Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/church.politics.ap/index.html

Well, it seems that the pressure on the pastor reached his breaking point...he has resigned.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy...

Link: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/10/185256/825

Very interesting interview. The congregation member is clearly deeply upset at developments....

Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389348/posts

This came up on a local news website a few days ago. It seems that Arlington TX has a civic ordinance which forbids pets (including dogs and cats) to roam (not clear if this is day, night or both) without a leash. A local resident who clearly does not like cats very much is trapping them on his property and releasing them into the countryside.
As you see from the above link, a lot of folks appear to think that this is a Jolly Good Idea, or are at the least very sympathetic to the guy's actions.
Leaving aside the wisdom of what this guy is doing (and I happen to believe that he is behaving like an antisocial jerk), we need to consider the wisdom of this civic ordinance to begin with.
Let me try some elementary tuition for the law-makers of Arlington:

1. Dogs are not cats, and vice versa. Both species may have 4 legs and various different types of attractive fur coverings, but what works for one species does not necessarily work for another (hint: it's not just about cats not liking to play "Fetch")
2. Cats (even good ole' Felis Domesticus) are nocturnal, territorial hunting animals. They are NOT full-time fashion accessories whose sole purpose in life is to look cute on the sofa or next to the front entrance. They are happiest when left to look after themselves, roam in a small area and defend their territory (hint: think of how many times in your life you have seen a cat on a leash...)
3. Any civic ordinance that does not take (1) and (2) into account is dumb to the point of being brain-damaged.

What is happening in Arlington right now is a classic example of what happens when a city enacts a well-intentioned but excruciatingly dumb piece of legislation. Sooner or later, some evangelist of legislation enforcement will decide to become a one-man vigilante operation, and when challenged, will take refuge behind the aforementioned idiotic ordinance.

Here is some advice for the City of Arlington:

1. Review this legislation immediately. In its current form it is dumber than dirt.
2. Write a letter to the cat-trapper, praising him for his public-spiritedness, but suggesting that he might like to consider an alternative course of action that does not result in him appearing on a local neighborhood hate list. Emphasise to him that being legally in the right and being smart are not always the same thing.

Here is some advice for a wider readership:

3. If you want to keep a cat, don't lock the animal up 7x24. That is not how cats like to live their lives (hint: In human society, the only people we do that to are hardened criminals and the truly insane). Since I came to the USA I have met many dysfunctionl house cats, where they are locked up 7x24, and they are clearly unhappy. Perpetually miaowing, fidgetty, clinging cats are not poperly adjusted animals.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/02/outrage/index.html

Ever since 9/11, I have been part-amused and part-dismayed by the affectations that seem to sprout whenever something impinges upon the conciousness of America. Most commonly the affectation consists of displaying the US flag on any moving or stationary object. Next most common is the sprouting of ribbons or slogans of the "support the troops" variety.
As a transplant from the UK, I tend to regard such displays with the same weary sense of deja vu as I do other stickers like "Baby on Board" (as if that is going to make me drive more carefully? How insulting is that?) and my favorite, "My Child is an Honor Student at xxxxxxx High School" (and what makes you think I am interesting in knowing this?).
I was always unable to articulate my unease with these kinds of cute displays, until the above article from CNN which articulates the fundamental outrage better than I could. Simply put, while folks here are running around with yellow stickers on their SUVs and picking up the kids from xxxx High School, soldiers are being penalized for speaking up about dysfunctional procurement decisions, and people are dying in Iraq.
Message to some of my fellow Americans: Stop prattling around with symbols, wake up and start noticing what is really going in the world.

Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-dutch9may09,0,2511422.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Interesting story in the LA Times about Bush answering questions from school students in Holland. I guess my question is: why were the media ushered out of this session?

It appears that the pastor of the church is now claiming that the whole expulsion incident was a "misunderstanding".
Hmmm. Perhaps a lawyer has corrected his fundamental understanding of IRS code Section 501(c), where explicit political endorsements are forbidden.
I'm wondering how long it will be before he resorts to the politician whine that he was "mis-quoted"...
The congregation needs to find its collective voice and toss him before this congregation is destroyed and community cohesion is irreparably damaged. They need to remember the old saying that for evil to triumph, it simply needs good people to say and do nothing.

Here is a draft living will for use by those of us who want to limit the roles of government and religion:

I, _________________________ , being of sound mind and body, do not
wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means.

Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of
pecker-wood politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if their
lives depended on it.

If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for
a cold beer, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better. When
such a determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children
and attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call
it a day.

Under no circumstances shall the members of the Legislature enact a
special law to keep me on life-support machinery. It is my wish that
these boneheads mind their own business, and pay attention instead to
the health, education and future of the millions of Americans who
aren't in a permanent coma.

Under no circumstances shall any politicians butt into this case. I
don't care how many fundamentalist votes they're trying to scrounge
for their run for the presidency in 2008, it is my wish that they play
politics with someone else's life and leave me alone to die in peace.

I couldn't care less if a hundred religious zealots send e-mails to
legislators in which they pretend to care about me. I don't know these
people, and I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade
on my behalf. They should mind their own business too.

If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a
political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make
his or her existence a living hell.

_______________________________________
Signature

__________________________________
Witness

Several years ago, I had an interesting discussion with a member at my tennis club about the result of the 2002 mid-term US elections, where the Republican Party consolidated its control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Our debate turned on the statements being made by Republicans to the effect that "we have a mandate".
Now, one thing that I have learned from listening to politicians over the years in the UK and the US is that whenever a politician stands up and announces "we have a mandate", they are talking in code, or to put it another way, there is a sub-text that is not spoken. The sub-text is "we just won the election and now we're going to damn well do what we like because we can win all of the votes".
In other words, what they are really saying is that they intend to govern by the principles of majoritarianism.
The debate with my tennis colleague was about exactly what a majority of the votes entitled the Republicans to do. My argument was that it appears to be a fundamental rule of representative democracy that an elected representative represents all of the electors in their district, not just the ones that voted for them at the last election (at least that is what they say - I will extend the principle of charity and take them at their word).
If you extend that logic, the majority has to take into consideration the views of minorities. My tennis colleague did not agree with this; he argued that the Republicans could do what they liked irrespective of what their opponents thought, since they had a majority of the seats.
I tried to counter this statement by pointing out that a number of countries where this type of "winner takes all" politics is normal practice are deeply dysfunctional. A good example is Pakistan, where until recently the first thing that a political party did on winning office was to try and have its opponents/predecessors jailed or otherwise politically neutralised. Pakistan, as a result, has real problems with democratic governance to the point where it is currently under quasi-military rule, with democracy stifled.
My tennis colleague and I ended up agreeing to disagree on this issue.
The reason I am raising this point is that I believe that a lot of recent events in the USA bear all of the stamp of attempts by political or religious groupings to invoke the practice of majoritarianism. In my opinion, majoritarianism is a distortion of representative democracy which, if unchecked, leads to deeply dysfunctional behaviours, usually comprising intolerance and ultimately resulting in overt oppression.
The recent example of East Waynesville Baptist Church, where church members who voted Democrat at the last election have been asked to leave the church, is an excellent example of majoritarianism gone dysfunctional. This is barely one step down from mob rule, especially when the Republican members of the congregation apparently cheered when the Democrat members left the church. All I can say is that based on my knowledge of the Bible, the church members who cheered need to be taking a very good look at their own behaviours and attitudes, and then asking themselves; what sort of tyrannical nonsense have they just allowed themselves to participate in?
Folks, the US is heading down a very dangerous path right now. If majoritarianism had always been the preferred operating model in the US political system, none of the advances in minority rights and levels of respect would ever have occurred. The majority could simply have said "you're a minority, go away and shut up". Bringing us up-to-date, it is easy to see that the current attempts to amend state constitutions to define marriage as being between a woman and a man are a classic example of majoritarianism - the heterosexual majority attempting to circumscribe the rights of a homosexual minority.
Such attempts are highly dangerous for the future of the United States. In my opinion, given the many ways in which the founders of the USA were seeking to escape majoritarian persecution in other parts of the world, and to build a functioning democracy based on equal opportunities, I would go so far as to state that in my opinion, such majoritarianism is deeply un-American. It is antithetical to everything that America has stood for in the world, is another example of America setting a lousy behavioural example for other societies, and is likely to lead to arbitrary oppression of minorities, and tit-for-tat oppressions as voting preferences change.
Those of us who believe in inclusive representational democracy need to be out in the wider world arguing against this sort of nonsense.

By Senfronia Thompson, TX Representative (House District 141). This is the text of a speech she gave, opposing an amendement to Senate Bill 6 that would have required prospective foster parents to state their sexual orientation, and would disqualify anybody replying that they were homosexual or bisexual from being or continuing as a foster parent.
This is a beautiful, blunt, encapsulation of why legislative amendments like this are horseshit:

"I have been a member of this august body for three decades, and today
is one of the all-time low points. We are going in the wrong direction,
in the direction of hate and fear and discrimination. Members, we all
know what this is about; this is the politics of divisiveness at its
worst, a wedge issue that is meant to divide.

Members, this issue is a distraction from the real things we need to be
working on. At the end of this session, this Legislature, this
Leadership will not be able to deliver the people of Texas, fundamental
and fair answers to the pressing issues of our day.

Let's look at what this amendment does not do: It does not give one
Texas citizen meaningful tax relief. It does not reform or fully fund
our education system. It does not restore one child to CHIP, who was
cut from health insurance last session. It does not put one dime into
raising Texas' Third World access to health care. It does not do one
thing to care for or protect one elderly person or one child in this
state. In fact, it does not even do anything to protect one marriage.

Members, this bill is about hate and fear and discrimination. I know
something about hate and fear and discrimination. When I was a small
girl, white folks used to talk about "protecting the institution of
marriage" as well. What they meant was if people of my color tried to
marry people of Mr. Chisum's color, you'd often find the people of my
color hanging from a tree. That's what the white folks did back then to
"protect marriage." Fifty years ago, white folks thought inter-racial
marriages were a "threat to the institution of marriage."

Members, I'm
a Christian and a proud Christian. I read the good book, and do my best
to live by it. I have never read the verse where it says, "gay people
can't marry." I have never read the verse where it says, "thou shalt
discriminate against those not like me." I have never read the verse
where it says, "let's base our public policy on hate and fear and
discrimination." Christianity to me is love and hope and faith and
forgiveness-- not hate and discrimination.

I have served in this body a lot of years-- and I have seen a lot of
promises broken. I should be up here demanding my 40 acres and a mule
because that's another promise you broke. You used a wealthy white
minister cloaked in the cloth to ease the stench of that form of
discrimination.

So, now that blacks and women can vote, and now that blacks and women
have equal rights-- you turn your hatred to homosexuals-- and you still
use your misguided reading of the Bible to justify your hatred. You
want to pass this ridiculous amendment so you can go home and brag--
brag about what? Declare that you saved the people of Texas from what?

Persons of the same sex cannot get married in this State now. Texas
does not now recognize same-sex marriages, civil unions, religious
unions, domestic partnerships, contractual arrangements or Christian
blessings entered into in this State-- or anywhere else on this planet
Earth.

If you want to make your hateful political statements then that is one
thing-- the Chisum amendment does real harm. It repeals the contracts
that many single people have paid thousands of dollars to purchase to
obtain medical powers of attorney, powers of attorney, hospital
visitation, joint ownership and support agreements. You have lost your
way-- this is obscene.

Today, you are playing to the lowest common denominator-- you are
putting aside the real issues of substance that we need to address so
that you can instead play on the public's fears and prejudices to
deceive and manipulate voters into thinking that we have done something
important.

I realize that gay rights are not the same as civil rights-- but I can
guarantee you we are going in the wrong direction. I can not hide my
skin color. In fact, in most of the South, people as pink as Rep. Wayne
Smith were still Black by law if they had a great grandparent who was
African. I was unable to attend an integrated and equally funded school
until I got my Master of Laws degree. There were separate and unequal
facilities for nearly everything.

I got second-hand textbooks even worse than the kind you're trying to
pass off on every public school student next year. I had to ride to
school on the back of the bus. I had to quench my thirst from filthy
coloreds-only drinking fountains. I had to enter restaurants from the
kitchen door. I was banned from entering most public accommodations,
even from serving on a jury. I had to live with the fear that getting
too uppity could get you killed --- or worse. I know what third-class
citizenship feels like. In my first term, one of my colleagues walked
up and down this aisle muttering about how Nigras should be back in the
field picking cotton instead of picking out committees.

So, I have to wonder about Rep. Chisum's 3/5 of a person amendment.
Some of you folks hid behind your Bible then, too, to justify your
cultural prejudices, your denial of liberty, and your gunpoint robbery
of human dignity.

We have worked hard at putting our prejudices against homosexuals in
law. We have denied them basic job protections. We have denied them and
their children freedom from bullying and harassment at school. We have
tried to criminalize their very existence. But, we have also absolved
them of all family duties and responsibilities: to care for and support
their spouses and children, to count their family's assets in
determining public assistance, to obtain health insurance for
dependents, to make end-of-life or necessary medical decisions for
their life partners--- sometimes even to visit in the hospital, even to
defend our own country. And then, we can stand on our two hind legs and
proclaim, "See, I told you homosexual families are unstable." And
nearly every one of you on this Floor has a homosexual in their
extended families.

Some of you have shunned and isolated these family members. Some of
you, even some of the joint coauthors, have embraced them within your
own family for the essence of Christianity is love. Yet,you are now
poised to constitutionalize discrimination against a particular class
of people. I thought we would be debating real issues: education,
health care for kids, teacher's health insurance, health care for the
elderly, protecting survivors of sexual assault, protecting the
pensions of seniors in nursing homes.

I thought we would be debating economic development, property tax relief, protecting seniors pensions and stem cell research, to save lives of Texans who are waiting for a more abundant life. Instead we are wasting this body's time with this political stunt that is nothing more than constitutionalizing discrimination. The prejudices exhibited by members of this body disgust me.

Last week, Republicans used a political wedge issue to pull kids-- sweet
little vulnerable kids-- out of the homes of loving parents and put them
back in a state orphanage just because those parents are gay. That's
disgusting. Today, we are telling homosexuals that just like people of
my ilk, when I was a small child; they too are second class citizens.

I have listened to all the arguments. I have listened to all of the crap.
Mr. Chisum, is a person who I consider my good friend and revere. But,
I want you to know that this amendment is blowing smoke to fuel the
hell-fire flames of bigotry.

You are trying to protect your constituents from danger. This amendment
is a CYB amendment for you to go home and talk about."

Well a lot of results have been announced, and it is already clear that the Labour majority will be a lot smaller this time around - predictions are for a majority of between 70 and 75 seats.
It is clear from exit polls that many electors voted against Labour because the war in Iraq. One good feature about electors in the UK is that they don't have much tolerance for outright lying by politicians. Tony Blair is lucky that he had a majority of 150+ to begin with...