As the nation is in the grips of a cold wave, California is a bask in warmth and sunlight. Evidently, even the sun in California is subject to darkening by “Yes on Prop 8” lawyers who have successfully, delayed the television broadcast of the Federal trial regarding Prop 8. It seems that they fear the light of day being cast on the deceptive campaign which they ran in California (and mirrored in Maine) to strip same sex couples of their right to a civil marriage. Why should the “Yes on Prop 8” forces go to such lengths to prevent you from seeing the evidence presented in a U.S. Federal court of law?
Part of the answer is found in Anita Bryant’s successful campaign to stop anti-bias laws in the 1970’s. Yale professor George Chauncey said the following on the witness stand. Statements which the “Yes on Prop 8” side do not want you to hear. Chauncey testified in the witness stand .
“The initial polling data showed there was actually a margin of support for anti-bias ordinances,” said Chauncey. So Bryant and her campaign, he said, “decided to focus on the consequences of allowing such laws –the effects on children.”
“They made two arguments,” he said, during his appearance as an expert in gay history on the witness stand in the Proposition 8 trial Tuesday. “That simple tolerance of gays would mean they’ll become role models so kids would become gay,” and that gays are child molesters.
Psychology has already debunked the myth of homosexuals as pedophiles.
Homosexuals Are No More Likely to Sexually Abuse Children Than Heterosexuals.
· In fact, gays and lesbians may be less likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse children.
Two studies that examined the sexual orientation of child molesters found that less than
one percent, in one study, and zero percent, in the other, were lesbian or gay.
· About four of every five cases of child sexual abuse reported to child protection
authorities involve a girl who is abused. But because sexual abuse of boys is less likely to
be reported, it is estimated that 1/4 to 1/3 of all sexually abused children are boys, while
2/3 to 3/4 are girls.1 Because most child molesters are men, (90 percent2), some have
argued that “homosexual” child abuse is widespread and that homosexuals abuse children
at a rate higher than their proportion of the general population, which is somewhere
around 3 to 8 percent of the population. Such claims are based on the false belief that
men who sexually abuse boys are homosexual. In fact, the overwhelming majority of men
who sexually abuse children live their lives as heterosexual men.
1 Finkelhor, 1994, pp. 46-47; Stevenson, 2000, p. 8.
2 Finkelhor, p. 31.
Finkelhor, D. (1994). Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. T he
Future of Children: Sexual Abuse of Children, 4(2) , 31-53.
Stevenson, M. R. (2000). Public policy, homosexuality, and the sexual coercion of children.
Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(4) , 1-19.
In testimony today and Monday, witnesses for the plaintiffs discussed a number of “Yes on 8” television ads and fliers which underscored the campaign slogan “Protect your children.”
Even though both the California Teacher’s Association and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction made public statements that made it clear that these allegations by the “yes on Prop 8” forces, were untrue. My own bishop, John Steinbock, in his “pastoral letter” to the people of our dioceses falsely claimed that “children would be brainwashed.” These deliberate perpetuation of grossly untrue myths and stereotypes by the “yes on Prop 8” side were and are a lie. A lie which they, like Bryant before them, successfully used to deceive and cause unfounded fears in voters. Lies and fears which were used to strip countless same sex couples of the right to a civil marriage. The Los Angeles Times reported the following:
“They were able to focus the debate on their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes, churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed.
Supporters of gay marriage, along with political leaders including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) and the state's superintendent of public instruction, denounced those messages as scare tactics, but they were not able to sway voters. Preliminary returns showed Proposition 8 passing 52% to 48%.
"It was masterful of the campaign to raise the implications of what it could mean in terms of the school system," said Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson. He said voters may have started out "thinking that as long as it doesn't affect me, do what you want" but the supporters shifted the focus to children.”
Even though the truth was publicly announced in a “No on Prop 8” commercial, the damage was done and countless voters believed the “Yes on Prop 8” lie. They lied. They deceived voters and they do not want voters to now realize that they were manipulated with carefully crafted lies.
Far more nuance are the U.S. Catholic hierarchy in promoting such myths and stereotypes. With the Catholic priest sexual scandals, you would think they would avoid this subject altogether. Therein lies the twisted appeal of the false claim that homosexuals are pedophiles. Vatican renews ban on gay priests
Even though this action by the Vatican is very vague and fails to define what is “deep seated homosexuality.” It creates the false impression that the Pope is “acting” to stop pedophile abuse in the Church. In fact, the Pope is cleverly sidestepping the real issue with the pedophilia scandal, specifically that the hierarchy covered up the abuse and transferred known offenders from assignment to assignment. In doing this they knowingly exposed innocent children to sexual abuse in an attempt to protect the Church’s material assets and PR reputation. To scapegoat gays is far easier than accepting personal responsibility. If using pseudo scientific terminology and issuing vague/ineffectual “bans” serves in redirecting outraged people away from the hierarchy, then so be it.
Thus far, the Prop 8 trial has revealed that the “yes on Prop 8” side was more than willing to lie in the name of God. It has also begun to reveal their motives. No wonder they are so desperate to hide the truth from the general public and why they have gone to such legal lengths to forbid you to see the evidence revealed in the trial. St. John gives a theological explanation in JOHN 20-21. For a more secular explanation I encourage you to read the testimony for yourself.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Robert P. George, the Catholic Bishop's Karl Rove
The New York Times reported the following regarding Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.
Last spring, George was invited to address an audience that included many bishops at a conference in Washington. He told them with typical bluntness that they should stop talking so much about the many policy issues they have taken up in the name of social justice. They should concentrate their authority on “the moral social” issues like abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage, where, he argued, the natural law and Gospel principles were clear. To be sure, he said, he had no objections to bishops' “making utter nuisances of themselves” about poverty and injustice, like the Old Testament prophets, as long as they did not advocate specific remedies. They should stop lobbying for detailed economic policies like progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage and, presumably, the expansion of health care — “matters of public policy upon which Gospel principles by themselves do not resolve differences of opinion among reasonable and well-informed people of good will,” as George put it.
A few months later, in a July 17 letter to Congress, the bishops did something close to that in the health care debate. Setting aside decades of calls for universal coverage, the bishops pledged to fight any bill that failed to block the use of federal subsidies for insurance covering abortion. “Stalin famously asked, ‘How many divisions has the pope?’ ” George wrote to me in an e-mail message after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed a vote on an amendment that satisfied the bishops’ demands. “I guess Pelosi now knows.”
“As long as they did not advocate specific remedies.” Yes, yes say you wish to help the poor and the marginalized, but for God’s sake don’t specify HOW. Why does George insist on this vague approach? Because, any “specifics” would almost assuredly contradict the neo-conservative dogmas of the Republican party. Catholic Social teachings are indeed a “nuisance” almost as much of a “nuisance” as the poor and their needs. The beauty of George’s advice to the Catholic Bishops is that by focusing on “the moral social” issues (abortion, stem-cell research and same sex marriage) those other social justice issues can be tabled.
This extends a fig leaf behind which health care corporations can hide their obscene profits. Profits paid for by the deaths of countless Americans and the suffering of exponentially even more Americans. A fig leaf also for financial institutions which have issued billions of dollar worth of bonuses paid for by American tax payers, just as many of those American lose their homes to foreclosure. A fig leaf also for those who refuse to pay living wages to employees. A fig leaf for those who abuse migrant workers. The list goes on and on.
Not only does George’s “Catholic” agenda offer fig leaves to all of these exploiters but, at the same time he even extends to them the luxury of being morally smug. George’s new morality, or is it just the morality of the Pharisees revisited, allows the wealthy and powerful to do nothing for the poor. Well, except to judge them for having abortions, or seeking to establish a home with someone they love who happens to be of the same gender. Yes, this “morality” merely requires the prohibition of certain acts. One does not have to be “my brother’s/sister’s keeper,” just their judge.
All of this is neatly wrapped in a dispassionate appeal to “reason.”
It is a debate at least as old as the Reformation, when Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church and insisted that reason was so corrupted that faith in the divine was humanity’s only hope of salvation. (Until relatively recently, contemporary evangelicals routinely leveled the same charge at modern Catholics.) “This is a serious issue, and if I am wrong, this is where I am wrong,” George acknowledges.
The problem with an appeal to reason as our guide can be found in our refrigerators. Think of the many times you have opened the refrigerator door and found yourself staring at a slice of chocolate cake or a pint of ice cream. Reason tells us we should have the celery. This is not to say that we should throw reason out the door, but we must recall that human reason is subject to human will.
George’s reason is very appealing to the will of those who don’t want to have to part with profits for the sake of prophets. It is very appealing to brokers of wealth and power in our society. George’s “morality” requires nothing of them, except to prohibit behaviors. It is a “morality” which would have played well at the court of Louis XVI. George states: “Obviously, I am gratified that view appears to have attracted a very strong following among the bishops,” he went on. “I just hope I am right. If they are going to buy my arguments, I don’t want to mislead the whole church.”
Sadly, not only has George misled the Bishops, he had caused them to use their influence to derail universal health care. Ironically, poor women will have to decide to either spend $400.00 on an abortion or, $4000.00 on delivering a baby at a hospital. This makes George and the Catholic Bishops de facto accomplices to the abortions they denounce. A small price to pay for becoming the "choir boys" for the Republican Party and the far right.
Last spring, George was invited to address an audience that included many bishops at a conference in Washington. He told them with typical bluntness that they should stop talking so much about the many policy issues they have taken up in the name of social justice. They should concentrate their authority on “the moral social” issues like abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage, where, he argued, the natural law and Gospel principles were clear. To be sure, he said, he had no objections to bishops' “making utter nuisances of themselves” about poverty and injustice, like the Old Testament prophets, as long as they did not advocate specific remedies. They should stop lobbying for detailed economic policies like progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage and, presumably, the expansion of health care — “matters of public policy upon which Gospel principles by themselves do not resolve differences of opinion among reasonable and well-informed people of good will,” as George put it.
A few months later, in a July 17 letter to Congress, the bishops did something close to that in the health care debate. Setting aside decades of calls for universal coverage, the bishops pledged to fight any bill that failed to block the use of federal subsidies for insurance covering abortion. “Stalin famously asked, ‘How many divisions has the pope?’ ” George wrote to me in an e-mail message after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed a vote on an amendment that satisfied the bishops’ demands. “I guess Pelosi now knows.”
“As long as they did not advocate specific remedies.” Yes, yes say you wish to help the poor and the marginalized, but for God’s sake don’t specify HOW. Why does George insist on this vague approach? Because, any “specifics” would almost assuredly contradict the neo-conservative dogmas of the Republican party. Catholic Social teachings are indeed a “nuisance” almost as much of a “nuisance” as the poor and their needs. The beauty of George’s advice to the Catholic Bishops is that by focusing on “the moral social” issues (abortion, stem-cell research and same sex marriage) those other social justice issues can be tabled.
This extends a fig leaf behind which health care corporations can hide their obscene profits. Profits paid for by the deaths of countless Americans and the suffering of exponentially even more Americans. A fig leaf also for financial institutions which have issued billions of dollar worth of bonuses paid for by American tax payers, just as many of those American lose their homes to foreclosure. A fig leaf also for those who refuse to pay living wages to employees. A fig leaf for those who abuse migrant workers. The list goes on and on.
Not only does George’s “Catholic” agenda offer fig leaves to all of these exploiters but, at the same time he even extends to them the luxury of being morally smug. George’s new morality, or is it just the morality of the Pharisees revisited, allows the wealthy and powerful to do nothing for the poor. Well, except to judge them for having abortions, or seeking to establish a home with someone they love who happens to be of the same gender. Yes, this “morality” merely requires the prohibition of certain acts. One does not have to be “my brother’s/sister’s keeper,” just their judge.
All of this is neatly wrapped in a dispassionate appeal to “reason.”
It is a debate at least as old as the Reformation, when Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church and insisted that reason was so corrupted that faith in the divine was humanity’s only hope of salvation. (Until relatively recently, contemporary evangelicals routinely leveled the same charge at modern Catholics.) “This is a serious issue, and if I am wrong, this is where I am wrong,” George acknowledges.
The problem with an appeal to reason as our guide can be found in our refrigerators. Think of the many times you have opened the refrigerator door and found yourself staring at a slice of chocolate cake or a pint of ice cream. Reason tells us we should have the celery. This is not to say that we should throw reason out the door, but we must recall that human reason is subject to human will.
George’s reason is very appealing to the will of those who don’t want to have to part with profits for the sake of prophets. It is very appealing to brokers of wealth and power in our society. George’s “morality” requires nothing of them, except to prohibit behaviors. It is a “morality” which would have played well at the court of Louis XVI. George states: “Obviously, I am gratified that view appears to have attracted a very strong following among the bishops,” he went on. “I just hope I am right. If they are going to buy my arguments, I don’t want to mislead the whole church.”
Sadly, not only has George misled the Bishops, he had caused them to use their influence to derail universal health care. Ironically, poor women will have to decide to either spend $400.00 on an abortion or, $4000.00 on delivering a baby at a hospital. This makes George and the Catholic Bishops de facto accomplices to the abortions they denounce. A small price to pay for becoming the "choir boys" for the Republican Party and the far right.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Prop8 proponents don’t want the public to know the truth.
The following is a reprint of a time sensitive letter from the Courage Campaign. I urge you to read it and to sign the petition to make the Prop 8 federal trial public. It is fascinating that the religious right are so terrified of their deeds being exposed to the light of day before the public.
"For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." John 3: 20-21
The letter from the Courage Campaign follows in full:
Yesterday, we asked you to respond to Judge Vaughn Walker's request for public comment on potentially televising the Prop 8 federal trial that starts Monday. In less than 24 hours, an amazing 82,103 people have joined you in signing the letter from the Courage Campaign Institute and CREDO Action.
Thank you for signing the letter. Now we need you to spread the word by forwarding this message to your friends urgently. Despite Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling below (please read on), right-wing groups like the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are gathering signatures to stop any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial. Please tell your friends ASAP.
GOAL: 100,000 signatures. DEADLINE: Friday 9 AM
The news is spreading like wildfire. And it's both good and bad.
From a San Jose Mercury News article:
"Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved court-operated cameras in his courtroom for delayed release on YouTube, but rejected a bid by media organizations to televise the proceedings themselves for live broadcast."
This decision is NOT final: Judge Walker is leaving the public comment period open until Friday, pending a ruling on his decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
While we are pleased that the trial may be on a delayed broadcast via YouTube at least, our call for full transparency -- a televised broadcast that network news and cable channels can pick up live, as it happens -- has not been met.
And, it's entirely possible that the 9th Circuit Appeals Court may overrule Judge Walker's ruling, shutting down all broadcasting -- even a delayed daily YouTube broadcast. Lawyers representing supporters of Prop. 8 have already opposed broadcasting the trial in any form whatsoever and are likely to fight Walker's ruling.
Millions of lives across America will be affected by this federal trial challenging Prop 8. That's why more than 80,000 people have already signed our letter asking for a televised trial. To keep up the pressure before the public comment period closes on Friday, please sign here now:
GOAL: 100,000 signatures. DEADLINE: Friday 9 AM
With right-wing religious groups like NOM and Focus on the Family organizing against televising the trial, we need as many signatures on this letter as possible.
If you know other people who believe the Prop 8 trial should be televised so that as many people as possible can see it, please forward this message to them ASAP.
Thank you so much for your incredible response to this critical action. We will update you again as soon as news breaks.
Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign Institute
"For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." John 3: 20-21
The letter from the Courage Campaign follows in full:
Yesterday, we asked you to respond to Judge Vaughn Walker's request for public comment on potentially televising the Prop 8 federal trial that starts Monday. In less than 24 hours, an amazing 82,103 people have joined you in signing the letter from the Courage Campaign Institute and CREDO Action.
Thank you for signing the letter. Now we need you to spread the word by forwarding this message to your friends urgently. Despite Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling below (please read on), right-wing groups like the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are gathering signatures to stop any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial. Please tell your friends ASAP.
GOAL: 100,000 signatures. DEADLINE: Friday 9 AM
The news is spreading like wildfire. And it's both good and bad.
From a San Jose Mercury News article:
"Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved court-operated cameras in his courtroom for delayed release on YouTube, but rejected a bid by media organizations to televise the proceedings themselves for live broadcast."
This decision is NOT final: Judge Walker is leaving the public comment period open until Friday, pending a ruling on his decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
While we are pleased that the trial may be on a delayed broadcast via YouTube at least, our call for full transparency -- a televised broadcast that network news and cable channels can pick up live, as it happens -- has not been met.
And, it's entirely possible that the 9th Circuit Appeals Court may overrule Judge Walker's ruling, shutting down all broadcasting -- even a delayed daily YouTube broadcast. Lawyers representing supporters of Prop. 8 have already opposed broadcasting the trial in any form whatsoever and are likely to fight Walker's ruling.
Millions of lives across America will be affected by this federal trial challenging Prop 8. That's why more than 80,000 people have already signed our letter asking for a televised trial. To keep up the pressure before the public comment period closes on Friday, please sign here now:
GOAL: 100,000 signatures. DEADLINE: Friday 9 AM
With right-wing religious groups like NOM and Focus on the Family organizing against televising the trial, we need as many signatures on this letter as possible.
If you know other people who believe the Prop 8 trial should be televised so that as many people as possible can see it, please forward this message to them ASAP.
Thank you so much for your incredible response to this critical action. We will update you again as soon as news breaks.
Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign Institute
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Progress! Happy New Year!
(Mexico City) Mexico City enacted Latin America’s first law recognizing gay marriage Dec. 28 and said it hopes to attract same-sex couples from around the world to wed.
The law, approved by city legislators on Dec. 21, was published in Mexico City’s official register Tuesday and will take effect in March. It will allow same-sex couples to adopt children and municipal officials say it will make Mexico’s capital a “vanguard city” – and attract extra tourism revenues. Full article.
Predictably, the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City responded negatively to the secular government’s granting of full civil rights to LGBT citizens. The Los Angeles Times reports: “Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera said the law created the "perverse possibility" that "innocent children" would be adopted by gay couples.” Thank you Cardinal Carrera, who better to voice the protection of “innocent children” than the Catholic hierarchy?
Meanwhile in Portugal the Cardinal Patriarch of Portugal has taken a far more enlightened position towards Civil Marriages for same sex couples. “While normally vocal on the role of marriage and the family in society, the Catholic Church has refused to mobilise on a subject which, according to Lisbon's Cardinal Patriarch Jose Policarpo, is "parliament's responsibility".
The contrast between the positions taken by Carrera in Mexico and the Cardinal Patriarch of Portugal is striking and illustrates a very sharp division in Catholic thought on the question of same sex marriage and the relationship between Church and State. Policarpo represents a post enlightenment respect for the division of Church and State whereas, Carrera represents a far more medieval understanding of the relationship between Church and State. In the medieval model held by Carrera, the Church dictates to the State how social laws are to be enacted. In Policarpo’s model, Civil Laws are the proper domain of the laity, who are not subordinated to the clergy in the question of civil laws.
This must of course be alarming to Ratzinger, since such an exercise of free speech and dissent from the current “official” Vatican party line is seldom seen in the Catholic hierarchy. I would imagine that there will be a furious exchange of communication between the Vatican bureaucracy (Curia) and Cardinal Policarpo before the passage of the Portuguese legislation. There will be a strong attempt by the Vatican to bring Policarpo “in line” with their monolithic position on same sex marriage. One can only imagine what will be said behind closed doors, but I doubt it will be “happy talk.”
Hopefully, Cardinal Policarpo will politely remind the Vatican that he is the Cardinal Patriarch of Portugal and not an “office boy” for the Vatican. It seems that not even popes can stop the hands of time and the progress of human history. Happy New Year!
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Politics of "Charity."
Non-profit charitable organizations are granted tax-exempt status by the people of America through our elected government. The reason for granting charitable organizations tax-exempt status is so that they can use those funds to provide charitable services. To feed the hungry, cloth the naked, house the poor, heal the sick and provide for education.
When charitable institutions willfully abandon charitable activities, our government should reexamine their tax-exempt status. Taxes should be imposed on those institutions and the funds collected should, then be used to help the needy. This may be done through governmental social service agencies, or other legitimate non-profit charitable organizations. In this way, the poor, homeless, sick and needy will not be left without help. Those who are in greatest need, who have nowhere else to turn, should not be used as bargaining chips by non profit organizations. Non profit organizations which are financially subsidized (through tax-exempt status) by the people of this nation. It is an immoral offense against the needy to hold them as hostages. It constitutes a violation of the public’s trust and a sin against the God who these institutions claim to serve. Incredibly, this is what is happening in Michigan and in Washington, DC.
No religious group is required to grant religious marriage to anyone. The Catholic Church does not grant religious marriage to people who are divorced and wish to remarry (unless they are granted an annulment by the Church). Society; however, does grant anyone who has divorced the right to a new civil marriage. Likewise, no religious group will be required to grant a same sex couple a religious marriage; however, civil marriage is now granted to same sex couples by various nations and some U.S. states. It is no more the business of a religion to dictate to government what may constitute a civil marriage, than it is for a government to dictate to a religion what may constitute a religious marriage.
The late Ayatollah Khomeini called America “The Great Satan.” He accused us of this because we are the first government on earth NOT to have an established religion. The founding fathers learned, from the Thirty Years War in Europe and the religious persecutions both on the European continent and in England, the stupidity of trying to impose a religion on a nation. Sadly, religious fanatics will always attempt to do what God does not do, they attempt to force others to accept their beliefs.
This has been most recently illustrated in the immoral example of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. Archbishop Wuerl has issued a de facto ultimatum to the government. He threatens a suspension of charitable services to the homeless unless his demands are met. His demands!? My dear Archbishop, the Papal States became extinct in 1870. You are living in the United States of America and we have elections in which the people select who will govern. Neither you, Archbishop nor your superior were elected to conduct our civil government.
When charitable institutions willfully abandon charitable activities, our government should reexamine their tax-exempt status. Taxes should be imposed on those institutions and the funds collected should, then be used to help the needy. This may be done through governmental social service agencies, or other legitimate non-profit charitable organizations. In this way, the poor, homeless, sick and needy will not be left without help. Those who are in greatest need, who have nowhere else to turn, should not be used as bargaining chips by non profit organizations. Non profit organizations which are financially subsidized (through tax-exempt status) by the people of this nation. It is an immoral offense against the needy to hold them as hostages. It constitutes a violation of the public’s trust and a sin against the God who these institutions claim to serve. Incredibly, this is what is happening in Michigan and in Washington, DC.
No religious group is required to grant religious marriage to anyone. The Catholic Church does not grant religious marriage to people who are divorced and wish to remarry (unless they are granted an annulment by the Church). Society; however, does grant anyone who has divorced the right to a new civil marriage. Likewise, no religious group will be required to grant a same sex couple a religious marriage; however, civil marriage is now granted to same sex couples by various nations and some U.S. states. It is no more the business of a religion to dictate to government what may constitute a civil marriage, than it is for a government to dictate to a religion what may constitute a religious marriage.
The late Ayatollah Khomeini called America “The Great Satan.” He accused us of this because we are the first government on earth NOT to have an established religion. The founding fathers learned, from the Thirty Years War in Europe and the religious persecutions both on the European continent and in England, the stupidity of trying to impose a religion on a nation. Sadly, religious fanatics will always attempt to do what God does not do, they attempt to force others to accept their beliefs.
This has been most recently illustrated in the immoral example of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. Archbishop Wuerl has issued a de facto ultimatum to the government. He threatens a suspension of charitable services to the homeless unless his demands are met. His demands!? My dear Archbishop, the Papal States became extinct in 1870. You are living in the United States of America and we have elections in which the people select who will govern. Neither you, Archbishop nor your superior were elected to conduct our civil government.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
A contemporary Christmas Carol
Several months ago I came home around mid-day and as I got out of my car, I saw my neighbor standing at his door looking my way. Before I could speak, he asked me “Can you help me?” I said “sure” thinking that he wanted help moving a piece of furniture. What do you need, I asked. He answered saying, “I can’t breathe and I’ve called 911, will you show them into the house for me?” Good God! Lay down on the sofa, I will watch for them. What happened?
My neighbor, it turns out, has a heart condition. He also suffers from diabetes and is a considerably overweight 50-year-old widower whose children live out of state. His breathing seemed erratic and I was afraid that the paramedics might be too late. I asked him what prescriptions and medications he had taken, knowing that he might not be conscious when the ambulance arrived and that the medical personnel would need that information. I made him as comfortable as possible and stood at the door looking for the paramedics to make sure they came to the right house. Just then, another neighbor pulled up, it was Tracy who is a nurse. I exclaimed God sent you and quickly explained what was happening.
Tracy rushed in, checked on Kevin and then, ran upstairs to collect Kevin’s considerable prescriptions from his medicine cabinet. It turned out that the four bottles of prescriptions he had downstairs were but a fraction of his total prescriptions. At that moment, the paramedics arrived and began their work. After a methodical, but rapid assessment, they began to prepare the gurney and asked Kevin to remove his shirt so they could situate him on the gurney. Tracy prepared a bag with Kevin’s prescription medications and a few toiletries and some clothing for Kevin’s stay in the hospital. Kevin began to protest and said he did not want to be taken to the hospital.
I looked at him incredulously. One of the paramedics took his heart rate again and explained that they could not leave him at home in his condition. He explained as gently, but as firmly as possible, that Kevin’s condition was life threatening and that unassisted, Kevin might die. Finally, Kevin consented and was loaded into the ambulance. In the aftermath, I asked Tracy “Why was he so adamant about not going to the hospital?” Tracy explained in one very short and devastating sentence. “He doesn’t have health care insurance and he can’t afford the ambulance and a hospital stay.”
Six weeks ago Terry, a 48 year old unemployed cinematographer died. He died from complications of swine flu and an undiagnosed condition. Terry, unknown to him, had diabetes. Since he did not have health insurance, he had not had a physical in several years and was unaware of his condition. When he came down with the flu, he simply stopped doing his freelance work and went to bed. He tried overcoming his flu with over-the-counter drugs and when he got very seriously ill, he finally went to a doctor. The doctor immediately had Terry hospitalized and put on a ventilator, but it was too late. Terry died.
Today, the headline on the Huffington Post read “Public Option: RIP.” Over the last many months, I have followed the debates and the political process regarding health care legislation. As part of that, I have been scandalized by the fact that many of our senators and members of Congress have received obscenely huge amounts of financial “contributions” from private Heath Care Insurance companies. If this happened in a third world country, many Americans would correctly call it bribery. As if we are morally superior and somehow immune to that in this country because of our political system. Jay Leno once quipped that Congress is the only whorehouse in America that does not make money. Normally that would be funny, but it is hard to laugh when you are attending funerals of people who died needlessly, so that Senator Lieberman and many of his colleagues can live in luxury. As a clarification, I would never dream of referring to Senator Joe Lieberman as “a whore.” After all, a whore actually gives you something of value for your money and there are some things that a whore would never do for money.
I have read many comments that people have posted in response to articles on the Health Care issue. One of the most offensive was a person explaining that he had health care insurance and that he did not want to lose his great policy and be put onto a public option. Aside from the fact that this person was misinformed regarding the public option, this betrays a total disregard for the suffering a vast number of uninsured (and uninsurable) people. Dickens in his famous work “A Christmas Carol” has Scrooge state of those who would die in England due to poverty “Good! Let them reduce the surplice population!” Dickens wrote his work as a searing critique of a “Christian society” that understood “morality” as something pertaining only to the use/non-use of one’s genitalia. They seemed to have forgotten that God actually expects each of us to be our brother and sister’s keeper.
As a society, we have made wealth our national god and greed our national religion. American corporations have plundered third world countries to provide “bargains” for American consumers. When I was a boy, there was a popular ad on television with a jingle that said, “Look for the Union label.” The union label meant living wages for workers. Americans forgot that and instead looked at the price tag to determine what they bought. This national blind greed has been rewarded by American corporations that have out-sourced American jobs overseas to lower product cost and increase quarterly profit margins.
American citizens are rapidly approaching a third world standard of living. The once “middle class” is rapidly shrinking leaving an ever growing unemployed and underemployed class of poor people and a very small wealthy elite. As for our elected representatives in Washington DC, well we Americans have the best government that money can buy.
My neighbor, it turns out, has a heart condition. He also suffers from diabetes and is a considerably overweight 50-year-old widower whose children live out of state. His breathing seemed erratic and I was afraid that the paramedics might be too late. I asked him what prescriptions and medications he had taken, knowing that he might not be conscious when the ambulance arrived and that the medical personnel would need that information. I made him as comfortable as possible and stood at the door looking for the paramedics to make sure they came to the right house. Just then, another neighbor pulled up, it was Tracy who is a nurse. I exclaimed God sent you and quickly explained what was happening.
Tracy rushed in, checked on Kevin and then, ran upstairs to collect Kevin’s considerable prescriptions from his medicine cabinet. It turned out that the four bottles of prescriptions he had downstairs were but a fraction of his total prescriptions. At that moment, the paramedics arrived and began their work. After a methodical, but rapid assessment, they began to prepare the gurney and asked Kevin to remove his shirt so they could situate him on the gurney. Tracy prepared a bag with Kevin’s prescription medications and a few toiletries and some clothing for Kevin’s stay in the hospital. Kevin began to protest and said he did not want to be taken to the hospital.
I looked at him incredulously. One of the paramedics took his heart rate again and explained that they could not leave him at home in his condition. He explained as gently, but as firmly as possible, that Kevin’s condition was life threatening and that unassisted, Kevin might die. Finally, Kevin consented and was loaded into the ambulance. In the aftermath, I asked Tracy “Why was he so adamant about not going to the hospital?” Tracy explained in one very short and devastating sentence. “He doesn’t have health care insurance and he can’t afford the ambulance and a hospital stay.”
Six weeks ago Terry, a 48 year old unemployed cinematographer died. He died from complications of swine flu and an undiagnosed condition. Terry, unknown to him, had diabetes. Since he did not have health insurance, he had not had a physical in several years and was unaware of his condition. When he came down with the flu, he simply stopped doing his freelance work and went to bed. He tried overcoming his flu with over-the-counter drugs and when he got very seriously ill, he finally went to a doctor. The doctor immediately had Terry hospitalized and put on a ventilator, but it was too late. Terry died.
Today, the headline on the Huffington Post read “Public Option: RIP.” Over the last many months, I have followed the debates and the political process regarding health care legislation. As part of that, I have been scandalized by the fact that many of our senators and members of Congress have received obscenely huge amounts of financial “contributions” from private Heath Care Insurance companies. If this happened in a third world country, many Americans would correctly call it bribery. As if we are morally superior and somehow immune to that in this country because of our political system. Jay Leno once quipped that Congress is the only whorehouse in America that does not make money. Normally that would be funny, but it is hard to laugh when you are attending funerals of people who died needlessly, so that Senator Lieberman and many of his colleagues can live in luxury. As a clarification, I would never dream of referring to Senator Joe Lieberman as “a whore.” After all, a whore actually gives you something of value for your money and there are some things that a whore would never do for money.
I have read many comments that people have posted in response to articles on the Health Care issue. One of the most offensive was a person explaining that he had health care insurance and that he did not want to lose his great policy and be put onto a public option. Aside from the fact that this person was misinformed regarding the public option, this betrays a total disregard for the suffering a vast number of uninsured (and uninsurable) people. Dickens in his famous work “A Christmas Carol” has Scrooge state of those who would die in England due to poverty “Good! Let them reduce the surplice population!” Dickens wrote his work as a searing critique of a “Christian society” that understood “morality” as something pertaining only to the use/non-use of one’s genitalia. They seemed to have forgotten that God actually expects each of us to be our brother and sister’s keeper.
As a society, we have made wealth our national god and greed our national religion. American corporations have plundered third world countries to provide “bargains” for American consumers. When I was a boy, there was a popular ad on television with a jingle that said, “Look for the Union label.” The union label meant living wages for workers. Americans forgot that and instead looked at the price tag to determine what they bought. This national blind greed has been rewarded by American corporations that have out-sourced American jobs overseas to lower product cost and increase quarterly profit margins.
American citizens are rapidly approaching a third world standard of living. The once “middle class” is rapidly shrinking leaving an ever growing unemployed and underemployed class of poor people and a very small wealthy elite. As for our elected representatives in Washington DC, well we Americans have the best government that money can buy.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Will America become a Fundamentalist "Republic?"
Why is religion so anti-gay? I was asked this question recently on the heals of Uganda passing legislation which makes homosexuality a capital offense. The short answer is that a superficial reading of both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures clearly gives the impression that homosexuality is forbidden by God. This has affected the stance towards homosexual persons by Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Within each of those traditions there exist literalists (who see the written word as THE law) and progressives (who look beyond the written text and seek understanding of the Divine intent.)
There is a comprehensible repulsion towards and rejection of organized religion by many LGBT people. Many LGBT people have found themselves the victims of verbal, emotional/psychological and physical abuse due to religious organizations. Heads of religious organizations have publicly condemned homosexuals as being both reprobate and representing a moral danger to society. The result of such teachings and preaching has been to create a culture of hatred towards individuals who are homosexuals.
It is important here to pause and recall that the pink triangle, which has become a symbol for LGBT people, was in fact assigned to us in order to target us for abuse and genocide. The Nazis were not an organized religion, but a secular political party. Under Joseph Stalin in the former Soviet Union, an officially atheist state, homosexuals were also targeted for abuse, imprisonment and death. We fared little better under Chairman Mao and his officially atheist regime. The point here is that we are a minority and have been, like other minorities, always held as “suspect” by the ruling elite.
It is therefore an error of logic to deduce that the problem is “religion.” The problem is the desire of social and political elites to control others through homogeneity. The great contribution and arguably the genius of Western Civilization has been the concept of limiting the power of government. Magna Carta, the establishment of representative governance and the elimination autocracy were hard fought battles to establish protection of individuals and their rights. All of these represent a movement towards limiting the power and control of the state (elite) over individuals in society. Toleration, pluralism, and in short greater respect for individual rights and human dignity are the legacy offered us by those who have thrown off the yoke of tyranny.
Although these human rights are innate and self-evident, sadly they are not guaranteed. There have always been and will always be individuals and groups who will seek to seize political control and reshape society/culture to create their utopian ideal. If individuals and their rights are trampled in the process, so be it. Homogeneity of thought, behavior and of society (the world?) were the dreams of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Taliban and Christian fundamentalists (both Protestant and Catholic). LGBT people, like people possessing recessive genetic traits, will always constitute a numerical minority within any society. We simply don’t “fit in.” The Japanese have a saying “The nail that juts up must be pounded flush.”
LGBT people have been targeted in Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and most recently in Atheist societies. In fundamentalist thought, we represent an exception and therefore a threat to homogeneity. We are the “nail” that juts up, we constitute a living challenge to a “one size fits all” social order and to those who would control that social order. We should not be surprised to see this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show.
We should however be angry and appalled, because this republic was established precisely in opposition to such social tyranny. We should be alarmed because infectious and cancerous ideologies have arisen countless times in human history. These attempts at utopia have inflicted incalculable human suffering and cost innumerable innocent human lives. At the beginning of the 21st century religious fundamentalism has imposed itself in various nations. We need to WAKE-UP and realize that we are not merely fighting for our civil rights we are fighting for our lives. We need to understand that anti-LGBT language of Rick Warren, Cardinal Barragan, and the signatories of the "Manhattan Declaration" does not merely end with the denial of the right to civil marriage for same sex couples. Its logical conclusion are draconian laws like those passed in Uganda.
What can you do?
1) Write a personal letter to your senator, congressional representative and to the President. Ask them to impose diplomatic sanctions and an economic embargo on Uganda until these genocidal laws are repealed. Ask three of your friends to do the same.
2) Write to the Secretary of State and to the Department of Justice and ask them to investigate American citizens who have encouraged Ugandan officials to enact these genocidal laws.
3) If you have investments, divest from any company doing business with Uganda. Ask three of your friends to do the same.
4) If you are clergy, prepare a sermon in which you explain what is happening in Uganda. Ask your congregants to execute the three points listed above.
5) Father Tony has asked me to include the following link. If you are Catholic this provides you with yet an additional thing which you may do to fight the forces of bigotry.
6) Visit the website Church Outing and expose those who publicly attack LGBT civil rights from the pulpit.
There is a comprehensible repulsion towards and rejection of organized religion by many LGBT people. Many LGBT people have found themselves the victims of verbal, emotional/psychological and physical abuse due to religious organizations. Heads of religious organizations have publicly condemned homosexuals as being both reprobate and representing a moral danger to society. The result of such teachings and preaching has been to create a culture of hatred towards individuals who are homosexuals.
It is important here to pause and recall that the pink triangle, which has become a symbol for LGBT people, was in fact assigned to us in order to target us for abuse and genocide. The Nazis were not an organized religion, but a secular political party. Under Joseph Stalin in the former Soviet Union, an officially atheist state, homosexuals were also targeted for abuse, imprisonment and death. We fared little better under Chairman Mao and his officially atheist regime. The point here is that we are a minority and have been, like other minorities, always held as “suspect” by the ruling elite.
It is therefore an error of logic to deduce that the problem is “religion.” The problem is the desire of social and political elites to control others through homogeneity. The great contribution and arguably the genius of Western Civilization has been the concept of limiting the power of government. Magna Carta, the establishment of representative governance and the elimination autocracy were hard fought battles to establish protection of individuals and their rights. All of these represent a movement towards limiting the power and control of the state (elite) over individuals in society. Toleration, pluralism, and in short greater respect for individual rights and human dignity are the legacy offered us by those who have thrown off the yoke of tyranny.
Although these human rights are innate and self-evident, sadly they are not guaranteed. There have always been and will always be individuals and groups who will seek to seize political control and reshape society/culture to create their utopian ideal. If individuals and their rights are trampled in the process, so be it. Homogeneity of thought, behavior and of society (the world?) were the dreams of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Taliban and Christian fundamentalists (both Protestant and Catholic). LGBT people, like people possessing recessive genetic traits, will always constitute a numerical minority within any society. We simply don’t “fit in.” The Japanese have a saying “The nail that juts up must be pounded flush.”
LGBT people have been targeted in Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim and most recently in Atheist societies. In fundamentalist thought, we represent an exception and therefore a threat to homogeneity. We are the “nail” that juts up, we constitute a living challenge to a “one size fits all” social order and to those who would control that social order. We should not be surprised to see this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show.
We should however be angry and appalled, because this republic was established precisely in opposition to such social tyranny. We should be alarmed because infectious and cancerous ideologies have arisen countless times in human history. These attempts at utopia have inflicted incalculable human suffering and cost innumerable innocent human lives. At the beginning of the 21st century religious fundamentalism has imposed itself in various nations. We need to WAKE-UP and realize that we are not merely fighting for our civil rights we are fighting for our lives. We need to understand that anti-LGBT language of Rick Warren, Cardinal Barragan, and the signatories of the "Manhattan Declaration" does not merely end with the denial of the right to civil marriage for same sex couples. Its logical conclusion are draconian laws like those passed in Uganda.
What can you do?
1) Write a personal letter to your senator, congressional representative and to the President. Ask them to impose diplomatic sanctions and an economic embargo on Uganda until these genocidal laws are repealed. Ask three of your friends to do the same.
2) Write to the Secretary of State and to the Department of Justice and ask them to investigate American citizens who have encouraged Ugandan officials to enact these genocidal laws.
3) If you have investments, divest from any company doing business with Uganda. Ask three of your friends to do the same.
4) If you are clergy, prepare a sermon in which you explain what is happening in Uganda. Ask your congregants to execute the three points listed above.
5) Father Tony has asked me to include the following link. If you are Catholic this provides you with yet an additional thing which you may do to fight the forces of bigotry.
6) Visit the website Church Outing and expose those who publicly attack LGBT civil rights from the pulpit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)