And in fact, the polls show this to be the exact direction that Americans are moving.  Most people now favor gay marriage rights, and the amount of Americans calling themselves “pro-choice” has shrunk while “pro-life” has gained share.  This fact should not be the least bit surprising to anyone who understands the issues at hand.  Gay marriage will naturally become more popular because it is a message of inclusion; the arguments against it are weak and becoming weaker as more people realize it will not hurt them in any way.  And as for abortion, improved medical imaging, the survival of fetuses at increasingly earlier stages, and wider acceptance of contraception has rendered abortion less necessary and more morally questionable.

Yet it seems that in our mainstream politics, we are still largely defined by the idea that you must take a certain position on each issue based on your political side.  It’s part of our idiotic political culture that demands absolute fealty to one party’s positions and spits upon those who find themselves in between.  If a Republican finds himself supporting gay rights or anything other than the extreme, terrifying pro-life stance of Santorum and Bachmann, he is excoriated and called a “RINO”.  If a Democrat favors anything but totally unrestricted abortion, he is called anti-woman.  As a country we suffer from the ridiculous idea that people fit nicely into one of two camps, and those that don’t like either camp that much are thrown to the wild.

Instead, what we need to adopt are reasonable stances on both abortion and gay marriage.  Republicans and conservatives need to understand two things, lest they be thrown to the dustbin of history.

First, that abortion is going to be legal to some degree, likely for a very long time.  I realize that this is hard to accept, but it’s reality.  However, the pro-life argument is very strong and gaining ground.  Conservatives should not shy away from this.  The argument that unborn life is worth something is compelling and rational.  The huge mistake to make is to push too hard, and go too far, to such an extent that regular folks are repulsed.  Mandatory ultrasound laws (including those requiring invasive probes) are a disgrace, as are vague, poorly realized “personhood” laws.  The goal posts are moving – but they need to be moved slowly.

Second, that gay marriage is inevitable, and that arguments against it are becoming increasingly weak.  It was already incredibly hard to convince someone that their hetero marriage was “threatened” by Bob and Steve down the street being married.  So anti gay marriage rhetoric has increasingly become reduced to playing on people being uncomfortable with homosexuality and disgusting fear mongering about people being able to marry their dogs.  Ideally, the state should get out of  marriage totally; but if it is in the business, it must treat all parties equally.  One’s personal discomfort with gay sex has literally NOTHING to do with what public policy should be.

This is the direction that most Americans are moving.  It makes sense as the younger generations become more at ease with gay people and abortion becomes more seen as something to be avoided.  A smart leader understands these trends and steps ahead of them instead of lagging behind and playing to the worst of us.  The American public is increasingly growing tired of the games being played.  It’s time for us to act like adults and make the case for our positions.

I will not deny for a second that gay/lesbian teens face an extra level of difficulty.  Even beyond bullying, they have to deal with politicians like Rick Santorum who treat them like second-class people.  Especially on the right, there is widespread bigotry based on the idea that being gay is sinful and wrong.  This is impossible to sugarcoat – homophobia is rampant in our society.  Sometimes it is not overt, but veiled, as one can see in the vicious mocking of men who like “non-manly” things and behave in an “effeminate” manner.

So a big part of me understands why someone like Dan Savage is angry at Christians.  Watching his recent rant, I found myself thinking that some of his points had some basis to them.  The Bible has been used to excuse terrible things in history.  But his approach is wildly wrong.  Instead of making the case for how Christians can both dislike homosexuality but treat gays with respect, Dan goes out of his way to offend and attack.  While this gets him attention and cheers from sympathetic students, it immediately ensures that many others will not even listen to him.  Now, certainly, there are some who will never listen;  some students started leaving the room immediately upon hearing the word Bible, clearly not interested in hearing any criticism.  But others would, and were turned off.

In effect, then, Savage became what he is against – a bully.  Instead of making the case for tolerance, he showed himself to have none of it.  While there are certainly many who use the Bible to excuse hate, there are also many Christians who may object to some things but are perfectly fine and loving to those who practice them.  To deride their faith and beliefs and accuse them of supporting slavery is completely unhelpful.  You’re not going to get anyone on your side by telling them their deeply held beliefs are evil or “bullshit”.

By doing this, Savage misses a golden opportunity.  Bullying is an awful thing already, and it is even more awful when someone is targeted simply because of who they are.  Homophobia is tolerated far too much because it often wraps itself in moral language or mocking those who don’t conform to gender stereotypes.  But it is not solved in the least by bigotry of a different sort.  LGBT youths are not served well by Savage and his ilk.  We need to win this battle with love, not hate.

Which is why the field of politics is often so frustrating to those of us who don’t swim in its murky waters everyday.  While I’m a long-time observer I am, by choice, limited in my role as a belligerent for any side other than that of liberty for myself and my fellow man.  There was a time when I drank from the kool-aid bowl that is conservative politics; I was a daily consumer of Rush, Beck, and Hannity.  I was daily instructed that liberals were anti-American and evil.  It made me feel like I was one of the Good Guys fighting to protect America.

But after a time, I began to see what was going on.  It finally took the election of Obama to make it all clear.  Feelings and opinions on both the left and the right switched overnight.  The left quickly became pro-war and didn’t give a wit about civil liberties.  The right became unhinged with disgusting conspiracy theories, aspersions about Obama’s religion, and opposition to his policies even when they mirrored those of his predecessor.  Government spending, which ballooned to gargantuan levels under Bush, suddenly became a national emergency.  It was clear that the right had its very own version of derangement, and it repulsed me.

Yet when one dips one’s toes into the political waters daily, it is still possible to become inured to the ugliness that often pervades that world.  Sometimes, though, there comes an event that brings out the worst in people.  Such an event happened yesterday with the sudden, tragic death of conservative icon Andrew Breitbart.  Now, to be entirely frank, I did not like this man and found his methods often very objectionable.  But he was by no accounts an evil man.  He did what he did because he felt it best for his country.  And above all, he was a friend, a husband, and a father.

One glance at much of the left-leaning world, though, and you’d think we was literally flying a blimp over the nation spraying toxic gas on innocent citizens.  The Twitter world was flooded with liberal-leaning folks openly celebrating his death.  Even supposedly “respectable” sites and magazines reacted to Brietbart’s death with glee.  After all, who cares if he left a wife, four children and countless friends?  He was on the other side!  He worked for the other team!

Of course, if one is honest, the right would react the same way were it a liberal icon like Michael Moore.  One only has to look at the comments of Rush Limbaugh this week towards a “feminazi” he disagreed with, calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute”.  Those are nasty words to use for any woman, let alone one whose only crime is differing in politics.  And it’s hardly out of the ordinary.  This kind of language is used every day on both sides, usually against people that the speaker doesn’t even know.  Merely disagreeing is warrant to judge the person’s morality and worth.

And the emotion that strikes me the most when I see hate on both sides towards political opponents?  Deep sadness.  I am sad for my country that we’ve been told to hate those who disagree.  I am sad for my friends who have come to believe that liberals/conservatives are literally bad people who want to cause harm.  I am sad that I at one time bought into this poison (though I’m glad I left it).

Above all, I am sad that millions of my fellow Americans are wasting their hatred on each other simply because they play for the “other team”.  It’s a profoundly stupid reason to dislike someone.  If you are going to spend this kind of emotional energy on someone, they’d damn well better be someone who actually harmed you, not just voted for the other guy.  I hate criminals who prey on the weak.  I hate terrorists who blow up innocents.  And I’m supposed to feel that same way against someone for having the wrong letter after their name?

It’s awful and it has to end.  It’s tearing us apart and turning neighbor against neighbor, brother against sister, parent against child.  And it’s all in order to make us get out and vote for one wretched “team” over another.  Well, I’m long through with it.  I’m saving my hate for those who deserve it.  We’d all be better off as people, and as a nation, if we did the same.

To a large degree I understand where these folks are coming from.  I’ve read both “God is not Great” by the late Hitchens and “The God Delusion” by Dawkins (the latter of which is far more worthwhile, IMO).  I’ve read about many of the bad things that religion has done – justifying slavery, triggering war, relegating women and gays to second-class status.   And I think the religious folks, if they are being honest, would admit that horrible things have been done in the name of God.  You’d be hard-pressed to find someone eager to defend the Inquisition or the Crusades, and we very rightly retch when radical Muslims use the Koran to excuse terrorism.

But I’m also someone who cares far more about how people act and treat each other.  It is my fervent belief that being a good and decent person does not require religion.  However, it is also my belief that religion is by no means antithetical to being a good person, and in fact for many spurs it.  As someone who spent many years in the church, I met countless people who were given great joy by their faith and driven to be better people and improve themselves.  Sure, I also met many who were the opposite – petty, judgmental, and unkind.  But then, that dichotomy is found in any group.

I simply know too many people who are given incredible peace and comfort by their faith for me to consider religion an inherently bad thing.  Do I disagree with their beliefs?  Of course, and if the subject comes up, I’ll do my best to debate it with respect and fairness.  One thing I know is that the vast majority of religious folks are not stupid, weak, or foolish.  They are simply people who, in their search for truth and meaning, have come to a different conclusion than I have.  I spent many years in the theistic ranks, and I see definite merit to pro-God arguments even if I now disagree.

Religion will never go away, as much as the anti-theists would like to believe.  We can either do our best to live with each other, or we can live in conflict and division.  I reject the culture war that many conservatives claim to exist; but I also reject the culture war that anti-theists see themselves as waging.  Prayer is not a threat to me, nor are public expressions of faith, so long as neither is forced on me.  And I will continue to count religious folks amongst my dearest friends.

In no particular order, here are a few albums I bought this year, along with links to Amazon and, if I could find one, a YouTube video.

1. Wye Oak – Civilian

This is a fantastic album.  The title track, “Civilian”, was one of my most listened-to tracks of the year.   Wye Oak creates a sound that is complex and somewhat haunting, with interesting religious overtones and just enough of a rock edge.  Listen to the track below… it is awesome.

2. Fleet Foxes – Helplessness Blues

As a massive fan of Fleet Foxes’ first offering, this one had high expectations from me, and did not disappoint in the least.  This is one of those albums that gets better with each listen as you discover new levels.  Expertly crafted songs.  My favorite track is hard to pick, but I’ll go with the title track, “Helplessness Blues.”

3. St. Vincent – Strange Mercy

Now this one was a bit of a departure for me.  I’ve never been a fan of music with a lot of electronic sounds.  But this one quickly won me over.  It is a complex, interesting collection of songs that is simply a great listen.  Tracks I particularly liked include “Cruel” and “Cheerleader”.

4. Pistol Annies – Hell on Heels

I don’t buy a lot of country music (maybe one or two albums a year).  A lot of it, quite frankly, sucks.  But the Pistol Annies go back to classic country goodness to produce a very enjoyable record.  Favorite tracks include “Lemon Drop” and “Bad Example”.  Below is the only one officially on YouTube, the title track.

5. The Civil Wars – Barton Hollow

This is just a fantastic debut by two musicians who have amazing chemistry and produce some of the most pleasant music I’ve heard this year.  Pretty much every track is a nice listen.  One of my favorites is “Girl With The Red Balloon”.

6. The Head and the Heart – The Head and the Heart

I’ve heard this band compared to Mumford & Sons, another one of my favorite groups.  But I found this ensemble to be somewhat lower-energy, a little more laid-back.  There are some great tunes here though, I’d suggest “Lost in my Mind,” “Ghosts,” and “Down in the Valley” to start.

7. PJ Harvey – Let England Shake

This one I just discovered about a week ago so it just made it under the wire.  Really good music, with a harrowing theme about England in turmoil.  Worth a purchase for both reasons.

8. Belle and Sebastian – If You’re Feeling Sinister

Yes, first of all I do realize this album came out in 1996.  So I’m a little behind here – give me a break, I wasn’t always a big music fan.  But if you’re someone who has not heard this, or even more so if you’ve never heard Belle and Sebastian, this is pretty much the most perfect indie pop I’ve heard.  Every song’s a winner.  I’m so glad I decided to dig into B & S this year – better late than never.

So there you go.  As promised, a sampling of what I was buying and listening to in 2011.  I bought plenty of other stuff too (through eMusic and Amazon) but I either haven’t had the chance to fully take it in, or it just simply did not stick with me.  I might add one or two if I discover a glaring hole.  But for now, I’d invite you to enjoy the videos I posted and perhaps discover some wonderful new music!

At the time I had just heard of Hitchens and was not familiar with his work.  Purely by chance, my seat at dinner was right next to him.  As he consumed his glasses of whiskey, I remember briefly engaging him in conversation about some trivial topic… I believe it was something like how technology was changing the world and how today’s children would never know a time without computers.  Silly, I now know in retrospect, but nonetheless he was perfectly engaging to a young 21-year-old computer science major.

I don’t recall much about the speech itself.  And looking back, I’m not sure why he spoke on such a trivial topic.  I highly doubt Hitchens himself remembered much about his brief visit to Lewisburg, PA, especially considering his likely blood alcohol content during the presentation.  As I recall this brief encounter I feel like, though I did not appreciate it fully at the time, he was certainly an interesting person to meet.

Hitchens was a remarkable fellow, as I’m sure will be communicated by the numerous obituaries popping up from nearly every major news site.  He pissed off almost everyone at some point.  I don’t think anyone ever shared, or will share, his particular blend of opinions.  But they were all unified by his absolute persistence in stating his opinion, no matter what it might be.  Let us all take that from him and learn to stick up for our beliefs, even when they may offend.

While I make no secret of my non-faith, I’m not aggressive about it either.  I’m not one of those non-believers that feels the need to call those of faith stupid or ignorant.  I know good people of both faith and non-faith, and I certainly count among my closest friends many who take their religious views very seriously.  As a rule, I try to be respectful of others’ beliefs, given that they do not try to force them upon me, and given that they, overall, make them a better person.  Faith can do this, and does do this, for millions, and to deny that would be silly.

As a holder of a minority worldview – my own views surely deserving of further explanation but essentially coming down to non-theistic agnosticism – I’m used to politicians not exactly gunning for my vote.  If I’m lucky, I’ll get an off-hand remark about how both those of faith and non-faith can be good people (for all his flaws, George W. Bush was remarkably tolerant).  However, I’m not expecting much.  What does get to me, though, is when a politician goes out of his or her way to insult me.  It is not always a calculated move, usually a passing reference to the false belief that atheists/agnostics have no values.

The example that sparked this post came when I saw this brief comment made by Newt Gingrich in a debate last month.  The moment did not get much attention at the time as it is hardly out of the ordinary to hear non-religious folks denigrated during Republican political events.  But in seeing this, it made me think of two things.  First, how profoundly ignorant Gingrich must be to think that those who don’t have faith have no values or judgment.  Secondly, how utterly contemptible he is to essentially imply those without faith are, as a rule, of poor character and completely undeserving of trust and power.

Now, certainly, from a political point of view, bashing atheists/agnostics isn’t going to cost anyone many votes, and may in fact gain them quite a few from those who are prejudiced.  Certainly among Republicans, it may indeed be a mainstream, majority belief that atheists are no better than Muslims – perhaps even worse.  So in the grand scheme, Newt’s comments will not hurt him, if they have any effect at all.  But it does, to me, shed some light on his character.  Does he not know any non-believers in his personal life?  If he does, does he treat them with suspicion?  Or is he just throwing red meat to a base that is largely convinced that secular humanism is a force of Satan?

Throwing rocks at non-believers tells me a lot about a person.  It says that person is willing to insult and slander one group in order to feed the worst instincts of the larger group.  It says that person has not even bothered to understand or get to know non-believers.  It says that person can and would prejudge those that they hire based on their faith and religious background.  In the end, it says they are a fool – a small-minded person who simply cannot fathom how one can come to the conclusion that God does not exist without then becoming a mass murderer or rapist.

Whether or not believers like it, there are millions of us out there who find our answers and contentment outside of the cathedral, mosque, and temple.  By many measurements non-belief is among the fastest growing groups in America.  By no means at all does this mean religion is threatened.  But it does mean that sooner or later, politicians will have to come to grips with the idea that we are out there.  The sooner they shed their preconceived notions, the sooner they will learn how to connect with people regardless of their religious views or lack thereof.

So what is left for this little blog?  Well, it is still going to exist, but it will have a somewhat different purpose.  I intend for this site to be where I post all the things that I don’t want to submit to the other sites.  This includes posts of a more personal nature (or as personal as I get on the Internet), as well as assorted other things that belong on my own blog.  If I ever decide to start something more, this will be where it is, but I don’t foresee that happening any time soon.  For the time, I will keep posting to the two outside blogs and to this one when appropriate, and that should handle all my needs.

All this to say, if you want to read most of what I write, check out Pundit League or United Liberty.  I will try and cross-post many of these writings here to provide a hub of sorts.  And for anything I might write about more personal things, this is where you’ll find them.  I hope you all stay tuned as I feel I finally have gotten my chance to enter the blogging world in legitimate form.

So when a controversy erupted yesterday over Daniels’ decision to abandon “right to work” (RTW) legislation in favor of other issues, I was more than a little skeptical.  I knew that in this time leading up to 2012, those who support or dislike a certain potential candidate are ready and willing to slime whoever is needed.  I also knew that many social conservatives already disliked Daniels because of recent comments he made supporting a “truce” on social issues.  Both of these reasons made me question whether some were attempting to create a row in order to damage Daniels.

After looking into the issues involved more, it is clear to me that that is the case to some degree.  For one thing, those who are criticizing Daniels are ignoring some essential political facts that need to be considered.  This article in National Review Online lays them out wonderfully.  In short, Daniels faces a limited legislative schedule and a minority that holds significant clout.  And in his years as governor, he has hardly been a slouch.  His record stands as being quite impressive and his legislative priorities, such as education reform, should make conservatives happy.

Finally, there is a very compelling argument to be made for not supporting RTW laws in the first place, so Daniels is hardly taking a position that is unheard of.  Tim Carney in the Washington Examiner makes a good, succinct case that such laws stand against the rights of free association and the rights of employers to hire whom they wish.  I’m quite sympathetic to this particular line of reasoning, being a firm believer in the right of individuals to freely enter into contracts of their choosing.  Also essential to point out is that these laws concern private unions and not public ones as in Wisconsin, so these are really two vastly different animals we’re talking about.

Regardless of the facts, there’s a fair point to be made that Daniels had a communications failure here, which in some minds is enough in and of itself to damage him.  But I think the bigger force at work here is conservatives who already resent Daniels for abandoning social issues.  No matter how much some social conservatives talk about focusing on fiscal issues at this point in history, when it comes down to it many are simply not going to tolerate a candidate who does not at least pay lip service to abortion and “traditional marriage”.

At the end of the day, I remain convinced that Daniels is a strong candidate who I could support.  If abandoning a bill that splits even those on Daniels’ side is what it takes to get other items through the Indiana legislature, I’d say that’s a very fair bargain.  And if Democrats continue to act like children, it will be clear to the public that they are at fault and that the Governor is making a good-faith effort.