The Ten Commandments of the Honorable Judge Roy Moore

December 11, 2017


Judge Roy Moore’s love of the Ten Commandments is well documented. Many of a different theological mindset (not to mention those blasphemers amongst the ACLU) have argued against the good judge’s righteous interpretation. However, archeologists recently located his treasured court house fixture and uncovered what arguably might better explain his unwavering, inerrant devotion to the sacred Word of God ordained on those stone tablets, so long ago, i.e. the flip side. Evidently, the Lord Almighty hisself hath giveth Brother Moore an exception or two … or ten. Moses be damned! Indelibly chiseled on the back of his Put-it-up!-Take-it-down!-Put-it-up!-Take-it-down! treasure, are the real and true and never-to-be-questioned Ten Commandments, as divinely spoketh to the good Judge Roy by the Lord:

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.*

* Except a Gun. Three letters, both starting with a capital “G.” All’s Good.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.*

* Unless it’s an American Idol and she’s performing at the town mall. She’ll surely raise the deadest right on up from his grave.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.*

* Cheering for a particular college football team is allowed, e.g. “GOOD GOD, SABAN!!” God understands. God cheers, “Roll Tide!” too. (Exception does not apply to Tiger fans.)

4. Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy.*

* Ignore when you need to schedule campaign events agains the Antichrist, aka Doug Jones. 

5. Honor thy father and thy mother.*

* No exceptions. Not even verbal, emotional, physical, sexual abuse. Father knows best. Always. Amen.

6. Thou shalt not kill.*

* A fetus. Anything else, go for it. Homosexuals, rapists, murderers, Muslims, those pesky black folk… 

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.*

* It ain’t adultery if they’re underage.

8. Thou shalt not steal.*

* Anything but votes. Stealing votes is A-OK. However you can do it, do it.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.*

* See “Antichrist” in Commandment 4. Doug Jones does not live in your neighborhood. He’s a Muslim born in Kenya. They all are.

10. Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor’s.*

* You may covet the Golden Fleece of the 45th President of the United States. Your neighbors, nor your god, will mind.







My New Year’s Wish: Grow Up, America!

December 28, 2011

There’s a trend going around the interwebs, at least around Facebook and Twitter, where people like to create and share images of political candidates (or Ryan Gosling – still at a loss to figure that one out) with quotes about this, that or the other thing attributed to them. They come from the extremes, both right and left, and seem little more to me than cheap name calling. The latest I saw was one that a friend, who I agree with on probably 98.9% of things in life, posted to her FB page. To be fair, I saw it elsewhere too, but hers was the first sighting.

It comes from the author of the blog The Stumbling Block, a site that no doubt get a gazillion hits a day compared to my average of, oh, maybe 3. It’s obvious that this fellow’s ideas are more popular than anything I might venture to state, a fact that in and of itself sort of makes my point (that I’m about to make). First, the image:

Admittedly, Ron Paul says some fairly dangerous, if not downright absurd, things. Whether or not he truly believes the things he says, who knows? But like political candidates of EVERY stripe nowadays, he spouts off some lulus. But here’s the thing about this particular image and the message it carries; a message that I’ve seen fired from both sides at all kinds of candidates, i.e. it is WRONG to change your mind.

Mitt Romney (god help us) has been labeled a flip-flopper for what seems like the past decade. It’s the reason no one is to trust him – because he changes his mind. Same is being said of Ron Paul in this ad (or whatever you call these things). He once said and/or held some totally ludicrous ideas about gay men. Completely unfounded, hateful and inane. Today, he says he holds different thoughts. By this picture though, I’m not supposed to believe that such a change is possible OR, and this is the part that bothers me so much, that if it is possible and he does feel differently, this is a bad thing.

Well hold the phone folks, because I need an explanation for that logic. If people are to never change their minds about something, then why do we have groups with a mission to help people change their minds?! What’s the point of PFLAG or GLAD or the Human Rights Campaign? What’s the point of any civil rights movement if it’s such a bad thing for people to change?

I posed this question on my own FB page and friends shared that it’s the political climate and the candidates themselves. None of these people are to be trusted. No one running for national office says anything out of their own conviction anymore, but simply to appease a particular voting block. Well if this is so, then let’s all simply cut out the whole finger-pointing charade and ginormous money-suck of campaigning and simply turn it all off until that Tuesday in November when we go to the polls. If anyone and everyone lies, then what’s the point of yammering on and on and on?

The other piece of this particular Ron Paul image that tipped the scales for me is this: It’s a quote from a 1994 newsletter. 1994. Seventeen years ago.

In 1994, seventeen years ago, my then new partner and I traveled together to Virginia to visit my (side note: libertarian) brother, sister-in-law and their kids for the first time. Long story short, it was a pretty unfriendly visit and resulted in more than a decade of little to no communication between us. When we did talk or write letters, we all shared things that, I like to think, we all feel pretty ashamed of now. But over those 17 years, we’ve all grown up a bit. Thankfully. We hardly see eye-to-eye on everything, but I don’t believe that today any of us would say and/or feel some of the same things we said and/or felt all of those years ago. We changed. All of us. And it’s a very good thing.

Last week I was also asked if I’d share with a colleague a book that I wrote probably 15 or so years ago. I wrote it when I was an associate minister in a congregational church. I wrote thoughts that I believed, born of experiences that I knew. There is nothing staunchly religious in those words, but I don’t believe the same things the same way today. I’ve lived longer, I’ve experienced more, I was open to change.

That’s hope, if you ask me. We can all change. Granted, not everyone is always going to change the way I wish for them to. Not everyone is going to change in ways I understand. But there’s one thing I’m fairly certain of and that’s that the people who never change in life are those who take us nowhere but down. They ruin relationships, friendships, work environments AND our government. These are exactly the people we do NOT need in charge.

As a lesbian, I don’t know if Ron Paul sticks up for me today. Quite honestly, I don’t care. I live in Massachusetts where we passed same-sex marriage and a state-wide health insurance mandate under Mitt Romney’s watch. Does any of that make any sense? I wonder. But it shows that change can still happen, both to individuals and a greater society, if we just keep open to it. We are collectively bigger than any individual candidate and the myriad of far-wing organizations putting this crap out.

So my New Year’s wish is this… let’s do better, America. Let’s change.

We’re So Sorry, Mr. Webster

September 15, 2011

Stretch your imagination with me for a moment. Imagine that in oh, say Libya, there is a major news magazine that millions of people read each week. Imagine that this week they decided to put on the cover a full-face photo of President Obama. The cover story is an interview with the President in which he calls Moammar Kadafi a murderous dictator. Now imagine that the chief editor of this major news magazine appears on a popular Libyan morning news program to talk about the cover story. When asked about the President’s description of their leader (now former, but stick with the story), the editor says, “Well, President Obama might not define murderous dictator the same way that you and I do, but that’s okay. That’s politics.”

Back to (questionable) reality, this is pretty much what I heard this morning when I caught a few minutes of Morning Joe on MSNBC. Rick Stengel, the Managing Editor of Time Magazine was on to talk about this week’s issue of his magazine, an issue that features an exclusive interview with GOP presidential candidate, Governor Rick Perry (R, Texas). Governor Perry has made a name for himself in the race as one who isn’t afraid to speak his mind. One of these mind bits happens to be that of calling President Obama a socialist. While he’s hardly alone in this (one of the employees of the insurance company across the street from my home drives a car with a bumper sticker declaring the end of socialism will happen in 2012), he has repeated it ad nauseum, beginning well before he entered the GOP race. Carl Bernstein asked Mr. Stengel about this during the program. He asked Mr. Stengel if Governor Perry, in repeating this mantra, was either showing his ignorance or simply pandering to a particular audience. Mr. Stengel’s reply was that the Governor might not define socialism in the same way that Mr. Bernstein does, or even in the way he himself does, but that it ‘s okay because it’s all part and parcel of politics.

And here is the point when I pause and ponder…

Governor Perry majored in animal science at Texas A&M University and so maybe he never took a political science class. It’s quite obvious that Mr. Stengel was never in a position to grade papers for a political science or economics class. Perhaps not even a basic high school government class. I’m imagining again. I’m imagining, in any other setting other than politics, a person being asked to define a quite definable ideology, a quite clear political philosophy and economic system, and answering by saying, “Just look at President Obama.” It is not only ignorant, it’s absurd. And if you did it in school, you’d get a flat out “F”.

For me, this calls into question, yet again, the role of journalism in our society. It makes me wonder when and how and why we have allowed a political system to arise where candidates can make blatantly false statements not only about individuals, but about entire governments (because you know, there are real socialist leaders of real socialist countries in this world) without ever being called on it. What in the world is Mr. Stengel saying, that because an individual seeks to hold one of the most politically powerful positions in the world, the “anything goes” rule is in play? The ends justify the means, regardless? Pandering to a particular group when you good and well know that it plays to that group’s own ignorance is deplorable. Hardly the quality of a person of integrity (regardless of party, ideology, or bent) and hardly something that should go unchecked by those covering the candidates.

I’m at a loss.

Another news item mentioned during this morning’s show was that students’ reading scores on the SAT are at the lowest point in 40 years. Is it any wonder? With the definition of words so up for grabs, who can be expected to read and comprehend very well any more?