Once I got a hold of this information, I did what I regularly did: I wrote about it.

Remember this article? Sure you do.

In a decisive paragraph in the beginning, I noted the potential issues that could occur:

Many thought it had to do with birth control. While birth control was one of the bigger issues, it should be noted that many of us missed the bigger picture. This court case was nothing but a singular blow to the wall of societal sanctity through the use of religion. This singular case had the potential to unleash ready havoc on people’s jobs because their “differences” don’t match up with the organization’s “religious values”. In short, this wasn’t about birth control; this decision was about oppression through religious exemption. [2]

This is the man bold enough to be…well, stupid.

Now, that potential has come full circle into fruition thanks to Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence, and SB 101:

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed into law on Thursday a measure that allows businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of “religious freedom.”

The bill has sparked an uproar among gamers and church groups that hold their conventions in Indianapolis and businesses that are threatening to pull out of the city. [3]

And yes, we have the Hobby Lobby case to thank for it. And yes, it is sad that I predicted all of this foolishness 9 months ago.

SB 101 – What It All Means

For those that don’t understand what the bill is saying legally, then I can give an explanation. In fact, I will let the Indiana General Assembly give their “interpretation” of it:

Religious freedom restoration. Prohibits a governmental entity from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the governmental entity can demonstrate that the burden: (1) is in furtherance of acompelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides a procedure for remedying a violation. Specifies that the religious freedom law applies to the implementation or application of a law regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity or official is a party to a proceeding implementing or applying the law. Prohibits an applicant, employee, or former employee from pursuing certain causes of action against a private employer. [4]

In laymen’s terms, this bill allows any business to not deal with any customer/person due to their religious beliefs. The only way there can be legal recourse is if the decision is anti-government. Also, any entity can have rules that the government don’t agree with. Plus, any worker that has an issue with it can professionally “kick rocks”.

So yes, my good people, we have found out that some people want Indiana to go back to the 1950’s.

SB 101 – The Problems Have Arisen

One of the issues that Indiana has to face is the reaction to the SB 101 Bill. For one thing,Gen Con plans on moving their convention if Pence signed the bill. Since he signed the bill, I expect Gen Con to give Indiana their walking papers. Then, there is the issue the NCAAhas with the bill as well. Since the headlining band The Bleachers has a lead singer that is pro-gay marriage, this presents an economic problem for Indiana as a whole.

Another problem is this: by Pence’s ignorance, Indiana is going to be scarred for a while. Their entire reputation has practically taken a major blow. Who would want to visit/live in a state that is working hard to go backwards towards the 1950’s and 1960’s? Do people like Pence want to see a bunch of civil rights marches and demonstrations that we should have been done with those decades past? Are people stupid enough to allow for a bill that legalizes discrimination under the guise of “religious freedom”?

Think about it: people don’t want to worry about not being able to buy a burger because of their race, sexual orientation, or even their belief system.

If Indiana still wants to be stupid enough to allow this, then I have some glaring words to say to them:

Fuck Gov. Mike Pence.

Fuck anybody in Indiana that believes in SB 101 as a bill.

Fuck anybody that agrees with the bill as a whole.

Now, as Indiana struggles with a bill that should not have seen the light of day, I am going to go sip on my tea. That way, when I walk through the aisles of Hobby Lobby (to buy nothing), I can still say “I tried to tell you about this” to all the naysayers from months before.

The post SB 101: How Indiana Turned Back the Clock on the Gays appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Oh well, so much for the idea that it’s the thought that counts.

What’s up with Republicans running for office making ridiculous statements, and then in defense of said dumb shit, they then say that their words were taken out of context? Or, as in the case of Indiana’s Tea Party darling Richard Murdock, his words are being “twisted,” to mean something different than intended.

I realize that “context is everything,” when communicating. However, I’m a strong proponent for saying what you mean, meaning what you say and standing behind your words. Maybe it’s just me, but to do so says a lot about one’s character. Especially when thoughts and ideas are communicated from a position of power, to the powerless in our society. It might be a novel idea, but language and communication is important. It’s also especially important when running for office.

But don’t tell that to Mourdock who after Indiana’s Senate race debate last night, has found himself in hot water for making the following statement on victims of rape being allowed to have abortions: “I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from god. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.” Here’s what Murdock offered as an explanation of what he actually meant:

God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that he does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.

Personally, I think you have to be a sick individual to justify rape. And as is the case with Mourdock’s statement, using “God” to justify rape speaks loudly to the issue of male privilege, patriarchy, and the all out insanity that is the marriage of religion and politics often seen on our political right. Case in point, check out the following defense of Mourdock’s comment from my friend David N. Bass over at The American Spectator – I found the following to be interesting:

It’s easy to be perturbed by Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments on rape, abortion, and God’s will. But a little context here is important.

One, it’s important to understand what Murdock actually meant. He wasn’t saying that the criminal, immoral act of rape carries the approval of God. Rather, Murdock said that life — that is, the unborn child — produced by the horrible act of rape is still precious to God. The two are quite distinct. Of course, I have no delusion that media outlets will get this right. If they do, it will be buried deep in the story.

Two, many Republican candidates have inarticulately expressed their views on economic and foreign policy concerns. The most damaging part of this presidential campaign for Mitt Romney was his “47 percent” remark. Admittedly, it was said in private and not during a televised debate, but it was both unwise and damaging. Conservatives hoping to see a change in the Oval Office should be just as willing to forgive Murdock as they were willing to forgive Romney.

Three, the pro-life issue isn’t a liability for Republicans. Democrats’ pro-abortion extremism — defined as abortion on demand, without restrictions, up to the point of birth (and after) — appeals to their base, and their base only. Republicans’ pro-life instincts appeal to their base and a growing number of moderates who truly want abortion to be rare. Far more Americans today identify as pro-life than pro-choice. Republicans are winning on this issue, and must take a principled stand.

Fourth, I agree that Republicans need to be more careful of “inartfully” (to borrow a phrase) articulating their views on the sanctity of unborn life. Don’t give the media or your opponent anything to run with. But the same holds true for their economic views. It’s easy for a wrongly phrased answer to come across as plutocratic and dismissive of the legitimate needs of the poor and the welfare of the middle class— and, in our current economic situation, that type of gaffe is far more damaging to one’s electoral hopes than misspeaking on a social issue that most voters are ignoring right now.

Yep, typical right-wing commentator response: “Our guy’s words are being misrepresented by the media who fails to provide proper context.” Maybe I’m wrong, or maybe it’s just the secularist in me oozing out; however, there is no other way to explain Mourdock’s comment as being what it was. His comment wasn’t “inartful,” it was downright ridiculous — becoming pregnant as a result of non-consensual sex is not a gift from God. No, it’s called being a victim of rape. It’s called being forced to have sex, and a woman not having the choice to protect herself from pregnancy.

If God is a God of love, I doubt seriously whether he, she, or it would use rape as a method of conception for a woman. But then again, maybe rape is one of God’s many mysterious ways.

That said, why should a woman be “forced” to accept an unwanted pregnancy because God, Jesus, or whomever you choose to believe in decided to slide down a chimney bearing the “gift” of life? Belief aside, is it too much to be human and give a victim of rape the option to legally terminate a pregnancy? See, that’s the problem: You can’t argue or debate belief. Nope, because belief is just that: belief. And thankfully there’s this awesome thing called Separation of Church and State that protects individuals from any one God’s plan or rules being imposed on the entire population.

In response to Mourdock’s comment, a childhood friend of mine on Facebook asked: “Who are these crazy men?” My response to her, was that “these men,” are believers. Unfortunately for her and all the women across the country, they’re also believers employ religious dogma to justify control of the female body. Which is interesting since God gave the world the gift of his son through Mary, a virgin. But yet if a woman becomes pregnant because of an act non-consensual sex, she should take comfort in knowing that this was God’s will. Yeah, in spite of how unpleasant experience of being raped, the bright side is that God chose her uterus as the gift wrapping.

Yep, rape victims should be honored; you know, just like the descendants of African slaves.

For men like Mourdock — and the countless number of people who may agree with him — it’s as though God gave men dominion over everything in the land just as he “allegedly” gave Adam. And what better way to impose one’s belief than to be in a position of power within government, right?

The post Richard Mourdock Says God Uses the Uterus of Pregnant Rape Victims as Gift Wrapping appeared first on Madness & Reality.

Shai Warfield-Cross in School Play

You know, I used to live in Indiana before heading south several years ago. As a matter of fact, I went to college in Indiana – shout out to my fellow IU Hoosiers. Yeah, I been there; went to IU. Of course this was a long time ago; like back in the late 80s. Yep, back when Bobby Knight was jacking up Negroes and throwing chairs across basketball courts during games.

So yeah, when I hear (or get) stories of racism out of Indiana like the following via email and phone-calls from my peeps still there, I’m not really surprised. I mean, I’ve been long gone as a resident of Indiana, so I assume things may have changed. Hell, Barack Obama won Indiana in 2008, for crying out loud! Surely they’re post-racial in Indiana now just like the rest of America, right?
An Indiana school district that told a black teenager to perform “The Star-Spangled Banner” in a “traditional way” after receiving complaints about her performance is drawing questions now about whether the complaints and directive were racially motivated.

Shai Warfield-Cross, 16, has performed the national anthem at sports events at Bloomington High School North over the last year without incident. But school officials said they received complaints about her performance during a game in Martinsville.

Principal Jeff Henderson told The Herald-Times in a statement that people had complained that while the words to the anthem were the same, the tune was unrecognizable. He declined to comment to The Associated Press.

Some who complained after the game in Martinsville – a predominantly white community about 30 miles southwest of Indianapolis – also said they felt the rendition was disrespectful to current and former members of the military, Henderson said.

Warfield-Cross’ family says athletics director Jen Hollars told the teen last Friday that she would not be allowed to sing the anthem unless she modified her version and sang in a more traditional way. Hollars declined to comment and referred questions to Henderson, who said school officials told Warfield-Cross the performances should be more “traditional” to ensure the song’s tune is recognizable.

“She was not told that she would no longer be allowed to perform,” he said. “She was given guidelines that we hoped she would follow. She performed the next night using those guidelines and she sang beautifully.”

Aurora Marin, the teen’s stepmother, told The Herald-Times that the directive denies Warfield-Cross her “rights of expression and individuality.” The family has written a letter to school officials seeking an apology.

“The national anthem is a historical symbol for our country for independence. The irony is that Shai is being denied her right of artistic expression as a result of her natural voice and cultural heritage,” they wrote.

“The situation really makes us question the staff and leadership there, and what their representation of diversity is,” Marin said. (source)And this went down in Martinsville, huh? Shoot, I remember back in the day when the old heads used to tell us stories about the signs at the Martinsville city limits. It was a sign that read, “no niggers after dark.” As a matter of fact, us black folks were always warned about driving through that city on trips to Indianapolis. I even attended an event there once and was nervous like a whore in church on Sunday morning. Shit, the Klu Klux Klan was once headquartered in Martinsville at one point; that’s enough to make a brotha nervous.

But I suppose old habits die hard, and though the country is now post-racial, Martinsville is playing catch up to the rest of us. I do have to give them credit though; at least they asked her sing the national anthem in a more “traditional” way instead of the “nigger” way. Yeah, at least they asked instead of lynching her.

Yep, things sure have changed in Amuuuh’cuh. Just look at the house in the picture above. It’s a photo of an actual house in Martinsville taken back in 2008. Uh-huh. I bet none of you noticed the Obama campaign sign in the yard; but saw the Confederate Flag flying high up on that flagpole.

Here’s 16yr old Shai, singing the “untraditional” version of the national anthem:

Lastly, without knowledge of this story and after being in the other room hearing Shai sing above. My 16yr old daughter started singing the anthem herself, in a most inappropriately Negro fashion – you know, like Whitney Houston? I then walked into her bedroom to tell her that she was disrespecting our troops, and she kinda looked at me funny. Oh well, Shai’s school principal has apologized so I guess all is well in post-racial America.

The post Black Indiana Teen Sings National Anthem “Too Black”, Asked to Sing the “Less Black-More Traditional” Version After Complaints appeared first on Madness & Reality.