He followed up a few days later by saying that he certainly didn't mean to suggest that Democrats have to embrace the tropes of right-wing millennialist evangelical christianity.

Except, of course, that he did.

There has to be a rule, dammit: you get up on a bully soapbox to decry all those secular liberal leaders who fail to be sufficiently respectful of those beleaguered American Christians, well, you'd damn well better start naming some very specific names and dates and times and places and examples.

In part because sneak attacks on straw stalking horses is getting really tiresome.

But mostly because I want to start assembling a list of people to cheer on and vote for. Dammit.

What Julia said, with bells on.

I think you're reading a bit much into Obama's remarks, myself.

"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters."

"Context matters." That's a big phrase, right there. Most of the issues I have with American politics and public decisions rely on a lack of consideration for context and a need for bright-line rules: Zero-tolerance school policies, that suspend the kids who were beat up along with the bullies; war hawks of all stripes; knee-jerk voters who follow anybody their side supports, regardless of what they think; the equation of disagreement with disloyalty. Seems to me we need more understanding of context.

Hell, I'm Jewish, and I never had a problem with nativity scenes on the Town Hall lawn. It wasn't a message that there was one path to heaven or salvation, it was a bunch of people and a harmless display of their faith.

And then, when the Jewish families in town got the money together to put up a menorah next to the scene, I frankly didn't care. Sure, I went along to the lighting--my mother would have killed me otherwise--but it felt transparent to me. The religious equivalent of keeping up with the Jonses...they were all there to get equal time, even though they really didn't need it. They just wanted it, thought they had to have it.

Yes, the Delaware yahoos are a problem, but that's just it. Context: declaring Jesus the "only path to salvation" and calling a kid "Alex the Jew" is a far cry from a religious group borrowing school grounds for a meeting, especially if it's after school.

Leaving "under God" in the Pledge and requiring kids to say it and making a big deal out of those that don't for whatever reason is also a far cry from a religious group borrowing school grounds for a meeting.

Harassment for not saying the pledge is a problem. I won't say otherwise. But it's just as much a problem for the kid who stops saying it because it feels like a lie (as I did--and I know exactly when. Ever read a book called The Cat Ate My Gymsuit by Paula Danzinger?) as for the kid who stops saying it for religious reasons.

The issue here isn't religious persecution, it's restriction of the exercise of freedom of speech--which carries with it the freedom to stay silent.

Will, I used to think the way you do. The behavior of my fellow Americans dissuaded me.

Attentive readers of Making Light will have discerned that I'm no atheist. But I'm a convinced radical secularist where public policy and public funds are concerned. And no, I'm not "reading too much" into Obama's remarks; they're a despicable attempt at the worst kind of "triangulation." They're a bid to sell out 11-year-old me in the vain hope of getting the support of Kenneth R. Stevens, 41.

Quoting Obama here:
“It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase ‘under God,’” he said.

Except of course, it does; my husband certainly felt oppressed and forced to do something he was uncomfortable doing. I managed to mostly miss that little ritual; it wasn't part of my elementary school experience.

I'm not too keen about forcing kids to verbally plight a troth that they can't possibly understand, no matter what religion they are.

And I'm getting a little desperate, trying to find someone I can support in elected office.

It may be Kenneth R. Steven's way of life, but it isn't mine.

"The issue here isn't religious persecution"

You are completely full of shit.

Ouch. Well, I'm still not seeing it. Not without context, anyway...but, as you suggested, I'm young and probably naive.

Your inclination to be tolerant is admirable, but these are people who would kill you if they could.

I'm not in favor of killing them back, but I am in favor of realistically noting what they are.

Your inclination to be tolerant is admirable,

Like I said. Young, naive. *grin* I'm only sort of kidding. I freely admit I've led something of a sheltered/charmed life; it colors my outlook.

these are people who would kill you if they could.

I'm not in favor of killing them back, but I am in favor of realistically noting what they are.

Maybe it's just a question of not being able to understand it until you look it in the eye, then. I see what you mean, but...

Anyway. I can see why Obama is playing up the importance of faith and religion. The perception of liberals as atheistic, religion-hating, anti-American, and morally depraved is a problem, no question. Maybe he's right, and maybe he's wrong, but I can definitely see the argument that sometimes you have to play the game a little, to get a wedge to open up the system. It's not a quick way; it's more of a lifetime. Is it the right call? *shrug* Hell, I dunno.

Suddenly I hear Leslie Fish's song "A Toast For Unsung Heroes" in my head...

(I find the irony outstanding, by the way. I wasn't alive for it, but I recall my grandfather telling me that when JFK ran for office, there was a very real concern that he'd take orders from the Pope. Now, I almost think people would rather that happened, than that a president base his decisions on the facts.)

Patrick, Julia, I read Obama's speech shortly after he first made it, and just re-read it now. He's wrong about the Pledge (and what the hell is a nation of supposedly free people doing with a pledge of allegiance anyway?), and he's too quick to lend credence to right-wing anti-secularist strawman arguments, but I'm just not seeing the part where he "suggest[s] that Democrats have to embrace the tropes of right-wing millennialist evangelical christianity". Could you point it out?

And did you catch his advice for the religious conservatives?:

"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers."

"The perception of liberals as atheistic, religion-hating, anti-American, and morally depraved is a problem, no question."

It certainly is, as long as we have Barack Obama (and Amy Sullivan, and a cast of thousands) enthusiastically promoting it in order to advance their own careers.

Gosh, Avram, the last time we went around over this set of issues, I was defending religious people and you were being Mr. Brave Secularist.

Forgive me if I get the impression that your basic outlook here is Patrick Must Be Wrong.

Also, note how this kind of nitpicking has completely displaced any discussion of what's been doing, and what's being done, to the Dobrich family.

We'll all go down, and die, to the tune of wiseass intellectual fanboys explaining how we weren't precisely right on point 2(a)(1)(b).

But it won't be any skin off Barack Obama's nose.

I'm Jewish, secular, a separation-of-church-and-state absolutist, and no fan of Obama's speech. Like Patrick, I think it's an example of a would-be Democratic leader advancing his own career at the expense of his party. It has made me think less of Obama, just as the same kind of stunt has made me think less of Lieberman.

However, just to be fair: didn't Obama's speech come before the story of the Dobriches, not after? He wasn't referring to them, and I think he has enough decency so that he would find what happened to them as appalling as we do.

BTW, the Georgetown story actually broke a few weeks ago. Here's an article from late June. It lists several specific allegations from the Dobrich-Doe lawsuit. (Bonus: Crappy CSS that causes a sidebar to overlap the article text!) It's not where I first saw the story, but it's what came up when I googled.

And yes, I caught his obligatory dance-of-even-handedness. Did you, Avram, catch what aspects of his speech got covered in the national media?

Oh, never mind, none of this matters, it's all fucking performance. All that matters is the skill with which you grab off opportunities to position yourself.

"just to be fair"

The hell with "fair". Nobody's being fair to the Dobriches. Nobody was fair to me in Tempe in 1968. Barack Obama has a good life going. He could stand to be a little bit ashamed of himself for his truckling careerism. He could take a fucking stand for Alex Dobrich. Or, as Alex's neighbors--the people Barack Obama wants us to be so understanding of--call him: "Alex the Jew."

Or maybe, Patrick, I'm judging these things on a case-by-case basis, examining actual facts. (Not that I actually remember what "last time" was.)

I'm not about to defend those assholes in Georgetown (and I composed my second message, with the link to additional information, before I saw your reply to me). I'm not willing to sweep Barack Obama up into their category, or paint him as defending them when he's not.

Yes, Avram, you're "judging these things on a case-by-case basis." Quant suff.

It wasn't a message that there was one path to heaven or salvation

Correct: it was a message that Americans are supposed to believe in the birth of Jesus, and that it's right and proper for taxpayer dollars to advance Christianity. I find it hard to believe that anyone bright enough to operate a Web browser would not find that problematic, 'charmed life' or otherwise.

And incidentally: Nobody's "painting" Obama as overtly "defending" "those assholes in Georgetown."

The point is that his rhetorical strategy empowers those assholes in southern Delaware. It makes them happier, stronger, better-defended. No matter how much anti-fundie boilerplate he ladles in. Whether he intends it or not. That's how the media works in 2006. Get this point. Get this fucking point.

Or, maybe, don't get the point. Sail along on your cloud, happy in the belief that correctly-parsed logic is all that matters. Until, you know, they cut your throat.

Yes, Patrick, like I said "he's too quick to lend credence to right-wing anti-secularist strawman arguments". That was my first reaction, weeks, ago, when I first saw the stories, to roll my eyes and say to myself "Thanks for banking those fires, Obama."

Then I read the full speech, and decided it was more the media's fault than his.

Though actually, where the hell does Obama come off with "Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat"? OK, yeah, now I see what you mean about the right-wing tropes.

I still blame the media more than I blame Obama.

“It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase ‘under God,’” he said.

Well, sure. That might have something to do with the brainwashing, don't you think?

As far as the Ken Stevens of the world are concerned, most of the words that come to mind to describe him and his ilk are uttered with great frequency on Deadwood

I think that we damn well ought to expect politicians to understand how the media will use their words, and plan accordingly. It's not like this is exactly a recent development - there's been time to look and understand. We've noticed, and it's not even our jobs or anything. There are folks voting this year who lived their whole lives inside the Republican noise machine (since they were born in 1988). I would like politicians unprepared to deal with it to fucking get out of the way. In the meantime, I'm quite comfortable criticizing them as tools.

I don't know how it is with y'all, but among my friends, the #1 thing I hear from friends not wild about Bush but also not feeling motivated to vote much is the sense that the two parties simply don't matter that much. What we need is someone willing to say that the Democratic Party would be much better off by shoving out the folks who want to keep arguing that the war in Iraq was ever a good idea, that the party is insufficiently coddling of conservative Christians, and all of that crap. Anone whose vision of the Democratic Party is, basically, "the Republicans but a little less so" should be putting the effort into reviving the dead soul of decent Republicanism and leaving the Democratic Party to people who want something else.

Follow-up on the media awareness point:

Yes, the noise machine will distort whatever it can, and will lie about the rest. Even so, the rest of us can stop handing them such convenient straight lines in public speeches crafted in advance. We have to start out by challenging their frameworks, not by adopting them, and then take it from there.

There are times when I wonder if Americans, and American Politicians in particular, know what alleigance is.

Mind you, I don't think our politicians are much better, these days. They all swear their oaths of office, and seem to forget to just what or who they have pledged their honour to.

"I still blame the media more than I blame Obama."

Think Obama didn't know which aspect of his speech the media would pick up on? 'Left chides Left' will make headlines, 'Left chides Right' won't, even if the overwhelming balance of the speech or article is the latter. This is a known art. I've seen it practiced in Britain for almost thirty years. Tony Blair is a master of it.

In that respect, the key sentence of the speech is this:

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.

If that isn't 'lend[ing] credence to right-wing anti-secularist strawman arguments' I don't know what is.

“It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase ‘under God,’” he said.

And how does he know that? Did he do a survey? Or is he just more comfortable assuming that children don't feel oppressed or brainwashed? I'm High Church, living in a country where the church and state divorced about six years ago, and I would feel oppressed having to 'mutter' that.

The Dobrich family was singled out by the community they live in and they were percecuted by their faith. Alex - their son was openly called Jew boy and other slurs. They were told to accept Jesus as their savior and to stop wearing that damn yarmuke. Their older daughter was singled out by remarks from a local pastor at her HS graduation, as being a special student who needed guidance from G-d and Jesus. They were the only Jewish family in their community and they were run out on a rail after they protested the local school board's decision to have a Christian based curriculum county wide.
They sued, and their address was published as part of an outing of people who sue via the ACLU. They moved due to the death threats adn harassment. Granted I may not have all the facts right here - but when a Jewish or a Muslim or Hindi/buddhist family is told to accept Jesus or else, there is something wrong.

If I've offended, I apologise.

I wonder how Sen. Obama would regard someone who said, "I'm sure there's no racism in this region. I've talked to a bunch of white people, and none of them said they experienced any problems with racism directed against them."

It sounds good to say that these problems should be treated on a "case by case" basis, but that leaves how many families having to uproot themselves, put up with harassment, etc? Is it right that only people willing to go through a lawsuit and bankrupt their families have access to their basic constitutional rights?

Allowing evangelical Christians to set the standards for church-state separation is like letting the white pride crowd determine what constitutes racism, or men define sexual harrasment.

The most remarkable phrase I read here, was: " Like Patrick, I think it's an example of a would-be Democratic leader advancing his own career at the expense of his party."

At the expense of his party?

At the expense of the party that has been falling all over itself to claim it supports the war against the Iraqi people even more than Bush does? The party whose preumptive nominee (Clinton) just came out against gay marriages? The party that has been caving in to the Christian Right on nearly every issue for the last 8 years? The party that has been rushing to back Israel's war against Lebanese children? THAT Democratic Party? Just where is his break with the Democratic Party?

Until those who wish for social progress are willing to admit that the Democratic Party is politically and morally bankrupt--basically Republicans with a leavening of hypocricy--I do not see any viable option for defending the Dobrichs of this world.

*sigh* I wish Stephen weren't making such good sense. I'm not yet quite prepared to concede that the party simply will not be used for any good end at the moment, pending the outcome of this year's sundry challenges. I don't expect it to matter to the election outcome, since I think that was stolen long since. But the balance of power in the party might be more up for grabs. If it fizzles out, though...I dunno. I feel awfully stuck for possibly effective options.

Allowing evangelical Christians to set the standards for church-state separation is like letting ... men define sexual harassment.

Uh, without getting into the other thread's question of whether feminist men exist, could we amend this to something like "...letting abusive men define sexual harassment."

The thing that I hate most is that the religious people are all on about "It's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion." In public spaces, supported by public money, it ought to be freedom FROM religion. Tax dollars should not ever, ever go to favor, promote, support, or further any religion. There should be no mention of any deity in the pledge of allegiance. There should be no deity on the money.

The evangelicals redraw the lines in this argument every time the church-state issue comes up.

They muddy the waters by claiming that not-believing is a religion called secular humanism. Uhm. No.

They claim that "the majority" of people believe in some vaguely similar Judeo-Christian God and that therefore this God has some right to public money and public places.

They refer to the "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" lines in the D-of-I to prove that the founding fathers intended a religious basis for this nation.

They will do whatever it takes to push their agenda of belief upon those who do not believe, including accusing those who DO NOT believe of being haters, intolerant nazis, for opposing harmless demonstrations of faith and goodwill towards men.

And, y'know, they do it all while couching the terms to make it look like they are the persecuted minority.

There's a possibility that history will make a fool of me again, but I don't think I'm ready to concede that the Democrats and the Republicans are indistinguishable yet. The Lamont-Lieberman race in CT certainly shows that not all Democrats are identical.

There is an interesting point in the Rick Perlstein article which Patrick sidelighted that the various factions of the right do not fight in public against each other and so is able to maintain a coalition in which they all benefit. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing that the left does not appear to do the same. (Yes, this assumes a very broad definition of "the left." I find that all sorts of people are being called liberal who do not really deserve the term. Under what rational criteria could either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton be considered liberal?)

It does look like that we're eventually headed for a schism where the "Democratic wing of the Democratic party" finally gets sick of the pandering and does its own thing. Unfortunately, that would probably just ensures governments with no respect for civil liberties or any notion of fairness for the foreseeable future.

From wikipedia, Barack converted to christianity sometime around the age of 25 or so. His DNC speech included the line "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States,"

So, he would seem to have a personal bias towards christianity, and that his religious beliefs have some strength of conviction to them.

Wikipedia also states: Though known as a principled liberal, Obama was highly regarded for his ability to build coalitions and persuade opponents. He engineered the unanimous passage in the Senate of several pieces of progressive legislation, and in one instance, successfully convinced the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Rifle Association to endorse a bill they had previously opposed.

Wikipedia goes on to say: in June of 2006, appearing before Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty, Obama encouraged fellow Democrats to reach out to evangelicals and other church-going people.

This is where Obama said his bit about "It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed"

So, it would seem that this is part an outcome of Obama's attempt to build coalitions and persuade opponents in an attempt to address the problem of poverty. And there is some truth to the stereotype of liberals-hate-all-religion. The poster child for anti-religion-of-any-kind is Bill Maher. I love Bill's show, but his anti-religion tirades certainly can alienate people who might otherwise be supportive of his point of view. Not all liberals are like that, but some really are.

It would also seem that Obama's partly influenced by his personal religion, and it is his "awesome God" under which we Pledge our Allegiance. So, he is biased, which doesn't mean he isn't able to change. The thing is that this speech was given at a meeting to overcome poverty through faith based initiatives, and Obama's speech at least in part seemed directed to the idea that Democrats should not be anti-religion. It was not in response to the Dobrich family leaving town or their son being called "Jew boy".

Obama's attempt to build a coalition, of getting Democrats to work with religious groups to address poverty, seems to be an honest attempt to produce a good outcome. It does, however, seem to suffer from Obama's denial of or inexperience towards religious prejudice. Part of which will be amplified by his own personal religion.

The reveal would come if Obama responded to the Dobrich case or similiar cases. Obama has demonstrated his ability to try to build coalitions to get Democrats to work with religious groups. The question is would Obama in response to the Dobrich's case try to build a coalition to get Christians to work with non-christians. Is he open to adjust his point of view based on new information, or is he immovable in his pro-christian point of view, to the point that Christianity can do nothing wrong.

Personally, I don't think he's doing this to get someone's vote. It's hard to see someone who is good at building coalitions of people from different backgrounds, to the point of using that skill to pass progressive legislation, and call it pandering. I think he's being true to his personal faith, and if he's making any mistake, it is having a blind eye to the problems that can occur when religion, even his own religion, is brought into government entities, such as public schools.

The question I have is whether that blind eye is a matter of simply never having seen religious prejudice after converting to christianity, or if it is a function of outright denial. Obama's tried to court Democrats to embrace religion. Now the question is whether Obama can court his own religion to embrace tolerance of other religions that are not his own. And that tolerance would be in the form of a new respect for the separation of church and state.

This isn't to lessen what happened to the Dobrich's or Patrick, or to say that prejudice doesn't exist right here and now, or that said prejudice can't be physically dangerous to its victims. Death threats are a hair's breath from a lynch mob.

I'm just not convinced that Obama would be one of the people holding a rope. yet.

they protested the local school board's decision to have a Christian based curriculum county wide.

So why is a public school district requiring everyone to use a religion-based curriculum? Right there I'm feeling my blood pressure rising. Yes, there may be only one family who is obviously non-Christian - but that doesn't mean there aren't more who are afraid to speak up.

Maybe it's me, and maybe this reflects a shocking naivete, but why does this discussion keep moving away from the fact that a Christian community persecuted and eventually pushed a Jewish family out of their home because they didn't accept Jesus and, in this separation-of-church-and-state, post-Holocaust, post-Civil Rights United States, so many people seem to be okay with that?

And why does this discussion keep moving away from the fact that what Obama should have done was come out against it and not make some general statement that was so wishy-washy that it could be interpreted by any side in the discussion as a defense of Good Christians Everywhere and the idea that a few words can't hurt anyone?

As for Mr. Brust's assertion that Israel is waging a war against Lebanese children, well, beyond my pure disbelief that someone with any brains at all would think that's what's going on, I'm really pretty speechless. That's all I'm going to say on that subject.

I don't think it's true that Obama is saying these things in order to grab headlines and advance his career. I think he's saying this stuff because he grew up in Kansas and represented the South Side of Chicago and he knows a lot of good people who are also deeply religious, and he thinks that Democrats who say things like "These are people who would kill you if they could," are doing everyone a disservice.

Driving away votes and slurring a lot of decent people who are just a little overwhelmed by the modern world, nostagic for an imagined simpler time. They're wrong, but they're not evil, and they could be won over. We have nothing to gain by escalating the culture wars. It will just radicalize more of them. In that, Obama is right.

But no, I don't think kids should have to say the pledge, with or without its late "under god" addition. I disagree with his implication that there's nothing wrong with that. However, just because I disagree with him on some things, doesn't mean I'm ready to demonize him. Doesn't mean I won't vote for him (again. I already did, in both the primary and the general IL senate elections.) So long as his opinions are sincerely held (and I believe they are, as he's been consistent and has passed up opportunities for demogoguery) and he strikes me as a thoughtful and capable man, he doesn't need to agree with me on every single issue in order to be a good leader.

You know, I thought I was cynical enough that no shameful American act could surprise me, but no. This was actually shocking. I figured that when faced with real flesh and blood persons instead of an amorphous group of "Atheists" or "non-Christians," these people would surely behave humanely. Instead they're confusing "majority rule" with "mob rule," and we know how smart and humane mobs are.

And so I give you Rev. Gregory A. Boyd, pastor of one of these evangelical (distinctly UNliberal) mega-churchs (this one in Minnesota) with thousands and thousands of members. From an article in this morning's New York Times:

In his six sermons, Mr. Boyd laid out a broad argument that the role of Christians was not to seek "power over" others — by controlling governments, passing legislation or fighting wars. Christians should instead seek to have "power under" others — "winning people's hearts" by sacrificing for those in need, as Jesus did, Mr. Boyd said.

"America wasn't founded as a theocracy," he said. "America was founded by people trying to escape theocracies. Never in history have we had a Christian theocracy where it wasn't bloody and barbaric. That's why our Constitution wisely put in a separation of church and state.

"I am sorry to tell you," he continued, "that America is not the light of the world and the hope of the world. The light of the world and the hope of the world is Jesus Christ."

Mr. Boyd lambasted the "hypocrisy and pettiness" of Christians who focus on "sexual issues" like homosexuality, abortion or Janet Jackson's breast-revealing performance at the Super Bowl halftime show. He said Christians these days were constantly outraged about sex and perceived violations of their rights to display their faith in public.

"Those are the two buttons to push if you want to get Christians to act," he said. "And those are the two buttons Jesus never pushed."

Some Woodland Hills members said they applauded the sermons because they had resolved their conflicted feelings. David Churchill, a truck driver for U.P.S. and a Teamster for 26 years, said he had been "raised in a religious-right home" but was torn between the Republican expectations of faith and family and the Democratic expectations of his union.

When Mr. Boyd preached his sermons, "it was liberating to me," Mr. Churchill said.

Since Rev. Boyd started saying this stuff, he has lost 1,000 of his 5,000 members. I get the feeling his attitude about that is pretty much, "Forgive me, O Lord, but good riddance."

I memorized the PoA without understanding a word of it, and recited it every morning for years. I gradually came to understand what it meant (I was a little spotty on the difference between 'indivisible' and 'invisible'.) When I finally realized what it meant, and that I'd been taking an OATH that I didn't understand, I was furious.

Yes, furious. In grade school.

I wasn't brave enough to stop saying it. But I have been firmly convinced since then that it should be abolished outright. 'Under God' or no 'under God', it's wrong to make people recite oaths they don't fully understand. In fact, it's wrong and deeply wrong to impose an oath on anyone; an oath not freely entered is a false oath, and the swearing of false oaths is a dreadful karmic burden.

Yeah, that's MY religion coming through. And that's the role of religion in American politics: it informs our opinions, may even determine them; but it may not be the argument for or against any law or practice. The majority does not have any right to impose its religious views, per se, on the minority.

So, for example, if you say "I'm against gay marriage because I believe that God established marriage as between one man and one woman," you're being historically naïve, but not outrageous. You ARE being outrageous if you say "We cannot permit gay marriage, because God established etc." And even the former can be offensive if uttered e.g. on the floor of the Senate, where anything you say is de facto an argument for a policy.

What happened to the Dolbriches is an outrage, and Georgetown, DE should now become a byword for anti-Semitic bigotry. I'm sure that if I went there and they knew all about me I would be lynched by nightfall (gay Pagan leftie that I am). We should be activist about this, and denounce Georgetown, DE in every possible venue. People should be ashamed to be from there.

These things should never be decided on a case-by-case basis. They should be decided on the basis of principles. Otherwise, a school board will be free to say "yes" in the case of a Christian youth group meeting in the library after school, and "no" in the case of a Wiccan youth group meeting in the library after school.

The whole point of having a bill of rights is to force the assholes in charge of things to apply the same rules in ALL cases.

Yes, Michael! In Wicca we call it "power-with." For example, I'm more likely to listen to you than to a random poster, because your past posts give you power with me. People don't start at zero; they have to be Mrk Yrk to get down that low.

It's part of my life's work to reduce the amount of power-over in the world and increase the amount of power-with. When the Vertical World Becomes Horizontal, what a peaceful world we'll have!

And why does this discussion keep moving away from the fact that what Obama should have done was come out against it and not make some general statement that was so wishy-washy that it could be interpreted by any side in the discussion as a defense of Good Christians Everywhere and the idea that a few words can't hurt anyone?

Obama gave that speech at a faith-based project to overcome poverty. It wasn't in response to the Dobrich's situation.

As for Mr. Brust's assertion that Israel is waging a war against Lebanese children, well, beyond my pure disbelief that someone with any brains at all would think that's what's going on,

The "what's going on" is that Israel just killed 34 children in a single airstrike. Yahoo reported it here. It doesn't matter what the target was. What matters is the "what's going on" the what really happened, the end results. And the end results is that 34 children were killed by an Israeli airstrike.

Israel complains that Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as "human shields", but that doesn't mean it's then OK to kill the shield. The civilians remain civilians and aren't guilty simply based on their address.

But the reality of dead civilians is always overlaid with excuses and justifications.

Israel has a beef with Hezbollah. And in fighting Hezbollah, Israel has declared that Lebanese civilians aren't important to them. Or at least not important enough to deal with Hezbollah in some other way.

Instead, Israel seems driven simply by a "score card" where dead Israeli's count a "1", dead Hezbollah count as "-1", and Lebanese civilians count as "0", and they're simply going about evening the score. They have waged a war of escallation with complete disregard for non-Israeli civilians.

Their tactics of telling Lebanese civilians to evacuate and considering them "militants" if they don't comply is little different than the stupidity and bullheadedness of Bush invading Iraq for the attacks on 9-11. And of course, neither can admit any mistakes. Both must continually change their excuses to keep up with an ever-changing reality.

Uh, without getting into the other thread's question of whether feminist men exist, could we amend this to something like "...letting abusive men define sexual harassment."

Even the non-abusive men just don't *see* sexual harrassment of us - because it's not something that affects them personally. If I had a dollar for every time some liberal, self-proclaimed feminist Nice Guy told me I was overreacting, that there was nothing chauvinistic about this advertisement or that essay or this prof or that movie, I'd be able to put a downpayment on a Prius, at least.

Which is exactly the point - it's *exactly* the same sort of thing as nice white/Christian moderates telling religious or ethnic minorities they're overreacting and "too sensitive" about instances of bigotry or bias. How the heck would you/they/we *know*--? It isn't happening the same way, and it hasn't happened the same way all along, to people inside and outside the marginalized group.

--I've just finished Pears' An Instance of the Fingerpost, which illustrates better than even Handmaid's Tale what a theocratic plutocratic society - with a modern, western, "civilized" flair - would be like to live in, both for those who would prosper and profit in it, and all the rest of us. Do we really want to slip-slide back to that?

Even the non-abusive men just don't *see* sexual harrassment of us - because it's not something that affects them personally. If I had a dollar for every time some liberal, self-proclaimed feminist Nice Guy told me I was overreacting, that there was nothing chauvinistic about this advertisement or that essay or this prof or that movie, I'd be able to put a downpayment on a Prius, at least.

Okay, well, that's an argument from That Other Thread so I will drop it here. In fact, come to think of it, I will drop it entirely since I don't think there's any argument I could make that would change your view.

You are perfectly entitled to your view, of course. Just as I am perfectly entitled to mine inasmuch as I have earned mine every bit as much as you have earned yours.

Ken, "left chides left" makes headlines even when the paper has to lie about the content of a "left chides right" speech -- see the NY Times on Senator Clinton's "wasting time" speech.

And now we've got the same thing going on here, with Mary R and Mary Dell taking my "case by case" entirely out of context. Thanks for the on-the-spot example of shoddy, dishonest reporting, folks!

Even the non-abusive men just don't *see* sexual harrassment of us - because it's not something that affects them personally. ... it's *exactly* the same sort of thing as nice white/Christian moderates telling religious or ethnic minorities they're overreacting

No, not exactly the same. completely opposite, maybe. But not exactly the same.

Justice isn't defined by the victim. Thankfully. And it isn't defined by the oppressor either. It is defined by everyone. Having been on jury duty for a murder trial and having been amazed at the completely different interpretaions that jurists had at the exact same evidence, I'm a subscriber of the idea that justice is defined by society. That trial by jury is in part an idea that the state must convince the society (based on a random sample of 12 members of that society) of someone's guilt.

It isn't enough for a woman to say she's been harrassed. She needs to convince society that she's been harassed.

Which means that a woman could be harrassed and never get justice because she couldn't convince anyone. But it also means that we avoid the problems inherent in victim's justice. Letting women decide what is needed for sexual equality without the input of men is simply more sexual inequality.

You're claiming that women will do what's fair for men, but men cannot do what's fair for women. And I'm just a little tired of this sort of argument.

And no I'm not saying harrassment doesn't happen. But yes, I am saying you are overreacing in proposing that teh only way for justice to be achieved is to allow the victims to implement the solution.

If the solution doesn't involve everyone, it is simply more injustice of a different flavor.

We have nothing to gain by escalating the culture wars. It will just radicalize more of them. In that, Obama is right.

And therein lies the essence of Patrick's earlier response, and the heart of why we are where we are right now-- because those fucking assholes feel empowered, as a community, to openly ride other citizens out of town on a rail for their religious beliefs-- but heaven forfend we should fail to make nicey-nicey when talking to them, or even about them.

Once again, it's all our fault for making the bully hit us.

I didn't respond to Jenna's remark about Lebanon because otherwise this is going to get sidetracked onto that issue. Happy as I am to discuss it, right now it is a distraction from what I think is an important discussion. If it isn't too late, I withdraw my remark about Israel.

I do so the more readily because, even without it, I think my comment about the state of the Democratic Party stands. And to me that is the key issue. There is today no political party in America that is able to answer the attacks of the extreme right, and is able to defend the mass of the American people against the loss of basic rights, and continued economic attacks.

Or just in case that wasn't clear enough, let me shoot again: The people escalating the culture wars are the cretinous fucking thugs driving their fellow citizens away from their homes and their lives. And we're supposed to feel bad about calling a spade a spade? Balls.

OK, on my blog is a sample of what we can do to further the denunciation of Georgetown. Not much effect, given the obscurity of my blog. But some of you who have more widely-read blogs could spread the word.

Is it "questionable content" to post a blog link? If this posts, it is.

Scott Lynch: Hear, hear.

Obama: "It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God,'" he said.

It sure teaches them how to deal with being oppressed as in "keep your head down and lie through your teeth".

When I consider what it has taken most of Europe to get away from state religions and theocracies... decades of war in Germany, a bunch of bloody revolutions in France, witch hunts and coups in England, a fascist catholic dictatorship that only old age could kill in Spain (and they are still fearing that it may rise from the grave), a thousand years of progroms, murders and persecutions all over the place, reaching right into the "last week", in Ireland and the Balkans... in the end you might have a pretty and tame state church which is subordinate to a democratic government and keeps mostly quiet, but until you get there it's an awful mess.

::headdesk:: It's the first ammendment... the first freakin' one! It's not like you even have to read that far to get to it... Why do so many people manage to miss it?

On the subject of the pledge, I agree with Xopher. 'Under God' or no, making kindergarteners recite oaths is wrong. It's also pointless, because an oath not taken in good faith is not an oath at all. If people want to voluntarily swear their allegience, cheers for them. Really, I hope they have fun with that.

But as a Quaker, my religion forbids me to take oaths whether or not I agree with their wording. My entire academic carreer was a long string of "Why won't you stand?|What's a Quaker?|I don't care if you don't want to say it; you have to stand|People died for that flag|Go to the office, young lady!" Arguments. Every new teacher, substitute, or school, there it was again: Another trip to the office to explain to the principal that he/she had my every blessing to call my parents, because I wasn't going to stand. If I count up all the class time I missed over those twelve years, it'd probably total at least a semester's worth of credit hours. I go to school to get an education, not to argue my faith with the principal or to get bullied by other students with the teacher's blessing because I refuse to participate in a ritual.

What bothers me worst about the Delaware debacle is that no one there (as far as we know) stood up and said, "This is wrong."

I don't know which is worse - that the people there who know this is wrong are too scared/indifferent to say publicly that this is wrong, or that no one there knows that this is wrong.

Annalee Flower Horne, I'm sorry that that happened to you. Thank you for having the courage to stand up for...not standing up. Oh, you know what I mean!

Am I correct in assuming that you won in every case (eventually)? Why didn't your parents just send a note with you on the first day of every school year, explaining the situation?

I'm asking because I know some Wiccan parents who did send such a note saying "you can expect trouble at Halloween." When their daughter said "THAT's not a Witch! My mommy is a Witch and she doesn't look like that!" the teacher was ready with "Your mommy is a real Witch. This is a pretend witch," which (npi) was good enough for second grade.

What people like Obama need to be saying to evangelical Christians is this:

You have exactly the same right as every other American to pursue your life as you see fit. The government takes no stand on whether your choices are God's will for you, sinful, or anything else, so long as they abide by the law of the land. You have the right - not granted by God, but enshrined in our fundamental charter and laws - to choose your worship, your family roles, and a whole lot else. But sin and grace are not the basis of civil law, and you have no more right to stop others from doing what you believe sinful than they have to stop you for violating their own creeds.

You will, in America, always have to live with the knowledge that others are doing things you are sure do damage to their souls, and that you have no means but persuasion to use against them. That's the price each of us pays to protect all of us from those who are just as sure of their rightness as you and me, but who would stamp us out. You are not entitled to protection from their criticism, or their scorn - you're guaranteed respect in the public square. Your duty as a citizen of this republic is to make peace with that fact, and live your life as a born-again child of God in ways that do not destroy the fabric of the republic that allows you to hear and preach the Word. You may preach against your neighbor. You may condemn your neighbor's ways in the strongest terms you see fit. You may not use the law to keep your neighbor from living his life according to his lights, so long as he continues to respect your rights under the law.

This is what God calls you to do: to be a light in the world, not to be the agent of shackling all hearts and minds. This is what America calls you to do: to take part as equals in the never-ending public conversation about right and wrong. Win hearts and minds. It's the way you have to change the world, just like everyone else.

Grrr. Imposing religious belief into public school really, really gets me. Imposing the degree of conformity that appears to be sought (so what's next?) by running a "different" family out of town is scary. Weren't we supposed to be beyond this sort of thing by now? I wonder how the teachers in this community feel, especially the science teachers. Some of my colleagues have been faced with milder forms of this sort of thing--we have a small group that makes a lot of accusations fly around about Christian kids allegedly unable to show their faith in school.

As a Left Catholic, stories like those about this Jewish family scare the heck out of me. Many of those same people who turn on Jewish people would then turn on Catholics if they could. Then they'd go after the Protestant left.

Tolerance is the key--but not a tolerance based on sufferance of those who are different--a tolerance based on the acceptance and understanding that different things work for different people, and that not everyone wants to go to Generic Evangelical Protestant Megachurch. Christianity is not primarily about intolerance of others, and those who make it so are hypocrites of the worst kind.

It's all the religious, shoving their opinions into the public discourse. A pox on all of them.

Ever hear of an Xtian who wanted to put up a monument to the Beatitudes?

And why does this discussion keep moving away from the fact that what Obama should have done was come out against it

Because he wasn't talking about the Dobrich case.

I'd like to see him speak up about the Dobrich case; I'd like to see if he has the nerve to go back to the faithholders he was addressing and tell them -- just as publicly as he spoke originally -- just as the secularists should not exclude the religious, the religious must be tolerant, and that the intolerance shown in this case belongs in [their choice of fundamentalist theocratic tyranny] and not in the U.S. (cf People for the American Way, which has been arguing for years that intolerance, even majoritarian religious intolerance of minorities, is neither historically based, nor constitutional, nor part of American principles. Also cf Roman Catholics for Religious Choice, who have noted that among all the things damned by the apostate Saul, abortion was not among them; et multiplex cetera.)

But I'm not going to demand that he tar all religious with the mark of intolerance because of what the f*ckheads do; that works for the Right because they can claim all non-conservatives are [choose your favorite leftist], but it doesn't work when most of the people in this country are not uncomfortable with religion. I would love to see the U.S. become uncomfortable with religion (or at least think it's in bad taste, as much of Europe seems to). I'll match my radical secularism against Patrick's any day, and point to at least one reason for mine that I doubt he has; I would love to see the prybar go in, bit by bit, until it splits the whackos off from those who actually follow the \teachings/ of Christ. So I'm not going to automatically assume that someone is showing nothing more than blind ambition when he tries to make connections between ]my[ side and those who still believe.

Right Scorpio, "all the religious", like our hosts here. How dare they actually have opinions and, y'know, talk about them. In public even, as if they had the same rights as the rest of us.

Greg London:

In your rush to condemn Israel, you ignore reality, including the consistency of your own post.

You write:

What matters is the "what's going on" the what really happened, the end results. And the end results is that 34 children were killed by an Israeli airstrike.

Note, however, the AP report:

Israeli said it targeted Qana because it was a base for hundreds of rockets launched at Israeli, including 40 that injured five Israelis on Sunday. Israel said it had warned civilians several days before to leave the village.

"One must understand the Hezbollah is using their own civilian population as human shields," said Israeli Foreign Ministry official Gideon Meir. "The Israeli defense forces dropped leaflets and warned the civilian population to leave the place because the Hezbollah turned it into a war zone."

Next:

Israel complains that Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as "human shields", but that doesn't mean it's then OK to kill the shield. The civilians remain civilians and aren't guilty simply based on their address.

So you're aware Hezbullah uses civilians as human shields. What you may not be aware of, is that using civilians as human shields, which Hezbullah does regularly - in this village reported above, clustered within 3-5 yards of a UNIFIL post that was hit a couple of days ago, etc. - the party that uses human shields assumes all responsibility for the deaths of their shields. No blame accrues, under international law, to the party that is forced by this tactic to kill civilians.

From the Fourth Geneva Convention, I quote:

Article 28
The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.

Article 29
The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred.

Greg continues:

Israel has a beef with Hezbollah. And in fighting Hezbollah, Israel has declared that Lebanese civilians aren't important to them. Or at least not important enough to deal with Hezbollah in some other way.

Exactly the reverse of reality. According to the Geneva Convention above, Hezbollah, and by extension Lebanon (in whose parliament Hezbollah constitutes almost 20% of the seats), has declared that Lebanese civilians aren't important to them. Or at least not important enough to deal with Hezbollah in some other way, such as implementing UN Sec. Council Res. 1559 - which calls for the elimination of all private militias in Lebanon.

Greg continues,

Instead, Israel seems driven simply by a "score card" where dead Israeli's count a "1", dead Hezbollah count as "-1", and Lebanese civilians count as "0", and they're simply going about evening the score.

Evening the score? What score? Israel is doing what a state does: defending its civilian population. Their casus belli is sound: years of rocket attacks from Hezbullah in southern Lebanon, on civilian locations, towns and farms, in the north of Israel.

Meanwhile, Lebanon has not done what a responsible state should do: put down militias that are not part of its own military, even when they agreed to do so under UN Res. 1559.

Clearly, you do not feel Israel has the right to exist and conduct itself as a responsible state.

That is the unspoken undercurrent of 90% of the criticism of the State of Israel's conduct, both from internal critics (the academic Left and some ultra-Orthodox) and external critics.

They have waged a war of escallation with complete disregard for non-Israeli civilians.

On the contrary, the leafletting campaign has caused hundreds of thousands to flee the war zone. Further, the leafletting is only to Israel's detriment militarily, as it also warns their Hezbollah targets where they're going to bomb, so they have time to move their rocket launchers. But Israel's care for Lebanese civilians far outstrips, say, Lebanon's, or even the US' concern for Iraqi civilians.

It is an "action against interest", putting public morality above military necessity. And still Israel is blamed for being more moral than its neighbors, more moral than the US, etc.

Their tactics of telling Lebanese civilians to evacuate and considering them "militants" if they don't comply is little different than the stupidity and bullheadedness of Bush invading Iraq for the attacks on 9-11. And of course, neither can admit any mistakes. Both must continually change their excuses to keep up with an ever-changing reality.

As you evidently choose to do. You blame Israel for not being concerned with civilian casualties, yet also blame them for their activities undertaken to prevent civilian casualties (leafletting).

You cannot have it both ways.

So, Avram, tell me -- why is Obama's opinion less worthy, then? And why are secular opinions less worthy?

I have not noticed our hosts shoving their opinions into law. I have not noticed that they are driving their neighbors out.

But of course, bashing the secular is the easiest shot in the world.

I suppose we should each visit a mirror.

There is today no political party in America that is able to answer the attacks of the extreme right, and is able to defend the mass of the American people against the loss of basic rights, and continued economic attacks.

Let's assume this is correct. (I think it's basically right although overstated, but put that aside.) The question is what to do about it. And I think that, due to the history and structure of the U.S.'s political system, the only answer is to attempt to take over the Democratic party for those who are good on these issues. Third parties are going to hurt, not help. Nader's essentially deliberate election of Bush demonstrates that yet again. And, on the contrary side, the take-over of the Republican party by the extremist right from c. 1955 onward shows, technically, that (and how) it can be done.

So with that caveat, yes, the Democrats suck. Lamont is a good first step. Let's hope there are others.

Scorpio, what the hell are you talking about?

On the issue of Obama's speech, I'd recommend this piece by Michelle Goldberg on the Huffington Post. MG is a reporter who specializes in these issues, and just wrote a book about the rise of theocratic thinking in the U.S. Her point of view is a lot like Patrick's, although less angry in tone.

I will say though I really appreciate hearing this from serious Christians. At least for me (a Jewish secularist), I have to fight to feel that Christianity does not believe, as a woman was quoted in today's Times (also cited above) as saying, that "what the church is supposed to be doing, which is supporting the Republican way." From the same piece, one person -- lamenting the situation, granted, and in an article about someone opposed to it -- said:

You cannot say the word ‘Jesus’ in 2006 without having an awful lot of baggage going along with it. You can’t say the word ‘Christian,’ and you certainly can’t say the word ‘evangelical’ without it now raising connotations and a certain cringe factor in people. Because people think, ‘Oh no, what is going to come next is homosexual bashing, or pro-war rhetoric, or complaining about ‘activist judges.'

I try to fight against that, talk to my friends who are serious Christians and remember that that isn't what "Christian" means to a lot of people. But since there are millions of people in this country who are saying that is what it does mean, and should mean, I basically can't hear Christians oppose it too often. That's one of the reasons I read sites like this one (and Slacktivist). It's refreshing to hear Christians say that we shouldn't have a theocracy, and that Christ didn't stand for starting wars and cutting taxes on the rich.

...Trying not to offend here; forgive me if I spoke poorly. As I said, I know this isn't true. But it helps to hear it anyway.

Well, Avram, the topic was Obama and his applause for the religious in public life.

You did not think I was entitled to an opinion that the religious are the problem, especially when they are flat-earthers or other kinds of -- illogical individuals. One guy I worked with was sure that if Kerry had been elected President, the Democrats would try to ban the Bible -- talk about a position that in 1) not sane 2) not unusual in the extremes of American fundamentalism.

Patrick maintained that he was denigrated for not liking to say "under God" as part of the Pledge -- while Obama feels that the use of public schools for prayer groups is a fine thing, and that saying "under God" is not -- pressure.

So all of a sudden, you comment that my thinking that the religious are a problem is a Bad Thing and worthy of your nastiness. It isn't, and I don't think our hosts appointed you to chastise me about their spirituality.

So should you be moved to apologize, that might be appropriate.

I think the first and last word on this goes to none other than JC:

"34 but I -- I say to you, not to swear at all; neither by the heaven, because it is the throne of God,

"35 nor by the earth, because it is His footstool, nor by Jerusalem, because it is a city of a great king,

"36 nor by thy head mayest thou swear, because thou art not able one hair to make white or black;

"37 but let your word be, Yes, Yes, No, No, and that which is more than these is of the evil."

One may, I think, infer his opinion of coercing people to swear oaths, as well; if the act is "of the evil", surely coercing others to commit it is a greater evil. Why is this not more remembered by christians?

I'm not happy with Obama's words, but I don't expect saintliness from him, either, and he is after all a politician from a state with a large faction of conservative "christians".

Patrick, I had exactly the same reaction as you when this story broke. That made concrete a lot of misgivings I had about Obama since he first became a candidate for senatorship. Remember his convention speech in 2004 and how careful he was to make it clear where he came from, that his father was from Kenyia, in other words, that he was different from those Blacks?

If that's the great white hope of the Democratic Party, somebody who makes excuses for fundies while Jewish families are driven from their homes, no wonder the party is going to shit.

You did not think I was entitled to an opinion that the religious are the problem

Hmm.... my interpretation of what Avram wrote was that he did think you were entitled to an opinion because he took it seriously enough to craft a rebuttal. Avram seized on the word "all" in "all the religious" and pointed out PNH as a counterexample of a religious person who is not part of the problem. (i.e., disagreement with someone does not automatically imply that person is not entitled to an opinion.)

I note that you are now writing "the religious are the problem." It seems to me that Avram's was responding to "It's all the religious, shoving their opinions into the public discourse. A pox on all of them."

Now, you may have used the word "all" colloquially rather than as the universal quantifier Avram seems to have interpreted it as. If that's the case, mention it now would probably clear things up a lot.

Of course, I may have just misinterpreted everyone.

I took the liberty of editing Obama's speech to remove the bits where he attacked secularists. For the curious, that's here.

As I say in the context of that set of edits, while much of Sen. Obama's speech was inspirational, there were passages in which he took gratuitous swipes at religio-phobic straw men who either do not exist, or exist in very small doses, and in either case, need not have been mentioned in this way by a Democratic leader who gets as much media attention as Barack Obama does.

Now, one might argue that these were just a very small part of a much larger speech, but if so why were they necessary at all?

Shorter Jon Baker: I'm okay with the death of 600 civilians as long as I can convince myself Israel isn't to blame for it.

You might want to look here to see how utterly wrong you are.

JC said "Now, you may have used the word "all" colloquially rather than as the universal quantifier Avram seems to have interpreted it as. If that's the case, mention it now would probably clear things up a lot."

Its use was more colloquial -- I suppose I could have attempted to specify denominations that elbow into the legislative arena, and I failed to do so; 'all' is the lazy way.

Heck, I think the laws forbidding polygamy are a result of religion entering the legislative process. How strange is that?

I would really like it if someone would put up a billboard in Southern Deleware asking why the residents think they're any better than the people of Bosnia. Ideally with some pictures of burned-out houses. And "because we're Americans" or "because we only run offending religious and ethnic groups out of town, we don't kill them" as an answer doesn't cut it.

What really depresses me here (apart from the Dombrich story, which I had already read with a sinking heart) was the absolutely natural and undiscussed way in which the equivalence being religious = being good and being atheist = being morally depraved is made.

I'm pretty sure there will be a thread on Making Light fairly soon in which we can discuss Israel, Lebanon, and the rest of that situation. In this thread, please stop it, right now.

On a different subject and for the record, I'm not very comfortable being cited as a "serious Christian," certainly not in the context of anyone's discussion of what "serious Christians" do and don't think.

There are in fact serious Christians in this conversation, and, for that matter, among the front-page posters to this weblog, but here in 2006 I'm way too out of charity with Christianity-in-the-world to merit any such appellation.

Xopher, My parents did indeed send a note. Which is why I always found it fairly amusing when school staff would tell me, in their most threatening voice, "Well, let me just call your mother and see what she has to say about this note!"

"Go ahead," I'd answer. "Here, I'll call her myself." I mean what, did they think I'd forged it? That one got me in trouble more than once... apparantly, using the phone in the principal's office to call your mother about the fact that the principal keeps threatening to call your mother is wrong.

I was in a much more privilaged position than most people with this problem, though. First of all, my parents were willing and able to back me up. Many students--Pagans and Atheists especially-- are not so fortunate. I also live in an area (Washington, DC) where public opinion is on my side. And while the average person doesn't know a whole lot about Quakers, the history books have been quite kind to us. I don't have to explain on a regular basis that I'm not a satanist or assure anyone that I don't believe in blood sacrifice. Pagans get that crap all the time.

Which is why this crap annoys me so much. My family never played a round of Religious Freedom Bingo that we didn't win. Annoying as it was to have to play at all, I learned how to choose my battles, how to fight them, and how to laugh about my victories later. This family in Delaware? This isn't funny to them now and it's not going to get any funnier when their kids are in college posting in blog comment threads about it. A country that takes as much pride as America does in its freedoms should be ashamed and outraged that people can get run out of their homes on their soil. The bigots that family has the misfortune of calling neighbors aren't 'fighting the good fight' for their way of life; they're spitting on the constitution and exemplifying everything that's wrong with America.

On a different subject and for the record, I'm not very comfortable being cited as a "serious Christian," certainly not in the context of anyone's discussion of what "serious Christians" do and don't think.... here in 2006 I'm way too out of charity with Christianity-in-the-world to merit any such appellation.

I guess that was me. Well, I apologize for using a label you wouldn't use yourself.

Upthread, I was too harsh with Avram, for which I apologize. What I should have said immediately, rather than getting splenetic, was this: Obama's speech predated the emergence of the Delaware story. He's not responsible for the behavior of Kenneth R. Stevens and likeminded pinheads. And I'm not actually especially concerned about whether Obama rushes to the nearest microphone to condemn it. What's toxic about Obama's speech is that it plays right into the hands of the volkish self-pity of our bigots; it reassures those people who believe secular liberalism to be the author of their woes that, by golly, it is! Or, as David Bratman put it, better than me, in a post on his LiveJournal: "If conservatives aren't expected to denounce the quacks who get invited to Republican conventions, why should liberals have to adopt, as a starting point for discussion, the biased framework that Obama does? By speaking as he does, Obama is encouraging the yahoos in the belief that they're being oppressed."

Stephen Frug: no apology necessary.

I was raised Jewish, identify now as a Jewish Pagan. I got a lot of crap in school--swastikas on notebooks, people trying to convert me--in spite of the fact that there were no overtly religious groups there. (No need--there was maybe one other non-Christian besides me.) What happened to the Dobrichs was much worse, and absolutely vile. This sort of thing needs to be stopped, needs to be spoken out against, and I have no argument with anyone who says so. But there are other things that also need to be spoken about.

As an adult, I've heard a lot of people who identify liberals, people who I agree with about most things, denigrate "religious people" as a single unit. These are people who announce at dinner that All Religious People are anti-scientific bigots, and who sniff and change the subject when I mention that I'm religious and a scientist. These are people who write popular blogs (not this one, obviously). These people are real. They are loud, and they convince real religious people that they aren't welcome in left-wing circles. They don't convince me, but I'm stubborn.

Barak Obama's speech predates the Dobrich incident. He was trying to convince an audience of Christians that they should be focusing their efforts on getting people out of poverty rather than forbidding my marriage. I don't agree with everything he said there, but he was trying to do good work. And he has a track record of succeeding at doing good work. I voted for him as my senator, and I will vote for him again, if he runs again. If he runs for president, I will vote for him there too--and I'll write him to make sure he knows that he's representing gay Jewish Pagan scientists too. So far, he's done pretty well at it.