image courtesy of Imagine magazine
NOT an actual photo of
TN State Rep. Jeremy Durham
It has long been my contention that conservatives give lip service to the Constitution, but do not in practice support the content in that Constitution.
The continuing hypocritical efforts of conservatives, particularly those who are southern evangelicals, demonstrate equally a desperate desire to regulate the lives of others, demanding conformity to their own beliefs, while not themselves behaving consistently with those beliefs. We have the interference in the lives of other people, while not managing one's own very well, in the example of Tennessee's own state representative Jeremy Durham, pervert for Jesus.
Evangelical Tennessee
State Rep Jeremy Durham Is 'Banished' From Capitol Complex After THIRTY
FOUR Women Accuse Him Of Inappropriate Sexual Behavior
Lawmakers in Tennessee have 'banished' a state representative by moving
his office at the state Capitol complex after more than three dozen
women have accused him of inappropriate behavior.
Rep. Jeremy Durham's office is being moved to the ground floor of a
building across the street from the Capitol, House Speaker Beth Harwell
announced Thursday.
According to Attorney General Herbert Slatery's memorandum to Harwell,
he is investigating Durham's 'pattern of conduct' toward women after 34
current and former lawmakers, lobbyists, staffers and interns allege
that he made sexual comments, used his position to obtain personal
contact information from women, try to meet women alone, involve alcohol
in his interactions with women and inappropriate physical contact with
them while working at Legislative Plaza, CBS News reported.
I have to wonder if Jeremy Durham will have any office when the next election cycle comes around in Tennessee, not even one across the street. But then again, by promoting the anti-LGBT bathroom harassment bill, he might get in good with those other pervy and ignorant conservative Evangelicals again. They go in for a lot of forgiveness so long as one conforms and grovels sufficiently, as we have seen in the past.
The establishment clause of the Constitution requires no preferential treatment of religion. That is simple enough, yet conservatives tend as a group, over and over, to attempt to replace democracy with theocracy.
But the conservative religious extremists in government are hell-bent on pushing this through anyway, and don't give a tinker's damn about the provisions of religious freedom in the Constitution.
The lawmakers who sponsored the measure vowed to hold a vote that
would overrule Haslam’s veto. A simple majority in each legislative
chamber would overrule his decision.
“According to polling, 62 percent of all Tennesseans favor making the
Holy Bible the state book in order to recognize its significance from a
historical, economic and cultural standpoint,” the House sponsor,
Representative Jerry Sexton, said.
“Senator (Steve) Southerland and I are prepared to move forward with a veto override and we plan to do exactly that.”
Because Tennessee is, apparently, not dumb enough or second rate enough without that next step? Seriously, this is a state legislature which has far more important and far more legitimate issues with which to properly concern itself than forcing their religion on people.
It made an interesting cab ride recently where my driver, whom we'll call Tom, knowing I do research especially fact checking, asked me if it were true, as he had heard on right wing talk radio (an occupational hazard of cab driving apparently) that four out of the five first presidents had been either ordained as clergy or held a degree in religion of some kind, and therefore that was the reason we have "In God We Trust" on our money and "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. And no, none of those first five presidents were particularly religious; in fact George Washington is on record as never having taken communion and rarely attended church, and the other four were Deists.
We have been stuck (for the moment) with "In God We Trust" and "under God" because President Eisenhower (I DO like Ike, as Republican presidents go) made a deal with a group in politics known as 'the family', the same bunch of people who started the National Prayer Breakfast. They are the same group who tried to get the death penalty for being LGBT in Uganda with pseudo-science. So, we have the family influence continuing in politics, pushing an extreme form of religion, after their early success; but we also got the Interstate Highway Program which dramatically contributed to our success post WW II.
I'd call that a barely fair tradeoff of good (the highway system) for evil (crackpot religious conservatism).
RFRA is not a justification for discrimination, no matter how conservatives try to use and abuse it. This use of RFRA and of religious belief are wrong, bad, and flat out evil. It is also generally, broadly illegal.
Those conservatives who seem to be bent on misusing freedom of religion are wrong, but they also tend to be the riffraff, the fringe, the mouth breathers, knuckle daggers, Bible-thumping mouth-foamers of the radical right who are too cray-cray to merit serious consideration.
These are the extremists who have hijacked the GOP. The GOP needs to hijack their party back, they need to expel these crazy extremists, or the party will fracture and die out, like the Whigs which preceded them.
That does not seem to stop them from trying to get attention or their evil and hateful way.
Conservatives as the right side of the political spectrum, regardless of parties, has always been pro-discrimination, pro-unequal treatment,pro-injustice, pro-subordination of others. We have had to pass civil rights laws, and had ill treatment adjudicated BECAUSE conservatives won't treat people fairly and equally without the coercion of law. Rather we see conservatives having used terrible violence to coerce conformity to their discrimination.
Conservatives also believe in an 'immaculate conception' notion of business creation, by which I mean the belief that any business can be created without the contribution of others, notably government provided services like infrastructure (roads, utilities, educated workforce, customers, fire and police services, etc.). Nope, it's just the business owner and divine fertilization, in the minds of conservatives.
This is factually false. But it is also the core premise underlying the current attempt by conservatives to claim a right of businesses to discriminate, and to assert a religious right to treat people differently by refusing service to some (aka public accommodation).
I cannot come up with a better definition of public accommodation than that offered by wikipedia:
Within U.S. law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreational facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions were exempt. However, in 1984, the United States Supreme Court declared the previously all-male Junior Chamber International, a chamber of Commerce organization for persons between the ages of eighteen and thirty-six, to be a public accommodation, which compelled the admission of women into the ranks.
One of the premises of a right of the public to service is that the public provides the context and framework, the infrastructure, in which business operates, and which are essential to business to exist. But more than that, it is a foundational premise of equality that people be able to expect equal treatment in the public sphere, that separate is not equal, that disparate or inferior is not fair or equal, and that refusal of service causes harm.
Courtesy of Findlaw for a partial list of court cases relating to civil rights decisions relating to the conservative laws being overturned that mandated or gave legal cover to discriminate, INCLUDING ON THE BASIS OF SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS:
Shelley v Kramer, 1948, overturned the right to exclude property sales on the basis of race, used to keep neighborhoods segregated;
Brown v Board of Education 1954 and 55(I and II) ended segregated education, invalidating separate but equal (hint: it was never equal, but consistently inferior);
Bailey v Patterson, 1962, overturned segregation of transportation facilities (public or private, inter and intrastate);
Loving v Virginia, 1967, overturned prohibitions of inter-racial marriage, in which the Bible and sincerely held religious beliefs about the separation of the races figured prominently;
Jones v Mayer, 1968, another decision that prohibits in property sales and property rentals, (regardless of sincerely held religious belief, or any other pretext or justification);
Griggs v Duke Power Co., 1971, (yes - THAT Duke Power that funds/ owns conservative candidates) overturned discriminatory education and IQ testing for employment (again, based in part on a sincerely held religious-based belief in racial differences);
Oncale v Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc. 1987 banned same-sex sexual harassment violated the provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the court did not make an exception for sincerely held religious beliefs motivating harassment or bullying);
Add to this list any of the Bob Jones University court decisions that religion or religious beliefs (sincere or otherwise) was not an excuse or legal pretext for discrimination; also
Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), that the U.S. Congress could use the Constitution's Commerce Clause to force private businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This has not been an encyclopedic listing of cases, rather it is a sampling only. Religion is not a legitimate or legal basis for discrimination. In some locations, like the state of Oregon, these protections extend to gender and sexual orientation, and this has been the trend in civil rights.
The right to accommodation, the right regardless of race to service by businesses was settled in the last century -- and not the END of the last century either. In the latter 19th and first half of the 20th century, sincerely held religious beliefs that the races should be separate, (because 'the Bible') was a large part of the justification used by conservative bigots to find ways to subordinate and restrict and oppress black Americans, and to exercise prejudice against other groups, notably Jews and Catholics, and atheists. Now that is extending to those Jews and Christians and other groups who do not conform to their interpretation of religious belief.
That is not decent or spiritual, that is not freedom, that is not "all men (and women) are created equal". That is not our constitution, that is contrary to the essence of community and contrary to the concept of majority rule (with protections for minorities).
We saw in the last election Mitts-on-our-Money Romney's big GOP convention stressed empty chairs and "I created that" notions of businesses being solely the creation of their founders. The premise totally and completely ignored the essential community support and services - and customers - that were essential to the creation and growth of those businesses. There was a denial that any other factors, from services to labor, contributed to the creation of business.
We're seeing the bitter end of bigotry being stripped of legal cover in discrimination against members for the LGBT community. ENDA is inevitable, the only question becomes when not if. It may or may not happen as the SCOTUS is currently constituted, given it is the most conservative court in our history, but it is unlikely that the SCOTUS will remain that conservative or that religion will trump civil rights in the public sphere.
Depending on which version of the description you read on this video, or which news article you see about it, Dan Savage is 'cursing' Christian teens (he is not) and 'ripping' the Bible.
I think the phrase 'pansy ass' is rude, but on the spectrum of offensive terms it is a rather mild epithet of the many disparaging phrases often applied to gay people. It is perhaps mildly insulting, but hardly rises to the level of cursing.
The comments Dan Savage makes regarding the content of the Bible, as well as the use of the Bible to justify the legality of slavery in the U.S. Constitution and the use of the Bible by the slave owners and their supporters in the South in the Civil War is factually accurate. It is an unpleasant and 'incovenient' fact about which Southerners have mixed feelings. But it is factual. Christians owned Christians. Whites owned blacks and bi-racial or multi-racial people, who were often not so very genetically different than themselves, sometimes slaves who were even quite closely related to themselves.
Pointing out that fact, pointing out that we have no qualms whatsoever in agreeing universally that slavery is wrong, and that therefore the BIBLE IS WRONG on this point, or that it is now obsolete not to eat pork, or shrimp or crab meat. The Bible prohibits eating meat and milk together; according to the Bible, it is wrong to have a hamburger AND a milkshake or carton of milk in the same happy meal. But you won't see any of these kids protesting someone disagreeing with THAT, which makes them hypocrites.
Just to be clear, either these kids who are leaving are in fact apparently ignorant of these passages in the Bible, which is quite likely, or they have been mislead into thinking, wrongly, that it is not permissible to challenge those parts of the Bible like slavery. Wikipedia has an entire entry on the Bible and slavery.
Here are some of those passages. You decide if YOU agree with them.
As you contemplate the passages, consider how you wold feel as the owned party described, not just the owner. As the following passage shows, the word slave is the accurate translation, not servant. The wording used refers to one person owning another. It clearly describes breaking up families through buying and selling children, specifically.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
Slavery applied to wives and children when a man was a slave. What do you think of the morality of giving someone the choice of their own selfish freedom or their family? Remember, if someone does choose to be a slave to be with their wife and kids.......there is no guarantee whatsoever that they will not be sold, or the wife and kids won't be sold after he makes that choice. Is the Bible MORAL in this respect? I don't think so, and I don't believe they think so either.
"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female servant, she shall not go out as the male servants do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights. And if he does not do these three for her, then she shall go out free, without paying money."
—Exodus 21 7-11
Then we have the issue of sex trafficking intersecting with slavery in the Bible. Once you were a slave, if you were female, it appears permanent even if you were Jewish but did not become a permanent slave by your own choice.
Do you condone selling women for sex? Do you agree with men being allowed to sell their daughters (or sisters)? It is clearly part of the Bible; these are not sections disputed by either Judaism or Christianity as authentic. With the exception of some weird ideas among the more extreme conservatives about women being submissive to men, it is generally accepted worldwide, that women are equal to men not submissive to them -- contrary to the Bible -- and that sexual exploitation of women or girls is wrong. No 'ifs', no 'whens', no excuses, justifications or anything else. Women must consent to sex, and any non consensual sex is wrong. A woman clearly cannot say NO to a person who is legally allowed to rape, or beat or even kill her.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of
six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may
allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to
foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the
slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her
as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries
her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail
to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may
leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
And lets not forget that the Bible makes it acceptable and legal to beat people who are owned property even if they are beaten so brutally they die from their abuse. Lets not pretend that kind of a beating is anything but Biblically approved BRUTALITY and ABUSE that we now define as murder. The whole 'thou shalt not kill' thing in the ten commandments -- there is an exception for slaves, if you feel like it.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave
dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for
a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own
property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
BOTH the old testament and the new testament allow ownership of people who are like oneself in ethnicity AND religion. Humanity be damned, business is business and people are allowed to be property like chickens, goats, cattle, tables and chairs. well, except that you aren't allowed to have sex with the chicken, goats, cattle, tables and chairs. You can damage or destroy all of those, just not have sex with them. Savage is factually correct in his criticism of both the Old and New Testament passages in terms of them being wrong in what we now recognize clearly are the most profoundly core values of fundamental human rights.
While many of us are not comfortable with acknowledging the practice of masturbation, it is not just a very normal aspect of human sexuality, it is a normal aspect of primate sexuality, of our entire branch of the evolutionary tree. With the exception of some badly archaic and sexually repressive and oppressive teachings by the Roman Catholic church which puts masturbation in the same category as the very worst possible sins - such as murder - no sane, rational person now believes that masturbation is a terrible sin.
As a woman, I can tell you categorically that EVERY woman I know would be deeply offended to be told she has to move out and live in a different building - as required by the Bible, - or that she is 'impure' and therefore could not go to work or classes or engage in basic experiences we take for granted such as shopping, eating out or going to a movie, playing a sport, or visiting friends, OR GO TO CHURCH during menstruation. I would hope that every female student who left the Dan Savage presentation makes an effort to learn what he was talking about, because he was correct in pointing out that we reject, quite emphatically what the Bible states on this subject.
No one in their right mind thinks that women who are not virgins, either by choice or against their will, should be stoned because of their sexual status. It is a facet of the Bible that we widely reject, recognizing that the reasons for when and how and with whom one experiences sex is more complex, and that aspect of sexuality is not a commodity, not something to be consumed by a husband or anyone else. It is certainly not a justification for a violent murder, whatever the Bible states (or the Quoran or any other religious text). We do not practice double standards for men and women regarding this aspect of sex any longer. In this regard, whether the students leaving the Savage presentation acknowledge it or not, we broadly reject the Bible. Sexual abstinence until the right time which may or may not be marriage is desirable for a number of important reasons, which may include spiritual purity choices; but fear of rejection by a future spouse or being stoned to death are NOT among them, and should not be.
We emphatically reject the Bible's restrictions on mixing fibers, and on hybrids of many kinds.
"'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your
field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of
material. " Leviticus 19:19
That rules out any blended fiber content clothing - cotton polyester, etc. We do so with combinations of natural fibers, and we do so with natural and synthetic blends all the time. The single fibre content garment is far less common than any blend of two or more fibers. This part of Leviticus also rules out any number of domestic plants used for food. I'm sure all or nearly all of the readers of this post have at one time or another eaten a hybrid fruit - broccoli for example. Modern broccoli is a hybrid of a more cabbage like form of broccoli and cauliflower; it did not originally have fleurettes. I'm sure many if not all readers have eaten fruit like Tangelos, a hybrid of tangerines and grapefruit; we hybridize many fruits and vegetables and grains. We have hybridized different kinds of animals for years, either different breeds or varieties of the same species, or entirely different species such as horses and donkeys to create mules. In doing ALL of the above, we emphatically reject the teachings of Biblical texts.
I would bet that all or at least most of the students who are taking umbrage with Dan Savage DARING to point out what is wrong with the Bible, what we reject emphatically in the Bible, in fact agree with him. I'm sure that all of them believe slavery is wrong. I'm sure all of them reject the idea of women as subordinate to men or that women should move out of their homes during their menstrual cycles or be denied the right to come and go freely. I'm sure that most of those students are wearing or have recently worn at least one or more articles of clothing containing a mixture of two or more fibers. I'm sure that every one of these students eats fruit or vegetables or grain products that have resulted from some form of hybridization. I'm sure that there is not a single student who objected to Dan Savage pointing out that the Bible is wrong and obsolete on a wide variety of subjects who would assert that anyone who breeds mules (or hinnies - look it up) or Labradoodles is going against God's word in the Bible.
Their exodus (pun intended) from Dan Savage's presentation was wrong. It was ignorant, and it was intolerant. Most if not all of the opposition to efforts to eradicate bullying in our schools especially of LGBT students on religious grounds are trying to institutionalize hatefulness, they are trying to make it acceptable for Christianity to be reflected in intolerant and abusive behavior. In using the Bible to justify denying full equality to people by rejecting legal marriage equality they do the same thing. Just because something is in the Bible, or just because a religion has embraced an attitude because of a Bible passage is NOT ENOUGH. It does not and should not replace moral judgment and critical thinking or ethical evaluation SEPARATE from the Bible.
We do it all the time, rejecting the Biblical position on human rights issues, on food and clothing and sexuality. Being a person of faith does not require you to check your brain at the church door and leave it there. The Bible is a wonderful book, but it is not the only word on anything, and often is not a good word on many things. Dan Savage was correct, and the students who left, who would not engage on important but perhaps uncomfortable facts but instead ran away - they were wrong.
Dan Savage used the wrong word when he called them pansy -ass. The correct term is coward, moral and intellectual cowards, because these students were afraid to face and confront facts and ideas that they didn't like and which made them uncomfortable. That is part of education, and it is part of a responsible adult life. It is not acceptable to have anyone else, not an individual, not an institution, do our thinking for us. Growing up, I was taught to believe that we should challenge our own beliefs, and we should embrace such challenges by others. As my family pastor used to say, if your belief cannot stand up to a challenge, if it does not grow and change as a result of such challenges it is a weak and worthless thing. Weak and worthless is what 'pansy ass' is a more slang term to express.
