Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Great Women In American History

When I first started this blog, I had visions of grandeur of posting every week. Ha! Unfortunately, kids, my volunteer work, packing to move nearly 800 miles from our current home, and trying to buy our first house have held me up just a little bit. Thankfully, all of that should be winding down within the next 4-6 weeks or so and then maybe I can get back to doing what I love: writing…regardless of whether or not people read, let alone care, about what I have to say. When I first came up with the idea for this post it was March, which is Women’s History month. Since I consider myself a feminist, I thought it appropriate to dedicate this post to the celebration of great women in our country’s history. I realize that it is now July, but I think these women deserve more than just one month a year anyway.
I have selected three women from the 18th, 19th, and 20th, whom I hope to honor and revere due to their inspirational words and actions. Although considered radical by many in their day, they are now viewed important people that helped to pave the way for women’s and racial liberation. I do not pretend to have a vast knowledge of all women throughout all of our nation’s history and so I will not state that I believe these women to be the greatest of their respective centuries. But I believe their impact on others as well as their desire to make a difference to be a great one worth remembering.

18th Century-Born on November 11, 1744 to William and Elizabeth Smith, Abigail Adams was educated within the home she grew up in. Girls in the 18th century did not attend school like boys did, an advantage that Abigail would come to advocate for as she became an adult. She married John Adams (who would later become a Founding Father of the United States as well as the second President) at nineteen years of age.

Due to John Adams’ political involvement throughout the later years of the 18th Century, the couple was often separated. During these times, they would regularly exchange letters with each. These letters were full of the news from home, political developments, and many times from Abigail, an urgent encouragement for her husband and the other men to grant women more rights. They were allowed to inherit land from their father however, when a woman married, her property became her husband’s and she no longer had any legal say in what was done with it. In reference to these injustices, Abigail wrote to her husband, “…I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.” (2)

When her husband became President in 1797, Abigail continued to use her voice and began writing letters to the editor to be published in newspapers in various parts of the country. Because women were not generally involved in political matters, there were many who thought Abigail to be outspoken and some deemed her too old (at only fifty-two!) to understand the current issues while others even referred to her as “Mrs. President.” When her husband lost his re-election campaign to their good friend (and vice-president) Thomas Jefferson, the relationship became estranged from many years. The men only reconciled their differences and began corresponding again after Abigail first reached out to Jefferson after the death of one of his children. Also noteworthy is the fact that the couple owned no slaves and was not shy in sharing their belief that the practice should be abolished altogether. (1)

19th Century-Harriet Beecher Stowe, born on June 14, 1811 was the sixth child of an eventual eleven, in a family that was highly influential. The father of the family was a minister and the president of a Seminary, all seven of Harriet’s brothers also became ministers, one of her sisters pushed for further education of women, and another sister helped found the National Women’s Suffrage Association. Equally as important, Harriet Beecher Stowe had a gift for writing and when feeling powerless, a family member encouraged her to use that gift to “make this whole nation feel what an accursed thing slavery is.” Inspired, Stowe chose to use her words to entice change and in 1951, she was able to do exactly that with Uncle Tom’s Cabin. At first, Stowe’s novel was published one chapter at a time in a local anti-slavery newspaper but in only a year, it became so popular that it was published in two volumes, would go on to be translated into sixty languages, and be a bestseller in numerous countries including the United States and Great Britain. Drawing on first-hand accounts from escaped slaves, Uncle Tom’s Cabin brought to life the constant fear that slaves lived in with the ability to be sold at the whim of their master, the heartbreak within slave families when they were separated, the dangers that runaways faced, and the cruelly inhumane punishments that slaves were often delivered for minor infractions (3).

Due to its casual style, Uncle Tom’s Cabin had a way of personalizing slavery to the average reader, whereas before most people had only viewed slavery as a simple economic practice to be deemed moral or immoral. But Stowe helped her readers to empathize with the characters of her novel, thus helping them to see that slavery was much more than that, as it had a profound effect on the families that it encompassed. Legend says that when Abraham Lincoln met Stowe in 1962, he greeted her with a teasing smile and called her the little lady that started the war.

20th Century- Though most of us have been led to believe that the reason Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat on December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama was because she was tired from a long day at work, Parks would later explain that when she told the bus driver she was tired, she actually meant that she was tired of being treated unfairly. Growing up in a household where Parks and her mother lived with her grandparents who were both former slaves, Parks could remember hearing the Ku Klux Klan march throughout their neighborhood at night while her grandfather stood outside armed with a shotgun for protection. Parks attended segregated schools, watching as the white children in her town rode to school on brand new buses and sat in a brand new building while she and her black schoolmates sat in a one room schoolhouse, sometimes without even enough desks for all of the children to sit in (4).

The refusal to stand may have seemed like a minor infraction at the time (Parks was found guilty of violating a local ordinance only a week later and fined $10, along with a $4 court fee) it acted as a catalyst for major changes. A few days before Parks’ trial, a boycott of the Montgomery Bus system was held and African-American riders were encouraged to stay home from work, walk, carpool, or take a taxi. While the boycott was widely participated in, many felt that it would be more effective if it were a long-term boycott. Appointed to be in charge of this boycott was the new Baptist minister in town: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Civil rights activists of the time viewed Parks’ experience as an opportunity to inspire change and that while goal was accomplished, it took over a year for the bus regulations to change. The transit system was severely wounded from the boycott, with an estimated 40,000 of its regular riders refusing to ride (4).

Efforts were made to fight back against the boycotters with the insurance of the taxi company that most blacks used was canceled, and both Parks and her husband lost their jobs. Unable to find work, the couple was forced to leave Alabama (4).

The single act of refusing to give up her seat on the bus quickly became a symbol of equality all over the country and is still admired today. It inspired thousands not only in the immediate aftermath, but for years to come as Civil Rights were vigorously fought for (4).

Each of these women, harassed and criticized for their bold positions and their refusal to back away from them, helped to shape and civil liberties (including gender and race) into what they are today. As we are all aware, even today we are still up against political leaders who feel they have the right to limit the rights of various groups including women and homosexuals (a different post for a different time I suppose). As we fight against this current destruction of liberty, may we all find inspiration and courage from the valiant women who came before us.




Thursday, March 22, 2012

Ignoring Sex Education

Thanks to a petition of over 40,000 signatures, endless emails, persistent phone calls, the Utah PTA, Utah Education Association, Alliance for a Better Utah, and a rally held at the state capitol, Governor Gary Herbert vetoed House Bill 363 on Friday, March 16, 2012. (1)
The governor then tweeted his decision: “I just vetoed HB363. I cannot sign a bill that deprives parents of their choice.”
In February, the Utah State Legislature passed House Bill 363 (chief sponsor: Bill Wright) which is an ill attempt for the state to wash its hands of properly teaching its students sexual education. This bill would have allowed school boards to adopt a sexual education curriculum that taught abstinence till marriage as “the only sure method” for protection from STDs. Within the new curriculum, this bill also made it illegal for educators to discuss “the intricacies of intercourse, sexual stimulation, erotic behavior…homosexuality…contraceptive methods or devices or…sexual activity outside of marriage.” Questions posed by students regarding any of the subjects mentioned would have to go unanswered unless the instructor could answer in a way that promoted abstinence. If parents sought materials through the school to assist in the sexual education of their children, the only recommendations that would be allowed to be given would be abstinence only materials and the state’s Department of Health would be required to assist the State Board of Education in these efforts. (2)
In a perfect world, sex education should not even have to be included in our public school educational system. This type of education is so personal and obviously ideas on the correct way to teach it vary so widely that it should be done in the home. Parents should be the ones to take responsibility for teaching their children about intimacy and reproduction, and when this is done, teens can be taught with the morals and values that the parents desire to be followed.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Far too many parents shy away from addressing any difficult topics with their children and teens simply because it makes them uncomfortable, while others decide that they will only answer the questions their children have the courage to ask. These strategies are dangerous because most teens will not be content to remain ignorant. And when topics regarding sex are ignored by their parents, teens will turn to their friends and various media outlets, including the internet to answer their questions.

Because of these negligent parents, educators are saddled with the responsibility of teaching children and teens about sexual education and it is left up to our lawmakers to help regulate how it is taught. But Utah’s House Bill 363 is far from acceptable. It completely misses the mark on how to teach young adults to be responsible for their actions.
As parents watch their children learn and grow, they know that sometimes all they can do is teach them to make the best choice available but at some point, they must step back and let their children make decisions for themselves. As much as parents wish they could, it is impossible to be with their children all of the time, nor can they make their choices for them. All they can do is provide the best tools available then take a cautious step back.

And so, when children and teens are taught in home and at school about drugs and alcohol, we do not merely say not to do them. We warn students that drugs and alcohol are unhealthy, illegal in some cases, and of the damage they can possibly bring to the individual as well as those they are associated with. We also teach children and teens how to best avoid them, suggest who they might seek out for help if they become addicted to these substances, and even beg them never to drive while under the influence.
This is called providing knowledge. It is not a mixed message, but helps children and teens understand the possible consequences of the various choices they are faced with. Likewise, in regards to sexual education, we must address it the same way.

Teens must be taught that while intimacy is nothing to be ashamed of, it is most appreciated in a relationship where both parties love, respect, trust, and are genuinely committed to each other. But they may not agree nor can we trust them not to give in to impulsiveness, peer pressure, and the overwhelming media messages they receive to engage in sexual activity at a young age. It is our responsibility to educate them with a wide variety of options to protect themselves.
Not only is promoting abstinence as the only way to prevent STDs and pregnancy an outright lie, but it could unintentionally increase the spread of STDs, as well as unwanted pregnancies, due to lack of knowledge and an understanding of "safe sex". One mistake or even several for that matter in a person's teens does not mean that they deserve to carry the stigma of an STD for the rest of their life, but more importantly, we must protect the potential children that are product of these cases. 

Every child deserves to be raised in a home with parents who love and respect each other and have reached a level of adult maturity where they are ready to lovingly welcome a child. It is unfair to invite a child into this world when a couple is not mature enough or unwilling to be devoted parents. We all know that teens who conceive a child together are very unlikely to marry at all and if they do their chances of remaining married are very little. While we should recognize that there are a few exceptions to this generalization, we also must admit that children do not deserve this kind of instability. They are completely innocent and yet they are the ones we place in danger when we decide not to educate our teens completely about sex.
We can wish as much as we want that our teens would abstain from any sexual activity until they are adults capable of dealing with the possible consequences of their actions, but unfortunately, this is not reality. The Utahans, including Governor Herbert, against House Bill 363 understand the gravity within the possible consequences of this bill and realize that it was nothing more than a self-righteous effort to regulate morality.

The Utah Eagle Forum tried to spark conservative outrage in stating that Planned Parenthood and various homosexual rights groups (organizations that the ultra-conservative tend to hate, be afraid of, or blame for any lacking morality within the United States) desired a veto, and that an excessive amount of media attention was being paid to a “bogus” online petition (the same petition that held over 40,000 signatures). Fortunately their desperate cries were in vain as the Governor vetoed it anyway. (3)
There have been rumors circulating about the possibility of a veto-override where lawmakers have the power to overturn the Governor’s decision, but a 2/3 majority is needed from both the house and the senate in order for this to be successful. Based on the way representatives initially voted on the bill, it appears that they would be just shy of a successful override. You can find out how your local representative voted by visiting, http://le.utah.gov/DynaBill/svotes.jsp?voteid=551&house=H&sessionid=2012GS

I sent a quick email to the governor thanking him for vetoing the bill and listening to those that had an opinion on the matter. If you would like to join in and thank the governor for his choice to continue to educate our children properly, you can reach him at, http://governor.utah.gov/goca/form_comment.html
And of course, if you don’t approve of your representative’s decision, don’t be afraid to send them an email as well! And then keep that in mind the next time they are up for re-election. Remember: it’s up to you and only you to make your voice heard when you vote!
1.       www.signon.com
3.       www.sltrib.com

Thursday, March 15, 2012

The Place of Politics in Religion

At the 2011 Values Voter Summit, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association made the claim that all non-Christian churches, and he listed Mormonism specifically, were not protected under the first amendment. (1)

The first fatal flaw in Mr. Fischer’s statement is when he quite ignorantly declares Mormons not to be Christians. The official name of the “Mormon” religion is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. What more must members of this religion say to defend themselves? How any person with a brain can know their proper name and still call them non-Christians is difficult to understand, so we will just assume that Mr. Fischer is completely uninformed of the facts. 

Mr. Fischer’s second mistake is to state that non-Christian religions are not protected under the first amendment. The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Perhaps Mr. Fischer does not realize that the first amendment does not give theological requirements for what qualifies as a religion. Therefore, Catholicism is a religion protected under the first amendment. Methodism is protected. Baptists, Evangelicals, and Mormons are protected. And Hindus, Jews, and Muslims are all protected under the first amendment. 
These attacks, while dramatic as they are desired to be, are currently running rampant throughout the media. Their primary goal is to deface the image of Mitt Romney but Romney is not the only one being brutally condemned.

A poll recently taken in Mississippi (by Public Policy Polling) found that only 12% of those polled believed President Barack Obama to be a Christian. 52% believe him to be a Muslim and 36% said that they were unsure. (2) 

But the fact that falsely informed Americans struggle with trying to decide what religion President Obama belongs to is nothing new. Assaults first surfaced in 2008 via chain email stating that the then Senator and presidential hopeful had been sworn into office on the Quran and would turn his back on the American flag when the Senators would say the Pledge of Allegiance. (3)  

Both of these accusations are blatant lies meant only to scare people into believing the ridiculous notion that President Obama is a closeted terrorist. President Obama was sworn in as a Senator and later as President with his hand on a bible, and he participates in the Pledge of Allegiance respectfully. Disagreeing with a politician is absolutely acceptable; veiled suggestions to people that he might be a terrorist is revolting.

But all of this rhetoric brings to mind a much bigger issue: Why is a candidate’s religion even relevant?

Suddenly, the bulk of America seems to think that only traditional Christians should be allowed in the White House. But sadly, like Mr. Bryan Fischer, these Americans do not realize that under the First Amendment, non-Christians have just as much right as Christians to run for and hold political office. Surely to the disappointment of the religious bigots in our country, there is no as-long-as-they-believe-in-what-we-deem-to-be-the-traditional-version-of-Jesus-Christ provision.

For years, Americans have taken great pride in claiming that our nation was founded by various Christian sects who were desperately seeking religious freedom from intolerant governments. While it is true that some of the very first settlers in America came to be free of the religious tyranny that was being forced upon them, the settlers did not believe in what we what we think of as “religious freedom”. They sought freedom for themselves, but felt no fault when they demonstrated intolerance of others. The settlers did not allow differing religions to flourish side by side in their towns and in fact, William Penn, an early Quaker, was chased out of New Jersey because he promoted religious tolerance of others. (Penn would then go on to found Pennsylvania and promoted not only true religious freedom, but trial by jury, and free elections.)

Many of our founding fathers recognized the problems that were created when religious dominance occurred and fought for religious freedom to be included within the constitution. James Madison, the main writer and often called “the father of the constitution”, (following the lead of philosopher Adam Smith) felt that when religions were allowed to compete with each other freely, not one dominating over the others, protection against religious oppression would be preserved. (4)
But Madison did not just believe in religious freedom out of a benevolent desire to extend fairness to all, he felt that when intermixed, religion and politics were detrimental to each other. On one side, he argued that civic judges were not knowledgeable enough in religious matters to make decisions regarding faith, and on the other hand, he felt that government involvement in religion was insulting since religion continued to exist not only without government support, as well as despite the violent efforts to attempt to stop it. (5)

John Witherspoon, the only signer of the Declaration of Independence who was also a minister, wholeheartedly believed in religious freedom as well. He felt that proclaiming independence from England had nothing to do with religious liberties at all, but everything to do with civil liberties. And he even argued that in order to maintain the freedom to worship, freedom from a tyrannical government was essential. Witherspoon profoundly pointed out that “There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost, and religious liberty preserved…” (5) And if I may be so presumptuous as to point out that the inverse is true as well: When religious liberty is lost, neither are civil liberties protected.

And so if we, wishing to truly act as the proud Americans we boldly claim to be, wish to honor our founder’s intentions and continue to be a country that is tolerant of various religions, we simply cannot accept the majority while discriminating against a select few. When we love our Christian and Jewish neighbors alike, but start questioning the beliefs of our presidential candidates, we become nothing more than hypocrites. When we believe unfounded, vicious rumors or demand proof that our political leaders only believe in a God that meets our standard, we are exercising bigotry, not liberty. The rubric that we grade our potential leaders on ought to include their educational background, foreign policy experience, knowledge of US history and its laws, and demonstration of human decency because these are the skills that have a profound effect on the shaping of America.

1.       www.huffingtonpost.com
2.       www.newsbusters.org
3.       www.msnbc.msn.com
4.       The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert (page 242-243).
5.       The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America by Frank Lambert (page 244).