one of millions re-contemplating my party status come the next election, boys and girls of the gOp -- grumpy OLD party.

To his credit, Ron Paul (Sir Ian McKellan impressions notwithstanding) made an attempt to convince the country that now was the time for a smaller government and to try to steer the helm of the Republican party back to his Liberty concepts. I laud him and all those who continue to fight the good fight, especially in the face of distressing odds -- but this was a bill that could have been even more beneficial (since it was obvious it was going to pass) -- having more creative input and direction for the bill and made it better for all of us. THAT's the definition of bipartisan.

Now if we can only get these Senators a dictionary or two...

In response to http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/15/obama.gop.stimulus/index.html

Alanis Morissette got Ironic wrong...

Post in response to: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/fiorina.pay/index.html

It's ironic that Carly Fiorina of all people would be up talking about CEO malfeasance and doing the "right" thing... she was one of the CEOs who got it wrong and knows exactly how NOT to do things!

Case in point -- when HP/Compaq were in the process of merging and thousands of layoffs were occurring and profits were way down (mostly due to mismanagement -- not necessarily due to the merger itself), Carly and her executive team were still flying around in their executive jets. There were very few jobs available for internal HP employees who were about to be axed (or who feared their division might be next) to transfer to that were considered safe... but the one that caught many an eye -- a host/hostess position available to stand by and be ready to serve on the corporate jets, paying $50,000/yr.

So, Carly, please continue to lecture us on how responsible corporate American is being and how we should let the markets continue to ruin us... but don't expect us to listen.

I will say that several of the other posters here have hit on a few salient points -- CJ's points on the proxy voting is excellent -- but I guess it drives home a point that we have been allowing the foxes to guard the hen house, and if we're going to "invest" and "own" a stake in a company, then we should stand ready to be there for the meetings and make our voices heard -- because otherwise, much of the culpability falls on our shoulders as well. The trend for investing solely for profit and day trading are also to blame for the fiscal fiasco we find ourselves mired in.
A good example from recent history -- there was unrest at the Walt Disney Company. People were justifiably unhappy with the performance of then CEO Michael Eisner. Mike had had a decent tenure and had done a number of positive things for the Disney company, but his time had come, and he was unwilling to remove himself from the post for reasons best left unsaid. But the stakeholders had enough, and led by majority sharedholders Roy Disney and Stanley Gold and a very well engineering majority, a no-confidence vote was held (non-binding, but very visible) and Mike Eisner vacated his seat shortly thereafter.

When we take the responsibilty that being an "owner" comes with -- and not just the privilege of profit -- we can make a difference. The blame cannot rest entirely on the shoulders of the CEOs, their companies or the government. We, too, must take our medicine and change the way we behave in order to make a lasting difference and to move to a new era of stability and transparency, where all can find success when they do the right thing.