The Gay Debate

As a major controversial subject in these United States, the debate over gay rights and marriage has several pieces written on the subject that make for great analysis for the use of the lines of argument. I have chosen to use an essay written by Scott Bidstrup titled “Gay Marriage: The Arguments and the Motives,” which I found on his website www.bidstrup.com, as my source for this paper because he covers all the major arguments and presents the reasons used most often. Throughout his essay Mr. Bidstrup makes use of reason the most, mainly through comparison of values of daily life and comparison between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Throughout the essay it is difficult to pinpoint any specific thing to point to his ethos on the subject, however in reading the essay one will easily see which side he is on, and at one point, he declares openly that he is himself gay. Therefore, in the points he makes about gays he can speak with full authority from their perspective.

Here is a summary and analysis of Mr. Bidstrup’s essay. His thesis is “why all the passion” about gay marriage, while there is support for gays in just about every other aspect of gay rights. The majority of the essay deals with the most publicized arguments for why gay marriage should not be allowed. Though he starts the essay with discussing stereotypes, focusing on the most common one, gays are promiscuous, he points out that there is promiscuity among gays, but that it is equal in proportion to that of heterosexuals and usually lessens as age and maturity are gained. Following this, he discusses what committed partners value and do. He points out that they generally follow exactly what heterosexual couples do. They participate on school boards, community projects, and are law-abiding citizens. After this, he moves the discussion into the arguments against gay marriage.

The first reason Mr. Bidstrup provides is that gay people have a choice in being gay or not. He presents an argument that gives his first appearance of ethos; he describes the emotional and inborn nature of homosexuality. Later in the essay, he discusses this point more fully, but at this point, he compares it to heterosexuality. In that, homosexuals cannot decide what sex they are attracted to anymore than heterosexuals can.

Following the choice argument, he discusses the “right-wing religious organization's” propaganda and attitude. The propaganda and attitude say that homosexuality is only about sex. Mr. Bidstrup points out that this is not true and shows the shortsightedness of these right-wingers. He further describes what ‘gay’ is to those of us who are. To show this more clearly, he uses comparisons with readily visible situations; an example, blacks in a white society.

Next, he reaches the meat of his essay, “The Arguments Against Gay Marriage.” Here he breaks up the essay discussing each statement where he provides his point of view as well as comparisons, facts, and occasionally appeals to the reader’s emotions.

The first point of argument he addresses is “Marriage is an institution between one man and one woman.” He states that this is the weakest argument because it is purely of an arbitrary nature. He asks, “Who says what marriage is and by whom it is to be defined?” and goes on to argue that there is no valid or reasonable answer to it. He also brings in to this an argument of values by bringing up the “American ideal of human rights.”

The Second point, “Same-sex couples aren’t the optimum environment in which to raise children,” has the most damning evidence against it that Mr. Bidstrup presents. He makes his case in reason using facts. He presents cases where laws are needed more so than picking a group of citizens that scince has proved to be equal in ability to 'normal' citizens. He points out that murderers, child molesters, and various other unsavory sorts can marry and have children without question or second thought. Where as several scientific studies have been conducted that show homosexual parents have no bearing on a child’s development, that love and care are all that matter.

The next point Mr. Bidstrup counters is, “gay relationships are immoral.” Again, he undermines this argument with a question, “says who? the Bible?” to which he argues that freedom of religion also implies the “right to freedom from religion.” He argues that this argument is supported by the constitution and in a statement made in our first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, 1791. To this he argues that any “moral injunction mandated by the Bible” is no ground for imposition of rules. He further argues that there are religions that want to perform gay marriages and that laws prohibiting such are an infringement on these religions’ right to practice openly and freely. These arguments present appeals to reason and fact, and the values of these United States.

His fourth statement by those that oppose gay marriage is, “Marriages are for procreation and ensuring the continuation of the species.” Here Mr. Bidstrup uses a bit of irony to make his case against this statement. His argument again appeals to reason. He brings up instances where this argument is not supported by reality. He uses the cases of post-menopausal women, and infertile couples. His conclusion here is that proponents of this argument are defying the understood reason and allowance of marriage, that it is for love and commitment. He also takes another two paragraphs to discuss the factor of world population and its effect on the planet.

Mr. Bidstrup’s fifth point of those most commonly made arguments against gay marriage is, “Same-sex marriage would threaten the institution of marriage.” He bluntly states at the outset of his argument, “Well, that one’s contradictory right on the face of it.” His argument follows the primis that allowing marriage cannot threaten the institution of marriage. He presents the argument that by allowing gay marriages the number of divorces would drop as those who try to become part of the mainstream society elect not to marry outside their sexual nature. In addition, he points out that marriage is an option and not a requirement, therefore, no one would be required to be in one or perform one unless they desired too.

The sixth argument against gay marriage is, “Marriage is traditionally a heterosexual institution.” His argument against this one brings in the issue of slavery and segregation. He points out that these were considered traditional institutions but were overturned and are now thought of as backward. His argument appeals more to values than to reason here. I feel that his argument is somewhat weak in that he is using an event outside of this issue. However, he does make up for this weakness by helping the reader to recognize that traditions change over time and that some traditions are prejudiced and prevent social progression.

The seventh argument is that “same-sex marriage is an untried social experiment.” Here he gives an almost full page argument that provides solid evidence to the contrary. He presents facts that show gay marriage in other countries, equally progressive if not more so than the United States, has shown positive results. He also presents evidence that the religious sects of these countries have come to agree that gay marriage has been beneficial to the societies of those countries.

The eighth argument is probably the most ridiculous one presented by opponents of gay marriage, as Mr. Bidstrup says in more glamorous words, “reduction ad absurdum.” “Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all kinds of other horrible consequences.” Mr. Bidstrup says that this argument is “calculated to create fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument.” He says that if this were the case, there has been enough time for those countries that have legalized gay marriage to have made this slip. However, he points out, no one in any of these countries has voiced such a request. He further points out proponents of this argument are not talking about murderers, rapists, etc, being allowed to marry.

Number nine in the most commonly used arguments is, “ granting gays the right to marry is a ‘special’ right.” In his opening line of reason against this argument he says that 90% of the population already have the right to marry and that allowing the remaining 10% to do so is not making a special case but extending this right and removing the moral holds on it. He further argues that most people have the misconception that everyone shares the same rights. Therefore, the majority view gays are asking for special rights. Mr. Bidstrup argues this is not the case especially where marriage is concerned.

The tenth argument, “sodomy should be illegal and was until very recently.” Mr. Bidstrup argues that the existence of laws of this sort were used as a basis of legalized discrimination. To support this he brings in experiences and presents language to the effect, ‘you are a criminal therefore I won’t hire you, I want you off my property, I won’t serve you, I don’t want you around my children.’ He also points out that politicians see homophobia, and the legalization of it, as a means to win votes.

The last two arguments, “gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples and would force churches to marry gay couples when they have a moral objection to doing so,” are argued against through facts and reason. Business would be subject to the state labor laws, but it is inconsequential as many businesses already provide same-sex benefits that prove to make good business sense as it raises the value of their stocks by presenting a view that these businesses are progressive. The cost of these benefits is also low, 1.5%. He also points out that churches already have the right to refuse to marry anyone, for any reason. Mr. Bidstrup goes on to provide specific instances where several churches refused to marry a couple.

Now Mr. Bidstrup goes into what he calls the real reasons for the opposition to gay marriage. “Just not comfortable with the idea. It offends everything religion stands for. Marriage is a sacred institution. Gay sex is unnatural. Making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine. The thought of gay sex is repulsive. They might recruit.” Throughout his arguments against these he uses reason and evidence. For most, he reasons that fear is the biggest motivator and for several he uses facts and descriptions from reality and points to evidence that can turn over some of the more ‘manly’ based arguments. He does achieve an appeal to ethos in his argument against “making love to another man betrays everything that is masculine.” He speaks of a few of his past partners describing them to be the epitome of ‘masculine,’ he speaks of champion bull-riding cowboys, and a biker type. In arguing against the “gay sex is unnatural” he brings up solid evidence of homosexuality in some 450 animal species out of a total 1500 species. Under the premise, “they might recruit,” he presents the case that many homophobes are sexually repressed and tend to have same sex attractions. From their view point if they can destroy the object that causes them distress they can negate these feelings. He furthers his argument by presenting a University of Georgia study that shows that over 70% of violent homophobes that have killed gay men, have proven to be sexually aroused by gay sex scenes.

In addition to these points, Mr. Bidstrup talks about homophobia in American culture. He views it coming from religious prejudice, where it seems to be so ingrained in the culture that no one really notices it unless they are on the receiving end.

The next section of the essay discusses “why this is a serious civil rights issue.” He states that when gays speak of civil rights they are speaking more toward “civil justice.” He claims that the lack of such can and often does have serious consequences. He presents the case of medical decisions and their relationship to hostile families and lack of partner rights in such cases. He also shows the case of economic hardships that can occur when a hostile family, who he mentions tend to be estranged of the partner in medical care, when they decide to take over that person's estate. Mr. Bidstrup continues the discussion on the matter of arrests and jail rights or privileges of prisoners to have their spouse visit and not to have to testify in court. Throughout these arguments, he appeals to ethos and pathos mostly through the cases of hostile families limiting the partner who cares for the person who is suffering or imprisoned. At the end of each paragraph he asks, “is this fair?” Definitively, an appeal to pathos. He supports these claims of injustice through personal knowledge of friends and acquaintances.

He then goes on to discuss “why does conservative politics find gay marriage so deeply threatening.” In this part of his essay he brings out the underlying, however, subjective, view that conservative politicians and religious groups act as a “strict father.” He cites the book by George Lakoff, “Moral Politics” in his use of the term “strict father.” The book uses this term, as cited by Mr. Bidstrup, as a metaphor to describe the way these politicians and religious groups act and think. He proposes the idea that these entities do not want to allow gay marriage because it goes outside their assumed moral boundaries. He argues for them to accept that someone could step out side and lead a happy life while showing that these boundaries are arbitrary would undermine the authority of the conservative entities. He argues that these entities should treat the issue of gay rights as they have racial segregation. He proposes that conservatism should “own up to its mistake, and simply expand it's moral boundaries.” In his conclusion, he makes his last appeal to the values of America, “freedom, liberty and justice for all.”

Through out his rather long, but detailed and interesting essay, Scott Bidstrup does a fair job of appealing to the values of the reader as well as appealing to the rhetorical reasoning power of the reader. The facts that he presents are generally accepted and sound. In his appeal to ethos, he has a unique perspective compared to those of others making similar arguments. He is a gay man who has lived through all the experiences or has been closely related to those that he talks about. His ethos is rather credible from the point of view of this essay. I feel that his reasoning is powerful and that he was not attempting to present propaganda but rather to persuade the reader that the conservative point of view and arguments are generally, shall we say, hog wash.

The Grudge of a President

The Iraq War came about because of the personal grudge of the President, who used falsified evidence, lies, and misdirection to gain popular support for this war. In the end, this war has cost these United States several thousand lives of soldiers and untold numbers of civilian lives. The war has also cost these United States several hundred billion dollars. By moving forward with the pace and care of a Bulldozer out of control, the President’s war has also cost these United States the backing and trust of its allies. It has lost its respect in the United Nations. It is generally viewed as a bully nation that wants everything its own way without regard for the cultures and citizens of the countries it is bulldozing.

The case for bulldozing comes from “Stay the course” rhetoric the administration uses and the attitude with which it treats any opposition to its plans. “Stay the course,” seems to have come through the administrations extreme desire to remove Saddam from power. In his article “The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed,” Craig Unger of Vanity Fair (July 2006 p92-156) takes the reader through a story of intrigue, lies, corruption, and clandestine enterprises. Remember the “16 words?” Those words said these United States had intelligence reports that Iraq wanted to buy “yellowcake” (unrefined uranium) from Niger. Unger explains the history behind these reports and the man who started the whole thing. The man was Michael Ledeen. He was a cohort of an Italian propaganda group called “Propoganda Due” or “P-2” (4). This group belonged to the Neoconservative or fascist movement up to the late 1980’s, dieing out at the end of the cold war. During its run though, P-2 was involved in seating high ranking and influential people in Italy. It had its fingers in every aspect of government and namely the Italian intelligence service, SISMI (Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare). It seems that SISMI is quite the organization if one is into the James Bond types. In reading, this article one would get a thrill from the way it was written and what all goes on that sounds fishy, but then that’s how spies work. Even if something is true, it can’t look too good because your neighbors want the same information, if you have it, you don’t want them to know where or how you got it. That little diatribe takes us into the heart of this whole mess. Apparently, P-2 was outlawed in 1981 but continued to work behind the scenes and underground while still maintaining its influence. In 1994, a billionaire supporter of the group was elected prime minister. He proceeded to install in high-level positions members of this organization that were familiar to Ledeen.

These placements were followed by a campaign to create evidence against Saddam using Niger. One of the officials had a contact with the Niger embassy in Italy. This he used as a source to gain access to the offices and steal letterhead and various other things. The letterhead was used to forge documents suggesting that Iraq wanted to buy 500 tons of yellowcake from Niger annually. This information is what Mr. Bush referred to in his speech.

After all the background intrigue, Unger proceeds to show how the information was passed around and made to appear as true. In effect these documents, or rather the reports of the documents, were passed from agency to agency to media outlet to media outlet and back around again so many times that it seemed as if everyone who had initial contact with this information were confirming everyone else. Unger describes this as an “echo chamber” (8). Twice, when this information was presented to the CIA and other US government officials, this information was denied by the French. They were asked to look into the situation because they had control over the Niger uranium mines. In short, if anything had been said or done, the French would know about it. Twice they said it was all false. All of the intelligence agencies that were handed this information believed it to be false but when it made its way to higher, untrained, government officials, it was just what they needed but at the behest of the agencies, they requested verification. The first time the CIA got wind of it, they tossed it out as so much garbage. Then it made its way to the White House where it then went to the French.

The aspects that make this information so much of a convoluted mess, is that none of the papers are in logical order. One paper refers to another that was dated after it. Another refers to the 1965 Niger constitution even though its date was after the 1999 constitution was in effect. The Niger president’s signature is also an apparent forgery. Another was signed by a Niger Mister that had been out of office for over a decade.

Now we come to another factor of this play. Rocco Martino, an Italian intelligence agent. He is quoted by Unger as saying, “SISMI wanted me to pass on the documents, but they didn’t want anyone to know they had been involved.” Apparently, throughout this whole mess, Ledeen, working through his allies in P-2, and working for the Neoconservative agenda, built up a campaign against Saddam because the Neocon’s believe it is necessary for these United States to show their supremacy throughout the world. In short, they don’t know that the cold war is over.

At any rate, Unger provides a very detailed and apparently well-researched article that proves there is a massive conspiracy to bring about a war that no one really wants in the first place.

Now we have the Mother Jones magazine issue of October 2006, in which is presented a timeline of events leading up to the war with Iraq. It seems that the tie in of the neoconservatives is rather large. On September 20th, 2001, the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) sent a letter to the President stating-“’Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from Power’” (63). The PNAC has a very interesting aspect to it; here is a short list of some of its key players: Cheney, Scooter Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz. It should also be noted that this same organization was somewhat responsible for regime change in Iraq becoming national policy. In January of 1998 the PNAC demanded that “President Clinton undertake the ’removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime’” (62). At the end of October 1998, President Clinton signs the Iraq Liberation Act, making the regime change national policy.

It would seem that Bush took this policy to the extreme because he had a personal vendetta against Saddam. He is quoted as saying in March of 2002, “’Fuck Saddam. We’re taking him out” (64). Following this just a few months later, in September he is quoted saying,
“’After all, this is a guy who tried to kill my dad.’” Back in March a Downing Street Memo was published saying, “’It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam’” (Mother Jones 65). That says it; Bush had a grudge and used the nation to fulfill it.

He accomplished this using false information and by misleading statements. Not only that, but he also, acted like a bulldozer to get this information. He started by telling Richard Clark, “‘I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this’” (Mother Jones 63).

Mr. Bush may have had a grudge but he did know how to play the political game. During the build up to war, while everyone else was gathering information, preparing war plans and trying to tie Saddam to the terrorists, Bush kept saying we aren’t going to war until I say so. He also made statements to alleviate fears about being trapped in another Vietnam situation. He said at one point in October 2000, that he wouldn’t commit troops until he had an exit strategy (Mother Jones 62). While make statements that he wasn’t going to take us to war, he had is administration make plans for such. Just a few months before actually going to war, without a real exit strategy, he asked Mr. Rumsfeld, -“’What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret,’” this was in November of 2001 (Mother Jones 63). The fact that he didn’t have an exit or postwar plan is alluded to in the Downing Street Memo of March of 2002 just before the war started it says, “’Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions…what happens the morning after?’” (Mother Jones 64). Another Downing Street Memo is quoted as saying, “’US scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and Al Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing…. We are still left with a problem of bringing public opinion to accept the imminence of a threat from Iraq,’” in March of 2002 (Mother Jones 64-65).

While Mr. Bush is pressing all of his assets for information and spin to get the war movement going, his staff and allies seem to have been trying to undermine the whole thing. Secretary of State Powell was cited as saying, “Saddam ‘has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction,’” in February 2002 (Mother Jones 62). British intelligence says there is only “’sporadic and patchy’ evidence of Iraqi WMD. ‘There is no intelligence on any production facilities’” (Mother Jones 64). Now the case against war should have been strong enough to dissuade just about any leader from persuing it. Yet, as we know the President continues to push ahead, bulldozing under anything that gets in his way.

We have the President acting neutral toward the idea of war, presenting the attitude that he will do as he must. In the background however, he is pushing his administration to build a case for war and the removal of Saddam using any means and resources it can. Vice President Cheney is talking up a storm with the media saying that Saddam is trying to restart his nuclear and bio-weapons programs, and making claims that Saddam is involved with the terrorists. He keeps saying this even while reports are made to the contrary.

During this run up and heavy handed propaganda time frame our allies are calling for time and to let the U.N. weapons inspectors do their jobs. France becomes the extreme case and suffers US retaliation by the House cafeteria renaming ‘French Fries’ ‘Freedom Fries’. Here it should be noted that the House of Representatives is the branch of government that has first dibs on the national budget. In the beginning and until fighting actually starts there has been no budget assigned to the war. The President refused to give any figures until after fighting had started. No motivation has been given or speculated on for this course of action, but I suspect no figure was given because no one knew. With in a few weeks of the start, the President asks for 74 plus billion dollars in an emergency appropriation. From all of my research, the war has been funded through these emergency appropriations until these last couple of years. Currently the price tag for Iraq has exceeded 500 billion dollars. This next budget round will see an overall military spending increase of 48% since the President has taken office and seven percent over this last year. There is a request for an emergency appropriation for 70 billion dollars to finish out this year and go into the next. While another 50 billion is being requested for the remained of next year. 500 billion plus another 120 billion totals 620 billion dollars. Lets look back at the beginning again. The President wanted to give citizens a 700 plus billion dollar tax break in the form of rebates. Congress shaved off 100 billion because they thought it was too much, next they shaved off even more because now we have talk of war. In the end we only got 365 billion in rebates. Just think, in three years the President and his little vendetta has cost us all, almost two times our rebates. Lets not mention that this vendetta has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians and thousands of our own soldiers. Sure, Saddam could be called evil because he used a disgusting method to put down an up rising. Sure, he tried to build up these disgusting things and nuclear weapons. But, as we know, he had no connection with terrorists, no connection with any country that could give him WMD material. He had no connections. However, the things that we can easily see with this situation in hind sight are there was little or no internal violence, and he did limit the Sunni-Shiite temper. He may not have achieved a level that the West would have liked but he did keep it down.

Right now Iraq is war torn, suffering internal strife and a failing government. While serving in Bosnia/Herzegovina I learned something that one can only learn from being on the ground and talking with everyday folks. I learned that countries with extreme religious oppositions won’t get along well enough to form a steady working government. On the base camp we rarely saw a Serb working in the same place as a Muslim. Talking to either a Serb or a Muslim one would get the same answer to the question: what do you think will happen when we leave? We’ll go back to fighting. That’s the way it has always been. About the only time in the last couple thousand years of history that the Former Yugoslavia has had a lasting stretch of peace was when it was under the USSR. The USSR ruled with an iron fist and keep the peace with howitzers and tanks.

We here in these United States have it easy and somehow we make our differences work for us. In other parts of the world, cultures are based on so much hatred of differences that they cannot see past it. It’ll most likely take generations upon generations of exposure to other cultures before we get past wars that are based on opposing ideologies. That long again, before we have leaders that understand how to work with different cultures and not use force to impose their culture. For the duration we’ll have a continuous cause and effect situation as we have today. Ideological differences cause social friction with the effect being the dominant culture, the more powerful one, will attempt to force its self on the lesser. Currently we have the west with its ideology of Christianity, secular governance, and academic achievement, which is opposed by the Middle Eastern ideology of sectarian rule and piety according to the laws of their holy books. For us, an academic degree is favorable, while for them, achieving a pious state is favorable. For us ultimate liberty is the most righteous pursuit while for them it seems following the holy law is the most righteous.

In the end, time will tell what will happen. Cultures and humanity are ever evolving and our actions are determined by cause and effect. To change the course of culture and humanity takes a long time or a lot of extreme conscious effort. A careful, in-depth look at history will show one that forcibly change has taken great leaders or massive empires, or taken centuries or millennia. It might be that we are now in the midst of a major historical change in the course of culture and humanity.

Thanksgiving Day Speach, if I were giving one.

Here on this, among the greatest days of our nation, I wish to give thanks to all those people who serve our nation and to the Higher Power that we as a nation surrender our judgment and purpose. I wish to thank our leaders for their ability to relive the days of persecution and injustice that forced our ancestors to board a small ship and sail to a new land. I wish to thank those same ancestors for giving us a heritage of repression, greed and injustice that has been and continues to be passed down from generation to generation. I wish to give thanks for the hypocrisy that allows us to live out our days in a blissful inconsiderate way.


In giving thanks for all these things, I hope for the day that these things will be looked upon, as days for which we should be thankful no longer exist. I give thanks for the durability of humankind, that one day we will surpass this age of repetitive history. I hope for the future that there will be a time when people will look beyond themselves and the face or difference of the next person and look at their actions and their worth. I speak this in the hope that on this day of thanksgiving people will feel shame for what has happened to this country of freedom, of this land that once was a symbol of hope and happiness, a land of new beginnings.


These last decades will stand as a testament to the future that history is doomed to repeat itself again and again. These last decades will speak to the future that will likely learn about it and forget it, just as we have done. We are taught history for several reasons, once I was told that it was so that we would not repeat it. Another time I learned that it was to learn our heritage and know our society and culture better. Another time I learned that history was taught because it would help the mind grow. During my adult life, I have not seen any of this in practice. History has proven to be nothing more than a waste of time or a point from which to argue.


At this time, I give no thanks for my heritage, for the history I have learned. I give no thanks for this land, its people, or its beliefs. I cannot, in all good conscious, thank the higher power at this time for this country, the food I will eat, or the year ahead or past. This land and its people could not accept my sacrifice because of who and what I am. This land cannot accept me. In this lack of acceptance, it has repeated history in persecuting those who are different. It has persecuted me. It has used its history to justify the continuance of history. In this justification, it has proved that “New World” is the “Old World.” The “Old World” has become the “New World.” The “Old World” has moved to make amends for its history and move beyond persecution and injustice.


On this day of Thanksgiving, I cannot give thanks for God and Country. I hope that I can give thanks for the good will of my family, friends, and those who suffer that we might someday move beyond persecution and injustice. I am gay. I am an American. I am a Veteran. I am a patriot. I support the constitution, I once swore to uphold and defend it. I will continue to do that.


Thank all that is greater than I for this ability. Thank all that is greater for the blessings of life. Thank all that is greater for family and friends. Thank all that is greater for love.


Because I am somewhat religious, let me say a short prayer:


Almighty, I pray for the future and the people of this world. I pray that we will someday come to love one another for our differences. I pray that one day we will have a world without injustice and prejudice. I pray one day that if not as a whole, at least as a country, we can be once again a shining beacon of hope and prosperity to the world. A country that can be looked upon as the place where one can be different but treated as anyone else. I pray, Almighty, that one day my fellow man and I will be able to give thanks for being nice to our neighbor. I pray today that you will bless us with happiness and full stomachs. I pray that you will bless those who are poor and live with out much, with food and clothing, plenty for the years to come. Amen.

Understanding

At the age of ten, an older mentor says to me, "Don’t let anyone make you gay.” Upon hearing this, I am confused, I feel uncomfortable and guilty. I watch a show with an aunt and a cousin, the show has a couple of guys kissing. My cousin asks the aunt why those guys are kissing. The aunt replies with something to the effect of because they are gay, guys who like guys like girls and guys, mom and dad. This is bad, wrong, evil. I again feel guilty, uncomfortable. I wonder if she knows that I feel that way. I have never hidden my emotions well. Time passes.

At twelve, I see guys and get aroused. I am unsure about these feelings. I get more confused as I hear other guys talk about girls. I watch a porno with some cousins and find the guys intriguing and the women ugly.

Thirteen comes along and I am full into puberty and growing more aware of sexuality. I develop a crush on a classmate. Fourteen comes along and I have made friends with that classmate. I find all sorts of reasons to spend time with him. We join the young firefighters group at the local volunteer firehouse, but we skip out, get drunk, and cause havoc. First time I ever drank, smoked or did drugs. I run away to his house in the middle of the night, a 15-mile hike through the woods and along the railroad tracks from Emida to Fernwood. The Moon is bright. Mom and dad come for me, dad and I fight. Punching, wrestling. Eventually I go home with them. A week later, I do it again; mom calls and says to come home when I am ready. I stay a week. But nothing ever happens. Mom has cleaned and fixed up my room. She asks me sometime after this if I am having gay feelings for this guy. I say NO!!! As time passes, I begin to understand more.

At sixteen, I am finishing my freshman year of high school. I refuse to dress down for PE. I am afraid of what might happen. I argue with the teacher over it. I never tell him my reasoning. You don’t talk about this in Benewah County. Through out I never tell anyone or let on. I don’t even tell my best friend. I fear being anymore different than I already was. I was into Star Trek, and all things Sci-Fi and science. I was really into space. I wasn't into sports, drinking, drugs, four wheelers, hunting or much else that kids in my school or town were. I was interested in games, hiking, reading, figuring math problems, usually dealing with space: speed of light, distances, and space ships. My normal differences were enough to ostracize me and it would be worse to be gay. I felt guilty and uncomfortable enough. Things were easier when I quit school that year and did home schooling. I felt an extreme relief.

Seventeen comes, I have moved in with my Aunt Laurie in Palouse, Washington, I want to find a job. No one will hire me because I am not 18. I go back to Emida. One night I see a commercial for the Army. With in a week I am talking to the recruiter. I go to night school and end up with my GED. During the final stages of paperwork, the recruiter gives me a survey; he crosses out a question and says that question can’t be asked anymore. I read it; I feel a pang of worry and guilt. I glance at mom and dad; they are smiling and looking proud. I suppose my face doesn’t betray the feelings. It passes. That summer I join the army.

Eighteen has come and I leave for the army. Every thing is great, easier than I expected. It is the first time I have been far from home, get homesick. It passes. I get tunnel vision in the showers, stub my toe many times, once so bad it still hurts when it is cold out. I was afraid to look down to see where I was walking. I get to my duty station, Fort Drum, New York. Guilt and pressure relax; I am quiet and reserved. I have no friends for a while. My sergeant decides I need his special attention and extra training. I am the only other trained clerk in the unit. My formal job training was in the old ways, the sergeant gets pissed about this. He makes my life a living hell. Working from 7am to midnight several nights, gets angry with the smallest things. After some time, I get acquainted with some of the company clerks they invite me to drink with them after a really bad day. I drink half a bottle of Wild Turkey in an hour and a half. End up in the clinic with the sergeant when I wake up. I am sick and depressed now. The stress builds and builds. Nineteen has come.

My birthday is lonely, I have no leave yet, most everyone is gone on leave. I spend it alone. The worst day comes soon after. Something has gone against the wishes of the sergeant. He takes me to the office and starts yelling and throwing things. He's been chewed out by the Adjutant for ordering me to disobey the Adjutant. The sergeant has misplaced a file that I was supposed to give directly to the Adjutant. The sergeant yells and rants for a half hour, he throws things. I am scared and don’t know what to do. I can finally leave. I go get Burger King to go and go to the woods. I am eating, there's a voice in my head, “put the pen through your temple.” This scares me, but I keep eating and try to ignore it. It speaks again, “take the pen apart, and use the clip to slice your wrist; you know how to do it.” I quit eating, pick up the trash, and run for the barracks. Try to call mom, she doesn’t answer, try grandma, she doesn’t answer. I start to cry. I am scared, more than I have ever been. The voice comes again, “take that knife, stick it into your lung, you know how.” I run from the room and head for the loop. I walk round and round, fist clinching, relaxing, clinching, relaxing. Slowly the fear subsides, but not before a speeding car comes by. I jump just as the car is a few feet away, it is dusk, and the driver doesn’t see me. Silently, I scream. At the last second, I jump into the ditch. Sitting, shaking, rocking, screaming in silence. I get up; keep walking, the road is clear, no cars for a long time. Calm comes, I think, calculate. I go back to the barracks, shower and sleep. Exhausted. I go back to church, seeking peace of mind and escape. The sergeant has us working on the weekends. He doesn’t want to be home with his wife. They are getting divorced.

Now I am twenty. I have been trying not to be gay. I am still going to church. We get a new senior sergeant, the old sergeant is not in charge now, things lighten up. The unit begins training for deployment to Bosnia. I beg to go. I don’t want to stay with the old sergeant. They say yes. I am going. Fall comes, time for us to go. Fourteen hours crammed on a commercial plan, rifle at my feet, equipment belt sticking my side. We get to Germany. Fog, stuck for a day. Finally, we get to Bosnia. A place where all the buildings look like Swiss cheese. Bullet holes in everything. The base camp is an old farmstead. The building I work in has one end blown apart; plywood haphazardly makes it completely again. I it is drafty and ugly. Dirt and dust cover everything. Inside is like a maze. Doors that go nowhere, hallways that lead to nothing. We settle in. Work five hours a day, no early mornings. PT is not required now. Carrying a rifle with live ammo is. We must have it everywhere we are, except the chapel. We can sleep until eight in the morning, work starts at nine. Can take a two-hour lunch. Then sort mail, type a report. Spend a lot of time in the Rose Garden drinking cappuccinos. Lots of time to think. I see an MP, very attractive. I make friends with him. Nothing happens. Soon after I tell myself, I am gay, nothing will change that. Church didn’t, stress didn’t, nothing will. I send an email to mom and tell her. Then I tell my buddy, he’s cool with it. He has friends back home that are. I feel like the world has lifted from shoulders. The world has a new look, things are great. I feel great. I never hear the voice again. Relief. Understanding.

Overhaul the United States Constitution

I propose that the citizens of these United States call for an overhaul of the Constitution. The language and purpose of most of the amendments are too outdated, therefore, making it difficult to understand what the founders intended for each article. The current way the country is run is such that it avoids the constitutional barriers placed between church and state, and state and federal governments. I propose that we the people call for a commission to rewrite the constitution and bring it to the 21^st century. Through the current administrations blatant disregard for the laws and set procedures for its actions, it seems that time has come for some changes. The current constitution is designed with state on state war, not terrorism; it is written with the idea that the US will be dealing one on one with other countries, not mass networks of treaty organizations consisting of several nations. It assumes a voting system that technology and modern thought have made obsolete. It assumes a governmental relationship within itself and with the people that needs to be rethought. The structure of our country needs work, the foundation is cracking, the roof is leaking, and all the additions are settling and tearing away. Lets get caught up on our house work before the whole thing comes crashing down around our ears.

Personal Identity

Thoughts of Lucus Fuller

5^th of September, 2006

There seems to be truth to the axiom, one is the sum of one’s experiences. It has come to my view recently that a large portion of this society, that is the American society, feels that they are nothing if they don’t have a partner. There is another side to this, what seems to be a smaller portion of society, that discounts this reasoning to such a degree that something should be said about it.

I have several friends that seem to think that they are nobodies because they don’t have a partner. This case brings them to the brink of sever unhappiness that forces them to become so melancholy that no-one wants to be around them. I have several people in my life that have gone through many marriages and relationships that have come to realize that they don’t need a partner to be happy or to realize who they are.

One such person is my maternal grandmother. Through out her life she has been married to about five different people and god only knows how many relationships. In the past decade or so, she has come to realize that she doesn’t need a partner to make her who she is or complete. She has stories, a personal history, that gives her, her identity. It appears to me that she has come to a point that she realizes her life is hers, not hers and someone else’s.

Another person who hasn’t quite reached the state that my grandmother has is my cousin. She is fast approaching the level of my grandmother though. She has made statements to the affect that she must live her life and be her self. She has had problems of late with her relationships and self identity but it appears to me that she is following my grandmother in realizing personal identity is not related to relationships.

In my view of relationships, I see it as a case of merging two to make one. Each person must contribute his or her identity to a new one that combines the two separate. Each person is one-half but separate entities of a whole. Any person that feels they must have another person to complete him or her or make them happy is doomed to an unhappy life.

I find it best to view a relationship as something comparable to a corporation or business partnership. Each person invests something of himself or herself into it. As this is the case, you must first have something to invest; therefore, you must have your own identity, your own history, your own persona.

Therefore, after all this, it is my recommendation to all those lonely lost souls out there to find yourself. I think it is only possible to achieve this by searching with in. Consider your own past, your own experiences. Think of your story, what can you tell people about what you have done, what you want to do, how things of your past have influenced you. Once you have these basic things in mind, consider deeper and further back. Think of your childhood, your home where you grew up, the friends you have made and lost over the years. Consider how each of them affected you. Consider the things that caused the loss or the gain. All of these things make you who you are, not the person you will marry or date nor the person that you won’t marry or won’t date.

Your personal identity is your story.

Report of Guns, Germs, and Steel

By Jared Diamond

Guns, Germs, and Steel, by Jared Diamond, is about the evolution of civilization. He answers the general question: why did civilization develop, when and where it did. His approach to this question was rather unique, in my opinion. He used his experiences in New Guinea to study the spread and rise of the proximate causes and the effects of ultimate causes, as he calls them.

He explains that the Indonesian/Polynesian region was a good place to study the evolution of civilization. His reasons are that the development, spread, isolation, and recentness of the colonization of these islands give us a short range, microscopic view of human history. Mr. Diamond’s discussion and exploration takes the viewpoint that there are ultimate and proximate causes to the development of human civilization. The ultimate causes were environment, bio-diversity, and population density. The proximate causes were technology, food production, writing, and germs.

Ultimate causes are related to each other in that bio-diversity and population density are dependent on environment. Environment can make or break bio-diversity depending on the altitude, latitude and soil. The harshness of environments has the same effect on population density-the less available food the lower the population density. At the point in time, that food production arose, the Fertile Crescent was the location of the best of all these ultimates. It had the right environment to support bio-diversity and thus population density.

Proximate causes followed because of the ultimate causes. These proximates were developed because the ultimate causes allowed for food production, which in turn allowed division of labor. Division of labor and settled villages allowed for people to do other things besides look for food and a place to sleep every night. Technology and writing were the human creations that came out of this. Germs on the other hand were a result of the combination of animals and humans living in continuous close proximity. Animal diseases learned to jump to humans-humans that had the population density and animals to become infected, develope immunity to them and became carriers. The results, as we know, were rather devastating, the black-plague, small pox in the Americas and other places in the world.

After reading this book it is a wonder that we all have not been wiped out or that we are not living in a state with one ruler over the whole world. Until you consider that isolation, decisions, and changing environments keep us on our collective toes. Maybe as our technology becomes more and more advanced the world will become home to a single society with many sub-societies and cultures. Once this happens, I think we will be out in space as well and then we will have a completely new area but with the same old problems to deal with. Planets are much like islands and solar systems are much like continents. Human history is likely to repeat itself in micro-scale every hundred years or so, but we will also, 1,000 years from now look back and see that we have started the whole process over again. Maybe we will not develop any ultimate germs or technology that will inhibit this, time and history will tell.

connection

by accident we met.

by fate we like each other.

by magic we begin to love.

by ourselves we think and feel the future.

by our souls and hearts we connect.

accident, fate, magic, souls, hearts, thought, feelings.

future, present, past.

all set in motion by a wish, a dream, a hope.

all accepted.

instincts and guts allow belief.

here we find ourselves in place and time, far apart yet close.

a connection that goes beyond technology and old-fashioned letters allows us to understand and connect.

a connection that remains through times of separation. that allows us to feel each other, to hear each other’s thoughts. to know one another.

a connection drawn from magic, fate, hearts, and souls.

A Prince and A Soldier

A Prince.

A Soldier.

An Ocean.

A Continent.

A Dream.

A wish.

A hope.

A desire.

Happiness.

Magic.

Words.

Time.

A boy from the forest.

A boy from the city.

Magic brings a Prince.

Magic brings a Soldier.

A Dream draws the Prince.

A Dream draws the soldier.

An Ocean stands between.

A Continent rises.

A wish is fulfilled.

A hope brings the future.

A desire brings happiness.

Happiness brings words.

A time gives the words meaning.

A time gives hope.

A few words gives the soldier strength.

A few words gives the prince hope.

A few words over time gives happiness.

Magic, words, and time give a dream, a hope, a desire.

From the forest, a boy with magic comes to offer as a soldier his life.

From the city comes a boy with the blessing of magic to offer as a Prince his hope.

Through time, magic, and words a wish, a hope, a desire, a dream are fulfilled.

From the city, a Prince will cross an Ocean, a Continent.

From the forest, a Soldier will cross an Ocean, a Continent.

Together a Prince and a Soldier will conquer an Ocean and a Continent.

Soldiers

Soldiers.

They are trained to kill.

They are trained to be tough.

Are they tough?

Can they really kill?

No.

Soldiers.

They are lonely.

They are weak.

Soldiers.

They endure.

They hope.

They dream.

Soldiers.

They will march to the ends of the earth.

They will defend what they believe.

Soldiers.

They protect the innocent.

They shed their blood for the innocent.

Soldiers.

They grieve for their comrades.

They dream of better lives.

Soldiers.

They do not want to be soldiers.

They do not want wars.

Soldiers.

They want respect.

They want peace.

Soldiers.

They endure.

They are not tough.

They do want to kill.

They want peace.

They want respect.

They want love.

Soldiers.

Soldiers.

Soldiers will march on.

Dreams & Hopes

Computers and internet. Phone calls, instant messengers, emails, and web cameras. Hopes, dreams, desires and wishes. Falling stars and rising stars. Sunsets and sunrises.

These are things of modern life. Some primitive, some advanced; All the tools of romance and initial contact. The things that help make wishes come true.

Those are things that now take longdistnaces and bring them close; things that allow another far away to dig a trench into your soul as if they were making war on it. Tings neutral in and of themselves but can be used to destroy or to make peace; conquer or free.

Here they have been used to conquer, free, destroy, to diga trench and make peace; every way but all for the sake of a wish, a desire; both mutual. Through coincidence and accident a trench has been dug and a war is raging; a war that is destroying the old ideas-conquering the hearts and minds freeing them of past tortures. The war will end in peace. Peace frightens both sides.

What would this peace bring? What will it be? Will it be an alliance? Will it be the building of a wall? Will it be the silent wailing of destroyed souls? Will the peace be worth the risk?

Is this a war or is it something else? If not a war, then it must be a conversion. The trench is not for combat but for a foundation; a foundation for something large, something larger than life. A mission perhaps? A place to educate and provide comfort to these lost and lonely souls? May it be a home, a place for companionship; a place in which they might find compassion, caring and love? Or is it a prison? A place of torture, pain and suffering?

May it be that this foundation is growing and it will soon be larger than all of those combined? Shall it be for the building of a city? A city that will have all of them? Or will it be the foundation of a village? A village with a mission and a home; just a mission and home? A village where there will be no need of a prison?

Hopes, dreams, and desires. Hope for a home, dream of a mission, desire for both.

Hope for the lost and lonely to find a home and mission in one. Dream of peace, comfort, compassion, love, and passion. Dream, dreaming. Desire. Desire all these.

Let not the hard things destroy these hopes, dreams, and desires. Build a strong foundation that will with stand the earthquakes of life; strong walls to hold against the rain and winds; strong beams to support them. Build a strong house to withstand all.

Build high atop the world. On solid fertile ground that things may grow and be sustained. Build that it will last.

Religion and Politics: How the Right has gained power and Influence and is changing US Politics

This paper was inspired by debate in the media about how much influence the Moralist/Christian Right has and how it has gained such influence. It will suggest that this situation posses a danger to America and the world. It will discuss the potential threats and suggest ways to defeat or moderate the danger and threat.

To start with a bit of history, the first point will be the founding fathers statement on religion and government followed by the voter beliefs and ideologies. From there the discussion will move into voter statistics and the model used by the right and left to gain position and influence. From this it will discuss the dangers and threats.

In the article “The Great Debate of Our Season,” that appeared in Mother Jones in December 2005, the opening line is a statement from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion;” which has been considered the Founding Fathers’ statement of the “role of religion in our government”. The article talks about how religion has always been a part of this country and an aspect of its leaders but that even though a lot of the language of the time had religious overtones the state was not governing by religious motivation. The opening quote bluntly points out what the founding fathers thought about religious influence on the country’s government.

This piece of information is relatively unknown to most Americans. However, it is doubtful that it would make anyone change their minds on what precedence should be used to determine how the country is supposed to operate or legislate. In foreign policy matters it seems that the idea is to act as the virtuous savior. In the case of Iraq, this is quite evident. In the beginning the ruse was weapons of mass destruction, by the end and currently it was to overthrow an evil dictator, to save a country from its oppressor.

It seems today that this ideology is supported by voters as evidenced in the essay “Virtue Voters”, by Peter Augustine Lawler, which appeared in the journal Society in its May/June 2005 issue. As the title suggests, Lawler argues the current position of voters; they want a virtuous nation. His essay covers several facets of why, as he calls them, “virtue voters” voted for President Bush (1). The whole paper boils down to the idea that American’s want a virtuous nation. The idea is that we should legally live virtuously, or as Lawler puts it “to live well by living responsibly” or “[not] simply as a free individual” (1). He attempts to moderate his arguments by discussing points about liberals. He says that voters do not like how leftish liberals have become. He points to how liberals ignore their duty and let the courts decide legislation. Also, Lawler thinks that “virtue voters” are more moderate than they are conservative. He implies that “virtue voters” want to ward off the ultra libertarianism, to avoid the “birth dearth” and, ultimately, to avoid the ungodliness of Europe (4).

Here it can be argued that when one side goes too far in one direction the people tug it back toward the center. However, because of the scare the United States is giving the rest of the world with its full force jerk to the right, the United States has strained relations with other nations. This is because of the ideology of “Virtue Voters” and the platforms they vote for. The result will likely be that the rest of the world will be less forgiving of extreme action by the United States, such as the attack on Iraq and the probable attack on Iran. The next two essays show how these “virtue voters” have been swayed and how, what shall be called, the Moralist/Christian Right rose to the prominence it holds today.

In this essay, “Globalisation, theocracy and the new fascism: the US Right’s rise to power,” the authors, Carl Davidson and Jerry Harris, argue that the Religious/Moral Right has effectively taken control of the Republican Party. They point out that the Right has followed a particular strategy and taken steps to gradually motivate the culture toward its point of view. The points and ideas presented provide a profound insight of the works and methods of religious influence on society and politics. The authors give an outline that is taken from Antonio Gramsci, an Italian communist theoretician of the 1920’s and early 1930’s. His ideas were originally presented as a means to further the communist ideology and movement. Since those days several theorists and political practioners have adopted it as a method to gain influence over society, culture and politics.

Here is the Antonio Gramsci’s outline mentioned: 1) “Identify the main enemy,” 2) “Build counter-theory,” 3) “Build mass communications,” 4) “Build base communities,” 5) “Build the counter-hegemonic bloc,” 6) “Take power in government,” and 7) “Radical reconstruction of society.” In the third part, the building of mass communications, Davidson and Harris provide a long list of personalities: Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage for the “New Right” representation. For the “Christian Right” we have Pat Robertson with his Christian Broadcasting Network, James Dobson and his radio show Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council (Davidson and Harris 7). In part five, the building of base communities, we find the grass roots aspect. Get into the homes, hearts and minds of the voters. The Moralist/Christian Right did this in the churches and through alliances such as the Christian Coalition. The most notable of these alliances would be The National Association of Evangelicals who, according to Davidson and Harris, encompasses some 45,000 churches and 30 million church goers. In part six we have the scariest part yet, take power in government. Davidson and Harris say that this has been done by taking over the GOP, or Republican Party. Here is what they quoted from James Dobson in a NPR appearance: “If they get disinterested in the values of the people who put them in office as they have done in the past, if that happens again, I believe the Republican Party will pay an enormous price in four years and maybe two” (8). Davidson and Harris have a couple more quotes from Dobson as well, but this one summed up the argument well enough. The Moralist/Christian Right has effectively taken over one of our nation’s political parties, or so they think.

Moving on to point seven we have the radical reconstruction of society. This one, at least how Davidson and Harrison view it, is the end result of point six. They believe that this is likely to come about from the changing of the constitution and law. We have already seen an attempt at this with President Bush’s move to amend the constitution to defend marriage and outlaw homosexual union. Now it should be noted, in the interest of fairness, that the left has used this same scheme through the use of arts, broadcast and print communication, and through the education systems. But they have become soft in its use, there by, giving the right its chance to use it and succeed.

This success is evident in the voter turn out and victory of President George W. Bush. The Economist article “The Triumph of the Religious Right,” which was in the November 13^th, 2004 issue, provides the details of the election and the demographics but first a summation the article. It discusses how the left-wing was shocked by the moralist/Christian right’s ability to gain enough votes to decide the election. It also discusses the figures of moralists/Christians and points out they are not in fact a majority. Following this it provides evidence of how evangelical, moralist, and Christian groups are trying to influence policy and law.

The voting statistics show that the moralists accounted for only 22% of the total voter turnout (2), which is down from 40% in 1996 and 35% in 2004 (2). The Economist argues that during past elections there wasn’t a recession or the war on terrorism to divide voters’ attention (2). But it still says that “it was remarkable [that] a fifth of voters were still concerned about moral maters” (2). At the end Economist provides a chart of opinions taken from different religious orders. This chart has 7 points. The points that are particular to this paper are
“religion is important to political thinking, and Organized religious groups should stay out of politics” (6). The average percentage in support of “religion is important to political thinking” is 40% with “Evangelical Protestants, Traditionalist” leading with 81%; for the point “Organized religious groups should stay out of politics” the average was 45%; Evangelical traditionalists bring up the rear at 25%. Overall, this suggests that Evangelical Christians, at least those leaning to tradition, think they should be involved and have religion being the primary motivator for legislation. This makes one ask the question: Where will it lead too?

All of the Christian/Moralist ideas suggest a path of clear and present danger to the ideas of the United States Founders and the ideas of Enlightenment. Once it is understood that the Right has captured a greater share of the culture of the United States, this is evident. It is obvious when one looks back at history to the days of Cesar. Cesar thought of himself as a god, and later as the Manager of God’s creation. He mandated that all of his subjects had to be Christian and Catholic. Throughout the middle ages, the same story if the king, queen or emperor was catholic then so were his or her realm and subjects. Following this history has shown that theocracy’s, oligarchies, and dictatorships cause upheaval and crusades. In effect if our country continues down the path it is on it is not too far a stretch of the mind to conclude that the United States will become an imperialistic theocracy. In effect it always has, at least, been an imperialistic nation. We took land from the Native Americans, from Mexico. Through the various wars we have gained territories including parts the Philippines, and Puerto Rico. In other parts of the world we have gained influence over several third world countries through economic means and military actions.

It can, now, be difficult to argue that the United States has no imperial ambition. The only way to think it doesn’t is to cut one’s self off from any mode of independent thought. For the side of theocracy, we are at a cross roads. Several paths appear to be before the United States. It can go forward and become a completely Christian theocracy, go slightly to the right and become a virtuous oligarchy; go slightly left and become what one could describe as the attitude of the 1960’s and 1970’s, the moderation of morals and liberties, or turn to the immediate left and become a secular nation where religion is something you don’t publicly announce.

However, in the essay “The New-Time Religion” by Jonah Goldberg in the May 23^rd 2005 issue of the National Review, a new argument can be found. Goldberg brings in a counter point to the religious right’s rise to power. He argues that liberalism has become like a religion and that the left has nothing more to say because all of the good ideas have already been spoken of. Therefore, liberals are left with nothing to forward now, thus turning into a group that just repeats old rhetoric. He argues that conservatives still have plenty of good ideas that they can bring forth and continue to debate and discuss. This piece is used to show how both sides are trying to ‘one up’ each other and to bring in the perspective that religious ideas and thoughts break through in just about all aspects of American culture.

Goldberg brings up an interesting point when it comes to who is calling whom a religious zealot or moralist. When listening to liberals talk we do hear much that is repetitive and very little of anything new. Once, liberals were the creative thinkers, the ones to bring new ideas to the table. Now, they are purely reactionary. No one seems to find something new or a different perspective to any problem or question that comes about. It is difficult to avoid thinking that liberals are original. It can also be argued that liberals are falling into the rut of classicism; Retelling the same story over and over, studying only one line of thought. There hasn’t been a new theory, idea or platform in decades that hasn’t been in reaction to the conservative side of the house. So, now, we have a state that is due for a revolution.

We need new thinkers and moderates. People, who can think about a problem from multiple angles, think up solutions for each angle and take the best average between them. In no way can the United States function under mob rule or minority rule. It has to appease both sides but also remain tough on points that neither side can agree on. That is part of the history of the Constitution. It came because of Mobs of debtors running on the Continental Congress demanding something be done to limit or put creditors at bay. The economy was still trying to come up after the Revolutionary War and the States still had most of the power. The leaders of most states were also the creditors and they weren’t about to make any kind of settlement. In the end, there was almost a second revolution, hence the secret meetings to draft the Constitution.

In the end, it may be best to hold another Constitutional Convention and redraft it to fit with modern ideals and language. If it is to be considered living document, then lets bring it out of its infancy and take to at least the level of a fourth grader. It is time to establish guidelines and rules based on what the United States has gone through in its 217 years of life.

Where Did They Come From?

I was sitting around one day watching the news, looking through websites and thinking about the Idaho Legislature’s recent attempt to define marriage and ultimately ban gay marriage. I asked this question: How does our government rule or vote; on a religious or a civil basis? I asked this because everything I was hearing or reading about their arguments had a religious overtone or were blatantly religious. Since this is an issue that struck really close to home I said “hey lets see what I can find.” I found almost too much material; but I didn’t want to go with just the overall aspect of religion in government, primarily because this paper would end up being a book, so I tried to find articles that discussed the top issues where religion is playing a big part.

I found three articles, two of them are six pages long, and it meant a lot of reading. But I found a lot of interesting things in them. They both appeare in the Economist. “The Triumph of the Religious Right” (Econ A) appeared on November 11^th, 2004 and “You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” (Econ B) appeared on June 25^th, 2005. The third article I found is much shorter, just two pages, and appeared in Mother Jones (M. Jones) under the title “The Great Debate of Our Season” in the December 2005 issue. All three of these articles discuss how Christians are influencing Federal and State level government.

“The Triumph of the Religious Right” presents data from the 2004 Presidential Election concerning the Christian vote. It is introduced by a quote from “A Confederacy of Dunces” written by John Kennedy Toole. The quote talks about a Presidential candidate that goes to a gay party and finds a wrestler teaching judo holds to the attendees. After seeing one of the demonstrations the candidate remarks ‘I can see that we’re going to have a great deal of trouble capturing the conservative rural red-neck Calvinist vote”(Econ A 2). This leads to the point the article makes “the conservative rural red-neck Calvinist vote has captured America” (Econ A 2) The next paragraph mentions the how the left-wing was “dismayed” by the Christian right’s ability to gain enough votes to decide the election (Econ A 2). The article then goes on to discuss how different America and Europe are when it comes to religion and government. It moves into the argument that the moralists/Christians were not in fact a majority, presenting figures and polling information. Following the poll figures, the discussion turns to associations and the leaders of the evangelical, moralist, Christian groups that are trying to influence policy and law. After the associations, the discussion goes into these groups and the religious leadership, which the article says is not there (Econ A 3-4). The religious right as a whole operates in a disjointed, grassroots fashion. Then the article turns back to presidential elections and how the religious/moralist right will influence the President’s actions and policies. From there the article pretty much stays with political influence and discusses various points where the religious/moral right would support some liberal ideas and policies.

After reading this article I found my self curious to know why so many voted for Mr. Bush. I also became concerned by the fact that such a majority of people in this country knowing Mr. Bush’s allegiances could support such narrow minded views and limited speaking ability. I am a tolerant person. I style myself as a moderate because I believe in balance. I do not understand why people have to be extreme in matters that can easily be compromised on. Gay marriage for one, I can agree that marriage is a religious institution, which, therefore, should not be something the government can get involved with, but since it is traditionally considered a social and mainstream thing I won’t argue that point. What I would ask is that if marriage is religious and socially accepted as between a man and a woman, why then can’t the government leave marriage to the church and balance things making everything in a marital fashion a civil union in the law’s eyes? This article blabs on about the numbers and the general complaint of many about how religion is getting mixed up in politics and showing that there isn’t a majority with the religious right.

Despite that these two articles came from the same source the next one presents a better argument as far as the role of religion in politics.

“You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet” (Econ B) is the second Economist article; it discusses several aspects of the religious right’s growth and power base. The article opens with the point that President Bush affirms that his values are the same as those of the religious right. The next paragraph takes a wide swing to point out that in the 1960’s the government was primarily secular and now is swinging toward what can be called a “theocracy” (Econ B 2). However, the rise in the involvement of the religious right in government and the increase in bitter partisanship are connected, according to John Danforth (Econ B 2). This trend of bitter partisanship is likely to continue and so is the continuation of the religious influence on national policy. To this point we have only seen “skirmishes” but with the passing of time the battle will heat up (Econ B 2). Following this introduction is a section titled “In the Beginning” that discusses how the religious right is stepping into the lime light. The first paragraph of this section presents some curious numbers which show that 75% of the population used to consider themselves as strongly religious compared to today’s 60%. The factor that is contributed to the change is the shift in religious demographics; liberal churches are declining while the conservative churches are gaining. However, the part that makes the religious right so strong is their “confidence” (Econ B 2). Another factor that is causing this change is that the Born-again Christians are no longer just “rural hicks” but becoming increasingly “Ivy League” (Econ B 2). After making this point it moves to show that not all of the religious right is white, it points out that there are significant numbers of other ethnicities joining the right. Also, the right isn’t just made up of evangelicals, but also Catholics and Orthodox Jews. The next section is titled “The power of organization”. It starts off with the argument that some of the Christian rights’ arguments are correct, one that is given concerns “’liberal activist judges’ exceeding their mandate” (Econ B 3). The section goes on to say that these liberal judges have provoked the religious right to pull together. The discussion then moves into how the right has organized and what they are doing. Some of the groups have formed political action committees and started dumping lots of money into the political system (Econ B 3). However, despite the right’s gaining influence, they are compromising on some issues because of public opinion. The section ends with the discussion of the right’s co-ordination efforts. Some have built non-profit organizations such as “The Arlington Group” which is a coalition of some 60 pro-family groups” (Econ B 3). Following this is a section titled “Can’t always get what you want?” that discusses how the right still represents a minority point of view and the one pitfall point the right has. “Some leaders of the religious right think they are far more powerful than they actually are” (Econ B 4). Even though the right has gained much influence the administration doesn’t have to follow each step in their dance but seems to still follow the right’s band. The administration gets away with this because of the broad power base that the local groups provide and the need to avoid alienating the leftish voters. Another limiting point for the right is public opinion. However, the right does seem to have support on at least one issue, but this support is limited, gay marriage. The people support it at state level but don’t really like the idea of “changing the constitution” (Econ B 4). Some of the factors that are guiding and tempering the right’s movements are things like young members with more liberal ideas and scandal. However, something that may give a kick to the right’s momentum is the courts; should the courts overturn any of the current gay amendments and statutes. This isn’t too likely because the courts are gaining younger and more conservative appointees, thus giving a long run for conservatism. Coming up after all of that is the mirror argument that the right could over-reach. But, because of the right’s movement into the lime light they have all but forced the left to get religious because of the publics’ apparent view that religion is less “weird” than secular (Econ B 5).

What caught me in this article is the discussion of how the right isn’t that big, numbers wise. Just as presented in the first article, “The Triumph of the religious right,” evangelicals and other traditional Christians are actually a minority group. These two articles just help to support a general theory simply put is thus “the loudest voice is the one that is heard.” This really scares me because I fall into a minority that is pretty loud but isn’t being heard so well. I think that is contributing to the general defeatist attitude that I am seeing and hearing amongst my friends and associates. I can understand their point of view because of how overwhelming the right wing seems to be. Probably the most disturbing piece from this article would be that the public seems to now view that religion is less weird than secular (Econ B 5). How, when and why did this happen? I guess I will have to do some more looking into this.

This next essay shows that our government was not founded on religion.

“The Great Debate of Our Season” opens with a statement from the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” (M. Jones 1); which has been considered the “Founding Fathers’” statement of the “role of religion in our government” (M. Jones 1). The article talks about how religion has always been a part of this country and an aspect of its leaders but that even though a lot of the language of the time had religious overtones the state was not governing by religious motivation. Mother Jones discusses the history of the religious movement. The discussion starts with how the 19^th Century evangelicals lobbied for a secular government to protect them from an overwhelming majority of traditional groups. The opposition felt that secularism in government was a flaw rather than a benefit. Mother Jones believes that these groups are now gaining ground. This article argues that they gained this ground by quietly campaigning through networks of “political pulpits, media outlets, funding organs, and think tanks” (M. Jones 2).

From this article I gather that my main theory is correct. That theory is this: religion has been making a major effort, though relatively quiet, to influence government. The Mother Jones article shows something of a time line of this action. However, I would have to say that religion hasn’t just worked on influencing the governance of the country but of society. In Mother Jones’ article an inference can be made that they are also influencing society at the ground level to accept its influence in the management of the country and society. The resulting culture, in my opinion, is one that is closed minded. In the end I see a revolution of sorts coming.

The amount of pressure being placed on major social things such as abortion and “gay rights,” among some of the more controversial aspects, is growing to the blowing point. Eventually something will break and bring about some major changes. I would hope and generally think that people will resist some of this pressure but I doubt the resistance will be strong enough to block it from some violent reaction. Though, the form of violence that comes, I am not sure. I hope it will be more of a rhetorical debate. However, at this moment I don’t really know what to think for sure. I plan to do a lot of research on this subject in the future and use it for my research paper.