Category Archives: Social Commentary

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

A Prayer Meeting

11 Comments

…for the purpose of bending religion to the will of the State:

The Obama administration has just put into force a new regulation under Obamacare that amounts to the most far-reaching instance of governmental religious intolerance since the Blaine Amendments. There is no other word but intolerance to describe what the rule aims to do: It doesn’t say that people should have the freedom to use contraceptive or abortive drugs —- which of course they do have in our country. It doesn’t even say that the government should facilitate people’s access to these drugs —- which of course it does today and has for many years, at great public expense. It says, rather, that the Catholic Church and others who have religious objections to the use of such drugs should facilitate people’s access to them. It says that we will not tolerate an institution in our society that, for religious reasons, is not willing to actively put into effect the views of those in power regarding contraception, abortion, and sterilization——that we won’t just let it be and find other ways to put those views into effect but will compel the dissenting institution itself to participate in the facilitation of access to these things on behalf of the people it employs, or else we will levy a heavy fine against it. We cannot abide even passive disagreement. That is a refusal to exercise even a moderate portion of toleration toward religious believers and institutions. It says, in effect, that the substance of religious convictions merits no regard from the state. And yet it seems that the forms of religious practice can be marshaled in the service of political objectives. The prayer vigil as PR stunt is expected to coexist with rank intolerance as public policy, and the White House itself is encouraging the stunt.

Without their hypocrisy and power hunger, they’d have nothing.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

Rush Limbaugh

91 Comments

…versus the mean girls.

[Early afternoon update]

The true meaning of Slutgate:

I want to comment on the commotion over Rush Limbaugh’s use of the word “slut” to describe law student Sandra Fluke. Fluke, as you know, argued before a house congressional committee that women need taking care of. That is, if they should take it into their fluffy little heads to have sex with someone, they can’t be expected to manage the consequences all by their little selves. Someone else has got to pay for their contraception – preferably a big strong man like Barack Obama. Barack Obama has lots and lots of money. Chicks dig that. In fact, he’s so powerful, he just took the money from other people. What a turn on for girly girls like Sandra!

Anyway, Rush called her a slut, probably hoping that that sort of ungentlemanly behavior toward women would land him a show on HBO like that super cool Bill Maher, who called Governor Sarah Palin the c-word (whatever that is) and entertained guests who fantasized about raping Michele Bachmann. If only Rush could get a show like Bill Maher then he could be bitter and irrelevant too – probably the only things missing from Rush’s life.

So now the left is calling for Rush’s head and the right is arguing hotly that the left says equally misogynist things and even sometimes dumps their women into the water and then leaves them there locked in a car to drown while they go back to their hotel to chat with their friends and call their lawyer. And yet a leftist killer of women can go on to become the Lion of the Senate, and even a piece of work like James Carville who implied one of his boss’s sexual harassment victims was trailer trash gets a network gig. Hey, maybe Rush was trying to get a network gig like James Carville!

I’m sure that’s it.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary, War Commentary

Islam And Free Speech In America

2 Comments

This is a very troubling case. I don’t think that the judge has thought through the logical consequences of his action. In fact, he unwittingly points out the danger without apparently recognizing it:

Judge Martin did not, of course, invoke sharia law as a basis for his ruling; nor did he suggest that Elbayomy would have been justified in assaulting Perce because his religion commanded it. But he did seem to suggest that insults to the Muslim faith are especially bad because of how impermissible blasphemy is in many Muslim countries and because of the role religion plays in Muslims’ lives. Indeed, he specifically drew a distinction between “how Americans practice Christianity” and how Muslims practice Islam: “Islam is not just a religion, it’s their culture … it’s their very essence, their very being.”

Of course, there are many different ways in which Americans practice Christianity and Muslims practice Islam. Some American Christians respond to perceived slights to their faith in ugly ways (such as threats of violence against productions of Terence McNally’s play, Corpus Christi, featuring a gay Jesus). But American religious practice, overall, is strongly tied to a hard-won tradition of freedom of religion—and irreligion. Judge Martin’s comments seem to suggest that Muslims are far less capable than Christians of dealing sensibly with insults or challenges to their faith. That does a serious disservice both to American democracy and to American Muslims.

Yes, as is often the case, the judge trivializes and minimizes the moral agency of American Muslims, implicitly excusing them for their un-American behavior, and thus enabling it. He missed an opportunity to educate the man who believed that he lived under Sharia law and was entitled to assault someone who offended him. Any judge should understand that one of the purposes of the First Amendment is to allow offensive speech, even against Muslims, because obviously, there would be no need to protect inoffensive speech.