Polianiac

Mission Statement of The Family Research Council

“Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.”

Honestly, until this weekend, I had never read the Mission Statement for Dobson’s Family Research Council. I will admit I find it politically amazing. (Please note the “small p” political.) Why is that important you might ask…  From my chair, it is important because the small “p” always informs the capital “P” Political in a democratic (?) society.

I have a couple of questions about this mission statement:

How do we get from “shapes public debate” to “formulates public policy”?

Where does a “politically constituted regime” (in the Classical sense) fit into this schema, other than within a theocratic construction?

Since when is the “public sphere” and “the private sphere” conflated within a Gestalt that ignores the United States Constitution?

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified: 12/15/1791.

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. (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Preamble)

I realize one usual argument in favor of this “world view” is that FRC is not advocating for an established “Religion”. Please note: “religion” in the Constitution is written as a lower case “r” in anticipation of this very eventuality. I have a hard time reconciling “Judeo-Christian” as any-thing other than “established religion”.

How would this worldview inform all policy as to how we engage with “others”, (those who freely choose to not hold with this one “worldview”) particularly “others” who are national citizens of this country founded as the United States of America and “others” around the globe?

Enlighten me please…

1983 was a watershed year for “Us”. “Us” represents my inner circle of friends, those people who daily share life’s ups and downs, trials and tribulations, victories and defeats… 1983 was the year we all got pregnant. It was also a time when something loomed large on our horizon. We did not know what it was and it did not have a name. All we knew was it was bad and many people were dying. It seemed to be connected with blood and the blood supply. Oh, there were rumors about a “gay plague”; or some other God-sent curse on mankind. To “us” those types of ideas were idiotic, reflecting some fundamentalism that was not relevant to our lives, our projects, and certainly not our religious practices—which at the time was known as Wesleyan.  

The point is, we were pregnant; and we were not going to take any chances. Our doctors thought we were paranoid, hormonal maniacs; yet that did not deter us. We did our own research and became convinced we needed a plan. If something happened, throughout these pregnancies, what could we do to protect ourselves and the precious babies we carried? We came up with a plan to form our own “blood donor group”. We paid for individual blood testing and cross-matching. Two of us were O-negatives; greatly aiding our cause. Together we formed a circle. 

We sat in the hospital waiting rooms, sweating out each and every birth. Our doctors knew of the plan, and reluctantly supported this first (and certainly not final) act of over-protection. We were all blessed as the plan was never called into practice.  

Those days seem like an eternity ago. Those babies are all in their mid-twenties now. Yet, today, AIDS still haunts the lives of millions. The history of AIDS in this country is important. It is important because of the lesson it teaches about society in denial. My children were four years old before President Reagan actually spoke the word “AIDS” (1987).  

If you have not read Randy Shilts’ (2000) book And the Band Played On  you should. It is a well documented story of us, and a history that must never be repeated.

From HBO’s  And the Band Played On:

Troy Anthony Davis has become a familiar name to my family. We are each involved on various levels. We have slowly learned the saga that has played out in the State of Georgia since 1989. The family members, the family’s story, the heart of a man who has spent his whole adult life on Georgia’s Death Row.

I don’t have the background to explain how this case ever got this far. From a legal standpoint, all I know is there was never any physical evidence against Troy Davis. There was no weapon or DNA-type evidence… Troy Davis was there, in a public place, along with many other Savannah residents the night Officer MacPhail was killed. The officer was white and the shooter was black—on that point everyone agrees.  Troy Anthony Davis was not the only black male present that night.  There is another, who allegedly has confessed that he was the one who killed the officer. This is all in the public record…

This case has drawn a huge amount of international attention, due to the legal questions that remain unanswered.  When is reasonable doubt a factor? The majority of the evidence presented in the 1991 trial against Davis is now questionable at best. Seven of nine prosecutorial witnesses have recanted their testimony; raising the question of reasonable doubt: Would a jury today, without benefit of the original seven witnesses who have recanted their testimony, be inclined to repeat the 1991 jury’s finding?

Human Rights groups, a former president, a current candidate for President (Barr), along with thousands of citizens have pleaded to stop the execution of this man. Last night, two hours before he was scheduled to die, The Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision, voted to stay the execution.  Hopefully, through this stay, we will find the answers to questions that concern us all—even if we do not care to be concerned.

This morning, I find it compelling that within the span of five minutes, I received two very different perspectives on Racism in America via electronic media.

First was the much debunked “Atta-Boy Andy Rooney” fake rant that has been circulating the Internet since 2003.  As Snopes.com appropriately points out, Mr. Rooney has denied and disavowed the email and its contents. Too bad good Americans are not willing to take him at his word; but perpetuate thus validate, this vile piece of garbage. My question is: how do you define “complicit”? When one forwards this garbage, does one not take ownership of personal complicit-ness toward the advance of Racism in America? There are two striking points in this particular email that really caught my eye: “When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population of black, that is not racial profiling; it is the Law of Probability.” Interesting how empirical science just got used to justify a racial bias e.g. it is not Bias; it is Science.

It goes on, “I know a lot of black people, and not a single one of them was born in Africa; so how can they be African-American? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don’t go around saying I am a European-American… I am proud to be from America…”

1. The label African-American is a demographic label, placed upon a group of people in order to designate separate groups in demographic studies. There is a case here for inherent divisiveness in quantitative research within the social sciences.

2. Actually, European American is exactly the label du jour for Caucasians.

3. To the point “Africa is a continent”: SO IS NORTH AMERICA! Does it not bother anyone that the citizenry of the United States acts justified and entitled in appropriating the term “American”?

Then the second email: Had I seen the newly released AP/Yahoo News/Stanford University Study on Racial Views conducted August 27-September 5, 2008? This about finished me off…A couple of quick points: The AP summarizes the findings to include, “…40% of all white Americans hold at least a partly negative view toward blacks, and that includes many Democrats and independents.” Coupled with, “The survey broke ground by incorporating images of black and white faces to measure implicit racial attitudes, or prejudices that are so deeply rooted that people may not realize they have them. That test suggested the incidence of racial prejudice is even higher, with more than half of white revealing more negative feelings toward blacks than white.”

As I scanned the actual PDF of findings and saw that 14% of the 2, 227 survey participants identified Barack Obama’s religion as Muslim (p.14); I had to ask, “When do we say, Enough!”?

UPDATE: Whose Values are These?