And here we are today... (without the segregated lunch counters but instead the reality of today's almost exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities). I wish I could format and boldface your closing paragraph! How inadvertently prescient Senator Ted Kennedy was.
"Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) recognized the importance of the Fourteen…
And here we are today... (without the segregated lunch counters but instead the reality of today's almost exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities). I wish I could format and boldface your closing paragraph! How inadvertently prescient Senator Ted Kennedy was.
"Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) recognized the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality: “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”"
Janice: How right you are about Ted Kennedy. I found the following on the internet and it speaks to his beliefs and actions. “U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) took positions on many political issues throughout his career via his public comments and senatorial voting record. He was broadly liberal with regard to social issues. Kennedy favored stricter gun control, supported LGBT rights and abortion rights, advocated for universal health care, and legislated for education initiatives.”
But why, oh why, did he sign on with W’s education initiative. Still thought it was politics as usual. He didn’t live long enough to realize how wrong that was…
This is the one thing that I could never forgive Ted Kennedy for: hastening the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Of course, there wasn't any guarantee that Carter would have prevailed, but Kennedy's splitting the Democratic party in two at that time shows the danger in someone showing up who essentially takes away vital support from the leader of the party. And now, we have ANOTHER Kennedy trying to do the same thing. I like to think Edward Kennedy of the present day is loopy enough that he won't present too much of a danger to Biden, but with similar low approval numbers for Biden as Carter had then, and with The Orange Scourge lurking in the wings, ANYTHING could happen. That greatly concerns me because now the stakes are SO much higher. I greatly admired Ted Kennedy for many things, except for his error in judgement in 1980.
Wholly agree here, Bruce. Encourage every Democratic voter you can to NOT cast a vote for vaccine and epidemiological study skeptic, RFK, Jr. He won't get enough votes to win but he could peel off enough, given the chance, to help Biden lose. Just say no.
Today’s wannabe Kennedy is just a tool with illusions of grandeur. But a spoiler who can drain off Dem votes. Sadly, the Dems who post support are idealists with not a pragmatic bone
Some gop "lite" who can no long abide tfg OR disanctimonious are hopping the fence into into kennedy jr land.... smdh: why CAN"T they do the most basic THINKING???
I went to protests against Bork with my parents. In California, at least, there was a massive resistance to that nomination. I thought about that constantly when that descendant and ideological heir to slaveholders, Mitch McConnell, was busily stealing the first Supreme court seat, and people didn't rise up in mass protest. Because we didn't, McConnell and the Rs and tfg knew they could do whatever the **** they wanted.
Mitch McConnell is an evil man who wants only to win so he and the other cretins in the Republican party can wipe out anything they don't like. They don't care about the people who live here, the people who will be affected by their quest to instill racism, misogyny, and hate into law. Republicans want to rule, not govern. We are doomed if we allow this.
Let’s add some conspiracy theories here. McConnell knew that the Russians were helping Trump. Obama wanted him to let the FBI and CIA go after them, but he wouldn’t do it without bipartisan support. McConnell had no interest in stopping the Russians, or in a fair election. How much did McConnell know, and who was paying him to keep quiet?
Obama should have appointed Garland to the court on a temporary basis and told the Senate they could decide if he should stay when they got around to it. All of the three Trump/McConnell justices were raised and shaped for thirty years by the Federalist Society. Their goal has been to protect business from any limits or restrictions. They added on all this religious crap to keep the crazies in line.
Obama did not need bipartisan support to enforce US election law against foreign (Russian) interference. Essentially allowing McConnell a veto where the partisan ends the Leader sought were more important than our democracy was a serious error.
I recall reading that McConnell threatened to accuse Obama of trying to influence the election if Obama made public that the Russians were working to influence the election.
He had to be very careful--and was--and still our racist culture reacted to his presidency with a massive wave of fear and loathing. Instead of a watershed moment of racial reconciliation (a black president early in the 21st Century? Such would have been unthinkable thirty, forty years prior!), we instead have been treated to a clear view on how divided the country still is on race--and on every question of difference from straight/cis white male Christian ideals.
I really felt for him when he had to address the nation every time another black person was murdered by the police. I have no doubt he was overcome by rage and grief, but letting that any of that show in public would have been political suicide. His self-restraint was extraordinary.
Not that he is different from any other black American in that regard. Their lives depend on exercising extreme diplomacy in public. Most white Americans don't even have to think about such things beyond bare social niceties.
I loved Obama, and still have great respect for him. Nonetheless, I realized during his presidency that he only got as far as he did because he was such a likable and non-threatening black man. Brilliant, funny, compassionate, etc. – just what would make about half of white Americans comfortable with having a black person in the highest office. But that meant that his ability to anger, fight back, and strategize aggressively were compromised.
I have the sam thought about Obama. I also wonder if, during the 2007 - 2009 financial collapse, he didn’t do more for people who lost their homes because so many were Black and didn’t want to appear to be favoring Blacks. Yes, an ugly, awful thought.
McConnell did threaten Obama with that. Obama should’ve acted anyways to protect this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
An EU official anonymously stated everyone respected Obama, but nobody feared him. Both are needed to be effective, no matter how soft the velvet glove.
OAITW, the religious conservatives, especially Evangelicals, have been giving money to, and receiving money from, the secular Libertarians to support causes in which they have common interests. They are effectively joined at the hip.
Seth - good question. I don't know, exactly. I do think part of it was the utter shock of MM's blatant blocking of Merrick Garland. And I may be totally wrong but by that point it seemed President Obama had been so hammered by racist forces that he didn't feel he could lead a charge against MM. I'd like to hear what others here think.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Beer O'Kavanagh & Gorsuch should be locked in a room for a month and forced to experience the exact tsunami of death threats and racist filth the Obamas endured. Maybe, just maybe, they'd rethink their "Racism is dead" bull****.
If they had an iota of empathy, they wouldn’t be the cretins they are. Gorsuch learned his entitlement at his mother’s knee. No knowledge about the others, but society has plenty of rewards for greed and “I’ve got mine, screw you.”
Heat … kitchen. Republicans attack any Democratic President with mindless fury. Does anyone think Hillary would have faced something different if she had won in either 2008 or 2016? It’s a mistake to treat McConnell’s (or those of his caucus) machinations as legitimate. Take, for example, the gross abuse of Senate courtesies by Tuberville, please? That stunt deserves no respect at all.
Thanks Alexandra , this comment opens again the ‘where did it all begin’ premise - suggesting all is not black and white/‘it’s complicated’ and ‘by all means ‘ using that pun.
Is it possible with such answers derived ...real solutions can exact a resume of ‘path of good intents’ ie Democracy?
My baseline fears akin to the ‘rats in a cage’ theory in that too many ( crowding) create chaos, barbarism, etc. is the ‘we all just get along’ ( RK “...”) just another hippie delusion?
Many of us were disgusted but at the time, the possibility that Trump could actually be the next president hadn't fully sunk in. Yes, we were complacent in thinking it was just a delaying tactic bY MM before Hillary took over.
You're right. I certainly didn't think Trump would win and ... life hasn't been the same since for most of us. And, have you noticed the proliferation of resources (like Heather) that we are all paying attention to now? Early on when I was trying to discuss things online with "friends" and former connections and classmates, I had no comebacks for the "what-aboutisms" my former classmates in northeastern Ohio were sending my way. I was totally unprepared because I didn't really know much about history, politics, etc. and needed to educate myself. And I hadn't bothered to learn those things before. That still shocks me. I had no idea I had so many racist views and ideas, for example. I was "nice" to people. I knew Reagan was wrong but I didn't know how really, really, really wrong and evil he was until the last decade when I read up on things. I thought George Bush (the younger) was okay because he seemed so well-intentioned. Ugh. Wow. I now realize more about all of this stuff. So, if I had the views I had, it makes it easier to understand why so many others still do. For one thing, since 2015 I finally set everything else aside, and was white privileged enough to take that time and do it, to figure out who I am and what I believe and think. At no other time in my life have I been so intellectually on fire to know what's true, what's happening, why do things happen the ways that they do, etc. And I'm in my 70s. It isn't unusual for people to take so long. And some never take it on for one reason or another. Fear, anger, oppression that leaves them without recourse ...
Anyway, I am glad to be here with all of you. Thank you!
ALL the forces aligned, the racism against Obama, the mysoginy against Hilary, the hatred of the Clintons in general, coupled with McConnell’s sociopathy and Putin’s passion for America’s destruction. The cherry on top was the American Majority’s ignorance (and shocked disbelief!).
The massive ignorance and apathy about racism from those who voted for Trump (including my own family members) burst my idealistic bubble that the US was really moving forward. The election of Trump has caused a lot of pain and set back the country 40 years in my opinion. Now I’m just hoping the country regains its position as a progressive country before the end of my lifetime.
We should have protested Clarence Thomas’s appointment especially after sexually harassing a subordinate. This was while he was head of the EEOC to boot. What a disaster he has been.
There were protests—Republicans weren’t afraid of them. They expected to take the White House in 2016 with their strong bench (pre Trump), and the history that the WH most often changes parties after 8 years.
While I believe Obama was an outstanding president, his greatest failing was not using the bully pulpit and the Courts to challenge Mitch McConnell's unconstitutional usurpation of power.
The second paragraph of Section 2 of Article II does not grant the Senate the *option* to provide Advice and Consent; it mandates the Senate take such action: "...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court."
Based on the foregoing, I personally consider Gorsuch's appointment as unconstitutional and his presence on the Court illegitimate.
The Fourteenth Amendment signalled and jumpstarted the modern-day America with a strong affirmation that "all persons born or naturalized under the United States should enjoy equal protection under the laws." Since its passage, this legislation has delivered landmark cases which include overturning of ruling made in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 case (1857) and allowed everyone to apply and be a citizen of the US without the state preventing them. Native Americans were given US citizenship when Indian Citizenship Act was passed in 1924 and removed the Supreme Court decision in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) that had ruled that Native Americans who gave birth to children were not automatically US citizenship. Similarly, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment ruled that children born by non-citizen Americans belonged to Federal and State where they reside in.
Upto date, the Constitution is founded on the respect for individual rights, regardless of the state powers.
👋
If you haven't join me in my newsletter (not too late), I welcome you (for free) as I explore different issues.
It would appear that the 24 states which have banned or severely limited abortions have clearly violated the 14th Amendment. And by what right do they ban anyone from being treated by a doctor with respect to their personal decision to trans lifestyle? We must protect them by exercising our right to elect a Congress and President who will do so! It is our constitutional duty!
Jon Tester the dem from MT needs lots of support. Native MT, farmer, supports reasonable gun ownership, veterans. He is running against a well funded R from out of state, whose fb page are Freedom Caucus posts
I respectfully suggest that we all consider and contribute substantial contributions to a brilliant group of Harvard students who are registering tens of thousands of 18 to 25s and 25 to 35 women focused on protecting their abortion rights. Please go today to www.turnup.us/ and it is a tax deductible nonpartisan contribution! Much more meaningful use of your contributions than wasting it on candidates’ political ads on TV that NONE of these young people watch?
"If you know anyone who’s upset about the Supreme Court please feel free to send them this resource document with ways they can help with court reform"
The legislators in states that have "banned or severely limited abortions" believe, or claim to believe, that abortion is murder. Many of them see, or claim to see, abortion as comparable to slavery, as an evil that must be eradicated -- and themselves in the position of the pre-Civil War abolitionists.
They are not opposed to other forms of murder, i.e. capital punishment, guns for all, violating the civil rights of LGBTQi+ that have led to suicides in some cases. Their hypocrisy is flashing mega watts!
They may see themselves that way but they are wrong. And they have learned nothing of our history, of the New Testament, of the Enlightenment and those legislators are mostly men. Their religiosity stops at my nose. Those men should just never have an abortion !
It's often difficult for me to appreciate that with very, very few exceptions, everyone in this discussion is coming from a place of righteousness. And very, very few are willing to be wrong.
Curiously, which of the things do you believe are righteously wrong? Transitioning from one gender to another? Abortion? Native American rights? Women’s equality? Granting same sex marriages?
Righteousness itself is somewhat wrong I find. Are those you disagree with or who have no faith unrighteous? People who have no announced faith can also be moral ethical human beings. Discuss!!
(And Ally, there's no need to pick an argument. Each of those topics is both simple in theory, very complicated in application. Would you like to choose one to discuss?)
The last one I confronted was the notion that pleasure/reward somehow "balances out" pain/punishment. It's taken me a while to realize that they operate quite independently.
What's wrong with righteousness, a virtue and characteristic of the wise? Perhaps you are using the term to call out our smugness or unfounded certainty or ignorance or shallow knowledge in the name of righteousness. Enlightening. Having been married for nearly 60 years, I find I no longer require full knowledge or evidence sufficient to apply my probative skills to change my mind or correct a point of view that lacks legs, so to speak. We may be of similar minds, but I find a lot of growth among the correspondents to the Letter From An American. Sometime growth doesn't require publicly stating having been wrong, but rather see shifts in responses and conversation. I find that civil.
Agreed on all counts, with the caveat that it seems difficult for an individual to recognize the difference, in themselves, between righteousness, a virtue and characteristic of the wise, and self-righteousness, a fear-driven bulwark guarding ignorance and bigotry.
What's hard for many to believe is that it's possible to hold strong, ideally well-informed opinions and still be able to see an issue from different perspectives, including those one disagrees with. This IMO is what distinguishes most of today's Republicans from those of a couple of generations ago: they can't or won't do it. And it's not hard to see the same unwillingness or inability among many in the left of center.
I come from the other side of the big pond Dirk and don’t feel qualified to join this conversation but I can’t help feeling you are right! We do have some similarities in our own UK politics!
My wife is, at this very moment, enjoying the hospitality of relatives on your side of the pond, and I'm beginning to wish I'd joined her. Stratford-upon-Avon, lovely place. Is that near you?
Uh, would you mind finishing your sentence? It's hard to respond when I'm not sure what point you're making. But yes, provide me with sufficiently probative evidence subject to confirmation, and I will happily admit to my error and thank you for the information.
But it's to hide their real agenda, to reinstitute the "traditional family" where women are second class citizens and the man is at the head of the household making all the decisions. It's also to prevent white women from getting abortions, because of the "Replacement Theory" that POC will soon outnumber white people in the country.
I believe that it's no one's business what a person does with her own body. I'm sure I don't want the state to tell me what medical interventions I can and can't have based on their religious beliefs. Abortion is an unfortunate reality, and is for most women a really terrible choice to make and then a terrible procedure to endure. That the public believes they have a right to weigh in on this is tragic.
The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery should be used as a legal basis for the right to an abortion. Restrictions on abortion and the resulting forced pregnancies are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude: forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon.
Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves. Having a right to life does not guarantee a right to the use of another person's body -- even if one needs it for life itself. While the pregnant woman is not serving at the fetus' command -- it is the state that supplies the element of coercion -- she is nevertheless serving involuntarily for the fetus' benefit, and this is what the Court has said that the amendment forbids
'Historian Eric Foner describes the impact of the Fourteenth amendment:'
The whole question of what is citizenship, who is a citizen and what rights come along with it – that was central to the political conflict in Reconstruction. [The Reconstruction amendments] are the effort of the Republican Congress, and indeed of African Americans themselves, to put into the Constitution the basic idea of equality for all Americans. It's important to remember that ideal didn't exist before the Civil War. Remember, the Dred Scott decision, 1857, said no black person can be a citizen. Only white people can be citizens of the United States.
This was a country with strong belief in liberty but with a strong racial barrier excluding nonwhites from enjoyment of many of those liberties. And so Reconstruction is an effort to shatter those boundaries and to create a new…republic. I mean, that's why I call it the "Second Founding." It really transforms the Constitution, not just adding a few things here and there…to try to implement this principle of equal rights for all Americans.
'In 1853, Frederick Douglass delivered a speech that included his vision of birthright citizenship and the rights of African Americans. The birthright citizenship principle would later be enshrined into law with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment:'
“[B]y birth, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; within the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the facts of history; and the admission of American statesmen, we are American citizens; by the hardships and trials endured; by the courage and fidelity displayed by our ancestors in defending the liberties and in achieving the independence of our land, we are American citizens.” (FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES)
Excellent post Fern. Especially the pointer toward the importance of Frederick Douglas in all events leading to the fourteenth amendment and the role of black Americans in fostering a true Democracy.
Douglass also was the first to suggest to Lincoln the idea that by freeing the slaves he could enlarge his Union Army thereby hastening an end to the war with more victories. Of course, I don't have a quote reference but I read that fact in "The 1619 Book Project" organized and partly written by Nicole Hannah Jones. Before Douglass suggested freeing the slaves to Lincoln, it had never crossed his mind. Also, it took a while for Lincoln to agree.
Thank you for your kind words, Mike S. I believe the quote you mentioned is the one below.
'Confronting a President: Douglass and Lincoln'
'Two years into the American Civil War, Frederick Douglass was not a fan of President Abraham Lincoln. The President’s unwillingness to allow Black men in the United States military frustrated Douglass.' “We are striking the rebels with our soft white hand, when we should be striking them with the iron hand of the black man which we keep chained behind us.”
'Once Black men were permitted in the military, Douglass served as a recruiter – most notably of the 54th & 55th Massachusetts Infantry. Two of his sons – Lewis & Charles – were among the recruits. Unfair treatment of Black soldiers persuaded Mr. Douglass to halt his efforts. “When I plead for recruits, I want to do it with my heart without qualification. I cannot do that now.” White soldiers were paid more. Promotions for Black soldiers were non-existent. Black men did not receive POW protections most white men benefitted from. “I must expose wrongs and plead their cause.” Hoping to fix these wrongs, Mr. Douglass traveled to Washington hoping to meet with President Lincoln.' (NationalParksService)
There were three meetings between Fredrick Douglas and President Lincoln. You may learn about them using the link below..
Lincoln said that it was only upon Frederick Douglass' visit to the White House that he came to believe that Blacks were fully the equal of whites--that they were not an inferior race.
“[B]y birth, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; within the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the facts of history; and the admission of American statesmen, we are American citizens; by the hardships and trials endured; by the courage and fidelity displayed by our ancestors in defending the liberties and in achieving the independence of our land, we are American citizens."
Thanks for this quote, Fern, and thanks for confirming Mike’s quote. I made it a point to read Douglass’s essay on the 4th of July (although I admit, not until Thursday this year). It is a position to remember.
In 2014, strenght of the Fourteenth Amendment was tested in the Obergefell v. Hodges (June 2015) case, involving the granting the liberty of an individual to enjoy same-sex marriage just like the opposite-sex marriage. Ohio had state restrictions about same-sex marriage, but Obergefell and Hodges challenged that decision and won.
In the Supreme Court Justice Kennedy ruled that marrying is one the “personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy,”. He further stipulated that “same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.”
(I'm a passionate writer and researcher from Kenya, Africa, exploring African affairs and its history with America and the rest. I welcome you to my newsletter and be part of my mission). Thank you for the support that I always get from you.
One of the milestones of the Fourteenth Amendment was the wording that it came with: "substantive due process ". This has become the basis of today's court rulings where lawyers would ask "did the state entity followed the law in depriving someone of the liberty, life, or property?
One of the milestones of the Fourteenth Amendment was the wording that it came with: "substantive due process ". This has become the basis of today's court rulings where lawyers would ask "did the state entity followed the law in depriving someone of the liberty, life, or property?
I am greatly indebted to those who contact me through my newsletter. I welcome you to join me as we debate what matter to us all. Africa and America enjoy cordial relations historically and I will showcase with indepth.
Even though I have no time to add another newsletter, want to thank you for what you contribute to this one. As you learn American history, you are both teaching us and giving us your perspective.
I know. And that is controversial. Children of foreign Diplomats born in the US are not granted citizenship. And I don't think that children of foreigners residing legally in the US--such as, say children of visiting professors--are granted citizenship. And I don't think the framers of the 14th amendment ever meant for it to apply to children of people in the country illegally.
Well, my granddaughter, whose Pop is a Canadian in the US working for Microsoft on a green card (30 years), became a US citizen when she was born as well as a citizen of Canada. Dual residency. I am very happy about that.
Can I assume from what you are saying that her mother is American?
I don't blame you for being happy about the dual residency given all the sh*t that's going on in the US. If I could get Canadian or any French/German/Scandinavian dual citizenship I would.
Janice, so now we have government (states and school boards) saying that black history shall not be taught while some running for office want to teach the Bible story alongside evolution. Writers and authors are censored every day as a single parent is able to ban a book in a school library. When will the rest of Bork’s America be reinstated by a vocal minority?
It's not going to happen, Mary. Gen Y and Z are the least religious groups (in an organized way) and they will represent about 45% of eligible voters next year.
Eventually Bible thumping will take its rightful place alongside the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ready for a chuckle? Remember: "He boiled for our sins".
In 2005, when Kansas declared that "intelligent design" must be taught alongside Evolution, Bobby Henderson wrote to the school board suggesting that his religion, Pastafarianism, must be taught as well. After all, the basis for both religions comes from the same place.
Of course, the school board ignored him. But Pastafarianism was born and now we have the fastest growing pasta based religion in the world. International enthusiasm for a religion with no dogma has exploded. And Bobby Henderson is a prophet.
"We need never doubt our Divine Carbohydrate, for even our DNA is shaped like a noodle so we know that pasta is holy"
— Book One: The Holy Book of Lasagna
It's Better If You Do's:
. It's Better If You Find A Thing You Are Good At
. It's Better If You Live in Harmony With the World
Yes! ALL are welcome. You can even maintain your current faith. Many Pastafarians maintain dual memberships. And...there is a 30 day warranty. If you are not happy, we are sure your previous religion will take you back.
Nah. I think it refers to the type of punishment a pirate might get for bring a "lite" beer on board. But seriously, causing pain is not one of the canons.
Someone posted : “A former student of mine went to the DMV and did this a couple days ago.
*His mom posted this message*
‘Well, it finally happened. After several failed attempts, Cade finally got a California ID with a colander on his head. He could wear it for the picture because he claims he is Pastafarian and the colander is a religious garment. Hey, he's only 17 once!’”
Thank you for adding this excellent and edible religion to the list! But I have a question about the donts: objects: when I walk into my kitchen in the morning where many of the objects are gifts of friends, isn’t it ok to value them? It reminds me of the wonderful people I have known who knew that a gift to a friend’s kitchen is forever remembrance. t
I think Bobby would be just fine with that type of "possession". Sounds lovely and healthy. I think he was probably referring to the worship of fancy cars, houses and duomos. But you could ask him yourself. Sometimes he responds to emails.
Here is an example of his attitude:
"That is to say, you do not have to Believe to be part of our Church, but we hope in time you will see the Truth. But skeptics, as well as members of other religions, are always welcome."
Very few "decrees". Eating pasta is like a sacrament. So it is encouraged. There are Facebook pages devoted to FSM type recipes. For me, the second best part of this religion is the food.
The first best part is this: We are encouraged to poke fun about some aspects of organized religion. Noah's ark is a target, as an example. But we are required to be nice. No personal attacks. No buildings, no tithing. Just a whole lot of food, fun and a lot of beer.
The FSM created the universe about 5000 years ago while drunk - in a matter of a few seconds. When he woke up with a hangover, he realized how many mistakes he made. With regret, he flew off into who knows where and has not been seen again. Although some claim sightings, we think he probably won't be back.
The core idea is that ALL religions and faiths should be personal and that the line between church and state must be like a steel wall. I think he just came here to remind us how important our Constitution is and maybe to suggest we lighten up a bit.
Regarding comparing "The Bible" and "Evolution" ......
I have often been struck by the similarity of Genesis, Chapter 1 and the actual event order of what is thought to be the origin of the solar system and subsequent evolution. Next time you read Genesis Chapter 1, think about what scientists know about the order of events of our Solar System formation and then the order of life on the planet.
Whoever wrote Genesis Chapter 1, came pretty close to BINGO where the order of events of the formation of the Universe, the Solar System and planets, and then the order of life on earth as thought to have occurred via evolution.
In particular I like to compare these two sentences, one Scientific and one Biblical:
1) Scientist say that all of the mass in the Universe somehow found its way to a single point in the Universe and then there was a "Big Bang". We all accept this to be true yes?
2) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now, is there really much difference between those two sentences? Both of them are literally filled with the unknown.
I never really thought there is much difference between "Big Bang" and "God created".
Both of those statements are the same thing as saying "Who Knows?"
:-)
NOT that I am saying we should be teaching from the Bible in public schools. We should not.
Yes, and who can define what ‘a day’ is for God, or whether God is male, female, etc.. I just wish religious fundamentalists could just start to think in cosmic terms.
I recently received a very sincere letter from one of my fundamentalist sisters in Texas concerned about my own tendency to think for myself. She was seriously worried about me going to hell and sent me an incredibly long sermon by some guy named John MacArthur about people who are sponsoring "Christian Deconstruction".
This lengthy sermon ended up really being a long, one hour, rant by this old guy about young people leaving his church and then posting negative reviews of this guy on social media.
After listening to this guy barely say anything for an hour, I could definitely understand why people were leaving his church for sure.
But, for people who have grown up in the Baptist, fundamentalist ideology which is mostly focused on separating those who are "going to heaven" from those who are obviously "going to hell" it is REALLY hard to break out of that and think for yourself.
I know how hard it is to let go of that feeling that the list of four things the Baptist preacher said will send you to hell, (all of which humans do all the time), and just accept everyone without judgement like Jesus actually said we should do.
That Southern Baptist hard philosophy also supported slavery, discrimination and segregation for 100 years. It is why there is a Northern Baptist Church and a Southern Baptist Church. Baptists in the North were against slavery.
But, in the south, the Southern Baptist Church preachers, since their big donors were slave owners, fully supported slavery as invented by God himself. No joke.
Those religious views alway, always set the tone of because I believe I’m better than you! I’m going to heaven and you are going to hell simply because you won’t believe what I say!
I just wish they would start to think instead of blindly following whatever their pastor says. It's a golden opportunity for people who like to control thoughts and actions of others....then you start to see the hubris. Here in Salem and most likely elsewhere, it's become in your face to others. During the pandemic, the biggest church in our neighborhood became COVID central as well. Following the teachings of Jesus....not so much.
When a person accepts religion they give up their right to think for themselves. Unfortunately many of them were brainwashed as children before they could make up their own minds. It's a form of child abuse.
In some cases, I would agree with you, but not all. I went to church as a child and I did not view it as child abuse. I did disagree with some of my mother's beliefs (my father was not religious although raised in the Methodist church). My fav story about her concerns evolution where I remember her telling me that if we were descended from apes, it was on my father's side.
Read Buddhist cosmology, which discusses the history of what happened before “the big bang”, and also the Big Bang that happened before this last one, and the one before that. Very entertaining, but all to the point that what any individual does or does not do, in the immediate moment, is all we have to work with. Choosing to be the best human you can be, in this moment, improves the moment, maintains and expands your humanity. Anything else just continues the slide down the vector of delusion...
Very interesting. I’m not really up to speed on Buddhism however the “be the best human you can be in the moment” is an appealing message
As for the slide down the vector of illusion, that was kinda my point regarding “something from nothing” logistical dilemma I believe “relegion” is man’s attempt to deal with “the impossible unknowns”
I liked James Michener’s book, “The Source”, an interesting historical fiction that touches on this struggle to understand how the Universe came to be
Michener was an erudite guy. The “Be the best human you can be” is the message for non practitioners. Once you decide to study more, be it Zen or Vajrayana, the goals shift. At some point, what you are studying will cease to be “religion”.
Thanks for the blast of memory, Dave! I read "The Source" as a teen, it was one of the most impactful books in my young life. Most of what I understand about Judaism comes from there, too.
As a person not raised with religion, I’ve always looked at them from an outsiders perspective. I’ve always thought it was very telling about a society when looking at a religion they grew up with and choose to follow as adults.
For example, from the little that I have read about some of the religions of Indigenous Peoples of the North Americans continent, the relationship between humans and the natural world is a part of their religion. The Christian Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to do that. Now look at where we are regarding the climate crisis. The climate’s fate is essentially being decided by this lack in the dominant religions.
The mono-theistic, patriarchal Christian god explicitly makes human beings and gives them dominion over all his other creations, to do with what they will. Humans make decisions that impact others, and then suffer the consequences. Then the humans will seek to end their suffering by coming back to God.
Generally, the religions of the American indigenous peoples are animistic or polytheistic methods of ordering experiences, which puts humans as another of the many beings having life and more or less agency. Humans must take the well-being of others, all the others, into account, since humans and all the others live in balance, and sometimes human actions throw off the balance, creating unexpected and unwanted changes.
These are two very different world view, for sure.
"The mono-theistic, patriarchal Christian god explicitly makes human beings and gives them dominion over all his other creations, to do with what they will. "
Exactly. There is no lack of a relationship between man/humanity and nature in the European tradition of Christianity: it is a relationship defined by separation and domination. Man is figured as not even belonging to this world, but to the kingdom of Heaven. He is to subdue the Earth--with corollary that he also rule over woman, who is figured, at best, as dangerously well-acquainted with nature. At worst, she is the agent of original sin, having been first to give into the temptation to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I would be overjoyed to see a renaissance of indigenous values here in the Americas. I sometimes think it is one of our only best chances to heal our relationship with the rest of life on Earth.
Another interesting examination of religion is looking at the different Indigenous Peoples origin stories. I think that wherever you look, religion attempts to explain the unexplainable.
The NW Indigenous stories & how & where they were told are great! Bill Reid's writings about them as well as his art. They are full of the duality of man's character & the universe. Another interesting read is Frank Waters BOOK OF the HOPI
Mike S., while there are many surface correlations between parts of Genesis and the the overall drift of current cosmology, the primary difference is that the physics model is based on observation and is subject to endless revision as new observations come in. Genesis, on the other hand, is touted as the Word of God, revealed to Moses, completely true and unchangeable.
Besides, having plants arise before the Sun makes a mockery of the Asparagus Law, by which the Plant King gave the power of photosynthesis to is leafy subjects.
It is certainly up to us, today, to vote in a super majority in 2024. It then will require hard work and constant vigil so the correct laws are enacted protecting and amplifying what the framers meant while writing the Constitution.
Janice, isn’t it painfully ironic that instead of Bork we got Thomas? He stands for stopping all the things Senator Kennedy listed, as do the other Christo fascists on the bench. The Buddhist image of our democracy being on the blade of a very sharp sword with a sheen of oil on the blade comes to mind.
Who is today’s Ted Kennedy? We desperately need someone with the moral conviction and the personal courage to call out these blatant attempts to roll back progress and disguise them in double-speak and fake news! HEATHER FOR PRESIDENT👍
Elizabeth Warren. And I might add even though a great fan of Senator Whitehouse who people in the state I live in put in office and even though I agree with the others mentioned here I find it interesting that people listed men first. Or maybe I’m not as well educated on American history as I could be ( which is why I’m reading HCR) or strengths of many Senators to hazard an opinion. Anyway it doesn’t seem to be a debate or popularity contest. Mostly highlighting people with conviction integrity and vision to be grateful for their membership and actions in the Senate.
Just for clarification, my two nominees are in the House. Raskin announced this week he won't be running for the Senate. Schiff is running to replace Dianne Feinstein.
I listened to the latest Lincoln Project podcast last night. Rick Wilson said Kennedy Jr was recruited by Steve Bannon to run. It seems plausible to me.
I have been waiting to see if the latest round of Supreme Court decisions, allowing discrimination, is going to lead to segregated lunch counters again. Why wouldn’t it? Isn’t it now legal for somebody owning a restaurant or a store to refuse service to anyone they don’t want to serve?
I'm waiting for the case to arise where a plaintiff argues that allowing women to exercise authority over men is against his religion, so he and his business should be allowed to promote only men to positions of management.
Robert Bork served as an advisor to the student formed Federalist Society. The students wanted a conservative response to the failure of Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. Look where we are today.
Kennedy wasn’t prescient. He grew up in one of the uppermost levels of the socioeconomic hierarchy.
He grew up listening to other people of his class openly share their often low and dismissive opinions regarding the common people, of women, of persons of color, and discuss how to control society for their best advantage by ridding laws and regulations which protect the rights of minorities, workers, consumers, etc.
"exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities" reflects the broader failure for America to have dealt with the social/economic consequences of uplifting huge social populations out of profound poverty outcomes. Not just for blacks, either. America's social vision of individualism and self reliance is radically incomplete.
Correct, and I did consider stating "BIPOC" but it seems that Black Americans have suffered the most in terms of redlining and other discriminatory practices.
And here we are today... (without the segregated lunch counters but instead the reality of today's almost exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities). I wish I could format and boldface your closing paragraph! How inadvertently prescient Senator Ted Kennedy was.
"Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) recognized the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality: “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”"
Janice: How right you are about Ted Kennedy. I found the following on the internet and it speaks to his beliefs and actions. “U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) took positions on many political issues throughout his career via his public comments and senatorial voting record. He was broadly liberal with regard to social issues. Kennedy favored stricter gun control, supported LGBT rights and abortion rights, advocated for universal health care, and legislated for education initiatives.”
But why, oh why, did he sign on with W’s education initiative. Still thought it was politics as usual. He didn’t live long enough to realize how wrong that was…
Ted Kennedy, the Lion of the Senate, produced a mixed bag. He did a lot of good. But, he had a lot to do with Carter’s defeat too.
This is the one thing that I could never forgive Ted Kennedy for: hastening the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Of course, there wasn't any guarantee that Carter would have prevailed, but Kennedy's splitting the Democratic party in two at that time shows the danger in someone showing up who essentially takes away vital support from the leader of the party. And now, we have ANOTHER Kennedy trying to do the same thing. I like to think Edward Kennedy of the present day is loopy enough that he won't present too much of a danger to Biden, but with similar low approval numbers for Biden as Carter had then, and with The Orange Scourge lurking in the wings, ANYTHING could happen. That greatly concerns me because now the stakes are SO much higher. I greatly admired Ted Kennedy for many things, except for his error in judgement in 1980.
Wholly agree here, Bruce. Encourage every Democratic voter you can to NOT cast a vote for vaccine and epidemiological study skeptic, RFK, Jr. He won't get enough votes to win but he could peel off enough, given the chance, to help Biden lose. Just say no.
So right you are
Today’s wannabe Kennedy is just a tool with illusions of grandeur. But a spoiler who can drain off Dem votes. Sadly, the Dems who post support are idealists with not a pragmatic bone
Some gop "lite" who can no long abide tfg OR disanctimonious are hopping the fence into into kennedy jr land.... smdh: why CAN"T they do the most basic THINKING???
Just a quick check: did you mean Edward or Ted?
Edward Moore Kennedy aka Ted Kennedy
They are one and the same.
Edward Kennedy‘s nickname was Ted. One on the same person.
It’s the same person.
OMG
Here in his home town we called him Teddy.
I went to protests against Bork with my parents. In California, at least, there was a massive resistance to that nomination. I thought about that constantly when that descendant and ideological heir to slaveholders, Mitch McConnell, was busily stealing the first Supreme court seat, and people didn't rise up in mass protest. Because we didn't, McConnell and the Rs and tfg knew they could do whatever the **** they wanted.
Mitch McConnell is an evil man who wants only to win so he and the other cretins in the Republican party can wipe out anything they don't like. They don't care about the people who live here, the people who will be affected by their quest to instill racism, misogyny, and hate into law. Republicans want to rule, not govern. We are doomed if we allow this.
Let’s add some conspiracy theories here. McConnell knew that the Russians were helping Trump. Obama wanted him to let the FBI and CIA go after them, but he wouldn’t do it without bipartisan support. McConnell had no interest in stopping the Russians, or in a fair election. How much did McConnell know, and who was paying him to keep quiet?
Obama should have appointed Garland to the court on a temporary basis and told the Senate they could decide if he should stay when they got around to it. All of the three Trump/McConnell justices were raised and shaped for thirty years by the Federalist Society. Their goal has been to protect business from any limits or restrictions. They added on all this religious crap to keep the crazies in line.
The Federalist Society is a dark money funded grooming organization. Call it what it is
The Vaticans mafia.
Obama did not need bipartisan support to enforce US election law against foreign (Russian) interference. Essentially allowing McConnell a veto where the partisan ends the Leader sought were more important than our democracy was a serious error.
Take a look at the Russian “investments” in McConnells state around the same time?!!!
I recall reading that McConnell threatened to accuse Obama of trying to influence the election if Obama made public that the Russians were working to influence the election.
I read that as well.
Why are Dems always so timid about doing the right thing?
I often think Obama was especially careful because he is black and therefore had a target on his back from day one.
I hate it that I even have to consider this because our society is so racist, but there it is!
He had to be very careful--and was--and still our racist culture reacted to his presidency with a massive wave of fear and loathing. Instead of a watershed moment of racial reconciliation (a black president early in the 21st Century? Such would have been unthinkable thirty, forty years prior!), we instead have been treated to a clear view on how divided the country still is on race--and on every question of difference from straight/cis white male Christian ideals.
I really felt for him when he had to address the nation every time another black person was murdered by the police. I have no doubt he was overcome by rage and grief, but letting that any of that show in public would have been political suicide. His self-restraint was extraordinary.
Not that he is different from any other black American in that regard. Their lives depend on exercising extreme diplomacy in public. Most white Americans don't even have to think about such things beyond bare social niceties.
I loved Obama, and still have great respect for him. Nonetheless, I realized during his presidency that he only got as far as he did because he was such a likable and non-threatening black man. Brilliant, funny, compassionate, etc. – just what would make about half of white Americans comfortable with having a black person in the highest office. But that meant that his ability to anger, fight back, and strategize aggressively were compromised.
I have the sam thought about Obama. I also wonder if, during the 2007 - 2009 financial collapse, he didn’t do more for people who lost their homes because so many were Black and didn’t want to appear to be favoring Blacks. Yes, an ugly, awful thought.
McConnell did threaten Obama with that. Obama should’ve acted anyways to protect this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
An EU official anonymously stated everyone respected Obama, but nobody feared him. Both are needed to be effective, no matter how soft the velvet glove.
OAITW, the religious conservatives, especially Evangelicals, have been giving money to, and receiving money from, the secular Libertarians to support causes in which they have common interests. They are effectively joined at the hip.
They fight against godless socialism and communism together. They have interesting ways of defining those terms, but that's what they say.
I recall reading something by a political operator who said that it is like a game in DC. Winning is the drug. It doesn't matter what they've won.
Isn't America always about winning?
Right on. That is the directive of the GOP and to turn the US into a christian state.
Were liberal minded people too numb and distracted to mount effective protests?
Seth - good question. I don't know, exactly. I do think part of it was the utter shock of MM's blatant blocking of Merrick Garland. And I may be totally wrong but by that point it seemed President Obama had been so hammered by racist forces that he didn't feel he could lead a charge against MM. I'd like to hear what others here think.
This is a good NPR article: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
My sentiments also. Obama was hammered is an understatement
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Beer O'Kavanagh & Gorsuch should be locked in a room for a month and forced to experience the exact tsunami of death threats and racist filth the Obamas endured. Maybe, just maybe, they'd rethink their "Racism is dead" bull****.
If they had an iota of empathy, they wouldn’t be the cretins they are. Gorsuch learned his entitlement at his mother’s knee. No knowledge about the others, but society has plenty of rewards for greed and “I’ve got mine, screw you.”
Heat … kitchen. Republicans attack any Democratic President with mindless fury. Does anyone think Hillary would have faced something different if she had won in either 2008 or 2016? It’s a mistake to treat McConnell’s (or those of his caucus) machinations as legitimate. Take, for example, the gross abuse of Senate courtesies by Tuberville, please? That stunt deserves no respect at all.
Hillary would have been skewered, no doubt. They had already decided that no Dem was worthy of public office. Sort of like me and repubs
Thanks Alexandra , this comment opens again the ‘where did it all begin’ premise - suggesting all is not black and white/‘it’s complicated’ and ‘by all means ‘ using that pun.
Is it possible with such answers derived ...real solutions can exact a resume of ‘path of good intents’ ie Democracy?
My baseline fears akin to the ‘rats in a cage’ theory in that too many ( crowding) create chaos, barbarism, etc. is the ‘we all just get along’ ( RK “...”) just another hippie delusion?
Alexandra, here’s what Frank Rich had to say: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05rich.html?smid=url-share
I’m not sure he’s entirely right, but I gave up arguing with Frank Rich a long time ago because he’s proven he knows a lot more than I do.
paywall inplace, what did he write?
Here is a gift link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05rich.html?unlocked_article_code=LJ9Pw-3Zr4sMpecsMTe6Smc8Wii1olRa1iEBluzhT3BiM_9pQXXkXFybfNmayOIBkgjVlxSZaI2xdFdLogOI_4jtlzcmrv02U7eU-EoB6wAhrFFRbFQRYFK8froZlG7yMaUUepzSYHhMkTOzc1T_3EA8Vtg3cq4GUXYJ85a7zvBvSPSWhN1gmisp08ePTnGQDHKja0V67CotJXCiVFkZhC1Pd4gbij9dpkzFQ05Y-EAZ8VUP55wo255_682fo827akiizwHrAcByQRazdPz7Iay8L-UkH9vNDJDtGHe3LZ9uBKfowxvufrnO6mVbiiZi&smid=url-share
Many of us were disgusted but at the time, the possibility that Trump could actually be the next president hadn't fully sunk in. Yes, we were complacent in thinking it was just a delaying tactic bY MM before Hillary took over.
You're right. I certainly didn't think Trump would win and ... life hasn't been the same since for most of us. And, have you noticed the proliferation of resources (like Heather) that we are all paying attention to now? Early on when I was trying to discuss things online with "friends" and former connections and classmates, I had no comebacks for the "what-aboutisms" my former classmates in northeastern Ohio were sending my way. I was totally unprepared because I didn't really know much about history, politics, etc. and needed to educate myself. And I hadn't bothered to learn those things before. That still shocks me. I had no idea I had so many racist views and ideas, for example. I was "nice" to people. I knew Reagan was wrong but I didn't know how really, really, really wrong and evil he was until the last decade when I read up on things. I thought George Bush (the younger) was okay because he seemed so well-intentioned. Ugh. Wow. I now realize more about all of this stuff. So, if I had the views I had, it makes it easier to understand why so many others still do. For one thing, since 2015 I finally set everything else aside, and was white privileged enough to take that time and do it, to figure out who I am and what I believe and think. At no other time in my life have I been so intellectually on fire to know what's true, what's happening, why do things happen the ways that they do, etc. And I'm in my 70s. It isn't unusual for people to take so long. And some never take it on for one reason or another. Fear, anger, oppression that leaves them without recourse ...
Anyway, I am glad to be here with all of you. Thank you!
You are so welcome. 💙💙
ALL the forces aligned, the racism against Obama, the mysoginy against Hilary, the hatred of the Clintons in general, coupled with McConnell’s sociopathy and Putin’s passion for America’s destruction. The cherry on top was the American Majority’s ignorance (and shocked disbelief!).
Liz, well summarized!
The massive ignorance and apathy about racism from those who voted for Trump (including my own family members) burst my idealistic bubble that the US was really moving forward. The election of Trump has caused a lot of pain and set back the country 40 years in my opinion. Now I’m just hoping the country regains its position as a progressive country before the end of my lifetime.
I am right there with you💙💙
ALL People, on the Democratic Leaning Side, Better get AGGRESSIVE ! and GO TO THE POLLS ! & Put that VOTE ! ...... IN !
MaryB, you're so right.
Spot on!
No, the media is how Trump got elected and they are still doing it today. Think about every news lead, article it is all about Trump.
Yes. Fox News is a Republican machine that has worked its way into the minds of the ignorant masses.
I thought Hillary would win the election and McConnell would have to schedule a hearing for the Democratic SCOTUS nominee.
I went to protests against Kavanaugh. Lot of good it did...
We should have protested Clarence Thomas’s appointment especially after sexually harassing a subordinate. This was while he was head of the EEOC to boot. What a disaster he has been.
There were protests—Republicans weren’t afraid of them. They expected to take the White House in 2016 with their strong bench (pre Trump), and the history that the WH most often changes parties after 8 years.
While I believe Obama was an outstanding president, his greatest failing was not using the bully pulpit and the Courts to challenge Mitch McConnell's unconstitutional usurpation of power.
The second paragraph of Section 2 of Article II does not grant the Senate the *option* to provide Advice and Consent; it mandates the Senate take such action: "...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court."
Based on the foregoing, I personally consider Gorsuch's appointment as unconstitutional and his presence on the Court illegitimate.
So true and so sad!
The Fourteenth Amendment signalled and jumpstarted the modern-day America with a strong affirmation that "all persons born or naturalized under the United States should enjoy equal protection under the laws." Since its passage, this legislation has delivered landmark cases which include overturning of ruling made in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 case (1857) and allowed everyone to apply and be a citizen of the US without the state preventing them. Native Americans were given US citizenship when Indian Citizenship Act was passed in 1924 and removed the Supreme Court decision in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) that had ruled that Native Americans who gave birth to children were not automatically US citizenship. Similarly, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment ruled that children born by non-citizen Americans belonged to Federal and State where they reside in.
Upto date, the Constitution is founded on the respect for individual rights, regardless of the state powers.
👋
If you haven't join me in my newsletter (not too late), I welcome you (for free) as I explore different issues.
It would appear that the 24 states which have banned or severely limited abortions have clearly violated the 14th Amendment. And by what right do they ban anyone from being treated by a doctor with respect to their personal decision to trans lifestyle? We must protect them by exercising our right to elect a Congress and President who will do so! It is our constitutional duty!
Trans is not a "lifestyle."
Yes, and exercise your right to help fund your candidates well. Especially well! Our words in the wind here simply won't get it done alone.
Jon Tester the dem from MT needs lots of support. Native MT, farmer, supports reasonable gun ownership, veterans. He is running against a well funded R from out of state, whose fb page are Freedom Caucus posts
Tester has been adopted by Force Multiplier, which is a good thing. They have a pretty good track record.
Just shared their link with Dems here in MT. Can you say more re our sub stack thread? Or are you still germinating?
Er, Carole that is.
Thank you Cathy. I have a substack thread idea titled Funding Fun. Starting in September.
I will support Tester with a contribution.
I respectfully suggest that we all consider and contribute substantial contributions to a brilliant group of Harvard students who are registering tens of thousands of 18 to 25s and 25 to 35 women focused on protecting their abortion rights. Please go today to www.turnup.us/ and it is a tax deductible nonpartisan contribution! Much more meaningful use of your contributions than wasting it on candidates’ political ads on TV that NONE of these young people watch?
Tell the current Supreme Court
Change the Extreme Court, it must be done for it is the only way they will ever listen. 2024 is key.
Jessica Craven in July 7 newsletter:
"If you know anyone who’s upset about the Supreme Court please feel free to send them this resource document with ways they can help with court reform"
HOW DO WE FIX THE SUPREME COURT?
The short link for this page is https://tinyurl.com/fixscotus
The legislators in states that have "banned or severely limited abortions" believe, or claim to believe, that abortion is murder. Many of them see, or claim to see, abortion as comparable to slavery, as an evil that must be eradicated -- and themselves in the position of the pre-Civil War abolitionists.
They are not opposed to other forms of murder, i.e. capital punishment, guns for all, violating the civil rights of LGBTQi+ that have led to suicides in some cases. Their hypocrisy is flashing mega watts!
They may see themselves that way but they are wrong. And they have learned nothing of our history, of the New Testament, of the Enlightenment and those legislators are mostly men. Their religiosity stops at my nose. Those men should just never have an abortion !
Right on!
It's often difficult for me to appreciate that with very, very few exceptions, everyone in this discussion is coming from a place of righteousness. And very, very few are willing to be wrong.
Curiously, which of the things do you believe are righteously wrong? Transitioning from one gender to another? Abortion? Native American rights? Women’s equality? Granting same sex marriages?
Righteousness itself is somewhat wrong I find. Are those you disagree with or who have no faith unrighteous? People who have no announced faith can also be moral ethical human beings. Discuss!!
(And Ally, there's no need to pick an argument. Each of those topics is both simple in theory, very complicated in application. Would you like to choose one to discuss?)
The last one I confronted was the notion that pleasure/reward somehow "balances out" pain/punishment. It's taken me a while to realize that they operate quite independently.
What's wrong with righteousness, a virtue and characteristic of the wise? Perhaps you are using the term to call out our smugness or unfounded certainty or ignorance or shallow knowledge in the name of righteousness. Enlightening. Having been married for nearly 60 years, I find I no longer require full knowledge or evidence sufficient to apply my probative skills to change my mind or correct a point of view that lacks legs, so to speak. We may be of similar minds, but I find a lot of growth among the correspondents to the Letter From An American. Sometime growth doesn't require publicly stating having been wrong, but rather see shifts in responses and conversation. I find that civil.
Agreed on all counts, with the caveat that it seems difficult for an individual to recognize the difference, in themselves, between righteousness, a virtue and characteristic of the wise, and self-righteousness, a fear-driven bulwark guarding ignorance and bigotry.
What's hard for many to believe is that it's possible to hold strong, ideally well-informed opinions and still be able to see an issue from different perspectives, including those one disagrees with. This IMO is what distinguishes most of today's Republicans from those of a couple of generations ago: they can't or won't do it. And it's not hard to see the same unwillingness or inability among many in the left of center.
I come from the other side of the big pond Dirk and don’t feel qualified to join this conversation but I can’t help feeling you are right! We do have some similarities in our own UK politics!
My wife is, at this very moment, enjoying the hospitality of relatives on your side of the pond, and I'm beginning to wish I'd joined her. Stratford-upon-Avon, lovely place. Is that near you?
Lolololololol and are you willing to admit you are wrong? I imagine you have a lot of difficulty appreciating…
Uh, would you mind finishing your sentence? It's hard to respond when I'm not sure what point you're making. But yes, provide me with sufficiently probative evidence subject to confirmation, and I will happily admit to my error and thank you for the information.
But it's to hide their real agenda, to reinstitute the "traditional family" where women are second class citizens and the man is at the head of the household making all the decisions. It's also to prevent white women from getting abortions, because of the "Replacement Theory" that POC will soon outnumber white people in the country.
Abortion is protected only before viability or to save the life of the mother.. that is not “murder”!
I believe that it's no one's business what a person does with her own body. I'm sure I don't want the state to tell me what medical interventions I can and can't have based on their religious beliefs. Abortion is an unfortunate reality, and is for most women a really terrible choice to make and then a terrible procedure to endure. That the public believes they have a right to weigh in on this is tragic.
Try seeing it from the POV of someone who doesn't believe "viability" is where life begins.
Abortion violates the 13th Amendment.
The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery should be used as a legal basis for the right to an abortion. Restrictions on abortion and the resulting forced pregnancies are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude: forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon.
Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves. Having a right to life does not guarantee a right to the use of another person's body -- even if one needs it for life itself. While the pregnant woman is not serving at the fetus' command -- it is the state that supplies the element of coercion -- she is nevertheless serving involuntarily for the fetus' benefit, and this is what the Court has said that the amendment forbids
'Historian Eric Foner describes the impact of the Fourteenth amendment:'
The whole question of what is citizenship, who is a citizen and what rights come along with it – that was central to the political conflict in Reconstruction. [The Reconstruction amendments] are the effort of the Republican Congress, and indeed of African Americans themselves, to put into the Constitution the basic idea of equality for all Americans. It's important to remember that ideal didn't exist before the Civil War. Remember, the Dred Scott decision, 1857, said no black person can be a citizen. Only white people can be citizens of the United States.
This was a country with strong belief in liberty but with a strong racial barrier excluding nonwhites from enjoyment of many of those liberties. And so Reconstruction is an effort to shatter those boundaries and to create a new…republic. I mean, that's why I call it the "Second Founding." It really transforms the Constitution, not just adding a few things here and there…to try to implement this principle of equal rights for all Americans.
'In 1853, Frederick Douglass delivered a speech that included his vision of birthright citizenship and the rights of African Americans. The birthright citizenship principle would later be enshrined into law with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment:'
“[B]y birth, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; within the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the facts of history; and the admission of American statesmen, we are American citizens; by the hardships and trials endured; by the courage and fidelity displayed by our ancestors in defending the liberties and in achieving the independence of our land, we are American citizens.” (FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES)
https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/quotes-about-fourteenth-amendment
Excellent post Fern. Especially the pointer toward the importance of Frederick Douglas in all events leading to the fourteenth amendment and the role of black Americans in fostering a true Democracy.
Douglass also was the first to suggest to Lincoln the idea that by freeing the slaves he could enlarge his Union Army thereby hastening an end to the war with more victories. Of course, I don't have a quote reference but I read that fact in "The 1619 Book Project" organized and partly written by Nicole Hannah Jones. Before Douglass suggested freeing the slaves to Lincoln, it had never crossed his mind. Also, it took a while for Lincoln to agree.
Thank you for a great post.
Thank you for your kind words, Mike S. I believe the quote you mentioned is the one below.
'Confronting a President: Douglass and Lincoln'
'Two years into the American Civil War, Frederick Douglass was not a fan of President Abraham Lincoln. The President’s unwillingness to allow Black men in the United States military frustrated Douglass.' “We are striking the rebels with our soft white hand, when we should be striking them with the iron hand of the black man which we keep chained behind us.”
'Once Black men were permitted in the military, Douglass served as a recruiter – most notably of the 54th & 55th Massachusetts Infantry. Two of his sons – Lewis & Charles – were among the recruits. Unfair treatment of Black soldiers persuaded Mr. Douglass to halt his efforts. “When I plead for recruits, I want to do it with my heart without qualification. I cannot do that now.” White soldiers were paid more. Promotions for Black soldiers were non-existent. Black men did not receive POW protections most white men benefitted from. “I must expose wrongs and plead their cause.” Hoping to fix these wrongs, Mr. Douglass traveled to Washington hoping to meet with President Lincoln.' (NationalParksService)
There were three meetings between Fredrick Douglas and President Lincoln. You may learn about them using the link below..
https://www.nps.gov/frdo/learn/historyculture/confronting-a-president-douglass-and-lincoln.htm
Perfect Fern! You rock!
Lincoln said that it was only upon Frederick Douglass' visit to the White House that he came to believe that Blacks were fully the equal of whites--that they were not an inferior race.
“[B]y birth, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; within the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the facts of history; and the admission of American statesmen, we are American citizens; by the hardships and trials endured; by the courage and fidelity displayed by our ancestors in defending the liberties and in achieving the independence of our land, we are American citizens."
This sums up the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Thanks
Thanks for this quote, Fern, and thanks for confirming Mike’s quote. I made it a point to read Douglass’s essay on the 4th of July (although I admit, not until Thursday this year). It is a position to remember.
Thank you, Ally.
In 2014, strenght of the Fourteenth Amendment was tested in the Obergefell v. Hodges (June 2015) case, involving the granting the liberty of an individual to enjoy same-sex marriage just like the opposite-sex marriage. Ohio had state restrictions about same-sex marriage, but Obergefell and Hodges challenged that decision and won.
In the Supreme Court Justice Kennedy ruled that marrying is one the “personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy,”. He further stipulated that “same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.”
(I'm a passionate writer and researcher from Kenya, Africa, exploring African affairs and its history with America and the rest. I welcome you to my newsletter and be part of my mission). Thank you for the support that I always get from you.
One of the milestones of the Fourteenth Amendment was the wording that it came with: "substantive due process ". This has become the basis of today's court rulings where lawyers would ask "did the state entity followed the law in depriving someone of the liberty, life, or property?
One of the milestones of the Fourteenth Amendment was the wording that it came with: "substantive due process ". This has become the basis of today's court rulings where lawyers would ask "did the state entity followed the law in depriving someone of the liberty, life, or property?
There is much work left to do but not enough workers.
I am greatly indebted to those who contact me through my newsletter. I welcome you to join me as we debate what matter to us all. Africa and America enjoy cordial relations historically and I will showcase with indepth.
Even though I have no time to add another newsletter, want to thank you for what you contribute to this one. As you learn American history, you are both teaching us and giving us your perspective.
"the Fourteenth Amendment ruled that children born by non-citizen Americans belonged to Federal and State where they reside in."
This is controversial.
Non-Americans but within the country.
I know. And that is controversial. Children of foreign Diplomats born in the US are not granted citizenship. And I don't think that children of foreigners residing legally in the US--such as, say children of visiting professors--are granted citizenship. And I don't think the framers of the 14th amendment ever meant for it to apply to children of people in the country illegally.
Well, my granddaughter, whose Pop is a Canadian in the US working for Microsoft on a green card (30 years), became a US citizen when she was born as well as a citizen of Canada. Dual residency. I am very happy about that.
Can I assume from what you are saying that her mother is American?
I don't blame you for being happy about the dual residency given all the sh*t that's going on in the US. If I could get Canadian or any French/German/Scandinavian dual citizenship I would.
Glad to know about this clear explanation 🙏
Janice, so now we have government (states and school boards) saying that black history shall not be taught while some running for office want to teach the Bible story alongside evolution. Writers and authors are censored every day as a single parent is able to ban a book in a school library. When will the rest of Bork’s America be reinstated by a vocal minority?
It's not going to happen, Mary. Gen Y and Z are the least religious groups (in an organized way) and they will represent about 45% of eligible voters next year.
Eventually Bible thumping will take its rightful place alongside the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ready for a chuckle? Remember: "He boiled for our sins".
In 2005, when Kansas declared that "intelligent design" must be taught alongside Evolution, Bobby Henderson wrote to the school board suggesting that his religion, Pastafarianism, must be taught as well. After all, the basis for both religions comes from the same place.
Of course, the school board ignored him. But Pastafarianism was born and now we have the fastest growing pasta based religion in the world. International enthusiasm for a religion with no dogma has exploded. And Bobby Henderson is a prophet.
"We need never doubt our Divine Carbohydrate, for even our DNA is shaped like a noodle so we know that pasta is holy"
— Book One: The Holy Book of Lasagna
It's Better If You Do's:
. It's Better If You Find A Thing You Are Good At
. It's Better If You Live in Harmony With the World
. It's Better If You Make Art
. It's Better If You Lead An Untethered Life
. It's Better If You Work Together
It's Better If You Don't's:
. It's Better If You Don't Put People In Cages
. It's Better If You Don't Work Too Much
. It's Better If You Don't Value Possessions
. It's Better If You Don't Hurt Others
. It's Better If You Don't Censor Things
— Book Four: The Holy Book of Tortellini
https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
Do you know if they accept gluten-free members? (Asking for a friend)
Yes! ALL are welcome. You can even maintain your current faith. Many Pastafarians maintain dual memberships. And...there is a 30 day warranty. If you are not happy, we are sure your previous religion will take you back.
Just one more thing…Does “40 Lashes With A Wet Noodle” in actuality refer to a Pastafarian self-flagellation practice?
Nah. I think it refers to the type of punishment a pirate might get for bring a "lite" beer on board. But seriously, causing pain is not one of the canons.
Ann Landers was the self flagellation expert.
Great question! Thank you 🙏🏽
🤣
Bill Alstrom:
Someone posted : “A former student of mine went to the DMV and did this a couple days ago.
*His mom posted this message*
‘Well, it finally happened. After several failed attempts, Cade finally got a California ID with a colander on his head. He could wear it for the picture because he claims he is Pastafarian and the colander is a religious garment. Hey, he's only 17 once!’”
Yes, a classic demonstration of his faith and a statement for religious freedom. A courageous and pious young man.
😂
😂
Thank you for adding this excellent and edible religion to the list! But I have a question about the donts: objects: when I walk into my kitchen in the morning where many of the objects are gifts of friends, isn’t it ok to value them? It reminds me of the wonderful people I have known who knew that a gift to a friend’s kitchen is forever remembrance. t
I think Bobby would be just fine with that type of "possession". Sounds lovely and healthy. I think he was probably referring to the worship of fancy cars, houses and duomos. But you could ask him yourself. Sometimes he responds to emails.
Here is an example of his attitude:
"That is to say, you do not have to Believe to be part of our Church, but we hope in time you will see the Truth. But skeptics, as well as members of other religions, are always welcome."
Do I get baptized by immersion if I join?
You can hop into a fermentation vehicle or vat at your local microbrewery if you wish. But dunking is not required.
Bill, so does the religion decree how often one must eat pasta, or is eating pasta forbidden? ;-)
Very few "decrees". Eating pasta is like a sacrament. So it is encouraged. There are Facebook pages devoted to FSM type recipes. For me, the second best part of this religion is the food.
The first best part is this: We are encouraged to poke fun about some aspects of organized religion. Noah's ark is a target, as an example. But we are required to be nice. No personal attacks. No buildings, no tithing. Just a whole lot of food, fun and a lot of beer.
The FSM created the universe about 5000 years ago while drunk - in a matter of a few seconds. When he woke up with a hangover, he realized how many mistakes he made. With regret, he flew off into who knows where and has not been seen again. Although some claim sightings, we think he probably won't be back.
The core idea is that ALL religions and faiths should be personal and that the line between church and state must be like a steel wall. I think he just came here to remind us how important our Constitution is and maybe to suggest we lighten up a bit.
Mary,
Regarding comparing "The Bible" and "Evolution" ......
I have often been struck by the similarity of Genesis, Chapter 1 and the actual event order of what is thought to be the origin of the solar system and subsequent evolution. Next time you read Genesis Chapter 1, think about what scientists know about the order of events of our Solar System formation and then the order of life on the planet.
Whoever wrote Genesis Chapter 1, came pretty close to BINGO where the order of events of the formation of the Universe, the Solar System and planets, and then the order of life on earth as thought to have occurred via evolution.
In particular I like to compare these two sentences, one Scientific and one Biblical:
1) Scientist say that all of the mass in the Universe somehow found its way to a single point in the Universe and then there was a "Big Bang". We all accept this to be true yes?
2) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now, is there really much difference between those two sentences? Both of them are literally filled with the unknown.
I never really thought there is much difference between "Big Bang" and "God created".
Both of those statements are the same thing as saying "Who Knows?"
:-)
NOT that I am saying we should be teaching from the Bible in public schools. We should not.
Yes, and who can define what ‘a day’ is for God, or whether God is male, female, etc.. I just wish religious fundamentalists could just start to think in cosmic terms.
Interesting that you use the word "think".
I recently received a very sincere letter from one of my fundamentalist sisters in Texas concerned about my own tendency to think for myself. She was seriously worried about me going to hell and sent me an incredibly long sermon by some guy named John MacArthur about people who are sponsoring "Christian Deconstruction".
This lengthy sermon ended up really being a long, one hour, rant by this old guy about young people leaving his church and then posting negative reviews of this guy on social media.
After listening to this guy barely say anything for an hour, I could definitely understand why people were leaving his church for sure.
But, for people who have grown up in the Baptist, fundamentalist ideology which is mostly focused on separating those who are "going to heaven" from those who are obviously "going to hell" it is REALLY hard to break out of that and think for yourself.
I know how hard it is to let go of that feeling that the list of four things the Baptist preacher said will send you to hell, (all of which humans do all the time), and just accept everyone without judgement like Jesus actually said we should do.
That Southern Baptist hard philosophy also supported slavery, discrimination and segregation for 100 years. It is why there is a Northern Baptist Church and a Southern Baptist Church. Baptists in the North were against slavery.
But, in the south, the Southern Baptist Church preachers, since their big donors were slave owners, fully supported slavery as invented by God himself. No joke.
Those religious views alway, always set the tone of because I believe I’m better than you! I’m going to heaven and you are going to hell simply because you won’t believe what I say!
Jimmy Carter wrote an interesting book re why he left the radical Baptist church.
Does the Northern Baptist Church still exist, and does it still maintain more progressive ideas than their southern relatives?
Jimmy Carter wrote a book about this, forgotten the name.
I just wish they would start to think instead of blindly following whatever their pastor says. It's a golden opportunity for people who like to control thoughts and actions of others....then you start to see the hubris. Here in Salem and most likely elsewhere, it's become in your face to others. During the pandemic, the biggest church in our neighborhood became COVID central as well. Following the teachings of Jesus....not so much.
When a person accepts religion they give up their right to think for themselves. Unfortunately many of them were brainwashed as children before they could make up their own minds. It's a form of child abuse.
In some cases, I would agree with you, but not all. I went to church as a child and I did not view it as child abuse. I did disagree with some of my mother's beliefs (my father was not religious although raised in the Methodist church). My fav story about her concerns evolution where I remember her telling me that if we were descended from apes, it was on my father's side.
“Something from where there was previously nothing”, right?
There is no logic available to explain that at this time
I believe “religions” are Man’s Attempt to bridge this “unknown” with the world it sees around them.
Read Buddhist cosmology, which discusses the history of what happened before “the big bang”, and also the Big Bang that happened before this last one, and the one before that. Very entertaining, but all to the point that what any individual does or does not do, in the immediate moment, is all we have to work with. Choosing to be the best human you can be, in this moment, improves the moment, maintains and expands your humanity. Anything else just continues the slide down the vector of delusion...
Very interesting. I’m not really up to speed on Buddhism however the “be the best human you can be in the moment” is an appealing message
As for the slide down the vector of illusion, that was kinda my point regarding “something from nothing” logistical dilemma I believe “relegion” is man’s attempt to deal with “the impossible unknowns”
I liked James Michener’s book, “The Source”, an interesting historical fiction that touches on this struggle to understand how the Universe came to be
Michener was an erudite guy. The “Be the best human you can be” is the message for non practitioners. Once you decide to study more, be it Zen or Vajrayana, the goals shift. At some point, what you are studying will cease to be “religion”.
Thanks for the blast of memory, Dave! I read "The Source" as a teen, it was one of the most impactful books in my young life. Most of what I understand about Judaism comes from there, too.
As a person not raised with religion, I’ve always looked at them from an outsiders perspective. I’ve always thought it was very telling about a society when looking at a religion they grew up with and choose to follow as adults.
For example, from the little that I have read about some of the religions of Indigenous Peoples of the North Americans continent, the relationship between humans and the natural world is a part of their religion. The Christian Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to do that. Now look at where we are regarding the climate crisis. The climate’s fate is essentially being decided by this lack in the dominant religions.
The mono-theistic, patriarchal Christian god explicitly makes human beings and gives them dominion over all his other creations, to do with what they will. Humans make decisions that impact others, and then suffer the consequences. Then the humans will seek to end their suffering by coming back to God.
Generally, the religions of the American indigenous peoples are animistic or polytheistic methods of ordering experiences, which puts humans as another of the many beings having life and more or less agency. Humans must take the well-being of others, all the others, into account, since humans and all the others live in balance, and sometimes human actions throw off the balance, creating unexpected and unwanted changes.
These are two very different world view, for sure.
"The mono-theistic, patriarchal Christian god explicitly makes human beings and gives them dominion over all his other creations, to do with what they will. "
Exactly. There is no lack of a relationship between man/humanity and nature in the European tradition of Christianity: it is a relationship defined by separation and domination. Man is figured as not even belonging to this world, but to the kingdom of Heaven. He is to subdue the Earth--with corollary that he also rule over woman, who is figured, at best, as dangerously well-acquainted with nature. At worst, she is the agent of original sin, having been first to give into the temptation to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I would be overjoyed to see a renaissance of indigenous values here in the Americas. I sometimes think it is one of our only best chances to heal our relationship with the rest of life on Earth.
Read "Braiding Sweetgrass" by Robin Wall Kimmerer, if you are interested in learning more about it. She's both an indigenous person and scientist.
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
Glad for your last sentence
Another interesting examination of religion is looking at the different Indigenous Peoples origin stories. I think that wherever you look, religion attempts to explain the unexplainable.
The NW Indigenous stories & how & where they were told are great! Bill Reid's writings about them as well as his art. They are full of the duality of man's character & the universe. Another interesting read is Frank Waters BOOK OF the HOPI
Mike S., while there are many surface correlations between parts of Genesis and the the overall drift of current cosmology, the primary difference is that the physics model is based on observation and is subject to endless revision as new observations come in. Genesis, on the other hand, is touted as the Word of God, revealed to Moses, completely true and unchangeable.
Besides, having plants arise before the Sun makes a mockery of the Asparagus Law, by which the Plant King gave the power of photosynthesis to is leafy subjects.
And how about that “talking “ serpent ? In the totally believable column !
It is certainly up to us, today, to vote in a super majority in 2024. It then will require hard work and constant vigil so the correct laws are enacted protecting and amplifying what the framers meant while writing the Constitution.
Janice, isn’t it painfully ironic that instead of Bork we got Thomas? He stands for stopping all the things Senator Kennedy listed, as do the other Christo fascists on the bench. The Buddhist image of our democracy being on the blade of a very sharp sword with a sheen of oil on the blade comes to mind.
Give it time. We basically have Bork’s court. Those lunch counters are, unfortunately, coming soon to a place near you.
Will, yeah - that's the obvious implication of the ruling for that bigoted website designer's hypothetical situation.
As well as the take down of affirmative action. Either one is essentially excluding folks from sitting at lunch counters
Who is today’s Ted Kennedy? We desperately need someone with the moral conviction and the personal courage to call out these blatant attempts to roll back progress and disguise them in double-speak and fake news! HEATHER FOR PRESIDENT👍
I can think of at least two worthy candidates to wear Ted Kennedy's robes: Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff.
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
My first thought too
Elizabeth Warren. And I might add even though a great fan of Senator Whitehouse who people in the state I live in put in office and even though I agree with the others mentioned here I find it interesting that people listed men first. Or maybe I’m not as well educated on American history as I could be ( which is why I’m reading HCR) or strengths of many Senators to hazard an opinion. Anyway it doesn’t seem to be a debate or popularity contest. Mostly highlighting people with conviction integrity and vision to be grateful for their membership and actions in the Senate.
Just for clarification, my two nominees are in the House. Raskin announced this week he won't be running for the Senate. Schiff is running to replace Dianne Feinstein.
Thanks for the corrections. I should (and now do) know better. I wish good luck to Schiff.
How about Katie Porter?
Katie is a fine representative but I don't see her in the tier as Adam Schiff.
Took the words right out of my mouth, MisTBlu!
In the House, I’d say Jamie Raskin is that voice.
I can't help but wonder if RFKJr would have gone off the deep end of the conspiracy pool if his Uncle Teddy was still alive.
I listened to the latest Lincoln Project podcast last night. Rick Wilson said Kennedy Jr was recruited by Steve Bannon to run. It seems plausible to me.
Steve has never been idle, always stirring hate and vitriol
I have been waiting to see if the latest round of Supreme Court decisions, allowing discrimination, is going to lead to segregated lunch counters again. Why wouldn’t it? Isn’t it now legal for somebody owning a restaurant or a store to refuse service to anyone they don’t want to serve?
I'm waiting for the case to arise where a plaintiff argues that allowing women to exercise authority over men is against his religion, so he and his business should be allowed to promote only men to positions of management.
Many do, but to base that refusal of service on a defined “protected status” is a violation of constitutional rights.
Robert Bork served as an advisor to the student formed Federalist Society. The students wanted a conservative response to the failure of Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. Look where we are today.
Kennedy wasn’t prescient. He grew up in one of the uppermost levels of the socioeconomic hierarchy.
He grew up listening to other people of his class openly share their often low and dismissive opinions regarding the common people, of women, of persons of color, and discuss how to control society for their best advantage by ridding laws and regulations which protect the rights of minorities, workers, consumers, etc.
"exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities" reflects the broader failure for America to have dealt with the social/economic consequences of uplifting huge social populations out of profound poverty outcomes. Not just for blacks, either. America's social vision of individualism and self reliance is radically incomplete.
Correct, and I did consider stating "BIPOC" but it seems that Black Americans have suffered the most in terms of redlining and other discriminatory practices.
Kennedy knew whereof he spoke.