This morning, as is occasionally my wont, I called Stephanie's show so that I could respond to the two right-wing callers that she had on during the bottom of the 6am hour. After chatting with Becks for a few minutes (gawd I love that gal!), I held on 'till I had to hang up. Being on the Stephanie Miller show is fun, but as of yet it doesn't pay; teaching high school does. I had to drop the line to go to work.
The first caller I had wanted to respond to was a woman who rapidly became unhinged as she berated Stephanie for bashing first Hillary, and then Palin. The point I was going to make is that while we still work for gender parity in this country, while women still on average make .77 the dollars that men in equivalent positions to, that is not an excuse to scream "sexism!" every time someone takes issue with a female politician's stance. I respected Hillary enough to appreciate her achievements and disagree with her viewpoints. Gender has never had aught to do with it. I respected her enough as a woman to disregard her gender as a candidate.
Then we get to right wing tool caller #2: This guy comes on and declares that he's a pro-choice evangelical, and that's why he's voting for Sarah Palin. Now, it's his right as an American to vote under any premise he chooses, but to suggest that Sarah Palin is a woman's candidate because she is female merely continues the disparaging monolithic thinking that keeps women back. I get very nervous when people start talking about Jesus Christ and the government- there are lots of passages that our Founding Fathers wrote that discourage this kind of theocratic thinking.
"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."
Since there shall be no law respecting the establishment of a religion, I cast a weary eye at Americans who choose their candidate on the basis of shared faith. I find it tiresome, and short-sighted. I find it foolish, and against the interest of the American people's business of government.
So did, apparently, the Founding Fathers (from Article VI of the Constitution):
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Should we make Sarah Palin and her tribe of glazed-over freaks write this on the blackboard a thousand times?