Biblical Literalism and my issues with it.

 Let me just start this blogpost by saying that it is in NO WAY  meant to attack anyone for their PERSONAL interpretation of the biblical text. I welcome any and all commentary and thoughts on this important book that has touched the lives of so many millions. I myself value the wisdom I find within it and I look forward to meeting my savior JESUS CHRIST someday who can clarify these questions I have since for now I can only " see through a glass darkly." 1 Corinthians 13:12

As anyone who knows me personally knows that I am a philosopher at heart. I am CONSTANTLY thinking about the big questions in life. Perhaps the BIGGEST question of all, is in the nature of GOD and, specifically for this blog, the GOD presented within the pages of the book we now call the Bible. Over the years I have come to hear differing views on many different passages and ways to interpret them. One viewpoint that I find intriguing is the viewpoint of biblical literalism. This viewpoint is one that purports that every single event in the bible is literally true and happened  exactly as it is described as having happened. This philosophy appears mainly within fundamentalist circles. While I do not have a firm viewpoint on this, I do acknowledge that this viewpoint creates some specific intellectual issues for me. I will be posting about some of  these in this blog.

    Let's start with the old testament story of the conquest of Canaan, specifically the Israelites interaction with the Amalekites. To give a little backstory, the story goes that the Israelites, after escaping slavery in Egypt, were entering the promised land of Canaan to inhabit. During this they encountered the indigenous peoples who lived there. One of these people groups were the Amalekites. This people group were recorded as having been especially brutal and were enemies of the people of GOD. To make a long story short, eventually the Israelites "defeated" them  and they were no more a threat, to put it mildly. The issue I have with taking this story COMPLETELY literal is the verse of Exodus 17:4. The verse is below.

EXODUS 17:14 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it, because I will completely blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven."

A first glance, this might not seem problematic. But think about it, just for a minute. According to this verse, GOD is promising that after he delivers the victory to the Isrealites over the Amalekites, that the very memory of the amalekites ever existing would be completely erased from any human record, The problem? This verse completely contradicts itself. If GOD erased the record of the Amalekites ever existing, than they would have never been recorded in the bible for us to know that they ever existed. The very fact that the story of the Amalekites is recorded in the bible for us to know that they existed is proof enough, to me at least, that this verse can't be accurate.

My next issue with the doctrine of biblical literalism is a verse found in Proverbs 22:6

Train up a child in the way he should go,
[a]And when he is old he will not depart from it.

I hope we can all agree that this is good wisdom for how we should parent our children. My issue with taking this verse completely literal is the fact that this verse doesn't always come true. There are numerous examples in history of children being brought up in very godly christian homes and STILL becoming horrible people who commit horrible acts. Some even become atheists. Sometimes, children DO depart from the training they received as children.

Let's move on now to the new testament. Arguably the most famous figure in the New Testament, if not the entire Bible, is Jesus of Nazareth. If one were to ask the common lay person to name a characteristic of his, the idea that he spoke the very words of GOD would probably be one that comes to mind. Generally, I adhere to this belief as well. But for me personally, there is a Caveat to that belief. I think it is highly likely that there were times when JESUS did not in fact preach the very words of GOD but more than likely relied on his own personal wisdom. The reason for my belief can be found in Matthew 24:35

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."

I, for one, am glad that is so. The problem for me when it comes to biblical literalism is that in numerous instances in the new testament, JESUS is recorded as going from town to town preaching. The problem? His sermons aren't always recorded. If every word JESUS spoke was direct revelation from GOD, then why aren't "GOD's words" recorded as Matthew 24:35 says they should be?

The last biblical story that I will give for this post is the story of JESUS's 40 days of temptation in the wilderness. The story goes that JESUS goes into the desert for 40 days to be "tempted" by Satan in various ways. At the end of his trial, JESUS is taken up onto a mountaintop by Satan. From this vantage point, he is able to see all of the kingdoms of the world. Satan then tells him that he will be given all of these kingdoms if he will just bow down and worship him. JESUS refuses and gives the timeless wisdom that we gain nothing if we gain the world, but lose our souls. I personally LOVE this story. It really hits home just how dangerous it is for us to seek power in this world at the sake of our own souls. What is my problem with taking this story literally? I don't see how it could be literally possible geographically speaking. We know that the tallest mountain above sea level is Mount Everest. People have climbed to the top. NO ONE has been able to see " all of the kingdoms of heaven" from the top of it. The only way such a view would even be possible is if the Earth was flat so that one could see out over the expanse. But since the Earth is round, the curvature of the Earth would prevent us from ever being able to see all of the land.

These are just some of the biblical verses that lead me to question the possibility of a literal interpretation of the bible to be possible. As always I will continue to seek the wisdom of GOD concerning this topic and the BIBLE in general. Ultimately, whether the bible is meant to be read literally, figuratively, or some other way, I think JESUS summed up the whole of the bible with these two verses that I will leave you with.

Matthew 22:36-40 NIV

 "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"

JESUS replied " Love the Lord your God with all of your heart and with all of your soul and with all of your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it. " Love your neighbor as yourself." All the law and the prophets hang on these two verses."

Why I believe Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of sexual assault.

                 So he did it. He was confirmed. I am of course talking about supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh who has recently come under fire for being accused of sexual assault by numerous women. Over the past month, I have heard numerous defenses of the position that his accusers could in no way be telling the truth. I have found these defenses to largely be based on outdated beliefs and data regarding sexual violence and also concerning the charged topic of false rape accusations. I have my own personal reasons for believe Kavanaugh to be guilty of the crimes he is alleged to have committed. I will post my reasons below.

                   Many people have raised objections to the idea that we should trust Christine Blasey Ford's account of her assault because " so many women lie about rape." Being that I am active in the anti-sexual violence movement, and have been for many years, I have researched the topic of false rape reporting. What I have found regarding this topic compels me to believe she is telling the truth for numerous reasons. It is worth noting that there is a false reporting rate for EVERY crime, including murder. And studies consistently show that sexual assault is no more likely to be falsely reported than any other crime. There are also studies that seem to suggest car theft has a higher false reporting rate than rape. Yet it is highly unusual for people claiming to have their cars stolen to be automatically treated with suspicion the way sexual assault survivors are. In regards to false reporting, their prevalence, and what type of person makes them, the FBI and numerous other prestigious institutions have done research spanning decades of information gathered from police stations around the country. Using sound methodological means, the most accurate statistics we have for the prevalence of false reporting to law enforcement puts the percentage somewhere between 2 and 7%, no more than 10%. Ironically, many of the false accusations actually turn out to be true accounts, but the accusers recant due to public duress.  Of those false accusations, there is a typical M.O. regarding the details in them. The majority of false reports do not name a specific person, but instead say it was a stranger  ( to avoid getting a specific person in trouble.) The false reports tend to include exaggerated violence ( beating, weapons, etc.) which is not present in most assaults. The false reports tend to involve the accuser stating that they fought back with all their strength against their assailant, even though the most common response to a sexual assault is to freeze during the attack ( 70% in fact.) Of the false accusers themselves, they tend to fit specific personality traits and to have common motives for false reporting, Many are teenagers who are trying to avoid parental scolding. Many need an "alibi" for some event in their life, like an affair they are trying to conceal. Many are actively encouraged by OTHERS to false report, such as a secret lover. They tend to be people who have a history of sexual assault in their past. They tend to be people with SEVERE mental disorders, almost to the point of psychosis. They tend to be people who have a history of negative interactions with law enforcement and false reporting of other crimes. None of these traits apply to the character of Christine Blasey Ford. It should also be acknowledged that statistically speaking, an American male has a greater chance of being sexually assaulted HIMSELF than being falsely accused of it. In fact, her account fits the typical description of a FACTUAL sexual assault case. She and Kavanaugh were of the same race, socioeconomic station, and relatively close in age. She was younger than 30 years of age. ( 16-19 is the most common age range, which is close to what she was..) Her attacker was drunk ( 52% of sexual assaults involve alcohol.) They were acquaintances. There was not a gratuitous amount of violence( no beatings, weapon present, etc.) She didn't report it to law enforcement. ( 2 out of 3 assaults go unreported.) She didn't tell anyone at first. And she did not speak out about the attack until many years later. All of these aspects of her story lend credibility to her account according to research. It is also worth noting that her memory is somewhat hazy, as in she forgets specific details of the assault. That is ALSO the most common response to a sexual assault.  Another compelling reason as to why I believe her account is the fact that, from an outside perspective at least, she has nothing to gain and EVERYTHING to lose by coming forward. Since she appeared at the hearing, she has had to leave her home along with her husband and two children and go into hiding. At the present time, she has made statements to the press that she has in fact had to hire private body guards and has had to move 4 times. Her life has been completely disrupted. She has been called a liar, had at least 22% of the American population disbelieve her account, and was willing to go into humiliating detail in front of a national audience. She stated during her hearing that she would be willing to help them with the investigation in any way she could. She apologized for details she was unable to recall. She swore under oath with the penalty of perjury that she was telling the truth. She even acknowledged that an FBI investigation might turn up evidence against her. And she was ok with that.  I see no reason why she would do such a thing, unless she was compelled by her need to seek justice for a past wrong against her person. It is also noteworthy that after the alleged assault, a rumor went around the school that something akin to Ford's assault took place. Going back some years now, she has notes from a couples therapy session from 2012 stating that she had survived an attempted rape in high school. While not specifically naming Kavanaugh in the session, she stated that her assailant was now a federal judge. She told several people over the next few years, all the way up to 2016, that Brett Kavanaugh had assaulted her. This was before the 2016 election and before Kavanaugh was ever considered for the supreme court. She passed an FBI polygraph test. She attempted to contact the press BEFORE KAVANAUGH was picked in an attempt to keep him out. There were many possible picks she could have chosen from, but she chose him specifically. I can think of no logical reason other than he was her attacker. She was visibly upset during the hearing, almost to the point of tears, yet not overly emotional to the point that it didn't seem genuine. She had a basic idea of where the house could be, and even gave a vivid description of the layout of the house, including the bedroom where she says she was accosted. Even her defamers stated that her statement seemed credible. Susan Collins, the senator from Maine who ultimately voted to confirm Kavanaugh despite the accusations, even stated during her speech that she believes Dr Ford was assaulted by someone, just that it was not Kavanaugh.  

On the other hand, Kavanaugh was caught in numerous lies during his hearing. He lied about the definition of certain terms from his yearbook, including Devil's Triangle, boofing, and also a note regarding a female classmate of his.  During his hearing, he used in his defense a calendar from 1982 that was supposed to show that he had no dates marked during that summer to show that he was at a party like the one Ford described. It turns out that there WAS a party marked in July showing that he had a house party he was to attend. In the note, he also named specific people who were to be at the party, including people Ford said were there that night. He was defensive during the hearing, and evaded questions regarding whether he welcomed an FBI investigation. He was dishonest in his responses concerning his intake of alcohol during his youth. Several of his Yale classmates have come forward to say so. He stated during the hearing that one of Ford's high school friends was on the record stating that he was never at the party mentioned, even though her friend simply stated that she did not witness anything specifically at a party, but that she believes Dr. Ford is telling the truth. In his defense during a Fox News segment, he stated that her could not have assaulted Ford because he was a virgin throughout his youth. A college friend of his has also come out stating that Kavanaugh confided in him that he had indeed engaged in sexual intercourse. Besides that, it is a lame excuse for the simple reason that Kavanaugh was not accused by anyone of rape, but ATTEMPTED rape. A police report from 1985 shows that during a drunken fit, Kavanaugh assaulted someone by throwing a glass of ice during an argument in a bar brawl. He was noted for becoming violent while drunk. Many people have stated that since Christine Blasey-Ford has no definitive "proof" of what, if anything, happened, we cannot trust her account. The thing is, if you take her account seriously, there NEVER WAS any physical proof. Even with rape, there is oftentimes not enough evidence to convict, and Christine's account states that it was an attempted rape. But since this was not a criminal trial but a job interview for Kavanaugh, it should still be considered. 

His second accuser, a woman by the name of Debora Ramirez, was a fellow college student at Yale who claims that during a party, Kavanaugh, in a drunken stupor, exposed his penis to her and pushed it into her face. She says that she has witnesses who were at the party who can verify her story. A male classmate has come out stating that he remembers egging Kavanaugh on to do it. 1200 Yale Alumnae have signed a letter stating their support for Ramirez. This assault was alleged to have happened in 1984, the same year that a note from Kavanaugh states that he and his frat brothers were drunks. This account of hers follows the M.O of Brett Kavanaugh assaulting women while intoxicated at parties. It is also important to note that Deborah Ramirez AND the other two accusers all came out after it was made public that Christine Blasey Ford was receiving death threats and harassment daily. Why would they do that, if they were just wanting attention? What non-pathological reason would they have to putting themselves in such a situation? 

The fourth woman who accused Kavanaugh chose to remain anonymous. She sent a private letter  detailing an incident in college where Kavanaugh pushed her up against a wall and groped her while he was intoxicated. This accuser stated that she had two eye witnesses who witnessed the incident. Since this woman chose to remain anonymous, I can only reasonably assume that she came forward not in a desire to seek any sort of fame, but to speak out against the confirmation of Kavanaugh. 

As for the FBI investigation itself, it was pretty much a sham. The FBI did not speak to Blasey-Ford  OR Kavanaugh. Many people who wanted to testify, mostly as supporters to corroborate for Blasey-Ford, were never called forward. They were given ONLY a week to investigate these claims. 

Ultimately, none of us will ever know the full stories behind these investigations, but it is very telling of how far our culture still has to go regarding these offenses that a person credibly accused of committing them can become a supreme court judge. All I can do is hope that there will come a day when victims will be heard and, more importantly, finally believed.

MY CHALLENGE TO DONALD TRUMP: An Open letter from a resistance fighter.

Hello Donald.

We haven't personally met, so let me introduce myself. My name is Leia. I am a 31 year old high -functioning autistic from the midwest who has been paying close attention to what is going on in my country. I recently came upon your speech saying that you wish to possibly try to " revoke" the licenses from media stations who you deem to be fake so that they cannot continue to speak out against you. To the best of my knowledge, you have not threatened to pursue any actions beyond that. I am writing this blog post for two reasons. One is to confront you and the other is a request to other writers here and abroad.

My message to you is rather simple and can be summed up in one sentence, You are free to come and get me if you so desire. I do not feel intimidated by your threats against free speech and I am not afraid to stand up and speak out against  you or any other injustices I witness, no matter the consequences to my person. I value freedom enough to publicly take this stand and say that anything you plan to do to those whom you perceive as defying your leadership is worth the price in order to keep democracy alive. I am not the first person in history to have to make a proclamation such as this and sadly I will not be the last. But I consider it an honor to be in a situation where I can do so. 

My second message is to all other writers here and around the world. I urge you to join me in making a blogpost such as this stating that you too are willing to sacrifice anything in order to ensure that freedom abounds wherever you are. Join me in sending a clear message that attacks on our civil liberties will not be tolerated as long as we are around. I look forward to seeing responses to this and to reading the blogs from others. Until then, in the words of my namesake, General Leia Organa Solo ,MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU.

Lions and tigers and Arab migrants oh my....

So it is official. Donald J Trump is the 45th president of the United States. And may I say, it has been interesting. During his first 100 days in office he has issued numerous executive orders that have been met with much resistance by a plurality of the public. I would like to focus on just one such order for this blog post; his order to ban travel from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

Since September 11,2001, and even before, the threat of terrorism has been an ever present possibility in the minds of most Americans, myself included. Hardly a week goes by that we are not bombarded with some news report of a militant group somewhere in the world wreaking havoc on civilization in the name of some bronze age misinterpretation of a religion. Donald Trump capitalized on this fear during his presidential campaign and promised the American people that he would be the " law and order" president that would rein in these terrorist groups. He has stated that this ban is an attempt to protect the American populace " until we can improve our vetting system enough to ensure we are safe." Let me start by saying that the threat of terrorism is a real and legitimate fear and that I am in full agreement that we should continue to improve ways of vetting people who want to enter our country from anywhere in the world. I must, however, object to many of the arguments made by Donald and his supporters for this particular order. I will cover some of them in this blogpost with my personal rebuttals.

One argument I hear is that the people who want to come into America from these countries would bring with them backwards ideologies and cultures since their way of life is diametrically opposite of modern western society. The argument goes that if we let in too many people from these lands  the human rights violations that are endemic in those societies will become tolerated and common place in our country.  I will say that I agree with the statement that people originating from the middle east in particular are coming from a very different world than one most Americans are accustomed to. I will also agree that there ARE problems with abuses, particularly of women, in those societies that the residents of those societies and the world at large need to address. Despite this, I do have some problems with this argument. First, the practices that are common in the 7 banned countries are widely practiced in other countries NOT included in the ban. So the ban would not ensure that we would not have people from that way of life coming here anyway, South Africa is called the rape capital of the world. One in four men ADMITS to committing rape in that country. There are places in New Guinea where rape is so prevalent that women do not leave their houses without first inserting female condoms. The MAJORITY of people in India think marital rape should not be considered a crime. Russia just decriminalized certain forms of domestic violence, with a 50% approval rating from the public. Should we also ban people from THOSE societies from coming here because their beliefs systems are too backwards and dangerous? Third, it is noteworthy that our own dear America has her own past sins to beg forgiveness for. There was a time when the majority of people thought slavery was a sound institution. Before the 20th century, there were few laws regulating child labor. Women could not vote until 1920. Contraception was completely illegal for everyone until 1965. Only 4% of white Americans approved of interracial dating in 1957. Should we look back on our ancestors and think that they should have been denied assistance, aid or entrance to other parts of the world because their beliefs systems were appalling? And what beliefs and practices do we CURRENTLY accept that generations from now will look back on and find barbaric?  Speaking on a personal note, there are MAJORITY opinions that Americans hold that I find hideous. Most Americans think we should ban Syrian refugees. Most Americans think the government should not pay for abortion care. Not to mention that there are small subsets of people, such as the Ku Klux Klan, that I have little to no common ground with. But I assure you that if some disaster were to befall our great republic and there was a need for us to flee as refugees, I would STILL want every last American, regardless of how deplorable I find their beliefs, to find a safe haven. Why? Because they are human beings and that automatically grants them a certain level of protection in my worldview. It is also worth mentioning that there are other WESTERN nations that are more progressive than we are that would and probably do find the American way of life a little bizarre to say the least. 85% of Swedes identify with being atheist or agnostic compared with 90% of Americans that believe in GOD. The right to abortion is practically an accepted fact in Norway. Their government pays for it and they are regularly performed in hospitals. Denmark bans corporal punishment of children whereas half of Americans approve of spanking children as a legitimate disciplinary action. Would most Americans be ok with these countries denying us entry due to the fact that our way of life is a " little behind the times" of theirs? This argument also fails to acknowledge that there are probably GOOD aspects of those cultures that could be an asset to ours. America is called the great melting pot for a reason. It is because we say that our strength is in our diversity. Or at least that is what we say.

The second most common argument I hear being made in support of this ban is that there is no way that we can absolutely ensure that the people coming into our country from these regions do not have harmful intentions towards us. They are right. Despite the fact that we have a very good system already in place to weed out the good apples from the bad, the system is not surefire in its security. I would like to point out though that we Americans regularly accept other flawed systems that result in grave injury and sometimes even death to our citizens without the level of sensationalist fanfare that this ban seems to be generating. Despite the fact that we have the government agency of the FDA to test all products for safety before they hit the market for public consumption, recalls happen. We have federal background checks for people entering professions that require intense interaction with children. Sadly, some predators fall through the cracks. We test automobiles and other heavy machinery for glitches before they are released to the public. Tragically, malfunctions happen and people sometimes die as a result. In regards to the death penalty, innocent people are sometimes convicted of crimes despite a " vetting process" by a jury of their peers. We have even executed innocent people. Yet a majority of Americans still support the death penalty. And to the best of my knowledge, no one is panicking over the fact that the other agencies I just mentioned are not error proof. As i previously stated, I am in full agreement that we should continue to develop ways of perfecting these systems to ensure better outcomes. Every death or injury is a tragedy. But just because a utopian ideal has not yet been achieved doesn't mean that I support shutting down all of it " until we can figure out what the hell is going on" as Donald Trump so infamously stated during his campaign run. Why is it that flaws in these other areas of our government are found to be tolerable by the vast majority of our citizens but for some reason vetting systems for groups such as refugees and immigrants are held to an immaculate standard? I suspect ulterior motives in that much of this rhetoric and fear mongering is motivated by a hatred of people from those regions. 

The third most common argument I hear is that we cannot let people from these places into our country because of what has played out on the European stage in regards to the deluge of people from Arab nations arriving either as refugees or residents. There have been numerous attacks, the most recent being in December in Berlin, of people from these nations who have committed attacks in the name of ISIS. On new years eve in Cologne Germany in 2015, a group of men of Arab descent sexually assaulted a group of German women, sending a shockwave through the world. Many groups roundedly condemned the feminist community at large because most were too afraid to speak out about the incident for fear of enticing violence against arabic people. I strongly condemn the silence of this attack by my sisters in the movement and it is my sincerest hope that the perpetrators of such barbarity were apprehended and punished to the fullest extent of the law. What I have noticed though, is that there is few, if any, mention of the fact that many people from Arab nations have and are currently being the recipients of hate crimes against them BY EUROPEAN citizens. There was a case recently in England of a pregnant women who was beaten so severely that she miscarried both of her twins. There are also reports of unattended Syrian refugee children who have become prey for human traffickers, many of whom are also European citizens. There is good and bad in EVERY group. We could spend all day cherry picking anecdotes to demonize the other side but in the end, we must remember that just because some peoples of these nations mean us harm does not mean they all do. There are also many stories coming out about Syrian refugees who are spreading random acts of kindness to their European counterparts. The day after the sexual assault attacks in Cologne, Germany , a group of Syrian refugees went around the city and handed out free flowers to passing women in an attempt to say how sorry they were for what happened to their city. There is a Syrian refugee boy in Berlin who is now volunteering for free at a soup kitchen in order to give back to Germany for taking him in.

The fourth most common argument I hear is that this is not a "muslim ban" because 85% of muslims around the world live in countries where they are not barred from entering the U.S. in this order. I must disagree. Donald Trump even said during his run that he wanted to create a muslim ban, that he would not role out forming a muslim registry, that mosques should be monitored and that Islam was incompatible with the west. He also has yet to speak out against terrorism directed at muslim communities both here and abroad. Former mayor Rudolph Guliani also let it slip during an interview that Donald Trump called him up and asked him how to form a muslim ban through any legal loopholes he could find. 

The Statue of Liberty famously states " Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. I still believe these words to be true and that they should set the standard for American as to how we should treat foreigners. It remains to be seen if Donald Trump will follow suit. 

Dear Trump Voters: Here is what I need you to know

Anyone who has been following my blog for any amount of time knows that I always start my post with the preface that I in no way intend to cause discord among the people viewing it and that I respect all viewpoints equally. 

 

But not this time. Not this time.

This post is to anyone who voted for Donald Trump but it will mainly be aimed at my family and friends, who I hold dear. Here is what I need you to know.

 

I love you. You are a valuable person in my life and you are my friend.  And nothing will ever change that.  Not even this election. I hold no hatred in my heart for you OR Donald Trump and I wish neither of you harm. The night before the election I stated that no matter who you voted for I would remain by your side, and I meant it and still mean it.  If any of you decide to remove me from your life, either temporarily or permanently, because of what I am about to say, I will not blame you and I will not hold it against you. I will be ABSOLUTELY DEVASTATED to see you go. But I will respect your choice and will believe that you had valid reasons for doing so. I will pray for Donald Trump and for our country.  But the world that you and I built our friendship upon has changed. I HAVE changed as a result of this election. I am not the same person I was before Tuesday night. My eyes have been opened to an America that I didn’t want to believe existed but, I suppose deep down, always knew did.  People forget that when they go into that voting booth they are not just voting against something, they are voting FOR something.  Always.  And what Donald Trump is “for” is fundamentally opposed to everything I value about human life. So, in honor of his election, here is what I need you to know.

 

I no longer consider you an ally with me in the fight against sexual violence. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who has been accused by 13 women (not including a 13 year old girl) of sexual assault. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who bragged about being able to grope women’s pussies  just because he was powerful.  You forfeited that right when you elected a man who, when confronted about these comments, dismissed them as locker room talk and gave an insincere apology. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who bragged about going into pageant locker rooms unannounced so he could check out the women. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who when confronted with the accusation of sexual assault by one of his accusers, responded with “ trust me, she would not be my first choice.”  You forfeited that right when you elected a man who, upon seeing a 10 year old girl, said “I will be dating that in 10 years.” You forfeited that right when you elected a man who, when somewhat laughingly called a sex offender on the Howard Stern show, literally laughed and shrugged it off.  You forfeited that right when you elected a man whose ex-wife once accused him of rape. 

I no longer consider you an ally with me in the fight against the bullying epidemic sweeping our nation. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who criticized women for their weight and made disparaging remarks about women’s breasts. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who made a joke about Megan Kelly about bleeding out of her whatever. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who, when criticized twitter, lashes out at others in the most juvenile of ways. 

I no longer consider you an ally with me in the struggle for LBGT rights. You forfeited that right when you voted for a man who chose as his running mate a man who supports conversion therapy for gays and who signed off on a bill in his state that would allow private businesses to refuse service to a member of the LBGT community based upon personal beliefs. 

I no longer consider you an ally with me in the struggle for human rights. You forfeited that right when you voted for a man who said we should kill the innocent family members of SUSPECTED terrorists. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who said he wanted to bring back torture even if, and I quote “it doesn’t work.” 

I no longer consider you an ally with me in the fight for international diplomacy. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who is so thoroughly disliked across the world that even the Pope spoke out against him.

I no longer consider you an ally with me in the fight for environmental preservation. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who denies climate change and has already stated that he intends to nominate a man to the EPA board who believes the same. 

I no longer consider you an ally with me in the fight for religious liberty. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who wants to ban an entire religious group, Muslims, from entering the country

I no longer consider you an ally with me in the fight against racial prejudice and belief. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who referred to a man at one of his rallies as “My African American.” You forfeited that right when you elected a man who has been endorsed by  the The Klu Klux Klan and other white nationalist groups. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who had people at his rallies yelling “ fuck that nigger” when speaking about Obama and yet remained silent about such rhetoric. 

I no longer consider you an ally with me in recognizing the bravery of our amazing military family. You forfeited that right when you elected a man who when speaking about John McCain, a POW survivor and hero, that he would rather elect the man who got away.

I can only imagine how this blog post of mine has offended you. But I suppose for those of you closest to me, you know it is not in my nature to stay silent when I perceive an injustice happening in my presence. To do so would be to betray the core of my being. I have made it a point all my life to surround myself with people from all walks of life. I do not regret that decision. I get it. I really do. Few people liked the choices we were left with this election cycle, including myself. If you dislike or even detest Hilary Clinton, you have valid reasons for doing so. But Trump is not a stupid man. Demagogues rarely are. He was counting on using the frustration and fears of average citizens to cause enough of a backlash that he could use it to his advantage and get elected. His strategy worked. It often does, as history continues to show us. You might be of the opinion that this blog of mine is too divisive. You are right. It is divisive. I intend it to be so. But perhaps before you ridicule me for writing such a blog, you should have considered that you elected a man whose ENTIRE platform was about causing division, not inclusion. You voted for division. You got it. Here it is. I do not know what the next four years have in store for us and the rest of the world, but here is what I DO know. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Two Americas have emerged this week. Two polar opposite visions of what America should look like and stand for are now before us. Both sides have their strengths and their weaknesses as no movement or ideology is perfect. But I have decided to pick a side. I have decided to pick the side that I see as being the most loving, most just, most inclusive, most humane as these are the values that I hold dearest and which guide my life.  I am ready to fight for my side, are you ready to fight for yours?

 

                                                                                                                                                        Love to you all,

                                                                                                                                                                Leia Peison

The most terrifying part of Donald Trump's abortion comments? They make sense

Unless you have been living in an underground lair for the past week( or maybe just Amish) you would know abortion has been in the headlines a lot, particularly in regards to our potential presidential candidates and and what policies they would like to see enacted nationwide. One candidate, Donald Trump, did s,etching I have never seen an anti-abortion rights candidate ever do. He took responsibility for the fallout that would logically follow from his ideological stance. He has since retracted his stance, but the damage is done. He single handedly exposed perhaps the BIGGEST   Inconsistency of the anti choice movement. He stated on a tv show during a forum that if abortion becomes illegal, there should be s,e sort of punishment for women who acquire them despite the law. Pro choice groups justly and rapidly condemned his outrageous comments as archaic and misogynist, which they are. But the response from the anti abortion community? Well that is where things get interesting. I wish I could say I was surprised by the responses but alas, I was not in the slightest. Major figures in the anti abortion rights movement swiftly and soundly condemned his comments saying that they have no such intentions of punishing women and that women who abort are victims of a predatory abortion industry that preys upon their vulnerability. To those of us in the reproductive justice movement, this rhetoric is nothing new.  Indeed it is standard. The anti choice movement relies upon the caricature of a scared and desperate woman who just doesn't know better in order to pass their paternalistic laws that women must be "protected" from abortion and thereby must undergo such things as mandatory ultrasounds and also forcing clinics to close due to imaginary threats of abortion clinics not being up to par with safety even though they do not insist on such safety measures for medical procedures that are far more dangerous than abortion. But spend any amount of time on an abortion debate forum, or better yet, spend time escorting women into abortion clinics as I have and you will see pretty quickly that such sentiments are a farce. Anti choice protestors routinely harass women entering such facilities and even sometimes perpetrate acts of violence against employees of such institutions. The truth is that anti choice organizations are not upset with the idea of imprisoning women for abortions as Donald Trump espoused. They are upset that Donald Trump exposed their true motives. If anti choicers sincerely do not wish to see women punished for abortion, they don't have to wait for abortion to become illegal in the country. There have been several cases within the last few years of women being punished for self aborting, which raises another thorny question that I wish Donald had been asked. For the sake of argument I will accept the mainstream anti choice movement's position that only those who perform abortions should be punished and not the women who undergo them. What then happens to women who self abort? Also if anti choicers do not want to imprison women for abortion, then why do they do so in countries where abortion is illegal?

To go on a Segway here, I feel compelled to take a moment to address a particular argument I have often encountered when conversing wth people within this movement. In regards to the topic of abortion concerning rape induced pregnancies, a common defense for banning abortion for these victims is that when a woman is raped, she is a victim but when she aborts any resulting pregnancy, she then becomes a perpetrator. Yet now the same people who use that argument are now saying that women who undergo abortions are not culpable for doing so. They can't have it both ways. Indeed, they can't have it both ways on the topic of punishment either. When has there ever been a law against something without a legal consequence for anyone who breaks it? Donald Trumps comments were awful, but not be use they were illogical but because the entire mission of the anti choice movement is awful. It is difficult if not impossible to berate women who abort as filthy baby killing whores ( yes an actual term I have heard used) and then to coddle them as helpless victims of their own stupidity in the next and seek to excuse their behavior instead of punish it. The anti choice movement has two choices. They can accept the current legality of abortion and leave women who procure them the heck alone both socially and politically or they can follow their own medieval logic to its logical and misogynist conclusion and ban it while simultaneously imprisoning women who have. It remains to be seen which one they will choose.

How do you solve a problem like Syria?

I am writing this on Friday November 20, 2015, exactly one week from the terrorist attacks in Paris. Like most of the world I have been in a daze the past week over the shocking level of brutality committed by radicals in the name of some misbegotten interpretation of their religion. Perhaps some people are numb from hearing reports such as this considering how common they are in the word. For whatever reason, I am not. I want to preface my following statements by saying that I respect differing viewpoints and fully understand that there are valid opinions other than my own. This blog is just MY PERSONAL stance on the subject of the ensuing Syrian refugee crisis and how the world, and particularly the United States, should respond. Over the past week I have seen several arguments for and against allowing Syrian refugees to enter America. I would now like to cover a few of them and give my rebuttals with a conclusion of what I think needs to happen regarding this crisis.

One argument I keep hearing is that we should not allow them in because we " already have people here in need of assistance." I get it. Our country is a mess with rampant unemployment and  homeless veterans. These are issues we can and do need to address. My problem with this sentiment though is that prior to this crisis it did not seem like there were so many people who found the state of our country intolerable. I honestly wonder how many of the people who are using this argument call their congressional representatives regularly to demand better treatment for our underprivileged citizens. It is also worth noting that EVERY country in the world has poor people in it. Should every country in the world reject these refugees because they have not yet made their own lands a utopia? While I am on the subject, why not cut off immigration altogether until we have completely eradicated poverty?

Perhaps the most common argument I hear is that it is just plain unsafe to allow the refugees in because there may be secret ISIS members that have infiltrated them. I understand the fear. I do not want to relive the horror of 9/11 over again anymore than anyone else does. It is true that as long as America allows refugees or ,indeed, even tourists or immigrants from any land into the United States, there WILL be bad apples in the bunch. No vetting process can completely screen out evil intentions as no scanner can survey the human heart. This is also true of our own citizens. As long as American citizens keep having babies, some of them will grow up and either commit extreme acts of violence against other Americans or possibly even other nations. The only way to stop this would be to get the human race to become antinatalist and that is a blog for another time. There is an old saying that history repeats itself. This past week, I have seen that truth unfold right before my eyes. During world war 2 Americans overwhelmingly rejected the idea of allowing European refugees fleeing the Nazi regime to enter America due to fears that some might be Nazi spies or sympathizers. As a result hundreds if not thousands perished in the concentration camps after being denied asylum in the states. Going back even further to the Titanic, the people in the lifeboats were afraid to go back to rescue survivors in the water for fear that they would swamp the boats. Make no mistake, taking in refugees WILL cost the citizens of the United States. It will cost Americans because it would be an act of heroism and heroism always costs the hero something. What makes heroes different from everyone else is that they are willing to put their own welfare in jeopardy for the sake of someone else. History is a terrific teacher. We the people of the United States have made grave mistakes in the past regarding our treatment of not only our own citizens but those who wish to come here. We have a chance to make a different choice with this current situation. You can sit in the lifeboat if you want. As for me, I am grabbing an oar.                                                      REFUGEES WELCOME