Mr. Romney, Where’s Your DEATH Certificate?

/1 Comment/in , , , , , , , /by

Mitt Romney Dead?While researching Mitt Romney’s family history for a future post, I happened upon this most interesting thing today. According to Mitt’s listing at the Ancestry.com, Willard Mitt Romney died about 2005!

So, consider me a “Deather!” Mitt, I demand to see your death certificate!

Now, in line with a good conspiracy, I expect this information to be scrubbed of all evidence quickly. But, I’ve got the proof! It’s right there in my screen capture. Mitt Romney is dead!

Update! @ 9:50 am

In attempting to verify this, I went to the Mormon church owned familysearch.org. There’s no record of Willard Mitt Romney there at all! It’s all been scrubbed! So, while I’m not naive enough to present the conspiracy that Mr. Romney NEVER existed, I do wonder WHAT the LDS Church is hiding!

Mr. Romney, just produce your death certificate!

Want Something More Substantial?

How To Interview Mitt Romney About Racism

How To Interview Mitt Romney About Sexism

Ecstasy

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Bad thinking leads to bad results.

Previously, I’ve stated that my primary purpose in life is to achieve joy.

In the foundational post on this blog, I state:

 I choose joy as the primary purpose of my life. I specifically choose the word joy instead of other similar words such as happiness. In my usage of joy, I mean something more enduring than simple pleasure.

My Definition of Joy: An enduring sense of contentment, measured not in each moment, but as a dynamic summation of experience. The constituent parts of joy include instances of happiness, sorrow, pleasure and pain, boredom, excitement, leisure and work. Joy is the result of life well-lived, adjusted by experience to achieve a net-positive sentiment. It is an expression of my desire.

Scratch that. It has not produced desirable results.

The Poverty of Joy

Recent events have caused me to stop and measure how well I am achieving that goal. In the process of asking this question, I’ve spent time analyzing the target itself. Is joy the right focus?

My experience over the past several years leads me to conclude that aiming for joy has left me unfulfilled, protective of small success, and fearful of loss.

As I’ve defined it and subsequently lived it, I’ve come to understand that a pursuit of joy is really a pursuit of safety. It is cautious and conservative. It seeks merely to sustain a net positive result. It is a guard against failure rather than a celebration of success. It is small.

100%

My lived experience of 51% joy and 49% pain does not feel prosperous. Why should it? 51% to 49% is within any reasonable margin of error, and so, half my life is lived in pain. I’ve been looking for a 2% margin of victory. Fail.

Inherent in my view has been a fight against scarcity, the feeling that I am guarding against lack and loss. Fighting off death. Building barricades. At war with sadness. I’ve created space for lack and sorrow, built it right into my view of my life and made it a partner in my pursuit. I’ve given platform to that which I claim not to want.

Creation

Sustainability is inherently conservative, and thus, inherently regressive. An attempt to conserve will always breed loss. Conservation seeks to maintain the status quo, an attempt to hold on to that which we have is protective, not creative.

We cannot be creative with that which already exists. Creation must involve the new, that which we dream of but don’t yet experience. The Universe is expanding, and therefore, conservation will always fall short of a changing reality.

And, what is the emotion of creation?

Ecstasy

I will now replace my pursuit of joy with a pursuit of ecstasy.

The Death Penalty and Human Error

/1 Comment/in , , , , /by

“The death penalty is a human system created by human beings, run by human beings. That means there is human error built into it. A human system is not capable of perfection. Government does nothing flawlessly. Government cannot flawlessly kill people. If you give government the power to kill people, you are giving government the power to make mistakes killing people, and government will make those mistakes. You couldn’t stop Troy Davis’ execution by just protesting Troy Davis’ execution. The only way to stop Troy Davis’ execution is to stop all executions.” – Lawrence O’Donnell

How To Interview Mitt Romney About Sexism

/5 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Ask: Could a woman ever be appointed to lead your religion? Should they?

Mitt Romney is sexist. He adheres to a philosophy, Mormonism, which denies women equal rights. Mormon women are not allowed to hold leadership positions within the church and forbidden ordination into the priesthood.

Similarly, before 1978, the Mormon church did not allow black men to hold the priesthood. Had they not changed that position, Mitt Romney would have no chance to run for President; he’d rightly be branded as racist; that he’s not being asked to reconcile his sexism in a similar fashion reveals a troubling double standard.

Sexism isn’t sexy, it appears. Racism? That’s hot. Homophobia? Get a room. However, when it comes to the most dominant form of inequality, many seem complacent.

The foundational Mormon treatise “The Family, A Proclamation To The World” holds:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children.

Mitt Romney’s vision of a healthy society puts men in the boardroom and women in the bedroom

Here’s how the Mormon Church practices this: Women are not allowed to hold the priesthood. Women are not allowed to hold any position of leadership over men. Even within the Mormon organization for women, they are not allowed to set their own budgets or to structure their own teaching materials. Women are not allowed to bless their babies, or even to hold their babies while they are being blessed.

Read more

Post-Atheist: Moving Beyond Belief

/9 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Moses was asking the wrong questions

Summary

Asking whether one believes in God is a nonsensical, and ultimately, meaningless question. One would not ask “Do you believe in King?” God, like King, is a title, a political office. What matters is not belief in the existence of a being who claims the title, but rather, agreement with the political philosophy of any being who would assert power over us.

What is Post-Atheism?

I’ve coined the term Post-Atheist to convey moving beyond our current understanding of the title of god and our relationship to it. The common questions about god are nonsensical (do you believe) and impossible for finite beings to rationally consider (e.g. debating the attributes of god). Further, belief in a being is a simplistic calculation; more important is agreement with that being on fundamental governing principles.

Would the existence of an all-powerful creator automatically bestow a right to authoritarian rule? Of course not, just as my power to create a child does not bestow upon me a moral right to authoritarian rule.

Rather than our being defined by a best-guess at the existence of a powerful being (atheist, agnostic, believer), it is more important to define what is and is not acceptable behavior from any being who would seek our participation in their community.

Do you believe in God?

This question is nonsensical.

“God” is a title. Titles are descriptive appellations which convey rank, office, or status. For example, “king” is the title of a person holding a political office. A king may also have a personal name; e.g, King George.

Like king, god is a title. Defined generally as “the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe,”1 the title of god conveys rank, office and status.

Read more

The Violence of Lines

/0 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

“When people began living in settled agricultural communities, social reality shifted deeply and irrevocably. Suddenly it became crucially important to know where your field ended and your neighbor’s began. — Christopher Ryan, Ph.D. and Cacilda Jethá, M.D. in Sex At Dawn”

Whosoever Looketh On A Woman

As we closed our eyes for the congregational prayer, I could feel the closeness of her skin, electricity arcing as from one lead to another. Right hand folded tightly under left arm, index finger extended slightly. A hoped for inadvertent touch.

That act, however innocent it may seem, had the potential to cost me everything.

Three weeks previous, my mission companion and I were shopping at Sears in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico. I needed another white short-sleeved shirt, having lost one to bicycle grease.

As I turned to the counter, a moment cliches are made of: Eyes locked, time slowed. She smiled, I blushed.

It was easy to imagine that I had never seen a more beautiful woman.

In the history of pick up lines, this had to be among the worst: “Have you ever heard of the Book of Mormon?” I haltingly stammered, words fighting others I’d have preferred.

Read more

Science As A Human Right: Data-driven Governance

/6 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

Summary

To match the ideals outlined in the U.S. Constitution, we must define and measure our values.

We have already defined our values. We do not yet measure outcomes.

Science is the only tool capable of abstracting human experience over populations, allowing us to know whether we are achieving our goals.

By choosing not to measure, we violate basic human rights and empower the strong over the weak, the majority over the minority. This threatens to make meaningless our chosen values.

Therefore, Science should be a human right.

Government and The Moral Landscape

Sam Harris recently published a controversial book titled The Moral Landscape, wherein he argues that science can answer moral questions:

Questions about value—about meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose—are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures. Values, therefore, translate into facts that can be scientifically understood.

Stephen Gould provides a common dissent:

Morality is a subject for philosophers, theologians, students of the humanities, indeed for all thinking people…The factual state of the world does not teach us how we, with our powers for good and evil, should alter or preserve it in the most ethical manner.

I side with Harris.

Most criticism of his position rests in a critique of Utilitarianism; an ethical position that holds the right course of action is the one that creates “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Harris, by presenting his theory abstractly (“some science somewhere could do this”) and by responding to the abstract criticisms of his opponents, actually misses the strength of his argument when applied to practical use.

What else are we doing than safeguarding the well being of individuals when we form governments?

Harris’ theory can be grounded in Governance. U.S. Democracy, for example, is functionally utilitarian.

What else are we doing than safeguarding the well being of individuals when we form governments? In this light, arguments about whether we can define and measure moral positions are nonsense; we’ve been attempting to do so since the beginning of recorded history. We’ve just been doing it poorly.

If, as Harris’ opponents argue, this endeavor is impossible, then we should immediately dispense attempts to define communal values and form governments.

Read more

Lakoff & Obama: The Country We Believe In

/0 Comments/in , , , , /by

George Lakoff suggests that Obama’s April 13, 2011 speech provides a solid guide for how to talk about progressive issues:

“Last week, on April 13, 2011, President Obama gave all Democrats and all progressives a remarkable gift. Most of them barely noticed. They looked at the President’s speech as if it were only about budgetary details. But the speech went well beyond the budget. It went to the heart of progressive thought and the nature of American democracy, and it gave all progressives a model of how to think and talk about every issue.”

I’ve recently been working through George Lakoff’s “Moral Politics” and am persuaded that his research is vital to the future of rational politics.

Take the time to watch the speech, and then let’s discuss in more detail.

How To Interview Mitt Romney About Racism

/11 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Summary

Ask: Was the Mormon Church wrong to deny priesthood to black members before 1978?

The official policy of the LDS Church is that the racist practice was commanded by God, and not a result of racism among its leadership.

The Church has never apologized for the practice nor specifically repudiated racist teachings by LDS prophets.

Mitt Romney is skilled at evading this point, aided by general misunderstanding of the LDS Church.

He should be able to unequivocally denounce the racism of his church and of his past. He hasn’t.

During his 2008 campaign, Mitt Romney appeared on Meet The Press with Tim Russert. This specific question arose, and Russert came close to getting it right. Watch the clip:

At the end of that section, Russert asked:

“But it was wrong for your faith to [deny priesthood to blacks]?”

Romney responded:

“I’ve told you exactly where I stand. My view is there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.”

What’s critical here is to note what Romney did not say; Russert asked “was it wrong?” Romney evaded. No apology. No repudiation of the Church or its racist practice.

Earlier in the interview, Romney states:

“I’m very proud of my faith, and of the faith of my fathers. And I certainly believe it is a faith, uh, well it’s True and I love my faith. And I’m not going to distance myself in any way from my faith.”

He will not separate his position and the position of the Church. The church has not apologized for the racist practice, nor will he.
Read more

David Frum and the Failure of Conservatism

/5 Comments/in , , , , , , /by

Summary

David Frum reversed his position on gay marriage. Conservatives would have you believe that the case for or against it requires a review of evidence.

In framing his reversal this way, he’s misrepresenting his previous position, and glossing over the deeper question: is conservatism capable of producing coherent policies in a nation whose foundational values include equality, justice, and union?

Conservatism has been wrong on the most fundamental questions of human rights. The questions of slavery, women’s right to vote and interracial marriage were not decided by weighing evidence, and neither is the question of gay marriage.

David Frum, a conservative columnist, recently admitted “I Was Wrong About Same-Sex Marriage.”

In linking to his article on my facebook page, I stated:

“Oops! David Frum tries to backpedal his previous opposition to gay marriage. What he doesn’t understand is that this is an indictment not just of his previous position, but of conservatism generally.”

A friend asked about my strategy of chastising a person who has come to agree with me on one of my core issues. “Why not just pat him on the back and welcome him into the tent?”

David Frum didn’t invent his opposition to gay marriage ex nihilo; his core principle, conservatism, predictably led him to make this fundamental mistake.

In his reversal, Mr. Frum states:

“…the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.”

Frum’s conservatism seems to suggest an evidence-based requirement of change, and yet his position is not now nor ever was informed by evidence.

In his former arguments, Mr. Frum wasn’t asking that gay marriage be tested; quite the opposite. He and most other conservatives have viciously fought any attempt to grant rights to homosexuals.

To claim now that gay marriage has been tested and found innocuous is to subtly, but importantly, misrepresent the prior position. What is more important, it’s an attempt to ignore the core problem, which is the philosophy of conservatism.

Read more

Progress is Winning

/0 Comments/in , /by

Conservatism is the anchor on the ship of progress.

Why I Choose To Be Progressive

/2 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Summary

My theory of Progressivism holds that knowledge improves over time, allowing us to better understand ourselves and our environment. Knowledge is advanced by individuals through both free and systemic inquiry. I encourage change through the application of better knowledge, resulting in a more perfect union.

My theory of Conservatism, by contrast, places value on past knowledge, emphasizing culture, history and authority (god, religion) as the source of knowledge. Conservatism suggests the status quo has been earned, and change should be resisted. It seeks to maintain our union as a function of what is or was, rather than what might be.

Human nature is both progressive and conservative. Ours is a story of incredible progress tempered by an appeal to conservation. We hope for that which can be, but hold tight to that which is.

We infrequently seek to understand the philosophical rationale for our actions, most often choosing positions based in a near-term calculus of that which we desire.

This article is meant to represent my current thinking on my own political philosophy. I recognize the choices I make, that my position is not mandated by facts, but rooted in desire.

We hold the power to choose our path, or to have our path chosen for us. I choose to value progress over conservation.
Read more

Foundational Values: A More Perfect Union

/2 Comments/in , , , , /by

Summary

The United States has a single foundation: The Constitution. It outlines our legally shared values:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Any appeal to principles not contained herein are not shared values. For example, we are not a biblical nation. We are a Constitutional nation. Argumentation of law must only appeal to legally shared values.

During each political season, we are inundated with campaign slogans and rhetoric which appeal to foundational American values. We hear reference to our being a Judeo-Christian nation, appeals to biblical authority, nostalgic recounting of the founding fathers’ personal beliefs, or even the eulogizing of small-town American values. The values of some Americans are identified as real, while others are demonized as un-American.

From this basis of branding values, many attempt to both discredit the ideas of others and to lend authority to their own. Their position is necessary, they’ll argue, given the core values they’ve defined.

The problem? Frequently these defined foundational values are not legitimately shared. Agreeing to a shared set of values is fundamental to any productive argument. Discussion of a topic, absent agreement on the foundational values, is most often pointless.

Imagine a bicycle built for two; if the riders don’t agree on the purpose or direction of travel, their odds of arriving at a mutually acceptable place is unlikely. If one rider attempts to define his own values as universal, in this example by seizing the front seat of the bicycle, they’ll simply be imposing their non-shared value on the other. Their values, then, are no longer shared, they’re authoritarian; one party attempting to force their values on the other.

Read more

Foundational Values: Personal

/3 Comments/in , , , , /by
Anselm Kiefer, Stars

Anselm Kiefer, Stars

My Chosen Purpose

  • My primary purpose is joy.
  • My secondary purpose is pursuit of knowledge.

My Chosen Faith

  • I choose faith in free will, in my ability to transcend those forces that limit me.

My Chosen Community

  • I choose faith in humanity.
  • I choose faith in the equality of individuals
  • I choose faith in human rights which exist prior to and apart from communal law.
  • I choose faith in democratic pluralism.

Joy

I choose joy as the primary purpose of my life. I specifically choose the word joy instead of other similar words such as happiness. In my usage of joy, I mean something more enduring than simple pleasure.

My Definition of Joy: An enduring sense of contentment, measured not in each moment, but as a dynamic summation of experience. The constituent parts of joy include instances of happiness, sorrow, pleasure and pain, boredom, excitement, leisure and work. Joy is the result of life well-lived, adjusted by experience to achieve a net-positive sentiment. It is an expression of my desire.

Read more

Racism and the LDS Church. The Mormons!

/in , , /by

This is an issue that just won’t go away, darn it! That’s frustrating to those mormons who don’t like the implications of racism in past (and current!) prophets of the LDS church. The LDS Church, in 1978, became the last major religion to fully integrate all races into it’s priesthood (though, still, women are left out).

The tactic taken by the Church over the past few years has been to remain silent on the racist priesthood ban for black members. Liberal mormons think that this speaks well on the issue; that the silence equals some semblance of admission of wrongdoing. Silence rarely means that, in any context, and especially in matters of church doctrine and official positions. More popularly, silence equals complicity.

So, why bring this up now? Well, in 2003, I was involved in some online discussions concerning this topic, and in the course of my research, I wrote some letters to LDS Public Affairs, and received some interesting responses from the Church. Those letters have been circulated around the net since, and I get occasional requests for copies of the letters. To make it easy, I’m posting copies of the letters here, on my blog, for all to see, copy and distribute. I only ask that you reference this post if you use the letters.

So, here they are:

My Original Letter to LDS Public Affairs, Aug. 4, 2003
Response from LDS Public Affairs, Aug. 14, 2003
Response “Envelope” from LDS Public Affairs
My follow-up letter
The follow-up response
The follow-up envelope

The primary question that I was teasing out in these letters was the question of attribution of the source of the racist ban. Is it the position of the LDS Church that this racist policy has its origin with God or fallible men? The historical position of the LDS Church has always been that the source of the racist ban was with God. And, my 2003 letters show that the LDS Church, still, maintains that position.

As I was taught clearly in LDS Sunday School, the first step to repentance is confession of guilt. I’m still waiting for the LDS Church to begin the process of repenting. By remaining silent, by maintaining the position that God is the source of the racist ban, mormon’s are still teaching racist doctrines to their membership, still contributing in a material way to racism within the world.

In other words, according to them, mormons aren’t racist, God is!

22 Years, 9 Months, and 28 Days…

/in , /by

That’s how much time passed between Rosa Park’s refusal to give up her seat and the LDS Church’s decision to allow Blacks (men only, still) to hold the priesthood.

Lest we forget what the fruits really are.

What is an LDS Feminist?

/in , /by

In relation to my recent entry LDS Male Feminists? Where your heart lies… I have been asked to define what a feminist is.

fem·i·nist
A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.

fem·i·nism
Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes.
The movement organized around this belief.

The relevant question is “can an active Mormon (Latter-day Saint) consider themselves a feminist?” In most cases, I believe the answer is no; at the very least, such a label would be disingenuous. I think it is possible to simultaneously be a feminist and a member of the LDS Church, but I have never met anyone who I think fits the definition as I have it in mind. What’s more, I’m confident that such a person would find their membership quickly revoked if they held true to their professed beliefs in feminism and, more importantly, acted upon those beliefs.

In short, I think a feminist is defined by their actions more than their stated beliefs. This follows from the mantra “if you want to know what a person believes, watch what they do.”

In the LDS Temple Recommend Interview, members are asked the following question:

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

In essence, the LDS Church wants to know whether one supports causes or groups whose aims run counter to LDS Mormonism. Fair enough. I think that calling oneself a “feminist” requires a similar level of commitment to the ideals of feminism, and one measure of that commitment would be a denunciation of organizations that are actively fighting against feminist ideals.

The LDS Church is near the top of the list of organizations that are at war with feminist ideals. There aren’t many organizations still in existence that so obviously place women into a role of inferiority. What’s more, the LDS Church has been actively working against feminism and feminist ideals for decades.

To sum up, if one has dedicated their time, talents and energies to the furtherance of the LDS Church, then I think it disingenous to call oneself a feminist.

However, as I stated, I think it might be possible, and here are the minimum steps that I think one would need to take to qualify.

1) Stop paying tithing to the LDS Church.

The LDS Church has become a political organization that spends money to influence in the political arena. Specifically, the LDS Church has been fighting the rights of individuals, including the feminist movement and the gay-rights movement. Tithing money goes directly to support these causes, both directly and indirectly, and I think it inconsistent to financially support such an effort. At the very least, if one found this step too difficult, then one should donate at least as much money to causes of feminism as one donates to the LDS Church.

2) Don’t Participate in Patriarchal and Authoritarian Rituals

…such as the Temple ceremony. Can one claim to hold feminist ideals and yet further the acts and actions of patriarchal oppression? The two are incompatible. Specifically in the LDS Temple Ceremony, participants are asked to donate all of their time and talents to support the anti-feminist authoritarian regime. Additionally, in this ritual, men are placed in positions of superiority above women. It is inconsistent to take such an oath and yet to call oneself a feminist.

3) Renouce membership in the Priesthood

If one is male, then they should renounce membership in the Patriarchal Priesthood. That one would recognize the exclusiveness of the Club of the all-male LDS Leadership and privilege, and yet still participate in it, reveals the nature of one’s commitment to feminist ideals. It is inconsistent with feminist ideals to knowingly benefit from the very structure that subjugates women.

4) Openly espouse Feminist ideals and denounce anti-feminist ideals

In sacrament meeting talks, in bearing one’s testimony, in leading and participating in sunday school lessons, in teaching children. The feminist should speak openly and boldly for ideals of feminism, and be willing to renounce those teachings and leaders that support anti-feminist ideals. This transcends a mere statement of “doubts” towards the anti-feminist leanings of the organization, and becomes an affirmative defense of feminist ideals.

5) Spend more time arguing with Anti-feminists than with feminists

If one finds themselves engaged in battle more often with those who are fighting the anti-feminism of the LDS Church than with the authoritarian and anti-feminist movements within the Church, then the commitment to feminist ideals is suspect. If these argumenst tend to cause one to be more angry at the critics of the Church than with the actions of the Church itself, then this reveals, to me, where the fundamental commitment lies.

6) Be willing to pay a price for your convictions *

The summation of all of this is that the LDS Feminist must value feminism more than they value the perpetuation of the very institutional organization that devalues women. If one professes feminist values, and yet is unwilling to pay the price that may be required to fight for those values, then the label of “feminist” is meaningless.
This list is not exhaustive.

LDS Male Feminists; Where your heart lies…

/in , , /by

I recently attended the Sunstone conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. This conference is focused on Mormon philosophy and culture. Sunstone has become the sole alternative voice in LDS Mormonism. Amazingly, in a Church that boasts 12 million members, the largest alternate-voice-publication has a subscription base of less than 5000. The Church, obviously, has done a masterful job at squelching dissent, going so far as to state that there is no such thing as a “loyal opposition.”

As a result, those who have real and sincere questions about their faith, about the Church, must do a delicate dance to both remain loyal to the church, and yet answer their own natural and justified questions of doubt, all without appearing to oppose the church.

As an example of this, I attended a symposium panel discussion at Sunstone of so-called “male feminists” in the LDS Church, wherein they discussed their efforts to support the cause of feminism from within the Church. This is a church that openly discriminates against women, that is blatantly sexist, and that not only does not apologize for this position, but rather, lays the charge of their sexist attitudes and behavior on the shoulders of God. That’s right; the Church is not sexist, many members will respond, they are just following God’s will. Or, in my parlance, the Church is not sexist, God is.

Imagine for a moment that you were a mormon male. You are granted power and status that is denied to your wife. Imagine that your wife perceived real harm being done to her, was sincerely troubled by the actions of the Church, and confided with you regarding her discomfort.

The men on this panel, I have no doubt, are trying very hard to do the right thing, the ethical thing, the just thing. But, in the end, the overriding principle, for them, was to support the church, to remain within the fold, no matter the harm being caused to their wives, daughters, mothers, sisters, and others.

In an oligarchical organization, where all policy comes from above, where there is no formal recognition of the desires of the membership, where nobody has recourse to petition for change, the only option left, if one desires to oppose the policies of the Church, is to leave.

And yet, despite the injustice being done to the women in their lives, these men value membership in this exclusive club to a greater degree than they value justice for women. Feminists? I think these men, though of good intention and in many ways equal victims of an oppressive organization, need to reanalyze their value system, and for now, drop any pretense of calling themselves feminists.

To them I ask: what is it that you value more than justice? Fairness? Equality? What god do you worship that would have you place these ideals behind others? What are the ideals that trump these things? What message do you send to your wife, daughters, and other women when you tell them, by your actions, that you value your membership in this male-centric social club more than you value their status and the injustice that this club is perpetuating upon them?

Where is your heart? There is your treasure.

Brokeback Families…

/11 Comments/in , , , , , /by

family treeI‘ve heard several comments by conservatives, seemingly unable to directly criticize the love story that exists in the movie Brokeback Mountain, railing about the injustice of how these two men treat their undeserving wives. The pain caused to Michelle William’s character (Alma) is unmistakable, and many conservatives point the finger at Heath Ledger’s character (Ennis), and by inference, indict the entire gay community for the harm they’ve caused to the broken families they leave behind.

This, as I read between the lines, is another attempt to demonize the gay community, to blame them for the problems that exist when their relationships fall apart. The criticism isn’t without some merit, and therefore, can’t easily be dismissed. The irony, however, is that equal criticism should be aimed directly at the conservative community which has worked to demonize and dehumanize gay individuals, making it difficult for them to understand their own sexuality, and ignorantly promoting the idea that if you just act straight, you will be straight. Read more