In which Sarah Palin's cultural intolerance hits the MSM....and I post a lot of links to theocracy

Yesterday morning saw the publication of the Time magazine article on Sarah Palin's time as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, in which it was mentioned that she had threatened to fire the town's librarian over her opposition to banning books (allegedly on account of complaints of offensive language).

According to the New York Times article from this morning(Sept. 3), Sarah Palin actually did fire her town's librarian shortly taking office as mayor, then re-hired her due to public outcry/support from town residents. This is also mentioned in the Opinion column from that newspaper's editorial board (sans author credit).

In the Los Angeles Times, Tim Rutten's excellent op-ed takes on directly the issue of the "privacy" that the Palin family claims for itself, when by her politics Sarah Palin would forbid that same privacy and free choice to others.

I'm waiting for the Washington Post to land in my inbox so I can scan through it....hmm, they don't seem to have anything on the book-banning issue -- it's all about finances and abortion rights/restrictions, significant as those are.

This is not even covering the material that Dark Christianity has been turning up regarding her links to dominionist movements....for anyone who does not know what that term refers to and doesn't want to read the whole article before proceeding, it basically means those who believe that it is their mission to force the United States (and/or whatever other country they happen to be working in) to be a "Christian nation" -- i.e., a fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Some religious fundamentalists and evangelicals basically see the state of the nation as morally deplorable but not their business to fix by force -- they may separate themselves from the rest of society/outside culture to whatever degree, and control their children's education and religious indoctrination, and agitate when they feel beleaguered by the advances/changes of modern society and the loss of assumed preeminence to Christian "traditional" values and observances (and political obeisances) within the United States, but it is the dominionists -- largely Pentecostals, of the Assemblies of God churches or the breakaway charismatic "Joel's Army" movement, a militant form of Christian Reconstructionism -- who believe that it is their duty to use every means possible to make their nation a full theocracy in which civil rights are re-forbidden to those who do not follow/fit the rules of Christian Cultural Conservatism (my capitals; happens to be more convenient to be able to refer to the CCC).

That would mean:

=/= Legal execution of queers of every kind, preferably by good old-fashioned Biblical methods such as stoning (that's one thing they have in common with radical Islam...); never mind gay marriage or adoption, as they intend a "final solution" to that problem.

=/= Enforcement of traditional gender roles; re-segregation/restriction of higher/career education according to permitted social roles; emphasis on women's fertility and wifely virtues as their primary purpose in life; "morality police" a probable development

=/= Elimination of divorce except on traditional (OT) Biblical grounds (which don't include domestic or sexual abuse); arranged and/or "shotgun" marriages in the case of teenagers to eliminate illegitimacy and single-parenthood; adultery technically again punishable by death

=/= Criminalization of both abortion and birth control, with death penalty prescribed for those who perform abortions (and punishment to the woman as well); total abstinence-only education; women's reproductive health no longer under their own control but technically controlled by physician and husband/father/son/male head of household

=/= Total educational regression -- creationism again taught in place of evolution; history rewritten to favour the CCC agenda; literature censored to an extreme, with inevitable bookburnings in the process; religious indoctrination integrated into all areas of education

=/= Re-criminalization of witchcraft, paganism, etc.; unbelievers not permitted to live. (Even the scrupulous white-lighters, people...and Christopaganism won't pass muster)

=/= Censorship of arts and media; destruction of "immoral art" of every kind; morally-educational standards required to be met in all areas of art; artistic immorality equated with sexual immorality and punished likewise

=/= "Immigration reform" -- extreme raising of borders against anyone not meeting moral standards of the CCC (similar to Spain not allowing heretics/political incendiaries to emigrate to the New World)

=/= Science dismantled in every controversial area; all research or technology banned that does not support sanctioned religious/moral aims; genetics, medicine and surgery re-censored to avoid forbidden uses

=/= All politics subjugated to religion; mandatory public prayer at all government meetings/functions; all laws to be decided not by their constitutionality but by their adherence to (selective) Biblical doctrine

This doesn't even take into account the hypocrisy and double-standardness that is already rampant within cultural conservative politics -- the idea that those in power can insulatedly indulge the liberties that they forbid to others -- lovers and mistresses, adulterous or not (as long as they remain behind closed doors and demand nothing), abortions, genetic testing and controversial medical procedures (for those who can pay or threaten well), recreational drugs, erotica & pornography, high art and forbidden literature/knowledge (on their own terms). The above list assumes that dominionists actually mean what they say and would enforce it as such without exception.

And yes, Sarah Palin has some definite ties to these people (as well as to these people, who vetted her for the McCain ticket). Her Wikipedia article has been whitewashed to say that she's just "Christian," but more precisely (truth in advertising...) that ought to be "born-again Christian" (as per the NY Times article cited above) and the kind of born-again Christian that, once in a position of national power, will do all they can to enforce their version of the Kingdom of God over the entire country.

This is why so many people on the hardcore Religious Right are applauding McCain's choice of running mate. Not only has he promised them an administration governed by pro-life policies, he's given them someone they can really believe in as a fellow Christian, whose moral principles are uncompromising and who will deliver unto them the licence and control they need to start making their dreams come true.

So, anyone who was considering voting for this McCain/Palin wonder-ticket (as per Senator Lieberman's sickening display of proselytizing last night...), please re-engage your brains and....just don't.




(And don't forget to celebrate Banned Books Week.......I'm certainly planning to do something to observe it properly....)

Sexual Politics -- or, Don't fall for the woman in red-state red

[X-posted to Hyperlucidity and my other blog; feel free to pass on (w/ due credit/blame of course) if you want, just let me know about it.] _____________________________________________________

Okay, here we are with two things at the forefront, one expected and the other a bit of a twist: A, Barack Obama accepting the Democratic nomination for President, and B, John McCain choosing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (a real live WOMAN, disgruntled Hillaryites!) as his running mate on the Republican ticket.

Do you think this'll work to steal the feminist vote, this whole "cut off your nose to spite your face" angle to snare in those old-school feminists who are too attached to the idea of a certified woman in the Oval Office (or close enough to it) to care that her politics are the opposite of practically everything that old-school feminism fought for in the first place?

I sure as hell hope that people aren't fooled by this act, and I'm sure as hell going to spread it around every way I know how that this is a trick designed to catch women with estrogen like flies with vinegar (which actually does attract flies more than honey does, but that's beside the point and has nothing to do with human body chemistry...). It's a feint to the left that's a thrust for the right, trying to pull swing voters back into the Republican fold by appealing to that vilest form of sexual prejudice -- the idea that a woman in authority automatically gives a shit about women in general, let alone anyone else in the category of social minority. A token female doth not a kinder+gentler government make -- just ask anyone who lived through the term of Margaret Thatcher in the U.K. Just like a token black+female Secretary of State (or a token Latino Attorney General) does not mean that there is any actual solidarity with those who have the same minority signifiers but lack the political voice and status.

This isn't the first time that Republicans have played identity politics against the causes for which minorities need to gather and remain cohesive. I'm sure that groups who solely see colour, ethnicity or sex as reasons for togetherness applauded the appointments of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Alberto Gonzales without questioning the intent behind the inclusion. And now the GOP is eagerly anticipating that Hillary Clinton's supporters, pissed off 'cause Barack Obama (a MAN) not only beat her in the primaries but passed her over as his running mate (in favour of another MAN), will turn to McCain out of sheer vitriol and resentment, rather than remember the issues at stake, and the fact that Sarah Palin is one of those religiously-motivated cultural conservatives who have long desired to overturn Roe v. Wade and send other women (just, y'know, poorer women with less power and fewer options in the first place) back to the cultural Dark Ages of illegal abortions, inaccessible birth-control and rescinded autonomy over their own bodies altogether.

Hmm. I wonder how many people will turn their brains off and fall for that? Actually, some comments I've read online say that Palin'll grab the male vote as well, based on her physical attractiveness. So that's two kinds of thinking with the ol' hormones that McCain and his team are counting on.....heck, never mind the whole "college education" split between Hillary and Barack, even -- this one's going straight to below the belt.

Voters, please -- just because a woman's in high political office, or preaching on TV, or on the radio being a pundit, it does not mean that she shares concerns about "women's issues" or will do anything to better the state thereof. Conservative women-in-power care primarily for themselves and their party's (faith's) agenda, and will gladly sacrifice the legal status, socioeconomic conditions and the very lives of women in general, whether to the infallibility of "market forces" or "ad majorem Dei gloriam."

They don't include themselves in the populations they affect, and therefore (like Log Cabin Republicans) will vote against what one would think to be their own interests and concerns -- and which would be, perhaps, were they not insulated from seeing it by their own social position. Because, as much so as celebrities are courted by Scientology, attractive and articulate women are prized by both the Political and Religious Right as figureheads and spokepeople, as proof that can be whipped out to bely the idea that Republicans (or Evangelicals) are systemically misogynistic and anti-female in their policies.

In other words: it's a trap. Don't fall for the stereotype of women caring about women, or caring about anything but what their own actions show as their agenda. Don't assume. Don't assume that seniors care about other seniors, that veterans care about other veterans (or active military personnel), or that anyone cares about anyone, categorically speaking, until and unless their actions prove that it's actually part of their platform.

And that's a point at which "issues voters" on the left(ish) in particular had better keep their eyes on the issues and not let themselves be misled by that purty gun-totin' feminine fly in the ointment.