Featured Post

What is Christian Humanism?

Frequently I am asked to try to explain Christian Humanism in a few words, so as I thought how to begin writing again after a long hiatus ...

Monday, January 16, 2017

Religious Freedom Day - January 16

In my youth as a member of a Southern Baptist church in northern Virginia I became acquainted with an organization called Protestants and Others United for Separation of Church and State (now called Americans United), an advocacy group supported by my church to remind us that the Constitutional principle of the separation between Church and State was a key construct of both the Virginia and the Federal constitutions.  

Since Religious Freedom Day occurs today (January 16) and Donald Trump will be inaugurated later this week with Republicans coming to power with threats against our religious freedom, it seems a good time to remind ourselves that our nation was founded on this bedrock principle.  Since the religious right in our country has regularly and intentionally distorted the facts by a stubborn insistence that Christianity was an integral part of our Nation’s founding documents and history, I want to correct the record by extensively quoting from an article entitled “The Christian Right Does Not Want You To Know About This Day” by Frederick Clarkson, originally published December 27, 2014 and just republished in Daily Kos.  I have written on this subject before [See Is The United States a Christian Nation?] and because Mr. Clarkson has stated the issues so clearly I am quoting extensively from his article because there is no point in my writing again when he has stated the issues so clearly.

"For all of the shouting about religious liberty — from the landmark Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case, to the passage of the anti-gay Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Mississippi, and more — there is barely any mention, let alone any observance, of the official national Religious Freedom Day, enacted by Congress in 1992 and recognized every January 16 by an annual presidential proclamation.

The day commemorates the enactment of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786.
Why is this seemingly obscure piece of Revolutionary-era legislation so vital? And why doesn’t the Christian Right want you to know anything about it?

The bill, authored by Thomas Jefferson and later pushed through the state legislature by then member of the House of Delegates, James Madison, is regarded as the root of how the framers of the Constitution approached matters of religion and government, and it was as revolutionary as the era in which it was written.

It not only disestablished the Anglican Church as the official state church, but it provided that no one can be compelled to attend any religious institution or to underwrite it with taxes; that individuals are free to believe as they will and that this “shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

As a practical matter, this meant that what we believe or don’t believe is not the concern of government and that we are all equal as citizens.

Following the dramatic passage of the Statute in 1786, Madison traveled to Philadelphia, where he served as a principal author of the Constitution in 1787. As a Member of Congress in 1789 he was also a principal author of the First Amendment, which passed in 1791.
Jefferson was well aware that many did not like the Statute, just as they did not like the Constitution and the First Amendment, both of which sought to expand the rights of citizens and deflect claims of churches seeking special consideration.

So before his death, Jefferson sought to get the last word on what it meant. The Statute, he wrote, contained “within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohametan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”

That is a powerful and clear statement. Jefferson, almost 200 years ago, refuted the contemporary claims of Christian Right leaders, many of whom not only insist that America was founded as a Christian nation, but that the framers really meant their particular interpretation of Christianity. (And they are sometimes encouraged by a surprisingly wide array of pundits.)

Jefferson further explained that the legislature had specifically rejected proposed language that would have described “Jesus Christ” as “the holy author of our religion.” This was rejected, he reported, “by the great majority.”

No wonder the Christian Right does not want us to remember the original Statute for Religious Freedom — it doesn’t fit their narrative of history! Nor does it justify their vision of the struggles of the political present, or the shining theocratic future they envision.

Religious Freedom Day is nothing but bad news for the likes of Religious Right leaders like Tony Perkins, who argue that Christians who favor marriage equality are not really Christians. They can believe that if they want, but it can make no difference in the eyes of the law. That is probably why on Religious Freedom Day 2014, Perkins made no mention of what Religious Freedom Day is really about — instead using the occasion to denounce president Obama’s approach to religious liberty abroad.

This barely commemorated day provides an opportunity for LGBTQ people, and progressives generally, to reclaim a philosophical, legal and constitutional legacy that the Christian Right is busy trying to redefine for their own purposes.

Alright. So the Christian Right really does not want us to know about this day, but if we do, they certainly don't want us thinking about this stuff -- and so the standard fare of faux outrage about president Obama and various conspiracies against faith in general and conservative Christianity in general is likely to dominate our foreseeable future.  

But it doesn't have to be this way. And the Christian Right probably knows it.

When I say that the Christian Right does not want “us” to think about it, I mean everyone who is not the Christian Right and their allies, and especially not LGBTQ people and the otherwise “insufficiently Christian.”  I think that is why the Christian Right is mostly so eerily quiet about it, even though religious freedom is so central to their political program.

But what if we did?

What if we seized this day to think dynamically about the religious freedoms we take for granted at our peril; freedom that is in danger of being redefined beyond recognition.  What if we decided to seize this day to consider our best values as a nation and advance the cause of equal rights for all?

If we did, we might begin by recalling the extraordinary challenge faced by the framers of the Constitution when they gathered in Philadelphia. They met to create one nation out of 13 fractious colonies still finding their way after a successful revolt against the British Empire; and contending with a number of powerful and well-established state churches and a growing and religiously diverse population.

Their answer?   Religious equality.  And it is rooted in Jefferson’s bill. Let's remind ourselves about the origins of the bill.

Jefferson wrote the first draft in 1777 — just after having authored the Declaration of Independence in 1776.  And it was James Madison who finally got the legislation passed through the Virginia legislature in 1786, just months before he traveled to Philadelphia to be a principal author of the Constitution.  The Virginia Statute states that no one can be compelled to attend or support any religious institution, or otherwise be restrained in their beliefs, and that this “shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities . . .”

The Constitution, framed according to “The Virginia Plan,” drafted primarily by Madison, contains no mention of God or Christianity.  In fact, the final text’s only mention of religion is in the proscription of “religious tests for public office,” found in Article 6.  
In other words — Jefferson’s words — one’s religious identity, or lack thereof, has no bearing on one’s “civil capacities.”

If we thought about the meaning of Religious Freedom Day, we might start thinking about things like that — and not capitulate to the Christian Right’s effort to redefine religious freedom to include a license for business and institutional leaders (both government and civil) to impose their religious beliefs on employees and the public.

If we thought about things like that, then we might consider them in light of a host of initiatives in recent years, often advanced under the banner of religious freedom, but which, in fact, restrict the religious freedom of others.

We might consider, for example, the recent federal court decision in the case of General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper, which found that North Carolina’s ban on clergy performing marriage ceremonies without first obtaining a civil marriage license, was unconstitutional.

Since state law declared that same-sex couples could not get marriage licenses, this subjected clergy in the United Church of Christ, the Alliance of Baptists, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis, among others, to potential prosecution for performing a religious ceremony.

As religious equality advances, so does equal rights for all. So you can see why the Christian Right might not want people—people like us—thinking like Jefferson. And that is why we must."

© Kos Media, LLC 

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Letter to a Fundamentalist Christian on the Futility of Dialogue

From time to time I have conversations with friends in which religion or politics come up.  Usually these conversations go well but sometimes they run afoul of conflicting basic premises.  I avoid conversations about religion unless I sense that there are at least some shared assumptions.

One of those difficult conversations came up in the last few days in an email exchange with a 16-year old intellectual genius, an international performer with his own manager and bodyguards, a boy who is a university student but is now in the hospital after serious injury and illness have sidelined him for months in a hospital where he will likely be for several more months.  He is generally familiar with my views and he raised some issues and defended his views with biblical references.  I had to respond to him in some way that did not damage our friendship so I attempted to explain to him why an ongoing dialogue about religion might be difficult for us.  Here is the relevant part of a much longer conversation:

“….So now to the question of religion.  When so inclined I can argue rather forcefully on topics in which I have an interest and I like a good philosophical argument, but I have been reluctant to get into religion or politics with friends or family because often they have turned out badly.  My wife’s family holds traditionally conservative Christian views and they thought when their daughter married a young man with degrees in religion and ordained into the Christian ministry that they knew what they were getting in a son in law.  I had discussions with them many times and I tried to keep away from sensitive issues but eventually they figured out that my views were not in line with their views and after trying unsuccessfully to “convert” me they pretty much disowned me.  Over the passage of years they mellowed and became loving parents who accepted me despite my heretical views and my mother in law, now 94, has grown to love me unconditionally.  However my wife’s two sisters are rather hostile still, and they are politically to the right of Mussolini and ardent supporters of the horrific Donald Trump, so we do not talk at all any more.

“… my rule for dinner table conversation is that religion and politics are not acceptable for discussion unless they are brought up by others and the tone in which they are brought up leaves some openness for discussion…. I would never let a theological or political point interfere with a friendship.  That is just not my style.  But a fundamental problem I have with some who hold strong religious beliefs is a kind of trump card they play in a discussion at which they assume there is no more discussion possible, specifically, “God says…” or “the Bible says….”  That is never an acceptable answer because it presumes that we agree on the validity of that conversation ending trump card.

“There are a lot of difficulties I have with the way in which the Bible is used in theological discussions that go beyond the conversation-ending assertion that the Bible has the final answers: biblical literalism is a relatively late understanding in church history; which codex or manuscript or translation contains the words of god; the difference in saying that god speaks to us through the bible and the bible is literally the words of god; whose interpretation we use in trying to understand the words; how to deal with conflicts and contradictions; etc.   I don’t want to write a treatise here, just lay out a general sense of the problems we face if we make the assumption (which I do not) that the Bible is in some sense the word of god.  So my point here is that quoting the bible as a response to a question relating to religious understanding just doesn’t work because it is a circular argument that depends on accepting an assumption about the role that the Bible plays in theological discussion that I do not share.

“You asked me if I accept the adage God helps those who help themselves.  Yes and no, and this is where interpretation comes into the discussion and suggests why people of quite different religious understandings can agree on the phrase.  It could be literally true in that if you want god to help you then do your part to help yourself because otherwise you are expecting something to happen with no effort on your part;  OR it could mean, helping yourself and god helping you are essentially the same thing, that is, the adage means there is no help other than what you do to help yourself and it is therefore a mythological way of saying “don’t assume there are any magical answers coming from outside yourself….

"I think people get defensive and angry when discussing religion because those beliefs are identified with who someone is, and if they lack confidence or feel threatened in those basic beliefs they get angry and hostile and want to cut off conversation.

"You frighten people, my friend, because you are a genius intellect … and people don’t know how to handle it.  They think they are talking with a child and they can’t handle it when they are suddenly over their heads in the conversation.  It confuses them.  And, yes, you may alter or threaten their reality.

"I understand your views, your humility, your sense of needing forgiveness—it all makes sense to me because I grew up in a religious context where that was the norm.  I found it hard to think when I had to deal with someone who did not share that perspective.  I think that is why I had such a hard time in my years of university and theological school.  I struggled to make sense of a different reality that was intruding into the sanctuary of once held secure views….  Anyway I appreciate you sharing your views with me.  It helps me to understand you better even though I no longer share those views.  It may help you to understand me, too, if you realize that I once shared those views but over time I lost the ability to make sense of the world without a different set of assumptions.

"Anyway, friendship is more important to me than belief, and if god exists (a phrase I hate because logically it does not make sense, to exist is to be a part of this world), then surely he understands that I was created with reason and a rational mind, and I am only operating with what god gave me.”

Friday, September 2, 2016

Protesting The National Anthem

I was surprised at the furor created by Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, when he exercised his right to protest the singing of the National Anthem at a pre-season game.  Before commenting on the issue (I am generally supportive of Kaepernick’s protest) I need to say that I have not been a fan of Kaepernick’s and admit to some prejudice against him because I was put off by his arrogance about his status as a high profile college quarterback as well as his excessive body tattoos that seemed out of place on a college quarterback.  So when Kaepernick first protested by sitting during the playing of the National Anthem, my first instinct was to dismiss him as just another high profile sports figure having a public tantrum about something.

Two events transpired that caused me to rethink the seriousness of Kaepernick’s protest.  First, I heard him speak to the press about the reason he refused to stand for the National Anthem and the lengths to which he was willing to go to continue his right of protest.  Earlier this week I had attended a luncheon and was seated next to the institution’s chaplain who just before he said the traditional prayer of blessing of the food invited the guests to stand and say the “Pledge of Allegiance” because, as he put it, given the event of the past week in which the National Anthem was the subject of disrespect (most everyone understood what he referred to), it was our duty as Americans to stand in support of our flag.  At that moment I wanted to protest his statement by refusing to stand, but I went along with it (although I did not recite the Pledge) because it was neither the time nor the place to make a statement when I would have no opportunity to explain my reason for the silent protest.

Second, I was shocked and dismayed to learn some things relevant to the history of the National Anthem that I had not known until I read an article by Jon Schwarz[1]   in which he discusses in some detail some facts about the War of 1812, the role of the British in supporting the rights of Free Blacks and encouraging both slave and free to join the forces fighting against the Americans (who had started the conflict by trying to seize Canada from the British), and Francis Scott Key’s celebration of the deserved deaths of the Free Blacks supporting the British (as clearly stated in the third stanza[2] of the National Anthem, a stanza we don’t hear sung).  

Francis Scott Key, as I learned in that same article, is not a man deserving of a positive memory in the history of our nation—he was a slave owner and an advocate of treating Blacks as “property” to be owned and sold and with respect to the British, insisting that Blacks who were freed by the British were still “property” and must be returned to their rightful legal owners. 

All that aside we get back to the issue: the right and duty of citizens in our democracy to publicly protest the acts of our government when those actions raise questions of morality or violation of the rights of our citizens, a right that is constitutionally protected.  We should celebrate the exercise of that right even if we do not always agree with the issue being raised by the protestor because supporting their right is also supporting our right when we have an issue that needs to be raised.   

While there are many voices clamoring that he be kicked out of football or worse, we have also seen other brave voices reminding us all that Colin Kaepernick’s protest is not only legitimate and commendable, but that by supporting his right to protest we are protecting our own civil rights in a democratic society.

[1] “Colin Kaepernick Is Righter Than You Know: The National Anthem Is a Celebration of Slavery,” The Intercept, August 28, 2016.

[2] No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Friday, August 19, 2016

What is Christian Humanism?

Frequently I am asked to try to explain Christian Humanism in a few words, so as I thought how to begin writing again after a long hiatus due to illness it seemed appropriate to develop a short statement and a longer explanation of the general movement of Christian Humanism, of which I am a small part.  Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and rational inquiry are not only compatible with Christianity, they are fundamental to a proper understanding and interpretation of Christian belief. 

A myth has been created by contemporary fundamentalist Christians, who are appparently ignorant of their own history, that humanism is a recent creation of the Twenty First Century anti-theists who are out to destroy Christianity.  Unfortunately they fail to recognize the fact apparent to anyone who has taken a course in world history that humanism has been a part of Christianity since the First Century and a significant factor in its history throughout Western Civilization. Those who fail to learn from history are the fools of our generation who speak without knowledge.

Today there is considerable variance in the positions of those who fall under the umbrella of Christian Humanism, from those who are more generally at the liberal end of traditional Christianity but want to humanize it by refocusing it away from the archaic theological language of tradition and move it the direction of the example of Jesus by exhibiting  compassion to one’s neighbor, to the other extreme where I find myself, which is quite willing to dispense with the traditions and theology of the mysterium tremendum of Christianity altogether, extracting from the studies of Christian ethics what seems appropriate for our contemporary situation and emphasizing modeling one’s life on that of Jesus to the extent practicable.

Put another way, Christian Humanism ranges from the attempt to make Christians less interested in the mysteries of the world beyond and more caring about the world we live in, to dispensing with the superstructure of Christian thought and living in a world without god but with the Jesus of history as our teacher, model and guide.  Each of those extremes offers a full range of implications and problems, which we do not have time or inclination to deal with in this commentary. 

Christian Humanism is the conjunction of two different and typically unrelated conceptual approaches to understanding our world and for some of our contemporaries these terms and the ideas they represent do not fit together comfortably.  Indeed, for some it is an impossible and incompatible pairing of terms.  Christianity exists in the context of an overarching theological framework that informs and gives meaning to our understanding of our world and man’s place in it.  Humanism celebrates mankind’s intelligence as the key to understanding and explaining our world without the need for god or any other agency or rationale external to man, and at the same time it affirms our necessary connection with and dependence on each other for mutual support, concern and care. 

While it is an uneasy conjunction of terms, a look at history shows that Christianity and Humanism have had interesting interconnections going back at least as far as the Second Century when the writer of the Gospel of John and Justin Martyr (St. Justin) were contemporaries and both introduced the Greek concept of the Logos to the Christianity of their time (c. 125 A.D .), which they borrowed from the philosophy of the Stoics, the Gospel of John arguing that the Logos (in Greek thought the divine force that underlies the universe) predated but informed Christianity, and Justin arguing to the Roman authorities that Christian thought and values were consistent with the Logos and that therefore the Empire should leave alone this new sect because they were just stating the contemporary understanding of religion in a slightly different way that was not inconsistent with Stoic beliefs and values.  In both cases there was an integration of Christianity with the secular beliefs of the time.

This is not the place to create the history of the inter-relationships between Humanism and Christianity, or the intermingling of the divine and the human through the pages of history.  There are many sources for understanding that history for those who are interested, and perhaps the places to start are the New World Encyclopedia and Wikipedia, both of which have good summaries of Christian Humanism.  Here we will only mention the Middle Ages when Christian clerics controlled education through the monasteries and Charlemagne ordered centers of learning set up throughout the Empire, with monks and clerics morphing into professors.  Subsequently Western universities including Padua, Bologna, Paris, and Oxford were established through Papal decree and began teaching law, medicine, philosophy, languages and the classics (and so we have introduced the “humanities” to our curriculum).

In the Renaissance, perhaps the most significant single writing was Pico della Mirandola’s Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486) in which he argued that the religious duty of man is to approach learning from the human perspective, a very clear conjunction of Christianity with a humanistic approach.  In the Reformation human knowledge advanced with the invention of the printing press and the writings of Erasmus, Martin Luther and John Calvin.  The Enlightenment saw further advancement of the connection between humanism and Christianity with the emergence of secularism, liberal philosophy, Deism, bourgeois liberalism, an interest in the historical Jesus, and a non-conformist emphasis on reason and intuition in religious matters. 

We come back to our premise as stated at the beginning of this article—that Christian humanism is the belief that human freedom, individual conscience, and rational inquiry are not only compatible with Christianity, they are fundamental to a proper understanding and interpretation of Christian belief. 

How far can we stretch the fabric of the umbrella of Christian Humanism to include the extremes that claim a place under its framework?  It is clear that the movement within Christian Humanism that sees itself attempting to humanize Christianity with an emphasis on social concerns such as economic justice and concern for one’s neighbor is a legitimate Christian movement.  It is not at all clear that dispensing with traditional or modern Christian theology, and the willingness to live with only Jesus as teacher and guide, is sufficiently Christian to still fall within the broader Christian family.  As most ideologies, much depends on various interpretations of Christianity and who is doing the interpreting and for what objective.  I stand by my claim, while hearing and taking seriously the objections of those who argue to the contrary, that the version of Christian Humanism for which I argue on this site, a view that is willing to live without god but with only Jesus as our guide, is consistent with the views of other modern Christian thinkers including Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer and deserves its place as both Christian and Humanist.

[Informed comments are welcome.]

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Christian Fundamentalist Cruelty To The Transgendered

The State of North Carolina just passed a law that prohibits transgender people from entering any public restroom other than the one conforming to their sex as identified on their birth certificate, prohibits any third restroom not identified as male or female as an attempt to accommodate transgendered people, and further prohibits any city, county or local ordinance that conflicts with that state law, or any school district policy that states otherwise.

It is unfortunate that the right wing social barbarians of North Carolina, who claim this action in the name of their Christian freedom to discriminate, cannot grasp the fact that transgender people do not choose that life style and should not be punished for being true to who they are.

What does it matter which bathroom they use? North Carolina is just making itself look bad and shooting itself in the economic butt.  If a person wearing a dress and possessing a penis (or has had it removed) subsequently enters a women's bathroom and uses a private stall (which is all they have there) how would anyone know or care?  If a person with a vagina but wearing men's clothing enters a men's room and uses a stall (they can't use the urinal) who would notice or care? 

Why compound the issues further by prohibiting public entities from having bathrooms that are private and gender neutral the way they do now for baby changing rooms? Why interfere with local governments who take a more tolerant and compassionate view? When are we going to stop catering to the right wing loonies who deny everyone else the right to move into the 21st Century and claim their presumed religious freedom as their rationale to act like the bigots they are? Why shouldn't the fried chicken people or the golden arches folks be able to build a third bathroom if it makes their customers more comfortable?  Citizens of the modern world that most of us live in should indicate their disgust by boycotting North Carolina until it comes to its senses and stops catering to the fundamentalist Christian bigots who want to run everyone else's lives.

Friday, April 8, 2016

Surrogate Father and Mentor Wanted

This is a different posting that my usual commentary on here but I have been inactive on this site because I have taken on a role as counselor on an international site and in that context I have come across a situation that I have been unable to deal with effectively without reaching a wider audience.  So here goes:

 Are there any adult males or families out there who are willing to mentor and assume the role of surrogate father to a 16 year old boy who lives in Europe, has been abandoned by his family and desperately wants a father’s guidance, interest and love?

Here in brief is the situation: The boy attends secondary school where he will graduate in the summer of 2017. He wants to attend university but needs guidance, assistance and emotional support from a father figure to finish his current studies while living in an unheated home with parents who are constantly drunk and have told him they do not want him. He is managing to get by under very difficult circumstances. He is an intelligent young man with good values and maturity, sensitive, considerate, artistic, emotionally stable and in good health. His primary language is not English, he is largely self-taught but takes English classes in his school and is fluent in English. He would like someone to adopt him but that is too difficult to accomplish, so alternatively he wants someone to care for him enough to provide emotional support for him to finish his education in eastern Europe and to continue that role as mentor as he grows into adulthood.

Is anyone on here up to the challenge? The ideal person would be someone who has a family of his own, who will take the time to contact this young man regularly, who will visit him in his country in Europe and (if a visa can be obtained) bring him for a visit to his own home. 

I would gladly undertake this role myself, but I am 79 and we have agreed that I am too old to be his surrogate father as he grows into adulthood, so I am acting as intermediary to do initial screening and background check for his protection and advise him as he makes his decision, since this will be a life changing decision both for him and for the person who is willing to take him on.  Obviously full and complete information will need to be exchanged throughout the process. If you are interested send me a message [here] and we will go from there.

Friday, March 14, 2014

Michigan's Cruel Rule Denying Medical Insurance To Rape Victims

I don't usually re-post articles from elsewhere but this action by Republicans in the Michigan Legislature is so unreasonably cruel and anti-women that it needs to be broadcast widely. Reprinted from Daily Kos. Emphasis mine.  AGB

by Gretchen Whitmer, Democratic Leader Michigan Senate

I wanted to share a speech I intended on delivering to my Republican colleagues on the floor of the Michigan Senate today as the offensive new "rape insurance" law they passed has now taken effect. Unfortunately, they adjourned the Senate today without giving me my constitutional right to give this statement, but while they may not have wanted to hear it, I wanted to share exactly what I had planned on saying to them.
I rise today to remind my Republican colleagues of what today is.
As of today, your rape insurance proposal is now the law of the land in Michigan.
Thanks to what every single one of you on that side of the aisle did, rape victims in Michigan that become pregnant from their attack will now be told by their doctor - and their private insurance company - that they’re on their own.
Yes, a victim of a sexual assault in Michigan will now have to face the reality that their Republican legislators – those who decry government involvement in health care on a daily basis - passed a law that does exactly that. Except it only applies to women, so apparently that doesn’t count.
And if taking away the rights of rape victims weren’t enough, thanks to what you did, Michigan women with wanted pregnancies who are told by their doctors that something has gone horribly wrong and their pregnancy must be terminated will be told that their government doesn’t think that’s necessary medical care.
They too will now face a reality that you have prevented their private insurance company from covering the exact care that’s needed, that their doctor recommends, and is in the best interest of their own health.
In short, it’s a whole new era of unequal health care you’ve created here today, an era in which women are treated as second class citizens and told their male dominated legislature and a the extremist special interest group that funds their election campaigns know far better about the types of health care coverage they should have than their own doctor does.
So I have to ask, why aren’t you speaking out proudly about this today?
Is this not exactly what you wanted?
Is this not exactly what your vote was in favor of?
Or is it because, god forbid, you actually know what you did is wrong? That you know your vote that created this disgusting law was the absolute wrong vote to make? That if you could go back in time, maybe you’d put the health and the rights of your wives and your daughters ahead of what Right to Life told you to do that day?
I know that’s true for at least some of you.
Some of you told me yourselves in private shortly after the vote was taken that you wished you had the courage to vote against this disgusting bill.
You know who you are. I don’t need to name any names here today. But if you came to me that day seeking absolution for what you did, I’m here to tell you that on behalf of the millions of women and young girls you belittled that day and whose lives you’ve hurt as a result, the answer is no.
The people of Michigan asked you not to create this law. You didn’t listen.
My colleagues and I shared deeply personal stories - stories that none of us should have had to speak about publicly but felt compelled to in an effort to get you to actually think about what you were about to do.
We tried in vain to show you that your actions would have very real and very serious consequences on countless women throughout our state, including some of us right here in this very building.
But you didn’t care. You didn’t even have the courage to stand up and respond, or utter a single word out loud as to why you were about to pass this terrible law.
You instead sat silent, content to push your voting buttons and cash the campaign check you’d soon be receiving from those who were telling you to do this.
And so, here we are today. Rape insurance is now the law of the land, and not a single one of you wants to mark the occasion. So I’m doing it for you.
As this horrible law takes effect today, I want you to remember what you did.
The next time you read a story in the news about a woman being raped, remember that you turned your back on her and told her that she doesn’t deserve every available medical option that’s available to her.
When you hear of a woman facing a difficult pregnancy, one that may sadly end prematurely, remember that you told her that her health and well-being is less important than your ability to get the endorsement of a radical special-interest group.
And when women from across the state ask you why you would do something so offensive, remember that you had a chance to stand up for them and put their interests ahead of the absolute worst of what politics can be, and you chose not to.
I’m proud to know that I come here every day and fight to make Michigan a better place for my 2 daughters. But I’m disgusted to know that they’re now growing up in a state in which this kind of misogyny is now the law of the land.
I had to agree when I heard Rachel Maddow say this about our legislature just last night: “Over the last few years, Michigan state government has become way more insane than anyone nationally gives them credit for.”
Well, you may not be getting enough credit for it nationally, but across our state, the people know this exact kind of insanity happening here at their Capitol all too well.
I’m going to keep fighting on their behalf, and I can promise you that there are a whole lot of people out there ready to keep on fighting with me.
I haven’t forgotten what today means. Nor have the people of Michigan.
And you better believe we’re going to remember it November as well.