You See How They Are?

Send this one to your diehard, Bible-believing, uneasy-about-the-gays relations:  Even Pat Robertson says the Bible isn't an infallible guide to life:



Of course, the truth is that wealthy straight white men have always picked and chosen, just as they pleased, the parts of the Bible they wanted to ignore - or not.

Which, of course, everyone else does too - but they aren't usually in the driver's seat.

Old Times There Are Not Forgotten

Ruins of Charleston, S. C., 1865

You're going to be hearing a lot about the Civil War in the next four years, fellas, as we observe the sesquicentennial of that national ordeal. South Carolina, first state to secede, kicked off the festivities this week with a full-dress Secession Ball - I'm not making this up - to honor the men who took the Palmetto State out of the Union.

And not only a Secession Ball, but also a screening of Birth of a Nation? Yup. That's South Carolina all over, boys - Tory, aristocratic, and unrepentant to the last. Your no-count, poor-white Head Trucker lived there for a painful but mercifully short time, so take my word for it.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That old Southern saw that the War was not at all in any way about slavery, nossir - oh, your Head Trucker remembers that well from his childhood, and believed it till he was past grown.

But it's pure, unadulterated bullshit.  And the men who started it did a devilish thing.

As Paul Finkelman wrote Monday in the New York Times Disunion blog:

One hundred and fifty years ago today South Carolina declared its independence from the United States. The move had been in the offing since early November, when Abraham Lincoln’s election led the state’s leaders to fear that Washington would begin to restrict slavery in the territories and in their own state. That was the proximate cause, at least; there was more to it. Beyond the election, South Carolina was no longer happy in a union with the free states, where northern opponents of slavery were allowed to openly denounce the “peculiar institution” in Congress and in their home states.

Continued after the jump . . .

Bishop Robinson: Religion Kills Young People

Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire - the gay bishop whose 2003 election has caused the Anglican Communion to splinter into pro- and anti-gay fragments - writes in the Huffington Post:

An increasingly popular bumper sticker reads, "Guns Don't Kill People -- RELIGION Kills People!" In light of recent events I would add religion kills young people: gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender young people.

Perhaps not directly, though. And religion is certainly not the only source of anti-gay sentiment in the culture. But it's hard to deny that religious voices denouncing LGBT people contribute to the atmosphere in which violence against LGBT people and bullying of LGBT youth can flourish. . . .

With the exception of [Asher] Brown in Texas these suicides are not happening in Bible Belt regions of the country, where we might predict a greater-than-usual regard for religious thought. Instead, they are occurring in states perceived to be more liberal on LGBT issues: California, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The case of Tyler Clementi is especially instructive about how far we have to go in accepting our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender children. Clementi was an 18-year-old freshman at Rutgers University whose roommate secretly filmed a sexual encounter he had with another male student and then posted it on the internet.

Think about it. If Tyler had been heterosexual and instead filmed having sex with his girlfriend, it would still be an inappropriate invasion of his privacy and tasteless to post the video online. And it certainly would have been embarrassing for Tyler and the girl. But chances are he would have been the recipient of some congratulatory remarks from friends about what a stud he was. And if he was straight he likely wouldn't have contemplated -- not to mention successfully accomplished -- his own suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge.

No, Tyler was a victim -- not of an inner disturbance of depression or mental illness--but of an external and in part religiously inspired disdain and hatred of gay people.

Despite the progress we're making on achieving equality under the law and acceptance in society for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, why this rash of bullying, paired with self-loathing, ending in suicide? With humility and heartfelt repentance I assert that religion -- and its general rejection of homosexuality -- plays a crucial role in this crisis.

On the one hand, Religious Right hatemongers and crazies are spewing all sorts of venom and condemnation, all in the name of a loving God. The second-highest-ranking Mormon leader, Boyd K. Packer, recently called same-sex attraction "impure and unnatural" in an act of unspeakable insensitivity at the height of this rash of teen suicides. He declared that it can be cured, and that same-sex unions are morally repugnant and "against God's law and nature."

Just as many gay kids grow up in these conservative denominations as any other. They are told day in and day out that they are an abomination before God. Just consider the sheer numbers of LGBT kids growing up right now in Roman Catholic, Mormon, and other conservative religious households. The pain and self-loathing caused by such a distortion of God's will is undeniable and tragic, causing scars and indescribable self-alienation in these young victims.

You don't have to grow up in a religious household, though, to absorb these religious messages. Not long ago I had a conversation with six gay teens, not one of whom had ever had any formal religious training or influence. Every one of them knew the word "abomination," and every one of them thought that was what God thought of them. They couldn't have located the Book of Leviticus in the Bible if their lives depended on it yet they had absorbed this message from the antigay air they breathe every day.

Add to that the Minnesota Family Council's Tom Prichard recently saying that the real cause of the suicides is "homosexual indoctrination," not antigay bullying, and that the students died because they adopted an "unhealthy lifestyle." . . .

Continued after the jump . . .

Confederate History and Other Delusions

Found on Joe.My.God.:  Obama makes clear that slavery is not a negligible item in the history of this country.



What I Say:  Ever since Appomatox and right down to this present moment, a great many Southerners, high and low, have been swearing that "slavery was not the cause of the Civil War."  This was accepted truth, an article of faith during my childhood in the segregated South, a "fact" nobody questioned.

Which is pure and simple bullshit:  a willful denial of the historical facts, a wishful thought that elevates the secessionists into great heroes of liberty rather than people whose consciences were calloused by the practice of a great evil.

If anybody ever tries to pull this argument on you, boys, all you have to do is refer them to the Declaration of Causes written by the Texas Secession Convention, where it is all laid out perfectly plain, and in passionate detail:  the North wants to take our slaves away and by God we ain't a-gonna stand for it, oh hell no.  An excerpt:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy [here, meaning the United States as a grouping that can be seceded from, not a permanent union], the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States. . . .

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy [here, meaning the United States] itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South. . . .

"The debasing doctrine of the equality of all men."  And black slavery is the Will of God.  Right. 

And of course, this is but one of many, many documents in the historical record that prove the point.

But of course the biggest and deepest river in the South has always been Denial.

Even a century and a half after the whole rotten structure of slavery and secession was crushed by force of arms.  And now this kind of fanatical, self-righteous, reactionary thinking is resurgent.  Andrew Sullivan quotes Noah Millman on "Who Closed the Conservative Mind?", one answer to which is this:

--Blame the South. The argument, in a nutshell, is that a successful political coalition in America cannot be dominated by the South, as the GOP currently is. The South is a distinct region in America, significantly different in history and political culture from the rest of the country. Moreover, regional identity in the South is manifested substantially in opposition to the rest of the nation. A political movement dominated by the South will necessarily manifest a political culture that is more similar to that of the South than to that of the rest of the nation, and that political movement is also going to absorb this oppositional element of Southern identity, and will necessarily become overly invested in intellectual shibboleths. What looks like epistemic closure is really just identity politics.

I don’t think this explanation can be dismissed out of hand – in particular, dismissing it out of hand as “insulting” to the South would be an instance of precisely the dynamic I’m outlining. The South does have a distinct history and culture; that culture is substantially oppositional; and the American right is dominated by the South in a way that it has not been before. Dominance of a party by an atypical and oppositional region is just a structural problem. And, if this is a problem, it is going to be a hard one for the American right to solve, because the South is now large enough and strong enough, and remains cohesive enough, that its leaders should expect to lead any coalition of which they are a member.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  If you listen to the Teabagger crowd and nearly all the rest of the Republican leadership, they sound just like the guys who wrote the Declaration of Causes.  Just like them.

Which brings all that boring old American history you learned in school into a whole new perspective, doesn't it?

And here's a vision of the future history of this country coming straight at you, boys, the overthrow of everything Obama and the current Congress will have done.  Newt Gingrich at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference:



A Republican President and Congress in 2013:  if that doesn't scare you shitless, what will?

More seditious ranting from the oh-so-holy, thrice-married, serial-adulterer Newt here.

About that Haitian Pact with the Devil

Big thanks to my truckbuddy Frank for passing along this post from Matthew Yglesias, with source links:

But was there a pact with the devil? I would also note that the Haitian Revolution began in 1791, years before Napoleon took over France as Consul. Napoleon III didn’t come to power until 1848. So clearly Robertson is confused on the basic history. But I believe that Robertson is referring to the Bois Caïman Ceremony that in Haitian national mythology initiated the revolution. This was a Vodou ceremony and the following text is normally attributed to its leader, Boukman:

The god who created the earth; who created the sun that gives us light. The god who holds up the ocean; who makes the thunder roar. Our God who has ears to hear. You who are hidden in the clouds; who watch us from where you are. You see all that the white has made us suffer. The white man’s god asks him to commit crimes. But the god within us wants to do good. Our god, who is so good, so just, He orders us to revenge our wrongs. It’s He who will direct our arms and bring us the victory. It’s He who will assist us. We all should throw away the image of the white men’s god who is so pitiless. Listen to the voice for liberty that speaks in all our hearts.

If you were a white, Catholic French person or Haitian plantation owner, I can see why you would characterize this as a prayer offered “to the devil.” The black Haitians are postulating the existence of two Gods, one for the whites and one for the blacks. The whites regard the God they pray to as the one true God. So if the blacks are praying to some second god, and doing it with a Vodou ceremony, it stands to reason that they’re engaged in a satanic ritual of some sort.

But there’s no reason for 21st century Americans to accept this interpretation of the story. From the Haitian perspective, I think you’d say they were just praying to God for his assistance and asserting the justice of their cause. This is what pretty much everyone does before heading into battle.

I also found this short clip about the Bois Caïman ceremony, presented by some American scholars:


Bois Caïman and the Vodou Revolution from Conversations With the Living on Vimeo.

Also available on YouTube here, if Vimeo doesn't play well on your computer.

Now class, after reading and viewing all of the above, compare and contrast this incident with the emotionally unstable Glenn Beck's adoration of his "fiery warrior mother spirit of love" Sarah, as shown in the next post.

Alternatively, discuss what kind of slaveholder Pat Robertson would have been in 18th-century Haiti.  Completed essays, with footnotes, are due by Monday.

Bonus:  Muchas gracias to truckbuddy Gary for posting this brilliant and utterly devastating riposte to Robertson and Limbaugh by Olbermann:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

On Maine, Marriage, and Democracy

Okay, your Head Trucker got on a tear here tonight and couldn't stop.  I'm posting most of it after the jump to save space on this page, but maybe somebody will read it and let me know what you think.

I'm a little pooped tonight but hope I can string these quotes into a coherent post here.  It's important to understand were we are, where we've been, and where we're going.  And by we, I mean not only gays but all Americans.

Sullivan, quoting David Link, points out the victories this week we should not overlook.

Tuesday was a great day for gay rights everywhere but Maine:

We won voter approval of (1) domestic partnerships in Washington; (2) an anti-discrimination ordinance in Kalamazoo; (3) an openly gay city council president in Detroit; and (4) an openly lesbian mayoral candidate in Houston. That seems to say something about the state of anti-gay prejudice in this country.

I agree with David that public opinion is now decisively inclusive of gay people - on every issue but civil marriage. But even on that last issue, we are now essentially neck and neck in California and Maine, the last two states to have referendums on the matter, and we are over 50 percent in Washington state for domestic partnerships that are identical to civil marriage on a state level, but without the m-word.

 Conservative blogger Rod Dreher, though, says we are barking up the wrong tree:

Unless I'm missing something, in the 31 states in which voters had a say on whether or not gay marriage was going to be the law of the land, they all rejected it. Every single state. Even California, the national bellwether state on liberalizing social trends. Even Maine, in the most liberal region of the country.

You can come up with all kinds of theories about why this is, blaming the voters for being bigots, accuse the churches of playing dirty, whatever. The plain fact is, every single time it's been put to a popular vote (as opposed to allowing a tiny number of elites to vote on it), gay marriage has been a loser. . . .

If the pro-SSM left can't convince people of the rightness of their cause, they're perfectly prepared to see their views imposed from on high. Honestly, folks, I understand the case for same-sex marriage, though I don't agree with it, but look, if you're reduced to having to tell the public that they have no right to be consulted about the radical redefinition of a bedrock social and cultural institution, then you have a big, big problem.

Ah, but here is the crux of the matter.  As someone who grew up in the segregated South and remembers it vividly, I can tell you positively that the vast majority of Southerners forty years ago right now, probably 90-something percent in most places, would most certainly have considered segregation a "bedrock social and cultural institution" that absolutely had to be preserved.  The races had to be kept separate.  History, custom, law, and even scripture all showed the necessity of it.   Tamper with that, and the whole structure of society would collapse into anarchy and barbarism and racial warfare.  Seriously.

And besides, after all the fancy talk was done, it always, always, always came down to this remark, and with my own ears I heard it said many a time among the grown-ups:  Yes, but would you want one of them to marry your sister?  End of discussion.  Nothing could follow that unthinkable, utterly repugnant thought.  (Notice how often throughout history the great questions of the day come down to sex in the end.)

Read more of this post after the jump . . . .

Sunday Drive: Lincoln's Faith

From an essay by Allen C. Guelzo, Director of Civil War Era Studies and the Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era at Pennsylvania’s Gettysburg College:

Abraham Lincoln, whose birthday is celebrated February 12, never kept a diary, and never lived to write an autobiography. He was so utterly private a man that even his best friends frequently admitted that there were regions of his mind to which they were never granted access. He was a “terribly reticent, secretive, shut mouth man,” said his law-partner of fourteen years, William Henry Herndon, “and close-minded as to his plans, wishes, hopes, and fears.”

That was particularly true about religion. “I don't know anything about Lincoln's Religion,” grumbled David Davis, Lincoln’s personal attorney and his first appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, and “don’t think anybody knew.” . . .

Lincoln’s election to the presidency, just in time to see the country fall into civil war, presented him with a different set of challenges to his meager stock of religious belief. Lincoln expected a quick and direct restoration of the Union. But in battle after battle, the Union armies were handed humiliating defeats. The president could make no logical sense of this apparent contradiction of progress. After a year-and-a-half of seemingly fruitless bloodshed, he concluded that God had taken a direct hand in events to stymie the war’s progress so long as it was waged for purely political purposes, and to force Lincoln to recognize that the war must be turned in a moral direction that spoke directly to the crime of slavery.

This insight is what eventually drove Lincoln to depart from the policy direction with which he had begun the war, and to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. To the astonishment of his Cabinet, Lincoln explained that his decision to issue the Proclamation was a “vow” he had made “to myself, and...to my Maker.”

In his Second Inaugural Address, Lincoln came as close to preaching a sermon as any U.S. President has ever dared utter. The war, he said, was not a struggle between a righteous Union and evil slaveholders – both North and South had been complicit in the crime of slavery, and the war was a judgment that God had chosen to bring on the entire nation “until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword.” Only by submitting to that national judgment, Lincoln told his audience, could “malice toward none” and “charity for all” follow.

Lincoln’s public role as president embodied a profound struggle to preserve a “government of the people” that nevertheless still respected a core of moral truth which not even “the people” could repeal. And in that role, he reminds us that religion is neither alien to public life (to be locked up in private) nor a jack-in-the-box (ready to jump into every situation). It is, instead, a reminder of the feebleness of our own wisdom, and of the costliness of truth.

Massa Gone to Hell

As we look forward to the bicentennial of the Great Emancipator's birth this week, it's fitting to remind ourselves of just what a great thing he did. The University of North Carolina has a wonderful online collection, Documenting the American South, which I recommend to all my Truckbuddies who like to read history.

Among other things, the collection includes hundreds of online books with first-person accounts of slavery. It's amazing to read these things - the real stories, not the Hollywood version - and realize the enormous potentials of both cruelty and courage that reside in the human heart. Both then, and now.

Just one excerpt, a sad story but with a wry twist, by former slave Jacob Stroyer who, after he was freed, got an education and became an A. M. E. minister:

A short time before master's death, he stood security for a northern man who was cashier of one of the largest banks in the city of Charleston, he ran away with a large sum of money and left the Colonel embarrassed, which made him very fretful and peevish, he was none too good before to his slaves and that made him worse, as you know the slave holders would revenge themselves on the slaves whenever they became angry. I have seen master whip his slaves a great many times, but never so severely as he did that spring before he died.

One day before he went to his country seat, he called a man to him, stripped him and whipped him so that the blood ran down from his body like water thrown upon him in cupfuls, and when the man stepped from the place where he was tied, the blood ran out of his shoes. He said to the man, "you will remember me now, sir, as long as you live." The man answered, "yes master, I will."

Master went away that spring for the last time, he never returned alive. When they brought his remains home all of the slaves were allowed to stop at home that day, to see the last of him and to lament with mistress. After all the slaves who cared to do so had seen his face, they gathered in groups around mistress to comfort her, they shed false tears saying, "never mind misses, massa gone home to heaven," while some were saying this, others said, "thank God, massa gone home to hell, massa gone home to hell."

Times Change

And thank God they have. From Wallstats - The Art of Information (click to enlarge):

(Honk to NGblog and Maybe It's Just Me . . . )