I have to give it to the GOP presidential contenders for the amount of awesome material they are giving liberals like me this jolly political season. For awhile now, I have been cheerfully giggling at the ridiculousness of Rick Perry's campaign, and all the gaffes that have gone along with it. From forgetting the third of the three main agencies he plans to dismantle if he becomes president, exclaiming that the voting age is 21, confusing that America is/was at war with Iran instead of Iraq, failing to remember Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's last name, and stating there are eight Supreme Court justices instead of nine, poor, bumbling Rick Perry has gone Joe Biden multiplied by a hundred.
Mostly, I considered these actions harmless. In effect, Mr. Perry was digging his own little, Texas-shaped grave. Then, this happened. Mr. Perry decided to up the ante, and even against the wishes of many of his campaign staff, posted a video clearly declaring an anti-gay policy platform (wearing a jacket from Brokeback Mountain, no less).
Now this, this I consider harmful. It's really not because Rick Perry is anti-gay, because that is still a required component for a neo-conservative in a modern political race. It's not even really the fact that he posted a ridiculously innocent-like video on YouTube about it. It's the statement he makes comparing the banishment of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy with American schoolchildren not being able to pray and celebrate Christmas in public schools.
Obviously, Mr. Perry is attempting to make a classic argument, in which if one similar thing is legal, and another similar thing is not, there is a flaw in whatever system those two things are operating within. An example of this type of argument, that personally works for me, is: When it is considered illegal for an adult to not wear his or her seat-belt while in a car, but it is not considered illegal for an adult to not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, ATV, or other similar vehicle, there is a flaw in the system surrounding an individual's right to to determine his or her own level of safety. This argument makes sense. Why? Analyze the similarities. Both situations have to do with an individual's own personal safety, and a seat-belt and a helmet offer similar types of protection (preventative).
Now let's analyze Mr. Perry's argument. The two facets are this: Gays and lesbians serving openly in the military; and Christian children practicing their faith (specifically praying and celebrating Christmas) in public schools. Already, we have a problem with the comparison of the subjects - gay and lesbian adults, and schoolchildren of the Christian faith. To expand upon the problem, being gay is not a choice, as religion is, but an integral part of a person's identity. Thus, Mr. Perry is comparing a choice against a given, which causes much confusion.
Secondly, the comparison of the situations, a career versus actions within a public institution, is also problem stricken. Except in rare cases, an employer in this country is not allowed to not hire someone based upon their age, gender, disability, religion, and sexual orientation (amongst others), but Mr. Perry is clearly saying here that this policy does not need to be upheld by the U.S. government itself. At this point, some people might be saying "Aha! You can't discriminate against someone because of their religion! Let the little kiddies pray!" And those people would be correct, in the first part of their statement; you can't discriminate within the terms of religion, thus all public schools therefore have to be hands off. If a school sponsored prayer, or the celebration of a specific religious holiday (regardless of how irreligious it has become), then it is therefore discriminating against every other student who believes in something else other than Christianity.
It would also be prudent at this time to remind Mr. Perry that children are indeed allowed to pray in school, as long as they are not disrupting other children with their behavior (which goes for ANY behavior, not just prayer). Celebrating Christmas is also usually allowed. I don't remember ever being punished for wearing an (ugly) Christmas sweater to school, or bringing gifts for friends. Mr. Perry's confusion here is with the difference between individual behavior, and school-sponsored behavior.
When you clear away all the hullabaloo from this scenario, we are left with this: Mr. Perry is confusingly stating "we" are discriminating in a situation in which we clearly are not. He is therefore confusing non-discrimination with...non-discrimination? Confusing indeed, Mr. Perry.
No comments:
Post a Comment