The Episcopal Bishop of South Dakota speaks

This somewhat for internal consumption by Episcopalians but others may be interested too. Our Bishop is not an activist and like most of us wants to keep the dialogue open with all that care about where we are going.

Here's his main point, I think:

As a Bishop of this Church, I cannot turn my back on full inclusion for all persons, which has been at the heart of ministry in this Diocese since Bishop Hare came to Dakota Territory to minister to the Native People of this land, and continues to this day as we open our doors to all who would like to worship in this Church in South Dakota.

Read on:

+Creighton of South Dakota
2/27/07

Comments:
Dear Friends in Christ:

Many in this Diocese, and beyond, have been awaiting a communication from the Primates meeting in Tanzania which took place on February 15-19, which concerned their response to The Episcopal Church's action in 2003 concerning the Consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire. Collateral issues concerned TEC's developing rites for the Blessing of same-gender marriages and unions; and, the issue of foreign Bishops making visitations to some congregations in Dioceses of TEC, without prior request of the Bishop exercising jurisdiction over a particular area. The full text of the Primates' Communique can be found on the website of the Episcopal News Service.

Personally, I am offended by some of the recommendations of the Primates of the Anglican Communication, some of which would require TEC to turn it's back on decades of work to provide for the Episcopal Church, full inclusion of persons.

This concept of full inclusion has been affirmed at our Diocesan Convention in 2006, when Fr. Tim Fountain presented a resolution to provide a "safe place" for all persons and congregations in this Diocese, in order that we may become an inclusive Diocese and a place for all people to worship our Lord.

As a Bishop of this Church, I cannot turn my back on full inclusion for all persons, which has been at the heart of ministry in this Diocese since Bishop Hare came to Dakota Territory to minister to the Native People of this land, and continues to this day as we open our doors to all who would like to worship in this Church in South Dakota. We simply cannot now turn our collective backs on those who wish to worship with us and I call on all congregations to continue to be a "safe place" for all to gather in our Lord's name. This is an issue of justice and morality which will engage the wider church in the days and months ahead

As we move forward in proclaiming the Gospel in this Diocese, my prayer will be that this Diocese can be a place where divergent views can be expressed; where all can be welcomed to worship our Lord; and that we might be a prophetic voice and an advocate for full inclusion for all people from all walks of life, as our Baptismal Covenant requires us to do.

Faithfully,

+Creighton L. Robertson
IX Bishop of South Dakota

Mary Garrigan writes on the Episcopal Church, and (what a shock) I choose to comment

Mary Garrigan wrote another good article in the Journal about some local Rapid City take on the ultimatum from the Anglican Primates to the Episcopal Church.

Much of the article centers around a long-loved Episcopal priest in these parts, Fr Ron Hennies, who is a wonderful man and servant of people who has retired many times and continues to be called back. His newest call is really new; he has left the Episcopal Church and has converted to the Eastern Orthodox faith. I know he will serve faithfully there too.

I've known Fr Ron for years and am saddened that he has not been able to accept the ordination of women as something that was so far overdue that years more of "process" would have been wrong. In my view, the empowerment of women has changed things so much that it is not surprising that people of Fr Hennies' generation find the change especially difficult. We all do. And I have no problem with conservatives of good and faithful heart like Father Hennies that are honestly concerned with the direction things are going.

However, I do have a problem with loud, externally funded forces of the IRD-funded AAC, and their international political machinations is that as far as I can tell from their actions it's not about the gay issue or even women, it's about power in the church and who has it. These people have done a lot of damage: as in American politics, a loud, well-funded minority is getting more attention than it deserves, and is using wedge issues to distract the Church from its faithful calling. And this hurts those of us that really do care about these issues, on both sides.

There is one item so factually so wrong that I wanted to put it right out there: Fr Hennies told Mary:

"Change," he said, has not benefited the Episcopal Church. “Its numbers have declined dramatically,”

This is false propaganda spread from the American Anglican Council and others, and I'm dismayed to hear Fr Hennies has accepted it without checking the facts for himself.

The number of self-identified Episcopalians in the USA has in truth held steady or grown. You can look it up.
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm
(search for "Exhibit 1")

http://newark.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/communicants92_02.html
(Look for the graph)

I have a theory on how you can determine the "good guys." Faithful Christians like Fr Hennies do not use language carelessly; especially in the Anglican tradition, they know that words matter.

Case in point, in this article there is a fellow named Chip Johnson who abuses the word "Anglican":

Johnson was nearly ordained as an Episcopal priest through its Mutual Ministry program a few years ago. Instead, he plans to be ordained after Easter as an Anglican priest in a small diocese of seven congregations of mostly former Baptists, Methodists and Nazarenes who are “interested in an Anglican walk.” His church is associated with -- but not part of -- the Anglican Mission in the Americas.

The irony of this is almost shocking. Anglicanism was born in Elizabethan times after years of strife and division as a peace-making agreement to share a core common belief and manner of worship in the Creed and Book of Common Prayer, and let Scripture, Tradition and Reason, through the Holy Spirit, lead our lives, without coercion or judgment from each other. By that definition, Chip Johnson and his new flock of Anglican-wanna-bees, are in truth more than little un-Anglican.

What the heck does Mr Johnson himself mean by Anglicanism anyway? My experience and reading leads me to believe that for people like Chip Johnson, "Anglican" and "Orthodox" are code-words for: "against those gay-luvvin lib'rals, and women, leading my church out of my comfort zone."

What I believe is that the Gospel has a habit of leading us to "the no-comfort-zone."

Deal with it.

Faith in action (for the rich and powerful)

A United Methodist friend of mine passed along this newsletter from the Institute for Religion And Democracy. Just in case you were wondering if yours truly was looking under rocks to explain the existence of the American Anglican Council.

Of course there is the obligatory sky-is-falling pronouncement of the Episocpal church's "implosion" (nothing could be further from the truth), but the most telling part of this recent newsletter is a direct attack on the UMC's support of the National Council of Churches:

The United Methodist Church is the largest church contributor to the National Council of Churches (NCC) this year, giving over $600,000.

Here's their indictment:

In its Fall meeting the NCC Board condemned Wal-Mart for business practices it says run counter to labor, women’s rights, international justice, and environmental protection. The NCC board also adopted a global warming statement calling for
the United States to support “mandatory measures that reduce the absolute amount of greenhouse gas emissions.”

An NCC resolution on Iraq calls for the U.S. to “immediately begin to develop a plan for the phased withdrawal of American and coalition forces from Iraq, which should include a timetable for an expeditious final troop withdrawal.” The resolution insists that the justifications for the war were “false or ill-considered.”

The tag on the newsletter letterhead would almost be funny if the Church was not suffering so much from IRD's efforts: A newsletter for United Methodists working for Scripture-based reform in our denomination.

Scripture based? I can't think what could be more Scripture-based than speaking out for peace, social justice, and God's creation! The United Methodist Church is the biggest supporter of the NCC precisely because they are theological committed to work in the world, which the NCC does, advocating a Christian message to our voters, politicians and government. The NCC's faithfulness to Holy Scripture is exactly why IRD has NCC has its primary target.

The fact is, IRD exists to nurture and support splinter groups like the AAC and UMAction to protect the interests of their rich powerful donors. They really don't care about abortion and gays, those are just issues they are using to divide Christians so the Church can no longer speak out on things that are TRULY central to the Christian faith: justice, peace, and love of neighbor.

Why does this matter to us in Rapid City? Well, the IRD and groups like them are getting in the way of us finding the will to address our tax policies, Folks like Rep. Mike Buckingham (Fox-News-conservative) and Sen. Dennis Schmidt (mail-order evangelical preacher conservative) listen to what these groups say and have the talking points in their heads as they vote in the Legislature on environment, on taxes, on education of our kids, and on the poor. This is why we need to tell the truth about these groups and keep looking for their real agenda.

Nuff said?

South Dakota Boy Makes Bad

The American Anglican Council has apparently now the self-appointed "watchdog" for the Episcopal Church USA's recent ill-advised directive from the worldwide Anglican Primates to stop their 'Merican gay-lovin' ways. You can read the AAC's pompous press release here.

If you can stomach it.

The West River angle on all this is that the chosen mouthpiece of the Institute For Religion and Democracy-funded American Anglican Council today, is non other than Canon David+ Anderson, the former rector of Emmanuel Episcopal Church, Rapid City. As one who considers himself forever a part of that faithful community, I apologize.

David+ seems to have fallen off the edge so far that he is recommending that the Episcopal Church to stack a kangaroo eccesial court to remove openly gay bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. As Dave Barry says: I'm not making this up. Sounds more like how a fascist state operates more than how a church is called to be... Funny, his realpolitik talk sounds like something Brit Hume or Bill O' Reilly would say... but then David Anderson's "network" is increasingly shrill, even (maybe especially) now in their moment of "triumph." It's very sad... because if they succeed in their calculated effort to tear off part of the Episcopal Church, in the end all they will accomplish is a tragic divorce, with a small minority of Episcopalians leaving our Church, isolating themselves from what we can accomplish together, and even some Anglicans aligning with the Roman Catholic Church, or going it alone, ending with a wonderful 150-year tradition of Anglican worldwide cooperation in as

More discussion on Canon Anderson's statement here.

The truth is, the vast majority of Episcopalians know that the inclusion of all people in the Church is no less than required by the Gospel, including gays and lesbians; the differences the mainstream has is exactly what that means. The Episcopal Church in South Dakota is planted firmly in the mainstream--we're not ordaining any gay bishops or priests around here, or even officating at gay commitment ceremonies, but are on the whole are welcoming and friendly and supporting to GLBT folk. At the 2003 convention, the rector of Emmanuel Rapid City at the time, Fr David+ Cameron, and our SD Diocese Bishop +Creighton Robinson both voted for the confirmation of Gene Robinson, figuring if the Diocese of New Hampshire had decided on him and the only outstanding issue was his open homosexuality, who were we to tell them what to do on this often difficult area--there are no simple answers. They took a lot of heat, but in the end the Diocese of South Dakota (mostly) took the larger view. We have moved forward from there, even... in 2006, we passed a resolution urging our membership and others to vote AGAINST the gay marriage amendment in our fine State. (Along with many other Christians I might add.)

My point is, David+ Anderson and the AAC are waaay out of the mainstream, even here in South Dakota.

I hereby strip Canon David+ of his princess points.

State Senate refers 1293 to 41st day!

I just heard it live from the South Dakota Public Radio webcast of Senate State Affairs... unless it is revived from the Senate floor (unlikely this late in the session), 1293 is for all purposes done, along with its three companion 'abortion misinformation' bills. It sure feels good to have this awful law off the table. Thanks to all that worked hard to push for this vote. The vote was 8-1 to defer to the 41st day, effectively stopping the bill.

Maybe the Legislature can now get something significant done on economic development, healthcare, and taxes in rest of the session.

Rock and roll.

ps Before we move on (thank the Lord) I highly recommend the current Time Magazine, which has a map that shows that South Dakota's abortion rate is one of the lowest of the nation, and also has an article on pregnancy care centers which lays out a lot of truth, and also describes a really cool attempt to lower the temperature between a conservative Presbyterian church and a clinic that provides abortions. Listen to what their pastor said with respect to misinformation and disinformation on this issue--such a breath of fresh air:

[Presbyterian pastor] Hutchinson has wrestled with it himself, as a spiritual matter. "I never would have said that the ends justify the means," he says. "But I know that was in my heart--if lying helps save a baby's life, that glorifies God." He has read some pregnancy-center brochures that he suspects are maybe shading the truth in the name of a larger good. "This whole process has reminded me that Jesus is not a Machiavellian," he says. "It really helps me trust the sovereignty of God. He's in control of who lives and dies. My effort is to serve folks, and the means I use matter. I have to glorify Jesus. The results are in God's hands."

Such a "Blue Moon" group would sure be welcome around here, but not likely as long as we are subject to angry, divisive rhetoric and action from the likes of Gordon Howie, Roger Hunt, and Leslee Unruh.

If we were hearing more of this kind of talk from self-described "pro-life" activists, we might even lower abortions further in the state. As it is, we are only reducing a few abortions, and just shifting others out of state or out of the legal, safe medical system. There is no other way out of this but dialogue.

Religious faith growing in workplace?

I always enjoy Mary Garrigan's excellent articles, but the headline on this one in the RCJ is a little misleading. Sounds like Bob Fischer wrote the headline to try to push a point of view that people are becoming more religious, which actually is quite false--if you believe the polling data. For example, the Pew Research Center is recently released a poll of 18-25s ("Gen Next") that said:

One-in-five members of Generation Next say they have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic, nearly double the proportion of young people who said that in the late 1980s. (emphasis mine)

I believe that as these people get older, God will seek them out, but it's unlikely that She will find them through churches or people that judge and condemn. Personally, I think this is a great opening for churches that preach love and acceptance instead of preaching the difference between "us" and "them."

The report also says:

About half of Gen Nexters say the growing number of immigrants to the U.S. strengthens the country ­ more than any generation. And they also lead the way in their support for gay marriage and acceptance of interracial dating.

Pretty encouraging stuff.

One more thing: as I carefully read the RCJ article I saw an aspect of the subject that Mary didn't have space (or editorial support?) to get into: there is a huge difference between quietly wearing the hijab or cross or religion friendly leave policies, and posting religious slogans on the wall, asking your clients to pray with you, or telling gays you don't want their business (as many local "Christian" businesses have).

Moral of the story: when you share your religious values in the workplace, they are there for everyone to see, for better or worse.

Bob Ellis returns to the RCJ today

Bob Ellis again wastes space in the RC Journal today. He "takes on" objections to 1293.

Same loaded words, the same weak arguments.

Bob even misses the main constitutionality issue that's come up with 1293. Of course 1293 is wildly unconstitutional with respect to Roe v Wade. Doh, isn't that the whole point of these bans, to challenge Roe? But it's clear Bob hasn't been paying attention or doesn't understand the salient constitutional question this time around: can the Legislature require a statewide vote on anything that isn't a constitutional amendment?

This is my favorite gem of truthiness he loves to trot out:

Science has learned a lot since 1973.

Hard to argue with that. Too bad Ellis and his friends haven't, and are doing all they can to push back the whole friggin' Enlightenment.

A Few Things Science Has Learned since 1973

Humans are causing the earth's climate to change
Lesbian and Gay Parents Do Just Fine
  (Although James Dobson has been brazenly lying about this research)
People are definitely born gay
Minimum wage increases help people and stimulate the economy
Abortions do not increase the risk of clinical depression

Why I can't let it go and you shouldn't either

William Edelen is a former fighter pilot, religion and anthropology professor, and ordained Presbyterian and Congregationalist minister who writes from California. I ran across Edelen's current column that reminds me why I continue to speak and write at those times when it seems hardly worth the effort.

In this piece, Edelen eloquently chides us who know better to remember the lesson the parable of the Good Samaritan, by their continued silence:

The silence...of those in the Christian church and Jewish communities who know that biblical passages are tortured out of context to support the agenda of intolerance and who refuse to challenge such dishonesty. Choosing to "walk by on the other side of the road."

The silence...of those who know that the anti-abortion violence and hysteria is a direct assault on women and their rights as United States citizens and still choose to "walk by on the other side of the road."

See you at the cracker barrel.

A comment on 1293

I posted this in response on the RCJ story about 1293 but I felt it was worth repeating here:

Bill Harlan said, in the RCJ today: Abortion foes did not win every fight Wednesday.

Harlan is a very talented writer who doesn't often slip up by using such loaded language. Calling people who are for awful laws like HB1215 and 1293 "abortion foes" means that those that vote against these laws are not against abortion. That framing is a loaded gun in the hands of those that do not respect our Constitution and stifles the needed open debate that includes those that believe the only effective way to stop abortions is to stop unwanted pregnancies.

My wife and I believe life is sacred, which is why we oppose these terrible and useless laws in favor of ones that will actually ... uh, REDUCE abortions. Abortion bans and anti-abortion propaganda efforts (like the 44-point law killed today) do nothing but divide and piss people off. If they don't simply just cost the state court costs and never go into effect (likely) no abortions will be actually prevented. And in the unlikely case they win in court, the abortions will still happen, just in other states or here, illegally and at great risk to the health of women.

This is NOT the way, it may feel good and give Gordon Howie a thing to proud of, albeit a cheap win, a medal in a moral "belching contest" requiring no personal sacrifice. But it won't stop abortions, and will cause (literally) untold suffering. It's truly time to move on from this horrific waste of energy. If only we could harness the wind power emanating from these legislators that just don't know when to stop.

Senators, vote pro-family! Kill 1293!

It's tough being a Republican in 2007

I thought this gem from the Lovenstein Institute was right on, so I thought I'd share...

It is tough being a Republican in 2007

This one caught my eye in light of the House vote on HB1193 (RCJ story) today:

A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all humankind without regulation.

HB1293 clears committee

The Rapid City Journal just passed on the news with some shockingly balanced reporting. Good job guys.

I especially appreciate the fact that they made a point of letting people know that (unlike what Gordon Howie said on Saturday) it just isn't Planned Parenthood staff and lackeys that think this is the wrong time.

"It's far too soon to put our state through something of such a difficult nature again," said Democratic Sen. Julie Bartling, a prime sponsor of last year's abortion bill.

"The state needs to heal, and I just don't feel that we need to take this up in this legislative session again," she added. "The people have spoken."

Will South Dakota voters finally tell people like Gordon Howie to leave us alone by sending them back home from Pierre? Only time will tell.

Rep. Gordon Howie pushes HB1293

This is unedited video from this morning's crackerbarrel at SDSMT in Rapid City. Rep. Howie claims that South Dakota voters are clamoring for the State to take over control of all pregnant women's bodies.

Our families are trusted to give their children firearms, but not to make their own medical decisions. Ya have to savor the irony of that.

The new abortion law, HB1293, sure has exceptions, but the exceptions are even more demeaning and hurtful to women than last year's all-out ban... for more details on this arrogant law, known around CHAD as "the Handmaid's tale law", visit visit Coat Hangers At Dawn.

HB1293 is being totally re-written and a new version will be presented tomorrow will be heard Monday morning in House State Affairs in Pierre. We're hoping the committee will choose to defer it for now, we've had enough in this state. Howie says it has a good chance of passing--we hope he's wrong. (About whether the bill could even reach the floor, we know he's absolutely wrong on the issue.)

Can you tell I'm kind of upset? I had some pretty strong words with Rep. Mike Buckingham and the spunky Jean French. They kind of looked at me with their calm "I'm so sorry with disagree" face. (French even told me she was sorry I felt that way. I told her that if she really was sorry she would urge everyone to stop this and give it a rest for a year.) Sorry, it's YOU trying to set the rules for MY life, not the other way around. The arrogant supposition that I should just let these laws be passed without a fight, in the interest of "getting along" is just a bit more than I can take. You're going to have to fight abortion in some other, more effective, compassionate way then your current strategy of encouraging illegal abortion and jailing doctors, I'm sorry.

By the way, sort of on-topic: My question at the Crackerbarrel this week was to Rep. Alan Hanks (R-Rapid City) mentioning his contention during the 2006 campaign that lots more happens than abortion in the Legislature--and that this year it looks like the Legislature is full steam ahead on divisive, unproductive legislation, and I include Buckingham's guns-for-tots bill in that group. Hanks' reply was to blame the media for over-covering these "moral" issue debates. Of course you can't follow up, at the crackerbarrel, so here is my response:

1. The media has been strangely silent on the abortion legislation this year--its like it's under the radar. If it wasn't for groups like DIA and blogs like CHAD this awful legislation would be passed with no controversy--at least in committee.
2. Mr. Hanks, I take exception to calling abortion and gays etc. as "the moral issues". Taxes, wages, education, and healthcare are moral issues too, and making progress on them is a stronger moral imperative (in my opinion) than fighting the "good fight" to force your particular ideas on others. At least the Bible told me so. You read different I guess.

Enough lies about Planned Parenthood, enough easy moral stands. Get to work on the moral stands that are more difficult and will really change things, like funding public schools, providing health care, and fairer taxes.

Mike talks tough on the war on bears

I recently expressed amazement and dismay of the legislation that our Rep. Mike Buckingham put forward to arm small children. I apologize, I was wrong on this one. The safety risks of young kids carrying a shotgun are justified given the the true raison d'etre behind the bill...

RR has learned today that Buckingham has, in his legendary humility, has not previously shared the true, noble purpose behind his bill: apparently he is another of the legions who have chosen to support Stephen Colbert in the war on those "maul-crazy forces of nature."

Yes, I'm talking about bears.

Rep. Buckingham waxed poetic this morning at the West River Legislative Crackerbarrel at SDSMT, about the story of an 8-year-old girl taking a bear in Maryland. He said that the 4 1/2 foot girl blasting two holes into a bear (for the first time in generations) was a "beautiful thing" and brought it up to demonstrate the wisdom in his proposal to allow kids of any age to carry large arms. It's a terrible comment on the liberal times we live in that the original bill (HB1305) has since been watered down to limit large arms to 10-year old children or older, and even then, to Rep. Buckingham's stated dismay, even with that restriction the firearm safety instructors won't go along with it (party-poopers).

May I use this space to publicly urge Stephen Colbert to come out and support Rep. Buckingham and his legislation in the interest in bringing our youngest kids to the fore in a national crusade to keep bears in check.

(Of course, there have been no confirmed sightings of bears in South Dakota for several generations. But the facts are not important, especially to this particular legislator--it's the idea of the thing, and the standing up for one's beliefs, no matter how misguided or confused they are, that matters. We salute Rep Buckingham for doing his part to stand up to these furry monsters and their threat to the American Way Of Life.)

Bob Ellis misleads again

He says:

Not only is preschool a bad idea in taking children away from parents at an earlier age, numerous studies show it's a waste of time from the perspective of academic achievement.

First of all I agree parents (especially the economically challenged ones that really need this pre-K program) should spend more time with their kids, but your conservative whacko attacks on family assistance and "welfare reforms" to promote "personal responsibility" force moms to go work for the paltry minimum wage you people won't even adjust with inflation.

Bob cites in an ignorant post in Dakota Voice Blog one Karen Effram speaking against pre-k and also talks about test scores in Oklahoma and Georgia, two states not exactly known for their educational prowess anyway. I would guess the politically manipulated public schools in those states just may be erasing the value of head start with a politically warped curriculum and gutted social services help for low-income parents. (Hey, if Bob can speculate, so can I.)

Not so fast with this "expert," Dr. Effram:

Karen Effram is a retired pediatrician and professional talking head, not an education expert, who is flown all over the country saying whatever who is paying the ticket wants her to. She is against vaccinating children and mental health screening, apparently good Christian parents can tell if something is wrong with their kids, who needs doctors. She is not an expert on pre-K or education for that matter, and from what been able to find out about her I don't trust her opinion on about anything.

Here's the truth: Head Start has proven that pre-K works and has lasting effect, if you ask the real experts that like, uh, study the subject. Here's a real study(not a right-wing hatchet job) and a review article from the National Institute for Early Education Research that explains why the studies Bob is citing are wrong.

Just wanted to plant a little reality here. Of course I agree kids need to spend more time with their parents. That's why we bleeding heart liberals want the minimum wage adjusted so it will buy as much baby food as it did ten years ago.

Pre-K is not being considered mandatory, the goal is to make it more universally available, especially to stretched parents that must use daycare but can't afford the kind that will be a stimulating environment with pre-K AGE APPROPRIATE education.

This is a good thing to talk about but we should stick to the facts, and real developmental milestones and outcomes, not cookie cutter, canned test scores.

A cheer for one of the"Good Guys"

I have been reading a great article in the Winter Ms. about an organization called CREW and it's founding director, Melanie Sloan. Sloan has worked very hard on a favorite project: former Rep. Tom Delay of Texas, who is most likely headed for jail time, at least if Ms. Sloan has anything to do about it. Many Republicans have blamed her and CREW for their problems, as if she forced them to break the law. CREW has also gone after ethics violations by Democrats as well, including the now-famous Rep. Jefferson (remember the cash in the freezer?) and questionable activities of the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). But Republicans have been keeping them busy, because not only have they been in power but they've used it as if no one is watching or would ever care--there's a great quote about this in from conservative icon and AEI Fellow Norman Ornstein:

This past Congress really was different, says Norman Ornstein of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.... The attitude people had was, "I’ll violate the norms, screw them, this is our turn."

When even the Republican hatchet men are this impressed with your arrogance, time is not on your side. Sloan is pretty sure Delay is headed for jail.

Thanks, Ms Magazine, for a great article. I highly recommend checking out their winter issue, which has other good stuff in it too.

One more thing, the article about Sloan mentioned that CREW is active in South Dakota: they are one of squeaky wheels pushing the IRS to investigate Leslee Unruh for running afoul of the tax laws, trying to be a non-profit but at the same time lobbying for her anti-woman legislation and candidates. Here's an article about that from the Yankton paper last year. You can't have it both ways Leslee, you either are a non profit and follow the non profit rules or you need to be a political organization.

Gee Leslee, and you really better pay attention when Melanie Sloan's group comes calling. They are not a liberal fringe group, even if you try to label them. Unlike battering ram propaganda organizations like the South Dakota Family Policy Council, they work against people that think they are above the rules, no matter whose party they belong to, and they do their homework, go to court with facts and they win. I couldn't be happier that CREW is on Leslee's butt--because when people take Fed money they should follow the rules!

I Like Mike

Our wise, family-values Rep. Mike Buckingham (R-Bob Ellis, you must be proud-Rapid City) is working to grant 10-year-old [boys] the right to own and fire shotguns. In the article, he makes me so proud he is part of our Black Hills legislative delegation:

Buckingham said after the hearing that parents should decide when kids are ready to hunt. “Parents who care about their kids never make inappropriate decisions,” he said after the hearing.

Being a parent of three, (one of them a ten-year-old boy) it's a relief to hear that I can do no wrong. Thanks, Mike!

Food Tax reduction killed

Republicans in the Legislature ought to be ashamed of themselves.

On straight pary-line vote 5-4 (see KOTA story, legislative record) Senate Republicans killed Senate Bill 201, a ONE percent reduction in the food tax sponsored by our own Sen. Tom Katus. (Eliminating the food tax outright is a absolute no-go with the Republicans, so he was trying to at least reduce it.)

None of the states around us tax food--I guess they got the memo about how hard it is on low-income folks.

At the West River crackerbarrel yesterday morning, I asked Sen. Jim Lintz, who was one of the five Republicans who killed the bill, how he could fail to support this on a moral basis, because the food tax is so regressive, hitting the working poor and those just getting by very hard. He responded at the microphone that those who apply for poverty assistance could get a special card [stigma attached of course] to avoid the tax, and that income could not be replaced and he didn't want to get into cutting into the tax basis of the state.

This right after he used every minute of his speaking time at the event to inform us how hard he's been working to get tax breaks for large landowners in his District that don't want to pay property taxes increases as they become land-rich at the same time agriculture becomes less economically viable.

Give me a freakin' break.

The food tax decision was about who we want give a tax break to--the working poor in Rapid City [most of whom don't qualify for the "food card" or don't or can't apply for assistance], or owners of large acreages out of town. I know there are balances to be struck, tax fairness, the ag way of life, the value of open space, etc. but don't tell me the choices don't even exist. Furthermore, there was income freeboard in the budget this year from the new tobacco tax, the state is collecting interest on almost a billion dollars in investments (and growing) and from those sources can't come up with 13 million dollars to give the poor a break and at the same time stimulate the economy as people spend that percent food tax savings on ... more food and necessities?

Seems to me Lintz and his Republican colleagues have chosen to fund government on the backs of low-income folks instead of large landowners wanting a property tax break.

Again, this is a moral choice. You can tell who they are looking out for, and they aren't the same folks the Bible reminds us (again and again) not to forget.