On inviting Thai sex works to come to Daddy

Okay, so courtesy of perennial Practically Harmless favorite JBF comes a video that will make your entire day feel creepy. This is the story of eleven young women from the U.S.--almost exclusively white--who went to Thailand to save the "bar girls" to Jesus. "We found that we were the perfect ones to fight for them," say the title cards. "Because we used to be women in chains… Just like them."

This is then illustrated by a series of "testimonies," written in Sharpie on cardboard, squicktacularly set to the contemporary Christian song "When I'm With My Daddy."

 

Just like a woman willingly or unwillingly providing sexual services in Phuket's red-light district, their "chains" include masturbation, not fitting in a magazine, and perfectionism. "I stopped touching my neener through the grace of Jesus Christ--and so can you."

I had sex ... Now I'm pure 

I struggle with masturbation ... No condemnation for those who are in Christ 

Felt like I was supposed to fit in a magazine ... Now I fit perfectly in His arms 

I labeled myself as an adulteress at 17 years old ... Daddy called me his bride

Ew.


[Cross-posted at Feministe]

On another meaning of Easter

Okay, so I'm finna get sincerely religious all up in this piece--and we're talking full-on religious, like Episcopapist religious, and not just "spiritual"--so if that's not your thing, just wait a few minutes and then hit "refresh." TGTBATFNERT is coming up next.

Today is Good Friday (as opposed to a merely good Friday, which is most of them). It is, for the drastically uninformed, a big day for Christians, as it is the day Jesus was crucified and died, which was the necessary step before rising on Sunday, because if He hadn't died first the rising part wouldn't have been nearly as impressive.

As Christians, we're expected to live up to the example Jesus sets for us. Usually, that's more to the "God" side of His dual nature of God/man. Spread the Word, always be obedient to God. Do good. Be respectful. Be kind, generous, and compassionate. Be faithful. All important things, and all things we can do in our own lives, but at a certain level also kind of unrelatable for people who aren't themselves at once God and human. We're given this task of being like Jesus, but we're also given a literally unattainable goal--because while Jesus was like us, He also was entirely unlike us in an almighty and everliving kind of way. We're told over and over that we're meant to try to be like Jesus and that there's no chance we will ever succeed.

One of my favorite Lenten passages (defined here as "most striking and most likely to make me cry in church") is the recounting of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane on the night before He was handed over. He brings his friends with him--all of whom end up falling asleep, incidentally--and prays and prays and prays for something that doesn't get a lot of emphasis in the Easter story: He prays to God to not make him do this.

On the science of, like, science

Okay, so sometimes I feel like I spend a lot of time poking at religion--particularly Christianity--on this blog, which initially doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I don't hate Christianity. I don't hate Christians. I actually enjoy my faith and my faith community and take a lot of comfort in it. But honestly, some Christians--some Christians--if I'm honest, way too many Christians--throw a spark in it because they make me look bad. They take the name of a perfectly good theology and do stupid things with it. If I'm having a discussion with a non-Christian wherein my beliefs come up, and it's revealed that I am, in fact, feminist, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and pro-evolution, someone always ends up saying, "Well, then, you aren't exactly a Christian, now, are you?" and then I say, "Shuh up!" and then there's a discussion of a Biblical defense for homophobia and the epistles of Paul and it ends in blood or cupcakes.

That said: A conversation I had over the weekend with a dear friend--and an otherwise very smart, reasonable friend--made me feel that this kind of post might be necessary. And "necessary" might be the wrong word for it, since in my experience, my reader(s) tend to be the kind of smart, reasonable people who get this kind of thing already. But sometimes (e.g., this weekend), people surprise you. Thus, with a sincere effort at not even bringing religious justification into it:

Why You Can't Teach Creationism In Science Class

Because it isn't science.

This has been Why You Can't Te--What? … Nuh-uh. … It is, too, valid.

Evolution is science because it's science-y. There's a certain science-ness to it. I find it hard to really define it, because to me, it self-defines. In terms of other definitions, Merriam-Webster have a pretty good and thorough one, and I have a bit of one myself: Science is the satisfaction of curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge using systematic methods and relying on testable evidence.

On religion, skepticism, and being a dick

Okay, so I'm going to warn you right up front that this is going to be a rather serious, sincerely personal (and unexpectedly lengthy) post. It feels strange to throw up an "intimate personal sharing" trigger warning, but that's kind of what it is: If you'd like to stick with the lighthearted, there'll be another BSC chapter coming up shortly. Or kittens or something.

Now, then.

Part I: Faith

'Roundabout two years ago, I left the Catholic church. It was an intensely hard decision. I'd been struggling with my religion for some time--not my faith, mind you, but my religion. My faith in God was, for the most part, as strong as ever. It was my relationship with what purported to be His personal church of choice that was such a struggle for me.

My problem was simply that the more I learned about myself and the more I pursued a personal relationship with God on top of the more professional one I had with Him through church, the less my beliefs about religion and life and even myself fit with what I was being taught. It brewed for a long time: reproductive rights, the church's treatment of women, the church's treatment of gays, the handling of the pedophile priests--all the things that the church had one lesson about while my heart told me something entirely different.

It's one of the worst kinds of cognitive dissonance, when you're at odds not just with a trusted friend but with an institution that's been at or near the center of your life since a priest poured water on your little baby head. It's an institution that has literally heard you confess your deepest secrets and is supposed to help guide you through a good, moral life to a kickin' afterlife. For that matter, it's something you've shared with your family for an hour each week, plus holidays and every time you've said grace before a meal. It was meant to be with me from birth through six of the sacraments and to death and beyond, and I was so conflicted and pained I could barely look it in the eye.

On laying off the law

Okay, so realizing that the Scopes Monkey Trial and Intro to Intelligent Design 101 are beginning to wane in impact, the Tennessee State Legislature has taken a fresh stab at the top of the Whack Pack with a stab at the scourge of Sharia law.

A proposed Tennessee law would make following the Islamic code known as Shariah law a felony, punishable by 15 years in jail.

State Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and state Rep. Judd Matheny, R-Tullahoma, introduced the same bill in the Senate and House last week. It calls Shariah law a danger to homeland security and gives the attorney general authority to investigate complaints and decide who's practicing it.

It exempts peaceful practice of Islam but labels any adherence to Shariah law — which includes religious practices such as feet washing and prayers — as treasonous. It claims Shariah adherents want to replace the Constitution with their religious law.

The people of Tennessee should be proud that their legislature is taking the time and resources to illegalize something that is already illegal. (Read the full text of the bill.)

Let's remember how the law works, shall we? The First Amendment guarantees our right to freely practice our religion of choice (or lack thereof). The Supremacy Clause establishes federal law as the supreme law of the land. This means that Mormons can wear all the awkward undergarments they want, but they can't marry polygamously; fundamentalist Christians can revive in tents for as long as they want and in as many angel languages as they want, but they can't flog their kids for impertinence; and Muslims can avoid pork to their hearts' content but not behead anyone for any reason, ever.

On the apocalypse, nowish: 2011

Okay, so the recent unrest in Egypt has raised questions among some complete kooks about whether the End Times could be upon us. And that's always a reasonable question, which is why it's time to bring back… the Practically Harmless Apocalyptic Index! (wild applause)

Of course, as we've established in previous editions, it takes more than just civil unrest to portend the apocalypse. The book of Revelation lays down a clear…ish account of the signs that will appear to us before the battle of Christ and Antichrist and the eventual thousand-year peace. And we certainly haven't--

--oh, holy fuck, what's that?!



The explicit appearance of the Lamb's own pale horse notwithstanding, however, really we're still okay--we checked off pestilence and disease back in March of '05, so this doesn't actually move us any close to the end. We still need to account for:

- Counterfeit baptisms, bibles, Messiahs, and holy days--false prophets who possess miracle-working powers will proclaim the name of Jesus but not follow His commandments.
- The sky will roll back like a curtain.
- One-third of the sea will turn to blood, fish will die, ships will sink, and rivers will turn bitter.
- The Holy City (Jerusalem) will be trampled for 42 months.
- The Beast (the Antichrist) will emerge from the Abyss.
- Jesus will come back and throw the Antichrist a righteous beating.
- Peace will reign for a thousand years.

Sure, the Gulf of Mexico has turned to oil and the Church of Scientology is performing miracles of modern vitamin. But we're still lacking those few necessary ingredients to make a truly memorable apocalypse. Thus, despite an unannounced appearance by Death himself and his pallid pony, our Apocalyptic Index stands at 60.

On the Good, the Bad, and the Friday Random Ten

Okay, so this week has been kind of a serious one: The posts of note were about the State of the Union and the opposition response, we faced down dumbassery from Bill O'Reilly and no fewer than 173 Representatives, and The Boy had a birthday that we'll just wasn't 29. So I invite you to take a minute and revisit this post.

See? Wasn't that nice?

What's good (for the two-week period ending 2/4):

- self-righteous unintentional hilarity. "Where do the tides come from, huh? Answer me that. See, you can't! That's bec--Oh, really? Huh. Uh… well… Where did the moon come from, Mr. Smartypants?" When you screw up, your two options are to own up to it and look humble or keep digging and look like a bigger douche with every shovelful. Quit digging. Well, not you, Mr. O'Reilly.

- home warranties

- Roger Ebert vs. a Nicholas Sparks movie starring Miley Cyrus. He's actually pretty gentle with Ms. Cyrus; the last three paragraphs are the winners.

- the source of Ebert's Cormac McCarthy comment (at the link previous). It's one of those you-laugh-or-you-cry things, and I choose to laugh, and the reason why is "'A Farewell to Arms, by Hemingway. Good stuff. That's what I write." That is the reason why.

- Bach's Toccata and Fugue on a giant foot piano

- the state of the salmon. Okay, funny/sad.

- Baby Monkey (Going Backwards On A Pig). Oh, hell, here's the embed:


- someone else who doesn't get Bieber's 'Bama Bangs. The money quote: "At my age, I have to wonder: Who the heck is this kid, and why can't he get a haircut?"

- a template for every awful Facebook discussion you've ever witnessed. I'm always The Thoughtful One, I swear.

- the Big Top Cupcake cake mold. It is (God willing) going to turn out a huge, enormous cupcake for The Boy's birthday tonight. I haven't even used it yet, but I'm calling it a Good, because even if I screw things up and the cake is horrible it's still a huge, enormous cupcake, and that's awesome.

What's bad:

On the brotherhood (and sisterhood) of man (and woman)

Okay, so some people take weeks to screw things up at their job. New Alabama governor Robert Bentley managed to do it in about four minutes. In a speech at Dexter Avenue King Memorial Church, on Martin Luther King Day, he let all non-Christian Alabamians know exactly where they can get off.

"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said. "But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."

Bentley added, "Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

What the fuck? (Sorry, Jesus.)

Practically Harmless regular B has made a valid point: "Like I want to be his sister…" And I recognize that in the Deep South, winning souls for Christ is practically a contact sport and Bentley sincerely is concerned for our salvation. But I can't not take a little bit of umbrage here, not because I'm worried about my own soul or my own treatment at the hands of the administration but because he's the governor. He was just after pledging to be the "governor of all the people" and "color blind," and then he had to delineate who is and who is not his brother.

On working on Christmas (from the warehouse)

Periodically, a post is written that's timely and brilliant but for whatever reason doesn't get published and ends up tucked away, Ark of the Covenant-like, and forgotten about. (Periodically, this also happens to crappy posts.) Periodically, I choose to bring such posts out into the light for the pleasure of my adoring reader. This is one of those times.

Okay, so apparently, if there's one thing we can't expect our legislators to do, it's legislate when they'd rather be doing something else.

"You can't jam a major arms control treaty right before Christmas," [Senator Jim DeMint] told POLITICO. "What's going on here is just wrong. This is the most sacred holiday for Christians. They did the same thing last year--they kept everybody here until (Christmas Eve) to force something down everybody's throat. I think Americans are sick of this."

Let's break it down.

You can't jam a major arms control treaty right before Christmas.

Well, for one, obviously you can jam it in there, because they just did. But Amanda at Pandagon points out that "they," in this case, could arguably be the Republicans--they're the ones stalling and filibustering every piece of legislation that passes their desks, forcing everyone to work late into the season to get the important stuff accomplished. That's just poor planning, from where I'm sitting.

This is the most sacred holiday for Christians.

Actually, that's Easter. (I wonder if anyone's asked Eric Cantor how he feels about working on Yom Kippur.)

I think Americans are sick of this.

I don't actually know how many Americans are sick of you working on Christmas Eve. I know that when my dad, a doctor, has to take call Christmas Eve, I get pretty sick of it; I also know that his patients would be pretty sick of him not being available to do his job when needed. I also know that, judging from the fact that my house has electricity and I got milk from that convenience store and firetrucks responded to that chimney fire that time, other Americans also are working on Christmas Eve, although maybe they're not as important as you because they're not… as important, I guess. Or whatever.*

I also know that a lot of Americans are sick of our elected officials finding any excuse available to avoid doing the one job we hire them to do.

The angel said, "On earth peace, good will toward men." Like a nuclear arms treaty. Less with the whining, more with the legislating. Then 'nog.

*Other people who have worked on Christmas: George Washington, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Apollo 8 crew, priests, soup kitchens, my great-grandmother, Santa. Not working Christmas Day: German and British troops during the Christmas Truce of 1914. Peace on earth.

On the Morning Denouncements

Okay, so in the White House press room...

“... the most recent priest scandals in Boston and Chicago, and the hostage situation at that bank in Reno. This being the first Monday of the month, of course I’ll renew my denunciation of the Inquisition and of Timothy McVeigh. I’d also like to take a minute--if I may--to give a shout-out to former parishioner Daniel Munroe on his birthday. Daniel is currently serving time in Allenwood for aggravated assault, which of course we also denounce.”

A smattering of applause.

“Thank you, Father Bailey. And next we have... Rabbi Berman?”

“Thank you. Good morning, everyone. It’s always nice to see such a great crowd out on a rainy day. On behalf of the First Reform Congregation of Hoboken, I’d like to denounce the following deplorable acts by our fellow Jews for the week ending September 3. Locally, Jacob Levy stole a box of Raspberry Zingers from a convenience store and Mark Rothman assaulted a homeless man outside of a bar early Saturday morning. Nationally, we’d like to denounce Rebecca Weinberg’s role in that cheating scandal at Princeton and her recent attempt to publish a plagiarized young-adult novel, and we’d like to denounce Jon Stewart’s recent interview with that guy who wrote that book, because he was unnecessarily mean and that just didn't seem appropriate. As always, we’d like to denounce Adam Sandler. And that’s really it for denunciations this week. Quiet week.”

Applause.

“Thank you, Rabbi Berman. Next up is Imam Haddad.”

“Haddad isn’t here today. Ramadan.”

“Oh, that’s right.”

“Priestess Moonstone said she’ll read his denunciations when she does her own.”

“Oh, well that’s nice of her. Then that brings us to... Brother Kosal.”

“Thank you.”

“Keep it short this time?”

“Yes. Still sorry about that. On behalf of the community of the Mahayana Buddhavihara Temple of Greater Akron, I’d like to denounce the following deplorable acts by our fellow Buddhists for the week ending September 3...”

Peaceful Wiccas pls refudiate.

On what it means to move on

Okay, so this actually started as a couple of comments on a friend's Facebook post, but then they were getting really long and wordy (long and wordy? Me? Noooo...) and so I decided they needed their own blog post.

The subject at hand was the misleadingly named "Ground Zero mosque." It's a misnomer because the structure in question isn't really a mosque, and it isn't really at Ground Zero. It's a Muslim community center, basically a Muslim YMCA, that will have a mosque in it, and it will be built two blocks from Ground Zero such that you can't see it from Ground Zero or Ground Zero from it. The location is currently the site of a defunct Burlington Coat Factory, now apparently considered hallowed ground due to its proximity to the WTC and the piece of one of the planes that crashed through its roof.

That hallowed ground stands in the shadow of a strip club; a stone's throw from two liquor stores; and if you make the mistake of turning left instead of right out the front door of the proposed community center, you'll find yourself passing a roadhouse and a reportedly pathetic nightclub with periodic lingerie parties on the five-minute walk to Ground Zero. (The New York Daily News counts a strip club, a lingerie parlor/peep show, 11 bars, 10 shoe stores, and "17 separate salons where a girl can get her lady parts groomed" within a three-block radius of Ground Zero. Oh, yeah, and a mosque.)

So let's get that out of the way right from the start: Objections to this project aren't because a two-block radius of the World Trade Center is hallowed ground. Feministe's Jill--a New Yorker herself--points out that while the footprint of the WTC is hallowed ground if there ever was any, your average tourist treats it like EPCOT, so it's kind of disingenuous to be wringing hands about a community center--built in the spirit of neighborly relations, civic participation, social justice, compassion, education, and engagement, those bastards--a respectful two blocks away and completely out of view.

That's my statement on the whole "hallowed ground," "show respect" argument: It's bullshit, because the only reason you think this is disrespectful is that they're Muslims and thus all responsible for 9/11 and should keep their heads down and their eyes averted any time they wander south of Canal Street. So there's that.

And now I change gears to address more generally the spirit that keeps this debate going, now that it's been manufactured from whole cloth by one particular super-right-wing nutjob blogger. It's the spirit in all of us that won't let it die a graceful death.

At this point, I say something that could make me so deeply hated that I'll have to leave civilization and build myself a yurt, but that's never stopped me before: It's been nine years, people. Nine years. Most cars don't last nine years. Most Great Danes don't last nine years. The average first marriage doesn't lasts nine years. But we can sustain a near-decade-long hate-on for 1.5 billion people because 19 of them committed a horrific act of violence? "Sorry, the entirety of the world's second-largest religion. We're all about religious freedom and whatever, but you shouldn't build your community center on the site of this old Burlington Coat Factory because it's rude and we kind of hate you"?

Those 19 men killed nearly 3,000 people, and that will never not be a big deal. And we absolutely need to honor their memories. But how are we honoring them by saying, "No, one-fifth of the world's population, it's heartless of you to build a Muslim-thing within walking distance of Ground Zero because 9/11 was your fault, each and every one of you"? "You make me uncomfortable by your very Muslimity, so get the hell out of Lower Manhattan"?

Screw that noise. I'm all about compassion, and I hope the families of those 3,000 can find peace, but objection to this center isn't even universal among those families--some have gone so far as to come out and say they have no problem with it. And I'm definitely not all about letting some politically motivated wackjob 'winger and her mindless devotees manipulate those families and their grief to their own ends because it's important that we not forget to hate Muslims. Take a deep breath, drink a glass of wine, and go volunteer at a soup kitchen, for Christ's sake.

And this isn't me saying "move on." I mean, praise God, I've never been personally touched by anything like that, so far be it from me to tell anyone how long those wounds should take to heal. I just wonder how long we, as a country, have to pull out "Well, 'cause 9/11, that's why" as an excuse for everything we do or don't do. How long the footprint of the WTC is going to sit vacant while the entire country disagrees on what should go there. How long every Muslim cleric will be called upon to make a statement every time a Muslim somewhere kicks a kitten. How long a 9/11 will be a unit of measure to quantify the tragedy level of tragic events.

I remember how right after 9/11, people all over the country and all over the world were coming together and supporting each other and being compassionate and generous and people kept saying, "Wow, I hope we never forget what this is like." Instead, we "never forget" what it's like to be fearful and suspicious. Is there ever a point where we say, "Wow, that was really, really awful. It's a good thing we're a brave and resilient people who can grow together from the experience and come back stronger than ever"?

So I say, build the hell out of this community center--not as a defiant middle finger to a world still reeling from 9/11 but as a way to truly create community and bring people together in that same spirit we felt right after the towers came down. It's obvious our current approach isn't doing the job; maybe it's time to try something new.

On corporeal punishment

Okay, so I'll let Think Progress set this up for you:

On Thursday, Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall (R) spoke at a press conference against state funding for Planned Parenthood. He blasted the organization for supporting a woman's right to choose, saying that God punishes women who have had abortions by giving them disabled children:

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.
“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”

I'm not going to even bother refuting his actual statement, because it's so completely asinine in every respect. And I'm not going to discuss at any length the complete insensitivity to parents of disabled children who are dealing with the stress of raising a child with special needs and who love those children desperately, because that's obvious to anyone who has half of a functioning heart and a sliver of a conscience.

What really jumped out at me was the fact that once again, someone from the "party of life" characterized a baby as a punishment for a woman's sins. Traditionally, it's been a somewhat abstract approach, where a woman commits the sin of gettin' down, and her "punishment" (usually just characterized as "the normal consequence") is the shame of pregnancy and the burden of responsibility for a human--or what most people call "parenthood." If you didn't want a kid, you shouldn't have fucked! That's the price of sex, slattern! That baby is going to be your millstone and the constant reminder of your sins against... whatever. God, or society, or something.

This time, we have a wackaloon taking it further, saying in so many words that these children are actual, literal punishments for women's sins. They aren't people. They aren't much-loved family members. They aren't precious lives worthy of care and protection. Fuck that noise. This is what you get, whore. Don't you wish you'd kept your damn legs closed (or at least accepted your just punishment then)? Now God hates you, and he's sending down his divine vengeance in the form of a human being with thoughts and feelings, whom you're expected to view as penance for your transgressions. If you'd done right by the Lord, you'd have had a good "normal" child, but instead you get this worthless broken one.

I'm not by any means trying to make Bob Marshall the spokesperson for his party; he's obviously a member (if a member in a position of some prominence) of the loony fringe. But his statement is another example of the conservative/Evangelical view that a child isn't a person to love and care for but an object of shame and a seven-pound, eight-ounce weapon to keep your sins ever in your mind. An object, a weapon, isn't alive, and a "culture of life" that sees a baby as those things isn't a culture of life at all.

Every baby should be loved and wanted, even those conceived unintentionally, even those with disabilities. No woman should be forced to bear a child that would be seen--that should be seen, according to conservatives--as a punishment. And no woman should be told that the child she chose to have is actually nothing more than God's divine wrath.

(h/t Pandagon)

On malice vs. stupidity

Okay, so stupid people ruin everything. I was all ready to run with a post in the wake of the ten Baptists in Haiti arrested on charges of child trafficking. On Saturday, news networks were reporting that the ten Idahoans had been stopped crossing the border into the Dominican Republic with 33 Haitian orphans between the ages of 2 months and 12 years, some of whose parents died in the earthquake and some of whom were abandoned by their parents before the quake. Laura Silsby, the group's leader, says the kids came through a Haitian pastor and that while they didn't have adoption papers for any of them, they felt they were doing the right thing and had planned to go back and arrange paperwork later.

Oh, it was a good post. It was all about "othering" and the way we look at people in developing and underprivileged countries. I was going to pull up the "animal shelters" bit from a while back. I was going to point out that if this were earthquake-flattened Salinas, there's no way these people would have been tooling around the city in their bus, scooping up wandering children and carrying them to safe, happy new homes across the border in Nevada, because Californian orphans are actual people, whereas Haitian orphans are cute little brown puppies who speak a cute, funny language and would look adorable in the stroller of any white American family that would have them and plucking them out of the rubble would really be doing everyone a favor. I would point out the dumbassitude of trying to carry children across a national border without thinking that any paperwork would be involved.

And then I watched the news today and cursed the gods that I was going to have to scrap that bad boy and start over.

As a group of American Baptist charity workers waits to hear if they will be tried on child trafficking charges for attempting to take 33 children out of earthquake-ravaged Haiti, the Associated Press has learned that not all of the children they were transporting were orphans.

"One (8-year-old) girl was crying, and saying, 'I am not an orphan. I still have my parents.' And she thought she was going on a summer camp or a boarding school or something like that," George Willeit, a spokesman for SOS Children's Villages, said. SOS, an Austrian-based charity working in Haiti, now has custody of the children.

Willeit said the children arrived "very hungry, very thirsty." A 2- to 3-month-old baby was dehydrated and had to be hospitalized, he said. Workers were searching for their families or close relatives.

And thus the Americans' story begins to unravel and the "aw, shucks, were we not s'pose to do that?" defense becomes shakier.

"Our understanding is that they had lost parents in the quake or possibly some had parents abandon them before the quake," said Laura Silsby, a member of the group.

and

[Central Valley Baptist Church pastor Drew Ham] insisted the children had been verified as orphans and had come from established orphanage in Port-au-Prince, although he couldn't provide the name.

And yet CBS didn't have trouble at all finding the village full of (not-dead) parents who had signed their children over to the Americans, who had promised the kids schools and swimming pools and tennis courts.

Or they can just ask the kids:

Thirteen-year-old Chesner said his parents were approached by a pastor, believed to be a Haitian American, and some "white missionaries" who he later recognised on the bus which took the children to the border. Chesner said: "They told my parents that the environment and hygiene was not safe with dead bodies after the earthquake. They wanted to take me to a camp in Dominican Republic. I did not know how long I was going for, and I am happy to be back in Haiti because I want to see my mother."

And then there's Laura Silsby's confusion about paperwork:

"They really didn't have any paperwork ... I did not understand that that would really be required," the leader of the arrested group, Laura Silsby, told CNN.

Although human-rights activist Anne-christine d'Adesky might disagree:

Mrs. Silsby said her authorization to collect Haitian orphans and bring them to the Dominican Republic was from an unnamed Dominican official, according to Ms. d'Adesky's email [to U.N. authorities]. "I informed her that this would be regarded as illegal even with some 'Dominican' minister authorizing, since the kids are Haitian," Ms. d'Adesky wrote, adding that she directed Ms. Silsby to U.N. agencies helping the Haitian government handle orphans and adoptions. In a telephone interview, Ms. d'Adesky said she recalled Ms. Silsby's response: "We have been sent by the Lord to rescue these children, and if it's in the Lord's plan we will be successful."

So we're going to have to assume that no, it actually wasn't in the Lord's plan. The Lord's plan probably included trained, accredited, documented aid workers who weren't galloping idiots.

Arresting officials also note that Silsby told them that the group was taking the kids to an orphanage in the Dominican Republic--while in reality, the building is still in the planning stages and the plan was to put the kids up in hotel rooms until the facility was built. Complete with swimming pools and tennis courts, one can assume.

(Y'all, this stuff is all verifiable. If you're going to lie, at least lie about stuff they can't check.)

Now, I'm not going to try to figure out their motives here. I have no reason to think that Silsby and co. had any intention of selling the kids into slavery or as exotic pets to high-bidding Americans. But I feel perfectly comfortable raising an eyebrow at their actions after they started lying about them. In making the Heinlein's Law determination regarding stupidity and malice, lying about your actions offers more than enough reasonable doubt to start the needle swinging.

Yesterday's post was going to close with a comment about how it's important to follow your heart, but you have to let your head be in charge of it or else you find yourself in a Haitian jail on charges of child trafficking. Today, though, I can leave them with only this: You tried to smuggle undocumented children across a national border, you lied to officials about how and where you got them, and you lied to the parents about why you were taking them, where they were going, and what was going to happen when they got there. If it turns out that your motives were the tiniest bit ulterior, I hope they throw the damn book at you. And even if it turns out that this whole massive cockup really was some honest(ly stupid) mistake, I hope you all get at least a few months in jail for being idiots. At the very least, it'll make the streets safer for our children.

On freedom of speach

Okay, so as soon as it was announced that Focus on the Family would be running an ad about abortion starring football-media-darling Tim Tebow during the Super Bowl, you knew there would be opposition from women's and/or liberal groups. And when that opposition arose, you knew there would be counter-opposition in the form of 1., "Tim Tebow is God's own anointed quarterback, so it's best to just give him what he wants," and 2., "FREEDOM OF SPEACH MOTHER EFFERS!"

And as soon as that popped out, you knew ACG was going to get that twitchy thing below her left eye, because she hate-hate-HATES that argument.

And it's not like I haven't made this point before, but obviously Practically Harmless doesn't have a voice loud enough to reach the whole world (or even the comments thread at SB Nation). And so I shall embark once again on what ma have to become a regular feature: Freedom of Speach Watch: This Has Nothing to Do With the First Amendment.

Because it doesn't. The question of the government's censorship of lawful expression isn't at issue here--and that's what the First Amendment addresses, your not-complete-but-pretty-comprehensive freedom from censorship by the government. But having the right to say something and having a venue to say it are two different things, and no one is required to provide you with the latter, regardless of how they feel about the former.

And that's what's at issue here: the venue. This is a particularly big issue because it's a particularly big venue--Super Bowl Ex Ell Eye Vee is expected to bring in 150 million viewers in the U.S. alone. That's $2.5 million for 30 seconds that will reach 150 million people live, plus the countless others who will be watching and re-watching the ads online. A study by Nielsen suggests that 51 percent of viewers will be tuning in to CBS just for the ads. So CBS has likely taken great care in the way they've sold and distributed ad space, and with a hot button issue like abortion, a lot of people are going to be paying attention to how they do it.

So how do they do it?

- In 2004, CBS turned down a Super Bowl ad from MoveOn.org that negatively portrayed George Bush. (They approved ad buys from Anheuser-Busch featuring a farting Clydesdale and a sexually aggressive monkey.)

- That same year, CBS (and partner UPN, as well as NBC) refused to run two ads from the United Church of Christ as being "unacceptable for broadcast" for highlighting the UCC's acceptance of gays, racial minorities, and people with disabilities.

- Last year, NBC declined to run a PETA ad that they deemed too racy.

- This year, CBS turned down $3 million for an ad from a gay dating site.

- It's CBS's air time, and particularly on an occasion like this, they have a vested interest in keeping things largely neutral and inoffensive to viewers--they have a right to ban controversial ads as much as they do sexually provocative halftime shows and spicy language by sideline reporters in the interest of keeping things family-friendly.

So that's what the issue is here: not whether CBS is bound by the First Amendment but whether they have made a wise choice in how they've distributed their ad space.

And when women's groups speak up against it, you know what? That is protected free speach. They have as much right to their opinion as Focus on the Family has to theirs, and they've managed to find a venue (in this case, several media outlets) in which to express it. And they aren't even questioning Focus on the Family's right to run the ad, merely CBS's choice to show it during the Super Bowl.

Once we get past the government's non-interference with Focus on the Family's freedom of speach, it all comes down to one thing: market forces. Capitalism at its finest. CBS chooses to run the Focus on the Family ad because they'll get money to do it. Women's groups choose to protest, since CBS has declined to run similarly issue-y ads in the past. CBS shrugs. Ain't no skin off their bottom line.

What if the women's groups decided to take it further? They could start going for the skin on CBS's bottom line by, for instance, organizing a boycott of Super Bowl fixtures like Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola, and Doritos as long as CBS plans to run the Focus on the Family ad. Those companies could well go to CBS and saying, "This ain't worth it to us, CBS. It's us or Tebow." Forced to choose between Jesus and Benjamin Franklin, CBS would likely follow the money. And if (unlikely as it would be) that were to happen, it wouldn't be censorship--it would be business. Which is how the free market is supposed to work.

And thus I bring it back to me (because this is all, in the end, about me). How do I feel about CBS running the ad?

1. I'm agin it. If a network has a policy against running "issues" ads or "advocacy" ads, they need to stick to that policy and not run those ads--even if they come from a conservative politician or fundamentalist religious group.

2. I'm agin it. The "I'm glad my mom didn't abort me" argument always creeps me out anyway, but I also tend to raise an eyebrow at the "I could have had an abortion, but I didn't, and you can not-have one too" arguments. I'm glad that Mrs. Tebow was able to carry a very challenging--but very much wanted--pregnancy to completion, and I'm glad that she was able to make the choice to do so--but there are a lot of people who don't have the resources to do the former, and with Focus on the Family working hard to deny women the opportunity to do the latter, I have to call foul on this one.

3. I'm agin it. As sports columnist Gregg Doyel says, Super Bowl Sunday is a day for football, not pressing and divisive social issues. Eight o'clock Sunday morning is the time for moral and religious issues, and 6:30 (EST) Sunday evening is the time for athletic and officiating issues. Which means that I agree with Gregg Doyel. I'm agin that, too.

4. I'm agin it. Regardless of the subject, if you have an issue that's as significant and deeply felt as a woman's right to choose, it's certainly not best served shoehorned between a farting horse and a horny monkey.

On unwed mothers, universal health care, and choice

Or, Sing of Mary, Pregnant and Uninsured

Okay, so I will never not be entertained by the fact that Chuck Norris (who has two speeds--walk and kill) has a column at WorldNet Daily. I believe that everyone is entitled to a voice, and I like the fact that Chuck Norris (who once shot a German fighter plane down with his finger by yelling "Bang") not only has his but has it endorsed by the fine and reasonable folks at WorldNet Daily. If there is anyone whose word should not only be considered but should, in fact, be law, it's Chuck Norris (who doesn't shower--he only takes blood baths).

This week, in honor of Christmas, Chuck (who does not sleep--he waits) takes on the question that's been on everyone's mind: What if the Virgin Mary had had Obamacare?

...[A]s we near the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary had been covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind if their parents had been as progressive as Washington’s wise men and women! Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn?

It's a reasonable question, of course. There are women all over the country who do end up giving birth simply because they lack the resources to terminate their pregnancy early on. And of the women who do manage to have abortions, whether by obstetrician or by coat hanger, any might have been carrying the next Einstein (or the next Hitler) or the next Fleming (or the next John Wayne Gacy) or the next Shakespeare (or the next John Stamos). So what if the Blessed Virgin had had full access to the range of medical services available to pregnant teenagers?

I seem to have a book here that talks a lot about Mary when she was pregnant. Let's open it up, shall we?

First, we have to consider the image of an unwed girl, fourteenish, who's sitting in her room in Nazareth, hand-weaving a nuptial garment and reading Twilight when a freaking angel comes down and says (Luke 1:28-38),

"Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."

Holy crap! Mary thinks. What is up? But the angel says,

"Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end... The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

which one could imagine is a pretty intimidating thing to hear from an angel. And yet faced with the heavy burden of gestating and delivering the son of the Almighty, this 14-year-old says,

"I am the Lord's servant... May it be to me as you have said.

Damn. Not exactly the words of a girl who's going to get rid of it using federal tax dollars later. (Also, fairly ballsy words for a girl who's going to be discussed as a mild little virgin for the rest of her life, but that's another post for another time.)

Now, Chuck (who once ate three 72-ounce steaks in one hour--and spent the first 45 minutes having sex with his waitress) raises the entirely legitimate subject of the ostracism and persecution that would likely accompany her out-of-wedlock pregnancy. And the Bible does say that Joseph's initial plan was to divorce her. However (Matthew 1:20-25),

after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, “God with us.”


When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

So it sounds like Joseph, too, was on board with God's plan and fairly excited about the prospect of being stepdad to the savior of the world. And we can also consider the fact that, had she changed her mind, even in that time Mary would have had several (not necessarily safe) options for terminating the pregnancy had she so chosen. So it sounds like Mary’s access to abortion coverage would have been pretty moot anyway, making Chuck’s (who once ate a whole cake before his friends told him there was a stripper in it) “what if Mary had been covered by Obamacare” about as valid a question as “what if the three wise men were actually space aliens.”

But that's not the real question. What Chuck (who can, in fact, believe it's not butter) entirely misses is that the wondrous thing about Christmas wasn't that Mary got knocked up and, for lack of health insurance, went ahead and had the baby. She was young and healthy and had the support of a fiance who was (with some angelic prompting) willing to stay with her and help her. The wondrous thing was that when Mary and Joseph were faced with such a formidable and awesome responsibility, they saw it as a gift from God and wanted it very much. Would that every child be conceived under such circumstances and that every pregnant woman have those options. And would that, in modern times, we are able to provide women like Mary all of the help and options they need.

On the various reasons for the season(s)

Okay, so during this morning's Wake Up Alabama on CBS 42 (don't judge me; it comes on right before the Early Show), our girl Shanisty Myers introduced a segment about Briarwood Church's live nativity scene (which is actually pretty pimp--they have live camels) thusly: "Now, we all know the real reason for the season..."

Now, while this particular segment would certainly be considered "Christmas-Friendly" (thanks for the link, Holly, and also, I hate you), it could also be considered "newscast-inappropriate" if only for the fact that its facts are questionable: We don't know that everyone does, in fact, know the reason for the season, partly because we don't, in fact, know exactly what the reason really is.

"ACG, you're just anti-Christian and anti-Christmas and you probably say Happy Holidays and you're going to hell!" The last part may be more or less accurate, as is the next-to-last, but the first two are absolutely untrue. I happen to be a Christian, and I happen to love Christmas. Love, love, love. Love the lights, love the music, love the wrapping paper, love the sudden attention to peace on earth and good will toward men, love Love Actually and The Muppet Christmas Carol and Mickey's Christmas Carol (now available on mp3 via Amazon.com), oh sweet baby Jesus do I love it so.

But that's just the stuff I love about the season. I also like the holiday itself in the sense that I do, in fact, know the reason for Christmas. And I love that, too. I love midnight Mass, I love advent wreaths, I love O Come All Ye Faithful and Hark! The Herald Angels Sing and the high note at the end of O Holy Night (thank you, Beth Campbell, and may God bless you and keep you healthy for the coming Christmas Eve). I love both the solemn and the joyous celebration.

But I can hardly say that Jesus is the reason for the season, because there's a lot going on throughout the season that doesn't involve Him. In addition to Christmas, we have Hanukkah, Muharram, Kwanzaa, the Winter Solstice, and even, if you like, Festivus during the holiday/Christmas season. And for that matter, if we're really interested in celebrating the birth of Jesus, we'll be doing it in late September, when shepherds would be watching their flocks by night and all of the inns would be full (check it). So Jesus is really the reason for the season of early fall.

The upshot is: Learn to share, people. You wouldn't expect the checkout guy at Target to acknowledge your birthday, so why expect him to wish you a merry Christmas when he has no way of knowing if you celebrate Christmas at all? Besides, Christmas is one day (two, if you make a big deal out of Christmas Eve, which I always do). If you choose to have happy holidays, you get 19 days of happy (21 if you count New Year's Eve and Pan American Aviation Day). If you're willing to turn down 17 additional days of celebration just for the sake of laying dubious claim to the whole month of December, you're probably the kind of person who isn't going to have a merry Christmas anyway. So lighten up.

In the immortal words of this year's Gap holiday commercial, "Go classic tree, go plastic tree, go plant a tree, go without a tree... I mean, do whatever you wannakah and to all a cheery night."

That means all of you. Seriously. Relax and let it happen.



Happy holidays.

On Christian charity and good will

Okay, so in this holiday season, I think it would do us well to remember the words of Jesus when he said, "I was hungry, and you gave me something to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. I was a stranger, and you demanded two form of identification, established that my parents hadn't gone through the proper channels to immigrate from Bethlehem, and told me that Santa wasn't coming this year because I was a filthy criminal":

They don't claim to know who's been naughty or nice, but some Houston charities are asking whether children are in the country legally before giving them toys.

In a year when more families than ever have asked for help, several programs providing Christmas gifts for needy children require at least one member of the household to be a U.S. citizen. Others ask for proof of income or rely on churches and schools to suggest recipients.

The Salvation Army and a charity affiliated with the Houston Fire Department are among those that consider immigration status, asking for birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children.

...

The Outreach Program requires parents to show photo identification and birth certificates or Social Security cards for the children. [Lorugene] Young said she makes an exception if parents can show they have applied for legal status or that a child is enrolled in school.

Young said, "It's not our desire to turn anyone down. Those kids are not responsible if they are here illegally. It is the parents' responsibility.”

Um, yeah, Lorugene, you're absolutely right. It's not the kids' responsibility. And it would suck to deny them Christmas presents because of something that's entirely beyond their control. So why don't we try... not doing that.

This isn't the first time the Salvation Army has let politics and discrimination get in the way of good will and charity. In both San Francisco and New York, the S.A. has been willing to close shelters and cut programs for the needy rather than comply with legislation requiring that any businesses that have partnerships or contracts with those cities offer domestic-partner benefits. And they fought hard--successfully--to enjoy federal funds without sacrificing their policy that "unrenounced" gays are "ineligible for Salvation Army soldiership."

And now they want to deny Christmas to little poor kids. Wow. Nice going, there, S.A. Right Christian of you.

Commentary around the Web (and at the bottom of the linked article; never read the comments at the bottom of the article, never) seem to fall into the category of "WTF? What a bunch of douches. It's Christmas, ferfuckssake" or "There are too many Americans in need right now. These people need to just get Christmas presents from their own damn country." To the latter, all I can say is, "Poor children. Poor children, motherfuckers. Little poor children. Regardless of how they ended up in this country, they are poor children. It's not a matter of teeny little border-jumpers stealing teddy bears from the arms of good, clean-living American toddlers. It's a matter of not punishing little kids for what their parents have done and telling them they don't get Christmas because they don't belong here."

And what sucks is that a Salvation Army bucket may be the closest thing a person gets to charity the entire year. I know that personally, unless it's a collection plate or a ringing handbell, I frequently don't think about donating at all. And while I know so many people hate the incessant ringing outside of every store they visit at Christmastime, I absolutely love it and have always seen it as the ultimate symbol of what Christmas is supposed to mean: generosity, compassion, thinking about someone other than ourselves for one damn time in our lives. I don't know if I'll be able to look at it that way anymore, knowing that my handful of change wouldn't make it to some of the people who need it most.

Luke 18:16: "But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

We should expect nothing less from a Christian charity.

Little poor children, ferfuckssake.

On true Scotsmen

Or, Won't Someone Rid Me of This Meddlesome President?

Okay, so I realize that we're riding on a truly rough economy and that the elections and subsequent reactions in Iran have given the media a lot of other things to focus on right now. But I do find it curious that so little attention has been paid to the fact that former Southern Baptist Convention officer Wiley Drake told Alan Colmes - on video - that he prays for President Obama to die.

"Imprecatory prayer is agreeing with God, and if people don’t like that, they need to talk to God," Drake told syndicated talk-show host Alan Colmes. "God said it, I didn’t. I was just agreeing with God."

Asked if there are others for whom Drake is praying "imprecatory prayer," Drake hesitated before answering that there are several.

"The usurper that is in the White House is one, B. Hussein Obama," he said.

Later in the interview, Colmes returned to Drake’s answer to make sure he heard him right.

"Are you praying for his death?" Colmes asked.

"Yes," Drake replied.

"So you’re praying for the death of the president of the United States?"

"Yes."

..."You would like for the president of the United States to die?" Colmes asked once more.

"If he does not turn to God and does not turn his life around, I am asking God to enforce imprecatory prayers that are throughout the Scripture that would cause him death, that’s correct." (emphasis mine)

As Pam points out, if it had been a Muslim cleric saying it, the entire country would be outraged and right-wing bloggers would be lighting up the Internet - and that's a best-case scenario, where a worst-case scenario would involve waterboarding and a handcuffed, blindfolded trip overseas.

And now I want you to look me in the eye and tell me sincerely that the Department of Homeland Security was entirely off base in warning of a rise in "rightwing extremist activity."

All 'wingers? Not at all. There are plenty of conservatives who are very passionate about their causes and yet remain unthreatening to the security of those around them. The word extremist in the report indicates that these are people with extreme views on the extreme edge of the spectrum, for whom the "current economic and political climate" might fuel a "resurgence in radicalization and recruitment."

Well, yeah.

I asserted a few weeks ago that the radical anti-choice movement had a lot to answer for in the murder of Dr. George Tiller. While the blame lies purely on and on no one but Scott Roeder for pulling the trigger, he did so as part of a culture that whips followers into a fervor beyond reason, unwittingly - or even fully wittingly - creating a zealous environment where even the most reprehensible of actions begin to look reasonable. As people are starting to realize, that environment is the same that, when it's overseas and the faithful are a little more tan, we call fundamentalist terrorism.

And now, in the wake of Dr. Tiller's murder - which, the alleged murderer says, is just a portent of more such violence to come - and the murder of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum by white supremacist James von Brunn (not to mention last year's shooting up of a Unitarian church because of the "liberals in general as well as gays"), we have a minister with strong ties to the Southern Baptist Convention praying for the death of the president. And that's okay. For some reason.

It's okay, of course, because none of those acts are connected. None of them are true Christians/anti-choicers/conservatives/what-have-you, and we know they aren't, because a true Christian/anti/conservative/whatever wouldn't act that way.

Drake himself said, in the aforementioned interview, that he didn't think Roeder's killer was really an anti-choice Christian.

Drake said he did not believe Tiller's accused killer is a pro-life Christian.

"I'm of the opinion -- and now everybody's going to say 'There goes Wiley down the conspiracy-theory road,' I'm of the opinion that somebody in the Obama camp had this guy killed."

I mean, no real anti would do something like that, right? (For a laugh, read down that article until you find the commenters claiming that Drake isn't a real Christian. It just keeps going.) And James von Brunn wasn't really a 'winger nutball, but wouldn't the liberals love it if that were the case.

I'll bring it back: If the U.S. experienced a similar string of violence from fundamentalist Muslims, the right would be the first people to raise a cry to deport Muslims and wiretap mosques and pull women in hijabs off the street for waterboarding. And Muslim communities would say no, no, we're not all like that, those are extremists, fundamentalists, and we condemn their horrendous actions. And the righties would say well, if you're not a terrorist, you probably shouldn't keep hanging around with all those Muslims.

Know what?

All Muslims aren't terrorists. Islam is not the religion of terror.

Know what else?

All conservatives aren't terrorists. Conservatism is not the political affiliation of terror.

But sweet Jesus in a speedboat, there is a growing trend toward extremism in the right wing, and it has resulted in what can only be described as domestic terrorism. Gawker reminds us that we've got a new president - a liberal president - a black president - a secretly Muslim president, and that not only the right-wing media but quasi-respected personalities like Dick Cheney are saying that a terrorist has stolen the White House. If you are predisposed to violent extremism already, as most of these terrorists are, that constant drumming of danger danger danger is enough to turn anyone into a hero, saving unborn babies and following the will of Jesus.

So I'm sorry, 'wingers, but they're yours. As much as any terrorist organization belongs to the group on which they fringe, they're yours. That doesn't mean that you as individuals or even a movement are responsible for their actions, but it does mean that when you're throwing around words like "murderer" and "baby-killer" and "usurper" and "terrorist," you may want to give a thought to who might be listening. There are ways to make your point and support your movement without the kind of inflammatory language that can whip people into a frenzy, because whether you want it or not, whether it's fair or not, there are terrorists among you, and they are doing it in your name.

On a matter of conscience

Okay, so I've expressed my opinion (wavery as it was) on the subject of conscience clauses before, specifically that I thought they were a pretty bad idea. It certainly promised a foot in the door for fundies who feel oppressed unless they're allowed to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

Well, now the Iowa fundies are taking it a step further. Having gained the right to not-dispense medicine, the Alliance Defense Fund is now fighting for the right to not-dispense marriage licenses.

However, a letter sent to county recorders by the Alliance Defense Fund says Miller is forgetting completely about “one of the most foundational rights and liberties we enjoy as Iowans” … “the right of conscience.”

That right, the letter says, is codified in Iowa Code 146.1.

“This right is based upon the simple truth that it is wrong to force anyone to violate his or her conscience,” said the letter, also from the Iowa Family Policy Council.

It cites the motto on the seal of the state, which reads, “Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain.”

“This noble motto … is emblematic of the moral sentiments of Iowans from the banks of the Missouri to the waters of the Mighty Mississippi. … As citizens of the State of Iowa and thus, the United States, we enjoy the protections of this right guaranteed in the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions. This right of conscience protects individuals against coercion by the state authority, and serves as the first line of defense against the cancer of tyranny.”

The letter suggests counties adopt policies that ensure no one will be required to “issue or process a marriage license, or to perform, assist, or participate in such procedures, against that individual’s religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The suggested policy continues: “A person shall not discriminate against any individual in any way, including but not limited to employment, promotion, advancement, transfer, licensing, education, training, or the granting of employment privileges or conditions, because of the individual’s participation in or refusal to participate in the issuance of a marriage license.” (emphasis mine)

Me, I'm for it. I like the idea that, if you're acting on your conscience, you can't be fired for not doing your job. I think the law should be expanded to cover all professions. Jehovah's Witness phlebotomists who won't draw blood. Anarchist IRS employees who won't process tax forms. Pacifist police officers who won't knock down a fleeing suspect. I personally think it's morally wrong to honor any client requests that would result in damage to their brand, so I reserve the right to pick and choose which projects will cross my desk. And don't think you can get away with firing me for it.

Or waaaait. This isn't one of those things where the law only applies to some people, is it?

Let's analyze. Our pharmacist, we're going to call him Stan, is asked to fill a prescription for Plan B. Stan won't fill it, because his religious belief is that Plan B kills baybeez. Our pharmacy owner, we'll call him Mike, wants to fire his ass, because Stan isn't doing the job he was hired to do.

Stan's right to not dispense medicine. Mike's right to decide who gets a paycheck from him. Via the conscience clause, the round goes to Stan.

New twist: Mike has beliefs, too. One of his beliefs is that a woman has a right to not end up with a baby just because the condom broke. So this transaction is important to him not only because it's a sale but because it supports his personal belief.

Stan's right to not dispense medicine. Mike's right to decide who gets a paycheck from him and to prevent unwanted pregnancy. We'll also throw in Mike's right to not pay for two people to do a job that one person could handle so he still has an employee on hand to pick up Stan's slack. Via the conscience clause, the round still goes to Stan.

What the fuck?!

Let's delve deeper into this festering tunnel of blechh. You're a racist asshole landlord who believes that black people will filthy up your nice apartment, so you won't rent to them. You're a fundamentalist asshole restauranteur who believes that Muslim people will call down God's wrath upon your restaurant, so you won't serve them. You're a sexist asshole college dean who believes that women are inherently stupid, so you won't hire them. Acting your conscience vs. breaking the law. My heart says them coloreds is dirty, the FHEO says I'm breaking the law... The cognitive dissonance, it burns!

You have religious beliefs. That's great. I'm happy for you. But beliefs, values, and twinges of conscience aren't solely based on religion, particularly not just Christian religion. People of other faiths have values. Agnostics and atheists have values. Playing the "value" game, valuing some values above other values... Ahem. Playing the "belief" game, where some beliefs are deemed more valuable or important than others, is a messy exercise, particularly if Belief A beats Belief B because Person A has a Jesus fish on his car.

I've used this example before, but if you have serious objections to some of the requirements of your chosen profession, choose another profession. If you're Muslim and can't touch pork, don't become a butcher (or find a halal butcher to work for). If your religion forbids touching women, don't go to work for a gynecologist. If you're a Buddhist, don't become a... hit man. Or an exterminator, for that matter. If you're lucky, you'll find a vegan-friendly grocery store that doesn't mind if you won't ring up a block of cheddar. But don't go bitching if Safeway won't let you get away with it.

I fully accept your right to act only on your conscience. As a matter of fact, I fully accept your right to do a whole lot of things (but by no means all things), even things that I don't like. But I also accept your right to accept the consequences of your actions. Jaywalk? Accept that you're probably going to get pasted by a car. Punch the bouncer? Accept that you're going to get pounded. Refuse to do your job? Accept that you're probably going to lose your job. And don't cry about it because you're supposed to be special. My mom says I'm special, too, but I'm sure as hell going to get shitcanned if I don't finish that stupid-ass brochure for our stupid-ass client. Because I have to do the job I was hired to do.

On the good, the bad, and the Friday Random Ten

Okay, so it's amazing* 'cause it's Friday, and it's amazing* 'cause for the first time in weeks I don't have any work to take home with me tonight, and it's amazing* 'cause I'm, like, the most prolific writer my office has ever seen and I'm, like, amazing*, yo.

It's also amazing* because of Frappuccino. Aren't they great? Aren't they great in mass quantities? Aren't they icy delicious and full of awesome, amazing* sugar and caffeine? Amazing*!

What's amazing* (for the week ending 6/20):

- the first Frapp of summer
- the first moment of realization that the physical therapy is starting to work
- baseball
- the second season of Veronica Mars on DVD
- The Golden Compass. Seriously, it was a really good movie. Kind of a shame they almost certainly won't be making the other two.

What's bad:
- pharmacists who won't dispense pharmaceuticals. Yes, you have a right to your religious beliefs and your morals, but if you think you might be called upon to dispense something you disagree with, don't become a pharmacist. If you're Muslim and can't touch pork, don't become a butcher. If you believe solely in the healing power of prayer, don't become a surgeon. And if you're an anti-choice fundie who disagrees with birth control pills, don't become a pharmacist.
- preggo teens. This isn't an abstinence issue or a birth-control issue or even, really, a teen-sex issue. These aren't the Lost Children of Rockdale County, although they seem to suffer the same lack of parental supervision; these are kids who deliberately got pregnant all at the same time. Why? A search for unconditional love? Looking for a living baby doll? Had no one ever impressed upon them the difficulties and responsibilities of parenthood? Whatever it is, that stuff is messed up.

The Ten:

1. Kool & The Gang, "Jungle Boogie"
2. Frank Sinatra, "Luck Be a Lady" (with Count Basie)
3. Georges Bizet, "Toreador Song" from Carmen
4. The Bloodhound Gang, "Why's Everybody Always Picking on Me"
5. John Coltrane Quarter, "Psalm"
6. Phats & Small, "Respect the Cock" (White Label mix)
7. Elvis, "Heartbreak Hotel"
8. Athenaeum, "Suddenly"
9. Soft Cell, "Tainted Love"
10. Ella Fitzgerald, "(I'd Like to Get You on a) Slow Boat to China"

Well, if my Friday Random Ten is any prediction of the success of my weekend, it's going to be... less than amazing*. Oh, well. What about you? What's amazing* for you this week?

*This post thoroughly amazing in honor of Katie Holmes. Why? Dunno.