The political and religious Right are a bunch of hypocrites

In case you lived in a cave the past couple of weeks, some major civil disobedience has been going on in the city of San Francisco.

It seems the Mayor wants to marry gay couples even though there is a state law against marriage of same-sex couples. For the past couple of weeks, the city has been issuing marriage licenses and performing civil ceremonies for all gay couples who want one. Hundreds have lined up at city hall for the chance to thumb their noses at what they believe is an unjust law.

Civil disobedience is a time honored way to bring attention to unjust laws and actions. US history is full of risk takers. And it is a risk because while the attention is generated, the people who openly defy the law do get punished. Sometimes the law is then changed but that happens after many are put in jail and fined.

Hearing the complaints from the political and religious conservatives, one would think the Earth was about to imploded because of the Mayor’s action.

One such shrill outrage comes from the founder of the American Family Association, Donald E. Wildmon, who through his Onemilliondads.com project sent the following e-mail on 2/19:

Anarchy is breaking loose across America

I know. The headline seems extreme. But the question isn’t if it is extreme, but is it true?

In San Francisco, the mayor has disobeyed the law and issued “marriage” licenses to homosexual couples. In Massachusetts, the state Supreme Court has ordered another branch of government “the Legislature” to pass a law making homosexual “marriage” legal.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has said he has no problem with breaking the law and is willing to issue “marriage” licenses to homosexuals. Who will be the next official willing to break the law?

It is time to contact your U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators demanding that they act on this issue. Anarchy cannot and must not be allowed.

All have defied laws on the books prohibiting homosexual “marriages.” They have shown a total disregard for the law. They have refused to allow the people (that’s you) a voice or a vote on this issue. They consider themselves above the law.

Within weeks there will be lawsuits across the nation to force individual states (and you) to recognize these illegal “marriages.”

Unfortunately the same AFA group that is outraged that the city of San Francisco is breaking the law, saw nothing wrong when Judge Roy Moore defied a federal court order to remove a 10 Commandments monument he had placed in the lobby of the Alabama Supreme Court building.

Of course Conservatives also can be hypocrites when it comes to politics.

The Republican party and their apologists drone on about how President Bush’s dubious military service record is not important to his present duties. They say that “the American people” want to move on.

That type of response was missing when the President was Bill Clinton. They harped on how Clinton “dodged the draft” by going to Oxford in the UK. They complained he got special treatment. It is hypocritical of them now to ask people to ignore Bush’s special treatment especially because one of the leading Democratic candidates running for the office has a more distinguished service record. 3 purple hearts always beats flight training in the Champagne unit of the Texas National Guard.

Then there is the whole Iraq mess.

President Bush is ignoring calls to answer for his dubious reasons for invading Iraq. Republicans drone on about how Saddam was removed from power and that is far more important than how we did it.

Really?

Well they weren’t so forgiving when President Clinton bombed Sudan and Afghanistan and when the GOP tried to impeach him for lying about adultery.

President Clinton was the most investigated President in recent memory and now when Bush is in trouble for a worse infraction, lying to the public about why we had to invade Iraq in 2003, they want to deflect the needed investigation until after the elections.

How convenient.

Only 9 months left until there is a chance to clean house……

When did religion become a test for elected office?

Most people should know that the US Constitution contains a clause that prohibits religious test as a qualification to hold elective office. In case you don’t know it is Article 6

“but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

So there is a prohibition against laws from the Federal to local level that would create a test on the religious beliefs of elected officials and those who want to be elected.

Why then is there a trend of city and town councils falling over themselves to proclaim they not only believe in god but that their power to govern is ordained by that deity.

Here are two cases to illustrate what I am talking about:

In my boyhood hometown of Findlay, Ohio, the city council decided to give the council president the sole authority to invite members of the community to lead the council in prayer at the start of their meetings.

In March 2002, Council President Robert Schuck first proposed the idea but there was enough council members who were opposed so the idea was dropped. Former council members John Sausser and Marcia Barkey said religion is a private, not public, matter. Former council member Robert Nichols was concerned about fairness. All three ended their terms on council on Dec. 31.

In an article in the January 21, 2004 Findlay (OH) Courier, Schuck said, “The majority of council is now supportive of the idea”. He also noted religious leaders and community members from diverse denominations will be invited and at times council will just observe a moment of silence.

What is his qualifications to decide which religious beliefs would be allowed to lead the prayer? Is that in the job description of council president?

The government can’t and shouldn’t get involved in your religious beliefs and for the life of me I can’t imagine why educated elected officials of our government would want their religion involved with their governing.

Prayer opens council meeting
By DENISE GRANT
Published on January 21, 2004

*****

This dangerous trend toward religious tests for elective officials has led some towns and villages to pass resolutions declaring they believe in “God” or that our history of governing comes from the religious history of the nation.

While resolutions are not laws, which would be unconstitutional, they are none the less disturbing in light of the real history of keeping religion and government separate.

One such city that passed a resolution, Kinston, North Carolina, shows how dangerous this trend is and why it is a threat to our religious freedom.

An article in January 21, 2004 Kinston Free Press talked about the debate in city council on January 26 about a resolution that recognized God as the foundation of this country’s heritage.

Unlike the situation in Findlay, the action in Kinston actually included some debate on the issue from council members. Some argued that the resolution was not the proper use of the council’s time and effort while others adamantly claimed the council had to recognize “God”.

Council member Jimmy Cousins said, “If you are a true Christian, then it is your duty to witness. If you believe in the Bible … then that is absolute.”

“But we represent a diverse community,” Mayor Pro Tem Joe Tyson said.

“Not in my religious life, I don’t,” Cousins said.

“This isn’t a religious function. This is the City Council,” Tyson said.

“I don’t think anybody should be embarrassed to recognize God,” said Council member Alice Tingle, who asked her colleagues to consider the resolution. “It’s our job to proclaim God. He’s visible everywhere, in nature. Not doing so � that’s why we’ve gone astray in this country.”

The most disturbing part of the debate was when a letter to the editor was read at the meeting.

The letter was written by Kinston businessman Ted Sampley, who had brought the resolution to the council, which is modeled after one originally passed in Greene County, Tenn.

He wrote:

“It is the atheists, agnostics and anti-religious dissenters who should stand down and stop tying to censor and rewrite American history.”

The debate was for naught because the resolution was unanimously approved.

Kinston City Council approves God resolution
January 21,2004
Jason Spencer

****

I just don’t know why educated people fall over themselves to do these things. It seems that they feel that they need acknowledgment of their beliefs every moment of every day or else they think they might go to hell.

These religious people believe that government has to acknowledge their beliefs as if the 1st Amendment isn’t enough of a protection. They mislead others into thinking that since our founders were believers that our country was created in “God’s” image. Some may think that asking for “God’s” blessings help them govern better.

Reading the details of the founding of this country shows that our founders were concerned about mixing religion and government. So much so they specifically left out references to “God” in the Constitution and wrote article 6 to prohibit religious tests.

In difference to Mr. Sampley, in Kinston, history isn’t being rewritten.

In those cases where separation of church and state is upheld, it is leading us back to the spirit of what the founder’s had in mind.

Back when the USSR existed, they had a constitution that guaranteed freedoms that in practice simply didn’t exist there. Using the religionist argument that we non-believers are rewriting history is like saying the former Soviet Union was just as democratic as the USA.

It is how we protect our freedoms than how they are written. If laws and resolutions go against the letter and spirit of those freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights then they ought not to stand and our country will be better for it. If we don’t care about putting those words into actual practice then they aren’t worth the ink used to print them.

Prayer opens council meeting?

Read this interesting story in the Findlay (Ohio) Courier on Wednesday 1/21/2004:

Prayer opens council meeting
By DENISE GRANT
STAFF WRITER

Findlay City Council, operating under new rules of order, opened its council meeting on Tuesday with an invocation led by the Rev. Ben Borsay of Gateway Church.

Council agreed earlier this month, when it adopted its new procedures for the year, to give the council president authority to invite members of the clergy and community to open its sessions with prayer.

Council members had debated the issue of adding formal prayer to council meetings in 2002, but there was enough opposition among members then that the issue was dropped.

At the time, council members Robert Nichols, Marcia Barkey and John Sausser all expressed concerns about opening council meetings with prayer. Sausser and Barkey said religion is a private, not public, matter. Nichols was concerned about fairness. All three ended their terms on council on Dec. 31.

Click here to read full story

I found the story interesting because the council, which spends time debating the importance of replacing the Bolton St. bridge after it had been closed for several years, which debated the need of the Hancock Rec Center in a city that doesn’t have enough community space as it is, and which finds a serious issue in the strength of recently installed street lights, would not only vote to allow the council president the authority to hold a prayer before the meetings but also not entertain any public input on the issue. Spending tax dollars for it as well.

I understand that religion is important to most of the community and seems to be very important to council president Schuck that he would be so adamant in getting the sole authority to decide who gives the prayer, BUT Findlay City Council has no business mixing religion and government.

As former council members Marcia Barkey and John Sausser said in 2002 as quoted in the story, religion is a personal private matter. The government can’t and shouldn’t get involved in your religious beliefs and for the life of me I can’t imagine why educated elected officials of our government would want their religion involved with their governing.

It’s like if the majority of council voted to sing the University of Michigan fight song before council meetings. Most people would agree that it wouldn’t be a proper use of council’s time and would insult those members of the community who don’t support the school up north. And I’m sure there would heated public debates about it.

I find it highly insulting to the Founders of this great country, who knew enough to keep church and state separate, that council president Schuck thinks that only prayers from different denominations or a moment of silence would be permitted. What is his qualifications to decide which religious beliefs would be allowed to lead the prayer? Is that in the job description of council president?

If Mr. Schuck is adamant about having a prayer before council meetings then he and his majority are free to meet around the flag pole in Dorney Plaza and pray. They can all then move to council chambers, call the meeting to order, and do the job they were elected to do.

Originally posted on the blog “Hancock County Politics Unfiltered”