I am Virginia Tech Class of 1997.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Watch Out, Scandanavia! Here Comes Starbucks...
In my daily news from the US Embassy came this tidbit:
McDonalds, Burger King, 7-11 – and now Starbucks. As the latest US global consumer phenomenon, the Seattle-based international coffee giant will open its first outlet in this country at Copenhagen Airport on the 1st of June, in response to demands from coffee-thirsty travelers. A spokesman for Copenhagen Airport Au-thorities said: ‘Everybody keeps asking why there is no Starbucks at the airport so we’ve made a massive effort to attract the company here. It’s a massive compliment to us that we will be home to the first Star-bucks in Scandinavia.’One of the most charming things about Denmark that I have discovered is that the small store is alive and well. There are chains, but they compete with small, entreprenurial shops run by families. This is something the US has lost in the last 50 years of suburbanization and the ever present pursuit of "a bargain." Denmark, and the rest of Scandavia would do well to guard against this particular American phenomenon.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Leave It to South Carolina
From the state that brought us the nullification crisis of 1832, secession in 1860, the Dixiecrat movement of 1948, and the rabid segregationist Strom Thurmond comes the next stellar idea to embarass American democracy! That's right, dear readers, South Carolina is at it again, but this time, they are going for the body organs of prisoners.
You have not misread that sentence. The South Carolina Senate is now considering a set of 3 bills, which you can read here, here, and here. For the mere cost of a kidney or bone marrow, a prisoner could have six months of his or her sentence reduced. The bill that made it out of a SC Senate committee would allow the Department of Corrections to decide which inmates could donate. Presumably, they would have to clear the inmate of common prison health problems such as TB, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Of course, participation would be entirely "voluntary". "Voluntary" in the sense that perhaps the only thing standing between you and early freedom is giving up your kidney or some bone marrow. "Voluntary" in the sense that the prison environment is not based on coersion at all.
“We would check that this was voluntary and they had all the information. It would not be forced upon them,” said State Senator Ralph Anderson, who came up with this gem of an idea.
According to the LA Times (warning, must register to see the article), the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network estimates that, nationally, over 95,300 people are awaiting an organ transplant and that about 6,700 die annually while waiting. Of course, there are rigorous standards for donating an organ, and it is unclear whether a state prisoner could meet those requirements, given the condition of prisons today, and the activities (rapes being one) that go on inside.
Some credit does go to the South Carolina legislature, though. While in the past, they have been little concerned with the legality of their actions, this time, the South Carolina legislators are examining whether the proposal violates federal law which prohibits the exchange of organs for “valuable consideration.” Ah, the fly in the ointment. Anderson, of course, argues that personal freedom in the form of a reduced sentence is not "valuable consideration", probably because you cannot place a dollar value on it. That is the point, though. Freedom is completely invaluable. Over the centuries, millions of men and women have willingly died in defence of freedom. To wave an early ticket out of prison in exchange for an ORGAN is certainly "valuable consideration." Even if the federal government would give the OK for this scheme, it has to be argued that it violates medical ethics. When a proposal such as this one gives you an immediate feeling of being "dirty", that is a pretty good sign that it is grossly unethical.
South Carolina is on the way to passing this bill. Will someone with some sense stop them before they embarass themselves (and the United States) yet again?
You have not misread that sentence. The South Carolina Senate is now considering a set of 3 bills, which you can read here, here, and here. For the mere cost of a kidney or bone marrow, a prisoner could have six months of his or her sentence reduced. The bill that made it out of a SC Senate committee would allow the Department of Corrections to decide which inmates could donate. Presumably, they would have to clear the inmate of common prison health problems such as TB, HIV, and other sexually transmitted diseases.
Of course, participation would be entirely "voluntary". "Voluntary" in the sense that perhaps the only thing standing between you and early freedom is giving up your kidney or some bone marrow. "Voluntary" in the sense that the prison environment is not based on coersion at all.
“We would check that this was voluntary and they had all the information. It would not be forced upon them,” said State Senator Ralph Anderson, who came up with this gem of an idea.
According to the LA Times (warning, must register to see the article), the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network estimates that, nationally, over 95,300 people are awaiting an organ transplant and that about 6,700 die annually while waiting. Of course, there are rigorous standards for donating an organ, and it is unclear whether a state prisoner could meet those requirements, given the condition of prisons today, and the activities (rapes being one) that go on inside.
Some credit does go to the South Carolina legislature, though. While in the past, they have been little concerned with the legality of their actions, this time, the South Carolina legislators are examining whether the proposal violates federal law which prohibits the exchange of organs for “valuable consideration.” Ah, the fly in the ointment. Anderson, of course, argues that personal freedom in the form of a reduced sentence is not "valuable consideration", probably because you cannot place a dollar value on it. That is the point, though. Freedom is completely invaluable. Over the centuries, millions of men and women have willingly died in defence of freedom. To wave an early ticket out of prison in exchange for an ORGAN is certainly "valuable consideration." Even if the federal government would give the OK for this scheme, it has to be argued that it violates medical ethics. When a proposal such as this one gives you an immediate feeling of being "dirty", that is a pretty good sign that it is grossly unethical.
South Carolina is on the way to passing this bill. Will someone with some sense stop them before they embarass themselves (and the United States) yet again?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Immigrant Integration
A touchy subject in Denmark (not to mention the United States) is immigration. Denmark was one of the first to enact strict immigration rules in the wake of 9-11. The country has received criticism for this stance. They have also closed the doors to further immigration by Iraqi refugees, preferring instead to send money to Jordan or Syria where many of those refugees now live. Critics of the Iraq War have said that Denmark, until recently a key member of the "coalition of the willing", is morally obligated to take in refugees that they helped create. Perhaps there is a ring of truth to that, but this is not the main topic for my post today.
The question I am pondering is what does it mean for an immigrant to integrate into his/her adopted nation? The United States is a land of immigrants, but we have struggled with that throughout our history. At various points of US history, the Irish, the Italians, the Eastern Europeans, and finally, the Latinos have all received ferocious push back from "US born" citizens. Currently, we have seen much bigotry from the GOP on the matter of suppressing the use of Spanish or enacting draconian measures to stop illegal immigration.
Yet, as a nation of immigrants, the US is unique in that there is an understanding of what it means to be American, at least on the basic level. We have a set of ideals, which we sometimes do not fulfill very well, that guide us. These ideals are embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Our system of government and concept of liberty is what defines us as Americans, although we fight vociferously about what it all means exactly. There is now an argument whether the English language is essential to the American identity, since our founding documents are all in English and we have traditionally spoken English. I do not know the answer to that question, although in our public life together as Americans, I think we should agree to conduct ourselves in English. I also do not want to deny anyone their heritage or their language, because it is our diversity of backgrounds that has made the US strong.
The Danish are struggling with what it means to be Danish. They do have a constitution, but Denmark itself as a land and a people are far older than that document. The Dane are an ancient people whose ancestors were Vikings and who once ruled all of Scandanavia. As Africans and Muslims flood to Europe to escape hardships in their homelands, the question of integration has risen its ugly head.
In today's US Embassy news update, there was discussion of a new report coming out today. It asks: Should men have precedence over women when applying for a job? And is it OK to demand to be examined by a doctor of one's own gender? According to a report to be published today by a group called "Think-Tank for Better Integration" (sounds like an anti-immigrant group named by a Republican...like the jokester who named Bush's open pollution law the "Clear Skies Initiative"), the answer to both questions is no – but according to many immigrants from non-Western countries the answer is yes.
The report, based on a survey of the attitudes and values of foreigners in Danish society, states that many immigrants' "cultural baggage" plays a decisive role in their lack of integration. 92% of all Iraqi residents in Denmark disagree with homosexuality and 50% of those with a Turkish background believe that men should have first refusal on vacant jobs. These are statistics that Denmark's local councils and authorities should take into consideration when formulating integration policies, according to the think tank. "It's up to administrators at local level to stress what is important for integration," says one member of the think tank. "Should a Muslim be forced to work alongside a homosexual, and how should a school teacher react when parents say that their son's education is far more important than their daughter's. There has to be a clear policy."
Clearly explosive stuff, but these are questions people ask, especially when immigrants coming into a country do not seem to value the same things at a basic level that the other citizens do. Hence the question: What does it mean to be Danish? Or to be American? Considering the conflicts of today, can a person be both a "good Muslim" and a "good Dane"? How about a "good American"?
For the Danish, it is the question of Muslims. For Americans, the question is increasingly about Latinos, although the code words will be about "illegals". I watched an interesting show on BBC world this weekend called "The Doha Debates" where this British guy hosts a debate in front of an audience in Dubai on controversial topics. This week was the wearing of the face veil. Many women were indignant that people were not willing to just look in their eyes and see their heart, but insisted on seeing their face too. The question there was one of integration too. If you are an immigrant, is it OK to keep yourself clearly apart from your new country through the wearing of a face veil or anything else? How much of yourself do you have to sacrifice to fit in? Should you even sacrifice at all?
They did not come to a conclusion in that show, and we do not have an answer to the immigration question. The questions posed by the report in Denmark are interesting. I believe a person should have absolute freedom to see the doctor of his or her choice. If you want only female doctors, so be it. If you are a black person and do not want to see a white doctor, that may be a foolish attitude, but I think it is to your benefit to see a doctor with whom you are comfortable. Men should NOT have precedence over women. We live in a society where everyone is considered equal in the eyes of the law, and to give men preference would be discrimination.
I am also terribly sorry that 92% of Iraqi immigrants disagree with homosexuality (not sure how you can disagree with a fact), but they can be as prejudiced as they want in their homes. If you do not like having an openly gay coworker, get another damn job. It is YOUR problem, not the gay worker's. And if a parent tells a teacher that his son's education is more important than his daughter's...so what? As a teacher, you are not asked to agree or disagree with parenting styles or choices. You teach the child you have in your classroom, and if the parents refuse to get help for a female child because she doesn't have a penis, there is not much you can do.
If, as an immigrant, having a culture where women are subverient to men and where freedoms are based on religious law, gay people are not tolerated, etc....why in the world would you move to a Western nation? Especially when you know that nation has laws which directly conflict with your deeply held personal beliefs? Oh, is it about the opportunity to make money? Well, good. Have you ever considered that the freedoms you find so offensive in that society have been the basis for that opportunity to make money? Which is more important to you: suppressing women and gays or making a good living? Life is sometimes full of these hard choices, especially for an immigrant.
I think immigrants should honor their culture, language, and history. But I think too that there must be a desire to fully enter the life of your new nation. Maybe that means learning English (which in the US, we should help you do). Maybe that means gritting your teeth when you are "forced" to work with an openly gay colleague and not say or do anything about it. Maybe it means having to accept authority from a woman over you. Both the immigrant and the new nation have a duty to each other to meet in the middle. If one side refuses, the integration will never occur.
The question I am pondering is what does it mean for an immigrant to integrate into his/her adopted nation? The United States is a land of immigrants, but we have struggled with that throughout our history. At various points of US history, the Irish, the Italians, the Eastern Europeans, and finally, the Latinos have all received ferocious push back from "US born" citizens. Currently, we have seen much bigotry from the GOP on the matter of suppressing the use of Spanish or enacting draconian measures to stop illegal immigration.
Yet, as a nation of immigrants, the US is unique in that there is an understanding of what it means to be American, at least on the basic level. We have a set of ideals, which we sometimes do not fulfill very well, that guide us. These ideals are embodied by the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. Our system of government and concept of liberty is what defines us as Americans, although we fight vociferously about what it all means exactly. There is now an argument whether the English language is essential to the American identity, since our founding documents are all in English and we have traditionally spoken English. I do not know the answer to that question, although in our public life together as Americans, I think we should agree to conduct ourselves in English. I also do not want to deny anyone their heritage or their language, because it is our diversity of backgrounds that has made the US strong.
The Danish are struggling with what it means to be Danish. They do have a constitution, but Denmark itself as a land and a people are far older than that document. The Dane are an ancient people whose ancestors were Vikings and who once ruled all of Scandanavia. As Africans and Muslims flood to Europe to escape hardships in their homelands, the question of integration has risen its ugly head.
In today's US Embassy news update, there was discussion of a new report coming out today. It asks: Should men have precedence over women when applying for a job? And is it OK to demand to be examined by a doctor of one's own gender? According to a report to be published today by a group called "Think-Tank for Better Integration" (sounds like an anti-immigrant group named by a Republican...like the jokester who named Bush's open pollution law the "Clear Skies Initiative"), the answer to both questions is no – but according to many immigrants from non-Western countries the answer is yes.
The report, based on a survey of the attitudes and values of foreigners in Danish society, states that many immigrants' "cultural baggage" plays a decisive role in their lack of integration. 92% of all Iraqi residents in Denmark disagree with homosexuality and 50% of those with a Turkish background believe that men should have first refusal on vacant jobs. These are statistics that Denmark's local councils and authorities should take into consideration when formulating integration policies, according to the think tank. "It's up to administrators at local level to stress what is important for integration," says one member of the think tank. "Should a Muslim be forced to work alongside a homosexual, and how should a school teacher react when parents say that their son's education is far more important than their daughter's. There has to be a clear policy."
Clearly explosive stuff, but these are questions people ask, especially when immigrants coming into a country do not seem to value the same things at a basic level that the other citizens do. Hence the question: What does it mean to be Danish? Or to be American? Considering the conflicts of today, can a person be both a "good Muslim" and a "good Dane"? How about a "good American"?
For the Danish, it is the question of Muslims. For Americans, the question is increasingly about Latinos, although the code words will be about "illegals". I watched an interesting show on BBC world this weekend called "The Doha Debates" where this British guy hosts a debate in front of an audience in Dubai on controversial topics. This week was the wearing of the face veil. Many women were indignant that people were not willing to just look in their eyes and see their heart, but insisted on seeing their face too. The question there was one of integration too. If you are an immigrant, is it OK to keep yourself clearly apart from your new country through the wearing of a face veil or anything else? How much of yourself do you have to sacrifice to fit in? Should you even sacrifice at all?
They did not come to a conclusion in that show, and we do not have an answer to the immigration question. The questions posed by the report in Denmark are interesting. I believe a person should have absolute freedom to see the doctor of his or her choice. If you want only female doctors, so be it. If you are a black person and do not want to see a white doctor, that may be a foolish attitude, but I think it is to your benefit to see a doctor with whom you are comfortable. Men should NOT have precedence over women. We live in a society where everyone is considered equal in the eyes of the law, and to give men preference would be discrimination.
I am also terribly sorry that 92% of Iraqi immigrants disagree with homosexuality (not sure how you can disagree with a fact), but they can be as prejudiced as they want in their homes. If you do not like having an openly gay coworker, get another damn job. It is YOUR problem, not the gay worker's. And if a parent tells a teacher that his son's education is more important than his daughter's...so what? As a teacher, you are not asked to agree or disagree with parenting styles or choices. You teach the child you have in your classroom, and if the parents refuse to get help for a female child because she doesn't have a penis, there is not much you can do.
If, as an immigrant, having a culture where women are subverient to men and where freedoms are based on religious law, gay people are not tolerated, etc....why in the world would you move to a Western nation? Especially when you know that nation has laws which directly conflict with your deeply held personal beliefs? Oh, is it about the opportunity to make money? Well, good. Have you ever considered that the freedoms you find so offensive in that society have been the basis for that opportunity to make money? Which is more important to you: suppressing women and gays or making a good living? Life is sometimes full of these hard choices, especially for an immigrant.
I think immigrants should honor their culture, language, and history. But I think too that there must be a desire to fully enter the life of your new nation. Maybe that means learning English (which in the US, we should help you do). Maybe that means gritting your teeth when you are "forced" to work with an openly gay colleague and not say or do anything about it. Maybe it means having to accept authority from a woman over you. Both the immigrant and the new nation have a duty to each other to meet in the middle. If one side refuses, the integration will never occur.
Friday, March 09, 2007
The ECUSA Executive Council Responds
On Sunday, March 4, the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church issued a letter as its initial response to the Primates' Ultimatum to get rid of gays in the church, or else. The letter is typically Episcopalian in that seeks a compromise statement that is not too strident. There are two things that I found most interesting in the letter.
1. "We wish to reaffirm to our lesbian and gay members that they remain a welcome and integral part of the Episcopal Church."
In a separate account of the meeting, it is clear that the letter underwent two drafts. Considering my friend Bruce Garner was invited to join in the 2nd draft, which was adopted, the first draft must have been much weaker and did not include the statement I just quoted.
I applaud the determination of the Executive Council to stand up for LGBT Christians in their midst. They have given clear voice to the violence done against LGBT Episcopalians by the Primates Ultimatum. Rev. Gamarra is correct to call the conservatives and Africans trying to force gays out of the church bullies who disrespect the Episcopal Church itself.
2. Yet, they also issued this statement: "Further, we offer our prayerful affirmation to all who struggle with the issues that concern us: those who are deeply concerned about the future of their Church and its place within the wider Communion, and those who are not reconciled to certain actions of General Convention. We wish to reaffirm that they too remain a welcome and integral part of the Episcopal Church."
That is a damn sight more than what the conservatives offer US! For the conservatives, it is their way or the highway. There is no living together in peace. They either want to force their vision on everyone, or they will attempt to destroy the Anglican Communion by driving out anyone who disagrees with them. Here, the Executive Council is saying, you may not agree with us or the decisions of the church, but you are still welcome. Of course, that means they would have to accept that in some places, gays are welcome, as well as women in leadership roles. Can't have that, can we?
I do not see any way forward that does not lead to schism. The right wing of the church are determined to force their agenda down everyone's throat they way they accuse us of doing that. Yet, the Episcopal church does not force any church or diocese to have female priests or bishops if they do not want them. No one would even force them to accept LGBT Christians into their congregations, let alone force them to bless relationships. The Episcopal Church says that as a church, we allow women and gays, but we won't force anyone who cannot accept this to do anything against their conscience. That is not the case with conservatives. Anything short of banishment and condemnation of gays will not satisfy them. If the ECUSA finds a way out of the current Ultimatum bind, we will certainly be backed into a corner with the proposed Convenant. And God only knows what kind of draconian resolutions the Africans and others will ram through at the 2008 Lambeth. In fact, I think the 2008 Lambeth will be the place of final schism, if it does not occur before then. The "Global South" will demand draconian measures against gays, and they have the sheer numbers to pass such a resolution.
In the end, it will backfire. The Global South will be separate even from England. What has not been widely discussed is that priests in England are already performing blessings for gay couples who marry under the new Civil Union law. The way they have gotten around the vexing questions is a stated assumption that no sex will occur in these unions, and the priests are not to ask the intentions of the couple entering the union. It is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at its most ridiculous. If the ECUSA is kicked out of the Anglican Communion, it will not be long before England will find itself in the crosshairs too.
1. "We wish to reaffirm to our lesbian and gay members that they remain a welcome and integral part of the Episcopal Church."
In a separate account of the meeting, it is clear that the letter underwent two drafts. Considering my friend Bruce Garner was invited to join in the 2nd draft, which was adopted, the first draft must have been much weaker and did not include the statement I just quoted.
(Bruce) called for a clear statement about the continuing inclusion of gay,lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the Episcopal Church. He said that the statement was needed because gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people were "targeted" by the communiqué issued by the Primates after their Tanzania meeting. Those people are feeling "very vulnerable" and worried that they have been cast out of the Church or will be "exiled" soon.
He recalled that while being in church on Ash Wednesday he found it "painful for me to keep replaying parts of that communiqué and wondering if I was welcome in that place." Garner said that if he, who has felt for years that he was welcomed in the Episcopal Church, wondered how new members of the church must be feeling.
The Rev. F. N. "Butch" Gamarra (Diocese of Los Angeles) told the Council that he was conflicted between the desire to work for remain open to reconciliation and the "elephant in the room," which he said was the fact that the Church is getting "hammered" for being inclusive.
The people in the pews need to hear from the Council that "we are not appeasing" people whom he characterized as bullying and disrespecting the Episcopal Church, he said.
"The language is terribly important to people in the pews," said Bettye Jo Harris (Diocese of Hawaii). She described how her son feels as if he's been driven from the Church since the communiqué was issued.
I applaud the determination of the Executive Council to stand up for LGBT Christians in their midst. They have given clear voice to the violence done against LGBT Episcopalians by the Primates Ultimatum. Rev. Gamarra is correct to call the conservatives and Africans trying to force gays out of the church bullies who disrespect the Episcopal Church itself.
2. Yet, they also issued this statement: "Further, we offer our prayerful affirmation to all who struggle with the issues that concern us: those who are deeply concerned about the future of their Church and its place within the wider Communion, and those who are not reconciled to certain actions of General Convention. We wish to reaffirm that they too remain a welcome and integral part of the Episcopal Church."
That is a damn sight more than what the conservatives offer US! For the conservatives, it is their way or the highway. There is no living together in peace. They either want to force their vision on everyone, or they will attempt to destroy the Anglican Communion by driving out anyone who disagrees with them. Here, the Executive Council is saying, you may not agree with us or the decisions of the church, but you are still welcome. Of course, that means they would have to accept that in some places, gays are welcome, as well as women in leadership roles. Can't have that, can we?
I do not see any way forward that does not lead to schism. The right wing of the church are determined to force their agenda down everyone's throat they way they accuse us of doing that. Yet, the Episcopal church does not force any church or diocese to have female priests or bishops if they do not want them. No one would even force them to accept LGBT Christians into their congregations, let alone force them to bless relationships. The Episcopal Church says that as a church, we allow women and gays, but we won't force anyone who cannot accept this to do anything against their conscience. That is not the case with conservatives. Anything short of banishment and condemnation of gays will not satisfy them. If the ECUSA finds a way out of the current Ultimatum bind, we will certainly be backed into a corner with the proposed Convenant. And God only knows what kind of draconian resolutions the Africans and others will ram through at the 2008 Lambeth. In fact, I think the 2008 Lambeth will be the place of final schism, if it does not occur before then. The "Global South" will demand draconian measures against gays, and they have the sheer numbers to pass such a resolution.
In the end, it will backfire. The Global South will be separate even from England. What has not been widely discussed is that priests in England are already performing blessings for gay couples who marry under the new Civil Union law. The way they have gotten around the vexing questions is a stated assumption that no sex will occur in these unions, and the priests are not to ask the intentions of the couple entering the union. It is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at its most ridiculous. If the ECUSA is kicked out of the Anglican Communion, it will not be long before England will find itself in the crosshairs too.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Copenhagen Riots Update
I have discovered more information thanks to a news service that the US Embassy sends out to all Americans stationed in Denmark. First, the situation has been calm since the weekend, and nothing happened Monday or Tuesday as they tore down the Youth House.
The new owners of the Youth House (who got a court order evicting the youth and demolishing the building) are a fundamentalist Christian sect in Denmark called Faderhuset. Faderhuset was founded in 1990 by the married couple Knut and Ruth Evensen who are still involved in its leadership. Both have been involved in Christian movements since the 1970s. They started their own religious community in the beginning of the 1980s in the Nørrebro district of Copenhagen. As of January 2007, the church has 120 members and is an approved religious community by the Danish state. Apparently this fact is well known on the "street" level, but the press make no mention of it. The US Embassy newsletter, though, has no hesistation, which is as it should be.
Before last week's riots, the Youth House students had rejected an offer to take over a closed school near their location. This was the final offer by the Copenhagen City Council, which is furious at the amount of damage the riots have cost. The spokesman for the controlling Social Democrats said that he had "no wish to enter into any form of dialogue with tehse people or spent time looking for alternative accomodation for them." This from a political party that is to the left of center in Denmark! I am not sure why the students rejected the offer for a free new place, other than sheer stubbornness in the righteousness of their cause. The result is that they are now either arrested or homeless.
Ruth Evensen, the leader of the Faderhuset sect (not sure where the husband is in all this...and I thought fundamentalists did not like women as leaders...or is that only in the USA?), has been forced to hire bodyguards. She has received numerous death threats related to the case with the Youth House, and the threats have escalated since riots began last week.
That is not the only person being targeted either. Someone vandalised Mayor of Copenhagen Ritt Bjerregaard's private residence by carving out a large '69' in her front door, a direct reference to the Youth House's address at Jagtvej 69. The buildup to a massive protest outside city hall this Saturday seems set. The question is, will violence continue to be avoided now that the leftist youth have nothing to lose? Their Youth House is rubble now, and even workers are wearing full face coverings to protect their identities. Companies have hidden logos to protect themselves too as the demolition and removal continues.
Faderhuset plans a building to house a Christian café and cultural activities. Not sure what a Chrisitan café means. Will they only use Holy Water for the coffee and tea? Sell Jesus biscuits? Napkins with "Repent Now!" written in Danish? And with the trouble they have experienced from buying the Youth House, evicting the inhabitants, and then demolishing the building, do they imagine that Youth activists will let their new building sit in peace? I do not even know how they will build on the spot without fear of sabotage. What construction company would take the risk? Maybe some of our American fundies can "help" out against what I am sure they would consider "attacks by the forces of Satan on a Godly group." Shoot, I am sure that more than one gay person lived in the House too, so they could make it part of the "Gay Agenda" to conquer the world and force heterosexuals into gay relationships.
I wonder what the motives of the Faderhuset were in buying the Youth House, which has been well known since 1982. Was it to get close to their leaders' roots in Nørrebro? Didn't they forsee the problems they would have with buying this house and taking the steps have taken to possess it? They were within their legal rights, and the students should have taken the deal for the alternative property that would have been theirs outright. In this situation, they all lose.
The new owners of the Youth House (who got a court order evicting the youth and demolishing the building) are a fundamentalist Christian sect in Denmark called Faderhuset. Faderhuset was founded in 1990 by the married couple Knut and Ruth Evensen who are still involved in its leadership. Both have been involved in Christian movements since the 1970s. They started their own religious community in the beginning of the 1980s in the Nørrebro district of Copenhagen. As of January 2007, the church has 120 members and is an approved religious community by the Danish state. Apparently this fact is well known on the "street" level, but the press make no mention of it. The US Embassy newsletter, though, has no hesistation, which is as it should be.
Before last week's riots, the Youth House students had rejected an offer to take over a closed school near their location. This was the final offer by the Copenhagen City Council, which is furious at the amount of damage the riots have cost. The spokesman for the controlling Social Democrats said that he had "no wish to enter into any form of dialogue with tehse people or spent time looking for alternative accomodation for them." This from a political party that is to the left of center in Denmark! I am not sure why the students rejected the offer for a free new place, other than sheer stubbornness in the righteousness of their cause. The result is that they are now either arrested or homeless.
Ruth Evensen, the leader of the Faderhuset sect (not sure where the husband is in all this...and I thought fundamentalists did not like women as leaders...or is that only in the USA?), has been forced to hire bodyguards. She has received numerous death threats related to the case with the Youth House, and the threats have escalated since riots began last week.
That is not the only person being targeted either. Someone vandalised Mayor of Copenhagen Ritt Bjerregaard's private residence by carving out a large '69' in her front door, a direct reference to the Youth House's address at Jagtvej 69. The buildup to a massive protest outside city hall this Saturday seems set. The question is, will violence continue to be avoided now that the leftist youth have nothing to lose? Their Youth House is rubble now, and even workers are wearing full face coverings to protect their identities. Companies have hidden logos to protect themselves too as the demolition and removal continues.
Faderhuset plans a building to house a Christian café and cultural activities. Not sure what a Chrisitan café means. Will they only use Holy Water for the coffee and tea? Sell Jesus biscuits? Napkins with "Repent Now!" written in Danish? And with the trouble they have experienced from buying the Youth House, evicting the inhabitants, and then demolishing the building, do they imagine that Youth activists will let their new building sit in peace? I do not even know how they will build on the spot without fear of sabotage. What construction company would take the risk? Maybe some of our American fundies can "help" out against what I am sure they would consider "attacks by the forces of Satan on a Godly group." Shoot, I am sure that more than one gay person lived in the House too, so they could make it part of the "Gay Agenda" to conquer the world and force heterosexuals into gay relationships.
I wonder what the motives of the Faderhuset were in buying the Youth House, which has been well known since 1982. Was it to get close to their leaders' roots in Nørrebro? Didn't they forsee the problems they would have with buying this house and taking the steps have taken to possess it? They were within their legal rights, and the students should have taken the deal for the alternative property that would have been theirs outright. In this situation, they all lose.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Riots in Copenhagen
Imagine my surprise when, Thursday evening, I discovered pictures of cars ablaze, police in riot gear, and breathless Danish TV reporters covering it all LIVE in downtown Copenhagen. The TV reporters were really quite dramatic, although I could not understand what they were saying. I found out later, they were describing the scene as a "war zone".
Copenhagen and Denmark are such nice, peaceful, and friendly places. The Danes are quite possibly the most orderly people I have seen. Even their riots seem orderly, and amazingly enough, no one died. You can be sure in the United States, people would be killed in such riots. The rioters threw things at the police, but no one had a gun or started shooting.
The reason behind this rioting is a long simmering controversy over something called "UNGDOMSHUSET" or Youth House. In the early 80s, this building was abandoned, but still owned by the city. Leftist youth groups, made up of mostly Communists and hard left Socialists (I am told), started squatting on the property, turning it into a sort of commune. The city did not do much to evict them, and the situation has remained for the past 25 years.
In 2000, the city finally sold the property to a mysterious "Christian Group". I say "mysterious" only because no one in the media will name this group. It is unclear if it is the Danish state church or some other organization. Yet, I would think the identity of the group would be important. Why did they agree to buy a property they had to know was occupied?
Upon sale, the group went to court to get an eviction notice. The students fought back, saying that the city had no right to sell "their" house while it was occupied. The courts disagreed, and an order of eviction was entered. That brings us to Thursday, March 2 when the riots began.
The students protested by overturning cars, setting them on fire, setting fire to police barriers in the area, and throwing bottles, rocks, etc at the police. The police have arrested over 500 people during the weekend, and everyone was urged to stay away from downtown Copenhagen. The police have tightened border controls, because this Youth House is a rallying cry for far left groups throughout Europe.
The interesting thing about this situation for me is that under US property law, the students would long ago have seized title over the Youth House. They would have done this under the concept of Adverse Possession. From 1982 onward, the city did nothing to exercise its legal property rights or dominion over the building. They sat back while the students seized the building, lived in it, and passed it on to other students. In the US, when you neglect your property as it is being publicly seized and used by someone else for a period of 7 years, you lose that property. It is as if you legally made a gift of it by abandoning it. So around 1990, those students could have had title in US courts. Not so in Danish courts.
The building is being demolished so the police are expecting things to quiet down. However, that may not be the case for long. On a website devoted to the students, plans for major protests this weekend are in order. Hopefully, it will be peaceful.
The sad thing in all this to me is the lack of US coverage of this event. I went online to let my mom know quickly that I was OK, and she said, "What riots?" Same for my friends. No one had any idea that anything was happening in Copenhagen. The US papers said nothing. A bus full of ball players crashes on I-75 in Atlanta, and every news website in the world headlines the event. I would think that a peaceful city like Copenhagen exploding into riots would also merit coverage.
To educate my readers on this issue, I refer you to the following articles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6414657.stm
http://www.ungdomshuset.dk/en.php3?id_rubrique=4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6414481.stm
And if you can perchance read Danish, the best coverage is probably found here:
http://politiken.dk/
Copenhagen and Denmark are such nice, peaceful, and friendly places. The Danes are quite possibly the most orderly people I have seen. Even their riots seem orderly, and amazingly enough, no one died. You can be sure in the United States, people would be killed in such riots. The rioters threw things at the police, but no one had a gun or started shooting.
The reason behind this rioting is a long simmering controversy over something called "UNGDOMSHUSET" or Youth House. In the early 80s, this building was abandoned, but still owned by the city. Leftist youth groups, made up of mostly Communists and hard left Socialists (I am told), started squatting on the property, turning it into a sort of commune. The city did not do much to evict them, and the situation has remained for the past 25 years.
In 2000, the city finally sold the property to a mysterious "Christian Group". I say "mysterious" only because no one in the media will name this group. It is unclear if it is the Danish state church or some other organization. Yet, I would think the identity of the group would be important. Why did they agree to buy a property they had to know was occupied?
Upon sale, the group went to court to get an eviction notice. The students fought back, saying that the city had no right to sell "their" house while it was occupied. The courts disagreed, and an order of eviction was entered. That brings us to Thursday, March 2 when the riots began.
The students protested by overturning cars, setting them on fire, setting fire to police barriers in the area, and throwing bottles, rocks, etc at the police. The police have arrested over 500 people during the weekend, and everyone was urged to stay away from downtown Copenhagen. The police have tightened border controls, because this Youth House is a rallying cry for far left groups throughout Europe.
The interesting thing about this situation for me is that under US property law, the students would long ago have seized title over the Youth House. They would have done this under the concept of Adverse Possession. From 1982 onward, the city did nothing to exercise its legal property rights or dominion over the building. They sat back while the students seized the building, lived in it, and passed it on to other students. In the US, when you neglect your property as it is being publicly seized and used by someone else for a period of 7 years, you lose that property. It is as if you legally made a gift of it by abandoning it. So around 1990, those students could have had title in US courts. Not so in Danish courts.
The building is being demolished so the police are expecting things to quiet down. However, that may not be the case for long. On a website devoted to the students, plans for major protests this weekend are in order. Hopefully, it will be peaceful.
The sad thing in all this to me is the lack of US coverage of this event. I went online to let my mom know quickly that I was OK, and she said, "What riots?" Same for my friends. No one had any idea that anything was happening in Copenhagen. The US papers said nothing. A bus full of ball players crashes on I-75 in Atlanta, and every news website in the world headlines the event. I would think that a peaceful city like Copenhagen exploding into riots would also merit coverage.
To educate my readers on this issue, I refer you to the following articles:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6414657.stm
http://www.ungdomshuset.dk/en.php3?id_rubrique=4
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6414481.stm
And if you can perchance read Danish, the best coverage is probably found here:
http://politiken.dk/
Thursday, February 22, 2007
No Better Expression...
This letter has been shared publically by a friend and fellow parishoner of All Saints Episcopal Church in Atlanta, GA. I cannot add anything to the sentiments of this letter.
Twice today a cross has been traced on my forehead with ashes created from burned palms. And twice I have been told that I come from dust and to dust I shall return. In a couple of hours, that will take place again at the final service for Ash Wednesday.
It is a difficult day. Ash Wednesday usually is. Hearing the words "dust you are and to dust you shall return" spoken hundreds of times leaves an imprint on ones mind and soul. The Litany of Penitence has some extremely moving petitions in it, so very appropriate, particularly those that deal with our failure to love God and love our neighbor as we love ourselves. And then there are those that deal with our exclusion and dismissal of those different from ourselves. Yes it is a difficult day.
I have been distracted during the first two services and will likely be for the next. I'm usually somewhat distracted just taking care of my duties during the service, so that's not new. I search for and take personal prayer time whenever I can get it.
The distraction today comes from the fact that the communiqué' from the Primates keeps rattling around in my head. Add to that poignant postings such as those that Ann has shared with us and the potential for distraction increases. And then there are the dozens of emails, private emails, sent to me about the communiqué and my response to it on this list. There is so much pain and anguish.
A frequent question is if this is still a church that welcomes lesbians and gays. Another comes from a parent who sees the pain, the every day pain of her lesbian daughter and wonders about the church to which she professes to belong. Another talks about the tears that were shed in reading the communiqué and wondering where, if anywhere, the writer might belong. Yet another grieves over the fact that a relationship that has endured for decades will still not be honored by the church in which they place their faith life. Still others come from clergy in relationships who wonder what will happen to them. And another states that he has given up and is going to seek a new faith community for spiritual nourishment. There are new messages of like content every time I check my email. And I suspect the same is likely of any of us who are identified in some leadership role within the church and who are lesbian or gay.
What can I tell them? What do I say? Their faith has once again been trashed… This time by some who purport to be the highest ranking religious leaders of our church. So what do I say? (And if anyone writes back and says that the Primates are simply "following Scripture" I swear to God I will jump through the telephone/cable wires and personally strangle them! We have been beaten up by the Bible for long enough and it is time for that to stop…so be warned.)
Some will say that we, both lesbians/gay and the Episcopal Church, brought this on ourselves. Hogwash. We have not told a single other province of the Anglican Communion that they had to do what we do or even support what we do….we have just told them that this is where we felt that the Holy Spirit was leading us. Some will try to insist that we, as "westerners" are trying to impose our beliefs on others. Again, hogwash. We have not done that. What we have done is prayed and discerned and studied and discerned some more and prayed some more to reach conclusions we have reached. And those who did not participate in that process in The Episcopal Church have no excuses and no one to blame but themselves. Everyone had the opportunity and has had it for over three decades now. Taking ones time about change is one thing, but some things become ridiculous.
Those who want to try and make the Episcopal Church and/or the Anglican Communion an exclusive body or club will use any way they can to try and make that happen. They do so without the support of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus had no litmus tests. Jesus did not have any mechanisms for proving orthodoxy. Jesus didn't really seemed to mind who hung on to His little rag tag band at the time. His invitation was never coercive. It was never guilt-causing. It was gentle and always simply issued to the listener. His irritation was clearly reserved not for those who were the outcast of His day, but for those mentioned in the Gospel reading for today, Ash Wednesday, those who found their reward here on earth rather than in a life grounded in serving God.
I still do not know what to tell the folks who write to me. I do know how I feel at the moment and it isn't all that good. A certain part of me really wants to say: "Fine, you have your way. Every blessed lesbian and gay person in the Episcopal Church and the entire Anglican Communion needs to walk out the door, shaking the dust off of our feet as we go." That would make some…and I will name names…Kendall, Jean, Donald, John, Jim S., Dan…and a few others, very happy. Just remember, if we are gone, who will the purity police go after next? Will it be one of you? You never know once such machines get rolling. A certain German got a similar machine in motion in the middle of the last century and millions died because of it. A wrong comparison? Hardly! Those who start sorting the children of God as if they were God are engaged in just as awful a purification process as that was.
The one thing I am looking for is something I have not seen or read yet: Affirmation from bishops that lesbians and gays remain welcome in their own dioceses, regardless of what else may take place. Bishops Andrus and Sisk have done so, but there are an awful lot of quiet bishops out there at the moment. Nor am I talking about quiet postings to diocesan websites. I am indeed talking about clearly supportive statements on this very list serve. Where are they? Why are we not hearing them?
Two concepts come to mind: One is from the earlier days of the AIDS epidemic and it is "silence equals death." Not too strong a concept here. Silence may well mean death in a variety of forms, including the physical. Those who killed Matthew Shepherd weren't hearing anything that gave them an indication that what they were doing was wrong. Fred Phelps later actually praised their murderous activities.
The other concept comes from, of all sources, Robert's Rules of Order…part of the governance of our meetings. It's a very clear concept used in discussions and votes. Silence implies consent. If the chair hears nothing to the contrary, whatever is before the body is affirmed or approved. Are we to take the silence of so many as implying consent to the exclusionary aspects of the communiqué? Remember, Lambeth 98 - whether you voted for it or not - is clear in its contention that lesbians and gays are not compatible with Holy Scripture.
Off to church now and once more to be told that I come from dust and will return to dust. I will pray for those who hate me. I will even pray for those who just dislike me! And I will ask for forgiveness because I have been forgiven and because it is the right thing to do. Maybe at this service I will not be as distracted. Maybe God will provide some reassurance that I am indeed still beloved by God regardless of what some of God's followers might have been saying. And maybe when I check email again there will not be another tearful and sad question. And if I am very blessed, maybe I will see and end to the silence of the bishops of my beloved Episcopal Church.
Bruce Garner, Executive Council
Bruce Garner ebgarner@netzero.net "Since when do you have to agree with people just to defend them from injustice?" Lillian Hellman, Writer(1905-1984)
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Primates' Ultimatum
This week is when we begin Lent, the period of reflection before the celebration of Christ's sacrifice for our collective salvation. This is also the week that the Primate Communique from the Anglican Communion Primate Meeting inTanzania has been released like a kick to the teeth and a sucker punch to the kidneys to not only myself, but to LGBT Anglicans everywhere, and especially to LGBT Episcopalians in particular.
It seems to me that the conservative bigots, led by +Peter Akinola, have demanded surrender by the ECUSA or else. The conservatives are supposed to get just about everything they wanted short of the expulsion of the ECUSA from the Anglican Communion. Of course, the not-so-veiled threat of the Primates is that unless the ECUSA does what is demanded and bitch slaps LGBT Episcopalians and tells us we "are not (after all) worthy of full inclusion in the life of the church, because it turns out, Jesus really doesn't particularly care for your sort. We thought He did, but whoops...our bad."
The Key Recommendations of the Primates (or, as I like to call them, Key Ultimata) are even more noxious to my heart, mind, and soul. These two documents articulate the pain and suffering that some Episcopalians are suffering because the Episcopal Church has not fully accepted the Windsor Report. The primates fail to comment upon the pain and suffering of GLBT people across the world, which tells me they simply do not care. This is especially true for Nigeria where legislators are considering it a crime to even APPEAR to be gay. Nigerians convicted of being openly gay, having gay sex, or even hanging out with someone of the same gender suspected to be gay would be sentenced to a five-year conviction in the Christian South and potentially beheaded in the Muslim North.
Father Jake has an excellent analysis of why the the ECUSA should tell the Primates, especially those from the Global South, to buzz off. He points out five strikes against this communique that should doom it to failure:
It seems to me that the conservative bigots, led by +Peter Akinola, have demanded surrender by the ECUSA or else. The conservatives are supposed to get just about everything they wanted short of the expulsion of the ECUSA from the Anglican Communion. Of course, the not-so-veiled threat of the Primates is that unless the ECUSA does what is demanded and bitch slaps LGBT Episcopalians and tells us we "are not (after all) worthy of full inclusion in the life of the church, because it turns out, Jesus really doesn't particularly care for your sort. We thought He did, but whoops...our bad."
The Key Recommendations of the Primates (or, as I like to call them, Key Ultimata) are even more noxious to my heart, mind, and soul. These two documents articulate the pain and suffering that some Episcopalians are suffering because the Episcopal Church has not fully accepted the Windsor Report. The primates fail to comment upon the pain and suffering of GLBT people across the world, which tells me they simply do not care. This is especially true for Nigeria where legislators are considering it a crime to even APPEAR to be gay. Nigerians convicted of being openly gay, having gay sex, or even hanging out with someone of the same gender suspected to be gay would be sentenced to a five-year conviction in the Christian South and potentially beheaded in the Muslim North.
Father Jake has an excellent analysis of why the the ECUSA should tell the Primates, especially those from the Global South, to buzz off. He points out five strikes against this communique that should doom it to failure:
- The "Recommendations" together make up a large ultimatum to the ECUSA, not a recommendation.
- The Pastoral Council will empower foreign bishops to make authorizations and take actions that affect the ECUSA which is clear violation of our provincial integrity as a church.
- The "Recommendations" make demands of our House of Bishops that not only undermines the General Convention (our highest legal authority in the Church) but also ignores the House of Deputies which is made up of clergy AND lay people.
- There is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth for the poor, abused Conservatives who cannot stand homos in their midst or women in leadership roles, but not a word about the suffering of LGBT Christians or Via Media parishes trapped in reactionary dioceses.
- The Archbishops who have actively engaged in plundering assets of the ECUSA by setting up dioceses of their own and consecrating bishops is actively APPROVED unless the ECUSA caves into Global South demands. This kind of interference has never been tolerated in the past, nor should it start now.
Father Richard, of California, has a brilliant analysis, and the key observation for me was this:
Were the situation reversed, would we mirror the demand by requesting that, say, a diocese in Nigeria begin authorizing same-sex blessings, and promising consequences if they didn't? We have not, for better or for worse, done so in other matters, such as in the ordination of women.
He is absolutely correct. Until now, even ordination of women, and the consecration of women bishops did not cause this kind of reaction where boundaries and are violated and the polity of the ECUSA is proposed to be destroyed.
Integrity USA had this to say in a press release entitled, "Primates Choose Bigotry Over Baptism":
“The primates of the Anglican Communion have utterly failed to recognize the faith, relationships, and vocations of the gay and lesbian baptized,” said Integrity President Susan Russell, responding to the communiqué released today from Dar Es Salaam.
“Let us pray it doesn't take another hundred years for yet-unborn primates to gather for a service of repentance for what the church has done to its gay and lesbian members today, as they repented in Zanzibar yesterday for what it did to those the church failed to embrace as full members of the Body of Christ.”
The Rev. Michael Hopkins, immediate past President of Integrity had this
reaction: “Jesus weeps, and so do I. If the House of Bishops (or any other body with actual authority in this church) capitulates to these demands and sacrifices gay and lesbian people to the idol of the Instruments of Unity, it will have become the purveyor of an “anti-Gospel” that will (and should) repel many.”
Integrity encourages its membership and allies to directly contact their bishops—urging them to reject the demands of the primates. Our leadership will seek an immediate meeting with the Presiding Bishop to express our deep concerns and encourage the Executive Council to insist on the inclusion of all orders of ministry in the ongoing process of discernment on Anglican Communion issues.
I am a bit emotional as I have just read this communique and am trying to digest it, but I read English just fine, and it seems clear to me that gauntlet has been thrown down: the ECUSA can either throw LGBT Christians under the bus or there can be schism. The price of "unity" is clearly capitulation to the demands of the conservatives and the subjugation of LGBT Episcopalians. If that is the price of unity, I do not think UNITY is worth it. I was driven from the church of my youth once because I was gay and couldn't stomach the hate and the lies that God did not love because I was gay. I feel like someone is trying to get my new spiritual home to do the same thing...to say that I do not matter, that I am not worthy of Christ's love or mercy, that I am no longer WELCOME in my own church.
As the early reactions clearly show, this fight is not over. We will NOT go quitely into this night.
My spiritual life in the Episcopal Church is extremely important to me, and I will join in the struggle to stop this madness now. If that means we are kicked out of the Anglican Communion, so be it. I won't stand silently by as I did at age 19 when my pastor said from the pulpit, "I could never have love in my heart for a homosexual. If I knew of any in the church right now, I would come down off this pulpit, escort them out the door, and tell them never to return." It was 7 years before I entered a church again for the purposes of worship. I won't be expelled or banished so easily this time.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Eurovision Helsinki 2007 - Semi-Final - Denmark - DQ
This is the drag queen's winning performance in Denmark's Star-Search meets American Idol competition. She will represent Denmark in the European competition. Can you imagine this happening in the United States? Sadly, I cannot right now.
Friday, February 16, 2007
The Drama Continues in Africa...
The Primates of the Anglican Communion are meeting in Tanzania this weekend. This is the first meeting of the global leaders of Anglican provinces around the world since the General Convention of the Episcopal Church last year and the election of Katherine Jefforts-Schori as our Presiding Bishop. The questions swirled over whether +Katherine would be seated at the meeting, or would be excluded. Not because she's a woman, mind you, but because she supported the election of the homosexual as Bishop of New Hampshire. Being a woman just adds insult to injury, right fellas?
The Archbishop of Canterbury would have none of it. +Katherine is the legally elected primate of the US Church, and will be allowed at all meetings. If the Africans and others in the Global South don't like it, they can leave.
The other part of the drama surrounded what would happen to the Episcopal Church now that it has responded to the Windsor Report. The report from a Primate sub-committee said that we had largely complied with the Windsor Report, except where it comes to same sex blessings. That position is unclear, according to the report.
A good source for a lot of the chatter surrounding this meeting at the Thinking Anglicans site.
The conservatives are not happy thus far. The report did not condemn the Episcopal Church as an apostate organization that treats its homos as people of God, clearly going against the intent of the Bible and Jesus, who repeatedly stated and showed his hatred for all things homosexual.
Sarcasm aside, the conservatives are ready for war. They want Schism NOW. Many are actively praying for it, namely the head of the American Anglican Council. Others say the report on Windsor compliance makes schism inevitable. They are foaming at the mouth about the Episcopal Church and how gays are welcome and it is led by a woman, how we don't take every word of (fill in the version) Bible seriously as the spoken Word of God, etc, etc.
I do not know what will happen. It is sad to me that there are so many people filled with such venom in their hearts. They want to use Christ and the bible to conquer and destroy. They do not care about love and redemption. To get this result, they will destroy the very thing they claim to love...the church.
The Archbishop of Canterbury would have none of it. +Katherine is the legally elected primate of the US Church, and will be allowed at all meetings. If the Africans and others in the Global South don't like it, they can leave.
The other part of the drama surrounded what would happen to the Episcopal Church now that it has responded to the Windsor Report. The report from a Primate sub-committee said that we had largely complied with the Windsor Report, except where it comes to same sex blessings. That position is unclear, according to the report.
A good source for a lot of the chatter surrounding this meeting at the Thinking Anglicans site.
The conservatives are not happy thus far. The report did not condemn the Episcopal Church as an apostate organization that treats its homos as people of God, clearly going against the intent of the Bible and Jesus, who repeatedly stated and showed his hatred for all things homosexual.
Sarcasm aside, the conservatives are ready for war. They want Schism NOW. Many are actively praying for it, namely the head of the American Anglican Council. Others say the report on Windsor compliance makes schism inevitable. They are foaming at the mouth about the Episcopal Church and how gays are welcome and it is led by a woman, how we don't take every word of (fill in the version) Bible seriously as the spoken Word of God, etc, etc.
I do not know what will happen. It is sad to me that there are so many people filled with such venom in their hearts. They want to use Christ and the bible to conquer and destroy. They do not care about love and redemption. To get this result, they will destroy the very thing they claim to love...the church.
Others think that creating a new province will work. You would have the Episcopal Church and then (I guess) the American No-Fags-No-Women-Outside-the-Pews Anglican Church. People could just pick the province they like best. Of course, the problems with this are: a) the Episcopal Church would never consent to such an action and b) you would have to allow this in every church. That means a new province for African countries too where there is disagreement. The hope is that you could have a two American provinces for a few years until the new Anglican Convenant (which would obviously ban women and homos) is adopted, which would expel the Episcopal Church for refusal to agree to the terms of said Covenant.
I do not know what will happen. I have written in this blog before about my feelings on this issue within the Episcopal Church. I was effectively evicted once from my church home, and I will be DAMNED if I will let it happen again.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Young Democrats of America Meeting - Washington, DC
The last general meeting was this past weekend in Washington, DC with a theme of "Join the Revolution!"
Attending from Georgia were:
Jason Cecil (National Committeeman)
Flora Brooke Hesse (National Committeewoman)
Kirk Miller (YDA Rules Chair)
Billy Joyner (YDG President)
Benson Manica (YDG Secretary)
Kyle Bailey (Atlanta Stonewall Democrats)
Skyler Atkins (University of West Georgia)
Page Gleason (Executive Director)
Rebecca Miller (DeKalb)
Erin O'Neil (Atlanta)
Bernita Smith (DeKalb)
Melissa Thompson (Women's Caucus chair)
Juliana Illari (Cobb)
Brian Peterson (VP-Membership)
Robin Reynolds (LGBT Caucus chair & CDG President)
Nikema Williams (Atlanta)
Rahsheim Wright (Chatham)
As you can see, our delegation was nearly 20 strong! It was an excellent turnout by our state and one of the best in the nation.
Thursday was the start of DNC meetings, and every participant in YDA got a guest pass to the DNC. The College Democrats got a private tour of the US Capitol, complete with a visit to Speaker Pelosi's office and her private balcony at the Capitol. The DNC Rules meeting on youth participation did not go as well as we had hoped. The chairman, committee counsel, and staff were all against us, and convinced the group to turn their backs on a long standing violation of the DNC charter. At one point, the committee counsel made the Nixon/Bush-like argument that since the Convention is the highest authority of the Democratic Party, any action taken by a convention is de facto in line with the charter (Remind anyone of Nixon's famous saying, "If the President does it, then it is not illegal"? How about Bush's stance that since he's Commander in Chief, he can ignore the Constitution?) It was the 1980 Convention that purposefully, but inexplicably, removed youth from representation in future delegations. What they did not do was remove youth from the chater, meaning that the DNC has been involation of the charter since 1980. Instead, a letter will be sent to the state parties urging them to "pretty please" remember to include youth in their delegations. YDG will work with the state party to ensure that youth delegates are seated as part of the 2008 Georgia contingent.
Every Presidential candidate who has declared for the Democratic nomination was invited to speak on Friday and Saturday morning. The general consensus from our group was that Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Richardson impressed the most. There was even an opportunity for us to meet the candidates individually, an opportunity of which several of us were able to take advantage.
On Friday night, many of us attended the YDA Founder's Day event, which was a casual buffet showing the various decades that YDA has been in existence. This year is the 75th anniversary of the organization. It was an interesting party, although I went into it thinking it would be fancier than it was. And all of us from GA and other southern states were horrified by how rudely people treated Mrs. Vilseck, the keynote speaker. She is not the most exciting speaker, but to have people talking over her in separate conversations was rude. We were delighted to have DPG Chair Jane Kidd join us for the evening. We were able to see her at many events throughout the weekend, along with other DPG delegates to the DNC such as Labor Commissioner Mike Thurmond and Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin.
The final amendments to the YDA charter were considered and partially rejected. The amendments to the charter failed, but the corresponding bylaw changes passed. This means that for now, YDA's bylaws and charter conflict. This happened due to politics, and the desire of some to poke a stick in the eye of the outgoing YDA President. It also happened because the Rules committee got tired of looking at each line that was changed in the charter and hastily moved to adjourn without allowing the dissenters a full hearing on their concerns.
Speaking of the YDA Presidency, David Hardt formally launched his ticket's campaign for office. The reception that David, Chris, and Crystal hosted was fantastic. Having the chair of the Texas Democratic Party introduce David was a nice touch too. Texas doesn't have the best reputation in the world for being nice to gay people (see Lawrence v Texas), but David has managed to marshall the full support of his state party in a genuine way. There was a lot of behind-the-scenes discussion about who should be the DNC Man on the ticket, and a huge meeting was held where just about anyone interested in sharing an opinion was invited to do so. It is this kind of collaboration that is good for YDA, and I look forward to David's administration.
The next YDA meeting will be in May at a time and place yet to be determined. The only thing I do know is that the meeting will be west of the Mississippi River. Once details are released, we will share those with you.
NATIONAL CONVENTION UPDATE
Mark your calendars for July 18-21, 2007!!! The YDA National Convention will be held in Dallas, TX at the Adams Mark Hotel. For those who have attended previous conventions in San Francisco (2005), Buffalo (2003), and Tuscon (2001), you know these conventions are a lot of fun and great way to get together with YDs from across the nation, settle on a national YD platform, and elect national officers.
Confirmed speakers include Hillary Clinton and John Edwards so far. The convention website will not be up until late February or early March, but some financial details are available for you to start saving your pennies. The Adams Mark Hotel is the largest hotel in Texas, and for rooms with two queen size beds, the cost is $125/night (or $31.25/person with 4 people in a room). For those who want your own room, a king size bed is available in the Royal Tower for $145/night. Reservations can be made by calling 877-319-2326 or visiting http://resweb.passkey.com/go/yda2007. Registration will cost $60/person, and there will be a way for financial hardship to be argued on an individual basis. American Airlines is offering a 5% discount off airfare for conference attendees (use code A8577AM at http://www.aa.com/) and if 10 or more people fly Southwest, an unspecified discount will apply. If you make reservations on your own, please be sure to email Jason at http://webmail.bellsouth.net/agent/MobNewMsg?to=jacecil6@bellsouth.net an d let him know the details for our records.
With the convention being in Dallas, we will likely have a driving option for those interested in that. The downside of Dallas is that in order to maximize Georgia's votes at the Convention, we must have 34 people in our delegation. Fundraising will obviously be key, and YDG will work with local chapters to offset the costs. The experience of the national convention is worth it, though. Dallas has world class shopping and entertainment, and it promises to be a good time for everyone. I hope you will make plans to attend.
Attending from Georgia were:
Jason Cecil (National Committeeman)
Flora Brooke Hesse (National Committeewoman)
Kirk Miller (YDA Rules Chair)
Billy Joyner (YDG President)
Benson Manica (YDG Secretary)
Kyle Bailey (Atlanta Stonewall Democrats)
Skyler Atkins (University of West Georgia)
Page Gleason (Executive Director)
Rebecca Miller (DeKalb)
Erin O'Neil (Atlanta)
Bernita Smith (DeKalb)
Melissa Thompson (Women's Caucus chair)
Juliana Illari (Cobb)
Brian Peterson (VP-Membership)
Robin Reynolds (LGBT Caucus chair & CDG President)
Nikema Williams (Atlanta)
Rahsheim Wright (Chatham)
As you can see, our delegation was nearly 20 strong! It was an excellent turnout by our state and one of the best in the nation.
Thursday was the start of DNC meetings, and every participant in YDA got a guest pass to the DNC. The College Democrats got a private tour of the US Capitol, complete with a visit to Speaker Pelosi's office and her private balcony at the Capitol. The DNC Rules meeting on youth participation did not go as well as we had hoped. The chairman, committee counsel, and staff were all against us, and convinced the group to turn their backs on a long standing violation of the DNC charter. At one point, the committee counsel made the Nixon/Bush-like argument that since the Convention is the highest authority of the Democratic Party, any action taken by a convention is de facto in line with the charter (Remind anyone of Nixon's famous saying, "If the President does it, then it is not illegal"? How about Bush's stance that since he's Commander in Chief, he can ignore the Constitution?) It was the 1980 Convention that purposefully, but inexplicably, removed youth from representation in future delegations. What they did not do was remove youth from the chater, meaning that the DNC has been involation of the charter since 1980. Instead, a letter will be sent to the state parties urging them to "pretty please" remember to include youth in their delegations. YDG will work with the state party to ensure that youth delegates are seated as part of the 2008 Georgia contingent.
Every Presidential candidate who has declared for the Democratic nomination was invited to speak on Friday and Saturday morning. The general consensus from our group was that Edwards, Clinton, Obama, and Richardson impressed the most. There was even an opportunity for us to meet the candidates individually, an opportunity of which several of us were able to take advantage.
On Friday night, many of us attended the YDA Founder's Day event, which was a casual buffet showing the various decades that YDA has been in existence. This year is the 75th anniversary of the organization. It was an interesting party, although I went into it thinking it would be fancier than it was. And all of us from GA and other southern states were horrified by how rudely people treated Mrs. Vilseck, the keynote speaker. She is not the most exciting speaker, but to have people talking over her in separate conversations was rude. We were delighted to have DPG Chair Jane Kidd join us for the evening. We were able to see her at many events throughout the weekend, along with other DPG delegates to the DNC such as Labor Commissioner Mike Thurmond and Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin.
The final amendments to the YDA charter were considered and partially rejected. The amendments to the charter failed, but the corresponding bylaw changes passed. This means that for now, YDA's bylaws and charter conflict. This happened due to politics, and the desire of some to poke a stick in the eye of the outgoing YDA President. It also happened because the Rules committee got tired of looking at each line that was changed in the charter and hastily moved to adjourn without allowing the dissenters a full hearing on their concerns.
Speaking of the YDA Presidency, David Hardt formally launched his ticket's campaign for office. The reception that David, Chris, and Crystal hosted was fantastic. Having the chair of the Texas Democratic Party introduce David was a nice touch too. Texas doesn't have the best reputation in the world for being nice to gay people (see Lawrence v Texas), but David has managed to marshall the full support of his state party in a genuine way. There was a lot of behind-the-scenes discussion about who should be the DNC Man on the ticket, and a huge meeting was held where just about anyone interested in sharing an opinion was invited to do so. It is this kind of collaboration that is good for YDA, and I look forward to David's administration.
The next YDA meeting will be in May at a time and place yet to be determined. The only thing I do know is that the meeting will be west of the Mississippi River. Once details are released, we will share those with you.
NATIONAL CONVENTION UPDATE
Mark your calendars for July 18-21, 2007!!! The YDA National Convention will be held in Dallas, TX at the Adams Mark Hotel. For those who have attended previous conventions in San Francisco (2005), Buffalo (2003), and Tuscon (2001), you know these conventions are a lot of fun and great way to get together with YDs from across the nation, settle on a national YD platform, and elect national officers.
Confirmed speakers include Hillary Clinton and John Edwards so far. The convention website will not be up until late February or early March, but some financial details are available for you to start saving your pennies. The Adams Mark Hotel is the largest hotel in Texas, and for rooms with two queen size beds, the cost is $125/night (or $31.25/person with 4 people in a room). For those who want your own room, a king size bed is available in the Royal Tower for $145/night. Reservations can be made by calling 877-319-2326 or visiting http://resweb.passkey.com/go/yda2007. Registration will cost $60/person, and there will be a way for financial hardship to be argued on an individual basis. American Airlines is offering a 5% discount off airfare for conference attendees (use code A8577AM at http://www.aa.com/) and if 10 or more people fly Southwest, an unspecified discount will apply. If you make reservations on your own, please be sure to email Jason at http://webmail.bellsouth.net/agent/MobNewMsg?to=jacecil6@bellsouth.net an d let him know the details for our records.
With the convention being in Dallas, we will likely have a driving option for those interested in that. The downside of Dallas is that in order to maximize Georgia's votes at the Convention, we must have 34 people in our delegation. Fundraising will obviously be key, and YDG will work with local chapters to offset the costs. The experience of the national convention is worth it, though. Dallas has world class shopping and entertainment, and it promises to be a good time for everyone. I hope you will make plans to attend.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Democratic Party of Georgia Elections
Saturday was a very long day. Those of us on the State Committee of the Democratic Party of Georgia met at the IBEW auditorium in Atlanta for 7 hours of fellowship, speeches, and good ol' fashioned voting! Below are the results of the Democratic Party of Georgia (DPG) leadership elections. Turnout was over 70%, and I was thankful to be under an air vent with my fellow 5th District members.
That's fine, really. It is in the great American tradition to vote for change, but not radical change. But make no mistake, the DPG of our fathers and grandfathers is gone. For the first time ever, we have had truly democratic elections for the party leadership. A real debate of ideas was forced, and the conversation moved the party forward. The ideas that Young Democrats need to be embraced by the party, and that grassroots is the way to fight our way back into the majority have gained real traction.
From a Young Democrat viewpoint, the election was definitely positive. At least three of the executive officers have made an explicit point of valuing the Young Democrats and the benefits we can bring to the party as we move into the future. This includes the new chair, Jane Kidd. Jane has been a friend of Young Democrats for a while, and she has been especially close to the UGA chapter, which has worked heavily on her state house and senate races. The state GOP felt threatened enough by Jane Kidd to redistrict her senate district to add enough GOP voters to prevent her election. That decision is one they will come to rue. I guarantee you that the GOP will one day wish they had just left well enough alone, because dealing with Chairwoman Kidd will be much more of a painful experience than dealing with State Senator Kidd would have been. I look forward to helping Jane put the hurt on.
We have an Hispanic businessman from Forsyth County whose campaign almost gave the exact talking points that the Young Democrats of Georgia has been promoting for our own future. Plus, with Hispanics being a crucial electoral block in the future, having DPG with a major Vice Chair who is Hispanic will only help us reach out to that community which is currently under attack by the GOP.
The best part of Mr. Pascoe's election was the defeat of an anti-gay, anti-choice candidate for the office. Mr. Pascoe was unapologetic about his past as someone who worked very closely with the LGBT group at Coors. He is thoughtful and business oriented. One of his opponents was a key turncoat vote in 2004 to force a vote on the gay marriage amendment. Not only did he advocate openly in the Democratic caucus against gay people, his actions led directly to the loss of at least 5-6 seats in the GA House that we might have kept had Rep. Smyre been allowed to sit on the amendment in the House Rules Committee. This man's followers claimed he was a preacher, and had to vote and advocate against gay people, and against abortion rights. That's fine, and if his constitutents don't care, that's fine too. But bigots don't need to apply for major office in the Democratic Party. That DPG said "NO" to this individual warms my heart and makes me proud to be a Southern Democrat!
Mike Thurmond is not only Commissioner of Labor, but our 1st Vice Chair. He will have the support of elected officials not only in GA but also in DC. Steve Leeds and Sally Rosser provide crucial leadership, and a perspective of what has and has not worked in the past. They are also forward thinking people whose talents promise to be unleashed under Chairwoman Kidd.
In two crucial contested elections, Young Democrats came out on top. In my own 5th District, home of Representative John Lewis, my good friend Will Curry was elected chair of the the 5th Congressional District by a vote of 17-10. He unseated the incumbent who happened to be his own state representative. Will is a fine addition to the DPG Executive Committee, and Congressman Lewis will find that he has a fine, dynamic young leader as the focal point for his party in his district.
In the 13th Congressional District, home of Representative David Scott, another good friend, Nikema Williams survived a nasty campaign to defeat the incumbent District Chair 8-5. The incumbent used every trick at her disposal to force Nikema out of the race, and then to intimidate the committee members voting in her district. If looks could kill, Nikema would have been gutted like a fish during her speech. But poise, and actions, spoke louder than words and nasty looks. Nikema, unlike her predecessor, will work WITH her congressman, not against him. She certainly won't run against him for office! David Scott will have a true Democratic partner in his district now, and everyone will be better for it.
So, while the day was exhausting, the elections were a good thing. I have great hopes that the new leadership will move us forward, and chip away at the GOP machine that has arisen since 2002. Georgia is rightfully a purple state, and if our leadership is as bold as I hope they will be in enacting their campaign promises, we will finally become a swing state.
Democratic Party of Georgia Executive Officers:
Chair
Jane V. Kidd (Clarke)
First Vice-Chair
Michael Thurmond (Clarke)
Congressional District/County Liaison Vice-Chair
Sally Rosser (Fulton)
Constituency Group Vice-Chair
Virgilio Perez Pascoe (Forsyth)
Candidate Recruitment Vice-Chair
Winfred Dukes (Dougherty)
Secretary
Stephen R. Leeds (Fulton)
Treasurer
Rex Templeton, Jr. (Chatham)
That's fine, really. It is in the great American tradition to vote for change, but not radical change. But make no mistake, the DPG of our fathers and grandfathers is gone. For the first time ever, we have had truly democratic elections for the party leadership. A real debate of ideas was forced, and the conversation moved the party forward. The ideas that Young Democrats need to be embraced by the party, and that grassroots is the way to fight our way back into the majority have gained real traction.
From a Young Democrat viewpoint, the election was definitely positive. At least three of the executive officers have made an explicit point of valuing the Young Democrats and the benefits we can bring to the party as we move into the future. This includes the new chair, Jane Kidd. Jane has been a friend of Young Democrats for a while, and she has been especially close to the UGA chapter, which has worked heavily on her state house and senate races. The state GOP felt threatened enough by Jane Kidd to redistrict her senate district to add enough GOP voters to prevent her election. That decision is one they will come to rue. I guarantee you that the GOP will one day wish they had just left well enough alone, because dealing with Chairwoman Kidd will be much more of a painful experience than dealing with State Senator Kidd would have been. I look forward to helping Jane put the hurt on.
We have an Hispanic businessman from Forsyth County whose campaign almost gave the exact talking points that the Young Democrats of Georgia has been promoting for our own future. Plus, with Hispanics being a crucial electoral block in the future, having DPG with a major Vice Chair who is Hispanic will only help us reach out to that community which is currently under attack by the GOP.
The best part of Mr. Pascoe's election was the defeat of an anti-gay, anti-choice candidate for the office. Mr. Pascoe was unapologetic about his past as someone who worked very closely with the LGBT group at Coors. He is thoughtful and business oriented. One of his opponents was a key turncoat vote in 2004 to force a vote on the gay marriage amendment. Not only did he advocate openly in the Democratic caucus against gay people, his actions led directly to the loss of at least 5-6 seats in the GA House that we might have kept had Rep. Smyre been allowed to sit on the amendment in the House Rules Committee. This man's followers claimed he was a preacher, and had to vote and advocate against gay people, and against abortion rights. That's fine, and if his constitutents don't care, that's fine too. But bigots don't need to apply for major office in the Democratic Party. That DPG said "NO" to this individual warms my heart and makes me proud to be a Southern Democrat!
Mike Thurmond is not only Commissioner of Labor, but our 1st Vice Chair. He will have the support of elected officials not only in GA but also in DC. Steve Leeds and Sally Rosser provide crucial leadership, and a perspective of what has and has not worked in the past. They are also forward thinking people whose talents promise to be unleashed under Chairwoman Kidd.
In two crucial contested elections, Young Democrats came out on top. In my own 5th District, home of Representative John Lewis, my good friend Will Curry was elected chair of the the 5th Congressional District by a vote of 17-10. He unseated the incumbent who happened to be his own state representative. Will is a fine addition to the DPG Executive Committee, and Congressman Lewis will find that he has a fine, dynamic young leader as the focal point for his party in his district.
In the 13th Congressional District, home of Representative David Scott, another good friend, Nikema Williams survived a nasty campaign to defeat the incumbent District Chair 8-5. The incumbent used every trick at her disposal to force Nikema out of the race, and then to intimidate the committee members voting in her district. If looks could kill, Nikema would have been gutted like a fish during her speech. But poise, and actions, spoke louder than words and nasty looks. Nikema, unlike her predecessor, will work WITH her congressman, not against him. She certainly won't run against him for office! David Scott will have a true Democratic partner in his district now, and everyone will be better for it.
So, while the day was exhausting, the elections were a good thing. I have great hopes that the new leadership will move us forward, and chip away at the GOP machine that has arisen since 2002. Georgia is rightfully a purple state, and if our leadership is as bold as I hope they will be in enacting their campaign promises, we will finally become a swing state.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Milton County
Milton County was created on December 18, 1857 from parts of northeastern Cobb, southeastern Cherokee and southwestern Forsyth counties. Alpharetta was the county seat until the end of 1931, when Milton was merged with Fulton County to save it from bankruptcy during the Great Depression. At that time,
Campbell County, which had already gone bankrupt, was also ceded to Fulton, giving it its long irregular shape along the Chattahoochee River.
Georgia already has the constitutional maximum of 159 counties, the 2nd highest total number of counties in the nation after Texas. Yet, with the Republicans in control of the state government, Milton County may be ressurected. All in the name of making damn sure that rich white folks' money won't be spent on anything that might benefit a person of color! Jim Crow racism, 21st century style....alive and well here in Georgia.
This whole movement started with Sandy Springs begging for cityhood status starting in the late 1960s, early 1970s. At that time, white flight from Atlanta was in full force, and Sandy Springs was terrified that Atlanta might come incorporate them into the city. Democrats in the city of Atlanta blocked cityhood attempts until the GOP took over the legislature following the 2004 elections. At that time, the long tradition of honoring a local delegation's wishes regarding local legislation was abandoned. What the GOP representatives wanted for Sandy Springs was to seal it off from the majority black Fulton County, despite what a majority of the Fulton delegation wanted.
Personally, while I know that Sandy Springs cityhood push was steeped in racism, I cannot deny that a 90+% vote in favor of cityhood does clearly indicate where the citizens wanted to go. They'd been pushing for a city for 30 something years, so while it did hurt Fulton for Sandy Springs to incorporate, the movement didn't bother me too much.
What has happened since Sandy Springs became a city has bothered me a great deal because the obvious racial hatred driving it is blatantly obvious. The drives to incorporate Johns Creek and Milton in North Fulton were not based in history, but on a childish fit by people who are consistently outvoted by their fellow citizens to the south. Admittedly, Fulton County government is a mess, but until this year, it's been run by Republicans since 1994! The County chair has been a member of the GOP all that time, although the commission was usually 4-3 in favor of Democrats. The chairs have also been white, so I don't know where the spoiled rich people in North Fulton got the idea that if they could just seal themselves off from the "darker" South Fulton and Atlanta, they'd be fine.
Milton and Johns Creek were about destroying Fulton County's government by making sure all local taxes went to the cities. However, Fulton still runs schools, libraries, health centers, etc. The entire former Milton County is now incorporated into different cities, but that still allows some taxes from wealthy North Fulton to potentially be spent in poorer South Fulton. For the rich bitches in Alpharetta, that's UNacceptable!
It has been reported that North Fulton has 42% of the property wealth in the entire county, although it's land mass is much smaller. People have written into the paper furious that while they provide 42% of the tax base, 42% of the taxes are not spent on them. That kind of logic is ridiculous, and it would mean that only the wealthiest citizens deserve any government services at all. I realize we're talking about Republicans here, but haven't they heard of the social contract? To those whom much is given, much is expected. Rich people who have gained tremendous benefits from the entire society have an obligation and responsibility to give back to that society. They deserve good schools, police protection, etc....but so do the poor. To achieve the American dream of upward mobility, we must have a tax structure that gives the poor a chance to get a good education and to better their circumstances. We do a piss poor job of it now, but if we follow the "I provide 42% of the tax base, so you must spend 42% of the taxes on me" philosophy, we will re-create a medieval society where the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and the middle class disintegrates.
Luckily, there are many obstacles in the way of giving rebirth to Milton County. First, the Constitution of Georgia forbids it. Unless you want to go South Georgia and dissolve, say, Jeff Davis County in order to make room for a reborn Milton County, you must amend the constitution to allow more than 159 counties. That requires 2/3 of the both houses of the General Assembly plus a vote by the people. Thankfully, the GOP does not control 2/3 of the legislature, so if Democrats just stick together on this question, the proposal can be defeated.
Let's say the GOP does peel off enough Democrats to get their 2/3 majority to send the question to the people of Georgia. It's likely Georgia will yawn and vote "yes" to Milton. But there are unanswered questions as to how to affect a divorce. Fulton has contracts with Grady Health System, MARTA and others. Milton cannot just shirk those contracts, although you can bet they will look for the first chance to break them. After all, Grady provides services to the poor (and probably too many black folks for Alpharetta's tastes), and we all know they don't care for MARTA. Then there is the matter of the school system. How do you split that?
The GOP sponsors of the drive to recreate Milton County have no answers for these questions. It's because this drive is not rooted in anything that makes good governmental sense. It is steeped in racism, pure and simple. Exposing this basis for separation is the new proposed map of Milton. Milton County reborn would not stop at the Chattahoochee River at the thin neck of Fulton County, as would be historically accurate. Milton would absorb Sandy Springs too, and some would like for it to also include Buckhead. Gee, I wonder why that map exists. The demographics carefully cherry pick the wealthy, mostly white areas of the county and cleave them into a lilly white, conservative, GOP bastion.
This drive to re-create Milton County must fail. It's intent is to financially destroy the city of Atlanta, and to cause the fiscal collapse of the southern portion of Fulton county simply because the citizens there are mostly of the wrong color and have too low of a bank balance. Democrats in the legislature must make a united stand against this foolishness, because only they can put a stop to it.
Campbell County, which had already gone bankrupt, was also ceded to Fulton, giving it its long irregular shape along the Chattahoochee River.
Georgia already has the constitutional maximum of 159 counties, the 2nd highest total number of counties in the nation after Texas. Yet, with the Republicans in control of the state government, Milton County may be ressurected. All in the name of making damn sure that rich white folks' money won't be spent on anything that might benefit a person of color! Jim Crow racism, 21st century style....alive and well here in Georgia.
This whole movement started with Sandy Springs begging for cityhood status starting in the late 1960s, early 1970s. At that time, white flight from Atlanta was in full force, and Sandy Springs was terrified that Atlanta might come incorporate them into the city. Democrats in the city of Atlanta blocked cityhood attempts until the GOP took over the legislature following the 2004 elections. At that time, the long tradition of honoring a local delegation's wishes regarding local legislation was abandoned. What the GOP representatives wanted for Sandy Springs was to seal it off from the majority black Fulton County, despite what a majority of the Fulton delegation wanted.
Personally, while I know that Sandy Springs cityhood push was steeped in racism, I cannot deny that a 90+% vote in favor of cityhood does clearly indicate where the citizens wanted to go. They'd been pushing for a city for 30 something years, so while it did hurt Fulton for Sandy Springs to incorporate, the movement didn't bother me too much.
What has happened since Sandy Springs became a city has bothered me a great deal because the obvious racial hatred driving it is blatantly obvious. The drives to incorporate Johns Creek and Milton in North Fulton were not based in history, but on a childish fit by people who are consistently outvoted by their fellow citizens to the south. Admittedly, Fulton County government is a mess, but until this year, it's been run by Republicans since 1994! The County chair has been a member of the GOP all that time, although the commission was usually 4-3 in favor of Democrats. The chairs have also been white, so I don't know where the spoiled rich people in North Fulton got the idea that if they could just seal themselves off from the "darker" South Fulton and Atlanta, they'd be fine.
Milton and Johns Creek were about destroying Fulton County's government by making sure all local taxes went to the cities. However, Fulton still runs schools, libraries, health centers, etc. The entire former Milton County is now incorporated into different cities, but that still allows some taxes from wealthy North Fulton to potentially be spent in poorer South Fulton. For the rich bitches in Alpharetta, that's UNacceptable!
It has been reported that North Fulton has 42% of the property wealth in the entire county, although it's land mass is much smaller. People have written into the paper furious that while they provide 42% of the tax base, 42% of the taxes are not spent on them. That kind of logic is ridiculous, and it would mean that only the wealthiest citizens deserve any government services at all. I realize we're talking about Republicans here, but haven't they heard of the social contract? To those whom much is given, much is expected. Rich people who have gained tremendous benefits from the entire society have an obligation and responsibility to give back to that society. They deserve good schools, police protection, etc....but so do the poor. To achieve the American dream of upward mobility, we must have a tax structure that gives the poor a chance to get a good education and to better their circumstances. We do a piss poor job of it now, but if we follow the "I provide 42% of the tax base, so you must spend 42% of the taxes on me" philosophy, we will re-create a medieval society where the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, and the middle class disintegrates.
Luckily, there are many obstacles in the way of giving rebirth to Milton County. First, the Constitution of Georgia forbids it. Unless you want to go South Georgia and dissolve, say, Jeff Davis County in order to make room for a reborn Milton County, you must amend the constitution to allow more than 159 counties. That requires 2/3 of the both houses of the General Assembly plus a vote by the people. Thankfully, the GOP does not control 2/3 of the legislature, so if Democrats just stick together on this question, the proposal can be defeated.
Let's say the GOP does peel off enough Democrats to get their 2/3 majority to send the question to the people of Georgia. It's likely Georgia will yawn and vote "yes" to Milton. But there are unanswered questions as to how to affect a divorce. Fulton has contracts with Grady Health System, MARTA and others. Milton cannot just shirk those contracts, although you can bet they will look for the first chance to break them. After all, Grady provides services to the poor (and probably too many black folks for Alpharetta's tastes), and we all know they don't care for MARTA. Then there is the matter of the school system. How do you split that?
The GOP sponsors of the drive to recreate Milton County have no answers for these questions. It's because this drive is not rooted in anything that makes good governmental sense. It is steeped in racism, pure and simple. Exposing this basis for separation is the new proposed map of Milton. Milton County reborn would not stop at the Chattahoochee River at the thin neck of Fulton County, as would be historically accurate. Milton would absorb Sandy Springs too, and some would like for it to also include Buckhead. Gee, I wonder why that map exists. The demographics carefully cherry pick the wealthy, mostly white areas of the county and cleave them into a lilly white, conservative, GOP bastion.
This drive to re-create Milton County must fail. It's intent is to financially destroy the city of Atlanta, and to cause the fiscal collapse of the southern portion of Fulton county simply because the citizens there are mostly of the wrong color and have too low of a bank balance. Democrats in the legislature must make a united stand against this foolishness, because only they can put a stop to it.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Nigeria Working My LAST Good Nerve!
Lost in the din of pre-Christmas news were a few articles about Episcopal parishes in Northern Virginia, including George Washington's parish, voting to leave the Episcopal Church and recognize the Archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, as their leader. Then there was news of a law in Nigeria that the Archbishop is pushing to make homosexuality subject to the death penalty.
I have written about the struggles of the Episcopal Church of the USA regarding homosexuality. My adopted church not only ordains openly gay clergy, but also has an openly gay bishop. This summer, at our General Conference, our deputies and clergy elected the Katherine Jefferts-Schori as the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA. As such, she is considered the "primate" of the United States in the worldwide Anglican Communion, and the equal to Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. This turn of events, some have decided, must not stand.
The wealthy, largely conservative, and most certainly Republican, parishes of Northern Virginia who voted to leave and join the Anglican Church of Nigeria are bigots who should be faced with the full legal force of the church to strip of them of the property they hold in TRUST, a trust they have broken. For them, it was bad enough when we let women become priests and bishops. It got much worse when homosexuals were allowed to wear the clerical collar, and they reach the end of their rope when an openly gay man was elected Bishop of New Hampshire. Apparently, having a woman as the chief bishop of the church in the United States was the straw that broke the camel's back. They simply REFUSE to acknowledge the authority of a woman, and instead back a man who holds their views that women shouldn't be priests, let alone bishops, and gays deserve jail and death rather the the love of Christ and the church.
These people are stalwarts of the Republican Party nationally, considering the location of the fleeing parishes. They hold nothing but contempt for a process based on the US Constitution and written largely by our Founding Fathers. This contempt is based on the fact that they have lost the argument. They are on the wrong side of the great issues of the day, and they will not tolerate it.
Personally, I'm tired of mollifying these conservatives and their right wing, hate-filled agenda. If they want to leave the Episcopal Church, fine. Lock the doors and give us the keys as you leave. All property is held in trust by Parishes on behalf of the National Church. That national church should be vigorous in enforcing its rights in court. Let these bigots meet in a field for all I care. We have tried and tried to reach compromise, approach these people in good faith and loving spirit, and they spit in our eyes each and every time. It's their way or the highway, and I'm personally sick of it. We have a woman as the head of our church, and some dioceses may feel called to elect an openly gay person as their bishop. Get over it. Time marches on.
Let's look at what this "savior" of theirs from Nigeria has been up to. Peter Akinola is a proud bigot. He claims he must discriminate against women and gays because the bible commands it (it doesn't), and because he's in competition with Islam for the souls of Nigeria. Nigeria is a state that is 50% Muslim and 50% Christian. The Muslims control the northern parts of the country, and the Christians control the southern parts. There is a real competition for control of Nigeria's religious life. Since Islam hates gays, Christians must to in order to "compete".
In this spirit, Archbishop Akinola has openly supported a new law in Nigeria that would not only outlaw gay marriages (which are now legal in South Africa), but ANY form of association between gay people, social or otherwise, as well as the publication of any materials deemed to promote a "same sex amorous relationship." Under the law, anyone attending a meeting between gay people could receive a sentence of 5 years in prison. Other activities prohibited by this law are participating in gay clubs, reading books, watching films, or accessing Internet sites that "promote" homosexuality.
Take a moment to digest that paragraph. It's stunning the malice and sheet hatred of gay people expressed in this new Nigerian law. Two men having DINNER together could be construed to be illegal under this law. Straight people who allow more than one gay person in their home would be eligible for a prison sentence of up to 5 years! Reading this blog could get you put in prison or stoned to death. Apparently, the Christian south would only use prison, but the Muslim north would be allowed to use the death penalty, which constitutes stoning to death. The Republican Episcopalians in Northern Virginia have aligned themselves with Peter Akinola and his precious Gay Holocaust law. Make no mistake, that this bill is intended to eliminate any person deemed to be homosexual. No one will be safe.
In NYC, Archbishop Akinola was visiting a church. Afterward, he was greeting parishoners, and a man shook his hand, told him how much he enjoyed his sermon, and then introduced him to "my partner, who's been with me for several years." When Akinola understood that the man clasping his hand was GAY, he recoiled in horror, jerked his hand away, and jumped back. Later, he recalled this story with PRIDE.
Personally, I'm done with Nigeria too. In my work, I've known the problems they cause in polio eradication, the corruption, the graft, etc. We should simply build a wall around Nigeria and them rot. Oh wait, they have OIL, so we can't do that. Still, my disgust with this country leads me to support such a wall nontheless. They are trying to destroy my church, and if I went into their country, they would try to take my very life.
Reading my blog, one might think that all I care about are gay issues. That is certainly not true, as anyone who knows me could tell you. I care about access to quality healthcare, women's rights, strong families, fiscal responsibility, patriotism, fighting terrorism, etc. The list goes on and on. Yet, as a gay man, I feel a sense of danger in the political world surrounding me. I do have the sense that all will be OK in the end, but it will take a while. I do not think that any state in the USA would dare pass a law as draconian as the Nigerian law. Yet, I see people from the other side of the political spectrum rising up to CHEER the very men who push forward such laws. Perhaps my being a gay man makes me more sensitive, and more likely to have a vociferous opinion when it comes to gay issues. I would love to have no reason to blog about it ever again. Unfortunately, I think I will be an old man before that happens.
I have written about the struggles of the Episcopal Church of the USA regarding homosexuality. My adopted church not only ordains openly gay clergy, but also has an openly gay bishop. This summer, at our General Conference, our deputies and clergy elected the Katherine Jefferts-Schori as the new Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the USA. As such, she is considered the "primate" of the United States in the worldwide Anglican Communion, and the equal to Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria. This turn of events, some have decided, must not stand.
The wealthy, largely conservative, and most certainly Republican, parishes of Northern Virginia who voted to leave and join the Anglican Church of Nigeria are bigots who should be faced with the full legal force of the church to strip of them of the property they hold in TRUST, a trust they have broken. For them, it was bad enough when we let women become priests and bishops. It got much worse when homosexuals were allowed to wear the clerical collar, and they reach the end of their rope when an openly gay man was elected Bishop of New Hampshire. Apparently, having a woman as the chief bishop of the church in the United States was the straw that broke the camel's back. They simply REFUSE to acknowledge the authority of a woman, and instead back a man who holds their views that women shouldn't be priests, let alone bishops, and gays deserve jail and death rather the the love of Christ and the church.
These people are stalwarts of the Republican Party nationally, considering the location of the fleeing parishes. They hold nothing but contempt for a process based on the US Constitution and written largely by our Founding Fathers. This contempt is based on the fact that they have lost the argument. They are on the wrong side of the great issues of the day, and they will not tolerate it.
Personally, I'm tired of mollifying these conservatives and their right wing, hate-filled agenda. If they want to leave the Episcopal Church, fine. Lock the doors and give us the keys as you leave. All property is held in trust by Parishes on behalf of the National Church. That national church should be vigorous in enforcing its rights in court. Let these bigots meet in a field for all I care. We have tried and tried to reach compromise, approach these people in good faith and loving spirit, and they spit in our eyes each and every time. It's their way or the highway, and I'm personally sick of it. We have a woman as the head of our church, and some dioceses may feel called to elect an openly gay person as their bishop. Get over it. Time marches on.
Let's look at what this "savior" of theirs from Nigeria has been up to. Peter Akinola is a proud bigot. He claims he must discriminate against women and gays because the bible commands it (it doesn't), and because he's in competition with Islam for the souls of Nigeria. Nigeria is a state that is 50% Muslim and 50% Christian. The Muslims control the northern parts of the country, and the Christians control the southern parts. There is a real competition for control of Nigeria's religious life. Since Islam hates gays, Christians must to in order to "compete".
In this spirit, Archbishop Akinola has openly supported a new law in Nigeria that would not only outlaw gay marriages (which are now legal in South Africa), but ANY form of association between gay people, social or otherwise, as well as the publication of any materials deemed to promote a "same sex amorous relationship." Under the law, anyone attending a meeting between gay people could receive a sentence of 5 years in prison. Other activities prohibited by this law are participating in gay clubs, reading books, watching films, or accessing Internet sites that "promote" homosexuality.
Take a moment to digest that paragraph. It's stunning the malice and sheet hatred of gay people expressed in this new Nigerian law. Two men having DINNER together could be construed to be illegal under this law. Straight people who allow more than one gay person in their home would be eligible for a prison sentence of up to 5 years! Reading this blog could get you put in prison or stoned to death. Apparently, the Christian south would only use prison, but the Muslim north would be allowed to use the death penalty, which constitutes stoning to death. The Republican Episcopalians in Northern Virginia have aligned themselves with Peter Akinola and his precious Gay Holocaust law. Make no mistake, that this bill is intended to eliminate any person deemed to be homosexual. No one will be safe.
In NYC, Archbishop Akinola was visiting a church. Afterward, he was greeting parishoners, and a man shook his hand, told him how much he enjoyed his sermon, and then introduced him to "my partner, who's been with me for several years." When Akinola understood that the man clasping his hand was GAY, he recoiled in horror, jerked his hand away, and jumped back. Later, he recalled this story with PRIDE.
Personally, I'm done with Nigeria too. In my work, I've known the problems they cause in polio eradication, the corruption, the graft, etc. We should simply build a wall around Nigeria and them rot. Oh wait, they have OIL, so we can't do that. Still, my disgust with this country leads me to support such a wall nontheless. They are trying to destroy my church, and if I went into their country, they would try to take my very life.
Reading my blog, one might think that all I care about are gay issues. That is certainly not true, as anyone who knows me could tell you. I care about access to quality healthcare, women's rights, strong families, fiscal responsibility, patriotism, fighting terrorism, etc. The list goes on and on. Yet, as a gay man, I feel a sense of danger in the political world surrounding me. I do have the sense that all will be OK in the end, but it will take a while. I do not think that any state in the USA would dare pass a law as draconian as the Nigerian law. Yet, I see people from the other side of the political spectrum rising up to CHEER the very men who push forward such laws. Perhaps my being a gay man makes me more sensitive, and more likely to have a vociferous opinion when it comes to gay issues. I would love to have no reason to blog about it ever again. Unfortunately, I think I will be an old man before that happens.
Is Massachusetts for Real?
On January 2, while the rest of the nation was watching coverage of Gerald Ford's funeral, the outgoing Massachusetts General Assembly decided to move forward a "citizens petition" to ban gay marriage in the Massachusetts Constitution, despite the fact that gay marriage has been legal since May 2004 and over 8500 same sex couples have wed without destroying straight families or causing Massachusetts itself to be washed into the sea by a vengeful and angry God.
Yet, there's hope in this petition. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts told the legislature it had a duty to vote on citizen petitions. In November, the Massachusetts General Assembly simply adjourned a constitutional convention without voting on the anti-gay measure. The rule on citizen petitions is that only 25% of the legislature, sitting as a constitutional convention, has to OK an initiative for it to pass. Out of 200 legislators, only 62 voted for the anti-gay petition. That's only 31%!
The newly elected governor of Massaschusetts, Deval Patrick, had this to say about the vote:
That's the whole problem with the "let people vote" mentality. Civil rights really shouldn't be put to a vote. You know that old time segregationists are kicking themselves for not using this method to block those "uppity" blacks who had the temerity to demand to be treated as equal citizens. Imagine what the vote totals would have been all throughout the South in the 1950s and 1960s if segregation, interracial marriage, or school desegregation had been put to a vote. What sense of decency stopped those bigots of the mid-20th century from using the popular vote as a bludgeon? And more importantly, what happened to it?
Yet, there's hope in this petition. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts told the legislature it had a duty to vote on citizen petitions. In November, the Massachusetts General Assembly simply adjourned a constitutional convention without voting on the anti-gay measure. The rule on citizen petitions is that only 25% of the legislature, sitting as a constitutional convention, has to OK an initiative for it to pass. Out of 200 legislators, only 62 voted for the anti-gay petition. That's only 31%!
The newly elected governor of Massaschusetts, Deval Patrick, had this to say about the vote:
"I am disappointed by today's vote in the Constitutional Convention. We have never used the initiative petition to limit individual freedoms and personal privacy, but today's vote was a regrettable step in that direction.
"We have work to do over the next year to turn this around. I am heartened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of the members of the Legislature — a margin of over 2 to 1 — voted to move on. I pledge to do what I can to build on that momentum, so that our Constitution will continue to stand for liberty and freedom, and not discrimination."
I cannot imagine a day where Sonny Perdue or any elected Governor in Georgia would issue such a statement. Here's a man who was overwhelming elected to his office, and he's quite forcefully advocating that the amendment be defeated, and not be put to a vote. Unlike Mitt Romney, who lead rallies against gay marriage, and railed about how evil it was and how it harmed children, Gov. Patrick personally petitioned lawmakers to vote down the proposal, and seems to indicate he will continue to do so.
The roll call is now a matter of public record, and the newly elected Massachusetts General Assembly has a gain of 6 votes in favor of keeping gay marriage. That means only 6-7 more votes are needed to defeat the measure, and many think that those 6-7 votes can be found before the issue arises again later this year.
The Boston Globe's editorial board said it best:
"When a final vote is taken by the new Legislature, the members must consider whether this is an appropriate issue to put to the voters. We believe Massachusetts voters would not take away this right, and a popular endorsement might be considered healthy. But civil rights are fundamental, and gay marriage should not be subject to plebiscite here, any more than it would have been appropriate to have Alabama voters directly decide school integration or Virginia voters decide interracial marriage."That's the whole problem with the "let people vote" mentality. Civil rights really shouldn't be put to a vote. You know that old time segregationists are kicking themselves for not using this method to block those "uppity" blacks who had the temerity to demand to be treated as equal citizens. Imagine what the vote totals would have been all throughout the South in the 1950s and 1960s if segregation, interracial marriage, or school desegregation had been put to a vote. What sense of decency stopped those bigots of the mid-20th century from using the popular vote as a bludgeon? And more importantly, what happened to it?
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Axis of Family Jihadis
Sometimes, you find a piece that really expresses exactly what you are thinking, and there's no way to improve upon it. So, here's a rare cut/paste job from the NYT.
The New York Times:
COLUMN: Mary Cheney's Bundle of Joy
By Frank Rich
Columnist Frank Rich calls Focus on the Family, Family Research Council
and American Family Association the "axis of family jihadis" and says
anti-gay politics is losing its ability to woo voters.
Sunday 12.17.06
IT'S not the least of John McCain's political talents that he
comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn't
talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to
near-stammering on ABC's `'This Week'' two Sundays after
the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the
elephants' room, or perhaps we should say in their closet:
homosexuality.
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject
as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for
dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major
presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to
discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona
ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against
unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn't let him
off the hook.
`'Are you against civil unions for gay couples?'' he asked the
senator, who replied, `'No, I'm not.'' When Mr.
Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later—`'So
you're for civil unions?''—Mr. McCain answered,
`'No.'' In other words, he was not against civil unions before
he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance
on Mr. Stephanopoulos's show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a
Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence
program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that
sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.
Senator Frist is now a lame duck, and his brand of pandering, typified
by his errant upbeat diagnosis of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo's
condition, is following him to political Valhalla. The 2006 midterms
left Karl Rove's supposedly foolproof playbook in tatters. It was
hard for the Republicans to deal the gay card one more time after the
Mark Foley and Ted Haggard scandals revealed that today's
conservative hierarchy is much like Roy Cohn's milieu in
`'Angels in America,'' minus the wit and pathos.
This time around, ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage drew
markedly less support than in 2004; the draconian one endorsed by Mr.
McCain in Arizona was voted down altogether. Two national politicians
who had kowtowed egregiously to their party's fringe, Rick Santorum
and George Allen, were defeated, joining their ideological fellow
travelers Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed in the political junkyard. To further
confirm the inexorable march of social history, the only Christmas
season miracle to lift the beleaguered Bush administration this year has
been the announcement that Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay
daughter, is pregnant. Her growing family is the living rejoinder to
those in her father's party who would relegate gay American couples
and their children to second-class legal or human status.
Yet not even these political realities have entirely broken the
knee-jerk habit of some 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls to woo
homophobes. Mitt Romney, the Republican Massachusetts governor, was
caught in yet another embarrassing example of his party's hypocrisy
last week. In a newly unearthed letter courting the gay Log Cabin
Republicans during his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race, he promised to
`'do better'' than even Ted Kennedy in making `'equality
for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.'' Given that Mr. Romney
has been making opposition to same-sex marriage his political calling
card this year, his ideological bisexuality looks as foolish in its
G-rated way as that of Mr. Haggard, the evangelical leader who was
caught keeping time with a male prostitute.
There's no evidence that Mr. Romney's rightward move on gay
civil rights and abortion (about which he acknowledges his flip-flop)
has helped him politically. Or that Mr. McCain has benefited from a
similar sea change that has taken him from accurately labeling Jerry
Falwell and Pat Robertson `'agents of intolerance'' in 2000 to
appearing at Mr. Falwell's Liberty University this year. A
Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that among Republican
voters, Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed liberal on gay civil rights and
abortion, leads Mr. McCain 34 percent to 26 percent. Mr. Romney brought
up the rear, at 5 percent. That does, however, put him nominally ahead
of another presidential wannabe, the religious-right favorite Sam
Brownback, who has held up a federal judicial nomination in the Senate
because the nominee had attended a lesbian neighbor's commitment
ceremony.
For those who are cheered by seeing the Rovian politics of wedge issues
start to fade, the good news does not end with the growing evidence that
gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good.
It's not only centrist American voters of both parties who reject
divisive demagoguery but also conservative evangelicals themselves. Some
of them are at last standing up to the extremists in their own camp.
No one more dramatically so, perhaps, than Rick Warren, the Orange
County, Calif., megachurch leader and best-selling author of `'The
Purpose Driven Life.'' He has adopted AIDS in Africa as a signature
crusade, and invited Barack Obama to join the usual suspects, including
Senator Brownback, to address his World AIDS Day conference on the
issue. This prompted predictable outrage from the right because of Mr.
Obama's liberal politics, especially on abortion. One radio host,
Kevin McCullough, demonized the Democrat for pursuing `'inhumane,
sick and sinister evil'' as a legislator. An open letter sponsored
by 18 `'pro-life'' groups protested the invitation, also
citing Mr. Obama's `'evil.'' But Mr. Warren didn't
blink.
Among those defending the invitation was David Kuo, the former deputy
director of the Bush White House's Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives. In a book, `'Tempting Faith,'' as well
as in interviews and on his blog, the heretical Mr. Kuo has become a
tough conservative critic of the corruption of religion by politicians
and religious-right leaders who are guilty of `'taking Jesus and
reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote
guy.'' Of those `'family'' groups who criticized Mr.
Obama's appearance at the AIDS conference, Mr. Kuo wrote, `'Are
they so blind and possessed with such a narrow definition of life that
they can think of life only in utero?'' The answer, of course, is
yes. The Christian Coalition parted ways with its new president-elect, a
Florida megachurch pastor, Joel Hunter, after he announced that he would
take on bigger issues like poverty and global warming.
But it is leaders like Mr. Hunter and Mr. Warren who are in ascendance.
Even the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at
Mr. Haggard's former perch, the National Association of
Evangelicals, has joined a number of his peers in taking up the cause of
the environment, putting him at odds with the Bush administration. Such
religious leaders may not have given up their opposition to abortion or
gay marriage, but they have more pressing priorities. They seem to have
figured out, as Mr. Kuo has said, that `'politicians use Christian
voters for their money and for their votes'' and give them little
in return except a reputation for bigotry and heartless opposition to
the lifesaving potential of stem-cell research.
The axis of family jihadis—Focus on the Family, the Family Research
Council, the American Family Association—is feeling the heat; its
positions get more extreme by the day. A Concerned Women for America
mouthpiece called Mary Cheney's pregnancy
`'unconscionable,'' condemning her for having `'injured
her child'' and `'acted in a way that denies everything that
the Bush administration has worked for.'' (That last statement,
thankfully, is true.) This overkill reeks of desperation. So does these
zealots' recent assault on the supposedly feminizing
`'medical'' properties of soy baby formula (which deserves the
`'blame for today's rise in homosexuality,'' according to
the chairman of Megashift Ministries), and penguins.
Yes, penguins. These fine birds have now joined the Teletubbies and
SpongeBob SquarePants in the pantheon of cuddly secret agents for
`'the gay agenda.'' Schools are being forced to defend
`'And Tango Makes Three,'' an acclaimed children's picture
book based on the true story of two Central Park Zoo male penguins who
adopted a chick from a fertilized egg. The hit penguin movie
`'Happy Feet'' has been outed for an `'anti-religious
bias'' and its `'endorsement of gay identity'' by Michael
Medved, the commentator who sets the tone for the religious right's
strictly enforced code of cultural political correctness.
Such censoriousness is increasingly the stuff of comedy. So are
politicians of all stripes who advertise their faith. A liberal like
Howard Dean is no more credible talking about the Bible (during the 2004
campaign he said his favorite book in the New Testament was Job) than
twice-married candidates like Mr. McCain are persuasive at pledging
allegiance to `'the sanctity of marriage.''
For all the skeptical theories about the Obama boomlet—or real boom,
we don't know yet—no one doubts that his language about faith is
his own, not a crib sheet provided by a conservative evangelical
preacher or a liberal political consultant on `'values.''
That's why a Democrat from Chicago whose voting record is to the
left of Hillary Clinton's received the same standing ovation from
the thousands at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church that he did from
his own party's throngs in New Hampshire. After a quarter-century of
watching politicians from both parties exploit religion for partisan and
often mean-spirited political gain, voters on all sides of this
country's culture wars are finally in the market for something new.
The New York Times:
COLUMN: Mary Cheney's Bundle of Joy
By Frank Rich
Columnist Frank Rich calls Focus on the Family, Family Research Council
and American Family Association the "axis of family jihadis" and says
anti-gay politics is losing its ability to woo voters.
Sunday 12.17.06
IT'S not the least of John McCain's political talents that he
comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn't
talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to
near-stammering on ABC's `'This Week'' two Sundays after
the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the
elephants' room, or perhaps we should say in their closet:
homosexuality.
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject
as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for
dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major
presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to
discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona
ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against
unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn't let him
off the hook.
`'Are you against civil unions for gay couples?'' he asked the
senator, who replied, `'No, I'm not.'' When Mr.
Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later—`'So
you're for civil unions?''—Mr. McCain answered,
`'No.'' In other words, he was not against civil unions before
he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance
on Mr. Stephanopoulos'
Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence
program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that
sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.
Senator Frist is now a lame duck, and his brand of pandering, typified
by his errant upbeat diagnosis of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo's
condition, is following him to political Valhalla. The 2006 midterms
left Karl Rove's supposedly foolproof playbook in tatters. It was
hard for the Republicans to deal the gay card one more time after the
Mark Foley and Ted Haggard scandals revealed that today's
conservative hierarchy is much like Roy Cohn's milieu in
`'Angels in America,'' minus the wit and pathos.
This time around, ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage drew
markedly less support than in 2004; the draconian one endorsed by Mr.
McCain in Arizona was voted down altogether. Two national politicians
who had kowtowed egregiously to their party's fringe, Rick Santorum
and George Allen, were defeated, joining their ideological fellow
travelers Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed in the political junkyard. To further
confirm the inexorable march of social history, the only Christmas
season miracle to lift the beleaguered Bush administration this year has
been the announcement that Mary Cheney, the vice president's gay
daughter, is pregnant. Her growing family is the living rejoinder to
those in her father's party who would relegate gay American couples
and their children to second-class legal or human status.
Yet not even these political realities have entirely broken the
knee-jerk habit of some 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls to woo
homophobes. Mitt Romney, the Republican Massachusetts governor, was
caught in yet another embarrassing example of his party's hypocrisy
last week. In a newly unearthed letter courting the gay Log Cabin
Republicans during his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race, he promised to
`'do better'' than even Ted Kennedy in making `'equality
for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.'' Given that Mr. Romney
has been making opposition to same-sex marriage his political calling
card this year, his ideological bisexuality looks as foolish in its
G-rated way as that of Mr. Haggard, the evangelical leader who was
caught keeping time with a male prostitute.
There's no evidence that Mr. Romney's rightward move on gay
civil rights and abortion (about which he acknowledges his flip-flop)
has helped him politically. Or that Mr. McCain has benefited from a
similar sea change that has taken him from accurately labeling Jerry
Falwell and Pat Robertson `'agents of intolerance'
appearing at Mr. Falwell's Liberty University this year. A
Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that among Republican
voters, Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed liberal on gay civil rights and
abortion, leads Mr. McCain 34 percent to 26 percent. Mr. Romney brought
up the rear, at 5 percent. That does, however, put him nominally ahead
of another presidential wannabe, the religious-right favorite Sam
Brownback, who has held up a federal judicial nomination in the Senate
because the nominee had attended a lesbian neighbor's commitment
ceremony.
For those who are cheered by seeing the Rovian politics of wedge issues
start to fade, the good news does not end with the growing evidence that
gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good.
It's not only centrist American voters of both parties who reject
divisive demagoguery but also conservative evangelicals themselves. Some
of them are at last standing up to the extremists in their own camp.
No one more dramatically so, perhaps, than Rick Warren, the Orange
County, Calif., megachurch leader and best-selling author of `'The
Purpose Driven Life.'' He has adopted AIDS in Africa as a signature
crusade, and invited Barack Obama to join the usual suspects, including
Senator Brownback, to address his World AIDS Day conference on the
issue. This prompted predictable outrage from the right because of Mr.
Obama's liberal politics, especially on abortion. One radio host,
Kevin McCullough, demonized the Democrat for pursuing `'inhumane,
sick and sinister evil'' as a legislator. An open letter sponsored
by 18 `'pro-life'' groups protested the invitation, also
citing Mr. Obama's `'evil.'' But Mr. Warren didn't
blink.
Among those defending the invitation was David Kuo, the former deputy
director of the Bush White House's Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives. In a book, `'Tempting Faith,'' as well
as in interviews and on his blog, the heretical Mr. Kuo has become a
tough conservative critic of the corruption of religion by politicians
and religious-right leaders who are guilty of `'taking Jesus and
reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-
guy.'' Of those `'family'' groups who criticized Mr.
Obama's appearance at the AIDS conference, Mr. Kuo wrote, `'Are
they so blind and possessed with such a narrow definition of life that
they can think of life only in utero?'' The answer, of course, is
yes. The Christian Coalition parted ways with its new president-elect, a
Florida megachurch pastor, Joel Hunter, after he announced that he would
take on bigger issues like poverty and global warming.
But it is leaders like Mr. Hunter and Mr. Warren who are in ascendance.
Even the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at
Mr. Haggard's former perch, the National Association of
Evangelicals, has joined a number of his peers in taking up the cause of
the environment, putting him at odds with the Bush administration. Such
religious leaders may not have given up their opposition to abortion or
gay marriage, but they have more pressing priorities. They seem to have
figured out, as Mr. Kuo has said, that `'politicians use Christian
voters for their money and for their votes'' and give them little
in return except a reputation for bigotry and heartless opposition to
the lifesaving potential of stem-cell research.
The axis of family jihadis—Focus on the Family, the Family Research
Council, the American Family Association—is feeling the heat; its
positions get more extreme by the day. A Concerned Women for America
mouthpiece called Mary Cheney's pregnancy
`'unconscionable,
her child'' and `'acted in a way that denies everything that
the Bush administration has worked for.'' (That last statement,
thankfully, is true.) This overkill reeks of desperation. So does these
zealots' recent assault on the supposedly feminizing
`'medical'' properties of soy baby formula (which deserves the
`'blame for today's rise in homosexuality,
the chairman of Megashift Ministries), and penguins.
Yes, penguins. These fine birds have now joined the Teletubbies and
SpongeBob SquarePants in the pantheon of cuddly secret agents for
`'the gay agenda.'' Schools are being forced to defend
`'And Tango Makes Three,'' an acclaimed children's picture
book based on the true story of two Central Park Zoo male penguins who
adopted a chick from a fertilized egg. The hit penguin movie
`'Happy Feet'' has been outed for an `'anti-religious
bias'' and its `'endorsement of gay identity'' by Michael
Medved, the commentator who sets the tone for the religious right's
strictly enforced code of cultural political correctness.
Such censoriousness is increasingly the stuff of comedy. So are
politicians of all stripes who advertise their faith. A liberal like
Howard Dean is no more credible talking about the Bible (during the 2004
campaign he said his favorite book in the New Testament was Job) than
twice-married candidates like Mr. McCain are persuasive at pledging
allegiance to `'the sanctity of marriage.''
For all the skeptical theories about the Obama boomlet—or real boom,
we don't know yet—no one doubts that his language about faith is
his own, not a crib sheet provided by a conservative evangelical
preacher or a liberal political consultant on `'values.''
That's why a Democrat from Chicago whose voting record is to the
left of Hillary Clinton's received the same standing ovation from
the thousands at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church that he did from
his own party's throngs in New Hampshire. After a quarter-century of
watching politicians from both parties exploit religion for partisan and
often mean-spirited political gain, voters on all sides of this
country's culture wars are finally in the market for something new.
Monday, December 18, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)