The audacity of mope

They say that honey works better than vinegar. And in this age of imaging, it’s how you talk the talk, not walk the walk. Living so close to Glitterwood, I tend to believe the madding crowd. But when it’s all said and done, I honestly don’t know — did Bush do Obama in white face, or is Obama doing Bush in black? And is there really a two-party system, or is it just one BIG party held at the expense of all of us?

Which has left me not with “the audacity to hope,” but with the audacity to mope.

To mope about Bush’s preemptive war in Iraq becoming Obama’s postemptive war in Afghanistan. To mope about Bush’s Henry Sachs Paulson becoming Obama’s Goldman Geithner. To mope about Bush’s bailouts for banks and Wall Street, and Obama’s bailouts on top of bailouts. To mope about Bush’s policies of Guantanamo, torture and black sites around the globe, to Obama’s failure to close Gitmo, to halt torture and to continue black sites he keeps out of sight and so out of mind. I mope with audacity about the detention of terrorists that has become the detention of Americans, including myself, and how Bush’s surveillance has become Obama’s surveillance on crack.

The audacity to mope continues for me daily as Bush’s charter schools and every child left behind have turned into Obama’s school closures, increases for charter schools and every child still left behind. I mope for Bush’s “Clean” Energy Act that has become Obama’s Dirty Energy Act. I mope with audacity for Bush’s insurancecare becoming this administration’s mandated Obama-care. I mope because global warring IS global warming, and as war continues, warming continues. I mope as America’s greedy immorality clashes with nature’s limited capacity.

I mope with audacity over no immigration reform, while under Bush, the problem was ignored, and under Obama, the problem is detained, with more deaths in the desert and deportations than have ever before been registered in the history of one administration. I mope for the Palestinians, and all the American journalists who have served in the Israeli military. I mope for all Obama’s Zionist appointments. I mope for Iran’s nuclear future, which Jeff Goldberg says is “inevitable.” I mope about how Americans can even think of doing that same abominable act we did to Japan.

If we cannot learn THAT lesson, there is no lesson we are capable of learning.

The only thing President Obama has remembered from past presidents is to “speak softly and carry a big stick.” He has spoken softly and eloquently, and his big stick is a continuum of war, bailouts, deregulation, corporaracy and poverty for 98 percent of America. Yes, Bush’s hypocrisy for democracy has become Obama’s corporaracy for democracy — and both seem farther and farther away from the democracy Americans deserve.

And finally, I have the audacity to mope about “change” being doublespeak for more of the same, as an Orwellian culture has come home to roost in this country. There is no greater example of that than the Tea Party, a group of bigoted extremists taking to the streets and replacing the peace movement of the ’60s. This is a depraved new world, and Huxley and Orwell have only given us the tip of its iceberg. And with it, I mope for all the Republicans who have become Repugnicans, and all the Democrats who have become Hypocrats — in other words, 90 percent of the American people. Yes, I mope, mope with audacity.

I mope because like that great underground under the thumb of Nazi Germany, I, too, will not join them anymore.

Grant Marcus, Ventura

What’s there to argue about?
It’s amazing to me that we are actually having arguments over building a mosque near Ground Zero (Editorial, 8/12). The fact that we are, should serve as a teachable moment for clear-thinking Americans.

Qazi Uddin writes, in a letter to the opinion page, that the 9/11 attacks were just the result of some “disgruntled” individuals that happen to be Muslim. Her comment and the rest of her letter are clear examples of a person in denial or with an agenda.

We, as Americans, have the freedom to practice any religion. I was at Barnes and Noble the other day and witnessed a Muslim individual get on his knees in front of the store and do the, “pray to Mecca” thing. In America, that’s OK.

However, there is nothing written that says we have the right to build any type of church on any location we choose.

A mosque built on Ground Zero, where American-hating Muslims attacked our country, is something that only an idiot would promote.

The learning aspect of this issue paints a clear picture of the havoc that liberals (or should I say progressives) have caused in this country. The decaying of America is everywhere, and liberal thinking, from tolerance to political correctness, is at the core. One only has to ask the question, “What have they made better?” Yes, Republicans share in this decay as well; their spineless, gutless ways have stagnated this country to the point that they have become ineffective. The only good thing about Republicans is that they keep the libs at bay.

All the overwhelming struggles that have been thrown on the American people have forced us to educate ourselves on the issues. There is no question that the upcoming election will change the political face of this country, and Obama will be history in 2012. Republicans to the rescue, right? No, that would be an oxymoron.

I believe the majority of Americans (the ones who will vote most of the libs out of office) are looking for an American leader (Democrat or Republican). One that would stand on the White House lawn during a press conference and say, “No mosque on Ground Zero”, period. A leader who denounces political correctness and who would not tolerate absurdity. Someone we could trust.

We used to be called the silent majority, but thanks to defective thinking on issues like the Ground Zero mosque, we are no longer silent or politically correct. Standby.

Ron Rice, Ventura

The will of the people: a slippery slope
Mr. Moomjean doesn’t seem to “get” it. He thinks it’s all about left versus right, this matter of “gay rights.” First of all, it’s about constitutional rights. The Constitution doesn’t say gays may marry, but it doesn’t say they may not marry. These are civil rights, not freedom of religion rights. These are not rights to grant, but rights to protect. He refers to the “will of the people” — how dangerous is that? Have we all forgotten Nazi Germany and the will of those people and the Nuremberg trials? What was said then? The will of the people elected Hitler — and he made it quite clear to them all what he was up to. Still, they elected him. But the Nuremberg trials said that, regardless of the will of the people or the law of the land, the fact is that decent laws of humanity were violated. These are intrinsic laws; laws that are essential to our very survival. I am a married straight woman. Yes, I am a liberal. One of those “lefties” who are trying to undo the religious freedom on this law, according to Mr. Moomjean. But the fact is, I would fight to the death for the right of every individual to have his religious freedom, whether I agree with it or not (as long as it is not threatening my life, as no religion is doing this day). And also fight for the right of every individual to marry whom he/she chooses.

What does it even matter to anybody? How does it hurt anyone? Where is the threat to heterosexual marriage? (THAT is the most ridiculous argument of all!) But more important, how do we dare talk about “the will of the people” being the driving force of religious, or any, belief. The fact is, our Constitution protects us from the will of the people, when that “will” threatens our civil rights. People could vote to disallow interracial marriage. (Anybody remember that?) People could vote to disallow specific races and religions to attend certain colleges. (Anyone remember that?). And people could vote just about anything they wanted, but the one beautiful thing about this United States of America is our constitutional protection from the evil and irrational will of the people, the protection of our individual and civil rights. Mr. Moomjean: Anne Rice didn’t leave the GOP, she left a church that was claiming to deny rights to a specific group of people. Judge Walker didn’t protect gays; he protected the constitutional rights of all.  Please, everyone, get a grip. And realize what dangerous, horrendous ground you are treading on — we have done so much evil in the past with slavery and the denial of civil rights. Let’s not go down that road anymore.  

Jan Schulman, Oxnard

Losing faith — not religion
I was startled to read the Aug. 19 headline reporting that columnist Paul Moomjean is losing his religion. Reading on, I discovered his religion is fading away like the Cheshire Cat because of two recent events: The declaration of vampire novelist Anne Rice that she has quit Christianity, and the federal court decision that gay and lesbian marriages are a matter of constitutional right. (A mosque in New York is linked to this disappearing act also, but I wasn’t clear about how it fits in.)

I take it from other remarks that it is precisely his religion that Moomjean feels is evaporating, not his personal faith. If that is the case, then I suggest he perform the following experiment. Pick a day for it. Any day will do, but it’s best if he picks one on which he attends his house of worship.

On the experimental day, Moomjean should go about his customary affairs, inserting religious practices wherever he usually does that. Prayers, blessings, radio sermons, gospel music — he shouldn’t skip a thing. He should write down changes in these practices since the Rice defection and the Proposition 8 court decision. While attending church service, he should similarly record changes in the prayers, hymns, readings or rituals of fellowship. He should allow himself some latitude in this in order to note changes other churchgoers may not clearly project.

My strong belief is that on reviewing his notes the following day, Moomjean will be hard-pressed to identify a single private or communal religious practice that has changed because of the events he thinks are causing his religion to disappear. And if that is the case, he should relax. He isn’t losing his religion. At most, he’s losing his unrealistic belief that all Americans worship as he does, but that’s not a tenet of any faith I know.

Moomjean titled his cry of anguish “losing our religion,” in the plural. I recommend the same cleansing experiment to others who share his sense of loss.

Rick Scott, Ventura

Vampire novelist a leftist tool?
You use some pretty murky logic in your article “Losing our religion.” When you suggest that Anne Rice’s decision to no longer identify herself as a Christian was “not an attack on Christianity, but instead on Christians who do not share her political beliefs,” you miss the point entirely. I believe Ms. Rice is saying that her religious beliefs have been hijacked by those in her church who choose to wage political campaigns in the name of religion. When you say, “It is hard to read the Bible and not come to the conclusion that certain lifestyle choices are referred to as sins,” you neglect to mention that the New Testament portrays Paul as believing slavery is good if it is kind, and defines women as the property of men. One can use the Bible to prove any side of any argument. But let’s say you are correct and that one’s religion condemns gay conduct. No one is suggesting that your church must change its beliefs or that ministers would be required to perform gay marriages. Religious beliefs are fine, but we are a government that was formed for the very purpose of allowing one to practice his faith without interference from the government. Our Constitution also provides that the government itself is a secular institution and shall not be dominated by any religion. All citizens should have the same rights, whether they are Christians, Jews, Muslims or atheists.

You correctly point out that Prop 8 was decided by a majority vote in the 2006 election. Then you state that it was “overruled by one judge who decided he knows better.” You neglect to mention that constitutional rights cannot be [eliminated] by taking a vote. If that were true, women would still not have the vote, interracial marriage would still be forbidden, and black residents would still be considered 3/5 human with no rights as citizens. Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.

Finally, your conclusion that Rice’s decision, the Prop 8 ruling and the mosque controversy “all play into an agenda from many on the left to discourage Christians from voting this fall,” is simply laughable. First of all, I doubt that there is one human being in this country who says, “I was going to vote, but since Anne Rice is no longer a Christian, screw it.” As for the mosque controversy — who exactly do you think brought this to the forefront in the first place? This was a local zoning matter until Pamela Geller and her organization, Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), started the protest, got coverage on Fox News and then were joined by Newt Gingrich and other political opportunists who saw a chance to use fear and intolerance as a political weapon. Last I heard, these are not the individuals or groups who would like to depress the turnout for GOP candidates this fall.

Ken Minyard, Oxnard

The Bible and the bench: a bad marriage
In a free society, of course we all have the right to disagree — and in this contentious age, it increasingly looks like the freedom in which most Americans are interested. That said, too frequently in our differences of opinion, we make the mistake of contrasting fact with fiction, information with disinformation, or, too frequently — as is the case with the most recent installment of “The Right Persuasion,” with misinformation.

Two glaring points motivated me to rebut:

1. Churches are not entitled to a political stance. In both the intent behind the separation of church and state and the tax exempt status upon which the finances of most churches depend, there exists a mandate that they not leverage the pulpit for the advancement of any political agenda. Churches are not supposed to be in the business of politics.

Anne Rice is rightfully wrestling with both the church and the GOP simultaneously — because they were never meant to be aligned.

 2. With regard to Prop 8 and the so-called “arrogance” of the bench: you should know that the Constitution depends on the judiciary’s absolute inflexibility with regard to populist sentiment; its only mandate is to interpret law through the prism of the Constitution. It doesn’t matter what will is expressed in the popular vote; if that will is unconstitutional, it may not live as law. If law were subject to popular opinion, many of our greatest social advancements — civil rights foremost among them — would never have occurred.

Of course marriage needs to be re-defined, in the same manner that all our social institutions evolve to keep pace with our changing society. If you’re suggesting that we look to the Bible for mandates on civil law, I’d be interested to hear which archaic strictures you’ll observe and which you’ll throw out — are you prepared to take your sister-in-law into your bed in the event of your brother’s death? By the measure of Old Testament law, in marriage and sex we’d be bound to live in the manner of the Taliban — our women subjugated to the stature of little more than a given man’s property. There is no place for biblical thought nor the archaic notion of sin in the political arena — not in legislation and not in the courts.

Marriage, as it serves this political issue, is a covenant established and sanctioned by the state, not by the theological abstraction that you choose to call God. The state is bound to uphold the freedom of ALL Americans, not just the ones who happen to think — or vote, or worship, or love — as you do.”

James Scolari, Ventura