Church Sign Fail

One of my favorite things is the variety of messages on those signs outside of churches. They are usually very witty and clever (well, relatively speaking), and I can just imagine some priest or pastor sitting with a pad of paper in his quiet office exclaiming "OH! Good one Jesus!" when they come up with a new one (because surely all of these messages are coming directly from Jesus Christ).

I pass by a church on my way to work that always has the most entertaining signage, usually tinged with just the right amount of social commentary. Here is their current sign:


If you can't read the photo from my iPhone, the sign reads:

"OUR GREATEST THREAT IS NOT GLOBEL [sic] WARMING BUT SPIRITUALITY LUKEWARM"

First of all, it is too bad these signs do not come with a spell-check.

Secondly, are you sure about that, West Los Angeles Christian Center? I get a feeling after the pastor comes up with these quirky quips, s/he does not spend much time thinking about what they really say. The play on words is fun, but empty.

In my humble opinion, rising coastlines; millions and millions of displaces people; more severe extreme weather disasters; changes in agricultural capabilities (ie: having to plant corn in North Dakota instead of Iowa), and skirmishes and wars over those new capabilities; the famine and refugees that accompany said wars -- all that is slightly more important than people sleeping in Sunday mornings.

Their previous sign was too rich:

"NO COURT CAN OVERTURN YOUR CONVICTIONS"

Clearly in reference to their assumed anti-gay stance (those pesky "activist judges" upholding our state's constitution!), it does not take long to recognize the utter BS of this sign. Just taking the statement at face value, "NO COURT CAN OVERTURN YOUR CONVICTIONS" ... umm... is that not one of the exact purposes of our judicial system?? Enforcing and overturning convictions per a jury or judge's prerogative?? Am I missing something?

I will be keeping an eye on the West Los Angeles Christian Center. Talk about entertainment.

Angry

I just came across this news.

To sum it up: Obama wrote a letter to the people running the "No on 8" campaign last summer, saying how much he supported them and how much he opposed Proposition 8:

"And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the
California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or
those of other states. ..."

That is what Barack Obama wrote to us, months before the election.

Obama won California by 24 points. Proposition 8 won by four points. Day's before the election, I received this flyer in the mail:

Yet still, Obama's letter sat on the desk of some high paid consultant throughout the campaign, gathering dust.

"I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution..." Can you imagine that important sentence from Obama's letter being used in nearly every TV commercial and in nearly every mailer ad for "No on 8"? If there is one state that loves Obama, California loves Obama. The proposition would have been crushed!

I gave hundreds of dollars to "No on 8" and volunteered at phone banks (or at least tried to volunteer -- when I was stood up for volunteering in Santa Monica, I didn't go back). The incompetence is infuriating.

We had that letter -- a golden ticket -- to use against the manipulation and lies being hurled from the other side. And the letter sat there, doing nothing. Un-fucking-believable.

When the California Supreme Court chooses not to overturn Prop 8 in the coming months (which is what is going to happen), and we start gearing up for a new ballot initiative for 2010 or 2012, I demand that all of the dimwits who fucked up the last campaign be as far away from California as possible. Send them on some nice long vacation where their horrible decisions no longer effect my civil rights. Otherwise, count me out. I won't waste my time and money on those people again.

Everybody Hates Rick, Ctd.

The more this guy talks, the worse it gets. Obama really messed this one up.



Rick Warren, you are still a fucker.

Everyone Hates Rick

I used to think the news that Obama had selected Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration was amusing. In one move, Obama managed to piss off the right and the left, and I thought that was rather impressive. But now I just saw the video below with an interview of Rick Warren airing tonight where he is asked about his stance on gay marriage. He answers with an incredibly homophobic and misinformed response. Then, when flat-out asked if he is homophobic, he has a huge laugh, as if to say "Preposterous!"

His nerve is appalling.



It is also nice to know that opposing someone's civil rights is okay, as long as you give them doughnuts while you do it.

Rick Warren, you are a fucker.

Huckabee Goes Down

My friend, Spencer, mentioned to me the other day that the best and most productive way to debate someone about an issue like gay marriage is to merely ask the right questions. Arguing will get you no where, but calmly asking follow up questions just makes the other person's circular talking points fall flat.

Case in point, this brilliant interview Jon Stewart did with Mike Huckabee. Huckabee keeps trying to change the subject and quickly pull the "well let's just agree to disagree" card, but Stewart hammers it home. So gratifying to watch.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Jon Stewart's best line I need to commit to memory (discussing redefining the word marriage): "semantics is cold comfort when it comes to humanity." Awesome.

Milk

There are instances when a film's release is so perfectly timed and in tune with the happenings of the world that you would second guess whether or not some studio execs have psychics on staff.  Walking away from just watching Milk and trying to comprehend the timeliness (and ultimately timelessness) of this story is stunning.   Since previews always give away too much, here is Harvey Milk in a quick nutshell:

While the movie altogether is fantastic, there was one aspect that I cannot shake.  There is one scene with Harvey Milk having a meeting with a bunch of established rich gay guys, debating a mailer ad for a new piece of gay rights legislation Milk is pushing.  Milk is furious: "You don't mention the word gay on here once!  You've got to have at least one old queer on here somewhere."  The old-school stodgy gays response: This is what works.  But for Milk, the ultimate solution was visibility.  If people's awareness is raised to a level above the religious bigotry and fearmongering, their minds will be changed.  Simple, yet brilliant.  

But visibility, courage, and speaking up always has negative repercussions amongst the most insecure in our society, and Harvey Milk fell victim to those repercussions.  

For today's gays, the passage of Proposition 8 will probably be viewed as the most positive setback for equal rights.  Plenty of fingers have been pointed seeking blame for our loss against Prop 8, but no one can argue that we displayed enough visible during the campaign, whether it was in our commercials or in our organizing.  

"You've got to have at least one old queer on here somewhere."  

"But this is what works."  

No, not anymore.  

The gays of the 70's had decades of severe discrimination and harassment motivating them to become visible, and Harvey Milk helped them organize.  Now, the gays have Proposition 8 to thank for their motivation.  And now, with this film, we have a renewed figure -- our own martyr -- helping to show us the way... again.  

Oh, That's Interesting

Just when I thought I had a pretty good grasp on this whole gay marriage controversy, this interview springs up online.  I can't figure out yet if I agree with the general thesis, but it is very compelling:

The possibility that a whole new generation of American males is being raised by women without men is very challenging for the churches. I think they want to reassert some sort of male authority over the order of things. I think the pro-Proposition 8 movement was really galvanized by an insecurity that churches are feeling now with the rise of women.

Monotheistic religions feel threatened by the rise of feminism and the insistence, in many communities, that women take a bigger role in the church. At the same time that women are claiming more responsibility for their religious life, they are also moving out of traditional roles as wife and mother. This is why abortion is so threatening to many religious people -- it represents some rejection of the traditional role of mother.

I recommend the entire interview here.  

Spokes-gay

Gay marriage is hot topic du-jour on the news. TV debates about gay marriage can make me cringe if they get some spokesperson who is too polite or too stupid to defend themselves against the empty noise of the opposition.

So thank God for Dan Savage. Not only am I addicted to his advice column and podcast, but damn he is good on television. My favorite moment (in the 2nd video):

Tony Perkins: Boy, you can't get a word in edgewise
with this guy.
Dan Savage: Well, you stripped me of my rights and I interrupted you. Who's really suffering here?

Mr. Savage, I owe you my sanity.

An Inalienable Right?

Dr. James Dobson of the right-wing, theocratic, anti-gay, Colorado Springs based evangelical powerhouse "Focus on the Family" is on the airwaves and in newspapers throughout the country this week with stories of doom and gloom about America's future after four years under President Obama. Some predictions:

"The Boy Scouts no longer exist."
"Tens of thousands of Christian (public school) teachers either quit or were fired."
"The Bible can no longer be freely preached over radio or television stations."
"Christian nurses, physicians, family counselors, lawyers and other professionals are being stripped of their right to work in those fields."

The common theme for these drastic domestic predictions: the gays. Or, more specifically, our society's successful inclusion of gays and lesbians as equal members of society.

Or, to read between the lines, Dobson is openly worrying about his right to discriminate. How can he still impose his religious beliefs on other people if he cannot force people to live their lives according to the rules of his ancient storybook? Of course, he would not call it "discrimination," but at that point you are merely playing with semantics. In his worldview, my civil rights are at odds with his religious freedom.

Please.

But that leaves the question: does Dobson have the right to openly support discrimination in both the private and public sector? In my opinion, of course he does. However, expecting the growing socially-liberal electorate to play along is going to be difficult.

After eight years of theocratic and divisive right wing politics, I think people have rightly developed a "live and let live" social attitude. By and large, people respond less and less to cultural "wedge" issues. They are tired of it. Dobson backfired. And consensus is mounting that supporting people like Dobson and his hateful rhetoric is prejudiced and discriminatory.

Society almost always moves towards inclusion. And reading Dobson cry about his view of the future only illustrates how out of touch he is with the real world.

So Dobson and his followers are more than welcome to their views and are free to pursue them, but they better not be surprised when more and more people call them out on their hate. If you want to behave like a bigot, you have to be comfortable being called a bigot. That's the new rule of the game.