In this morning’s OJ Blog, the reliably lurid Mr. Art Pedroza offers a typically insubstantial post that does little more than state that, among candidates, only his boy Steven Choi has any chance of winning the 70th AD seat here in beauteous and sunny Orange County, California. He has harsh words for Choi's competition in the race, including Don Wagner, whom Pedroza dismisses as "an obscure school board trustee."
Pedroza, who describes Choi as “popular,” seems to be one of those people whose rhetoric makes no distinction between “You oughta lose” and “You’re gonna lose” and that designates anyone who loses as a “loser.”
I have no idea whether Pedroza’s case for the imminent and overwhelming success of Mr. Choi holds water. Don’t much care.
* * * * *
But one of Pedroza's designated "losers" is Don Wagner, who happens to be on the South Orange County Community College District (SOCCCD) board of trustees. Pedroza, who calls Don a "nutter," includes a Wagner campaign mailer. Upon an image of Don is written, “We need more faith in public life” and “Help defend Don from the attacks" (see above).Who is the "attacker" here?
Undoubtedly, in Don’s mind, I am one of those pesky attackers, for I am among a group of plaintiffs in “Westphal v. Wagner,” which asserts that SOCCCD has engaged in a pattern of actions, by trustees and other officials, that establish religion. The actions include religious invocations at the start of commencement ceremonies, scholarship awards ceremonies, etc.
But just who is the “attacker” in this case? Don plainly views a routine imposition of religious invocations at a community college as the right and the normal. Occasionally, he even appeals to the supposed popularity of his view among South Orange Countians.
So, in Don's mind, he represents the standard and the normal.
Such a man inevitably regards anyone who would put a stop to those activities as a trouble-maker and a scoundrel. But one who reads and understands the “establishment” clause of the 1st Amendment, and who does not presuppose that the routine and normal are also the right, might well view Don as, if not the scoundrel, then the aggressor, for, despite our Constitution’s ban on the government’s establishing religion, Don and his pious friends, acting as the government, impose invocations and “Jesus saved our souls” messages on the community, students, and employees during SOCCCD events.
Don is not alone in his failure to imagine that something else besides "faith" might be under attack here. Last week, the über-lurid Mr. Tom Fuentes, former boss of the OC GOP, was among the SOCCCD trustees who voted to reserve $2 million to continue to fight the "Westphal" complaint.
Upon asserting his staunch support for this extraordinary expenditure (ultimately caused, of course, by the Bible-toting arrogance of people like him), Tom added, "I hope that we can go after those who have caused the district to spend this money...." Go after? (And go after how? He seemed to have in mind the winning of "repayment of ... attorney fees.” That's what he said. But I'm not so sure that's the only kind of "going after" he had in mind.)
Clearly, in Tom's mind, as in Don's, this is a case of mere wrong-doers—"attackers"—coming down from the hills and into the peaceful village to violate the rights of the faithful. That these alleged invaders might have a legitimate grievance, or even an illegitimate grievance, does not occur to them. Scoundrels don't have grievances; they just have a desire to do evil.
* * * * *
Don loves to say that people like me are attempting to prevent the faithful from praying and otherwise religionizing in “the public square.” But that’s nonsense. Don can pray there all he wants for all I care. The issue is whether he should be allowed to religionize there as an agent of the government. That’s all.Don also loves to ridicule the plaintiffs of this case, describing them as sensitive souls who seek not to have their "feelings hurt" by having to listen to prayers and such. (Yes, feelings really are silly things, aren’t they? I wonder if Don would experience any of those silly “feelings” if the government were to prevent him from praying at his church?)
Listen. This ain’t rocket science. Our Founding Parental Units were aware of a particular kind of tyranny: the imposition of religion on people by that awesome force known as the government. These fine (and sometimes not-so-fine) Revolutionary Units long ago said “no” to that.
And Don wants to say “yes.”
I shall now await the utterly predictable.
19 comments:
I think Don is happy to have you guys sue him. I attended a debate and he proudly said "my name is on a case that defends god"
He got great applause for this line from the Republicans in the room. I think Don owes the plaintifs in this case if he wins the nomination.
Of course Don is proud - that's the only reason he really pursued and championed the case. He uses everything at his disposal to promote himself - and when its usefulness is done (as what happened with Tom) - he lets it go. Don is trying - of course - to become the next Tom Fuentes. Look at how he has positioned himself, co-opting all of Tom's issues.
Can you spell "opportunist"?
The ironic difficulty to which you refer is a familiar one, and, in the long run, it is unavoidable. If you allowed yourself to be obstructed by these merely potential negative unintended consequences, you would never fight for anything. When I signed onto this lawsuit, I was perfectly aware that it could complicate an already complex situation and even play into the hands of someone like Wagner. I signed on anyway, knowing that there's never a "right time" to do something like this. But the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment is important, and it is well worth supporting. And this was a promising opportunity to do just that.
It's doubtful that DW actually gives a damn about religion being all so important to the point that he now has to be a zealous crusader for Christ. Just like the earlier discussion about "red meat," he knows that he's guaranteed to attract a certain demographic to the polls who want a theocracy and want us all governed by Old Testament standards. They're not a thoughtful bunch, but they sure are self righteous.
"zealous crusader for Christ" ... "who want a theocracy and want us all governed by Old Testament standards."
Um, 12:23, Christ is New Testament.
Not a thoughtful comment from you, and a bit self-righteous, but thanks for trying.
Since you've tracked your ratings and it seems that they go up when you report on Don Wagner, are you deliberately trying to boost your ratings by running these posts about Wagner? How ironic that you need him to get readership. Bauer needs Wagner?
8:11, The answer to your question is "no."
We are writing about Wagner and Lang because they are running for office and the primary is next week.
8:11 - Oh please. Really?? ES
The big Broadway gala 25th anniversary blow-out extravaganza party is tommorow night (Friday) at IVC - who's going?
Well, 3:18, JC may be in the NT but if you look at the evangelicals, they like the old god who smites at will, and who dislikes women and homosexuals. They love all the hell and judgment stuff.
Self righteous? I'll leave it to them, and you, and your ilk.
7:06, why do you and your ilk strive so mightily to excuse illiteracy or, maybe just sloppy thinnking? The earlier comment made a stupid, sloppy mistake in trying to tar evangelicals. It was a mistake. The left makes them -- perhaps more so, much more so, than the right, but that's a debate for another time. Your guy goofed.
As to your substantive argument, it's a thoughtless caricature of the evangelicals. You can deny it, and I won't believe you, but I'd bet good money that you know personally not a single evengelical with whom you've discussed social or theological issues. Instead, you rely on the left's tendentious mischaracterizations of the right. Of course, that makes it easier for you to think bad thoughts about your enemies and relieves you of the obligation to become knowledgable on an issue and think for yourself; it also makes you as self-rightous and ignorant as the guy who goofed and put Christ in the Old Testament.
There are more Evangelicals who find theocracy appealing than you might imagine. Not long ago, trustee Tom Fuentes' pal Howard Ahmanson, Jr. was honored at Saddleback Church for funding a speaker series. As is explained here, Ahmanson, who resides in Newport Beach, seems committed to some theocratic vision for America. He also approves of the punishment of stoning for homosexuals. He is some sort of Christian--a Calvanist--and the OC church he attends has connections with those wacky gay-hating Africans we occasionally read about. They're into smiting, man.
You are very good at missing the point, Mr. Thoughtful. Let's make it real easy for you.
The Biblical Jesus was a spokesperson for the poor and underprivileged, among others. Name one (and one will do) Bible thumping, Jesus loving conservative Republican who cares about those principles. As the saying goes, if Jesus came back and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
Instead, and pay attention here, the red meat tossers who invoke Jesus' name are actually OT proponents, who hate the gays and lesbians, who want the 10 Commandments put up in courthouses (with the only God but me decree) and love the eye for an eye principle for supporting the death penalty. They invoke Jesus' name but blatantly ignore his actual values.
Where to begin:
Waldo, there are many fewer such evangelicals than you imagine. Though not one myself, I know many many and your caricature of them is just that, a caricature and wrong. Ahmanson is no more typical of the evangelicals than he is of the rich. He's a kook -- and a democrat. You can look it up.
Anonymous at 8:54, thank you for making it easy for me. I appreciate the small words. Too bad there's aboslutely nothing accurate behind the thought those small words and simple sentences try to express. Name a Bible thumping, Jesus loving conserative Republican: James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Franklin Graham (and Billy, too)... Really, the list goes on and on. The dispute the left and right have, and pay attention here yourself since this is important, is over how best to serve the poor and underprivileged, through the endless growth of government programs or through private efforts. The left tries to crowd out those private efforts, e.g. the war on the Boy Scouts or the refusal to allow conscience exceptions to medical/adoption/you name it federal programs.
Finally, let me drive you nuts with one last thought: the eye for an eye principle (which Jesus did not repudiate so don't bother reminding me that it's from the OT) is perhaps the single greatest moral advance that the world has ever seen. (The only close second is the lesson drawn from Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac.) An eye for an eye is still -- and we will only be a civilized society as long as it remains -- the basis for our laws and social interactions. If you disagree, you either do not understand the eye for an eye concept as expressed in the Bible or are a barbarian. I'm feeling charitable: My guess is that it's the former as the Bible's moral teachings seem completely foreign to you and your ilk.
Good attempt to avoid the point:
"Name a Bible thumping, Jesus loving conserative Republican: James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Franklin Graham (and Billy, too)"
You left out Pat Robertson, who is Ralph Reed without the charm. You did not complete the thought, though, as these are patented hatemongers, just as the thankfully departed Jerry Falwell was. Show me how they practice true Christian virtues--good luck!
"how best to serve the poor and underprivileged, through the endless growth of government programs or through private efforts."
Endless growth? Really? Are you referring to the horror of single parents geting a whopping $640 a month in welfare benefits, when they qualify? Why don't you focus on the "endless growth" of military spending, which dwarfs the assistance some poor folk get.
"The war on the Boy Scouts"
You've been watching too much Bill O'Reilly. If the boy scouts want to discriminate against gays and atheists, fine, but then they don't get to use public facilities. Fair enough?
"or the refusal to allow conscience exceptions to medical/adoption/you name it federal programs."
What on earth does this mean?
"the eye for an eye principle (which Jesus did not repudiate so don't bother reminding me that it's from the OT) is perhaps the single greatest moral advance that the world has ever seen."
I thought it was "turn the other cheek" but that's from the socialist in the New Testament.
"(The only close second is the lesson drawn from Abraham's near sacrifice of Isaac.)"
That's a pretty twisted story, you know.
"the Bible's moral teachings seem completely foreign to you and your ilk."
What, like approving of slavery and capital punishment?
9:31, I don't understand your point about the "eye for an eye" (lex talionis principle. How does Jesus' teaching (I remember it from catechism & Sunday School) that one should "turn the other cheek" square with "eye for an eye"? Prima facie, they are at odds. Further, it may well be true that, historically, lex talionis represented an advance and that, therefore, our morals/laws derive in some sense from that principle, it does not follow that it remains our principle. (That, historically, astronomy derives from astrology does not establish that astronomy is "based on" astrology! On the contrary: modern astronomy rejects the fundamental principles of astrology.) Indeed, most of us would designate "turn the other cheek"--or at least a willingness to attempt to overcome differences before engaging in retaliation--as an advance relative to lex talionis. Also, please explain that technical term "Barbarian" that you used. If I am to be called a "b," I would at least like to know what that means. No doubt it is something terribly arcane and I will learn something new today. Or maybe not. --BvT
Howard Ahmanson, Jr. is a "democrat"? If you mean he is a member of the Democratic Party, then why does his pattern of political contributions/charitable contibutions consistently undermine the principles of that party? Still, you can call him a Democrat if you want. And you can call me a Druic, too. Or perhaps you mean that Ahmanson embraces the philosophy of democracy. But it seems unlikely that Americans are in favor of a theocracy and opposes gay rights, and it is pretty clear (if you know A's record) that the fellow favors theocracy and is about as hostile to "gay rights" as a person can be. So if we legislated based on what the majority of Americans want--something that should be welcome to a democrat--that would utterly defeat Ahmanson's desires and agenda. So, dude, start making sense. Or at least explain yourself. If you can.
I must admit that the "utterly predictable" has not materialized. Thanks everybody for the mostly civil and decent comments.--BvT
God always wins.
Post a Comment