Archive | February, 2012

The Troubling Theology of Rick Santorum

27 Feb

All Hail the Great Theocrat, Rick Santorum the First!

I guess that’s what the conservative right wing party is saying in certain corners.  I guess I’m taking my cue from the biblical story about Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah who refused to bow to the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar, who has set up a statue of a Babylonian deity, and I’m just refusing to conform to the theology Rick Santorum is putting forth.

As the economy has limped forward, the last two months have seen unemployment numbers drop.  With unemployment numbers being a lagging economic indicator, and job crreation numbers actually going up, the Dow Jones hitting the 13,000 mark once again, it’s safe to say that the economy is getting better.  Certainly seeing housing starts and housing sales go up with probably be the final sign that we have climbed out of the recession, but we are certainly moving in the right direction.

How unfortunate for the Republican party.

Their 12-month stance as the horse race for the GOP nomination began last year was that Obama’s policies were negatively affecting the economy.  From Obama’s tax plan to the budgets submitted by the White House which led to the type death defying congressional standoffs that introduced the word “brinksmanship” into the newsmedia lexicon to describe just how deadlocked Congress was.  Every chance a Republican in front of a microphone had, they took a pot shot at Obama’s handling of the economy.

Then suddenly, as 2011 turned into 2012, the rhetoric against Obama stopped.

The next thing you know, no one was talking about how bad Obama was handling the economy and then we were hearing debates about birth control, women’s rights and the Roman Catholic church, and the issue of abortions was back in front page news.  And then, much to my shock and chagrin, the Great Theocrat, Rick Santorum the First brought up Obama’s “phony theology.”

I’ts not just that Rick Santorum and Barack Obama have opposing theologies, which I’m quite sure they do, but using religion as a focal point for culture wars disturbs me.  This comment that Santorum made was first of the many statements concerning religion and Obama that were talking points for mainstream media last week.   Specifically, the “phony theology” quote was in reference to Obama’s stance on contraceptive coverage with faith-based institutions.  Santorum was making the claim that Obama was “antithetical” to the Judeo-Christian values of this country.

What Santorum did was lay the foundation for labeling Obama as not a Christian.  This of course, opens up the discussion for the extreme right wing faction of the party to label Obama a Muslim yet again.  What startles me about this argument is the blatant hypocrisy that they employ in their logic.  Elected GOP officials teeter on the edge of calling him a Muslim and certainly allow their un-elected operatives to call him as a such, yet they tout his attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ under the pastorate of Jeremiah Wright as evidence of him not being a Christian.

All hail the Sweater Vest King, Theocrat Rick Santorum, the First!

Regardless, this time, the argument seems to be nuanced differently.

Santorum is carelessly trying to paint Obama as being unChristian and because he is not a Christian, he will not support the moral values of this country.  In 2008, the argument was more heavily framed in the ideology of religion, this time it is the religion of the ideology.  It is as though we’re waiting on the Santorum campaign is throwing the combination of religion and ideological attacks on the wall to see which one will stick.  To me, it seems as if Santorum won’t care if they paint Obama as either a Muslim or a non-Christian secularist who doesn’t hold the values of this country.

And he has help in doing so.

Seeing Franklin Graham, the son of great American evangelist Billy Graham get on MSNBCs “Morning Joe” last week and outright question the Christianity of Obama was absolutely shameful.  Personally, it was a low moment in the realm of public theology.  First of all, it’s just bad public theology to speak with any degree of certainty the soteriological ramifications of another individual.  If Franklin Graham was to be so bold as to outwardly favor one candidate or even one political party over the other, he would have been best to defer the question of “Do you think ________ [insert candidate name] is a Christian?” He could have simply answered “I don’t know, you have to ask him” as he did for Obama and give the reasons yay or nay for why he thinks so.  But to be so bold as to clearly declare that the three white men in the GOP field are Christians over the questionable salvation of Obama is just tacky.

This type of jingoistic tripe reduces the validity of religious conversations in this country.  Indeed it conflated the conversation of Christianity with the unabashed religion of Americanity.  This underlying religion of Americanity that no one ever admits to being a dutiful follower of allows this “manifest destiny” type of hegemony to proliferate through the consciousness of American thought.  That’s why one’s veracity as a Christian has been reduced to whether or not one supports the Roman Catholic church on the issue of contraceptive usage and coverage.

This Americanity has also produced the polar opposite of dominionist theology.  Taking their cue from Genesis 1 and the creation story when the story depicts Yahweh creating humans and giving humans dominion over the earth.  The progressives have chosen to understand it as though humans ought to be taking care of the planet and to preserve natural resources as much as possible.  Rick Santorum and his ilk laugh in the face of basic science, scoff at global warming and believe that since we’re here as humans, we’re supposed to use it for all it’s worth–and this is indeed the will of God.

Disgracefully, Santorum’s isses concerning Obama’s theology have not stopped there.  Calling Obama “weak” when it came to him apologizing on behalf of American soldiers who burned the Qur’an was the epitome of why we shouldn’t want him as the head of state.  As basic fact-checking has gone, even George W. Bush apologized on behalf of the American soldiers and the situation at Abu-Ghraib prison.  Yes, presidential apologies are rare, but certainly in this case, necessary.

What further pissed me off, to be blunt, about the Qur’an burning situation it was that the soldiers who burned were alleging that they contained ‘extremist messages or inscriptions” was that isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to the battle of holy books?  Now I’m not sure if that literally means that certain people were using passages as covert messages to start an insurrection, or were these books burned solely with the understanding that the scriptures themselves contain “extremist messages or inscriptions.”  Either way, let’s be honest, if anyone in this country commenced to burning Bibles in a public fashion, whatever  municipality this was located in would have a riot on their hands.  Furthermore, let’s recall the national outrage Pastor Terry Jones faced in Florida last year when he planned to burn the Qu’ran in our own country.  For Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum to label Obama as weak for apologizing and then using it as a platform to say that he’s a Muslim apologist essentially is unforgivable.

The latest in this bigoted conversation coming from the Santorum camp has been this meme that has caught fire is this concept that higher education is turning what should be a fundamentally conservative generation into a flock of indoctrinated liberals.  Over this past weekend, Santorum went on a Glenn Beck show and started talking about how a college education is nothing more than liberal indoctrination.  This was followed by a stump speech in Troy, Michigan where Santorum said the following quote:

“Not all folks are gifted in the same way…Some people have incredible gifts with their hands. Some people have incredible gifts and … want to work out there making things. President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob….There are good decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor trying to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image. I want to create jobs so people can remake their children into their image, not his.”

If you want the stunning visual, here it is:

Specifically when Santorum said “He wants to remake you in his image” sounds like theological-speak to me.  Personally, I think it’s a set up to see if Santorum can play his hand right and fashion Obama as an antichrist of sorts.  Given all of the imaging of Obama as a christological character back in 2008 from both sides of the political party aisle, I think it wouldn’t be hard for the Santorum camp to make that sale.  While Santorum might not ever use the word “antichrist” in relationship to Obama, painting Obama as a demagogue-who’s-anti-Christian-and-a-Muslim-apologist-who-went-to-Jeremiah-Wright’s-church-and-is-threatening-to-indoctrinate-your-children-if-they-go-to-college would certainly be up his alley.

Honestly, the level of disingenuousness that Santorum is displaying is unconscionable.  In 2006 he spoke of his committment to college education on his website, as Talking Points Memo reports and let’s not forget his recent on-the-air committment to funding Historically “Blah” College and Universities and how in favor of that he was.

 

Finally, Rick Santorum stepped in it even more than Sarah Palin ever did.  Rick Santorum went so far as to attack posthumously an assassinated president to get across his ideology on the separation of church of state.  While of course the Constitution never explicitly uses that language, the provisions of the First Amendment certainly prohibit the establishment of a state authorized religion, and it certainly prohibits the creation of a theocracy.  The Supreme Court over the years has certainly done well to create a culture of keeping clear the separation of church and state–and rightly so.

Even erroneously Sarah Palin spoke of the Christian beliefs of the founding fathers of the country and all their religious beliefs that, according to her, went into the Constitution, but even Sarah Palin never said that she was against the “separation of church and state.”  Even the social conservatives that try and have Decalogue statues placed on courthouse lawns never come out and say “I’m against the separation of the church and state.”

To that end, O Great Theocrat Rick Santorum, the First, you’re shown your ineptness when it comes to 1) basic foreign policy matters concerning Afghanistan and what a president needs to do in certain situations, 2) your understanding of higher education in this country (especially from a guy with three advanced degrees) and 3) your inability to uphold and “faithfully execute” the duties of a head of state in defending the concepts and basic ideals of the Constitution.

The end of the Santorum Dynasty c. 2012

May your reign of terror end swiftly.

Keep it uppity and truthfully radical, JLL

The Black Church, Homegoing Services and Whitney Houston

18 Feb

Whitney Elizabeth Houston, 1963-2012 Matt Sayles/AP/File

On February 18, 2012, the family of Whitney Houston paid their final respects in an invite only, yet televised homegoing service at her home church, New Hope Baptist Church in Newark, New Jersey.  Initial reports had said that only BET was covering the full service, but certainly shocking to me, the major cable news networks of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News covered the entire service from beginning to the recessional.  This isn’t a post to eulogize the wonderful talent that is and was Whitney Houston, but rather a cultural commentary on what Whitney’s homegoing service, an experience she didn’t get to see, meant for the larger culture.

Particularly on CNN, between the hosts of Piers Morgan, Soledad O’Brien and Don Lemon, they were all tripping over their words trying to set the most politically correct tone possible when speaking about this as a “traditional Baptist service.”  To which myself and others, I’m sure, couldn’t help but roll our collective eyes.   Even Don Lemon gave a cringe worthy comment when walking the street trying to get interviews from well wishers and invited guests to the services when he said this would be a service with “jumping and shouting and fanning.”  That is to say, the experience that is the institutional Black Church as we know it, shouldn’t and can’t be expressed in those three words.

The Black Church, as we know it historically and even in a contemporary setting is not monolithic; indeed it is really black churches.  What the nation, and indeed the world saw today was but a glimpse of an ecclesiastical culture that is unique to the black American experience.  From the order of service, to the music, to the ebb of flow of words uttered by chosen guests and even the sermon.  The collective swaying of the choir, to the ecstatic utterances from Donnie McClurkin to the emotion displayed by Ray J as the casket of Whitney Houston was carried out of the door.

This is but a glimpse of how we worship, and the world for a brief four hours in time was able to see that.

That being said, I, personally, am of the opinion that if  you are aware that you have a national audience, you need to speak to the national audience.  I do think that one can employ rhetoric that speaks to the immediate and present persons and one that transmits through the TV and other mediums.

I’ll never forget when Albertina Walker, the Queen of Gospel music as she was called, died.  I happened to be living in Chicago at the time and people were questioning me about what church was this that the funeral was to be held at.  I knew the church just because of my proximity to it and that it was a church my mother used to go to when she was growing up.  Not to mention, it was Albertina Walker’s church where she held her membership and it was an historic church that was institutional in Chicago as it was a home church to many of those who arrived during the Great Migration.

What was peculiar about it was that this was a public figure, nationally known, having a funeral at a smaller church.  Now a public musical was held two days prior at Apostolic Church of God to accommodate the large crowds, but the homegoing services were held in a much smaller church.

I’ll never forget watching the online stream of the services where the pastor of the church, in the middle of his eulogy decided to address the critics.  The pastor took the time to put people in their place, so to speak, surrounding the issue of why the services were held at his church and why he was chosen to speak and not a preacher with larger recognition.

I cringed in my seat.

The problem, as I saw it, with that type of rhetoric was that it was highly localized and frankly it did nothing but detract from celebrating the life of the deceased: Albertina Walker.  The pastor of the church was relatively unknown at the time, and guess what?  He’s still unknown.  If he had simply preached a great eulogy, people would have been more inclined to remember him as the pastor who preached a wonderful eulogy about Albertina Walker.  Unfortunately since he didn’t say much and what he did say did nothing to call to attention the reason they had gathered that day, no one outside of his circle knows who he is.

Pastor Marvin Winans preaching the eulogy of Whitney Houston entitled "Prioritize" from Matthew 6:25

Today, Marvin Winans, pastor of the Perfecting Church and part of the Winans family, a gospel singing group was charged with the task of delivering the eulogy for Whitney Houston.

To be frank, there wasn’t much positive I could say about his eulogy.

Now, I know there are varying schools of thought when it comes to preaching eulogies.  Some question the necessity of using a scripture as a text to preach from, or the need for a theme or title to preach about.  Some see a eulogy as merely a call to be saved by the members while others believe that rather than preach a text or a title, one ought to indeed eulogize the person who has died.  Some believe if you know the person, you ought to most certainly talk about the person, and if you don’t, one should talk about Life and Death and what does that all really mean when a family loses one of their.

Amazingly, Marvin Winans didn’t do any of that.

Now, I’ve caught bits and pieces of Marvin preaching over the years and there’s one sermon of his I’ve heard in it’s entirety that’s on YouTube his famous “That’s It, and That’s All” sermon he preached a few years back.  I think by the time I heard the aforementioned sermon, I knew my personal theology didn’t align with his.  However, his theology aside, the sermon lacked a certain cohesiveness that I think was needed for such an occasion as this.

For me, Pastor Winans failed to give a good word over the life of Whitney Houston as he never mentioned her once in his discourse.  Additionally, he didn’t say anything directly encouraging to the family and certainly not to the thousands of persons who had tuned in via television.  I think when it comes to basic pastoral care that needs to be done in the pulpit, comfort in the time of sudden and unexpected grief is needed and it seemed that Pastor Winans was drawing from an empty well when it came to giving words of comfort to a family that has lost its daughter, sister, cousin, mother and even ex-lover.

Not only did Winans seem to falter with his basic tasks, it was just a poorly organized sermon.  We went from Jesus at the Sermon on the Mount to a story about reading car manuals and why the Bible is our manual and by the time he meandered through controversial doctrines we ended up with him endorsing a prosperity theology.   Let me be honest, by that moment, I had abandoned all hope for a decent sermon and I would have been shocked for him to make sense of it all.

The whole time, I kept waiting for him to turn to Cissy Houston and say something direct and personal to her about Whitney, and that moment never came.

What I heard was a’ many a well-turned phrase, some basic catchphrase theology, his Pentecostal and therefore theologically conservative theology conflated into a sermon that had little if any practical application.  I couldn’t even give him the benefit of the doubt that he was really making a plea for persons to take this moment to get saved and get right with Christ which is sometimes par for the course when preachers have to preach the eulogies of persons who have died through violent means.  I couldn’t say that because he gave no practical applications, and he use of ecclesiastical language meant that he was only talking to church people.

The sermon Marvin Winans preached was more fitting for a Sunday morning service than for a eulogy for someone so famous and iconic.  Personally, I don’t care about an altar call, or really calling for persons to get saved, that’s not really what I look for in preaching, but rather something that raises, or at least broadens one’s consciousness culturally, socially, political etc. all while having a conversation with theology.  If I wasn’t already self-identified as Christian, there was nothing Marvin said that really piqued my interest enough; there was nothing digestible that he said.  It was if one were eating rice cake–no flavor, no taste, and little if any nutritional value, certainly nothing that could solely sustain you for any length of time.

Winans did nothing to raise or broaden the Houston family’s consciousness, let alone the nation’s consciousness, about Whitney Houston, nor God or Jesus for that matter.  Using extremely churchy language did nothing to open the door and give someone with little or no church experience to want to come into the conversation and sit and listen for a while.

Alas, I know I’m being hyper-critical of Pastor Winans, but preaching what amounts to a national eulogy opens him up to the criticism.  I am not suggesting that because of a national audience one ought to put on a show so that larger society doesn’t look at us as caricatures, but I honestly hope that people who are not a part of the black church tradition don’t think that Marvin Winans’ preaching is a middle-of-the-road and representative of the comprehensive black church experience–it is not.  Rather, I believe Marvin preached out of his context.

Some say he didn’t let loose as he might have wanted to given another setting.  I disagree.  Well to an extent. Obviously Marvin is a whooper and he obviously didn’t do that, and I wish he had.  I think if he had closed, it would have done wonders for how his sermon went over with many persons.  Based on Facebook statuses and tweets, people were expecting that performative aspect that has become unique and synonymous with a black church experience.

Ironically, where I believe Marvin Winans failed, Tyler Perry excelled.

Tyler had the first word of encouragement and in recalling the life of Whitney.  He related a text to her life, and the life of her preach the text.  Granted it was short and simple, it still did the job.

Given the confines he had to work with, Matthew chapter six, verse 25, Winans had an opportunity to raise the level of consciousness beyond our earthly lives and to prioritize the things in life that matter.  That is to say, we should leave a legacy, as Whitney did, through her talents.  The talents that are given to us and those gifts that we pick up on our journey are not for our own self-aggrandizement but for the betterment of our own sisters and brothers whom we encounter daily.  I would have suggested that we prioritize the people we have in our lives in addition to the things that we do in life.  And I believe by the time you get to verse 33, it provides a proper close for a Christian context about seeking first the reigndom of God and everything else will fall into place.

Personally, I would have went back to Romans 8, as Tyler Perry did simply because I find great joy in understanding God as Love, an inseparable love indeed.

To that end, Whitney, we love you, we miss, take your rest and go on home.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

We miss you Whitney!

Uppity Updates: Week of February 5, 2012

13 Feb

Every once in a while, the news cycle of the life and times of the goings-on of America produces a completely blog worthy week–and usually that’s the week or so I didn’t blog.  For long, long time readers, you all know that last week was a wonderful week to be a blogger.  From Roland Martin getting suspended by CNN, to Dr. Cornel West calling MSNBC darling Melissa Harris-Perry a “fake” and a “fraud” and a seemingly return of Sarah Palin at the God-awful CPAC convention this was certainly week to be in the blogging business.

Luckily, there are Uppity Updates.

Here’s my rundown of what happened last week.

1.  Roland Martin Gets Suspended from CNN for his Tweets

When GLAAD, the pro-LGBT alliance group made the charge that Martin should be suspended from CNN for homophobic tweets he tweeted during the SuperBowl, I immediately rushed to see what exactly he had tweeted.  Specifically, he tweeted,

If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl

and

Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear! #superbowl

Roland Martin

Well, personally, I didn’t see either of those tweets at homophobic.  Not unless the definition of homophobic has changed, I understood the working definition to be any rhetoric or action that specifically disparages those who identify as homosexual.  I didn’t see Martin doing that with those tweets.  What I did see was Martin being anti-masculinist.

The anti-masculinist sentiment was that Martin seemed to be challenging the manhood of any man who wanted to see the David Beckham commercial.  Challenging one’s manhood doesn’t necessarily translate into alleging that one is gay.  Let’s remember words like “sissy” and “punk” do just as much about challenging one’s masculinity as they do to identify one as being gay.

In that regard, I think since Martin didn’t go out overboard with the tweet to say that any man who was hyped about the David Beckham ad was gay, I don’t think it’s fair to charge homophobia—for a few reasons.  If what Martin said were to wholly be categorized as homophobia, I believe that it negates a nuanced conversation that marginalized communities, such as the LGBT community, need to have to see true change occur in this country.  It’s as though GLAAD is a hammer, and therefore sees everything else as a nail, rather than a screw or some other tool.

More so for me, it negates a conversation that we haven’t really held in this country: one on masculinity, manhood and gender as separate entities from sexuality.  While yes all of these can be and are intertwined, we must try and raise the level of conversation.  In this instance, most persons didn’t hold the conversation about masculinity, which is what I particularly saw; everyone raced to have the homophobia discussion.  While one shouldn’t supersede the other, we must not forsake an easier target for one that is more nebulous in the public sphere.

The only article I saw was by a Charles Blow entitled “Real Men And Pink Suits“ out of the New York Times that attempted to have this masculinist and manhood conversation.  I think where Martin lost his witness was when he advocated violence.  In a time and place where violence against gay youth in the form of bullying has led to youth suicides, Martin’s tweets had the finesse of a wild boar hunting for prey.

Martin shouldn’t have tweeted it, but I don’t think it was worthy of a suspension either.

2.  Melissa Harris-Perry, Cornel West and the “Fraud” Alert

Perhaps Dr. Cornel West is the guy who sits and red flags your debit or credit card when it sees and out of town purchase simply because you decided to go on vacation randomly.   Or perhaps, maybe Dr. Harris-Perry is a fraud.

Who knows?

What I do know is that yet again, West came under fire for a war of words from an interview with Diverse magazine (p. 14) concerning some of his fellow public intellectuals.  Specifically, Rev. Al Sharpton and Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry.  We all remember the rather public and vehement disagreement Al Sharpton and West had last year on MSNBC with Ed Schultz looking a bit befuddled.  The two were having the classic activist versus academic debate.  I remember watching a bit chagrined having respect for both gentlemen and saying to myself, so it was obvious, these two don’t talk often.  That is to suggest, how could neither of them not be working with the other.

However, recently, I had a long discussion with a friend about the nature of the rhetoric of the likes of Cornel West.  While I’m not the biggest fan of his “jazz improvisation” speeches, I think mostly what Cornel does is attempt to raise the consciousness of the masses.  The likes of Dr. Harris-Perry and Al Sharpton do nothing more than broaden the conversation.  And yes, I am specifically valuing these theories.  To raise the consciousness requires a different rhetoric, and usually is missed on the majority of people, and West’s, at times, bombastic nature, doesn’t help.

We can all agree, calling your protegé a “fake” and a “fraud” doesn’t help your case at all.

But, if I understand West correctly, I can see why.

If Harris-Perry is your protegé and primarily, you have issue with their level of scholarship, and then they turn around, leave the institution you brought them to only to bad-mouth you the first chance you get, and then to fall in lockstep with the liberal establishment–then yes, to West, you are a fake.  Granted, I’m highly speculating, but perhaps West knows that Harris-Perry sold out some of her core ideals for the sake of getting the MSNBC nod.

I have always understood, however, that the work that I am about requires this and that, not one or the other.  A movement needs people who can work in the system and those outside of the system.  However, tension constantly will arise.  While West clearly stands outside of the larger system critiquing the system itself, the likes of Harris-Perry and Sharpton even to some extent, operate within the confines of that system.  It’s hard for an intellectual ideologue such as West to critique the system when people such as Sharpton have to operate within the system.

To West’s point about the lack of critique that Sharpton and Harris-Perry give to the Obama administration, I have to agree with him without any reservation.  I believe praise should be given when it is earned, and criticism should be given as well.  The moment we fall lockstep into any system, we have compromised ourselves; we are indeed a carbon copy, living on the ends of strings pulled by another.

Or else, he’s saying none of her work is her own.

Whatever, the case, I do think it should be noted that Harris-Perry is the only sitting tenured professor with a news program and that does say something about public intellectualism entering the broader discussion.

3.  President Obama, Birth Control and “Religious Freedom”

Since, I’m not Roman Catholic, I really don’t give a damn about contraceptives as it relates to religious beliefs.  And since I believe public health care should be considered a right under the law, which means I was, am and will always be in favor of a public option, I’m sure you can figure where I come down on this topic.

I really don’t know what Obama’s political strategy was in waging this debate in favor of women’s health knowing he was probably going to have to compromise on the topic.  I don’t know if it was a hat tip to pro-choice and other women’s groups going into the election cycle or was this a true political blunder.  I think the White House can use it in a general election as far as saying Obama stood his ground but was blocked by the GOP operation, blah blah blah.

However, it gets spun, I think women overall lost the debate.  Even those women who were against it in the first place.

I think if you want to offer a health service to the public, you need to play by public rules.  But, let’s remember much of the hubbub was coming from a party where current and former presidential candidates created a hypothetical scene where a non-insured injured person would be turned away from a hospital’s emergency room.  Catholic priests were alleging that their “religious freedom” was being trampled, and suddenly you started seeing black suits and white clergy collars appearing on all the news talk shows.

First things first.

Why are people taking sexual cues from a body of predominantly older white males who have taken a vow of chastity?  Even if they are off having sex somewhere, doesn’t that even still nullify the previously nullified position in which to sit and critique.  And let’s not mention, this is a seriously flawed body of men when it comes to the issue of sexual actions.  The Catholic priest sexual abuse cases still are not over yet.

Secondly, I fail to recognise how is one’s religious freedom opposed when forcing to provide a service for the public.  If the Catholic sponsored hospitals only hired Catholics, I could see how they could make the argument, but we all know that’s highly discriminatory and illegal in a public sector such as health care.  Or even if Catholic hospitals only treated Catholic patients, I could buy this, but we all know how ludicrous it is.  Out of all the debates I heard, none of them really made sense.  The various priests I saw on the news programs spoke as thought they were a part of divine aristocracy in which the rest of us had better get on board.

I do think the deeper, and much more legalistic debate is truly whether or not what precedent does this set as to what rights does a government have about forcing a religious institution to provide a service or a good that given other avenues is free.  To that end, I encourage you to check out another blogging source, Constitutional law really isn’t my strong suit.

Finally, and of the most importance to me, I thought it was quite curious that the country immediately jumped into the conversation about “religious freedom” as a means of protecting this concept, to which I immediately asked where was this level of conversation four years ago when Obama’s church and Jeremiah Wright entered the public sphere.  No one argued religious freedom when the concepts of Black liberation theology were discussed and dissected.  If you let the conservatives tell the story, including the likes of Rick Warren, just the basic tenets of liberation theology are heretical.

All in all, I think the White House could have handled it better, but still, the Catholic church was more of the loser in this case.  Yet, again, the Catholic church came off as a old curmudgeon wielding the same power Constantine exerted over his dynasty.  The fact that I live in a country that legislates policies on contraceptives while at the same time hollering about teenage pregnancy, HIV/AIDS rates and from an institution that comments on children born out of wedlock is mind boggling indeed.

4.  Sarah Palin is Still Here.

This one will be short and sweet.

As to why they decided to trot out Sarah Palin from under whatever rock Fox News had her hidden is beyond me.  Her digs were per usual at the President and full of venom filled one liners that would make a rattlesnake jealous.  What bothered me, was the presence of this character called Peter Brimelow who was asked to speak on a panel entitled ““The Failure of Multiculturalism:  How the Pursuit of Diversity is Weakening the American Identity.”  This guy is considered a white nationalist by some accounts.  Check out the clip below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtkA2yNuARg

And to think Herman Cain was on a stage with the likes of Peter Brimelow.  Diversity indeed.

5.  Chris Brown Come-back or Female Insensitivity

There was immediate backlash amongst those who felt that Chris Brown shouldn’t have been on stage at the Grammy’s last night nor should he have received any awards because it displays that domestic abuse is okay.  I disagree.  I have always disagreed with this line of reasoning.  What I’ve noticed in the three years since the incident happened between him and Rihanna is that women, in generall (emphasis on in general) are going to take a hardline approach as it relates to how they interpret justice in matters such as this.  Men, on the other hand, take a much more restorative approach toward justice.

I think, I comfortably fall in the latter part.

Part of the reason is that usually when I read these blog posts and status messages and tweets that are decidedly anti-Chris Brown, I don’t see them offering any type of logical ways for reconciliation, just retribution.  Many are saying he needs to be in counseling.  Okay, but for how long?  What type of counseling?  Does he need to be medicated?  Hospitalized?  Institutionalized, even?   Some say, he shouldn’t be up on the Grammy’s performing.  Okay, why not?  For how long?  What’s an appropriate punishment.  Usually these are questions that are never answered in their discourse.  If you’re ready to mete out punishment, that means that there will be a time when the punishment ends and then what does that mean for re-introduction back into society.

Moreover, what does that mean for Chris Brown doing what he does?  The music industry isn’t one controlled by a board where you can be demoted or what not as a means of punishment.  As far as I am concerned the Grammy nominating committee nominated who they thought was a good artist, not as a socio-political statement to say domestic abuse is alright.  The Grammy nominating committee isn’t, or rather, shouldn’t be judging based on one’s moral and ethical character, but rather the musical talent and offering of an artist.

Obviously, we have the black female blogosphere to judge Chris Brown’s moral and ethical character; the Grammy nominating committee need not offer their two cents.

Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 104 other followers