In Response To A Letter To The Editor, Vol. X

From The Virginian Pilot, 01.05.07

To the Editor:

Re 'New congressman to use Jefferson's copy of Quran' (news, Jan. 4):

Mr. Jefferson probably owned the Quran to have a reference on how not to craft a constitutional republic.

The Quran goes hand in hand with Sharia law, tells Muslims to lie to nonbelievers and calls for their slaying. The more Muslims we have in elected office, the more America as we know it is in peril.

--Alan, Franklin

To Alan:

While the Qur'an, like any other religious text, would certainly not be the sort of book one might consult for tips on establishing a constitutional republic, I suspect that Jefferson owned a copy of the Qur'an because -- as a student of the Enlightenment -- he both revered and actively pursued knowledge.

And Jefferson, who once edited the Bible down to a mere 114 pages in an effort to present the true teachings of Jesus, would surely have noted that the Qur'an is no different from other religious texts in that it contains passages that are every bit as alarming as others are beautiful.

Dogmatic adherents to the Qur'an are no more a threat to American democracy than dogmatic adherents to the Bible or the Torah. What does pose a grave threat to America as we know it is religious intolerance, which is precisely why the Founding Fathers took such pains to protect our religious freedom, even stipulating in Article VI of the Constitution that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Of course, as Thomas Jefferson lamented way back in 1817, "ignorance and bigotry, like other insanities, are incapable of self-government," so I guess we shouldn't be too surprised to find them flourishing in 2007.

--Megan, Norfolk

On The Eve Of The Midterm Elections, A Few Friendly Reminders About Democracy

Much is being made of the importance of voting in tomorrow's elections, and although I believe voting is little more than a symbolic act at this point, I have plans not only to vote but to spend a couple hours working the polls for Jim Webb and the Democratic Party.

I would, however, like to state for the record that I have long considered voting to be the lamest and lowest form of political participation possible. Far more important to the preservation of our democratic system is an educated, informed electorate that's willing to monitor and question its leaders, for as John F. Kennedy pointed out, "The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." His was not a revolutionary idea -- my beloved Jefferson noted the same nearly 150 years earlier: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." Voting is nice, but paying attention and questioning authority are really what democracy is all about.

And while Jim Webb is certainly no JKF or TJ, he does seem to get this whole democracy thing:

In a democracy, we are the boss. And George Allen and George Bush work for us. And the more people they can scare away or turn away from politics, the fewer bosses they're having. They don't want participation. They want to just move along with the status quo, lining the pockets of their corporate friends, protecting their own, while your job goes overseas and your kid goes to Iraq.

So, sure, go vote tomorrow. And vote Democrat. But then give some thought to refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Or maybe just write some strongly-worded letters or something.

Platitude-Free Zone

Coolest thing a kid said in my class today: "The absence of the towers doesn't just represent the lives that were lost that day. It also represents our loss of trust in our government."

Lamest thing a kid said in my class today: "Freedom isn't free."

Does anyone know what the fuck that even MEANS?

Because I'm pretty sure, judging by the politics of the simpletons who say it, that it doesn't mean what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

The Thomas Jefferson Nerd Barometer

If you decide that the three different collections of Thomas Jefferson quotations you stock at the bookstore are woefully inadequate, then special-order yourself the definitive 576 page Quotable Jefferson and eagerly await its arrival, then spend most of the day it's due to arrive repeatedly asking Meaghan, "Is my Jefferson book in there?," "Did you find my Jefferson book yet?" as she unpacks the shipment, then snatch up the book and hug it once it finally appears, then hunker down with it for hours saying "Huh?" and staring blankly at people when they try to talk to you, if you later force another friend to peruse the Jefferson book until she finally pronounces it cool and tells you that all her friends laugh when she tells them she knows someone with a favorite president, and you hear yourself saying, "No no, Thomas Jefferson is my favorite founding father, but FDR is my favorite president" in an effort to correct her, there is absolutely no doubt that you are a nerd.

If you are looking forward to a major reorganization of your bookcases that will involve devoting an entire shelf to Jefferson books, you are most definitely a nerd.

If you frequently find yourself engaged in debates about whether Thomas Jefferson is cooler than Abraham Lincoln, or opining about how unfortunate it is that Jefferson got stuck on the nickel and Alexander Hamilton, who sucks and wasn't even a president, gets the $10 bill, you are also a nerd. (I know, I know, Hamilton founded the National Bank. I don't care. He still sucks.)

Even if you think Lincoln is cooler than Jefferson, you are probably still a nerd.

If you can name more than five Jefferson biographers off the top of your head, you are most likely a nerd.

If Thomas Jefferson's name evokes Monticello, UVA, the Louisiana Purchase, Sally Hemings, and Paris, you may be a nerd. Or you may just have been raised in Virginia.

If you actually attended Jefferson's UVA, you are probably a nerd. Unfortunately, there's also about a 90% chance that you are a pompous, pretentious collar-popping and/or pearl-wearing jerk.

If your knowledge of Jefferson does not extend beyond an association with the Declaration of Independence, it is doubtful that you are a nerd.

If you believe George Allen when he claims to be a "common sense Jeffersonian conservative," you are not only not a nerd, you are also very stupid.

George Allen, You Are No Thomas Jefferson

Dear Senator Allen (R-Virginia),

I read in the paper this morning that in announcing your bid for reelection you described yourself as “a common sense Jeffersonian Conservative.” Since you earned both your History and Law degrees at Jefferson’s own University of Virginia, I'm confident you are well-aware that Jefferson was not a conservative and that you are no Jeffersonian. Perhaps you’re hoping the vast majority of Virginians merely admires Jefferson in the abstract and lacks the critical-thinking skills needed to detect the paradox in describing yourself as Jeffersonian or Jefferson as conservative. Such a hope would not surprise me given your efforts to destroy public education in Virginia during your six years as Governor, but as a Social Studies teacher I can assure you that a host of good teachers continues to produce citizens who can think for themselves and who know that Jefferson’s party was not the party of wealth and privilege.

Thomas Jefferson championed civil liberties and valued those civil liberties over security. He was a staunch advocate of the religious freedom guaranteed by our separation of church and state. Jefferson’s faith in our republic rested squarely on the ability of citizens to criticize their government in speech or in print. He was a steadfast proponent of public education and believed that quality education was the cure for most of society’s ills. As a student of the Enlightenment, Jefferson openly embraced change and hoped that each generation would improve the political system he helped establish. In short, Thomas Jefferson was the antithesis of what you and today’s Republican Party stand for.

Please refrain from insulting him -- and us -- by implying that your beliefs are in any way similar to his.

WWJD

What Would Jefferson Do?

It’s nearly February -- high season for Virginia legislating -- and the General Assembly is up to its usual crazy shit. One has to wonder what Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and champion of individual rights, would make of our more conservative legislators. (Sidebar: remember when the term conservative was used to describe people who wanted the government to stay OUT of our lives? Or is that just when it comes to paying our taxes? I get confused.) Among the bills proposed in this year’s legislative session are HJ 41: the usual constitutional amendment defining marriage as something that may exist only between a man and a woman, HB 187: a bill forbidding medical professionals to artificially inseminate women who are not married, HB 164: a bill requiring the promotion of abstinence in all Family Life Education (AKA “sex-ed”) classes, and HB 1308: a bill that allows public facilities to deny access to groups that encourage pre-marital sex.

Clearly Virginia’s legislators are concerned about sex. And clearly they have either not heard of -- or just don’t give a fuck about -- the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection of the law. They also seem to be operating under the delusion that their religious beliefs should play a role in making laws for the rest of us to live by. The common theme among these four bills is so-called Christian values. (Not Christian as in “love thy neighbor” and “judge not lest ye be judged,” but Christian as in “every time I open a Bible I somehow manage to grossly misinterpret was Jesus was saying about love, acceptance, and salvation.” But that’s not today’s topic.)

Marriage

The same-sex marriage debate is not a brand-new one, nor is Virginia the only state to propose an amendment to its constitution that would ban it. From a legal standpoint, I just don’t see what the fuss is about. The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution states unambiguously that laws must apply to all citizens equally, which basically means that laws cannot be discriminatory. I’m not a Supreme Court justice (though I often wish I was), but I can safely say that a law allowing straight people to marry each other but forbidding gay people to marry each other is discriminatory. An amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman would allow states to circumvent the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, but some of you may have noticed that Dubya dropped that campaign promise the second the Christian Right re-elected him. Until such an amendment is ratified, states have to abide by both the letter and spirit of the existing Constitution.

The only debate you can have about same-sex marriage is a values debate. And that particular values debate probably doesn’t sound so very different from the debate Virginians had a mere 40 years ago about inter-racial marriage. Up until a 1967 Supreme Court decision, Virginia law forbade miscegenation, or “the interbreeding of races.” I hardly see the difference between prejudice against black people and prejudice against gay people, but maybe my “values” are fucked up.

Child-Rearing & Procreation

Fortunately the bill forbidding artificial insemination of unmarried women died in committee. That doesn’t change the fact that some dude (and rest assured it WAS a dude) actually proposed it. The bill was most likely designed to prevent lesbian couples from having children, but it’s patently offensive to single women everywhere. Wait, I can’t have a baby AND I can’t have an abortion? Make up your mind, Republicans!

Of course, if you ask Republicans, I shouldn’t (hypothetically) be having sex in the first place. Sex is for procreation, and the only people who should be procreating are those who have entered into the sacred covenant of marriage. Hence the promotion of abstinence in schools and the denial of facilities use to the plethora of groups that “encourage or promote sexual activity by unmarried minor students.” Seriously, where ARE these groups? Can anyone name one? I’ve been in numerous schools, as both a student and a teacher, and I have yet to encounter a club or organization that promotes any kind of sexual activity. Hell, why in the world would kids sit around after school and DISCUSS sex when they could just go home and HAVE it? Politicians: drop by a school sometime, talk to the kids for twelve seconds or so. It might save you the trouble of writing such silly bills. And PS: I hate to be a stickler, but this one’s unconstitutional too. If a school allows one club or group to use its facilities, it has to provide equal access to all other clubs or groups.

Abstinence

The bill in question was proposed by Del. Scott Lingamfelter (from Woodbridge -- my sister probably voted for him) and “requires that any family life education course including a discussion of sexual intercourse emphasize that abstinence is the accepted norm and the only guarantee against unwanted pregnancy.” I can get behind this guy (repeat: guy) on abstinence being the only guarantee against unwanted pregnancy, but the accepted norm? Are you fucking kidding me?! Perhaps Del. Lingamfelter discovered some sort of wormhole and traveled back in time to. . .um. . .a time that doesn’t exist? Or maybe in a parallel universe (Einstein indicated such a thing was possible) abstinence is the accepted norm. But it’s certainly not the norm in this universe.

Here’s the thing about teenagers: they are going to have sex whether we like it or not, and they can either do that safely or not so safely. (For the record, I don’t think kids should be having sex. But that’s based on what I know about sex as an adult, and you couldn’t have convinced me of that as a kid. Okay, maybe you could have convinced ME, but you couldn't have convinced most of the kids I knew.) If all we tell kids about sex is not to have it, they are not going to know how to protect themselves from pregnancy and disease when they do have it. This is bad from a social perspective and bad from a public health perspective.

And here’s the other thing, Republicans: you can’t have it both ways. You can’t exclusively promote abstinence and then bitch about women using abortion as a form of birth control. Abstinence-based education just does not work. If we did a kick-ass job of promoting and providing access to birth control, there would be far less abortion because there would be far fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Jeffersonian Governance

Unfortunately, for the most part we are not dealing with rational people but with religious fundamentalists, who argue that their way is A) the only right way and B) the historical American way. Which brings us back to Thomas Jefferson, an unwavering advocate of civil liberties who was devoted to the concept of separation of church and state (in fact, it's Jefferson who coined that phrase). In 1779, Jefferson crafted Virginia's Statute for Religious Freedom, which reminded citizens that "our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions." In 1803, Jefferson wrote, "I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance." And in 1807, long before the advent of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection or any related Supreme Court decisions, Jefferson asserted that "an equal application of law to every condition of man is fundamental." Do you think HE would support any of these bills?