These are not My American Values
Posted: July 17, 2011 Filed under: just because | Tags: Constitutional Rights, homophobia, Islamophobia, misogyny 30 Comments
The U.S. Constitution clearly states that the government shall not establish any religion as a state religion. It confirms the rights of people to be safe in their privacy and that they should not be subject to unreasonable search or seizure. There are very clear powers delineated so that the majority cannot assert a form of tyranny and remove the rights of the minority. For a group that holds that Constitution supposedly in esteem, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, many Republicans, and a good deal of the so-called Tea Party movement sure don’t seem to get the fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution. I descended from two signers of that document and five signers of the Declaration of Independence. I grew up surrounded by lawyers and veterans of foreign wars that knew what it meant to fight for the rights there in. That is why I get totally mad when I read things like this: Herman Cain: Americans Have The Right To Ban Mosques .
Herman Cain says voters across the country should have the right to prevent Muslims from building mosques in their communities.
In an exchange on “Fox News Sunday,” the Republican presidential contender said that he sided with some in a town near Nashville who were trying to prevent Muslims from worshiping in their community.
“Our Constitution guarantees the separation of church and state,” he said. “Islam combines church and state. They’re using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their morals in that community, and the people of that community do not like it. They disagree with it.”
Asked by host Chris Wallace if any community could ban a mosque if it wanted to, Cain said: “They have a right to do that.”
Cain, an African-American who grew up during the civil rights era, claimed he was not discriminating against Muslims. He said it was “totally different” than the fight for racial equality because there were laws prohibiting blacks from advancing.
Nonetheless, Cain has drawn backlash for comments about Muslims in the past, saying that he would be uncomfortable if a Muslim served in his Cabinet if he were elected president.
“I’m willing to take a harder look at people that might be terrorists,” Cain said Sunday. “If you look at my career, I have never discriminated against anybody. … I’m going to err on the side of caution.”
It’s difficult to think of things to say to this other than it’s plain old bigotry and hatred. Bigotry and hatred are not one of my American Values. I value tolerance.
Here’s another example of something that should go without saying.
He may not agree with the vote in New York to legalize gay marriage, but former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the Republican Party should butt out of the bedroom and stick to fiscal policy. “I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people’s bedrooms and let these things get decided by states,” Giuliani said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “We’d be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots.”
It saddens me to see one of the two major political parties hellbent on preventing women from practicing their constitutional right to abortion and access to birth control, stopping GLBT citizens from having full civil rights, and standing in the way of any religion to practice their beliefs as they see fit. These are extremist religious positions and have nothing to do with any American Value that I’ve ever grown up knowing. We need to keep speaking up vehemently that we will not tolerate any one in this country decimating the civil liberties and constitutional rights of others. It’s WE THE PEOPLE, not we the white, right wing, extremist christians in the country.
Something to think about from My Fellow American.
peej
Carissa
ecocatwoman
mablue2
Mama Lopez
peggysue22
quixote
skydancingguestblogger
Mona (aka Wonk the Vote)
Sky Dancing 
Abby, Abby, Abbbie, Abbie, you go girl
Alex Morgan, made the pass, Alex you go girl
Great rant!!!
That wall between church and state is crumbling.
And that scares the hell out of me. We need protection from Religious insanity. (Not all religions but the ones who are compelled to force their world view/belief on everyone.
NWrain, It scares me too.
Great post Dak, I just wish these nut jobs would realize the hypocrisy of there ways. Not wanting government to get involved in their personal decisions to choose which lightbulb to buy, yet they step all over a women’s right to choose what the hell she wants to do with her own body. It all just pisses me off.
Yup. Exactly. No government regulation of anything but women’s bodies.What kills me is how they don’t protect children in this country and then there’s all this faux outrage around justice for Caylee. What happens to all the women and children that are killed daily by the men in their lives? Nada. Zilch. Zippo. No justice for men’s property only women who act against the approved version women’s role and nature need extra special vengeful justice.
Not wanting government to get involved in their personal decisions to choose which lightbulb to buy, yet they step all over a women’s right to choose what the hell she wants to do with her own body.
Do you acknowledge the difference between a collection of cells that is removed when we get a haircut and a collection of cells that has a heartbeat?
Is there a time when that collection of cells turns into a living human being?
I’ll admit that before that time, a procedure to remove aid collection of cells is just that. A medical procedure similar to have your tonsils removed. But is there a point when even you would balk at said procedure?
Heartbeats aren’t an indicator of everything. Doctors can keep brain dead people’s hearts beating and hooked up to machines for some time. Heartbeat isn’t the sole decider on what constitutes a sentient human being. There’s a condition of pregnancy where the fetus never develops anything but a rudimentary stem so it never ever has brain function beyond what animates basic functioning within the womb. It never lives more than a day beyond birth without being hooked up to either the mother or a machine. It never has brain waves.
My first shock of my young adult life was when I had a friend who was in med school who said he watched a priest harass a pregnant woman to incubate a mass of cells with that condition for over three months. She lay in a hospital bed for over three months, went through a tough labor to basically birth a mass of cells could never be considered alive under any normal definition. No higher brain function or brain waves at all. That’s one of those third term deliveries I speak of below. It dies regardless of when it’s delivered because it has no brain. That’s when I figured out abortion can very much be a moral choice and that priests can very much do immoral things,
That’s one of those third term deliveries I speak of below. It dies regardless of when it’s delivered because it has no brain. That’s when I figured out abortion can very much be a moral choice and that priests can very much do immoral things,
dakinkat,
I consider myself pretty conservative. But I want you to know, only the blind ideologue would feel that an abortion in this case was not only acceptable, but humane.
As I mentioned before, I really, honestly feel that we agree on virtually 90% of the debate.
The answer is that a fetus (approximately 10 weeks into development an embryo becomes a fetus) is not a living human being until it can surive independent of a woman’s body. Until then, it is part of her body, and utterly dependent. It receives nourishment and oxygen and gets rid of wastes only because it is part of a woman’s body. Once the fetus can survive outside the womb it is potentially a separate human being. Once it is born, then it is a finally a human child.
The majority of “collections of cells” do not even survive to attach to the woman’s uterine wall (endometrium), and the woman isn’t even considered pregnant–that happens about 10 days after conception. Even after the “collection of cells” (blastocyst) attaches to the endometrium, spontaneous abortions are extremely common.
But our disagreement with fetus fetishists isn’t about when the fetus becomes a separate human being. Our disagreement is about who decides what a woman can do with her own body. We believe in individual autonomy and choice. Fetus fetishists believe in forced pregnancy, which means they also do not consider a woman to be a separate human being. Are women human beings or not? Do they have any right to control what happens to their own bodies? Those are the questions that concern us.
Another good question is who gets to decide when a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and then fetus becomes a separate human being? Do religious fanatics decide? Or are these decisions based on scientific research? I say science is the better choice.
The answer is that a fetus (approximately 10 weeks into development an embryo becomes a fetus) is not a living human being until it can surive independent of a woman’s body.
I appreciate the conversation. It seems clear that we are coming at this from different sides of the debate and it’s refreshing to have such a thoughtful and polite discussion; thank you.
I think that if we can agree that a “collection of cells” is not a human being the second after the sperm merges with the call AND that we can agree that the “collection of cells” IS a human being the minute before literal birth, we have overcome so much of the debate that divides us all.
Because if we can agree to that, then the debate changes in my mind. We simply have to walk to that point where we can agree that we have a living individual.
Further, I really do believe, except for the extreme nut jobs, that all reasonable people accept that if a pregnancy is going to risk the life of the mother, the child or both, we would absolutely want to see the mother have complete and total control over any decisions.
Again, except for the extreme fanatics, this stance resonates with all people. Where the debate occurs is when choice i is granted to a mother:
A: After the “collection of cells” becomes a child
B: When there is no health reason for the abortion
As I say that, I stipulate that even for these small cases, determining life and health reasons is tricky.
Even after the “collection of cells” (blastocyst) attaches to the endometrium, spontaneous abortions are extremely common.
I agree with all you’ve said regarding the science. And I agree that those on what I’ll call the “far-right” don’t acknowledge that in the way in manner in which they should.
But our disagreement with fetus fetishists isn’t about when the fetus becomes a separate human being.
I don’t know what fetus fetishists are.
Fetus fetishists believe in forced pregnancy, which means they also do not consider a woman to be a separate human being. Are women human beings or not? Do they have any right to control what happens to their own bodies? Those are the questions that concern us.
Ahh, I think I now know. It’ a term used to describe that person who feels that even though a “collection of cells” has transformed into life still feel that a woman can’t terminate the pregnancy without feeling forced. Interesting term, I must admit. I guess if we use that definition, I would fall into that group of people who would not be in favor of allowing an abortion when the “collection of cells” made the transition to an individual human life without a valid health crisis.
Another good question is who gets to decide when a zygote, blastocyst, embryo, and then fetus becomes a separate human being? Do religious fanatics decide? Or are these decisions based on scientific research? I say science is the better choice.
I think you sell yourself short. It’s not just a “good question”, it is possibly THE question. And I agree, THAT debate could rage forever. The extreme religious among us would argue that life begins at conception. I understand the argument but don’t buy into it. I feel life begins later. I further admit that I am unsure about when it begins, only that I think it does. And when it does, that child is entitled to all Liberties granted us to what I refer to as “Divine Rights” and what many others refer to as “Natural Rights”. That is, those Liberties referred to in the Declaration of Independence.
Again, BostonBoomer and dakinikat, I seriously appreciate the civility. If I come across as agressive, lemme know, that is NOT my intent. Often times the typed word can take the worst possible inflection and tone. I’m very interested in reasoned debate on this topic and really try to determine where we agree more than where we disagree.
Thank you.
Wow! That vid should make any American feel nothing but shame. This hate-mongering has been piped through the airways 24/7 since 9/11 and has brought the country nothing but withering results. The very people who wave the Constitution around, swear by everything that’s holy that they are true patriots, spit on the very document they claim to revere.
If we lose the Republic [and I’m in the corner saying we’re only hanging on by our fingernails at best], this is what will bring the whole house down. When you say you don’t care about due process or that the Rule of Law only applies to ‘real’ Americans[ or only certain Americans], you’ve effectively put a dagger into the heart of what this country represents. Or, at least, is suppose to represent.
The very fact that American citizens are not booing or laughing these theocratic bullies off the stage is a clear indication of how sick and afraid the populace really is. In 1930s Europe it was the Jew who was the enemy, the creeping danger that threatened civilization. Now it’s the Muslim or the illegal immigrant destabilizing our way of life.
The enemy is much closer to home. Great nations tend to be brought down from within rather than without.
We are in serious, serious trouble. But then, Sinclair Lewis reportedly predicted:
‘When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.’
The man was a visionary.
Ugh. I had to stop the video. Michael Savage is such a pig. Herman Cain is obviously either extremely stupid or psychotic.
The ‘press’, such as it is, should query every single Republican candidate about Cain’s statement and get them on record. I would bet that Huntsman and Johnson will repudiate it and the rest of them will bend themselves into pretzels in an attempt to dog whistle their agreement without coming right out and saying it.
I believe Romney repudiated Cain’s ideas at the debate in NH a couple weeks ago, so I doubt if he’ll agree with them now.
That is why I get totally mad when I read things like this: Herman Cain: Americans Have The Right To Ban Mosques .
I agree.
We are a nation that extends the Liberty to establish the religion you choose. The Right would do well to remember this in the coming months/years.
stopping GLBT citizens from having full civil rights,
Again, very well said. All people should have the same treatment under the law. And the fact that some people would fall in love with a want to obtain the full benefits of the married status granted to them y the states is n exception.
and standing in the way of any religion to practice their beliefs as they see fit.
Almost literally I agree with this. I read a story about a student belonging to a religion that felt that children had the right to carry a ceremonial “dagger” with their person. That religion won the case in court. So, you have put the school in a position of having to allow a knife but not allowing a G.I. Joe doll that has a .75 inch toy gun.
Sometimes our PC’ness is down-right silly.
It saddens me to see one of the two major political parties hellbent on preventing women from practicing their constitutional right to abortion
But here’s where ya lose us. Virtually every American believes that at some point between literal conception and literal birth, that collection of cells turns into a human being entitled to all the rights and benefits of such. Those same collection of Americans believe that there are circumstances that abortion is appropriate. Almost ALL Americans disagree that simply because the mother doesn’t wanna be inconvenienced is one of those reasons.
I’m a father of two. In each instance, I pulled the birth doctor side, a woman in both cases, and looked her square in the eye. I told her that should the awful unspeakable occur and she should be presented with a choice, that without hesitation she should take all actions to save the life of my wife.
I resonate with “choice”, I really do. All I ask is that you express a realization that their is a difference between a choice of needs and a choice of convenience.
It’s WE THE PEOPLE, not we the white, right wing, extremist christians in the country.
I hesitate to add this because I fear it’ll undermine the points where I agree with you, but….
Christians are subject to no small amount of ridicule for their belief in some of the more “myth aspects of their religion. It may help your cause to subject the religion you are championing to the same rigor. That, or relax your standards of believability when discussing Christians.
Me? I’m a happy believer of evolution and Jesus my Savior, so I’m cool. But in the interests of getting along, maybe, just maybe, you might consider that this subject, for these people, is the most important and defining aspect of their lives. And as you would implore understanding for the GLBT indiviual, I would ask your understanding of the Christian.
Again, abortions do not occur after the point of fetal viability. After the third term, they are deliveries that are either successful or not. Prior to viability, you can only rely on your own belief system. In Judaism and what was also in Christian until recently, was that the fetus wasn’t alive until it got the breath of life like the Genesis story. Up until then it was considered just another mass of flesh and wasn’t ensouled. But then, since I don’t believe in souls period, none of that makes any difference to me. Viability is what I consider the turning point which is why I support medicine and Roe V. Wade. I also believe that women are adults and can decide for themselves what is best for them and that they don’t make any adult, serious decision using trivial criteria. I think that you insult all women when you think that women do not think about what they are doing or that they need some kind of state lecture. It’s insulting to say that an adult making a serious decision would do anything for ‘convenience.’ I know many women that have had abortions and many women that have children. I’ve never met any woman who had an abortion that regretted it. Pretty amazing given the statistic that 1/3 of all women have had abortions. I’ve met many women that regret ever getting married and I also find many women regret having children. Seems like you should perhaps talk to women. I don know that I believe that none of us should base any decision in life on whatever narrative is running around some one else’s head.
Every one has the right to believe what they want to in this country and it would be nice to think that they’d respect another’s right to not have to hear about what ever little invisible friend or friends they adopt. I don’t care if you’re Christian or not, I just don’t want to be involved with it or hear about it or be forced into saying things like Merry Christmas, under god or whatever things people need to feel self-affirmed and not bad about that people reject their ‘faith’. It’s not up to me to make you feel self-affirmed about your set of beliefs. PERIOD. No one forces any one to feel anything, including feeling ridiculed. I’ve never been harassed by some one for not being GLBT. I’ve felt harassed many times for rejecting christianity. Just try not to be a christian for awhile in this country and you’ll get my drift.
Again, abortions do not occur after the point of fetal viability.
I am saddened that the wonderful topic of religious Liberty has devolved into one of abortion. You had a wonderful strong point that you made with eloquence and force. I fail to understand why every conversation goes to this subject.
However.
Whether it be scientific “fact” or religious “belief” there is a point at which a mass of cells turns into a human being. Independent of soul or religion or what have you. I readily acknowledge that point is up for debate–I suspect you would agree. Now, those on the religious right may try and claim that such a transformation occurs much sooner than you might like. Just as assuredly, there are those that would claim such a transformation occurs much later than I like. As I said, it’s up for debate.
The important thing, in my opinion, is that a vast majority of Americans feel that it’s okay for a family to save the life of the mother during child birth. That a vast majority of America feels it’s okay for a mother to choose life saving chemotherapy knowing that her unborn may perish. That a vast majority of America agrees that a woman that has been the victim of a crime may reasonably conclude she does not want to carry her assaulter’s child….I think you dismiss the fact that we agree on much of what we are discussing.
However, we do disagree. We disagree in those times when a woman chooses to abort out of convenience AFTER that time when a mass of cells has transformed into a child.
It’s insulting to say that an adult making a serious decision would do anything for ‘convenience.’
You understand, after having read the above, that we agree on most of the points? It is in ONLY those cases that we disagree.
I’ve never met any woman who had an abortion that regretted it.
Most of the women I know who’ve had abortions regret it. They remember the day. They take the day off from work. They sit and they cry. And they regret.
Seems like you should perhaps talk to women.
I know a great deal of women; and talk to all of them.
Every one has the right to believe what they want to in this country and it would be nice to think that they’d respect another’s right to not have to hear about what ever little invisible friend or friends they adopt.
As a life long Christian, I couldn’t agree more.
I don’t care if you’re Christian or not, I just don’t want to be involved with it or hear about it or be forced into saying things like Merry Christmas, under god or whatever things people need to feel self-affirmed and not bad about that people reject their ‘faith’.
Again, I totally agree. My only point in this is as follows:
You seem to have an issue with people pushing their Christian beliefs. And the Left has massive enjoyment at poking fun of politician’s Christian beliefs at times. I wonder why none on the Left are ridiculing the far right religious Muslim community for THEIR beliefs in the same little invisible friends?
Just try not to be a christian for awhile in this country and you’ll get my drift.
Hmm…seems that you and I have something in common. We are both harassed for our belief, or non-belief, in the Christian God.
I support any one’s right to have invisible friends. The minute any one tries to Involve me in it is where the right ends. That includes every invisible friend. In this country, harassment of others is limited to the majority religion.
I still don’t get the insulting and patronizing idea of abortion for convenience. I can’t even believe another person would put themselves in the position of ascribing motives of another human being.
Why do you say that? How do you know no one on the left ridicules Muslim beliefs? Why do you characterize the muslim community in the U.S. as far right?
Anyway, ridicule isn’t the issue. If muslims try to force their beliefs on others and enshrine their beliefs in laws like fundamentalist “christians,” they’ll get plenty of pushback. So far that isn’t happening.
Why do you say that? How do you know no one on the left ridicules Muslim beliefs?
I don’t see it in the same way I see the Left treat Christianity. I don’t see articles or posts where the Left is calling out the Muslim faith for its treatment of women. I don’t see the same critique of Muslims as I see of Christians. I don’t see the same mockery of Allah and Mohammed that I do of God and Jesus.
For example, I don’t see works of art that immerse the Muslim deity in urine.
If muslims try to force their beliefs on others and enshrine their beliefs in laws like fundamentalist “christians,” they’ll get plenty of pushback.
You don’t think the Muslim faith tries to force that faith on others?
Muslims and Christians are the two religions that tend to force their beliefs on others. If I ever personally experienced religious harassment by Muslims I would complain about it. However, in this country, my experience is limited to harassment by christians. The Left takes on the Arab and African culture and its treatment of women all the time. There is a movement against female genital mutilation which is a cultural tradition in West Africa that Muslims have adopted. Arab culture is extremely misogynistic. We’ve discussed that all the time here and support Muslim Feminists Feminists always call out these items However, the so-called progressive movement in the US is basically run by men and as such, they don’t care much about the rights of women anywhere. They are concerned primarily with themselves. I think that most people here that take things out on–including their art–on the christian faith do so because of their past bad experiences with it. It’s not a political statement as much as it is a statement of how they personally feel about the way they are treated by that religion. Again, you’re confusing political statements with personal statements. Vehement Christians tend to suck the oxygen out of wherever they are and that’s oppressive. If I were in India, I’d probably be saying the same thing about vehement Muslims. However, since all of the Muslims I deal with are highly educated and not radical, I have never had that experience and I’ve even had an Imam sit in one of my classes.
This language of “granting” women choice and “allowing” her control over her own body gives me a bad taste in my mouth and is part of what is wrong with this “debate” in the first place. It is not the place of any man, any other woman, any man made court or religion to “grant” or “allow” or “forbid” what a woman can or cannot do with her own body vis a vis pregnancy any more than vis a vis organ donation. It is her choice alone. Women are Supreme in this. If anyone doesn’t like this, it is too bad as far as I am concerned.
exactly, Branjor …
Oh please. No one is impeding your right to be a Christian (if that is what you claim). I’ve read a great deal about Jesus and his (reported) teachings. The beliefs of the fundamentalist “christians” who are holding our country hostage bear little or no resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. They may call themselves “Christians,” but they are not followers of the Jesus of the New Testament or the Jesus described in the many gospels that were excised from the bible.
I strongly disagree that it is “up for debate” when a “mass of cells” turns into an independent (actually still highly dependent child, but whatever). That happens when the fetus (no longer a “mass of cells” or an embryo) can survive outside its mother’s womb.
This is why religion cannot be the basis for laws: religionists seldom even bother to become aware of facts. If you don’t “believe” in women being able to control their own bodies, take that up with your wife and your “god.” Reasonable people do not want women to be slaves.
I strongly disagree that it is “up for debate” when a “mass of cells” turns into an independent
Hmm, I thought we were closer than it appears we are.
Perhaps this:
If the extreme “right” position on abortion is never for any reason [and I stipulate that I do NOT hold this belief] what would you characterize as the “far-left” position?
If the right can be extreme, is the left also capable as being just as extreme?
There’s no viable far left in the US so that’s moot. Most far left groups abroad don’t concern themselves with abortion since the countries where they exist generally keep the government out of the abortion policies and place it in the hands of the medical profession. The far left general concerns itself with economic and political issues. Abortion is neither.
There’s no viable far left in the US so that’s moot.
So, the position that the farthest “right” is extreme but the position that is the farthest “left” is not extreme because you don’t think that a far left movement exists in the US? That seems very convenient.
I would suggest that most American’s are moderate and view the far right positions as just that; extreme. In the exact same manner, those same people would view the far left’s stances on abortion just as extreme.
Anyway, I’ve said my piece and I doubt that either of us is willing to “cede” the topic. As I’ve mentioned, I appreciate the tone and civility. Folks on both side of this issue are capable of getting very ugly very quickly and I thank you for a great debate. If you wanna rebut, I listen to your comment and then I’ll let this go.
We’ve strayed some from the original point of your post which was that of religious freedom. A very correct stance, by the way, and one in which I hope we can celebrate agreement!
Great site!
no, my basic position is there is not far left position on abortion. The far left is basically a movement of political/economic interests. The only far left feminist position is to separate from men completely which means abortion is a moot issue. I consider that position extremist and do not support it.
All that stuff about private property goes out the window reeeaaallll fast when the red-state fascist impulses kick in…