Why Rick Santorum SHOULD Be Upset

Recently, I updated my Facebook status to read:

  Rick Santorum says that the separation of church and state makes him wanna throw up. I say Rick Santorum makes me wanna throw up.

Now, to be fair to ol' Rick, that's not exactly what he said. He did say, however, that a speech JFK made in 1960 on the separation of church and state made him throw up. The speech was a way for JFK to let voters know that his Catholicism did not make him any less qualified to run this country. He said,

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. (read the whole speech here)

Somehow (and as Jon Stewart hilariously points out in this video), Rick Santorum took this speech on religious liberty and the idea that any person of any faith can still run this country to mean that no people of faith can run this country. Santorum completely twisted the intent of this speech, saying that Kennedy wanted to exclude "people of faith from the public square." This is the exact opposite of Kennedy's message.

But, as Santorum says himself, 

I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country...The First Amendment says the free exercise of religion.

So I see why he is upset. Because even though Kennedy was absolutely not saying that people of faith have no business in government, he was saying that people of faith who would put the interests of their faith ahead of the country's interests don't belong in government. Kennedy had to defend himself; he had to point out that he had the whole country's interests at heart, that he wasn't going to put a Catholic agenda first. Santorum, on the other hand, is defending his right (a nonexistent right in my opinion) to put his faith first, before the country as a whole. He is arguing for his right to use his religion to make decisions, make laws, for people who do not share the same religious or moral beliefs. 

Santorum is also misreading the First Amendment. It does not say free exercise of religion while making laws and governing the country. It simply says free exercise of religion. By putting his religious agenda first, by wanting to make laws based on his religion, Santorum is limiting the First Amendment rights of everyone in the country who is not Catholic (and really, who is not part of a small, extreme, fundamentalist Catholic group). Santorum doesn't believe in birth control; I do. Yet the laws he would like to pass banning birth control would be limiting my right to something I believe in. He is the one limiting the First Amendment. 

The separation of church and state exists for a reason. It exists because our country is full of differing religious beliefs and practices. It exists so that our country and our government will not persecute others simply for having a different view of the world. John F. Kennedy would have no problem with a government official having any religion, as long as that religion did not get in the way of his/her ability to govern all people of all religions effectively. I don't believe that Rick Santorum is capable of that.

So, you're right, Rick, in a way. Kennedy wouldn't (and didn't) mind people of faith holding positions in government, but he would have a problem with you prioritizing your religious agenda in making laws for the entire country.

And I have to agree with him. 

The Abortion Issue, or, Why I Still Love Grey's Anatomy

I just finished watching last week's episode of Grey's Anatomy. And here is why I still love it:

Cristina had an abortion at the beginning of this season. She didn't want to have kids. She told her husband (a little late, but they did rush into their marriage in about 12 hours) that she didn't want kids. Meredith explained to Owen what it felt like to be the child of someone who doesn't want kids. And so Owen agreed to the abortion, and held his wife's hand through the procedure.

So that's it, right? The show took the feminist path, proclaimed all things wonderful in the land of choice, and we move on.

Nope.

Because even though I do think it was a bold, feminist move to show a character having an abortion, and having one because she chose to, not because of rape or a risky pregnancy, it would also do the show (and the real-life situation of abortion) a great injustice to move on without this having any effects.

In the past few episodes, Owen has begun voicing his problems with the abortion. He yelled at Cristina that she "killed" their baby. And in this latest episode, they are in couples' counseling. And this is where I think the show is really thriving. Cristina explains that not everyone wants kids, that some people just don't want kids, that she wasn't abused, she wasn't "mugged by a baby," she just doesn't want kids. And Owen keeps insisting that everyone wants kids, that she'll change her mind when it's too late and regret her decision. And, more importantly I think, he keeps asking her to at least see his side, to understand, which she can't do. Personally, I think she can't do it because seeing his side would mean the relationship has to end; they can't meet each other's needs anymore, and I think they know it but won't admit it. (Ahh! It's so stressful!) But she also can't see his side because she knows that, even with all the terrible after-effects, abortion was the right choice for her.

This is real life. Abortion, even when chosen, is not easy. Marriage and relationships are not easy. The decision to not have children can be a huge deal-breaker for a relationship (which is where I'm afraid Cristina and Owen are headed, but I haven't seen this week's episode yet; nobody say anything!). Cristina and Owen are two very real, well-developed characters who have very real and conflicted emotions about abortion, children and relationships.

This is what I wish people who see abortion in black and white would see. Pro-choice activists do not want women everywhere to have abortions. We want to reduce the abortion rate (alone with the infant mortality rate, the unintended pregnancy rate, and the teen pregnancy rate). But we also want to reduce the number of women who die from illegal and dangerous abortions. We want to reduce the number of unwanted children in this world. We want to reduce the number of women whose lives were completely derailed because of an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. We don't think abortion is easy. We don't think abortion is light-hearted. We don't think it's a spontaneous decision made in the blink of an eye.

We know that abortion is a difficult choice to make. We don't envy anyone making that choice.

But we also will not take that choice away. Because, for many women, it is ultimately the right choice.

To Mississippi Legislators: Represent Us!!!

Here's how the democratic system (supposedly) works. Every person in our country can't possibly voice their concerns to the government, so we elect people to do this for us. Our local, state and national government officials win their offices through elections. We the people vote for the candidate who best represents our interests and goals. The person with the majority of the vote, therefore, should represent the interests of the majority of the people.

This is NOT how this system is working, at least in Mississippi (and I'm guessing other places too). In November, Mississippi voters defeated the personhood amendment with 60% of the vote. 60% of Mississippians do not want personhood as a law. 60% of Mississippi voters do not think that personhood is the best way to reduce abortions, or unplanned pregnancies. 60% of Mississippians do not think that laws should get in between women, their doctors, and their personal decisions. 

Yet our representatives have introduced a personhood bill into the MS legislature, even with very vocal voting Mississippians screaming at the top of our lungs "This is not we want!! Represent OUR interests!" The problem here is that the majority of representatives are not representing our interests, they're representing their own. White, older, wealthy men are pushing their own agendas. And I have to say that I agree with my mother, who recently said: "I like men. I was married to a man. I would like to be married to another man in the right circumstances. But when it comes to pregnancy and abortion, I just don't think they have a right to open their mouths." I agree. I'm not usually a fan of separating the sexes, but when it comes to reproductive rights, health, and healthcare for women, I think women should be making the decisions. Because men don't get it. They can't. They can't get pregnant. They haven't lived in fear of getting pregnant at the wrong time. They haven't lived in fear of rape (most of them), or the added fear of pregnancy resulting from rape. They do not get it. And this is obvious when you look at the laws that they are trying to pass.

Of course, I'm not saying that men, in general, are the problem. There are female supporters of personhood too. But as this picture points out, men make up the majority of the pro-personhood, anti-abortion movement, and men make the majority of legislative decisions that deal with women and their health.

We need more women representing us in government. And we need everyone who represents us, male or female, to be tuned in to what their voters want. We need actual representation in government. 

To Mississippi legislators: Represent us!

Please sign this petition against the personhood bill in the MS legislature.

On a lighter note, campaigners from my own hometown of Oxford, MS made it into the latest issue of Ms. Magazine! Check out this picture!

This post is cross-posted on the blog Represent!

Chris Brown's Return: Rape Culture at its Finest (Worst)

OK guys. Get ready for rape culture in action (and domestic violence culture in action; if that's not a term, it should be). Rape culture is a "term used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone sexual violence. Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming,sexual objectification, and trivializing rape." (Yes, that's from Wikipedia)


Last night, Chris Brown made his return performance to the Grammys. What does Chris Brown at the Grammys have to do with rape culture? Well, about three years ago, he beat up his girlfriend, pop star Rihanna. He beat her up so violently that she had to go to the hospital. 


After this story was leaked to the press, there was a huge media storm about it. And a large portion of that storm was discussing how Rihanna caused this to happen. A large portion of that storm was making excuses for Chris Brown, the abuser. And ever since this happened, people have been complaining that people need to pipe down and stop reminding everyone what Chris Brown did. "Let him move on!" "Get over it already!" Even someone in my own college newspaper wrote last year about how reporters should stop bringing up his past (I wrote a response to this which was never published in the paper, and so I published it here and started this blog). 


What about Rihanna? Was anyone helping her move on? Even when someone spoke up in the press about Rihanna needing support, the backlash was so great that he had to apologize for possibly offending Chris Brown. 


Now, three years later, Chris Brown has been welcomed back as a performer at the Grammys. And everyone is talking about how great it is to have him back. And those same people are completely ignoring his abusive past, and staying eerily silent on the reason he was gone in the first place. Now, I'm not saying that no one deserves a second chance. But Chris Brown has not actually been punished. He was put on probation and given community service hours. He was not in attendance at the Grammys for two years. That's nothing. What are we telling women when the men who abuse them get nothing but a slap on the wrist?


And the most twisted part? All the tweets and status updates from women saying basically the same thing, "Chris Brown's so hot I would let him beat me up any day."

This. Is. Rape. Culture. In. Action. 

When we have normalized domestic violence so much that women can casually joke about it being an easy price to pay for the man you want, we have a big problem.


Folks, we have a big problem.