Thursday Mashup (7/23/09)

Yep, not a lot going on again today, but I just wanted to get to some items.

As noted here, the “Looney Thune” gun amendment was defeated – barely - in the U.S. Senate yesterday by a vote of 58-39.

As a nested Thing Progress post tells us…

This amendment would, in effect, mean that states with the weakest laws will set the law for all other states. In so doing, it would strip each state’s power to enact its own public safety laws. For instance, 31 states currently prohibit “habitual drunkards” from carrying guns. The Thune amendment would render these provisions useless.

And as the New York Times tells us today (from here)…

“Lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York and a leading opponent of the amendment, said in a statement. “The passage of this amendment would have done more to threaten the safety of New Yorkers than anything since the repeal of the assault weapons ban.”

…

Senator David Vitter, Republican of Louisiana, said the provision would not undermine local laws. He quoted a letter from a constituent who said she felt safer carrying her concealed weapon when she went out at night with her family.

Fine, lady – if you want to carry a piece while shopping with your kids at the mall…well, I think you’re nuts, but just don’t do it in PA (call me a “states rights” liberal on this one…and I hope it goes without saying that I don’t believe “Diaper Dave” Vitter for one minute).

Also, as long as I’m posting on this, I would like to express my thanks to Repug Senators Richard Lugar and the departing George Voinovich for doing the right thing.

The Times story also tells us the following…

In May, Congress approved a measure that let gun owners with proper permits carry their loaded and concealed weapons in national parks. And Mr. Thune, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, and other pro-gun lawmakers had said they intended to bring more provisions seeking to expand gun rights to the Senate floor this year.

By the way, I’m sure Coburn isn’t a member of the AMA (haven’t been able to determine that), since that organization, to its credit, favors common sense gun control measures.

And before I depart from this topic, I just want to reiterate something I said previously.

I would ask that you take a look at this photo of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter leading a funeral procession for Office John Pawlowski last February. It is a stirring image of Philadelphia’s finest.

The next time a gun control measure is introduced in Harrisburg, that is exactly what I want our senators and representatives to see as they deliberate over it before they vote. If they defeat it, they should know that they will have to explain why to those who risk their lives for us every day.

And it wouldn’t hurt for medical personnel in their “scrubs” to be part of that also (I know it’s a bit much to ask them to do more than the great work they do already, but they can make a hell of a lot more of an impact on this issue by their mere presence than I can).

Update 7/24/09: The NRA sure keeps interesting company, doesn't it?

Repug political strategist Doug Heye posted here on 42 congress- ional Democrats who he believes will scuttle the nascent health care legislation currently winding its way through Congress (with a vote scheduled for September as of now, according to this item – looks like the entire inglorious “Bush Dog” cadre in Heye's post minus, to his credit, Patrick Murphy).

I wanted to pass on this at first because Heye and his ilk can regurgitate this stuff faster than I can ever answer it, but one name of this list stood out, and that is Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina.

This story last week from MSNBC tells us the following…

Also at (a Congressional Dem-sponsored health care) press conference, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer argued that health-care reform is a moral issue. "Reforming health care is an economic imperative, a budget imperative and a moral imperative."

Both Hoyer and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn attempted to play down the talk of deep divisions within the Democratic Party over health care. Many recent reports from Capitol Hill have suggested that Blue Dog Democrats are apprehensive about a health-care bill that will dramatically increase spending. In response, Hoyer stated, "I think, to a person, Blue Dogs believe that we need to pass and they want to support health-care reform."

"I think that where we are is a pretty good place with all of this," Clyburn said. "We are much, much, much better off today than we were of Thursday last week."

Maybe Heye had better make that number 41, or possibly lower (and it might do Repug Minority Whip Eric Cantor – the guy who supplied this stuff to Heye – some good to take a lesson or two in remedial math).

Finally, R. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary tells us the following on the pages of the WaPo today (here), in the matter of President Carter’s recent decision to sever ties with the Southern Baptist Convention, issuing the following statement to that effect: "The justification of discrimination against women and girls on grounds of religion or tradition, as if it were prescribed by a Higher Authority, is unacceptable" (I should note that President Carter, in so doing, cited as his main authority the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948).

Here is some of Mohler’s response…

All this fits a pattern for which Mr. Carter is now well known. He simply rejects the texts in the Bible that clearly establish different roles for men and women in the church and the home. He dismisses these verses for the simple reason that he also rejects the inerrancy of the Bible.

He may well be the world's most famous Sunday School teacher, but over just the last several years he has publicly expressed his rejection of the belief that persons must come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in order to be saved. He has also stated that his faith would not be shaken if Jesus did not perform some of the miracles attributed to him in the New Testament. His denial of biblical inerrancy is not merely theoretical -- he actually operates on the assumption that at least some texts of the Bible are false, untruthful, malignantly oppressive, and thus untrustworthy.

President Carter actually makes no argument for women as pastors. He simply dismisses out of hand what the Christian church has believed for centuries -- and what the vast majority of Christians around the world believe even now. His argument should embarrass any serious person who considers this question, for it is grounded in little more than his own sense of how things ought to be. He makes claims about the Bible that are reckless and irresponsible and historical claims that would make any credible church historian blush. He straightforwardly rejects what he admits some texts of the Bible teach.

So, assuming Mohler's claims can be taken at face value, it looks like he is favoring as literal an interpretation of the Bible here as he can concoct for the purpose of subjugation by gender. And I don’t know what the issue of women as pastors has to do with any of this (important, though not for this discussion I believe).

And for the record, here is a link to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which the equal rights of men and women are noted in both the Preamble and Article 16 (you can argue with whether or not it applies directly to any organized religion, but I think such an association, if not directly expressed, is at leas implied here…it should also be noted that the person who played the most important role in bringing this wonderful document to fruition was none other than Eleanor Roosevelt, who I’m sure would side with President Carter in this matter).

And as far as Mohler is concerned, this Wikipedia article tells us that he has said that “any belief system, any world view, whether it's Zen Buddhism or Hinduism or dialectical materialism for that matter, Marxism, that keeps persons captive and keeps them from coming to faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, yes, is a demonstration of Satanic power."

Oh, and did I mention that he also encouraged the “evangelization” of Iraqis in May 2003, called Catholicism a “false church,” and encouraged a prenatal treatment to reverse (a baby’s) sexual orientation to heterosexual (if it) is ever developed” (Wikipedia tells us that Mohler was "frustrated by the public response to his statement"...I'm sure he was).

I firmly believe that President Carter exemplifies a character more closely associated with a faith and spirituality I recognize and try to practice (imperfectly, I know) more than any other figure in public life. And I applaud his decision to leave the Convention for the reasons he has stated.

And as far as Mohler is concerned, he doesn’t have a prayer.