[« WTF?] ["The world seems made for those not cursed with self-awareness." --Annie Savoy »]
05/09/2005: Real Time...
As it WAS a busy week, I only caught up to my TiVo-ed episode of Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO last night (after I finished cleaning the tile grout disaster. LOL). It was one of Maher’s better ones of the season...just a HOWL.
But - I had to send Andrew Sullivan a quick "Slap" for sounding like a DOLT on the Constitution and it's intellectual background and the Founder's original intent. Sheesh, and I actually thought he read Jon Rowe’s wonderfully concise and intuitive Blog offerings on this subject -- at least sometimes any way.
Our Constitution was not, as Sullivan erroneously claimed, in opposition to All of British History and their systems of personal rights and rules. It was formulated in direct opposition to “Kingships” which must be viewed through the lens as a “divinely ordained source of power manifested in the body of the ruler” premise for leadership. That is main the source of the renunciation of the religious “Divine right of Kingship model.” But our founders did not ignore the other British legal concepts of the Magna Carta, Statute of 1 Westminster, the 1689 English Bill of Rights or their misconception of Blackstone’s commentaries; nor the philosophical ideals of previous “free thinkers” when they crafted their model for the U.S. Constitution. So, Sullivan mis-spoke entirely in suggesting, as he did, that our founders abandoned ALL of the British model as a basis for our Constitutional document or meaning of the words it chooses to express these ideals.
For anyone interested in following upon this subject - get yourself a copy of "Novus Ordo Seclorum" by Forest McDonald and read the first couple of chapters about the Intellectual Origins of the Constitution of the United States. It's readable for even people with out a legal degree and/or a complete background in the various philosophers or the British legal system. McDonald makes it quite understandable and interesting too.
But Bill Maher got Andrew Sullivan with this funnie of an exchange (begun about the Religious Right going after Judges) which was TOO FUNNY as it is TOO TRUE. Maher humorously pointed out that Gay’s are just the type of people directly in the cross-hairs of the Religious Right agenda -- like it or not.
Click on the “more” button to read further an Unofficial Transcript I typed of this segment of the Real Time show of May 6, 2005 (probably not entirely error free transcript…but a good effort).
Andrew Sullivan: John Cornyn, a Texan, a Senator saying that violence against judges is understandable…
Bill Maher: Right…
AS: …Citing recent cases like Judge (Lefkow) in Chicago, whose own husband and mother were murdered because of a random crime by a person who had a vengeance against them…. Saying that’s, that’s to do with liberals and Democrats – It’s disgusting. The man should have resigned…but he gets away with it.
BM: Then why do you throw your lot in with these people? I mean last time that you were here you were defending them…?
AS: I was just defending them from the fact that some people make fun of …and de-legitimize religious people – genuine religious people…
BM: But what…?
AS: …and point out some…
BM: Why??
AS: …of the extreme…because most of them actually. You know what…most people of faith do not adhere to the crazy lunacies of Pat Robertson.
BM: Oh…I don’t know…
AS: We…No….We have to reclaim our faith from these lunatics…
BM: But that’s…
AS: That’s a critical point…
BM: I was talking about Kansas. I said the board met again this week. Here’s one of the two proposals that they want in Kansas. (Reading) The proposal that Kansas alter the definition of science.
Michael McKean: Right…
BM: Not limiting it…not limiting it to theories based on natural explanations. Now, they want to change the definition of science! These people are out of control…and there are not just a few of them, and when folks like YOU (to Andrew Sullivan) hedge your bets on them. It just gives them more power.
AS: And…I have never…
BM: And you’re the type they’re going to round up and make Pray until you like pussy!
[audience laughter and clapping]
AS: Bill…
BM: And we KNOW that’s not gonna happen!!
AS: It’s gonna take…
Michael McKean: But I sympathize.
BM: It’s gonna take awhile…
AS: Bill….It’s gonna take…it’s gonna take a LOT more than Pat Robertson to make me like pussy!
-0-
I had sent Sullivan a Q&A a while back…but I think it’s relevant to this exchange as Where/How/Why does Mr. Sullivan believe that he, a Gay man, could possibly fit into a Religious world perspective with as much intolerance towards Gays from the general religious “people of faith” (and not just extremist religious) point of view? Those amendments last November for State Constitutional bans on Gay Marriage weren’t supported by only Right-Wing nutcases, but by a broad spectrum of “faith based” people.
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
Now I've been wondering something from "general musing" perspective.” It would sound simple at first...but think on it for yet a while:
"What would the Christian Right, or Catholic Orthodoxy, want a "Gay man" such as a yourself to DO and LIVE your life like??"
I mean we all know what they wish you to Stop doing, and what they Don't want gay men to DO...
...But what, realistically, would that translate to mean YOU are Supposed to DO?Presumably they wouldn't want you to live with another man (abomination);
Nor would I suppose they'd want you to actually get involved with a woman. (Liar and Emotional Cheat as that would be);
Nor yet have children of your own in such an arrangement (Your mere "gayness" would be a Corruption to a young child's development);
You wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed to even live in any family with Children;
Nor yet live in a family where your Gayness might offend anyone sensibilities;
You wouldn't/shouldn't be allowed to Serve Your Country;
Be a Translator for your Country;
Be an anonymous Sperm Donor;
Nor Teach in any Educational system any of its Children (perhaps other Industries ought to be allowed to Shun you too.)
But what would this "LIFE" as they suggest it really look like, be like?? Other than a terribly lonely and enforced isolationist existence until your last dying day. How Charming!! What a nice thought that is...presumably the perfect penance for your corrupt existence.
But what else could it possibly be???
And it's not following the "teachings of Jesus" to merely “love the Lord, treat others with kindness and about Not judging other people” which the Major Organized Religions are "passing forward" through the millennium and preserving in our culture. (As Sullivan based his defense upon in the subsequent segment of the show.) If that were the case...where did this on-going Gay-Hating and the rest of it all come from??? And why is has this become part of the doctrinal fight to "live and die" for in today's culture. If is not the real "Jesus message of enlightenment" for the world -- why do these people act as the standard-bearers for this message?
It’s the wrong message, but unfortunately -- it’s the “main stream” message as taught from the Main Stream Religions across the board.
Karen on 05.09.05 @ 11:32 AM CST
