Broun vs. Board

Rep Paul Broun (R-GA) is campaigning to make 2010 the Year of the Bible. Politico reports that Broun has introduced the bill to the House of Representatives for history's sake. A commemoration, if you will.

“This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with POLITICO. Rather, he says, it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs.

Well, if you want to get technical, the Bible itself didn't have anything to do with providing that freedom of religion. The way that people were interpreting the Bible did. People were discriminating, killing, and marginalizing other people who had different beliefs about Christianity. That's just counting the Christian conflicts over religion in Europe. I'm sure there were other sects of religion that made the journey over to America.

I am not arguing the Bible does not provide solid doctrine for tolerance of other people, and brotherly love, ect., ect., because if I did argue that, I would be an idiot. I am saying that the way this argument is formulated, it makes one think that the Christians who came over here from England to escape persecution weren't running from people using basically the same Bible.

But the point is, most of our founding fathers were Christian. It was the dominant founding religion. So if Broun wants to argue that the Bible had influence over their thought process, lives, ect., and therefore had influence over how they started the country and made laws, fine. It probably did.

This whole "Year of the Bible" thing sounds a bit fluffy to me though, and doesn't seem like it's going to serve any particular purpose.

Is it going to be like Black History Month? Are Universities going to host seminars on the different sects of Christianity that developed or migrated to America? Are they going offer lecture series about Irish-Americans who were discriminated against for their Catholic beliefs? Will there be History Channel documentaries on The Faith of Our Fathers, discussing how Thomas Jefferson chopped up the Bible to remove any reference to Jesus' divinity and how George Washington stopped going to church on communion days?

Probably there will be all of these things, and then some, but those events would have taken place anyways without the help of the Year of the Bible.

While the bill probably won't ever pass (currently it finds only 15 co-sponsers), it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, and in the end probably won't be much more than a laugh, it still seems like it's being pushed forward only as a bone to Christian supporters of Broun. But I can't blame him. He is a representative of Georgia, and we do reside in prime Bible-belt real estate. Perhaps the reason the bill doesn't sound so monumental to me is, if you go to the right areas where I live, every year is the Year of the Bible.

Let's Do the Timewarp Again

McCain's campaign has recently released videos accusing the media of being in love with Obama, and with good reason. Very rarely in this tempestuous season have the issues that McCain stands for or against been addressed -- even in his own speeches. Often in the CNN televised speeches given by McCain, he spends at least half of his time talking about his opponent's weaknesses...and not about what he believes or will do. I believe that McCain plans to win on a scare tactic: "Obama will bring more taxes, will not solve the economic crisis, and will continue our dependence on foreign oil".

Georgia Women Vote made the comment that McCain's website even is Obama central.

So to remind myself what McCain stands for, besides back lashing, I went to his campaign website and took a look.

One of the first things that caught my eye was his plan to repeal the decisions of Roe vs. Wade and return verdict to state level. His ultimate goal in abolishing abortion is outlined, containing quips like "the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby". The way he phrases it, it makes it sound as though society has forced these women to abort their pregnancies. One of his first tactics is to relieve individuals of responsibility and make it a philosophical fight rather than what it would be if abortion were made illegal again: a medical one.

His next issue outlined is adoption. While adoption is fantastic, I love the subtle hint to abortion, yet again, in his plan to " promote adoption as a first option for women struggling with a crisis pregnancy". The next time I meet someone who plans on having an abortion, I'm going to encourage them to call it a "crisis pregnancy".

McCain seems to encourage a time warp of sorts -- back into the time when contraception was illegal, when abortion was punishable by law, and when women had to go to back alleys or endanger themselves with coat hangers. By repealing Roe vs. Wade, we put an entire generation of work in danger, and we put ourselves in danger. We are already in the middle of a food shortage globally. We cannot afford another age of baby boomers. We cannot afford to continue on our path of abstinence only education. We cannot afford an age where condoms are not available, and STDs spread more quickly because people do not know how to protect themselves.

I encourage voter's to go to each candidates website, especially the three leading: Bob Barr, John McCain, and Barack Obama. Only by understanding the issues from each candidates perspective can we vote intelligently and bring ourselves forward, rather than backtracking into the past, or (what could be considered worse) continuing on the fruitless path we're on. Everyone needs to vote in November. Rights are endanger, and policies that are negative to the health of our country are being proposed.

A Priest, A Rabbi, and A Man Who Twists Comedy...

While surfing the 'Cartoons and Humor' section of the New York Times' website, an interesting story caught my eye. The full story can be found on Borowitz Report.com.

Saying he is "sympathetic to late night comedians' struggle to find jokes
to make about me," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) today issued a list of official
campaign-approved Barack Obama jokes.

The five jokes, which Sen. Obama said he is making available to all comedians free of charge, are as follows:

Barack Obama and a kangaroo pull up to a gas station. The gas station attendant takes one look at the kangaroo and says, "You know, we don't get many kangaroos here." Barack Obama replies, "At these prices, I'm not surprised. That's why we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, "I was expecting the farmer's daughter." Barack Obama replies, "She's not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of sub prime loans that are making a mockery of the American Dream."

A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Why the long face?" Barack Obama replies, "His jockey just lost his health insurance, which should be the right of all Americans."

Q: What's black and white and red all over? Barack Obama: The New Yorker magazine, which should be embarrassed after publishing such a tasteless and offensive cover, which I reject and denounce.

A Christian, a Jew and Barack Obama are in a rowboat in the middle of the ocean. Barack Obama says, "This joke isn't going to work because there's no Muslim in this boat."

On one hand, I can see the humor in these policy jokes. It's refreshing to find a candidate who can make not-so-subtle jabs at comedians stunned reactions. On the other hand, they're not stunned for lack of material. They're stunned because so often this political season, jokes that are made in favor of a candidate are denounced as offensive, and jokes that are meant to be offensive are found humorous.

The best example of this is, of course, the infamous cover of the New Yorker. Personally, I found it funny. Why? Because the New Yorker was making fun of the absurd allegations put forth by emails, hate-mongers, and Fox News, in order to make the public realize how absurd their fear was. And I understand why the Obamas would be so upset. Some people who don't understand satire would view it more as a confirmation of their fears rather than a joke.

But the Obamas should have just said that. "We don't want our persons portrayed in that kind of negative light, linking us with Islamic terrorists". Instead, they said that it was "offensive to Muslim Americans".

No. It's not. Assuming that all Muslims are terrorists is offensive to Muslim Americans. Proposing that having an Islamic president would be a bad thing is offensive to Muslim Americans. A satirical cover making fun of fears based on nothing is not offensive to Muslim Americans.

And I would go off on how stupid the term Muslim American is (I don't insist on being catered to as a Christian American, and I've never heard my nephew assert his rights as an Atheist American), but that's an entirely different rant.