OurChart's Bloggers
Our Favorite Sites
Tips?
thehookup@ourchart.com
Jennifer Beals & Tobias Wolff Part 3
March 14, 2008 - 9:23am — editor
A message from Jennifer Beals
In this week's podcast, I continue the discussion with Tobias Wolff, Chair of the National LGBT Policy Committee for the Barack Obama campaign. Here, Professor Wolff responds to your questions regarding women's issues, touching upon Obama's ideas for Supreme Court appointments, his stance on Roe v. Wade, poverty as it relates to women, and international women's rights. I hope the material discussed in this video keeps stirring important discussion as we approach the Democratic nomination.
Thank You,
Jennifer
In this week's podcast, I continue the discussion with Tobias Wolff, Chair of the National LGBT Policy Committee for the Barack Obama campaign. Here, Professor Wolff responds to your questions regarding women's issues, touching upon Obama's ideas for Supreme Court appointments, his stance on Roe v. Wade, poverty as it relates to women, and international women's rights. I hope the material discussed in this video keeps stirring important discussion as we approach the Democratic nomination.
Thank You,
Jennifer
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
98 Comments
Hillary Hate spewed by Obama's Pastor Wright
Obama's Pastor Jeremiah Wright of Trinity Church "New Video"
Hillary was right. If your pastor is spreading hate you should find another pastor.
Hi Melanie
Sorry to hear you have been sick. Hope you are feeling better. Yes, it does look like the tide has stopped for the most part for this section. Hopefully Jennifer will post another video soon.
i am a real real great great fan of jennifer
but not sure about obama actually
what Mr Obama think about this article and you too Ms Beals because your are not for me the little shadow but a luminous way to give him questions like that:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-keyssar/michigan-florida-and-th_b_929...
The Rolling Conversation
I was sick all last week and not able to keep up with this thread. I just caught up with all the posts and there were so many great topics brought up! But it looks like traffic to this thread has all but died out now. If Jennifer posts another video, I'd like to move some of these topics to the new thread: internationalism as it pertains to women's rights, what really went on with the caucuses, whether legislators can truly take credit for state or federal legislation, etc.
Hoping the conversation keeps on rolling,
Melanie
Jennifer...
"if they don't involve oil"...classic! Enjoying the interview! I must say I prefer the longer clip as in part 1...with these short clips election might be over before we hear the whole interview, just a thought. Thanks for your time and the info...a still UNDECIDED voter.
Well, several of the editors
Well, several of the editors of OurChart are avid Hillary supporters...why haven't they set it up??? I don't think it is fair to blame Jennifer's success in bringing this information for what other people are NOT doing.
Equality
I thought our chart is about being treated as equal and yet it's being used as a political forum for obama by jennifer beals. shouldn't hillary or a hillary representative be interviewed so that we could hear both sides and then make up our minds!
Am I the only one who wishes
Am I the only one who wishes we had the same opportunity with Mrs. Clinton? I mean, those discussions are really enlightening and because they are, I feel like Obama has been given an advantage over Hillary Clinton. We know more about him but nothing more about her.
I had a good laugh with the oil comment!
Thanks
Promesas, Promesas
No, you're not the only one! We've been promised an equivalent opportunity and many of us are waiting for it. As for these interviews - they're cementing my stance against Obama, not for him.
I would also feel much better about the honesty of these videos if they weren't edited but rather a straight-thru conversation. This way we don't know what's been removed, which shots repeated, or even if TW received a list of the questions beforehand...
I Agree
Yes, this whole thing seems so one-sided. I sure hope someone from OC grabs a member of Senator Clinton's campaign and does the same video reporting.
And what's really sickening, is that the Democratic Party is supposed to be for the people, yet they still use archaic venues during the presidential primary campaign via caucuses.
Senator Obama, if he really is for the people, will work to change the ways of the Democratic National Committee, whether he is the nominee or not. Caucuses disenfranchise women, and that no one is speaking out about this is quite bothersome. Women are usually home dealing with the family in the early evening hours. The best reflection of this inequity was at the Texas two-step. Senator Clinton won the popular primary vote there, but many women could not make it to the caucus during the evening hours. So more delegates went to Obama; does that seem fair to you?
How come no one in the party is addressing this inequity?
Thanks
Thank you for Part 3. You go Jennifer with your oil comment and adorable smile.
Where are Parts 1 & 2? These interviews are somewhat difficult to find on the site.
Thanks again, JB! Much appreciated.
Exactly, Lezbeth
I agree. I know that everyone was so anxious to be heard that the questions on every topic poured in, even though Jennifer asked specifically for questions pertaining to LGBT issues, since Tobias is the head of policy for LGBT. I understand that Jennifer was trying to be inclusive in mentioning the other topics as well, but I don't think it was fair to Tobias. I agree with Minnie Z that violence against women around the world is a feminist/ lesbian issue to the extent that we care greatly, but more than caring is required to do anything about it. With deeply ingrained cultural abominations, like FGM, honor rapes and killings, etc, and the governments that condone them, dealing with those governments becomes a foreign policy issue. That is NOT Tobias' area of expertise, and this was true with some of the other topics as well.
another thought
It has been mentioned that TW's statements on poverty etc weren't entirely accurate. The thing is, that he is the advisor for LGBT policy..which makes me wonder why we need our own policy..kind of like the "woman" question, or the "Jewish" question. "We don't want them but we're stuck with them so what are we going to do with them!"
Anyway,this is his bailiwick, and what he is speaking on behalf of Obama for. I don't know if it's fair to ask him questions about female genital mutilation or the US poverty level. Am I mistaken, should he know about Obama's beliefs and practices on any issue?
fairness
I don't know if it's fair to ask him questions about female genital mutilation or the US poverty level.
TW can say "I don't know" or "That's beyond my scope", can't he?
Good point
You're right. He wasn't sold as anything more than an adviser on LGBT issues. Instead of trying to answer other questions, he could have admitted that was not his area of expertise. Having a representative of a campaign whose knowledge is so limited attempt to answer such a broad range of questions may not have been the best plan. In planning this forum, maybe they should have thought ahead that in a Lesbian forum, there would be questions about women's issues. He probably should have admitted to his limitations and his focus, then have a dialog with JB about how many different kinds of expertise Barak is employing to deal with different issues...who knows whether that would have been better or not.
Lezbeth
Violence against women IS a lesbian issue!
Hi Susannah,
As you know, I'm truly grateful to you for transcribing - thanks!
I posed the asylum question because any violence against women IS a lesbian issue. Genital mutilation was only one abhorrent example of many international abominations against women. Of course, in any given group of women there will also be lesbians. But the status of women in general is also the status of lesbians - the two cannot be separated, which is why I would expect Obama and TW to be well versed on the matter.
I have no doubt that Hillary understands this and is - as she states - a champion of women. I am doubtful about Obama's understanding of women & gay issues and TW's answers have done nothing to convince me otherwise. I still think Obama needs more time to prove himself and should run in 4 or 8 years. By then we'll know for sure if he is a man of action and a man of his word, and we'll certainly have a lot more clarity on many of his positions.
...
Hillary ALL THE WAY!
Thank You
Thank you Jennifer. I must say that until recently I was an avid Hilary supporter, the only one among my friends and family. But recently I've been finding her a little boarish. Anyway I'm not an American so I can't vote, but that has not stopped me from taking a keen interest in American politics. Barack Obama struck a chord with me when he said in one of his eloquent thank you speeches that the whole world was watching what America was doing. Indeed it is.
Thank your jennifer
for this interview even if your "partner" is a little boring sometimes ....but your smile is a good medication for this problem...
great quote (oil..)
this podcast is a good idea and your involvement is appreciated and sincere,for me obama is not very convincing,great orator indeed but it's really difficult to see his project (le fond et la forme in french)?? opacity??
hillary is easier for me...
and i'm scared by obama's wife,not very nice,ok it's not her role and it's not a real deal but i prefer bill with all his issues..humanity is the most important on earth but not the big thing in political
race...
i am an "utopic" person and there is no place for that in the most important election of the year,of course..
thank you again MsBeals and respects
Hi again!
To everyone...you're welcome!! To Melanie, I agree completely that SPEAK UP or RISE UP are much better and more respectful titles.
I too was thinking when I was transcribing the vid, I hadn't heard it first, when TW got to the part about women in poverty, that it wasn't right. I expected him to to clarify his comments to add that it is women with children who are disproportionately homeless or in unstable housing/jobs, but he didn't. I agree absolutely that the highest population group in that situation are children. It is something I know something about, though not enough, and it is just heartbreaking.
I used to work in an afterschool program just for homeless and housing unstable kids in the district. For three hours every day they had a safe and consistent place to come to, with structure and people that cared about them and all the fun and homework help and all the one on one attention we could possibly give them. There is no population group that needs it more, yet this year it was cut, completely, for lack of funds, and that is just in my district. I wish I knew what Obama could do about support programs for these kids, since to do nothing, or too little, guarantees the cycle to continue.
Did anyone think Jennifer was acting a little odd in this vid? She said next to nothing, never really smiled, and at the end seemed almost angry. There seemed to be no real conversation, as there was in the beginning. I know TW was talking about difficult things at the end, but nothing that everyone hasn't heard about. She didn't put any conclusion to the end, she just stopped.
The troubling thing
I'm noticing that in response to the questions, TW seems to be stating the obvious, although in some cases, not quite correctly (poverty issue). I want to say, yeah, so what's Barak going to do about it? Like Minnie-Z pointed out, the questions are mostly answered with rhetoric about what the problems are and no commitments or solutions. I noticed JB's expressions on this one too and wondered if her BS detector was going off like mine was.
I was not committed to a particular candidate when this whole dialog/question asking started. Now, I'm getting more nervous about Barak and the substance or lack of, behind his great speaking ability. As others have suggested, I'd love to see a similar forum with Hillary (or her LGBT representative) and find out whether her answers have any more substance. All of this may just be politic speak, or verbal tap-dancing.
Lezbeth
Just the Opposite Reaction
Hi Lezbeth,
You say that you weren't previously committed to a particular candidate, so I looked at your profile to see if you live in one of the 8 states (or Guam or Puerto Rico) that have yet to vote. I see you live in California -- didn't you vote on Super Tuesday? But more importantly, I saw your artwork -- it's really beautiful - brava!
I've had just the opposite reaction you've had to these videos. I am a committed Obama supporter (and have been for ages.) And when Jennifer asked for questions for Professor Wolff, all of the ones I submitted were very partisan and very anti-Hillary.
But these videos have been so much lovelier than was my partisan participation in the question-asking phase. Wolff is explaining why he finds Obama such a compelling candidate, but none of what he has said is anti-Hillary. And most of the information Wolff is imparting isn't partisan at all, but is where all Progressive Democrats stand at the moment on LGBT issues. I have learned so much from these videos - I find them incredibly dense and informative.
I absolutely agree that we should hear from the comparable person in Clinton's campaign. But I betcha whoever that person is he or she is incredibly similar to Professor Wolff -- someone who has selflessly dedicated his or her life (and immense intellect and talents) to furthering the rights of the LGBT community.
I think Professor Wolff is a hero of the Civil Rights movement. And even though I'm an adamant Obama supporter, I'm certain that Professor Wolff's counterpart in the Clinton campaign is equally commendable, brilliant and heroic.
Love and Light,
Melanie
CEDAW & asylum for threatened women
Dear Jennifer,
I've been visiting a hospitalized friend about 10 hours/day for the past week and have internet access SANS SOUND only. I didn't know you asked my question until I read susannah's transcript (thanks Susannah!) Thanks for posing my question, despite my "NObama" stance. Issues regarding violence against women/girls, gendercide and human traffiking weigh heavily on my mind/heart:
"Would Obama write and support legislation that would grant asylum to women whose lives are threatened with gender related violence in their own countries?"
Unfortunately, TW did not answer the question, which I purposely formulated to require a yes or no answer. Instead he referred to
The CEDAW
which "is often described as an international bill of rights for women. Consisting of a preamble and 30 articles, it defines what constitutes discrimination against women and sets up an agenda for national action to end such discrimination."
By accepting the Convention, States commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including:
*to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women;
*to establish tribunals and other public institutions to ensure the effective protection of women against discrimination;
*to ensure elimination of all acts of discrimination against women by persons, organizations or enterprises."
The United States is, as TW pointed out, disgustingly, disgracefully, not a party to CEDAW convention, joining human rights violators such as United Arab Emirates, Tonga, Sudan, Somalia, Qatar, Oman and Iran. However, even if the US were to ratify the CEDAW, this would not address protecting women who are victimized in other countries.
I want our next president to be aware of and actively stand up for - in word AND DEED - women subjected to abuse, both in- and outside the US. We can save lives by granting these women/girls asylum and we should do so. Conventions and treaties are a start, but asylum provides immediate relief.
That's the committment I'm looking for!
list of countries who are on board and those WHO ARE NOT!
Fund-raising for violence prevention
For anyone who is interested, there's a publication called Nothing But Red to raise funds for international efforts to prevent violence against women. It should be released in April/May. Here's the link if you want more info.
http://nothingbutred.wordpress.com/
Lezbeth
A Thanks, a Request, a Correction (?) and a Mojo
Dear Jennifer, Professor Wolff and Gigi,
Thank you so much for this continuing series of conversations on what really has to be seen as the progressive Democratic platform on LGBT and women's issues -- I learn so much with each video.
I think the first video established that there is very little light between the two Democratic candidates on these issues, and while I think these videos beautifully introduce Obama to OurChart and give us a sense of who he is as a person and a candidate, I think these videos serve the equally important function of summarizing where we all stand on so many vital issues -- not as Clinton v. Obama partisans, but as progressive Democrats. So thank you, bless you, right on, right on, right on.
I have a request for Jennifer (and I'm fully aware that this is gluttony personified.) I think you and OurChart have found the perfect frequency for these videos of one a week. And I think you've found the perfect length for each installment -- it was smart to have the pilot episode be long and then follow each week with a 4 to 6 minute episode. And I hope your 3 1/2 hour conversation produced footage for lots of future installments.
But this feels like the beginning of an ongoing conversation. Now that the OurChart community has a better sense of (and maybe more trust in) what you're doing, it would be wonderful for us to have a chance to ask follow up questions. But of course I know you're busy and Professor Wolff is busy, so if a second round of questions is not possible, it's all good. And I really hope OurChart gets it together to ask questions of the Clinton campaign in a similar way -- the more discussion, the more balance, the better for everyone.
One follow up question I would ask Professor Wolff if given the opportunity is about poverty; I think something he said is not quite right. Wolff said (and I can quote him verbatim thanks to Susannah!): "The people in this country who are disproportionately poor and suffer from the effects of poverty are women." I don't think that's quite right; I think the people in this country who are disproportionately poor and suffer the effects of poverty are children. I think the poorest adults are women, but the poorest people are children. And I think that fact further speaks to the absolute truth that the left has to stop eviscerating itself by trying to decide if sexism is worse than racism is worse than homophobia is worse than classism, etc. The incredible challenges we face as a nation and a species are best faced when the left works together to fight all forms of bigotry and oppression at once.
And on that happy note, I leave you with a little mojo for this beautiful Sunday morning ...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EgXdJqWc1U4
"I was dreaming,
in my dreaming ..."
Love and Light,
Melanie
Thank you, Melanie. I am so
Thank you, Melanie. I am so with you and that feeling.
I've enjoyed this communication platform, Jennifer. I know it was overwhelming at times, but the passions are screaming change.
I'm still waiting for OurChart to do something with the Hilary campaign. And as for a follow up - maybe once Obama wins the ticket to go head to head in November, Tobias will be a gracious gentleman, again, and have another enlightening conversation with Jen.
I absolutely agree with the idea of getting to understand the processing minds behind the candidates. It's unprecedented and something we are not use to.
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog
Yes, You're Right
I believe what you said about the proportion of people in poverty is absolutely correct. Here are some statistics for 2006.
Here are a couple of tables from the census bureau. One has to do with percentages of men and women in poverty in 2006 (11% and 13% respectively).
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov7.html
Regarding children in poverty, it looks like 35.2% of the poor are under 18, plus 33.8% of the poor are "related children." I'm not exactly sure what related children are, but have a hunch it may have to do with children who are living in poverty because they are not receiving child support from absent parents (mostly fathers), have other family members (such as grandparents) with legal custody or are in some form of foster care. That means approximately 69% of people in poverty are children. Here's that link.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov15.html
Lezbeth
In Professor Wolff's defense ...
You know, I think Professor Wolff was clearly talking about adults when he said "people"; it was just a minor correction of language that I suggested. And I think Professor Wolff would probably respond to that correction by saying that childhood poverty is a women's issue, because by and large it is single mothers who are trying to care for those impoverished children and keep them out of foster care.
I brought up the truth about the horrifically high number of children living in poverty not as a "gotcha" but as an example of why we on the left and in the Democratic Party have to stop looking at problems as race v. gender v. class v. homophobia, etc. and why we have to stop looking at Obama and Clinton as "the black candidate" and as "the woman candidate."
I'm reminded of the Vice Presidential debate last time between Edwards and Cheney when the topic of the high incidence of AIDS among black women in this country came up. And Dick Cheney had never heard about the problem. And he had already been Vice President for Four Years. Edwards had to explain to him that our failed war on drugs has resulted in the incarceration of huge numbers of poor young black men who engage in risky sexual behavior in prison and contact HIV and then who on their release infect their girlfriends who then give birth to HIV positive babies, many of whom are living on the streets with their mothers. And Cheney just sat their totally nonplussed -- Edwards might as well have been talking to a rock.
Cheney and Co. are never going to help the women and children living in poverty in this country. We on the left are going to help them only if we stop bickering among ourselves about racism v. sexism and start doing battle with McCain so we can win in November.
Love and Light,
Melanie
Thank you
Thank you Jennifer Beals and Susannah for the transcription, it helps me so much.
I love this chart.
Transcription of video 3
JB: Alot of people asked questions that weren't "specifically gay"...
TW: Sure
JB: but are just as important to the LGBT community, namely issues that effect all women.
TW: Sure
JB: FARMNC asks, "I have signed up to OurChart specifically to post questions for Mr. Wolff. For the record, I am a Hillary supporter. When I look at my nieces, and tell them they can be anything, including President, that they want to be, I want to believe it too. Senator Obama is charismatic and an eloquent orator but I am still not convinced of the substance behind the beautiful words. If elected, and the need should arise to nominate a Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens is 88 years old, would Senator Obama consider a woman? Would the nominee's support or opposition to Roe v. Wade play a role in his decision process?
TW: Yes and yes. I can tell you unequivocally that Senator Obama will consider women for the Supreme Court, and in fact my guess is that having more than one woman on the Supreme Court will be something that he will take very seriously. He has had 100% rating on reproductive rights for his entire legislative career. He was giving an interview at one point in which he was asked about the issue of Supreme Court justices, and what types of intellectual qualities he would look for in a Supreme Court justice. And he offered some criticisms of recent decisions of the Supreme Court. One of the decisions that he picked out to criticize was the decision in which the Supreme Court upheld the first federal restrictions on abortions ever. It's an issue, not just abortion, but late term abortion, which once again is supposed to be politically sensitive, you're not supposed to bring it up if you don't have to. And when asked a very general question about what kind of Supreme Court justices he would want to appoint, Barack identified that decision as one of the examples of bad judicial craftmanship that he would seek to undo with his Supreme Court appointments.
One of Barack's early accomplishments in the Illinois state legislature was in welfare reform. In 1996, of course, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Welfare Reform Act, which as he boldly pronounced, ended welfare as we knew it. Well one of the things that often gets missed in that discussion of welfare reform is that poverty is a women's issue. The people in this country who are disproportionately poor and suffer from the effects of poverty are women. And right after Barack was, I mean the first session that Barack joined the Illinois state legislature, was in the wake of the Welfare Reform Act, and the legislature had to address the question, "how are we going to administer this welfare system which is now a state responsibility," and Barack was instrumental in putting into place reforms that would deal with problems of transportation, deal with problems of provision of services, that were the real obstacles for the poor and low income folks in Illinois to be able to continue having stable and healthy lives. Women were the primary beneficiaries of that.
JB: I was just gonna ask if Senator Obama had any women in key positions working in his campaign?
TW: Well sure. The chief of fund raising for the entire campaign is a formidable woman by the name of Penny Pritzger. Barack's chief advisor, I mean the person who travels with him constantly, his closest confidante, I think it's fair to say, is an extraordinary force of nature by the name of Valerie Jarrett. The head of domestic policy for his entire campaign is a woman by the name of Heather H.(not sure of the spelling) The head of legal policy for his campaign is a talented young woman by the name of Danielle Gray. There are women up and down the campaign, left and right in the campaign. It is, it is, a campaign that is driven by both sexes.
JB: Clearly Barack has done alot to defend women in his own state, but we have some users who want to know how he would protect women in other countries, if that is appropriate, which I think it is, for the President of the United States.
MINNIE ZLATA asks.."Genital mutilation and systematic rape, beating and even murder are used in some countries to control and humiliate women. Would Obama write and support legislation that would grant asylum to women whose lives are threatened with this type of gender related violence in their own countries?"
TW: Mm hm. There is a treaty, called the Convention for the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women...CEDAW, and CEDAW is a treaty that has been signed into law by almost every industrialized nation and many non industrialized nations, probably every industrialized nation and many non industrialized nations around the world. I think the number of signatories to this treaty is in the 130-40 range, maybe even more. The United States has not ratified that treaty, and it is one among many examples of the United States being well behind in the role that we should be playing as leaders of human rights in the international field as well as at home. Barack has long since called for the ratification of CEDAW by the United States, and actually renewed that call as recently as I think earlier this week.
JB: What is the excuse given for not ratifying it?
TW: Well, the United States seems to have a troubled relationship with international obligations up and down the line.
JB: If they don't involve oil.
TW: If they don't involve oil, thats right. I don't know the answer to that, but what I do know is that on the issues of the trafficking of women, on issues of setting an example for eliminating forms of discrimination internationally, on the issue of genocide and the practices of genocide, which systematic rape can very much be, Barack has been a leader both in the statements he makes and the positions he takes.
Thanks for the Transcription
Again, on the welfare reform issue. Those incentives were established by the federal government. Unless there's something wildly unusual, a freshman senator can do very little but vote in favor of a bill (that needed to get passed to get federal funds anyway). As a political move, Barak may have asked his name be included in the list of sponsors on the bill. Making a statement afterward that poverty mostly affects women has little to do with putting laws into place that meet federal requirements.
BTW, one of the federally required services was federally-funded child care for parents (mostly women) who took jobs (mostly minimum wage, mostly not enough to get them off welfare entirely). Once federally funded child care benefits ran out, the women could not keep their jobs because they no longer had anyone to care for their children. The cost of child care for a child under 2 at that time was approximately $900 a month. AND, the whole point of welfare reform was to place a life time limit (2 years) on how long a family could receive welfare. These incentives were intended to get poor people (mostly women) jobs that would keep them from being completely cut off. ALL of this was federal law. States had to pass laws to implement it if they wanted federal money.
Some of the barriers to getting and keeping jobs that could support families were a lack of education, substance abuse, developmental disabilities, mental and emotional illness, and an inability to navigate the working world simply because of a lack of experience. The people on welfare (mostly moms) who were successful were those who were determined, faced their fears, took advantage of education and training opportunities and got jobs that provided advancement. Many of them had school-aged children or extended family members to look after their children while they worked.
I doubt that any politician could take credit for that. Let's give the credit to the women who faced their obstacles and succeeded.
Lezbeth
TRANSCRIPTION
Thank you SO MUCH , Susannah,for this transcription !!!it helps !! Thank you , Jennifer too !! It's very interesting , even if I'm French ,I'm ,interested!! I just voted , to day ,in France ( municipal elections ) !! I'm not proud of our "president"!!! it's a shame for our country !!It's a VERY good idea to dicuss here . We can undesrtand more things than watching T.V. Thank you to OurChart ! It's really OUR chart !!
Geneviève
Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to do this. It helps me so much.
me again
The second part of the second video is transcribed and posted there. I am working on video 3 now. I apologize for the length of time it took me to finish video 2.
I don't think I like the title WAKE UP for the political discussion thread. It implies IMO that people here are unawake, and oblivious to these issues, and nothing could be farther from the truth. I think the title is disrespectful to the level of knowledge and depth of points of view here. I personally am not all about the "cute" little titles of the different blogs, but this one is way off.
Really, I don't find a
Really, I don't find a problem with 'Wake Up', it doesn't necessarily imply people are not awake, but that they don't have a full grasp on some of the issues out there. Or no knowledge on some of the issues.
For example, who could say there were aware that an employee of Delta airlines is someone who is better suited to life in the 40's?
Speak Up, Rise Up
Dear Susannah,
Thank you so much for finishing the transcript for Video #2; and for doing all of this one. Wow, right on. I had to zip out of town this week, but I'll help with the next one.
Also, I agree with you that "Wake Up" doesn't fit the current political mood and is actually belied by Jennifer's first missive which started out by saying how OurChart has noticed how engaged and passionate the OurChart community is. "Act Up" is already taken, but "Speak Up" would be a good alternative and "Rise Up" would be even better if OurChart wants to go a little insurgent.
Love and Light,
Melanie
Rise Up
Rise Up! I like that one, it's more inspiring!!
Enjoy Life, Pursue Peace
Stand Up ...
... would be good, too.
Just a thought.
Yvonne,
You and I don't disagree at all, and I think that your post was right on, beautifully stated. In referring to Christianity as the Church, I just was trying to point out that those who oppose the separation of church and state seem to follow the CHURCH, are told what to think, who to hate and so on, and so we are back to the corrupt, hypocritical "religious" leaders, neither religious or leaders, in my opinion, and certainly not loving and tolerant. Not true Christianity at all IMO.
Yes you are perfectly right,
Yes you are perfectly right, thank you for clarifying and thank you for your post.
--------------------------------
Reciprocity in love, until unity is built. Chiara Lubich R.I.P.
Iraq
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/#bring-home
If you haven't been to this website I highly recommend it...I am hoping to keep my son out of Iraq and wanted to share this.
Wake Up - Aufwachen!
Wait a minute.. is this section really entitled "wake up!" just like the old Nazi slogan "Aufwachen!" ???
O, please let me escape to my dreams...!
I do NOT understand why
I do NOT understand why people still think that governmental policy should follow "what the Bible says" and I put that very loosely. When it comes to government, it doesn't and shouldn't matter what the Bible says. We aren't a theocracy, we are not ruled by priests or ministers, and I don't get why people don't understand this, but again and again and again we hear the argument opposing gay marriage..because the Bible says.. I know also that Christians think the Godlessness in our government is the downfall of our society, especially from us pesky gays and lesbians..hey we gotta have some fun!
Even if we were a theocracy, whose Bible would we use? There are differences in dogma even among Christians. Personally, just thinking about the days in Old Europe where the peasants were ruled and controlled by the Church, where they were brainwashed, victimized, exiled, killed, where the priests were just as corrupt and into power as the ruling classes, I am just as glad we aren't.
There's a Difference
Between living in a Theocracy and living where evangelical churches are organized into a vocal and powerful voting block. Once the "Moral Majority" got it going, interpretations of the constitution and the Bible have both been used to make public policy...and the constitution largely overlooked in passing the Patriot Act. I agree that Love is the spiritual essence of what most people believe they believe. Many of the people who push the US leaders to act like Theocrats say they love the sinner, hate the sin, and "don't agree with homosexuality." Hmmm...I'm still trying to figure out what that means. Unfortunately, the right-wing conservative voting block in the US has taken on the "Christian" label, so we queers are politically disagreeable.
Lezbeth
Susannah
I'm going to risk and post a reply.
You are certainly right about the history part of the Church, the corruption, brainwashing etc.. But you see this is were we disagree you and I, for me the Church isn't some priest hired and paid to do a job of holding a mass every Sunday at the local building which happens to be decorated with crosses and called a Church, for me Christianity and the bible are a life style, an ultimate ideal that needs a lifetime of continual exercise to even get close to its meaning.
I do not need honkers to come dictate me Christianity so they can get all the power and manipulation later on. In my humble opinion, it is you and me who are the church, when we live to love -which is the essential of the bible and I'm pretty sure you are aware of how HUGE the word love is- when we live to love we live the bible, call it whatever you want and be whatever you want, you can be Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or don't believe in God; it's perfectly fine if you believe in love, this is all we need.
Yet instead we get all the hate from some political beneficents who pretend to understand Christianity better than us and then we believe them then hate them, worse, we hate the spirituality.
Christianity doesn't oppose anything, everyone is free to do what they want as long as they are aware of it and its consequences on the others.
Lastely, and sorry for the long post, I do think that separation between the state and religion is mandatory, especially for countries of such diversity as the U.S. and whomever says differently isn't certainly any 'christian' why do you call them Christians? that's even insulting, they are just some politicians trying to feed people's ignorance and fear, hoping for a better income next month. none of these liars live as the bible says, or else we'd be living heaven on earth a long time ago.
Peace
--------------------------------
Reciprocity in love, until unity is built. Chiara Lubich R.I.P.
I do not need honkers to
I do not need honkers to come dictate me Christianity so they can get all the power and manipulation later on. In my humble opinion, it is you and me who are the church...
Yes, the people is the church. It's the body. The thing is. this government was made and written into being by not the ordinary Christians. It was written by Christians w/ a Deitists type of belief.
click here
History tells us that "dissenters" from England, who wanted to be not controlled by the church, came here. There was a massive movement back then, reformation of "the church" was dramatic. What most don't know, is that Deism was a major movement of the dissenters coming here to "the colonies", as well as the Puritans. Religious freedom was sought, because Deism way of thinking was persecuted. Puritans came here because the "England Church" was not strict enough. And everyone else who just wanted to be free from being under a "religious" rule.
click here
The thing is, word got out about people coming to seek religious freedom, and with it, MANY people came with many different beliefs. And because of that, the fore fathers designed our building blocks to exclude religion and to include humanness - which by the way, is quite funny since time has passed on certain people have inched "god" into our government, and humanness has since retired from residing over the government.
There were many people who came here, who believed in "the church" and England - they were called "Loyalist".
I have to say. I was watching the History channel last night or Saturday morning (I have no clue - I've been up too long) and I started thinking, "my god, our government looks very much like England - except our president is "the king". Which had me thinking. The more we, the American people, have allowed a particular religion to sneak into our books of government, the more we have started to look like a colony again.
The main point is our government was not built by today's "Christian" and some how we need to remove any religion from it, to stay a secular state and to bring humanness back to our government.
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog
Yes, the people is the
Yes, the people is the church. It's the body. The thing is. this government was made and written into being by not the ordinary Christians. It was written by Christians w/ a Deitists type of belief.
Thank you for the information, this was something new and interesting to know about.
The main point is our government was not built by today's "Christian" and some how we need to remove any religion from it, to stay a secular state and to bring humanness back to our government
I agree on removing any religion from the political system, but not removing Christianity from society, from ordinary people who just want to live as christians. Humanness is a form of love or compassion as well as Christianity, thus Christianity is a form of Humanness and vice versa, of course this is all well misinterpreted by almost everyone and almost everyone criticizes Christianity, the media is doing heavy brainwashing 24/7 all over the world. why? because egoism is the main idea and Christianity isn't.
Thus they convert Christianity into a kind of egoism and hate then promote that by 'Christian' players, at the same time they criticize it for being what it is.
Take some time to surf through This as an example of how I want to live christianity, it's how a part of humanity percieves an ideal economy. And they are putting it into action as you can see. This is a protoype in a certain domain.
--------------------------------
Reciprocity in love, until unity is built. Chiara Lubich R.I.P.
Thanks, Yvonne
I wouldn't want to remove any religion from society - some practices (maybe - if it means crossing the personal boundary barriers, ie - murder, mutilation, forces against will - enforcing beliefs [debates are different] - anything that forces people to physically do harm to their self or one another). Religion is sooo personal. I would never want to remove it from society - it's interwoven.
It's shaped and reshaped (and reshaped some more) our very existence. I was raised Christian - in fact Lutheran. I was fascinated by the whole thing, but questioned everything about it. The history is what got me. And thus it made me go on my own journey - spiritually. taking a step back and seeing how it shapes our very lives as a human race - indecently from one another as well as a whole - is fascinating (to me at least). the whole evolution of our interaction is traced through religions that have risen as cults, became accepted as being called a "true" belief and then falter into mythology.
I feel the human race is incapable of separating a religion from it's people - and I would never ask of it - that is why it is imperative to keep the United States government secular and keep as much of any hierarchy religion out.
Christianity is a small part of being a human - because the fact it is only one kind of religion (belief systems) over many...
And the most important aspect within MOST religions, is that humanness lives - and that is why it is so hard to realize - we can't just have one religion, but we can connect through the humanness side.
I could care less what religion my neighbors are, as long as we both have the humanness respect...I don't want a society governed by any one religion. It's good to have religious organizations helping and reaching, it's another when they start building an empire within (Ahhhheeeemmmmscientology) - the thing is, when you raise that right hand and swear in, you check your personal belief system at the door...
Humanness resides in MANY group religions - many group religions fail to see that - because humanness is singular - person to person basis, group religion is plural - solely because of group - and thus usually rejects unlikeness.
Benj. Franklin question weather he believed in god - he was a science man - a freethinker, but he has stated that most of society's laws are transparent from Christian laws - which most of them are basic human respect for one another. And he said that it was a good thing. And that was the later 1700's.
rovermom :)
Life is a 3D puzzle and everyone has a piece!
NEW! OurChart Photo Assignment and My Blog
Great Post Rovermom
Lezbeth
Thanks, Lezbeth :) rovermom