Posts on New Jersey

The Religious Right looks to Maggie Gallagher and Robert George for intellectual cover when arguing that same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry, but whatever credibility they have as independent scholars will be put to the test by their new venture, the National Organization for Marriage.

Gallagher, president of the low-key Institute for Marriage and Public Policy (and perhaps most famous for taking money from the Bush Administration while promoting its marriage policy), and George, a Princeton professor, started NOM in order to lobby against marriage equality for same-sex couples and to campaign against legislators connected to the issue. The group ran this billboard in Massachusetts before the state’s 2007 election (image via Good As You):

The group is airing a radio ad in New Jersey against a bill that would allow same-sex couples to marry, featuring a child saying, “God creating Adam and Eve? That was so old-fashioned.” Although the bill, entitled “Civil Marriage and Religious Protection Act,” explicitly states that no religious group would be required to sanction any marriage (a requirement the First Amendment prohibits anyway) , the NOM ad hits on public fears that marriage equality for same-sex couples would imperil churches, stating, “They also want to penalize traditional New Jersey churches with threats to state tax exemptions and adoption licenses.”

Ever since the news broke that many right-wing leaders were considering abandoning the Republican Party if Rudy Giuliani secures the presidential nomination, lots of ink has been spilled speculating about just how serious they are about carrying out the threat and discussing what it could mean for the 2008 election. 

Today, Bloomberg ran an article that pretty well encapsulates the utter confusion plaguing the movement at the moment by quoting a variety of leaders and activists, none of whom seem to agree with each other:

- “I am asking them to at least consider Voltaire's question: Do you make the perfect the enemy of the good?'' said Richard Land, a leader of the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, based in Nashville.

- If Clinton, 59, wins, “her administration would declare war on social conservatives,'' Bauer said. “She'll go after conservative talk radio, she'll go after Christian radio' … Bauer said that with some “serious negotiations'' over his platform, religious conservatives could find a way to support Giuliani. He declined to provide specifics, citing a need to maintain his bargaining position if Giuliani is the Republican nominee.

- “Some leaders will hold to principle and will not vote for someone who is pro-abortion,'' said Tom Minnery, the political director of Focus on the Family.

- Michael Farris, the chancellor of Patrick Henry College, an evangelical school in Purcellville, Virginia, said he would consider supporting Giuliani only if “he named my mother as vice president.''

- “The entire conservative movement is going to be united because Hillary is going to be on the ballot and the Supreme Court is going to be at stake,'' said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington-based anti- tax advocacy group.  Land sees things differently. “I know a lot more evangelicals than Grover does,'' he said. “If Giuliani is the nominee, Grover will be shocked.'

Riverside, New Jersey, a small suburb of Philadelphia and Camden, has rescinded its anti-immigrant ordinance, passed last year to punish those who hire or rent to undocumented immigrants. Riverside’s measure was similar to a Hazleton, Pennsylvania law that was struck down by a federal judge in July, after a trial in which Hazleton’s mayor could not substantiate his claims of immigrant-related problems. PFAW Foundation was co-counsel to a coalition of Riverside businesses, landlords, and residents in challenging the ordinance as vague, overstepping the town's authority, unfairly putting businesses at risk, and violating civil rights under state law.

But despite the legal defects in Riverside’s planned crackdown on undocumented immigrants, reports indicate that it did succeed in its goal of driving out part of the town’s community, as apparent from struggling businesses shortly after the crackdown began, and from the AP report today, which notes, “The exact numbers are hard to pin down, but there seemed to be a precipitous drop in the number of Brazilians in the first few months after the ordinance was passed.”

Marcus Carroll, the one member of the township committee who voted against rescinding the ordinance, had this to say about the law's desired impact in driving unwanted residents away: "You can go home now and find a place to park."

One year ago: Anti-immigrant protestors in Riverside, New Jersey. The sign says “Drive your vans back across the Rio Grande.” (Photo from the Courier-Post.)

Meanwhile, anti-immigrant efforts in northern Virginia continue. Earlier this month, we noted the Ku Klux Klan entered the debate in Manassas and Prince William County, and today the Prince William police department is expected to announce a new program to deport “traffic violators and those charged with shoplifting or other misdemeanors,” as WUSA reports. “We think it’s the toughest anti-illegal immigrant measure in the United States,” said county supervisor Corey Stewart, who added, “In the long term, by making our community safer, and removing illegal immigrants from our schools and our hospitals, this is going to save us all a lot of money.”

As a number of right-wing activists—and presidential candidates—have pounced upon a tragic multiple-homicide in Newark as a rallying point for mobilizing anti-immigrant sentiment and pushing a mandate for local police to vigorously enforce immigration status violations, it’s no surprise to see Pat Buchanan join in denouncing so-called “sanctuary cities.” Buchanan, a host and frequent commentator on MSNBC, writes that the incident “has the makings of a Willie Horton issue in 2008”—a reference to an infamous racially-tinged attack ad used against Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential election.

At this point, one would expect Buchanan to launch into a diatribe against Hispanic immigration, which he has blamed in part for “The Death of the West,” the title of his most recent book. But surprisingly, Buchanan takes a different turn: Jumping to a Washington Post article on a study showing that nearly half of murder victims are black, he complains that “[u]tterly absent” are “white victims.”

The real repository of racism in America -- manifest in violent interracial assault, rape and murder -- is to be found not in the white community, but the African-American community. In almost all interracial attacks, whites are the victims, not the victimizers.

The idea that undocumented immigrants are causing a crime wave in the U.S.—while not supported by evidence—has been a mainstay of anti-immigrant activists for decades. For example, in instituting ordinances against hiring or renting to immigrants, Hazleton, Pennsylvania Mayor Lou Barletta claimed that immigrants were “terroriz[ing]” the city. But defending the ordinances in court, Barletta could not back this claim up. “The people in my city don’t need numbers,” the frustrated mayor declared when confronted with the city’s own statistics showing the opposite.

Similarly, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist have been touting phony numbers on immigrants and crime.

But if statistics don’t back up their claims, anti-immigrant activists can always latch on to anecdotes. A recent multiple-homocide in Newark, New Jersey has implicated illegal immigrants, and national activists quickly descended upon the city, claiming that the crime was linked to local police not questioning suspects’ immigration status.

The Washington Times reports that the English-only movement is “building momentum,” citing Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa)’s plans to reintroduce his English Language Unity Act in the new Congress and “seven states pushing legislation to make English the official language or to strengthen laws already in place."

“This is the strongest push for official English legislation that I have seen in the last 15 years,” crowed Mauro Mujica, chairman of US English. Rep. King claimed that “There's been such strong support. And it's gaining momentum.” Of course, with Republican immigration hawks out of power, King’s bill may have even less chance of becoming law than last year, when it languished in committee. And while King may use his skills in exaggeration to magnify the “momentum” and to try to create a wedge issue to motivate the anti-immigrant base, the real focus may be on proposed state laws.

"The states have been wonderful on this,” said Jim Boulet Jr., the executive director of English First, a group most recently involved in a failed attempt to prevent Florida Sen. Mel Martinez from being named general chairman of the Republican National Committee. The Washington Times cites efforts by legislators in Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey and Oklahoma, as well as an English-only referendum that passed last year in Arizona. King himself is devoting his energy to the state level by suing the governor of Iowa for supposedly violating the English-only law King crafted as a state legislator.

In spite of explicit statement to contrary from New Jersey attorney general.

Last week we mentioned David Paszkiewicz, the teacher at Kearny High School in New Jersey, who has been using class time when he should have been teaching U.S. History to tell his students that they are going to hell if they “reject [Jesus’] gift of salvation.”

On Wednesday, the Kearny Observer published a letter to the editor from Paszkiewicz that puts forth the standard right-wing claim that the separation of church and state is bogus and reads as if it were written by David Barton, the Right’s premier pseudo-historian whose work has been described as "laced with exaggerations, half-truths and misstatements of fact."    

In fact, just about every quote Paszkiewicz offers up that is attributed to one of the nation’s Founding Fathers appears to have come directly from the WallBuilders website:

Paszkiewicz: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.”

WallBuilders: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever.”

Paszkiewicz: “It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits and humbly to implore his protection and favors.”

WallBuilders: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.”

Paszkiewicz: “God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the sacred writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”

WallBuilders: “God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel.”

Paszkiewicz also offers this quote which he attributes to George Washington: “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.”  WallBuilders offers a slightly different interpretation of this quote, saying “in his speech on May 12, 1779, [Washington] claimed that what children needed to learn ‘above all’ was the ‘religion of Jesus Christ.’”

In fact, what Washington said on that day in his “Speech to the Delaware Chiefs” was entirely different:

I am glad you have brought three of the Children of your principal Chiefs to be educated with us. I am sure Congress will open the Arms of love to them, and will look upon them as their own Children, and will have them educated accordingly. This is a great mark of your confidence and of your desire to preserve the friendship between the Two Nations to the end of time, and to become One people with your Brethren of the United States. My ears hear with pleasure the other matters you mention. Congress will be glad to hear them too. You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.

As a history teacher, Paszkiewicz ought to know better than to rely on a "historian" whose credentials are as suspect as Barton's. If he keeps this up, Paszkiewicz may soon need to issue his own list of “Unconfirmed Quotations.”

A recent New York Times editorial calls attention to the actions of David Paszkiewicz, a teacher at Kearny High School in New Jersey, who has been using class time when he should have been teaching U.S. History to tell his students that they are going to hell if they “reject [Jesus’] gift of salvation.”

Matthew LaClair, a student in Paszkiewicz’s class, feared that nobody would believe him if he complained about the teacher’s proselytizing – so he tape recorded it:

''If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,'' Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. ''He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying, 'Please, accept me, believe.' If you reject that, you belong in hell.''

When LaClair brought Paszkiewicz’s inappropriate use of class time to the attention of the school principal , Paszkiewicz denied it - as LaClair recently explained to CNN’s Anderson Cooper [Watch the video of this segment: Broadband or Dial-Up]:

LACLAIR: Well, at this point after I'd recorded a few days of the class, I brought it to the attention of the principal. I was sick for a week so I was out. And then when I came back, you know, the principal had known about this issue. Did not know about the recordings, however.

After I chased him down for about two weeks to get some other kind of meeting with me and Mr. Pasziewicz [sic] and a few others in that meeting. We had the meeting, and in that meeting he denied ever making any of these statements.

COOPER: Wait, wait. So the teacher who said this stuff, he denied it?

LACLAIR: He denied almost every single thing.

COOPER: What did he deny? That...

LACLAIR: Well, the main one was that he denied that he ever said that if you reject the Lord's salvation you belong the hell. He said that he would not even say that in his own church, which, of course, was not true.

And at this point they did not know I had the recordings of the class until, of course, I produced them.

COOPER: So after a lengthy meeting in which this teacher has denied saying this stuff, you say, "Well, I actually have a tape"?

LACLAIR: Exactly. And again, you know, I would have gone to the teacher originally if I thought that would solve the problem. But I had a feeling that it would be -- he would stop in my class but what about the rest of the other classes?

While Paszkiewicz has been backed by some students and citizens, he does not appear to be getting much organizational support from the Right: 

Even some legal organizations that often champion the expression of religious beliefs are hesitant to support Mr. Paszkiewicz.

“It’s proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can’t do that,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. “You can’t step across the line and proselytize, and that’s what he’s done here.”

“At the expense of traditional marriage.” Law passed in spite of Senate guest chaplain who “curse[d] the spirit” of gay marriage. NJ Family Policy Council’s Deo on marriage equality in the future: “Over my dead body.”

Supporters of referendum, which also bans civil unions, cite the recent New Jersey decision. Watch their new ad, courtesy of right-wing funders. Focus on the Family is concerned about Arizona and Colorado as well.

For 43 states.

“There’ll be a backlash,” predicts New Jersey Family Policy Council’s Deo.

So-called “family policy councils.” More here.

Kevin McCullough offers to WorldNetDaily readers his paradoxical argument that same-sex couples seeking to marry actually “despise” marriage and are “seeking to destroy” it. McCullough’s radio talk show, called the “MuscleHead Revolution,” airs for two hours each day on WMCA, a Christian AM station in New York City owned by the Salem chain. He is the author of a book on “overcoming liberalism” and his online columns are featured on TownHall.com and WorldNetDaily.

According to McCullough, "Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes."

… Despite all that their angry-mob front groups argue in front of television cameras to the contrary, radical homosexual activists despise the institution, and more importantly the sanctity, of marriage. That is the fundamental reason why they are seeking to destroy the institution.

Why do loving, committed same-sex couples seek legal recognition of their unions? In McCullough’s altered universe “the answer is simple.”                                                 

No longer satisfied with practicing the unspeakable perverse sexual pleasures that their hearts seek in private bedrooms, they wish to be able to do so in public. They are also suffering from such immense guilt over their sexual behaviors, because they know inherently that the actions they perform are in fact unhealthy, that they will go to any means necessary to try and shut down the voices in their heads that tell them it is wrong.

... There are attributes of marriage that same-sex couples will never achieve. But in the minds of radical activists, getting the label and a piece of paper saying so will be close enough.

For instance, a woman who engages in lesbianism will never know the joy of lovemaking that creates within her the product of that union – an actual human life. She will never know the security of a true man protecting her from the dragons of the world and providing for her an environment where she can nurture and give love to that little life once it arrives, or the stamp of approval that God puts on such an experience. And because she and her partner know this, they must defy reason, biology and sexual function to create children and experiences that serve as faulty substitutes for that God-ordained picture.

So don't believe the angry spokespeople. Radical homosexual activists hate marriage because fundamentally they hate God, and the guilt of both drives them to extremes. 

Frankly, the only “dragons of the world” lesbians may need protection from are the like of McCullough --- who seems to know a lot about hate.