We now return to our regularly scheduled, extremely moderate, non-partisan program.
You know, I take a lot of flack for being liberal from people who don’t know any better, usually because I find certain liberal issues more interesting to discuss. But anyone who has known me for a long time knows that, while I may fall to the left on certain issues, I am far from liberal overall.
Without disclosing specific races, I have voted for the Republican nominee for president more often than I have voted for the Democrat (actually, after yesterday, it’s now 50-50). I felt George W. Bush won Florida by every legal standard, though I agree with the analysis that Al Gore would have won the state if not for mechanical reasons and ballot confusion – the race was so close that the margin of victory fell within the margin of error. We’ll never know who would have won in a perfect world, but we know who won in the world that actually exists. And it was legit. I got over it as it was still being litigated.
I believe that tax cuts can spur economic growth, but the issue is moot if spending exceeds the new growth-fueled income. I also recognize that I’m not an economist, and many, many, many intelligent economists say I’m wrong about that. I yield to their expertise.
I believe in a strong military that deserves honor and respect, not just when they’re serving but also when their service is done and they are veterans in need of services. I hate war. I wish our enemies would hate war too. But until they do, I believe in building a military force that is better at waging war than our enemies.
My views have certainly shifted to the left on climate change over the years, though I do believe that there is an anti-capitalist element in the environmental movement that needs to be checked and kept from making unnecessary changes masked as pro-environment needs. Still, climate change is real. It is happening. And human activity is a contributing factor. Science, the saying goes, is not a liberal conspiracy.
I struggle with where to draw the line between a person’s freedom to believe as he chooses and the state’s obligation to protect the rights of those who don’t agree. For example, should a photographer be forced to work at a gay wedding if he/she does not believe in gay marriage? We’re dealing with private individuals on both sides, so the answer is not as clear cut as it would seem. The couple has a right to be free from discrimination, but the photographer has the right to believe as he wishes and act accordingly. Should the government penalize the photographer as a businessman for discriminating against people whose orientation offends him, whether I agree with the photographer or not? I can see both sides of that argument. I sympathize with one side, but I lean toward the other. And my position shifts from time to time.
I do not believe in special rights for the LGBT community. I do believe in equal rights for them, which includes the right to have a marriage recognized by the state with every legal privilege attached. I do not believe this right undermines traditional marriage anymore than I believe an atheist wedding undermines Christian marriage.
I do not believe an agent of the government should be permitted to use his or her public office to deprive anyone of their equal rights under the law solely because doing so would violate the religion of the agent of the government.
And there are some principles from which I will not veer.
First, no one gets to use OUR government to promote THEIR religion (or lack thereof). That’s a big one for me, and it covers a multitude of issues. Basically, if government or an agent of the government is involved, my response will be predictable.
The courthouse is no place for the 10 Commandments (half of which are unconstitutional). Government has no business whatsoever telling me how many gods I can have, what his name is, whether I can say “dammit” after speaking his name, whether I can represent him with a sculpture, what day of the week to worship him, or whether I can wish I owned the car in the driveway next door. It’s simply not government’s concern. Put the 10 Commandments up in your house or on a church lawn. Problem solved.
I do not have a problem with people praying. I do not have a problem with children praying in public schools. I do have a problem with schools leading such prayers, because not everyone in the classroom is a child of a follower of the God being prayed to, and some follow no God at all. Keep government out of it. Period. Pray with your kids at home. Problem solved.
If your God’s ego is so fragile that it will not be appeased unless you get our government to force my kids to pray to your God, then I humbly submit he’s not worth worshiping.
I do favor a moment of silence during which students may pray silently if they wish. Lots of atheist groups oppose that, and my response is, “what’s the big deal, bitch?”
But the moment you try to come up with some kind of uniform prayer that offends no one, you dilute everyone’s religion and force that diluted religion on those who have none. It’s wrong, period. Keep government out of it.
I believe in racial harmony, which includes the recognition that things are not where they need to be. I believe Black Lives Matter. Yes, I believe All Lives Matter, but All Lives don’t matter if black lives don’t. You send a fire truck to the house that’s on fire. It doesn’t mean you disrespect every house that is passed along the way.
I believe in supporting, befriending, thanking and obeying our police officers. I do not think they are always right. I do not think they are always wrong. I think there are issues that police officers desperately need to address, and we can articulate those issues because the police force is an arm of the government, and the first amendment recognizes the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances.
Yes, I believe there are problems in communities of color, and white communities for that matter, that need to be addressed. But it’s foolish to say that society cannot address one problem until another problem is addressed. And it defies reason to suggest that the general public can address something like “black on black crime” or “white on white crime” for the simple reason that the perpetrators don’t comprise an arm of the government that can respond in an organized way when we petition them for a redress of grievances.
I should not have to wait for a crook to stop being a crook before I have the right to ask a cop to please don’t shoot me I’m only going for my wallet.
Violence against the police is never the answer, and it robs you (obviously) of any moral authority to state any case you’re trying to make, whether it’s Black Lives Matter or I Want My Country Back.
I struggle with the death penalty. I suspect it’s not worth the trouble. Outside of war, the taking of a human life should be reserved not only for the worst of crimes, but also for cases where the guilt and competence of the accused is established beyond a shadow of a doubt. And even then, I still wonder if it’s worth it.
I believe abortion is not murder in the same way fornication is not adultery. Yes, I see what they have in common, but they’re not the same thing. My personal belief is that it is something I would not endorse unless under a very particular set of circumstances. I need not disclose them, because my larger point is that I cannot come up with any set of circumstances without recognizing that you may come up with a set of circumstances that may differ, however slightly or greatly. As such, I am pro-choice. But when it comes to the pro-life view, man, I get it. I just can’t see imposing it on others. Hence, pro-choice.
I believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in compelled speech, even if it’s compelling something I like, such as patriotism. I was raised Jehovah’s Witness. We did not say the pledge of allegiance. Today I say it because I don’t have to. If I didn’t, that would be my right. If that bothers you, too bad. Veterans fought and died for my right to CHOOSE whether I want to pledge allegiance to my country, not to force me to do it. If you don’t agree, then you don’t honor veterans’ sacrifices. You only think you do. Forcing an expression of patriotism is fascism and it is meaningless.
I believe patriotism and theism are separate traits, and you can have one without the other. It is a travesty that we have allowed an expression of patriotism to be co-opted to force people to acknowledge a god they don’t believe exists or risk having ignorant people believe they do not love this country.
Yes, I said ignorant. And I meant it.
Cutting taxes is not government spending.
Raising taxes is not robbery.
I expect those in our country illegally to be respected as human beings and afforded the due process rights we would grant to any other human being accused of a civil infraction and/or crime. I also think the immigration laws of this country ought to be respected [except in cases of civil disobedience, in which the offenders ought to be prepared to face the consequences to make their points].
I don’t believe it’s racist to oppose illegal immigration, but shucks, I sure do notice that an awful lot of racists do. I don’t believe it’s racist to oppose affirmative action, but shucks…
I think The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and To Kill a Mockingbird are brilliant works of literature. And I think all children of all races and ethnicities should read them.
I do not “look for reasons” to be offended. I do not look for reasons to offend. I believe if you are thick-skinned, it doesn’t make it OK for me to offend you. And vice versa.
I am tired of being so “politically correct” that I am not allowed to say what I really think of racist positions and views for fear of offending the people that hold them. I’m over being polite to people who are rude to me and to those I love and respect.
I go with my head and, if unable to draw a conclusion, go with my gut. Sometimes that’s a good thing, sometimes it’s a mistake. But it’s always with the best interest of our country at heart.
(portions previously published).
It’s been disappointing — depressing almost — to watch intelligent columnists and advocates falling over themselves this week to botch their objection to comments made Sunday by GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson.
Carson was on Meet the Press, where he was asked whether a candidate’s faith should matter to voters. His response? It depends on the faith.
The underlying context is important. Here is the discussion:
Chuck Todd: “Let me ask you the question this way: Should a President’s faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?” [Emphasis mine].
Carson: “Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it’s inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the Constitution, no problem.”
Todd: “So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the Constitution?”
Carson: “No, I don’t, I do not… I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.”
The key to understanding this exchange, and to why so many of Carson’s critics have made absolute asses of themselves in criticizing him for it, lies in the original question: Should a candidate’s faith matter to voters?
Most analysts who have cited the U.S. Constitution’s ban on a religious test have completely and incompetently ignored those two critical words.
Let me say that I have a lot of respect for many people who have made this blunder. Jonathan Capehart, for example, is one of the most talented journalists in the country, and a respected pundit (10 times better at this than I’ll ever be).
ThinkProgress.org ran the deceptive and dishonest headline: “Ben Carson Says Muslims Should Be Disqualified From Presidency.” I like ThinkProgress.org. And I’m disappointed in their article, because Ben Carson said no such thing. He said he would not agree with a Muslim’s election as president. He did not say Muslims should be disqualified from running, winning or serving. Just that he wouldn’t agree with it.
In that, he is no different from a majority of Americans who would not agree with an atheist becoming president. A majority (I hope) would not agree with a Scientologist becoming president. Or a Branch Davidian. Or a professional astrologer. That is the electorate’s prerogative, and the Constitution does not prohibit the electorate from considering a candidate’s faith.
Nonetheless, critics of Carson have made a disingenuous appeal to the Constitution and claimed that his comments run afoul of Article VI, Paragraph 3, which reads (in relevant part) “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
There you have it. No one, under the Constitution, can be barred from office by virtue of his or her religion.
And that, folks, has NOTHING to do with what Ben Carson said. Carson was not asked, and did not answer, whether a Muslim should be allowed to run. He was not asked, and did not answer, whether a Muslim should be allowed to win. He was not asked, and did not answer, whether a Muslim should be allowed to serve if elected. The Constitution specifically outlaws a religious test in each of those areas.
But Carson was asked whether a person’s faith should matter to voters. And nothing, nothing in the Constitution prohibits a voter from taking a candidate’s faith into account when casting a ballot. Voters are absolutely permitted to consider a candidate’s religion. The Constitution has NOTHING to say about that, and it shouldn’t. You and I can consider a candidate’s faith. We can consider his race. We can consider his sexual orientation. We can consider his age. We can consider his height, weight, body odor and tooth decay. We can consider whatever factors we want.
If you won’t vote for someone because of his race or sexual orientation, you are, in my opinion, a bigot. But you still have the right to do it. You, as a voter, have every right to take into account whatever factors you want.
So I’m not defending Ben Carson’s position. I am, in fact, not commenting on his position at all. Religion is dicier than race or sexual orientation, because religion is in the realm of ideas, and a candidate’s ideas are fair game for consideration.
I am commenting on the dishonest and disingenuous argument that Carson’s comments run afoul of the Constitution. They do not. At all. Not even a little.
In the ThinkProgress.org report, Judd Legum writes, “In suggesting a religious test for potential presidents — where some religions would be “inconsistent” with the constitution — Carson appears somewhat unfamiliar with the text of the constitution.”
Judd Legum is wrong. Carson did not suggest a religious test for potential presidents in the sense prohibited by the Constitution. He suggested a religious test in a sense allowed by the Constitution: the electorate’s right to consider whatever factors it wants to consider.
Jonathan Capehart wrote: “But what Carson said is even more egregious. Not only did he display a stunning ignorance of the Constitution and one of its basic tenets, but he also is among those whining about religious freedom.” [Emphasis mine].
Jonathan Capehart is wrong on that point. Carson displayed no ignorance of the Constitution. Carson didn’t address the Constitution at all, and he was not in conflict with the Constitution in the slightest.
Look, it’s simple: The Constitution bars the government from blocking a person’s candidacy because of religion. It does not, in any way, shape or form, prohibit a voter from considering a candidate’s religion as a factor. Not even as a disqualifying factor. Period.
Over at NBC News, Pete Williams wrote: “Carson was, of course, expressing his personal view and did not call for barring Muslims from the presidency. But many constitutional scholars say Carson’s view is at odds with the design of the nation’s founders.”
At odds? Not exactly. The design of the nation’s founders, as expressed in the Constitution, is that a person cannot be barred from running, winning or serving on the basis of his religion. The design of the nation’s founders was also that voters decide who they will support. And (let’s hear it again) voters are allowed to consider a candidate’s religion. There’s nothing even remotely controversial about it.
Williams quotes Akhil Reed Amar, a Constitutional scholar at Yale: “One of the most striking features of the Constitution is how it goes out of its way to insist that the federal government is open persons of all faiths or no faith in particular.”
Amar is correct. And nothing Ben Carson said contradicts it. Amar’s statement is presented in support of the assertion that Carson’s view is at odds with the nation’s founders. However, Amar’s comments appear completely unrelated to that point.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations issued a statement demanding drop out of the race and calling his comments “inconsistent with the United States Constitution.” The Anti-Defamation League, a leading Jewish-American advocacy group, called Carson’s comments “contrary to the Constitution.”
CAIR and the ADL are simply wrong on that point. Call Carson’s comments whatever you want. But they are not contrary to the Constitution.
I just like to be fair. I’m neither fan nor foe when it comes to Ben Carson. If he doesn’t want to vote for a Muslim, that makes him no different from the majority of Americans who would never vote for an atheist. Hold it against him if you want. Call him an ignorant bigot if you want. But be fair about it! Accusing him of not understanding the Constitution, accusing him of violating the letter or spirit of the Constitution, when in fact his comments are completely consistent with the Constitution, makes his critics look foolish.
Ben Carson answered a question about whether a candidate’s faith should matter to voters. His comments came in that context, not in the context of a religious test prohibited by the foundation of American law.
Nothing Ben Carson said implies a lack of understanding of the Constitution.
The same cannot be said of the criticism directed at him.
[Apologies for the redundancy, but sometimes a point needs to be repeated when it does not seem to be sinking in, and the blunder I’m trying to refute keeps getting repeated in news outlet after news outlet, with no critical analysis in sight.
Also, this post deliberately ignores comments made by Carson since his Meet the Press appearance. I’m not familiar with all of them, save for the assertion that the next president would be sworn on a stack of Bibles, not the Koran. For the record, I think it should be the Constitution, not a holy book].
Yes, a free press was attacked in Paris when gunman slaughtered cartoonists at the satirical Charlie Hebdo newspaper. But it was not just a free press that was attacked, and not enough people are recognizing that.
The freedom to choose a religion, along with the freedom to choose NO religion, was attacked in Paris. The freedom to criticize a religion was attacked. The freedom to be unbound by the dictates of a faith you do not share was attacked. The statement made by the terrorists was not about foreign policy or domestic policy. It was not about the use of force or respect for state authority.
This was about a group of people who decided that the feelings of their omnipotent friend were hurt, and who took it upon themselves to commit murder because someone ELSE did not follow THEIR religion’s mandates.
And that is unconscionable.
Freedom of religion does not oblige ME to live by the restrictions imposed by YOUR religion (nor does it oblige you to live by the restrictions — or allowances — of mine). If your faith says you can’t spell out the name G-d, well, then, by God, YOU don’t do that. But you don’t get to stop me. You don’t get to stop me from drawing a picture of Mohammed. You don’t get to stop me from picking up sticks on a Friday night, or picking up chicks on a Saturday night (although my wife’s religion might have something to say about that). You don’t get to stop me from eating shrimp or cheeseburgers. You don’t get to stop me from officiating at the wedding of two atheists, two Christians, two Jews, two Scientologists, two men or two women. You don’t get to decide that. And I don’t get to make you eat cheeseburgers or shrimp. I don’t get to make you attend a gay wedding.
But what happened in Paris — that was an attack on freedom from religion. We were just told, violently, that some ideas are not to be criticized, that when someone is revered by an intolerant few, that person must be respected by everyone, under penalty of death.
No. To hell with you. Not how it’s gonna work.
I have no trouble being respectful of anyone’s faith. Tell me not to make fun of the pope, and I won’t. Tell me not to make fun of the pope or you’ll kill me, and I’m gonna make fun of the pope. Or Mohammed. Or the Governing Body of the Watchtower Society in Brookyn. Or Pat Batcrap Crazy Robertson.
Religion has a privileged position in our society. It’s considered uncouth to mock it unnecessarily. LACK a religion, and you can be presumed immoral. LACK a religion, and you can be presumed arrogant or rude or full of yourself.
Maybe, but we don’t go around gunning people down for questioning evolution by natural selection.
No one else gets the privilege religion does. If you’re a Democrat, you don’t get to demand that people not criticize the Democratic Party. Same goes for Republicans. Same goes for fans of TV shows, musical genres, movies or anything else. You like Star Wars better than Star Trek? LET’S FIGHT! Only in religion do we suddenly tell people, Thou shalt not evaluate and critique what I believe. No matter how ridiculous it is (his strength was in his hair? AYFKM?). No matter how debunked it is (how many animals were on that boat?). We’re supposed to be respectful.
No. To hell with you. Not how it’s going to work.
There seems to be an undercurrent of opinion in some circles that black people are not allowed to speak on any issue until and unless they address particular issues within their own community. Concerned about police brutality? You can’t address that until you address black on black crime. Distraught that a seemingly clear case of excessive force resulted in (surprise!) a decision not to indict a cop? You can’t address that until you address the dissolution of black families and the raising of black children without their fathers in the home.This patronizing, condescending, paternalistic attitude toward our black brothers and sisters has to end. We do not get to tell people when to voice their concerns. This is not a matter of “You don’t get to go to the movies until you clean your room.” We’re not their daddies. We don’t get to tell them when to talk or what to talk about.
If LeBron James wants to wear an “I Can’t Breathe” shirt, he can and should, and he should be prepared to defend his decision to wear it. The exchange of ideas is how we improve society. Telling him he should wear a shirt that says “Be a better father” is condescending in the worst way. When pro-lifers march for abortion restrictions, do we tell them to take care of the pedophile priest problem first? When the Tea Party marches for limited government, do we tell them to take care of white-on-white crime first? No. Why not? Because it’s irrelevant, that’s why.
Black-on-black crime is irrelevant to police brutality. You don’t have to fix one to opine on the other. White-on-white crime is irrelevant to securities fraud and tax evasion. You don’t have to fix one to opine on the other. Latino-on-Latino crime is irrelevant to illegal immigration. You don’t have to fix one to opine the other.
Let’s call it what it is: It’s non-black people putting black people in their place by telling them when they can protest, what they can protest about, and what hoops they have to jump through in order to earn the moral authority to protest to their moral superiors – the non-black elite.
There’s a word for that.
It pains me on a personal level to see Geraldo Rivera, someone I once considered an ally in the fight for equality in America and for fair coverage of racial issues in the media, become such an apologist for racist attitudes masquerading as deeper social concerns.
No one is excusing black-on-black crime. No one is excusing the deterioration of the family unit (among all races). But no one, NO one, has the right to tell black America “you can’t complain about this until you take care of that.”
Who the hell do you think you are?
Where’s THAT T-shirt?
Note: This post was written on my time and expresses my opinion. It does not reflect on my employer or my previous associations in any way.
Maybe tonight, maybe tomorrow, Andy will be born.
Andy is the first child of my stepdaughter, Kayla. So he’s my…
Well, wait, what is he? I mean, to me? And what am I to him?
Biologically, nothing. But in reality, quite a bit. Andy will be living with me and my family (at least for the time being). He will be like a little brother to my sons (his uncles). My wife is his biological grand… I don’t know if we’re allowed to use that word. I think we’re going with “Mee-ma.” Or is it “Mimaw”? I don’t know. How do you spell a word that doesn’t really exist? However you want, I guess.
So my wife is going to be a Memaw. And my sons are going to be uncles. And Kayla’s father is going to be a Grampa (or whatever he wants to be called. We haven’t actually discussed it).
And Kayla is going to be a mom. Holy cow. That little girl who called me “Homie G” when we first met and who was just 14 years old when she and her kid sister walked their mom down the aisle at our wedding — she’s going to be a mom.
Okay, so what does that make me? Honestly, it makes me not important (in the sense that it’s not about me) and important (in the sense that I am expected to, and intend to, play a positive and constructive role in this little boy’s life). At the same time.
Personally, I think it is a bit presumptuous for me to be called “Grampa” or any variation of that. My stepdaughter has a father who loves her and has been supporting her. He is Andy’s Grampa, and I do not intend to take that away from him.
So what name do I get?
My wife suggests “Lito.” It’s short for “Abuelito,” which is what Spanish speaking people call their grandfathers. I like it. It’s affectionate and personal without intruding on Grampa’s turf.
I’m gonna be a Lito!
Congratulations Kayla and Andrew. You’re going to make great parents. We’re all proud of how strong you have been, and we know Andy is going to be lucky to have you as parents. Just as soon as he gets here. Which is, when, again? Tonight? Tomorrow? Soon. Any day now.
I can’t wait to meet him.
My son Angelo, who’s 3, insisted this weekend that his mom and his sisters paint his nails. It was a lovely shade of pinkish, on the darker side. Not quite red. I don’t know what to call it and didn’t think to ask. All I know is, it was on my son’s fingernails, and I groaned a little.
It’s not the first time Angelo has blurred the gender line. Earlier this summer, he insisted his mom buy him a “Frozen” cap with Elsa’s hair sewn into it. And a T-shirt with Elsa’s image on it. My wife found a blue one.
He wore that thing at Disney World. And he loved it. And so did we.
Now don’t get me wrong. Angelo typically wears boy stuff. Ninja Turtle shirts. Batman raincoat. Iron man shoes. Mickey Mouse shirts (no interest in wearing Minnie or Daisy items). But every now and then, Elsa.
But something happened Monday night my wife and I were not prepared for. Angelo was lying down next to my wife, and he said to her, “I don’t wanna wear nail polish.”
“Why not?” my wife asked.
“Nail polish is for girls.”
“Who told you that?”
Angelo said his preschool teacher told him nail polish is for girls. He repeated the accusation to me. And I have to admit, I was pretty upset about it. So was my wife.
Now, let me get this out of the way: the teacher denies this, and I have no reason to disbelieve her. We know Angelo’s teacher to be a wonderful, dedicated and compassionate person. We have no idea why Angelo said what he said, but 3-year-olds have been known to misinterpret what they hear from adults. Whatever. It’s not the point, and we love Angelo’s teacher and school.
But whatever the source was, Angelo felt criticized for showing up at school with painted nails. And that makes me uncomfortable.
If my son wants to wear nail polish, that is his business. He’s 3. He’s not declaring his sexuality. He is not rebelling against gender politics. You know what he’s doing? He’s looking at painted nails and saying “Cool! Can I try that?” And we’re saying yes. Because if my son wants to go to school with dark pink, light red nails, he is going to school with dark pink, light red nails.
And an Elsa hat with a wig attached. We want our son to feel free to express himself, to let us know who he is, not to mold him into what he “shalt” be. We are not going to change who he is by suppressing his self-expression, but we will be able to love and support him more completely if we allow him to be himself.
We removed the nail polish Tuesday morning, and that made me a little sad. Not because I want him to wear it. I don’t, to be honest. But I want him to decide on his own that he doesn’t want to wear it. Otherwise, he’s being less than who and what he wants to be. “If you want to put it back on or pick another color, just tell us,” I said to him as we finished.
Maybe he’ll go with green next time.
One of the saddest songs I ever heard is called “Flowers are Red,” by Harry Chapin. It’s about a little boy who colors flowers using every crayon in the box, and the teacher who successfully “straightens him out” by instructing him that flowers are red and leaves are green.
In case that description is too subtle, here’s a spoiler: The teacher is the villain in this song, and the child is the victim. There’s nothing subtle about it. There is a correct answer to “what are the letters of the alphabet?” and “what is two plus two?” There is, however, no correct answer to “what colors do you want to use for your art?”
Or your fingernails.