For the past two decades I’ve been an admirer of Garrison Keillor. His folksy patter and stories of common people on his radio show A Prairie Home Companion has helped me wile away many a lazy afternoon. As often happens with old friends I failed to see the subtle changes in until it was too late. Sometime over the past few years, while I wasn’t paying attention, Keillor completely lost his mind.
As an example of his dementia, look at his remarks for the opening of the new University of Chicago Comer Children’s Hospital:
Not one to shy away from speaking his mind, Keillor proposed a solution to what he deemed a fundamental problem with U.S. elections. “I’m trying to organize support for a constitutional amendment to deny voting rights to born-again Christians,” Keillor smirked. “I feel if your citizenship is in Heaven—like a born again Christian’s is—you should give up your citizenship. Sorry, but this is my new cause. If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?”
He’s only kidding (I think) but it surprises me to find that a man who has spent his life around Lutherans can be so Biblically illiterate. Perhaps he didn’t get the memo, but one of the main reasons the phrase “born-again Christian” faded out of use is because it is redundant. A person can’t be, as Jesus himself pointed out, a “citizen of Heaven” unless he is “born again.”
While I had always assumed that Keillor was a Christian I take it from his comment that he leaves such superstition to the Red Staters. That’s unfortunate. For as the Good Book says, “What does it profit a man to gain an NPR audience and lose his soul?”
(HT: Instapundit)
Related -- Power Line has a transcript:
If you feel that war in the Middle East is simply prophecy fulfilled, if you believe that tribulation and suffering are just the natural conditions of life, if you believe that higher education is vanity, unnecessary, there is only one book that one need to read, if you feel...
blah, blah, blah
Related: The Blinne Blog has portions of an op-ed form Garrison's evangelical brother that sheds some light on his attitude.
1
Keillor usually manages to be funny even when bitter; but this was a bit sad. (Or perhaps I didn't find it funny because, being currently in Canada, I know several Canadian dual citizens who have no interest in ever living in the U.S. and consider themselves Canadian rather than American, who exercised their right to vote nonetheless. It takes the bite out of the joke when Canadians really can vote.)
posted on 11.15.2004 10:00 PM2
Sadly, Garrison Keillor has turned politically sour during the last two election cycles here in Minnesota. He viciously attacked Senator Norm Coleman AND those who voted for Coleman after Senator Wellstone tragically died in 2002. Now Keillor is attacking President Bush AND those who voted for him two weeks ago.
Although I have been a financial contributor to Minnesota Public Radio in the past (especially the classical music side), I will not be renewing my membership this year. It's the ONLY way I can make a statement to MPR that they have a political character assassin in their ranks. I no longer support PBS because of the slanderous Bill Moyers. Again, it's the only way that I am able to make a statement against the leftists who run PBS.
It used to be that liberals were the ones who made "statements" and particpated in economic boycotts. I guess it's time for us to return the favor. All in all, it's too bad that humor and political commentary has morphed into smears and hate speech. But it is a fact that we have to deal with in this political climate.
posted on 11.15.2004 10:10 PM3
This jibes with other Keillor comments I vaguely recall over the last year. Oddly, I also remember him sincerely confessing in 2003 that he had become a Republican, although maybe that was only for the sake of his jokey song, "We're all Republicans Now." Maybe some Praire Home fans can straighten me out on this.
What's sad about his comments is that his Praire Home Companion is nothing if not conservative entertainment, deliberately nostalgic, yes, but also a deliberate presentation of a roots-oriented contemporary identity that ignores what's hip and urban but loves the jus' folks, old-timey, rural, as American as apple-pie aesthetic. A MAJOR part of that aesthetic is a friendly respect for traditional Christian religion, and a subsequent ability and license to make light fun of small-town churchiness. Keillor is apparently risking throwing that aspect of his show away with this high-handed political hate. I guess he feels that he's Garrison Keillor, citizen with opinions, just as much as he's Keillor the character of his own radio show. Problem for him is, a good portion of his audience are probably evangelicals or traditional Christians of some stripe, and most will eventually hear about this sort of thing. Like a lot of things this year, the year in which the Dems went off the deep-end and took much of the nation with them, it's simply very sad.
posted on 11.15.2004 11:48 PM4
Bryant Gumbel was once asked if he had ever interviewed anyone who he thought would be a jerk, and who actually turned out to be nice. He said yes, and I forget who his example of that situation was. But when the converse question was asked "Is there anyone who you thought would be really neat, and turned out to be a jerk?" the answer was Garrison Keillor.
posted on 11.16.2004 12:19 AM5
Carl wrote: ... Praire Home Companion is nothing if not conservative entertainment, deliberately nostalgic, yes, but also a deliberate presentation of a roots-oriented contemporary identity that ignores what's hip and urban but loves the jus' folks, old-timey, rural, as American as apple-pie aesthetic.
I think it is pretty clear that liberals get stereotyped just as evangelicals do. Do you really think that all liberals live in big cities, or that red states are 100% red? Many liberals do not enjoy the hip and urban, prefering the small-town life. I'm about as liberal as they come and live in a town of less than 400 where the nearest thing that could be called a city is more than a 3 hour drive away. Our little town has a mix of well-off and poor, conservative and liberal, and we all get along pretty well. I'd never imagine my conservative neighbors saying to me some of the things I hear regularly from evangelical Christians on this blog saying about liberals, nor would I think of being that disrespectful of them. Funny how the anonymity of the net allows common couresty to breakdown, much like the anonymity of driving a car often does.
I think living in a very small town like this, with no traffic lights, one grocery store, a post office where everyone goes to get their mail because there is no home delivery, this kind of closeness where we rub elbows with each other all the time, meet face-to-face one the street and at the gas station, makes it very difficult to see others as anything other than real people more like ourselves than not. You just can't help but naturally treat each other with respect.
You also get a real sense of each other. I know Sam is a conservative and he's got his reasons; and he knows I'm a liberal with my reasons. Yet he is just as ready to watch my property when I'm away as I am ready to help him out during a power failure. And we will both be frying fish together at the yearly town fish fry laughing and teasing each other about our different views. That's America and probably not so different in many small towns any where in the world.
Garrison Keillor on the left, Dennis Miller on the right, let them have fun and learn to laugh.
posted on 11.16.2004 1:23 AM6
what's sad is the growing entwinement of religion and governement in this country, and i think that's what keillor is railing against. he's old school in that he thinks someone's faith is their own business. there are a lot of born again christians who think the country should be run in a more secular fashion. or there should be.
posted on 11.16.2004 2:34 AM7
AndyS,
While I agree with much of your post, I think that maybe you should examine Keillor's work for signs of the same tolerance of other points of view that you show. I doubt you will find it. I used to enjoy his radio show a lot. Still like the music, if he would steer clear of the insulting politics, he might have been that bridge to the red states that the Dems are looking for. Trouble is, he burned that bridge with many more comments than just this one.
8
Canuck,
If you deny your own country, I assume you are an American, what right do you have to even comment? If you are Canadian, as your handle implies, what business is if of yours how we run our country?
9
What's sad about his comments is that his Praire Home Companion is nothing if not conservative entertainment...
It certainly is, and that goes a way toward explaining his distaste for fundamentalism. Plenty of old-school conservatives of the WASP-y variety are pretty uneasy with evangelical Christianity. As against their professed religious modesty (or whatever you wanna call their public reticence about faith), there are lots of evangelicals that are open and loud about their faith, wear tacky t-shirts, and habitually underdress (heh - channeling my grandfather is funner than I imagined. This may be a new phase for me!).
All these things may or may not be accurate representations, but the're the public face of evangelicals to a lot of people, and I know my straight-out-of-a-Norman-Rockwell-painting uber-WASP relatives are pretty disdainful of these trends. Particularly the gaudy T-shirts.
An anecdote sums it up nicely for me: when my bro was born again (into evangelicism), he invited our waspy extended family in order to witness. When my uncle got there, he sidled up to me and cracked, "So what's his new name gonna be? Mohammed?"
For Rockwell Christians, I get the feeling that religion is more of a civic exercise, and church is a way of strengthening civic, rather than religious, bonds. Evangelical christianity, then, with its emphasis on reidentification through being born again and its different take on the role of church, is so alien to the civic religious tradition that it may as well be the Nation of Islam.
Given that, Keillor's take doesn't seem anomalous at all.
posted on 11.16.2004 7:51 AM10
I guess I find myself a bit less surprised than Joe, in large part because I've always felt PHC to have a bit of a snarky tone to it, a tone that serves to subtly but deeply satirize the people it caricatures.
posted on 11.16.2004 9:30 AM11
jpe, I think you nailed it. There are a lot of nominal, cultural "Christians" especially among the old mainstream denominations.
It's not Christianity so much as Churchianity.
posted on 11.16.2004 9:32 AM12
moptop,
so if i'm not a true believer my opinion has no merit because the only opinions that matter in america are the most purely american ones? or is it narrower than that for you. maybe only white rural bible belt evangelical opinions should be considered in this discussion, and when setting national policy. the world would be a better more homogeneous place.
doesn't matter, jpe more or less echoed what i was thinking and corrie dismissed it as inferior. i guess we need to add extroverted to the above filter.
posted on 11.16.2004 10:50 AM13
Or he's become a Trekkie, as in this Basic Law of the Star Trek universe:
"Religion = Primitive Superstition. No Exceptions."
(Dooo, deee, doo doo doo doo dooooooooo...)
posted on 11.16.2004 11:55 AM14
spirituality is what people need to be looking for, not religion. sadly, modern christians are obsessed with religion, not spirituality.
posted on 11.16.2004 11:59 AM15
Garrison's brother gives some interesting insights into his thinking. My comments concerning this are found here.
posted on 11.16.2004 12:00 PM16
Hmmmm. Is it possible he could be referring to the large number constitutional amendments passed in many states that have disenfranchised a large number of Americans from the social fabric of their own country?
Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it is now a fact that there are a significant number of Americans who are now treated differently than other Americans under the law. This is what the majority of Americans want, so that makes it a legitimate policy in a democracy. But its still a moral failure, just like slavery was.
Could Keillor possibly be attempting to get Christians to empathize in some small way how they have made so many other Americans feel? As if we are no longer welcome in our own country? Or are you simply glad of that fact? Or is it such a blinding statement of the obvious that it goes right over your little red heads?
Was it not just a few posts ago that Joe made much over how they should start trying to understand blue state people? What happens at his first chance to try that out? To conclude he was just crazy. And the rest of you immediately start in on the character assassination of the man. How very moral and Christian of you. And it's another example of your moral relativism at work.
The next time you wonder why blue state people think red state people are ignorant and arrogant, stop wondering.
posted on 11.16.2004 12:03 PM17
I think jpe pretty much nails it. In many organized faiths, particularly Lutheranism and American Catholicism, and even in many Baptist circles, there is some disdain for the "non-denominational" Christians. In the former two cases, there is particular distaste for the sort of "in your face" Christianity that dominates among self-proclaimed evangelicals and born-again Christians. (And trust me, there are plenty of folks who still use the latter term.)
You might not agree with it, but there's a lot of "join a real church" mentality. I say this as someone who was raised Catholic, but whose wife is non-denominational (but not in an in-your-face kind of way), so to some extent I've seen both sides of it up close.
posted on 11.16.2004 12:10 PM18
Patrick, feel free at any time to stop seeing the entire world through the prism of homosexuality. As hard as it is for you to believe, there are other reasons why Americans preferred Bush over Kerry. Bring me reasoned, even passionate blue staters, and I'll hear their points generously. But talk of secession, or denying suffrage to born-again Christians, or dragging out the blue-states-subsidize-the-red-so-they-can-screw-themselves polemic, the rest of us just start to doze off.
posted on 11.16.2004 12:21 PM20
I think QD said it best. PHC has always had an undercurrent of leftist superiority. It presents a quaint, down home, warm & fuzzy picture of rural life while making fun of the values held by samll town people.
GK has made no secret of his hatred for his Lutheran upbringing.
He's like many 60s people (my parents included) who turned their backs on their faith-centerd upbrining yet still want to hang on to some elements.
They want the old time gospel songs but not the Gospel.
Most people I know who listen to the show express a condescending attitude towards religious values.
I'll bet the show's demographics lean strongly towards "liberal elite".
21
If Canuck is (as the name implies) a Canadian, and not a U.S. citizen, then perhaps he is unaware of American history, as I admit I am not terribly aware of Canadian. But the idea that we are, at this point, at some sort of "high-water-mark" of "entwinement" between religion and politics is astonishingly short-sighted, historically.
At one point during WWII, President Roosevelt led the nation, on radio, in a prayer. Reagan, when he accepted the nomination in 1980, apologetically concluded his speech with a moment of silence. We all know Bush is a Christian and someone who prays, but I don't recall him including a prayer in any sort of national address. Maybe I missed it.
Compare Bush's speeches with those of his predecessors, and I guarantee you will find him at the more "secular" end of the spectrum (though no doubt some would be moreso).
Reagan's speeches had more religiosity, though people smirked because he was divorced and seldom attended church; Clinton knew how to turn many a religious phrase, everything else notwithstanding; God-talk was pretty standard stuff for presidents right through the 20th century, though it did wane in the 60s and 70s. But some -- T. Roosevelt, Wilson and Lincoln, among others, often sounded like preachers.
Going beyond rhetoric to actual policy, must I recall the obvious? We used to have Bible readings and organized prayers in government schools. Most didn't see any problem with this; when the Supreme Court ended it, there really was a movement for a constitutional amendment to fix this, and to impeach Earl Warren.
It is a measure of just how secular we actually are, that Bush's religiosity is somehow an "intrusion," much as in France (!) it's somehow an affront for students to wear religious articles of clothing in tax-supported schools.
Septimus
posted on 11.16.2004 1:30 PM22
Actually, Keillor was raised in the Plymouth brethren (exclusive Grant/Kelly). I know, because I was too, and his parents were friends of my grandparents (on both sides).
A lot of the Plymouth brethren don't vote, for exactly the reasons Keillor gave.
posted on 11.16.2004 1:39 PM23
I think Septimus has a good point. For all the complaints about "growing entwinment" of church and state, I haven't heard of any examples where anyone's right to worship (or to not worship) has been infringed upon.
Asking a legislator (who has faith) to stop practicing it because he is elected is an establishment of religion (specifically atheism) and as such wrong.
So stop whinging and hold your complaints for when actual problems might really exist.
posted on 11.16.2004 1:44 PM24
You can hear Keillor's Born Again Christian "joke"
here (http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2004/11/06/)
GK has gotten more overtly political in the past few years. His diatribe where he made fun of Norm Coleman's looks (and his wifes looks???), and then refered to Republicans as "sinners", shows that he has no problem using the language of religion when it pleases him.
posted on 11.16.2004 2:42 PM25
The fact that a person wants the direction of government to be consistent with his or her convictions about (for instance) abortion or "same-sex" marriage does not entwine religion with government. Christians don't want a "theocracy", just a regard for our convictions. If a legislature (or court) declares that "same-sex" marriage is the law of the land, you are legislating morality just as surely as if you outlaw it. To say that only ideas that have no basis in religion should be allowed in government is ludicrous. To adopt ideas in government that have basis in Biblical morality does not establish religion unless a particular church is made arbiter. All compete in the marketplace of ideas that is a democracy.
posted on 11.16.2004 2:54 PM26
If marriage for gays is such an issue, if it's so slam-dunk FAIR to have it, then why haven't the advocates of gay marriage been able to get legislation passed that enables it? Is it maybe that they have not been able to convince a voting majority of the electorate?
Blacks got civil rights through legislation. Women got the vote through legislation.
If you're going to hitch your wagon to the same "equal-rights" horse, Patrick, then you need to follow the same cart track.
posted on 11.16.2004 3:22 PM27
Kevin says:
"Patrick, feel free at any time to stop seeing the entire world through the prism of homosexuality. As hard as it is for you to believe, there are other reasons why Americans preferred Bush over Kerry."
Actually Kevin I think it is you that see everything through the queer prism.
The fact that you don't see that most of the blue state people are now being made to feel unwelcome in their own country proves my point.
Is it the blue-stater's who are running around with charges that we are not patriotic or that we do not love our country?
Or just look at the current witch-burning mentality being vented at Senator Specter. The sheer nastiness in they way they are questioning the loyalty of a good man like Specter just confirms every stereotype of the Christian Right as intolerant fanatics than I could ever possibly invent. Personally, I think you'all have watched "The Passion" too many times. You are beginning to think that public flagellation is a good thing.
posted on 11.16.2004 3:26 PM28
Is it maybe that they have not been able to convince a voting majority of the electorate?
Obviously. It should be clear, however, that the popularity of a measure is different from its fairness.
If you're going to hitch your wagon to the same "equal-rights" horse, Patrick, then you need to follow the same cart track.
Gay rights probably will follow the same track: a mish mash of court cases followed, belatedly, by appropriate legislation.
posted on 11.16.2004 3:28 PM29
Mark O:
I haven't heard of any examples where anyone's right to worship (or to not worship) has been infringed upon.No, but thanks to "faith-based initiatives," my tax dollars can now be redirected to religious charities, even ones run by religions that I explicitly abhor. My right not to give money to, say, Baptist churches or Muslim mosques has been infringed.
Asking a legislator (who has faith) to stop practicing it because he is elected is an establishment of religion (specifically atheism) and as such wrong.Why must religious conservatives always equate government neutrality on religion with established atheism? In the former state, a politician is free to practice his or her religion in all aspects of life, except in his or her official role. Even there, they're allowed to have their religious views color their policies (how can they not). They simply have to be able to sell those policies in non-religious terms. This is not the same thing as telling them that they cannot practice religion at all.
Mel:
Christians don't want a "theocracy", just a regard for our convictions.The problem is that if one particular religious group gets enough of their "values" codified into law, you have a de facto theocracy. You're free to worship however you want, but you have to live by our rules. That's not a precedent I'm interested in setting. And you've already got "regard for your convictions." If you don't want an abortion, there's nothing that compels you to get one. No one is compelling you to involve yourself in a same-sex marriage, either. But that's not what you're asking for; you're asking to be allowed to prevent others from doing things you find distasteful for primarily (or exclusively) religious reasons. That's called forcing your religious beliefs onto others, whether or not you choose to call it that.
Now, if you can come up with compelling secular justifications for those same policies, even though your primary justification is religious in nature, then we can talk about enacting them.
posted on 11.16.2004 4:39 PM30
corrie:
If marriage for gays is such an issue, if it's so slam-dunk FAIR to have it, then why haven't the advocates of gay marriage been able to get legislation passed that enables it?From Alas, A Blog:
In only one of the four states where gay marriages were legally recognized, was a court responsible (the famous Massachusetts Supreme Court Goodridge decision). In the other three states, the same-sex marriages were put in place by elected officials and then invalidated or halted by judges. Both sides of the SSM debate have used judges to further their cause - your side more than mine.Whoops! posted on 11.16.2004 4:45 PM
31
Connie says:
"If marriage for gays is such an issue, if it's so slam-dunk FAIR to have it, then why haven't the advocates of gay marriage been able to get legislation passed that enables it? Is it maybe that they have not been able to convince a voting majority of the electorate? "
Hmmm. That sounds familiar....
"If abolition for Negros is such an issue, if it's so slam-dunk FAIR to have it, then why haven't the advocates of abolition been able to get legislation passed that enables it? Is it maybe that they have not been able to convince a voting majority of the electorate? "
More great moments in the history of Democracy.....
The unwillingness of Americans to recognize and respect their fellow Americans as human beings in the last election is not a political failure. Its a moral failure.
posted on 11.16.2004 4:59 PM32
Patrick,
The unwillingness of Americans to recognize and respect their fellow Americans as human beings in the last election is not a political failure. Its a moral failure.
I would add that your comparison of abolition and gay marriage is a "moral failure" -- or at least a failure of moral judgement -- on your part.
Owning another human being and treating them as property is inherently morally wrong. Not recognizing a homosexual relationship as a “marriage” is not even in the same category. If you want other people to take the issue seriously then you should argue for it in a serious manner.
posted on 11.16.2004 5:05 PM33
tgirsch,
I didn't hear you complaining when Mr Kerry suggested using tax dollars to support abortion. And those tax dollars going are going to faith based charities, not to religious organizations. Do you complain when your tax dollars go to support the "arts", when you don't like the "artist"? Besides, is there a particular program in place to which you object, or is this all a rhetorical ploy?
And why, for heavens sake, do they have to "sell" their policies couched in secular terms. We've been over this before. I still think you haven't provided any basis for your claim. To be honest I think you're half right. I think the religious pols might be better served to couch their arguments in secular terms in order to convince their secular counterparts. However by the same token the secular pols would be better served couching their arguments in religious terms in order to get traction with the religious ones. But perhaps that's why Mr Kerry mentioned his faith and religion far more than Mr Bush did in the last election cycle.
Finally, in your question to Mel, you think if religious ideals are codified into law, then we have a de facto theocracy. ~DS~ made that claim a while back as well. However, you aren't ignorant of Christian ideals. I'm curious, what sort of (real) law would you be thinking them nasty Christians would want codified into law that would lead to this de facto theocracy? Abortion, stem cell, and SSM don't cut it. They aren't part of the Christian cannon. Making law either way on that isn't going to theocracize us. No, give us an example of a law you think is threatening your atheistic civil liberties and you think is being contemplated.
Over on my blog, I was musing about what sort of laws one would put in place to support Christian ideals in a democratic society. I had a very hard time coming up with any. I'd appreciate some help ;)
posted on 11.16.2004 5:10 PM34
tgirsch:
Corrie asked about "legislation." The blog you quote from refers to "elected officials." Opponents of same-sex marriage have used judges to ENFORCE existing law against the actions of elected officials like the Mayor of San Francisco. Proponents of SSM have used judges to legislate -- ala the Massachusetts Supreme Court. With the exception of civil unions in Vermont, I'm unaware of any state that has taken legislative action to legalize same-sex marriages.
posted on 11.16.2004 5:25 PM35
tgirsch "If you don't want an abortion, there's nothing that compels you to get one. No one is compelling you to involve yourself in a same-sex marriage, either. But that's not what you're asking for; you're asking to be allowed to prevent others from doing things you find distasteful for primarily (or exclusively) religious reasons. That's called forcing your religious beliefs onto others, whether or not you choose to call it that."
If you don't want to own a slave, there's nothing that compels you to get one. No one is compelling you to be a polygamist. If you don't want to commit child abuse, don't. No one is compelling you to commit rape. No one compels you to drive drunk....and on and on.
Distasteful things others are prevented from doing by "forcing religious beliefs".
posted on 11.16.2004 5:56 PM36
I used to be a fan of his show, but then I read one of his books, I think it was Lake Wobegon Days, in which he included his "95 Theses" in a multipage footnote. It was so bitter and bad tempered, I wondered if this could be the same person who portrays his hometown with such loving, gentle humor. Apparently it is if this incident and some of his political writings are an indication. In fact, he has great contempt for his home and roots, and is as bigoted a liberal as I've ever come across. I can't listen to him now. I like the music on PHC, but he revolts me.
posted on 11.16.2004 6:03 PM37
Distasteful things others are prevented from doing by "forcing religious beliefs".
The key here is that there are good secular reasons for these things (polygamy, child abuse, etal). No one is saying you shouldn't use religious reasining; but to impose law that can only be justified through religion on non-religious people isn't right.
posted on 11.16.2004 6:27 PM38
oh yeah, that comment should read that there are good secular reasons for banning those things.
heh.
posted on 11.16.2004 6:27 PM39
I gave up on Garrison Keilor last year. Al Franken was on his show with his usual diarrheal discharge about what a war hero John Kerry was (why not sign Form 180 and confirm it for us all, Senator? What? We're supposed to take your WORD? Get out!) Keilor was going on about how he was a Republican now, in his lame depiction that Republicans needn't 'think' about anything, just follow orders. That sounds like the LLL & MSM relationship if ever I heard it. I'm a Democrat, but where I come from we don't feel it necessary to run down to the County Clerk's Office and change our party affiliations after the outcome of every election. What the hell, it just confines my voting in primaries. I've trended away from national level Democrats since I saw Bill Clinton on the Arsenio Hall show in 1992... what a freaking phoney! The fact that the MSM, and NPR, too, are willing to leave their brains in a jar and cover for someone they most certainly have personal knowledge as being inconsequential, but "toe the line" of the Democratic Party pretty much proves who the 'sheep' are.
posted on 11.16.2004 6:55 PM40
Who the hell didn't know Keillor was a liberal? Give me a break! You want to know who I'm disappointed in? Mel Gibson. Drew Carey. Dennis Miller.
I still like John Wayne, though. Some people transcend their stupid politics, and besides, he's dead.
"It used to be that liberals were the ones who made "statements" and particpated in economic boycotts. I guess it's time for us to return the favor."
This is pretty funny, David. Guess you forgot about the Southern Baptist boycott of Disney (because it offered benefits for gay partners).
Everybody boycotts. I boycott Chik-Fil-A and any business with a Bush/Cheney sign on its premises. Boycott away; Keillor and NPR will survive just fine without Fundies. Annual contributions from folks like me will ensure their future.
posted on 11.16.2004 8:19 PM41
"He’s only kidding (I think) but it surprises me to find that a man who has spent his life around Lutherans can be so Biblically illiterate."
The problem is that Keillor confuses Lutherans with people in the ELCA. This is a common mistake, but the contrast is readily apparent to anyone familiar with either the writings of Martin Luther or the Lutheran Confessions.
The difference can also be noted in that for the former, Scripture is the source and norm of doctrine and practice; for the latter, it's a kind of philosopher's stone to use in turning silly statements like Keillor's into something that sound vaguely theological.
posted on 11.16.2004 9:38 PM42
"Owning another human being and treating them as property is inherently morally wrong. Not recognizing a homosexual relationship as a “marriage” is not even in the same category."
Unless you are a moral relativist, there is no difference. In both cases the sin committed is failure to accept another human being as equal in worth to yourself in the eyes of men and God. The moral failure of those who voted for the amendments was not the actual vote itself. It was the failure to consider, even for a tiny second, that a gay marriage and the people in itwere equal in worth to themselves. It was classic knee-jerk prejudice and ignorance. It never occurred to them that we might be real people with feelings and faith just as strong as theirs.
I was used to pull in votes and money for political demagogues. I was also used as a shill to point to and blame for straight peoples failures at keeping the sacrament of marriage. And on a purely menial level, you expect my taxes without giving me full citizenship status in my own country. Even criminals now have more freedom than I do in some respects. You have limited my choices because you think you have a right to do so. So in a very real way, you do think of me as property.
Andrew Sullivan describes exactly what it is that you and so many other Americans are trying to ignore, suppress, and destroy.
The dignity of our lives and our relationships as gay people is not dependent on heterosexual approval or tolerance. Our dignity exists regardless of their fear. We have something invaluable in this struggle: the knowledge that we are in the right, that our loves are as deep and as powerful and as God-given as their loves, that our relationships truly are bonds of faith and hope that are worthy, in God's eyes and our own, of equal respect. Being gay is a blessing. The minute we let their fear and ignorance enter into our own souls, we lose. We have gained too much and come through too much to let ourselves be defined by others.
Being gay is a blessing. It's an essential texture of my soul that was given to me by God. I accept and am grateful for the gift. It doesn't make me better than you. But it also doesn't make me any less.
Whatever it is you thought were protecting or defending or destroying, you failed. Not because of my anger or rage or strength or persistence. But because the one who gave the gift to me isn't subject to your fears.
So go ahead and pass your amendments, referendums & laws. All you are doing is putting your prejudice & ignorance on paper for future generations to read.
posted on 11.16.2004 11:32 PM43
In both cases the sin committed is failure to accept another human being as equal in worth to yourself in the eyes of men and God. The moral failure of those who voted for the amendments was not the actual vote itself. It was the failure to consider, even for a tiny second, that a gay marriage and the people in itwere equal in worth to themselves. It was classic knee-jerk prejudice and ignorance. It never occurred to them that we might be real people with feelings and faith just as strong as theirs.
posted on 11.17.2004 12:47 PM