Virginia in Deming
Mike Smith
8 Comments
Share this: del.icio.us | Digg | Google | Ma.gnolia | Reddit | Stumble Upon | Technorati
It should strike most people as only natural that a town originally known as New Chicago would attract to itself big events, big stories, and big stars.
And Deming does.
Deming, in southwestern New Mexico’s Luna County, has recently seen the construction and opening of a new Wal-Mart Supercenter. It has casually renounced the legal doctrine of separation of church and state, when Mayor Andres Silva proclaimed May first "A Day of Prayer" for the whole town. And, it has welcomed the arrival of a celebrity.
Julie Laipply Carrier, best known for winning the title of Miss Virginia USA, in 2002 (as well as for a stint on Donald Trump's show “The Apprentice”), recently stopped by Deming’s Red Mountain Middle School to talk to its students, as part of a national motivational speaking tour. According to an article in the Deming Headlight of April 25, 2008:
She outlined, Wednesday [April 23], three success principles:
1. Stand up for the truth and don't buy the lies;
2. Realize you have a choice to protect your heart (in relationships); and,
3. ABC: Always Be Confident.
"A majority of teenagers are banding together," she said, "to make positive choices."
Laipply Carrier then stood up for the hotly debated truth of abstinence-only sex education—perhaps unaware of a 2007 Oxford University study that collected data from more than 15,000 people, ages 10 to 21, having shown absolutely “no negative or positive impact on the rates of sex infections or unprotected sex.” She told the crowd of puberty-stricken middle schoolers how she protected her heart by setting aside certain areas of her sash-adorned body as a “diamond zone,” an area not to be touched until she’s wearing a diamond ring. And she confidently crowned Red Mountain Middle School’s principal, Robin Parnell, as an honorary Miss Virginia USA.
Apparently, she can do that.
“I learned how not to do drugs,” said eighth-grade-student Armando Montano. “[A]nd how it affects your future.”
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (8)
There are certainly plenty of other people out there sharing their feelings about open sexuality with anyone and everyone that her comments about the same topic shouldn't be viewed as bizarre.
As a side note - the article you link to for the story about the day of prayer states that "Legislation ratified by both houses of Congress and signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 designated the first Thursday of May as the National Day of Prayer." which means that before Deming ever renounced the "doctrine" of separation of church and state, the national government had already done so.
Plus, I just generally think motivational speakers are creepy.
And I don't think that separation of church and state being tromped on on a national level justifies doing it locally as well. Defending the idea in that way kind of resorts to the logical fallacy of Tu Quoque--or "You're Another." As in: Oh, you think I'm doing something bad? Well, so are you. Or so are they.
It shows there's a precedent, sure, but it doesn't justify it.
Are you sure it wasn't a misprint? She may be titled "Miss Virgin"-- who knows?
On the separation of church and state ---
You're article made it sound as if Deming was rebelling against the ideals of an entire nation, going out on a limb and creating a day no one had ever heard of before just for their own enjoyment. Deming is merely following a National Trend. Whether you like the idea or not - the root of the "problem" lies in Washington D.C., not in Deming, NM.
But note that she wasn't Miss Virginia, she was Miss Virginia USA--the winner of a Miss America spin-off pageant, a rival pageant founded in the 1950s when a Miss America winner refused to participate in the swimsuit competition. Also her title was held six years ago, in 2002.
She evidently likes to get all dolled up, put on a Miss Virginia USA pageant sash and a Pentagon cap and an advertisement-bearing apron and then do a little home repair--nail up some wooden trim around a window, smile at the window frame, practice acting totally natural, that sort of thing.
I'm sure I'll eventually get an e-mail or something from her, as a result of this post, and she'll be unbelievably nice, and then I'll just feel bad about all of this. If this "Daily Strange" suddenly disappears, you'll know why.
As for the separation of church and state, I can see your point. And I even agree, I think. But I just don't see much added virtue in making a misguided decision just because others are doing it as well.
To me, seperation of church and state just makes sense. Given the wide variety of religious beliefs there are, and the increasing globalization of the world, it stands to reason that eventually someone will come into power, on either a national or a state or a local level, whose beliefs vary wildly from your own, and when that day comes, if it hasn't already, the only thing keeping that person from forcing his or her beliefs into what's taught to your children in their school, or into some other aspect of your life, will be this legally protected seperation of all Americans from the belief (or non-belief) of the aforementioned leader or leaders.
For instance, imagine a Jehovah's Witness as your President, with the ability to draft legislation regarding the legality of life-saving blood transfusions. Or a Moslem leader forcing you to bow to Mecca before going to work for some County clerk's office. Or a group of deluded lunatics who believe the Grand Canyon was formed in a literal day (and that the first humans several thousand years ago rode dinosaurs around) dictating what's taught in public school biology classes.
I used to be pretty indifferent about the subject of seperation of church and state, but then I started listening to the podcast "Dogma Free America," at Dogmafreeamerica.com--a really fun show that takes a deep look at this topic and that highlights the negative effects of situations in which this separation is ignored. (They interviewed me about Scientology in New Mexico for Episode 13, over a really bad phone connection, and I've been listening ever since.)
Their discussions really made me think a lot more about the issue, and I've since come to see that Thomas Jefferson and his lot showed quite a bit of foresight, at least in my opinion, when they laid it out as an important tenet of our country's governance.
The separation of church and state has extended past worry over laws and into any sort of display of religion from anybody.
It really bothers me that a teacher has to worry that if a student finds out he or she attends a church they will get in trouble. I can understand the need to protect children from a teacher who might seek to force his or her ideas on them at a young age, but I don't they need to be protected from the fact that there are religions.
And if we are going to separate them out, they why does Christianity in general get most of the exclusion? Schools preach acceptance of Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews, but Christians for some reason cannot be tolerated.
Now in the case of Deming - they have made a day of prayer in their fair city. They haven't specified who you are supposed to pray to and they haven't forced anyone to pray. They just said, "Here is a day we'd like to set aside to pray together as a community, should you be so inclined." Its not a law that if not obeyed will result in fines or jail time.
I don't think that's any worse than a national holiday that celebrates an adulterous man who also happened to be a civil rights leader. I personally object that we get a day off for him, when there are other better examples of humanity we could create a holiday for, however, I realize that the reason behind it is because as a nation we want to say, "We embrace civil rights." which I do agree with wholeheartedly.
So, if I were a Jew, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist I would just pray to my own God on that day. If I were an atheist, I would just realize that the community just wants to show that they support thinking and working together as a community.
I don't think a total lack of religion in government, community and schools will ever bring about harmony and understanding between people. I think open discussion would be much more conducive. I say, instead of barring them all, why not allow all of them to be openly discussed without allowing one religion to force the denial of any of the others.
I want a government in place to keep the roads and bridges maintained, the libraries stocked, the hospitals staffed, and the threats to my family guarded against--I don't want them to declare pray-day celebrations or to suggest anything at all in the way of religious observances. That's just not their role.
"Open discussion" of these beliefs is fine, and our constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech ensures that such discussions will always take place, but the government ought to take no part in providing more specific forums for them. Such an array of contradictory dogmas almost never yields a general consensus of any value, and if people do manage to agree it's usually on something so watered down and vague that it's practically worthless. I mean: If everyone can be right, then being right doesn't mean anything.
Regarding your last paragraph, I don't think a total lack of religion in government, community, and schools will ever bring about total harmony and understanding between people, either, but I don't think anything really will. Certainly not the opposite of what you suggested, certainly not the presence of religion.... And I'm not asking for a total lack of religion in community, because that can be non-state-sanctioned. Cutting it out of government and public schools, however, is I think a good idea, a good start, something that's already supposed to be.
If people want to push their beliefs, there are plenty of other forums for that, and ones that don't infringe on others who believe differently.
To try and erase that from individuals working in the government would be ludicrious!
It's another facet of personality: just like someone who is a natural negotiator, or someone who is good with numbers and will use those talents for their job. Some people are just people of faith - whatever that faith may be, and while I don't think they should enact laws promoting their religion, NEITHER should we enact laws enforcing the suppression of their beliefs.
About the prayer day, as I read your comment "I want a government in place to keep the roads and bridges maintained, the libraries stocked, the hospitals staffed, and the threats to my family guarded against--I don't want them to declare pray-day celebrations or to suggest anything at all in the way of religious observances. That's just not their role."
I realized that I do agree with that. The government's role has gotten out of hand, but I guess I thought what Deming had done was essentially harmless and didn't really hurt anybody, didn't cost taxpayers any money, and was just a goodwill gesture. But I suppose they could've been using the time to do other more important things that would actually be more in line with their official role than declaring public days of prayer.
I do agree with Hazelnutmegan about the disgusting tirade against Christians. I am not a Christian, nor am I Muslim or Jew. I am a Pagan, and my rights are stepped on every day, but I'm not going to make a big thing out of it. It's just the way things are.
Getting back to the Christians; why is it so wrong for them to show their creches at Christmas, but the Jews can have Menoras? I don't think the Ten Commandments should be displayed in public places, but we should try to observe them in other ways. Why should we be so apologetic to the Muslims, yet don't do too much to avert their hate and slander towards us? I have to admit, however, that the Christians don't have a real clean record, but neither do the other religions. It just seems so odd that one faith should be vilified, their decorations destroyed, and other terrible things, yet the other faiths are upheld as bastions of God. Frankly, I agree with the Muslim in London when he was asked if he was against the Christian churches having creches at Christmas along with other decorations. He replied that every year, he and his family would tour the city to see the different decorations because they enjoyed the happiness and joy the decorations brought about, and stated he thought there was too much ado about nothing. Then he asked the reporter to excuse him as he had to get home and finish sending out his Christmas cards.
As I said, I am a Pagan. The choice was not taken lightly as I have explored nearly every avenue in the Christian world which did not measure up to what I wanted: Too much greed, too much selfishness, too much hyperbole. I am quite happy with my choice, and I should imagine others to be happy with theirs.