Monday, December 07, 2009
Supreme Court to Hear Case of Christian Group That Wants to Exclude Gays
One basic concept that the Christianists refuse to grasp is that when one wants public tax derived funds - or in the case of college organizations, fees derived from all students- the right to discriminate and exclude others based on religious beliefs is waived. If you want to be a bigot and exclude gays, then don't ask for public/university funds. The targets of discrimination should not be forced to indirectly fund their oppressors. Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal from a Christian student group in San Francisco at Hastings Law School which refused to admit gays and lesbians and decide whether the group's right to religious liberty and freedom of association can trump a university's ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. Can't you hear the hue and cry of the Christianists if they were excluded and forced to fund a group that condemns and discriminates against them? The double standard truly becomes tiring. While the outcome ought to be unquestioned, given the Christianist appointed to the Supreme Court by the Chimperator, one cannot help but worry. Here are some highlights from the Baltimore Sun:*
The University of California's Hastings College of Law says its officially recognized student groups must be open to all of its students. The law school also has a general non-discrimination policy which applies to student groups and programs. It forbids discrimination based on "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation."
Five years ago, the Hastings chapter of the Christian Legal Society was told it could not continue as a recognized student group at the law school if its officers refused to pledge to abide by the non-discrimination rule.
For its part, the leaders of the Christian student's group cited its national policy which said, "In view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in and advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith" demanded by the Christian Legal Society.
Because the Hastings chapter would not abide by the university's policy, it lost its recognition as an official student group. This is turn meant the campus would not pay travel costs for the group's leaders to attend national meetings. The group also lost its right to use reserved rooms for meetings and, it was excluded from some newsletters or mailings that were sent to students at the law school.
A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals rejected its claim, saying a university can enforce "an open membership rule" for student organizations without violating the Constitution. . . . After considering the appeal for weeks in their weekly closed-door conference, the justices said today they had voted to hear the appeal and to rule on whether the Constitution protects the Christian student's group right to exclude some students.
*
Religion continues to be a source of hate, evil and division and "godly Christians" seem to be the least Christian in their actions towards others of anyone.
More Land Mines in Catholic Church Sex Abuse Cover Up
Frankly, I find it more than just that on the heels of the Roman Catholic Church's mobilization against marriage equality in Maine, a new media focus seems to be building on the deliberate sins of high clerics in covering up the sexual abuse of minors - and the fact that none of them have been held properly accountable. A fact that the New York Times took note of in its main editorial yesterday. Moreover, the Times noted the moral failure to call those responsible for cover ups to account. Defenders of the Church will cite sexual abuse in the public schools and any manner of excuse rather than concede that the Church hierarchy is a moral cesspool. Unlike the public schools, the Church holds itself up to judge others and pontificates on who is worthy of Heaven and who is worthy of Hell. Here are some editorial highlights:*
In the end it was not the power of repentance or compassion that compelled the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., to release more than 12,000 pages of documents relating to lawsuits alleging decades of sexual abuse of children by its priests. It was a court order. The diocese had spent seven years fighting a lawsuit brought by The New York Times and three other newspapers to unseal the records in 23 lawsuits involving accusations against seven priests.
In the end it was not the power of repentance or compassion that compelled the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Conn., to release more than 12,000 pages of documents relating to lawsuits alleging decades of sexual abuse of children by its priests. It was a court order. The diocese had spent seven years fighting a lawsuit brought by The New York Times and three other newspapers to unseal the records in 23 lawsuits involving accusations against seven priests.
*
The accounts of priests preying on children, being moved among parishes and shielded by their bishops while their accusers were ignored or bullied into silence, are a familiar, awful story. But still it is hard not to feel a chill reading the testimony from two depositions given in 1997 and 1999 by Edward Egan, who was then bishop of Bridgeport and later named a cardinal and archbishop of New York. As he skirmishes with lawyers, he betrays a distressing tendency to disbelieve accusers and to shuck off blame.
*
Absent in those pages is a sense of understanding of the true scope of the tragedy. Compare Bishop Egan’s words with those of the archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, who, after the release of a recent report detailing years of abuse and cover-ups in Ireland, said:
*
“The sexual abuse of a child is and always was a crime in civil law; it is and always was a crime in canon law; it is and always was grievously sinful. One of the most heartbreaking aspects of the report is that while church leaders — bishops and religious superiors — failed, almost every parent who came to the diocese to report abuse clearly understood the awfulness of what was involved.”
*
The accounts of priests preying on children, being moved among parishes and shielded by their bishops while their accusers were ignored or bullied into silence, are a familiar, awful story. But still it is hard not to feel a chill reading the testimony from two depositions given in 1997 and 1999 by Edward Egan, who was then bishop of Bridgeport and later named a cardinal and archbishop of New York. As he skirmishes with lawyers, he betrays a distressing tendency to disbelieve accusers and to shuck off blame.
*
Absent in those pages is a sense of understanding of the true scope of the tragedy. Compare Bishop Egan’s words with those of the archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, who, after the release of a recent report detailing years of abuse and cover-ups in Ireland, said:
*
“The sexual abuse of a child is and always was a crime in civil law; it is and always was a crime in canon law; it is and always was grievously sinful. One of the most heartbreaking aspects of the report is that while church leaders — bishops and religious superiors — failed, almost every parent who came to the diocese to report abuse clearly understood the awfulness of what was involved.”
*
Meanwhile, half way across the USA the failure of former Archbishop Rembert Weakland (pictured above) is being highlighted in newly released depositions in which the good archbishop admits to destroying reports of sexual abuse. The callousness is shocking, but all too typical of the morally bankrupt Catholic Church leadership. Here are some highlights from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
*
Former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland routinely shredded copies of weekly reports about sexual abuse by priests, according to formerly sealed testimony turned over to Milwaukee County's district attorney on Thursday. In a 1993 deposition, Weakland admitted destroying copies of the reports in his office, according to a partial transcript of the deposition released by Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
*
Peter Isely, SNAP's Midwest director, turned over the partial transcript, as well as portions of the logs to which Weakland was referring, to Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and asked him to review them for any possible criminal violations. Chisholm accepted the records and promised a thorough review.
*
Isely said SNAP also will ask Archbishop-designate Jerome Listecki to censure and discipline Weakland and anyone else who may have been involved in covering up sex abuse by clergy. He said Listecki has refused to say whether he would review why the Diocese of La Crosse, where he is bishop, has cleared more clergy accused of abuse than most dioceses. Listecki told Wisconsin Public Radio that he did not have enough time left in his term as bishop in La Crosse and that, besides, it was the holiday season.
*
*
Peter Isely, SNAP's Midwest director, turned over the partial transcript, as well as portions of the logs to which Weakland was referring, to Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and asked him to review them for any possible criminal violations. Chisholm accepted the records and promised a thorough review.
*
Isely said SNAP also will ask Archbishop-designate Jerome Listecki to censure and discipline Weakland and anyone else who may have been involved in covering up sex abuse by clergy. He said Listecki has refused to say whether he would review why the Diocese of La Crosse, where he is bishop, has cleared more clergy accused of abuse than most dioceses. Listecki told Wisconsin Public Radio that he did not have enough time left in his term as bishop in La Crosse and that, besides, it was the holiday season.
*
Once again, why does anyone still listen to the Church's bishops? In particular, why do elected officials even acknowledge their statements? Many of them ought to be behind bars in my opinion.
The Continued Lies and Craziness of The "Ex-Gay" Ministries
I got my first launch into activism back in 2003 when a former roommate had a guy contact me about someone he suspected was a national "ex-gay" who had appeared in a Christian Right newspaper and TV blitz in 1998. It turned out that the gay in question was Michael Johnston, one time protege of Jerry Falwell and other far right gay-haters, who had been sleeping around the Hampton Roads area under a false name. Working with Wayne Besen, Johnston's fraud on the public that he had been "cured" of homosexuality was exposed and Johnston's disingenuous career as "ex-gay for pay" was ended. Despite all the proof that the "ex-gay" ministries and reparative therapy do not work, there remain those among the Christo-fascists who continue to promote these fraudulent programs to (1) make money and (2) argue that sexual orientation is a choice and, therefore, gays deserve no legal protections. How alleged "Christians" can engage in such deliberate untruths is disturbing. Now, Alternet has a story about Ted Cox's experience going undercover into one of these snake oil programs. Here are some highlights:*
Over the course of the past two years, writer Ted Cox posed as a gay man. He attended weekly meetings for several months at two churches in California and a two-day camp at a ranch in northern Arizona in February, both geared toward one end: turning homosexual men and women straight. Last week, I sat down with my friend, Cox, to hear about his experience going undercover in Christian gay-to-straight therapy programs.
TC: I first heard about gay-conversion therapy from a segment on The Daily Show, called Diagnosis: Mystery and Jason Jones interviews one of the most infamous names in ex-gay therapy who's Richard Cohen. What bothered me about the segment is that they didn't touch on the religious background behind these programs. There is no such thing as atheist, agnostic or non-religious groups trying to make gay people straight. Evangelical Christians, especially, tend to be heavily involved in this movement.
*
They promote this idea that they can make you straight. That's their public message. As you dig deeper, you find out that people are actually suppressing their sexuality.
*
TC: This camp bills itself as an intense 48-hours immersive, experiential retreat. The idea is that there's an emotional burden to fix. It's called Journey into Manhood, run by a group called People Can Change. They bill themselves as non-religious. The organizer of the camp is a Mormon, Rich Wyler.
*
I became sad because I saw men reenact traumatic events from their childhood. The paperwork tells you [camp staff members] are not acting as professionals so you have no idea how ethical this is, how safe—psychologically—any of these programs are. I felt sad that their pain was being used to exploit them to make them feel like that was the reason they were gay.
*
SC: You're breaking a confidentiality agreement by speaking to me about the camp. Why take that chance? TC: I had to. If I don't talk about this, this is going to keep happening. I met one man who is married and has children and he would go online to hook up with other men and he was having anonymous sex with strangers and then going home to his wife. Another man was married and making phone calls to gay-sex chat lines and his daughter discovered the bill. A lot of these men are living lies and it affects themselves, their wives, their children. I can't stay silent about this. I feel like there's a greater good in talking about this and exposing what's going on.
*
TC: I first heard about gay-conversion therapy from a segment on The Daily Show, called Diagnosis: Mystery and Jason Jones interviews one of the most infamous names in ex-gay therapy who's Richard Cohen. What bothered me about the segment is that they didn't touch on the religious background behind these programs. There is no such thing as atheist, agnostic or non-religious groups trying to make gay people straight. Evangelical Christians, especially, tend to be heavily involved in this movement.
*
They promote this idea that they can make you straight. That's their public message. As you dig deeper, you find out that people are actually suppressing their sexuality.
*
TC: This camp bills itself as an intense 48-hours immersive, experiential retreat. The idea is that there's an emotional burden to fix. It's called Journey into Manhood, run by a group called People Can Change. They bill themselves as non-religious. The organizer of the camp is a Mormon, Rich Wyler.
*
I became sad because I saw men reenact traumatic events from their childhood. The paperwork tells you [camp staff members] are not acting as professionals so you have no idea how ethical this is, how safe—psychologically—any of these programs are. I felt sad that their pain was being used to exploit them to make them feel like that was the reason they were gay.
*
SC: You're breaking a confidentiality agreement by speaking to me about the camp. Why take that chance? TC: I had to. If I don't talk about this, this is going to keep happening. I met one man who is married and has children and he would go online to hook up with other men and he was having anonymous sex with strangers and then going home to his wife. Another man was married and making phone calls to gay-sex chat lines and his daughter discovered the bill. A lot of these men are living lies and it affects themselves, their wives, their children. I can't stay silent about this. I feel like there's a greater good in talking about this and exposing what's going on.
*
To me, what is especially sad about these bogus ministries is that at their core, they care nothing about those whom they are misleading. It's all about making money and using "ex-gays" as a prop in furthering their anti-gay political agenda. There is NOTHING Christian about these false ministries.
More than 500 Abuse Claims Filed Against Jesuits
As the Roman Catholic Church continues to meddle in secular politics and strip LGBT Americans of civil legal rights, the rot at the heart of the institutional Church continues to show itself in ongoing sexual abuse claims ranging from Ireland to the USA to Australia. It is indeed a worldwide phenomenon that helps further prove that the policy of lies, obstruction of justice and callousness towards victims was in deed systemic. Why any politicians listen to the whining of Church hierarchy is dumbfounding. Instead they ought to be seeking criminal prosecutions against bishops and cardinals - and yes the current Pope. Perhaps it is a bit of divine justice that focus seems to be turning a bit back to the Church's despicable conduct. The false "men of God"truly need to be exposed for what they really are: arrogant, corrupt, amoral monsters who put money and having their wide asses kissed ahead of all else. Here are some highlights from a new Washington Post story:*
SPOKANE, Wash. -- More than 500 people in the Northwest filed claims against the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus in advance of a November deadline, alleging members of the Catholic order sexually abused them as children. The Spokesman-Review in Spokane reports the claims against the Jesuits span decades and range from Native Alaskan children to students at Spokane's Gonzaga Preparatory School.
*
The Spokesman-Review has these further details:
*
The Jesuits already have settled 200 additional sex-abuse claims. Among them were claims by 110 Alaska Natives, who settled for $50 million last year. About $45 million of that was paid by insurers. The Jesuits claim to have so far spent about $25 million – depleting the treasury of the province. In bankruptcy documents the Jesuits claim to have $4.8 million in assets and liabilities of $61.8 million.
*
Yet many of the 500 alleged victims left to seek payouts in Bankruptcy Court assert the province remains a wealthy organization that misstated its financial standing in Bankruptcy Court records. They contend the Jesuits control and own Gonzaga University, Gonzaga Preparatory School, Seattle University and other schools and properties.
*
The university steadfastly denies any liability for the actions of Jesuits who sexually abused children, including former university president John P. Leary, who sexually abused boys until Spokane police gave him a 24-hour ultimatum in 1969 to leave town or face arrest. Leary fled, and the Jesuit hierarchy relocated him.
*
The Spokesman-Review has these further details:
*
The Jesuits already have settled 200 additional sex-abuse claims. Among them were claims by 110 Alaska Natives, who settled for $50 million last year. About $45 million of that was paid by insurers. The Jesuits claim to have so far spent about $25 million – depleting the treasury of the province. In bankruptcy documents the Jesuits claim to have $4.8 million in assets and liabilities of $61.8 million.
*
Yet many of the 500 alleged victims left to seek payouts in Bankruptcy Court assert the province remains a wealthy organization that misstated its financial standing in Bankruptcy Court records. They contend the Jesuits control and own Gonzaga University, Gonzaga Preparatory School, Seattle University and other schools and properties.
*
The university steadfastly denies any liability for the actions of Jesuits who sexually abused children, including former university president John P. Leary, who sexually abused boys until Spokane police gave him a 24-hour ultimatum in 1969 to leave town or face arrest. Leary fled, and the Jesuit hierarchy relocated him.
*
Again, why does anyone listen to these pillars of deceit and corruption? Politicians ought to respond to the Church's whining by repeatedly bringing up the sex abuse scandal. Or better yet, launching a federal investigation into the Church in the USA.
Sunday, December 06, 2009
A Message that National Democrats Need to Hear
In today's Richmond Times Dispatch former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder - the first black elected to a governorship since Reconstruction - has a message that ought to kindle fear in the hearts of national Democrats. In his op-ed column, Wilder looks at the reasons why he believes was so badly defeated by Pat Robertson's minion, Bob McDonnell. Simply put, it is a question of ignoring your base and giving them no reason to support you or your platform. And it bears an eerie parallel with what Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats are doing currently. Obama seems more worried about appeasing members of the GOP who will NEVER do anything other than trying to derail his proposals. Then there are the Democrats in Congress that have less spine than a jelly fish as they pander to lobbyists and deranged Republicans rather than deliver on REAL health care reform and other campaign promises made by Obama. If things remain as they are, Obama may well find him the Creigh Deeds equivalent in 2012. One cannot arrogantly assume that the Democrat base will come out and support him or members of Congress seeking re-election. Here are a few relevant highlights:*
The defeat of Creigh Deeds, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, by Republican Bob McDonnell was surprising only by the height of the double-digit margin of victory.
*
I will state that Deeds' inability to resonate with the base of the party was not his only failure, as some have claimed. He also failed to connect with the overall root base of Virginia voters of all persuasions -- particularly independents and crossover Republicans. If a candidate cannot attract the votes of a broad-based coalition, it becomes extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to win any statewide election in this commonwealth. That is Virginia Politics 101, but sometimes it does us all good to refresh ourselves about the lessons these past few decades of elections have taught us.
*
As one who 30 years ago was in the vanguard of changing the electorate in Virginia's Democratic circles, I am incredulous that anyone could assume the party's base can be taken for granted anymore. It is difficult for me to understand why knowledgeable campaign advisers would instruct a candidate to assume he had the support of the Democratic base while displaying no reason at all for that assumption.
*
With the concerns of the base about job losses, under-employment, health care, and resources for infrastructure improvements mounting on an almost daily basis, Democrats will have to start showing that the base -- which has been so essential to so many of us having been elected and put into positions of leadership -- has real reasons to believe that its votes matter, and that it will see tangible results, notwithstanding the present dilemma of the party.
*
It would be wise for national Democratic Party leaders not to consider what happened in Virginia and New Jersey as aberrations. They must concern themselves with the reality that those two elections might be the start of a trend. . . . The excitement and exuberance caused by the 2008 election has been suffused with numerous challenging and difficult hurdles, even more so than our nation has seen in previous years. The voters who make up the base at the national level, in state after state, locality after locality, keep asking the inexorable question -- "When? When is it time for them?"
*
The new voters of 2008, who rallied for something different -- young people who never participated in past election cycles, including ethnic minorities, independents who voted Democratic in large numbers, and even quite a few disenchanted Republicans -- now are asking, "What was it all for?" If a better job is not done of showing these people that they were not falsely deluded into believing that they had found a voice for the voiceless, we may see a repeat of what we just witnessed. Can we afford that? No.
The defeat of Creigh Deeds, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, by Republican Bob McDonnell was surprising only by the height of the double-digit margin of victory.
*
I will state that Deeds' inability to resonate with the base of the party was not his only failure, as some have claimed. He also failed to connect with the overall root base of Virginia voters of all persuasions -- particularly independents and crossover Republicans. If a candidate cannot attract the votes of a broad-based coalition, it becomes extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to win any statewide election in this commonwealth. That is Virginia Politics 101, but sometimes it does us all good to refresh ourselves about the lessons these past few decades of elections have taught us.
*
As one who 30 years ago was in the vanguard of changing the electorate in Virginia's Democratic circles, I am incredulous that anyone could assume the party's base can be taken for granted anymore. It is difficult for me to understand why knowledgeable campaign advisers would instruct a candidate to assume he had the support of the Democratic base while displaying no reason at all for that assumption.
*
With the concerns of the base about job losses, under-employment, health care, and resources for infrastructure improvements mounting on an almost daily basis, Democrats will have to start showing that the base -- which has been so essential to so many of us having been elected and put into positions of leadership -- has real reasons to believe that its votes matter, and that it will see tangible results, notwithstanding the present dilemma of the party.
*
It would be wise for national Democratic Party leaders not to consider what happened in Virginia and New Jersey as aberrations. They must concern themselves with the reality that those two elections might be the start of a trend. . . . The excitement and exuberance caused by the 2008 election has been suffused with numerous challenging and difficult hurdles, even more so than our nation has seen in previous years. The voters who make up the base at the national level, in state after state, locality after locality, keep asking the inexorable question -- "When? When is it time for them?"
*
The new voters of 2008, who rallied for something different -- young people who never participated in past election cycles, including ethnic minorities, independents who voted Democratic in large numbers, and even quite a few disenchanted Republicans -- now are asking, "What was it all for?" If a better job is not done of showing these people that they were not falsely deluded into believing that they had found a voice for the voiceless, we may see a repeat of what we just witnessed. Can we afford that? No.
Newly Released Documents Confirm Diocese Officials Remain Working Despite Abuse Involvement
Anyone who seriously believes that the Roman Catholic Church is the bit truly contrite over the sex abuse scandal - for any reason that is other than the loss money and embarrassment - need only look at the Diocese of Bridgeport and recently released documents that not only show cover up by bishops, but that two key players in cover ups remain in leadership positions in the diocese. The Church hierarchy truly has no shame and clearly believe that laws, accountability and basic morality are for everyone other than themselves. Why can't every day Catholics open their eyes to the foulness of the Church leadership? Does it need to be that their own children are abused before they wake up? As I have stated many times, I know of no other institution where such blatant and deliberate malfeasance would not result in individuals being fired and cut off from benefits, etc. Those who remain Catholic need at a minimum stop all financial support until offending members of the hierarchy are dismissed and driven from the Church. Here are some highlights from the Connecticut Post:*
Among the thousands of documents released last week by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport were depositions and other papers that revealed the involvement of former Bishops Walter Curtis and Edward Egan in the cover-up of alleged sexual abuse of children by priests in the diocese. But the documents also detail how two senior diocesan prelates, Monsignors William Genuario and Laurence Bronkiewicz, reviewed sex abuse complaints against priests and gave orders to move them around. Both men remain active in the diocese and hold senior positions.
*
"I have no comment on anything," said Genuario when reached at his diocese office. A receptionist at St. Mary's said Bronkiewicz is on a retreat and could not be reached. The diocese did not return calls or respond to e-mails asking for comment.
*
"This is precisely why child sex crimes and cover-ups in the church continue: because those who conceal felonies are rewarded, not punished, time and time and time again, in Connecticut and across the world," said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. "Let's get real: why would church officials and employees reform, when virtually none of the thousands of priests, nuns, bishops or cardinals who keep secrets, protect predators, stonewall police, ignore victims, and deceive parishioners have ever even lost one day's pay? Given what amounts to essentially an enormous endorsement of wrongdoing, only the most naive would believe that anyone in such a system would voluntarily 'reform.'"
*
Added Cindy Robinson, of the Bridgeport law firm Tremont & Sheldon, who has represented more than two dozen people abused by priests in the diocese, "The newly released documents show that priests who helped hide clergy sex abuse were rewarded by the hierarchy of the church.
*
The [sexual abuse by Fr. Brett] incident was discussed in a letter written by Genuario on Dec. 2, 1964. The letter states that Brett admitted to the incident. . . . The letter went on to state that Brett was to be taken away. "A recurrence of hepatitis was to be feigned should anyone ask."
In his deposition, released with other documents, Genuario admitted that not only did he prepare the so-called hepatitis letter but he also typed it himself. Asked by then-victims' lawyer, T. Paul Tremont, why he did it, Genuario added, "I was the vice chancellor at the time and was called in to (do the work)."
*
A few days later, Genuario met with another man, Mark Frechette, who had claimed he was abused by Brett. "He really has his astrology down !!!" Genuario wrote in a memo. Frechette later committed suicide.
*
*Although the psychologist found Federici "has a very poor contact with reality," in 1981 he was appointed pastor at St. Joseph Church in Shelton. Two years later he was accused of sexually assaulting a teenage boy in the rectory. Federici was subsequently assigned to St. Edward the Confessor Church in New Fairfield.
*
"I have no comment on anything," said Genuario when reached at his diocese office. A receptionist at St. Mary's said Bronkiewicz is on a retreat and could not be reached. The diocese did not return calls or respond to e-mails asking for comment.
*
"This is precisely why child sex crimes and cover-ups in the church continue: because those who conceal felonies are rewarded, not punished, time and time and time again, in Connecticut and across the world," said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. "Let's get real: why would church officials and employees reform, when virtually none of the thousands of priests, nuns, bishops or cardinals who keep secrets, protect predators, stonewall police, ignore victims, and deceive parishioners have ever even lost one day's pay? Given what amounts to essentially an enormous endorsement of wrongdoing, only the most naive would believe that anyone in such a system would voluntarily 'reform.'"
*
Added Cindy Robinson, of the Bridgeport law firm Tremont & Sheldon, who has represented more than two dozen people abused by priests in the diocese, "The newly released documents show that priests who helped hide clergy sex abuse were rewarded by the hierarchy of the church.
*
The [sexual abuse by Fr. Brett] incident was discussed in a letter written by Genuario on Dec. 2, 1964. The letter states that Brett admitted to the incident. . . . The letter went on to state that Brett was to be taken away. "A recurrence of hepatitis was to be feigned should anyone ask."
In his deposition, released with other documents, Genuario admitted that not only did he prepare the so-called hepatitis letter but he also typed it himself. Asked by then-victims' lawyer, T. Paul Tremont, why he did it, Genuario added, "I was the vice chancellor at the time and was called in to (do the work)."
*
A few days later, Genuario met with another man, Mark Frechette, who had claimed he was abused by Brett. "He really has his astrology down !!!" Genuario wrote in a memo. Frechette later committed suicide.
*
*Although the psychologist found Federici "has a very poor contact with reality," in 1981 he was appointed pastor at St. Joseph Church in Shelton. Two years later he was accused of sexually assaulting a teenage boy in the rectory. Federici was subsequently assigned to St. Edward the Confessor Church in New Fairfield.
*
The story goes on with further examples of the callous indifference the Church held towards victims. Even a resulting suicide apparently meant nothing. These individuals are amoral monsters - as is the institution that has allowed them to remain employed and even to be promoted. It is beyond sick. And the Pope has the nerve to call gays "inherently disordered?" He must be either looking in the mirror of at his cardinals and bishops.
America Has Been Exporting Homophobia For Decades
I have posted a number of times on the involvement of American based Christianists' involvement in the "kill gays" legislation pending in Uganda. Now, Maura Hennessey has a sobering and frightening post at Pam's House Blend that takes an honest look at the complicity of the U.S. government in the export of homophobia to Africa and other places in the world. It's no wonder that Barack Obama has not had the spine to condemn the pending legislation in Uganada or the actions of his BFF, Rick Warren. Radical Christianist extremist in this country truly pose a clear and present danger that no one in the government wants to recognize. Islamic extremism did not develop overnight, yet we are allowing the same type of religious based insanity to metastasize because no elected officials want to be accused of being "anti-religion." One has to wonder what it will take to get people to wake the Hell up to the fact that these Christian extremists are both bat shit crazy and hungry for secular power. It is a dangerous and toxic combination. Here are some highlights from Maura's post: *
Yesterday, I was in Europe having coffee with a colleague in Paris before leaving for New York. Our discussion, by and large about tedious elements of International Law, turned to the situation in Uganda and the lack of a US response to the proposed "Final Solution of the Gay Question" there. She pointed out to me that the US could not afford to point the finger as it had not only tolerated the export of evangelical intolerance but had encouraged it as an official foreign policy from the era of Ronald Reagan onward, resulting in the deplorable rule of Fujimori in Peru and various Guatemalan right wing movements as well as a creeping infestation of the Mexican Government.
*
The US was actively involved in brokering what kind of religions would be supported in South American nations in order to attain a foreign policy goal. Were the US to condemn Uganda strongly now, the States might be embarrassed as other instances of US expansion of the rule of their First Amendment "The Freedom to Worship Jesus in Whatever Right Wing Evangelical Fashion That A Person Might Choose" would eventually come up and prove to be a liability to American political interests south of the Rio Grande.
*
She continued "I heard that people are upset by the comparasion of the gays to Africans(Black Americans). They should be. Gays are not the Nuevos Negros, they are the Nuevos JudÃos (new Jews). Sooner or later, the killings will begin, and not only in Uganda. And then, what do we do? Who will invade Nigeria, Columbia, Guatemala, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia as the Chruches see the US and Europe do nothing to stop Uganda? American churches will block any move to intervene
*
In short, she summarised, America created this movement, a colonialisation of religion masquerading as anti-colonialsism. It exported this parasitic infestation of other nations' foreign policy disguised as self-determination by a single American political party and their right wing religious allies. Either American strongly denounces BOTH the policy and their own churches that largely manipulated its enactment, or the US gays and Lesbians can watch, "probably on television in the bars" the foreshadowing of their own possble future as the hangings are broadcast and the casuality numbers rise.
Yesterday, I was in Europe having coffee with a colleague in Paris before leaving for New York. Our discussion, by and large about tedious elements of International Law, turned to the situation in Uganda and the lack of a US response to the proposed "Final Solution of the Gay Question" there. She pointed out to me that the US could not afford to point the finger as it had not only tolerated the export of evangelical intolerance but had encouraged it as an official foreign policy from the era of Ronald Reagan onward, resulting in the deplorable rule of Fujimori in Peru and various Guatemalan right wing movements as well as a creeping infestation of the Mexican Government.
*
The US was actively involved in brokering what kind of religions would be supported in South American nations in order to attain a foreign policy goal. Were the US to condemn Uganda strongly now, the States might be embarrassed as other instances of US expansion of the rule of their First Amendment "The Freedom to Worship Jesus in Whatever Right Wing Evangelical Fashion That A Person Might Choose" would eventually come up and prove to be a liability to American political interests south of the Rio Grande.
*
She continued "I heard that people are upset by the comparasion of the gays to Africans(Black Americans). They should be. Gays are not the Nuevos Negros, they are the Nuevos JudÃos (new Jews). Sooner or later, the killings will begin, and not only in Uganda. And then, what do we do? Who will invade Nigeria, Columbia, Guatemala, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Russia as the Chruches see the US and Europe do nothing to stop Uganda? American churches will block any move to intervene
*
In short, she summarised, America created this movement, a colonialisation of religion masquerading as anti-colonialsism. It exported this parasitic infestation of other nations' foreign policy disguised as self-determination by a single American political party and their right wing religious allies. Either American strongly denounces BOTH the policy and their own churches that largely manipulated its enactment, or the US gays and Lesbians can watch, "probably on television in the bars" the foreshadowing of their own possble future as the hangings are broadcast and the casuality numbers rise.
*
Maura's colleague's warnings may not come to pass in the USA itself, but between the efforts of far right American evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church - Pope Benedict XVI has yet to strongly condemn the proposed Ugandan legislation despite the large number of Catholics in the nation - things do not bode well for gays in most of Africa. Obama needs to speak out NOW in the strongest language. Likewise, the S.S. government needs to stop America's home grown Christian Taliban from further exporting hatred and homophobia overseas as well as making it clear that their freedom of religion stops when the are actively advocating harm to others. The bottom line is that the Christianist are a force for evil notwithstanding however they may try to disquise their real agenda.
Alone in a Mess - The Quandary of a Gay Spouse Coming Out
Jim at Conflicting Clarity has a post with which I can very much identify. It looks at his quandary of knowing that he must come out, yet not wanting to totally destroy his relationship with his wife. I was once in that same place and, unfortunately, my wish that I remain on decent terms with my former wife was not realized as she decided to turn the split up into something viciousness, encouraged in that quest, I suspect, by her women friends some of whom had gone through divorces and also encouraged by some family members. For Jim, it's a very dark place and in my own case, I knew that I could not continue as I had for years. Yet, it was a terrifying place to be emotionally: the world and life I had known was collapsing and I had no clear image of what would replace it. Just darkness and uncertainly and often despair even though finally admitting that I was gay was unbelievably liberating in so many ways. In my case, that was eight (8) years ago. Jim is still at the center of the vortex and likely feels utterly bewildered. I believe that it WILL get better for him even though it may be darker still before things turn around. Here's how he describes his current state:*
I have been told it will worse before it gets better. Maybe that started yesterday. I am trying hard to explain to K about me. She is hung up on the fact that I am the one leaving. I am the one that no longer wants her. I am trying to get her to understand why I have to be who I am.
*
One of the things I am trying to get K to understand is that I have reached a place where I don't really know who I am. I have pretended for close to 30 years to be someone totally different from who I really am, I no longer know that person. Each day I look in the mirror the face looking back at me look less and less familiar. More like a stranger.
*
I need her to understand that this is not just be getting tired of her. It is me being honest for the first time in my life with her, with myself and with the world about who I really am. I think she will still be hurt and angry, but I also believe that if she can reason it out and understand this in not about blow jobs and more about shedding the false identity I have created for myself, I think it might be easier.
*
I think that it's important that she understand, to the extent possible, how I have gotten us to the point in the road. I think if she can clearly understand it will be easier for us to decide together the right course of action. The right time to separate, while still being supportive of each other. Wish me luck.
*
*
One of the things I am trying to get K to understand is that I have reached a place where I don't really know who I am. I have pretended for close to 30 years to be someone totally different from who I really am, I no longer know that person. Each day I look in the mirror the face looking back at me look less and less familiar. More like a stranger.
*
I need her to understand that this is not just be getting tired of her. It is me being honest for the first time in my life with her, with myself and with the world about who I really am. I think she will still be hurt and angry, but I also believe that if she can reason it out and understand this in not about blow jobs and more about shedding the false identity I have created for myself, I think it might be easier.
*
I think that it's important that she understand, to the extent possible, how I have gotten us to the point in the road. I think if she can clearly understand it will be easier for us to decide together the right course of action. The right time to separate, while still being supportive of each other. Wish me luck.
*
I sincerely hope that Jim is more successful than I was. Despite what the straight spouse may feel, it really is NOT about them in anyway. Moreover, there is nothing they can do to turn back time. Going back into the closet is not a viable option and if the straight spouse ever loved the gay spouse they would never ask that of them. In my case, I truly believe trying to stay in the closet would have guaranteed my ultimate suicide. Not that I have not made attempts along the way in my journey. I am blessed now with a wonderful man in my life and I am in the best relationship of my entire life because I am completely me and no longer some actor playing a scripted part written by others.
2nd Gay Bishop Elected for Episcopal Church
This development (the new bishop is to the right in the photo) will no doubt cause the knuckle draggers and Neanderthals within the Anglican Communion to go into convulsions and wet themselves. In contrast, I applaud the move of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angles. History is on the side of the progressive denominations who have moved to be LGBT inclusive while the homophobic "conservatives" I suspect will be view much like George Wallace when he stood in the school house door to block black children from entering an all white school. The younger generation is much more gay accepting and a majority support same sex marriage. That tide of history will not be reversed and anti-gay denominations may well be setting the stage for their own long term demise if their bigotry and hypocrisy of selective Bible parsing continues - something that would truly be a case of Divine justice. Here are some highlights from the Los Angeles Times: *
The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles today elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that sought to bar gays and lesbians from the church's highest ordained ministry. Clergy and lay leaders, meeting in Riverside for their annual convention, elected the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, 55, who has been in a committed relationship with another woman since 1988.
*
Glasspool’s election to fill one of two openings for bishops of the diocese followed the selection Friday of the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce, 53, the rector of a San Clemente church. The two became the first women elected as bishops of the diocese in its 114-year history.
*
But it was the endorsement of Glasspool that riveted much of the convention as well as the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch. Glasspool is the first openly gay priest to be elected bishop since the ordination of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003.
*
Convention delegates said that Glasspool's sexual orientation was only one factor in their decision, which came on the seventh ballot for the position. They called her a gifted priest with extensive diocesan experience in her current role as canon -- or executive assistant -- to the bishops of the Diocese of Maryland. "I don't think it's a referendum on electing a woman or a gay person," said the Very Rev. Mark Kowalewski, dean of St. John's Cathedral in downtown Los Angeles. "Those are secondary characteristics."
The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles today elected the first openly gay bishop since the national church lifted a ban that sought to bar gays and lesbians from the church's highest ordained ministry. Clergy and lay leaders, meeting in Riverside for their annual convention, elected the Rev. Canon Mary D. Glasspool, 55, who has been in a committed relationship with another woman since 1988.
*
Glasspool’s election to fill one of two openings for bishops of the diocese followed the selection Friday of the Rev. Canon Diane Jardine Bruce, 53, the rector of a San Clemente church. The two became the first women elected as bishops of the diocese in its 114-year history.
*
But it was the endorsement of Glasspool that riveted much of the convention as well as the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch. Glasspool is the first openly gay priest to be elected bishop since the ordination of the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire in 2003.
*
Convention delegates said that Glasspool's sexual orientation was only one factor in their decision, which came on the seventh ballot for the position. They called her a gifted priest with extensive diocesan experience in her current role as canon -- or executive assistant -- to the bishops of the Diocese of Maryland. "I don't think it's a referendum on electing a woman or a gay person," said the Very Rev. Mark Kowalewski, dean of St. John's Cathedral in downtown Los Angeles. "Those are secondary characteristics."
Saturday, December 05, 2009
The Shit Continues to Hit the Fan in Ireland Over Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal
It is interesting to watch the firestorm unfolding in Ireland after the release of the latest government report on the massive sexual abuse cover up that went on in the Diocese of Dublin. Some of the formerly lesser auxillary bishops involved in the cover up hold higher office now and at least one or two high clerics are calling for accountability on the part of bishops - something that to this day has not occurred in the USA. The two calling for accountability are the current Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, and to a lesser extent the Archbishop of Armagh, Cardinal Séan Brady. They - unlike so many in the Church hierarchy seem to understand that either the Church embraces accountability and reform or its days of influence and power in Ireland certainly once a bastion of Catholicism - may be gone forever. First, some comments from an Irish Catholic to a fellow blogger:*
The RC archbishop of Dublin has said this week that he doesn't want to go in to a meeting with fellow bishops this week until they have answered for their behaviour in dealing with priests who were accused of abusing children. There are calls that at least one bishop should resign ... the Bishop of Limerick for "inexcusable behaviour" in not following up on claims of abuse in a thorough manner. The church in Ireland really has reached a turning point where the old ways will not be tolerated any more but the future remains unclear. It could be a catalyst for genuine reform or it may also result in many giving up on religion completely. The single point of hope is that the current Dublin archbishop has for the most part dealt in an honest fashion with what he has inherited.
*
This archbishop says that there are now only two other bishops in the country who are on speaking terms with him! I think it would be fair to say that the continued existence of the Catholic Church in Ireland rests in the hands of the archbishop of Dublin, without him the institution would have lost all credibility and the jury is still out on whether the institution can regain any credibility in the future.
*
It goes without saying that the behaviour of the church in the Dublin diocese was typical of the behaviour in dioceses countrywide. A TV current affairs program dealt with a case in Donegal where a priest was transferred to a new parish within the diocese every time accusations were made about him and there were about 10 transfers made over the course or 20 or 30 years leaving that individual free to repeatedly abuse over that period.
*
Here's what the Irish Times is reporting on the statements of the Archbishop of Dublin - who in my view seems better for leadership that the current Pope who likewise engaged in coverups at the direction of the anything but saintly Pope John II:
*
THE ARCHBISHOP of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said last night he was writing to the Bishop of Limerick Donal Murray and all other auxiliary bishops who served in Dublin and who are named in the Dublin diocesan report.
*
Dr Martin said he was “not satisfied” with some of their responses so far. He pointed out that those bishops named in the report, but no longer serving in the Dublin archdiocese, could not tailor their responses to people in their current dioceses.What they did and did not do failed people in Dublin and they owe them a response, he said.
*Archbishop Martin said he was not the leader of the Church in Ireland. “Only two bishops lifted the phone [to him in recent days] and asked ‘are you ok?’,” he said. There was “a need for strong leadership, Cardinal Brady and I are agreed on that,” he said. “I want answers that can stand up. This we have to see and I will have no difficulty in showing the answers I get.”
THE ARCHBISHOP of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said last night he was writing to the Bishop of Limerick Donal Murray and all other auxiliary bishops who served in Dublin and who are named in the Dublin diocesan report.
*
Dr Martin said he was “not satisfied” with some of their responses so far. He pointed out that those bishops named in the report, but no longer serving in the Dublin archdiocese, could not tailor their responses to people in their current dioceses.What they did and did not do failed people in Dublin and they owe them a response, he said.
*Archbishop Martin said he was not the leader of the Church in Ireland. “Only two bishops lifted the phone [to him in recent days] and asked ‘are you ok?’,” he said. There was “a need for strong leadership, Cardinal Brady and I are agreed on that,” he said. “I want answers that can stand up. This we have to see and I will have no difficulty in showing the answers I get.”
*
“If I am unhappy with answers . . . I don’t want to be sitting at meetings with people who have not responded to a very serious situation. . . Everyone should stand up and take responsibility for what they did,” he said.
“If I am unhappy with answers . . . I don’t want to be sitting at meetings with people who have not responded to a very serious situation. . . Everyone should stand up and take responsibility for what they did,” he said.
*
Archbishop of Armagh Cardinal Séan Brady has today called for accountability among bishops in the wake of the Murphy report into the handling of complaints of child sexual abuse by priests. Dr Brady said he would be travelling to the Vatican with Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin to discuss the findings of the report with Pope Benedict.
*
Asked what he would do if it were found that children had been abused as a result of any failing on his part, Dr Brady said he would stand down. “I would remember that the abuse of children is a very serious crime in civil and canon law. It’s also a very grave sin,” he said. "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant other children were abused, well then I think I would resign."
*
Asked what he would do if it were found that children had been abused as a result of any failing on his part, Dr Brady said he would stand down. “I would remember that the abuse of children is a very serious crime in civil and canon law. It’s also a very grave sin,” he said. "If I found myself in a situation where I was aware that my failure to act had allowed or meant other children were abused, well then I think I would resign."
*
Accountability among the Catholic Church hierarchy. What a refreshing concept. I can only hope that the Church in Ireland shows more integrity than it has in the USA. Here, the Church deserves to be continually maligned and criticised for its failure to clean its own house.
Rick Warren's Role In the Uganda "Kill Gays" Bill
Candidly, I have always found Rick Warren to be a sleazy, bloated snake oil merchant and modern day Pharisee in the worse sense of the word. That Barrack Obama had the stupidity to allow Warren to give the Inaugural invocation still disgusts me. Now, with the international focus on the extraordinary homophobia in Uganda and the proposed "kill gays" legislation before that nation's lunatic Parliament, further scrutiny is revealing that Warren's foul stench is very much involved in the push for the horrific anti-gay legislation. If Obama continues to have any connections with Warren whatsoever, it will speak volumes about Obama and none of it will be good. Moreover, it will be further corroboration that Obama's campaign cynically manipulated LGBT Americans for their money and their votes while meaning nothing stated about gay equality. Talk2Action has a piece that looks at Rick Warren's connection to what's happening in Uganda and which confirms my initial instincts about Warren. Here are some highlights: *
In 2008 Rick Warren declared that, following Rwanda, Uganda was the world's second official "Purpose Driven" nation. Uganda is currently in the news because of a bill before the Ugandan legislature that would establish the death penalty for homosexual acts and, critics charge, might even require the execution of HIV-positive Ugandan citizens.
*
Some observers have wondered if Purpose Driven Life author and mega-evangelist Rick Warren has had a role in the globally controversial bill, especially because of Warren's close association with Ugandan anti-gay activist Martin Ssempa and, more broadly, because Warren has refused to denounce the anti-gay bill. To little notice, a charismatic network overseen by Warren's doctoral dissertation advisor, C. Peter Wagner, has played a major role in politically organizing and inspiring the Ugandan legislators who have spearheaded the anti-gay bill.
*
Both Wagner and Warren have designed elaborate infrastructures for blurring the lines between church and state. Wagner describes his movement as the “New Apostolic Reformation” and openly espouses his goals of reorganizing and mobilizing the church to take Christian “dominion” over government and society. Warren’s movement is described as a “second reformation” in the form of his P.E.A.C.E. plan, but his goals of rapid “expansion of the kingdom” in Uganda and elsewhere closely parallel those of Wagner's.
*
Both C. Peter Wagner and Rick Warren want to transform the world, and both have proclaimed the advent of a second Reformation. Wagner claims the New Apostolic Reformation began in 2001. Rick Warren's "second reformation" is "purpose driven" and powered by his 2005 launch of a global P.E.A.C.E. Plan. In Uganda both visions for societal transformation appear to include the categorical elimination of homosexuality - by any means. *
the methods portrayed are conceptually medieval, and the agenda is theocratic and Christian supremacist. One Ugandan blogger labels the Transformations ideology as "political Christianity" and an import of the Western world. . . . Beyond its anti-gay animus, C. Peter Wagner's movement is also virulently anti-Catholic.
*
Warren has supported the role of Archbishops Orombi, Peter Akinola of Nigeria, and Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda as leaders in the GAFCON/CFA realignment of the Anglican church on the issue of homosexuality. As reported in a March 29, 2008 story from the AllAfrica.com news service, in March 2008 Rick Warren attended a conference of Ugandan Anglican Bishops who were protesting the Church of England's tolerance for homosexuality. AllAfrica, reporting on his appearance, summarized Warren's quotes as "homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right," and directly quoted Warren as stating, "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all."
*
Is Rick Warren's "second reformation" the same as C. Peter Wagner's New Apostolic Reformation? Wagner is quite open about his goal of merging church and state - it is the core of his ideology. Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan has been publicly characterized as altruistic public service but what is this "Purpose Driven" world that Warren envisions?
^
On April 17, 2005 at California’s Anaheim Stadium, Rick Warren told approximately 30,000 who had gathered to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Saddleback Church, . . "For the past 18 months we have been on a stealth, secret mission - project - around the world. We've been sending members out, actually over 4500 members somewhere overseas, over the period of the the last few years, going out to do what we're gonna call the PEACE plan... Warren continued by asking what his audience could accomplish if they had the absolute dedication of the followers of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, and told the crowd they must do "whatever it takes" for the "New Reformation" and the global expansion of the kingdom. [See video below]
C. Peter Wagner's former student Rick Warren also has a formula for breaking down the walls of separation of church and state and building a Christian kingdom on earth. Who are the enemies that Richard Duane Warren believes must be eliminated to fulfill his utopian vision? Perhaps "Purpose Driven" Uganda gives us a clue.
In 2008 Rick Warren declared that, following Rwanda, Uganda was the world's second official "Purpose Driven" nation. Uganda is currently in the news because of a bill before the Ugandan legislature that would establish the death penalty for homosexual acts and, critics charge, might even require the execution of HIV-positive Ugandan citizens.
*
Some observers have wondered if Purpose Driven Life author and mega-evangelist Rick Warren has had a role in the globally controversial bill, especially because of Warren's close association with Ugandan anti-gay activist Martin Ssempa and, more broadly, because Warren has refused to denounce the anti-gay bill. To little notice, a charismatic network overseen by Warren's doctoral dissertation advisor, C. Peter Wagner, has played a major role in politically organizing and inspiring the Ugandan legislators who have spearheaded the anti-gay bill.
*
Both Wagner and Warren have designed elaborate infrastructures for blurring the lines between church and state. Wagner describes his movement as the “New Apostolic Reformation” and openly espouses his goals of reorganizing and mobilizing the church to take Christian “dominion” over government and society. Warren’s movement is described as a “second reformation” in the form of his P.E.A.C.E. plan, but his goals of rapid “expansion of the kingdom” in Uganda and elsewhere closely parallel those of Wagner's.
*
Both C. Peter Wagner and Rick Warren want to transform the world, and both have proclaimed the advent of a second Reformation. Wagner claims the New Apostolic Reformation began in 2001. Rick Warren's "second reformation" is "purpose driven" and powered by his 2005 launch of a global P.E.A.C.E. Plan. In Uganda both visions for societal transformation appear to include the categorical elimination of homosexuality - by any means. *
the methods portrayed are conceptually medieval, and the agenda is theocratic and Christian supremacist. One Ugandan blogger labels the Transformations ideology as "political Christianity" and an import of the Western world. . . . Beyond its anti-gay animus, C. Peter Wagner's movement is also virulently anti-Catholic.
*
Warren has supported the role of Archbishops Orombi, Peter Akinola of Nigeria, and Emmanuel Kolini of Rwanda as leaders in the GAFCON/CFA realignment of the Anglican church on the issue of homosexuality. As reported in a March 29, 2008 story from the AllAfrica.com news service, in March 2008 Rick Warren attended a conference of Ugandan Anglican Bishops who were protesting the Church of England's tolerance for homosexuality. AllAfrica, reporting on his appearance, summarized Warren's quotes as "homosexuality is not a natural way of life and thus not a human right," and directly quoted Warren as stating, "We shall not tolerate this aspect at all."
*
Is Rick Warren's "second reformation" the same as C. Peter Wagner's New Apostolic Reformation? Wagner is quite open about his goal of merging church and state - it is the core of his ideology. Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan has been publicly characterized as altruistic public service but what is this "Purpose Driven" world that Warren envisions?
^
On April 17, 2005 at California’s Anaheim Stadium, Rick Warren told approximately 30,000 who had gathered to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Saddleback Church, . . "For the past 18 months we have been on a stealth, secret mission - project - around the world. We've been sending members out, actually over 4500 members somewhere overseas, over the period of the the last few years, going out to do what we're gonna call the PEACE plan... Warren continued by asking what his audience could accomplish if they had the absolute dedication of the followers of Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, and told the crowd they must do "whatever it takes" for the "New Reformation" and the global expansion of the kingdom. [See video below]
C. Peter Wagner's former student Rick Warren also has a formula for breaking down the walls of separation of church and state and building a Christian kingdom on earth. Who are the enemies that Richard Duane Warren believes must be eliminated to fulfill his utopian vision? Perhaps "Purpose Driven" Uganda gives us a clue.
Take a good look. This is the man Obama picked to give the Inaugural invocation. It was a travesty then and it's a travesty now that this bigot is not being expsed for the dangerous religious extremist that he is in fact.
Andrew Sullivan- Leaving the Right
I've made no secret that I once was a Republican - an active Republican in fact, holding a seat on the Virginia Beach City Committee for the GOP just short of eight (8) years, served as a precinct captain and worked on many campaigns. In those days, most of my extended family were also Republicans or at least voted Republican. Something that extended back to the days growing up in Central New York when Nelson Rockefeller was governor of New York. But the Party and conservatism have changed. The result was that I and many family members left the GOP - or more accurately, the GOP left us as it increasing became a party of reaction controlled increasingly by religious fundamentalists. If you believe in the separation of church and state and that religion should not shape civil rights, it virtually became impossible to remain a Republican in good conscience. Many others have experienced the same thing. One is Andrew Sullivan who describes why he left the Right in a recent blog post. His post sums up many of my thoughts. Here are some highlights:*
[I]n so far as it [The Right] means the dominant mode of discourse among the institutions and blogs and magazines and newspapers and journals that support the GOP, Charles Johnson is absolutely right in my view to get off that wagon for the reasons has has stated. Read his testament. It is full of emotion, but also of honesty.
[I]n so far as it [The Right] means the dominant mode of discourse among the institutions and blogs and magazines and newspapers and journals that support the GOP, Charles Johnson is absolutely right in my view to get off that wagon for the reasons has has stated. Read his testament. It is full of emotion, but also of honesty.
*
[T]here has to come a point at which a movement or party so abandons core principles or degenerates into such a rhetorical septic system that you have to take a stand. It seems to me that now is a critical time for more people whose principles lie broadly on the center-right to do so - against the conservative degeneracy in front of us.
*
[M]y attachment to the Anglo-American conservative political tradition, as I understand it, is real and deep and the result of sincere reflection on the world as I see it. And I want that tradition to survive because I believe it is a vital complement to liberalism in sustaining the genius and wonder of the modern West. For these reasons, I found it intolerable after 2003 to support the movement that goes by the name "conservative" in America.
*
My reasons were not dissimilar to Charles Johnson, who, like me, was horrified by 9/11, loathes Jihadism, and wants to defeat it as effectively as possible. And his little manifesto prompts me to write my own (the full version is in "The Conservative Soul"). Here goes:
*
I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law.
*
I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt.
*
I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power.
*
I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful.
*
I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation.
*
I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government.
*
I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families.
*
I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact.
*
I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy.
*
I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck.
*
Does this make me a "radical leftist" as Michelle Malkin would say? Emphatically not. But it sure disqualifies me from the current American right. To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the conservative movement. It left me. And increasingly, I'm not alone.
Church - State Separation Is A Lie in America
Earlier in the week I bookmarked a post by Jeremy Hooper at Good As You that looked at the myth of freedom of religion in New York State after the defeat of the marriage equality bill in the new York State Senate. As I said before, anti-gay legislation in the final analysis comes down to one thing: discrimination based on religion. Since GLBT Americans do not conform to the beliefs of more reactionary forms of Christianity, we are deprived of equal rights and indeed, until 2005 in the Lawrence v. Texas were still criminalized in 13 states. Jeremy quotes the mindset behind the no vote via one of the Christo-fascists who lobbied to sway the gutless senators who have basic contempt for the true meaning of freedom of religion: *
Rev. Duane Motley, Senior Lobbyist for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, made the following comments: . . . The legislation placed freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in jeopardy. New Yorkers’ voices were heard today.” McGuire added, “The authentic marriage movement in New York is a movement based on love and justice. Our existing marriage laws are just. They do not violate the Constitution, nor do they violate the civil rights of same-sex partners. All people are created equal, but not all choices are equal and not all relationships are marriages. We are pleased that today a majority of the senators recognized and upheld the true purpose of marriage.” . . . According to the Word of God, marriage is and always will be the union of a man and a woman. Since God created marriage, only He has the authority to change it.”
*
Rev. Duane Motley, Senior Lobbyist for New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, made the following comments: . . . The legislation placed freedom of religion and freedom of conscience in jeopardy. New Yorkers’ voices were heard today.” McGuire added, “The authentic marriage movement in New York is a movement based on love and justice. Our existing marriage laws are just. They do not violate the Constitution, nor do they violate the civil rights of same-sex partners. All people are created equal, but not all choices are equal and not all relationships are marriages. We are pleased that today a majority of the senators recognized and upheld the true purpose of marriage.” . . . According to the Word of God, marriage is and always will be the union of a man and a woman. Since God created marriage, only He has the authority to change it.”
*
There you have it: the Christianist RELIGIOUS view must be the law - even the CIVIL laws. It's a mindset not unlike the Islamic obsession with imposing Sharia law. The irony, of course, is that the Founding Fathers knew well the dangers posed by having one set of religious beliefs enforced via the civil laws in the form of the Anglican Church that was the official church in many colonies prior to the Revolutionary War. Here in Virginia one of the most revered figures in Virginia history, Thomas Jefferson was most emphatic on the hypocrisy and evil of religious discrimination in doling out civil liberties - something the Virginia Legislature has forgotten as it has deprived GLBT Virginians of what Jefferson called natural rights of all citizens. I have posted it before, but Jefferson's draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious freedom says it all. Here again are some highlights:
*
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
*
[Sec. 1] Where as Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, . . . and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
*
[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly: [N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
*
. . .[T]he rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
*
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
*
[Sec. 1] Where as Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right; that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, . . . and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.
*
[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly: [N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
*
. . .[T]he rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
*
By their "no" votes, 38 New York senators demonstrated absolute contempt for ideals of Thomas Jefferson's - probably one of the greatest minds in the nation's history. Oh yes, Christianist will try to argue that Jefferson was not in favor of sodomy. Unlike the narrow minded Christiansts and like bigots, Jefferson soaked up knowledge and embraced new discoveries and science. One need only visit Monticello to see this - something I have done probably more than 50 times over the years (UVA students once got in for free with their student ID card). Unlike the present day merchants of intolerance, I find it inconceivable that Jefferson would shun new medical and mental health knowledge on sexual orientation. I suspect that had he been voting in the New York Senate he would have cast a resounding "Yes" vote.
*
Until the day arrives when GLBT Americans have full civil equality in every way, America's claim that its citizen enjoy freedom of religion will continue to be a cancerous lie.
Friday, December 04, 2009
If Ted Olsen and David Boise Win, Are They Doing the GOP A Favor.
I have posted several times about the challenge to Proposition 8 now pending in federal court in California being led by former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and David Boise. The case contends that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under the U. S. Constitution, not the least because it denies same sex couples equal protection under the law. Given the fact that homophobia and anti-gay legislation are the hallmarks of today's GOP and wingnut Christianists, it is interesting that David Frum - certainly no one's idea of a liberal - has a column on his blog, FrumForum, by Jeb Golinkin that raises the question of whether a court invalidation of Proposition 8 and similar laws would not in the longer term be a benefit for the Republican Party. Here are some highlights:*
Yesterday, the New York State Senate crushed a bill that would have allowed gay couples to get married by a margin of 38-24. While righties everywhere are probably doing back flips this morning and proclaiming that the people have spoken, the decision is not just morally wrong, it is also unconstitutional and bad for the future of the Republican Party. . . . if history shows one thing, it is that these groups will prevail. The question is not if… but when… and how.
*
In every one of these fights, conservatives have been on the wrong side of history. Our natural instinct to fight against any radical change in the makeup of society can, and has blinded us to real injustices. . . . Victories like the one earned by conservatives in New York yesterday do little but delay the inevitable and give Democrats more ammunition to use as evidence that the Republican party is an intolerant, ignorant group of belligerent dinosaurs.
*
Ironically, one of our own might save us before it is too late through the very process that we (and he) so very deplore: “judicial activism.” Ted Olson and David Boies have joined forces to appeal the constitutionality of California’s ban on gay marriage. The two men, who faced off in Bush vs. Gore, are quite possibly the best two constitutional lawyers in the United States, and together they represent a formidable legal force to be reckoned with. If they were to succeed in showing the California ban to be what it is, an unconstitutional law that is, in Olson’s words, “utterly without justification” and that brands gays and lesbians as “second-class and unworthy” in the eyes of the law, Republicans will owe the two a debt of gratitude for saving the party from twenty years of supporting a position that 20 years from now men and women will view as utterly abominable.
*
Not only will they save us from the eyes of history, they will save us from the electoral losses that the public’s general condemnation of the position will turn into at some point. If you care about electoral victories, cheer for Ted Olson. You will thank him later if he wins.
*
Yesterday, the New York State Senate crushed a bill that would have allowed gay couples to get married by a margin of 38-24. While righties everywhere are probably doing back flips this morning and proclaiming that the people have spoken, the decision is not just morally wrong, it is also unconstitutional and bad for the future of the Republican Party. . . . if history shows one thing, it is that these groups will prevail. The question is not if… but when… and how.
*
In every one of these fights, conservatives have been on the wrong side of history. Our natural instinct to fight against any radical change in the makeup of society can, and has blinded us to real injustices. . . . Victories like the one earned by conservatives in New York yesterday do little but delay the inevitable and give Democrats more ammunition to use as evidence that the Republican party is an intolerant, ignorant group of belligerent dinosaurs.
*
Ironically, one of our own might save us before it is too late through the very process that we (and he) so very deplore: “judicial activism.” Ted Olson and David Boies have joined forces to appeal the constitutionality of California’s ban on gay marriage. The two men, who faced off in Bush vs. Gore, are quite possibly the best two constitutional lawyers in the United States, and together they represent a formidable legal force to be reckoned with. If they were to succeed in showing the California ban to be what it is, an unconstitutional law that is, in Olson’s words, “utterly without justification” and that brands gays and lesbians as “second-class and unworthy” in the eyes of the law, Republicans will owe the two a debt of gratitude for saving the party from twenty years of supporting a position that 20 years from now men and women will view as utterly abominable.
*
Not only will they save us from the eyes of history, they will save us from the electoral losses that the public’s general condemnation of the position will turn into at some point. If you care about electoral victories, cheer for Ted Olson. You will thank him later if he wins.
*
Interestingly, Frum edits the blog that is described as being dedicated to the modernization and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.
Snarling, Catty Gays
One thing I have noted since coming out is how catty some in the GLBT community seem to be. They seem to almost revel in being nasty towards and critical of others. Rather than realizing that we are "all on the same side," some prefer to make personal attacks on others simply because they have led their lives differently or did not come out until later in life. On a local (or national basis) basis it can take the form of an individual or organization attacking other GLBT groups or individuals who seek to advocate in different ways or seek to focus efforts in a narrower focus. In the blogosphere it can be in the form of one GLBT blogger attacking another out of spite, envy or who knows what. A case in point: this evening a blogger friend sent me a link where another blogger from another part of the country had made a personal attack on me. Why? Simply because I had lived part of my life married and in the closet. Even though for years I had not even actually realized I was gay.*
In addition to discussing politics, religion and current events, this blog has always been aimed at discussing coming out in mid-life. From the e-mails I receive from literally every continent, there are many, many of us who came out after years of marriage. I suspect there are even far more still who remain in the closet and struggling to accept themselves and who they are. Perhaps even struggling to make the decision to" come out." The message of this blog is not necessarily aimed at those who have never been in the closet. I give them kudos for those who knew early on who they were. Not all of us were so lucky or self-intuitive.
*
For the record, I do not believe in intentionally "outing" anyone unless they are hypocritically advocating or voting for measures that harm the GLBT community. Former Republican Congressman Ed Schrock - whose name was first given to Mike Rogers by me - and similar closeted members of the GOP are one prime example. But those who are out should not be afraid to live openly. Meredith Baxter now that she has come out is an example. It does make a difference despite what some may say.
*
Yes, I am relatively new to GLBT activism. But my coming out has not been without cost: forced from a law firm in 2004 for not lying any more of who I am; brutalized by homophobic judges in divorce hearings that ruined me financially; two of my children no longer communicating with me. I feel I have paid my dues. Maybe not as much as some, but not insignificant. Those who don't want to read my thoughts and views - simply don't read this blog.
Glenn Nye - Another Disappointing Democrat
I supported Glenn Nye this past election cycle when he ran against Republican Thelma Drake. Sadly, Glenn has beeen a disappointment to date. Indeed, he's voted the way Thelma would likely have voted. To express your displeasure with Glenn and other Democrats like him, go here.
Northeaster Damage Repair Update
A number of readers have asked how the boyfriend an I are doing in terms of storm damage repair. The reality is that although we have had a number of estimates done, we are still waiting for the final settlement figure from the insurance company. Pending receipt of that, we are continuing to pack up dishes, artwork and window treatments that all must come out of the first floor before the demolition - tearing out sheet rock up to four feet from the floor and removing the remaining flooring - begins. We also had some roof damage for good measure so some ceilings upstairs need some slight repair. *
We have rented a storage unit so that we will have somewhere to put everything, plus hold some of the furniture currently upstairs so that we have a more livable space while the downstairs is torn up. The plan is to replace the sheet rock with a type of concrete board which will be covered with a waterproof wainscoting. All of the downstairs floors will be marble so that in any future severe storm we can simply take up the oriental and area rugs and carry them upstairs. Total cost? Still not known but guessing in the at least $75,000 to $80,000 range. Tomorrow we will be moving some things to storage, although the weather forecast is not good. The next couple of months we will be living in a construction zone. Overall, I believe the damage estimates for the region have been low - so many homes suffered flooding or roof damage and corresponding plaster and floor/carpet damage.
Kaine Plans to Extend Health Benefits to Virginia Same-Sex Partners
One has to wonder why he has waited until the waning weeks of his term to begin to implement the plan to belatedly extend health care benefits to the same sex partners of Virginia State employees. Up until now, outgoing Governor Tim Kaine has largely thrown LGBT Virginians under the bus other than giving lip service to equality for all Virginians. Nonetheless, the proposal has some fun aspects to it because it will pose an immediate test for Governor elect, Taliban Bob McDonnell (pictured at left) who campaigned as moderate despite his Christianist past. The plan has merit and would obviously make Virginia more competitive in the employment market, but the gay-hating Republican Party of Virginia ("RVP") base will likely go berserk. Obviously, if McDonnell has ambitions for higher office, he will have to be careful not to act in a manner that reveals his whole campaign as a moderate was a lie. If there would be no cost to the state, then McDonnell will be greeted with a land mine as soon as he is sworn in. It will be entertaining to see how this all plats out. Here are some highlights from the Washington Post:*
RICHMOND -- Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has directed his staff to begin putting into effect a proposal that would allow same-sex partners to be covered under the state's employee health plan. The incoming governor, Robert F. McDonnell (R), who has sparred with Kaine (D) on gay rights issues, expressed concern Thursday about the potential cost of the proposal but did not criticize what is expected to be a controversial one.
*
"My first question is, what [is] the cost to the state by expanding those policies?" McDonnell said at a news conference at the state Capitol. "I am all for using business -- public and private -- to expand health-care coverage. . . . But what I don't know is, what is the cost that has to be borne by the state government versus the individual new subscriber?"
*
Sara Wilson, director of the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management, said officials hope to offer the expanded benefit at no additional expense to the state because employees would be required to pay the entire cost. She said that state officials have been discussing the proposal for months but that she was not directed until mid-November to begin implementing the change.
*
Wilson said that a change of this magnitude would take about 18 months to implement, well after Kaine completes his four-year term Jan. 16. That would leave McDonnell to decide whether to continue the program. House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) said that Kaine, who serves as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is a "political animal" and called his timing suspect. "He gets to throw a bone to his base and then create a land mine for the incoming administration," Griffith said. "It may be totally innocent, but to change a policy in the last month of administration calls it into question."
*
Kaine and McDonnell clashed on gay rights in 2006 when McDonnell, then the state attorney general, advised Kaine that he had overstepped his constitutional authority when he outlawed bias against gays in state hiring. Eighteen other states provide benefits to adults other than spouses, and 10 provide benefits to domestic partners with no distinction between couples of the same or opposite sex, Wilson said. In the Washington region, Maryland offers benefits to same-sex partners; the District, to domestic partners.
RICHMOND -- Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has directed his staff to begin putting into effect a proposal that would allow same-sex partners to be covered under the state's employee health plan. The incoming governor, Robert F. McDonnell (R), who has sparred with Kaine (D) on gay rights issues, expressed concern Thursday about the potential cost of the proposal but did not criticize what is expected to be a controversial one.
*
"My first question is, what [is] the cost to the state by expanding those policies?" McDonnell said at a news conference at the state Capitol. "I am all for using business -- public and private -- to expand health-care coverage. . . . But what I don't know is, what is the cost that has to be borne by the state government versus the individual new subscriber?"
*
Sara Wilson, director of the Virginia Department of Human Resource Management, said officials hope to offer the expanded benefit at no additional expense to the state because employees would be required to pay the entire cost. She said that state officials have been discussing the proposal for months but that she was not directed until mid-November to begin implementing the change.
*
Wilson said that a change of this magnitude would take about 18 months to implement, well after Kaine completes his four-year term Jan. 16. That would leave McDonnell to decide whether to continue the program. House Majority Leader H. Morgan Griffith (R-Salem) said that Kaine, who serves as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is a "political animal" and called his timing suspect. "He gets to throw a bone to his base and then create a land mine for the incoming administration," Griffith said. "It may be totally innocent, but to change a policy in the last month of administration calls it into question."
*
Kaine and McDonnell clashed on gay rights in 2006 when McDonnell, then the state attorney general, advised Kaine that he had overstepped his constitutional authority when he outlawed bias against gays in state hiring. Eighteen other states provide benefits to adults other than spouses, and 10 provide benefits to domestic partners with no distinction between couples of the same or opposite sex, Wilson said. In the Washington region, Maryland offers benefits to same-sex partners; the District, to domestic partners.
*
McDonnell claims he's now a moderate and that he does not support discrimination against LGBT Virginians. I guess we will see if he meant any of it.
Thursday, December 03, 2009
Frank Schaeffer Takes on the Christianists
Frank Schaeffer (pictured at left) is an American author, film director, screenwriter and public speaker. He is the son of the late evangelist Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of the modern day Christian Right. He became a Hollywood film director and author, writing several internationally acclaimed novels depicting life in a strict, fundamentalist household including Portofino, Zermatt, Saving Grandma, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back. He has appeared on the Rachel Madow show and other broadcasts and Wednesday of this week he was on on Blog Talk Radio, hosted by James Hipps of The Gay Agenda, another fellow attendee of the LGBT Blogger Summit last December. Schaeffer's views are unique because he saw the fundamentalists from the inside out and what he has to say is informative. I encourage readers to listen to his interview with James.*
I find Schaeffer interesting and a week or so ago his publicists e-mailed me asking if I'd like a free copy of Schaeffer's newest book, Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don't Like Religion (or Atheism). Naturally, I said yes and the book arrived via overnight delivery the next day. In reading his book and having heard him on Rachel's show, he views the current Christianist agenda to be frightening and sees the movement as a menace. Moreover, he sees the far right fundamentalists as having perverted Christianity. Surprisingly, he makes a statements similar to those I made in a debate with a Regent University professor some years back:
*
Of course, evangelical/fundamentalists can't stand the Bible's obvious flaws because they worship the Bible, not God. So they try to "fix" their inerrant Bible's reputation by torturous justifications. They make rules even for God as if they understand God as some sort of creature trapped in the pages of the Bible, something like a fly caught on flypaper. . . . God is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The rock? - human words by flawed authors. The hard place? - the Bible as interpreted by self-interested parties.
*
Wikipedia has the following information on Schaeffer's polical views which again largely mirror my own:
*
Schaeffer has written: "In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God)." He added that he was a Republican until 2000, working for Senator John McCain in that year's primaries, but that after the 2000 election he re-registered as an independent.
*
On February 7, 2008, Schaeffer endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, in an article entitled "Why I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Obama." The next month, prompted by the controversy over remarks by the pastor of Obama's church, he wrote: "[W]hen my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr."
*
On October 10, 2008 a public letter to Senator McCain (and Sarah Palin) from Schaeffer was published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper. The letter contained an impassioned plea for John McCain to arrest what Schaeffer perceived as a hateful, and prejudiced tone of the Republican party's election campaign. Schaeffer was convinced that there was a pronounced danger that fringe groups in America could be goaded into pursuing violence.
Schaeffer has written: "In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God)." He added that he was a Republican until 2000, working for Senator John McCain in that year's primaries, but that after the 2000 election he re-registered as an independent.
*
On February 7, 2008, Schaeffer endorsed Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, in an article entitled "Why I'm Pro-Life and Pro-Obama." The next month, prompted by the controversy over remarks by the pastor of Obama's church, he wrote: "[W]hen my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr."
*
On October 10, 2008 a public letter to Senator McCain (and Sarah Palin) from Schaeffer was published in the Baltimore Sun newspaper. The letter contained an impassioned plea for John McCain to arrest what Schaeffer perceived as a hateful, and prejudiced tone of the Republican party's election campaign. Schaeffer was convinced that there was a pronounced danger that fringe groups in America could be goaded into pursuing violence.
*
In my view, Schaeffer is correct and the reality is that the evangelical/fundamentalists actual have weak faith, but much fear and hatred in their hearts. I consider them a danger as well. They certainly have no regard for freedom of religion for others.
In my view, Schaeffer is correct and the reality is that the evangelical/fundamentalists actual have weak faith, but much fear and hatred in their hearts. I consider them a danger as well. They certainly have no regard for freedom of religion for others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
