Tell Me Something Good, by Martha Thomases – Brilliant Disguise | @MDWorld
On Wednesday, when we learned of President Obama’s personal support of marriage equality, most civilized people rejoiced. Some of us saw this as a step forward in the continuing struggle for human equality in the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
And some found it an assault on “religious freedom.” Some found it an assault on marriage itself.
As near as I can tell, “religious freedom” is conservative code for “religious tyranny.” In this case, because the Catholic Church does not recognize non-heterosexual marriage, no one else is allowed to do so.
We last saw this attitude in the debate over whether or not religious institutions that own secular businesses (such as hospitals and universities ) should have to provide health insurance that includes contraceptive coverage. At that time, no one argued that, since the Catholic Church does not recognize secular divorce, the Church should have to continue to insure a divorced spouse. That might not just uphold Catholic doctrine, but cost money.
These proponents of “religious freedom” do not, for the most part, rally in defense of Muslims whose mosques are attacked. They didn’t stand up for the rights of Muslims to open a community center in lower Manhattan. They won’t defend the rights of religious institutions that DO support marriage equality (for example, these folks).
The only freedom they recognize is for their little group. And that’s not freedom.
On the same front page that heralded Obama’s statements about marriage equality, the New York Times ran this story about another group of people that would probably say they were defending religious “freedom.” A particular subset of fundamentalist Orthodox Jews thinks they should be above the law. They think that any member of their community who reports a case of child abuse to the police has not protected a child from a terrible person, but has betrayed the group. Just as the Catholic Church hierarchy thinks protecting the priesthood is more important than protecting the parish, these people think their reputation is more important than their children.
Look, if you don’t want to eat shrimp, that’s your business. If you don’t want to cut your sideburns, or if you want to spend Sunday in church, that’s fine with me. Amish and won’t use modern machinery? Have a great time. You can do anything you want as long as it only affects you.
But once you start messing with the life of any other person, you’ve crossed the line. You might be devout, but you’re un-American. There are many theocracies in the world where you might be more comfortable (check out Iran or Saudi Arabia).
You can’t wrap yourself in the flag and bigotry, too.
—-
Martha Thomases, Media Goddess, looks forward to what she hopes will be a plethora of bridal gowns in this year’s Pride Parade.
![[Facebook]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[MySpace]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/myspace.png)
![[Twitter]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/twitter.png)
![[Email]](http://mdwp.malibulist.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
May 12th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Martha wrote: “But once you start messing with the life of any other person, you’ve crossed the line.”
That seems to be the liberal mantra — except when it comes to abortion. Then a woman’s “right to choose” trumps all.
Of all the moral issues out there, that is one of the few I just cannot buy the primary arguments for — and I say that from a purely logical, scientific point of view.
May 12th, 2012 at 11:10 am
We disagree that a zygote is a person.
May 12th, 2012 at 11:21 am
So is this a simple tit-for-tat exchange? Because liberals support abortion, Religious conservatives are free to deny certain rights to certain members of the population?
May 12th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
What is it that continues to cloud the relationships between religion, freedom, and law? Could it simply be that few truly understand religion, freedom requires no responsibility, and democratic law doesn’t apply to me if i disagree?
May 12th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Religous zealots. A dime a dozen. They reek, no matter the name they assign to their divine presence. Subjugate a gender; non-believers; those vulnerable; They prey and pray. We pay and pay.
So how did the Crusades work out? Spanish Inquisition?
Please enjoy whatever moves you. Just don’t impose it on the rest of us.
Thanks Martha. You eloquently nailed it once again. Religion and control and power seem to go hand in hand.
May 12th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
You know, it would be a whole different matter if the religious right were to be forced into same-sex marriage. It would also be rather amusing, as I think a noteworthy percentage would stick. But that’s not the case — same sex marriage affects no one other than the happy couple.
Of course I’ll have more to say about this on Monday and on my radio show tomorrow night, but I think Martha covered the religious angle fairly, correctly, and magnificently. If the Catholic Church does not recognize divorce, it doesn’t mean shit to a tree: the unhappy couple is still divorced.
(Hi, Pennie! The “shit to a tree” line was a potato I dropped into your lap!)
May 12th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
I am always reminded of EASY RIDER. Americans nominally believe in freedom, but as soon as someone actually tries to live in a non-conventional way, many freedom-loving Americans brand them a pariah.
So we must reinterpret “freedom” as meaning “being free to live a Christian life.”
Russ – You may have a point there about abortion. If only you guys weren’t on uneasy ground about homosexuality, marijuana, euthanasia, and countless other instances where a person “must” have their control over their own body usurped, for their own good.
May 12th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
Abortion is legal. Child molesting is not.
May 12th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
“You can’t wrap yourself in the flag and bigotry, too.”
Sure you can. It’s an old and hallowed USAian custom.
Unfortunately.
May 12th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Martha wrote: “We disagree that a zygote is a person.”
No one aborts a zygote, since it only exists in that stage for a few days. A zygote is gone weeks before a woman even knows she is pregnant. You exaggerate to make your point of view seem reasonable, and to make mine seem unreasonable.
If your point of view was such a moral slam dunk, you would not need to do that.
Most abortions are performed at the 6-12 week stage, after the human form has already taken shape and after the heart has already started beating.
The only “humane” thing one can say about abortion at this stage is that since the brain is not fully developed, at least the fetus cannot feel pain.
Still, I have to wonder how medical professionals one or two hundred years hence will look back at our treatment of the unborn who were unlucky enough to get chosen for termination by our highly subjective abortion lottery system.
May 12th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
If the Anti-Abortion position were a moral slam dunk, we wouldn’t have statements like “She has a heartbeat” (so do beef cattle), “She has fingerprints” (because fingerprint = soul?), or “Only humane” (because only one side can be scientific and logical).
It’s a grey area. Fingerpointing is not a moral argument, but a political one. And no problem was ever solved when the two sides are more interested in winning the Blame Game than actually, you know, trying to solve the problem.
(But first we have to get the two sides to actually agree which problem they are trying to solve. And again, nothing was ever acomplished by chooosing your own set of definitions. Sophistry is a lie, not an answer.)
May 13th, 2012 at 4:52 am
Russ, I don’t know why you want to make this discussion about abortion. My column is about the fact (and it is a fact) that conservative religious groups (including Jews, which is a shanda) feel themselves to be above the law. They behave like thugs and gang-bangers, punishing snitches (hence, my illustration).
Abortion is a legal procedure. That doesn’t make it good — lots of legal things are not good — but it means its not relevant to the point I’m trying to make.
May 13th, 2012 at 9:36 am
Hey Frederick! Hey Mike.
I’m taking the lapping tater:
They lyrics are right there!
Eskimo Blue Day
Performed by Jefferson Airplane
Snow cuts loose from the frozen
Until it joins with the African sea
In moving it changes its cold and its name
The reason I come and go is the same
Animal game for me
You call it rain
But the human name
Doesn’t mean shit to a tree
If you don’t mind heat in your river and
Fork tongue talking from me
Swim like an eel fantastic seal
Take my love when it’s free
Electric feel with me
You call it loud
But the human crowd
Doesn’t mean shit to a tree
Change the strings and notes slide
Change the bridge and string shift down
Shift the notes and bridge sings
Fire eating people
Rising toys of the sun
Energy dies without body warm
Icicles ruin your gun
Water my roots the natural thing
Natural spring to the sea
Sulfur springs make my body float
Like a ship made of logs from a tree
Redwoods talk to me
Say it plainly
The human name
Doesn’t mean shit to a tree
Snow called water going violent
Dam the end of the stream
Too much cold in one place breaks
That’s why you might know what I mean
Consider how small you are
Compared to your scream
The human dream
Doesn’t mean shit to a tree
AND…Happy Mother’s Day to all moms–and my best friend, the always eloquent Martha T.
And, especially Frank Zappa and the boys…wherever you are.
You gave so much and asked for so little. A true mother.
May 13th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Liberals are the only ones that can truly celebrate heterosexuality. Because, when we’re straight, we’re straight just because that is what we are. Not ouf of religious duty to procreate, or societal duty to traditional order.
May 13th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Hey, Pennie. Thanks for the lyrics. I always thought it was that I couldn’t hear the words, but no — it turns out “the human name doesn’t mean shit to a tree” is one of the only lines I understand.
Hey, Martha. When I convinced a Hassidic woman whose son was murdered in a hate crime to join the Hate Crimes Bill Coalition (before the law was passed in NYS), I thought it only fair to let her know I was gay and was being paid by a gay organization, she should be prepared when “her people” criticized her for signing up. “Surely you wouldn’t want me to be murdered just because I’m gay,” I said. “Ed,” she answered, “the reason I don’t want you murdered is because you’re a Jew.”
Ahh, my people.
May 13th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Martha — I know the column was not about abortion, but it just bugs the hell out of me when liberals act like conservatives are the only people who “mess with” the lives of other people, because it’s just not true.
Catholics, the subject of your column, vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and, correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Democratic Party the party of liberals?
The real beef here, appears to be against religion. And, unless I read you wrong, you appear to believe that the pious are all conservatives — regardless of their politics.
But liberals are also very good at messing with people’s lives, creating laws that are intrusive, strip away long-enjoyed liberties, destroy entire industries that tens or even hundreds of thousands once depended on for their livelihood, and lord knows what else.
Just keep in mind that our Constitution was designed to promote freedom OF religion — not freedom FROM religion.
May 14th, 2012 at 4:39 am
One of my pet peeves is when people ignore what I wrote to tell me what I really mean.
My column is about patriarchal fundamentalist cults (the Catholic Church, the Jewish sect cited in the article) who make authoritarian decisions that protect the hierarchy that is the source of their power rather than obeying the laws that protect their people. I did not mention political parties, except to talk about Obama’s recent comments about marriage equality.
If R. Maheras wants to argue that it’s okay for conservatives to protect pedophiles from the legal consequences of their actions, he should make that argument. If he wants to argue that Catholics and other fundamentalists are entitled to tell non-Catholics (and non-fundamentalists) what to do, he should make that argument. Instead, he makes accusations that “liberals do it, too.” I would guess e’s referring to regulations that protect the environment, the food supply, etc., but since there are no citations, I’m not going to make assumptions.
That would be rude and insulting.
May 14th, 2012 at 6:11 am
Martha,
Some people have one-track minds.
May 14th, 2012 at 7:23 am
“Just keep in mind that our Constitution was designed to promote freedom OF religion — not freedom FROM religion.”
What is the difference, Russ?
If you mean that the Constitution do not protects atheism, okay. So if I must have religion, I can create the Faith of Rene, that recognizes only, say, Alan Moore as God, and the only Commitment is not to read Before Watchmen. And then I can move on with my life?
Fine by me.
No matter how you cut it, you can’t FORCE people to bow to Christianity. Not this day and age. Even if the sacred Constitution of the US said that, it would be time to change it.
May 14th, 2012 at 10:13 am
R, Maheras;
You make some excellent points and you are not alone in your views.
The interesting thing about Obama’s evolution of thought on gay marriage is that he has evolved to Dick Cheney’s position; that it is state issue and states should be able to make their own rules. Unless they want to deal with illegal immigration or enforcing their borders, then states do should not make their own rules. Besides, Obama’s new position runs flat out into the full faith and credit clause of the constitution of which I am sure he is aware.
Rene:
If Alan Moore is akin to God then it means God used a template created by someone else for creation. I’m looking forward to Before Watchmen because I enjoyed Watchmen so much. Moore is a great writer, but he uses other people’s characters for inspiration; Marvelman, Watchmen, Lost Girls.
May 14th, 2012 at 10:36 am
George: A question.
Let’s say that you and your same-sex lover (well not YOU necessarily; you get my point) get married in Iowa and you drive down to North Carolina to visit your new in-laws. Some asshole broadsides your car and your spouse winds up in a local hospital. You are okay, but because you’re in North Carolina you is not allowed to visit him in the hospital or make any decisions on his behalf, at the demand of his (in North Carolina) lawful next-of kin.
Is that fair? Should that be acceptable? Should you just slink off back to Iowa and wonder if your spouse is dead or alive?
Okay. That was three questions. My bad.
May 14th, 2012 at 11:07 am
Of course it’s not fair. That was my point and I have no issue with gay marriage.
Obama must know of the constitutional ramifications for gay marriage being legal in one state but not in another. His great announcement amounts to nothing. It seems like another case of playing to his base but not really needing make any real stance.
The actions of Arizona which I alluded to, on the other hand, do not conflict with the constitution, which protects all citizens, (and Arizona is trying to do that by curbing illegal immigration), but Obama wants his justice department to clamp down on that state’s laws.