Entries tagged with “politics” from Trans-cendental
I'm rarely this eloquent, but every once in a while I accidentally say something I feel is worth repeating. The following is from a post I made on a United Church of Christ discussion board:
True, marriage is a legal term in the United States of America, and clergy cannot legally say they are marrying two people unless the state authorizes it. But Adam and Eve, and Cain and his wife, and Seth and his wife, were all married without church or state.
Neither the church, nor state, can prohibit marriage between two people. All they can do is fail to recognize when it happens.
Marriage isn't a piece of paper issued by the government. That paper is legal recognition of a marriage.
Marriage isn't a piece of paper signed by a pastor and/or issued by a church. That paper is a religious recognition of a marriage.
Marriage is a covenant between two adult people to care for, nurture, and love each other. Alone, this is still marriage. Without this, no piece of paper can hold two people together.
True, marriage is a legal term in the United States of America, and clergy cannot legally say they are marrying two people unless the state authorizes it. But Adam and Eve, and Cain and his wife, and Seth and his wife, were all married without church or state.
Neither the church, nor state, can prohibit marriage between two people. All they can do is fail to recognize when it happens.
In Iraq, there are three major factions: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish. 60% of the Kurds are Sunni, mostly of Sufi sects.
We here in the United States are mystified, amused, or aghast at the influence of Islamic clerics in the politics of Iraq. They seem to be able to dictate who will vote for whom, and how the political leaders will act. And many of us decry the treatment of the religious minorities, such as Judaism and Christianity, in Iraq.
On the heels of Rick Warren's political debate at his Saddleback church, with an eye on James Dobson's and Pat Robertson's (et al) views on the candidates, and remembering the scandal of the sermons of Reverend Jeremaiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, we might take the time to recognize how the US is not all that different from Iraq.
Continue reading Should America have a Sunni or Shiite president?.
Candidate and ordained minister the Reverend Michael Dale "Mike" Huckabee find support for capital punishment in the death of Jesus:
Well, why didn't he say something about his unjust treatment on the cross, like "you guys are wrong" or, knowing his gracious nature, "Father, forgive them." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Luke 23:34.
Yet if we are going to use the death of Jesus, who by tradition and faith was innocent and blameless, as justification for capital punishment, it is only a minor step to say that it justifies the execution of the innocent.
That's the problem with using past violence to justify violence in the present - it assumes we cannot learn a better way. The rule of "an eye for an eye" was meant as a limit - that one could not extract more in vengeance than the initial harm. Yet even "eye for an eye" leads to the eternal violence of retaliation.
There is a better way - the way of deescalation, of relaxing the tensions, of mending relationships. That does not mean we should let murderers go free - but it means that revenge does not offer anything more than temporary satiation of our own blood lust.
I cannot make my enemy stop hating me by killing his loved ones.
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/huckabee-faith-baptist-pastor-sermons.html
Interestingly enough, if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, "This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency."After all, if Jesus wasn't OK with it, he might have prayed "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Matthew 39, Mark 14:36-39, and Luke 22:42-44.
Well, why didn't he say something about his unjust treatment on the cross, like "you guys are wrong" or, knowing his gracious nature, "Father, forgive them." Oh, yeah, he did - as documented in Luke 23:34.
Yet if we are going to use the death of Jesus, who by tradition and faith was innocent and blameless, as justification for capital punishment, it is only a minor step to say that it justifies the execution of the innocent.
That's the problem with using past violence to justify violence in the present - it assumes we cannot learn a better way. The rule of "an eye for an eye" was meant as a limit - that one could not extract more in vengeance than the initial harm. Yet even "eye for an eye" leads to the eternal violence of retaliation.
There is a better way - the way of deescalation, of relaxing the tensions, of mending relationships. That does not mean we should let murderers go free - but it means that revenge does not offer anything more than temporary satiation of our own blood lust.
I cannot make my enemy stop hating me by killing his loved ones.
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/washington_dispatch/2007/12/huckabee-faith-baptist-pastor-sermons.html
What would lead people to call for the death of a person?
Perhaps their pastor.
The Reverend Wiley S. Drake,(First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park California) asked people to pray for the deaths of the Reverend Barry W. Lynn (United Church of Christ), Joseph Conn and Jeremy Leaming. The three men, leaders of People United for the Separation of Church and State, had filed a complaint with the IRS because Drake had drafted an endorsement of Presidential Hopeful Mike Huckabee on church letterhead.
Perhaps the prayer went something like this:
I am overwhelmed by shame: shame that a member of the body of Christ has called out "I have no need of you" to other members, shame that an ordained minister has cried to God not for blessing but for punishment for men and their families.
Not all Christians are like this.
I promise.
References:
Perhaps their pastor.
The Reverend Wiley S. Drake,(First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park California) asked people to pray for the deaths of the Reverend Barry W. Lynn (United Church of Christ), Joseph Conn and Jeremy Leaming. The three men, leaders of People United for the Separation of Church and State, had filed a complaint with the IRS because Drake had drafted an endorsement of Presidential Hopeful Mike Huckabee on church letterhead.
Perhaps the prayer went something like this:
Heavenly Father, we call upon you to send death upon the Reverend Barry Lynn. We pray that you would make a widow of his wife, and orphans of his now grown children. We pray that his grandchildren would seek and yet not find him, and that his denomination, the United Church of Christ, would mourn his loss.As I wrote the above in jest, I found this:
- http://www.civilbrights.net/node/4673
He gave as examples of imprecatory prayer:
"Persecute them. ... Let them be put to shame and perish."
"Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."
"Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg."
I am overwhelmed by shame: shame that a member of the body of Christ has called out "I have no need of you" to other members, shame that an ordained minister has cried to God not for blessing but for punishment for men and their families.
Not all Christians are like this.
I promise.
References:
- http://pietyandpolitics.com/3/barry/
- http://www.civilbrights.net/node/4673
- http://www.auok.org/who_is_barry_lynn.htm
I'm really tired of settling. I'm not interested in incremental rights. I'm not willing to support a candidate who talks out of both sides of his - or her - mouth, speaking on one hand of "protecting marriage" from gays and at the same time "supporting gay and lesbian people" with domestic partnerships or civil unions.
Continue reading Stop settling on same-sex marriage.
Have mercy, been waitin' for the bus all day.In the Chicago area, riders may be waiting a bit longer for the bus. In fact, depending on where they're waiting, it could be months... or years. Deep service cuts are about to take effect due to a lack of funding for public transportation.
Have mercy, been waitin' for the bus all day. - "Waitin' for the Bus", Gibbons, Hill
Continue reading Waitin' for the Bus.
So the Arkansas Attorney General decided that a law that said gay people can't adopt was unconstitutional. No matter - the Arkansas legislature went back and said only married couples could adopt.
To put this another way, children may not be adopted by unmarried persons regardless of sexual orientation.
Throughout the Bible - in the Hebrew and Christian books - priests and prophets have spoken of the importance of caring for orphans. Yet Arkansas decided it would be better for these children to be housed in foster and group homes than to find a permanent home with one or more parents.
Children need a loving home. To deny children of the opportunity to be loved is to go against God's law and basic compassion.
Let us put the needs of children first.
References:
To put this another way, children may not be adopted by unmarried persons regardless of sexual orientation.
Throughout the Bible - in the Hebrew and Christian books - priests and prophets have spoken of the importance of caring for orphans. Yet Arkansas decided it would be better for these children to be housed in foster and group homes than to find a permanent home with one or more parents.
Children need a loving home. To deny children of the opportunity to be loved is to go against God's law and basic compassion.
Let us put the needs of children first.
References:
As someone who transitioned over two decades ago, I don't have much to fear with respect to being called out on gender identity. I have much more to fear due to my identity as a lesbian in a 17 year relationship. Yet I am unwilling to use my privilege as an apparently cisgender person to grab for protection as a Lesbian while leaving behind my less privileged brothers and sisters.
It is morally wrong for me to abandon my brothers and sisters. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells of two respectable leaders who chose not to help a man who was robbed, beaten, stripped naked, and left for dead. They knew they were at risk of becoming ritually unclean, requiring them to turn back to Jerusalem - a costly delay.
Yet a Samaritan - who didn't even get along with the Jews - was so moved by the man's situation that he stopped to help and even paid to have the man stay at an inn and recover.
We have the opportunity to stop and help - even if it causes us delay - or to walk on with the hope that the man will not suffer too much waiting for us to come back
If it is more difficult to pass ENDA with transgender language included, what does that tell you? It tells me that more people are willing to accept discrimination against transgender people and, therefore, transgender people need this law even more than gay and Lesbian people do.
Waiting until people don't want to discriminate before passing an anti-discrimination law makes no sense.
Waiting until people don't want to discriminate against a class of people before passing an anti-discrimination law to protect that class makes no sense.
I'm siding with the Samaritans on this. Walk on by at your own risk.
It is morally wrong for me to abandon my brothers and sisters. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus tells of two respectable leaders who chose not to help a man who was robbed, beaten, stripped naked, and left for dead. They knew they were at risk of becoming ritually unclean, requiring them to turn back to Jerusalem - a costly delay.
Yet a Samaritan - who didn't even get along with the Jews - was so moved by the man's situation that he stopped to help and even paid to have the man stay at an inn and recover.
We have the opportunity to stop and help - even if it causes us delay - or to walk on with the hope that the man will not suffer too much waiting for us to come back
If it is more difficult to pass ENDA with transgender language included, what does that tell you? It tells me that more people are willing to accept discrimination against transgender people and, therefore, transgender people need this law even more than gay and Lesbian people do.
Waiting until people don't want to discriminate before passing an anti-discrimination law makes no sense.
Waiting until people don't want to discriminate against a class of people before passing an anti-discrimination law to protect that class makes no sense.
I'm siding with the Samaritans on this. Walk on by at your own risk.
We live in a very independent culture. We're big on personal responsibility, and "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps". That rugged individualism often leads to a "somebody else's problem" mentality where we don't want to get involved.
In the fight for gay and lesbian rights, a lot of opposition has come from conservative black churches. Indeed, many black men will not identify as gay or bisexual, although they have sex with other men "on the down-low". So for black men who have sex with men, there is a cultural tearing between fighting for their equal rights as African Americans and fighting for their rights as men who have sex with men (MSM).
And when Human Rights Campaign (HRC) stood up for the black students in Jena, Louisiana, many gay and lesbian people shouted "this is not our fight".
Now, due to the backlash from conservative groups, Congress is removing protection for transgender people from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). So do I support this as a Lesbian, knowing that I will be protected from being fired or evicted based only on my sexual orientation? Or do I reject this because it I can still be fired or evicted because of a transition I made two decades ago?
For me, this is not an academic argument. It's a choice between some protection and "all or nothing". When ENDA was first proposed, HRC actively worked to exclude protection for transgender persons, with a promise to revisit the issue later to include us. They have since come to support inclusion.
It's easy to say "at least we'll get some protection" and cut off a segment of our population. After all, it's not really a loss to transgender people: we don't have protection now anyway! Yet the more we divide ourselves up into smaller and smaller groups, the weaker we become. Should there be separate gay employment and lesbian employment? What about bisexuals - when they're in straight relationships, they're already part of the majority! What about the straight-looking straight-acting folks - they can "pass", so why should they support leathermen and bulldykes?
One of the consistent themes of the Bible has to do with how we treat our brothers, sisters, and neighbors. In the Bible, people are constantly looking for a way to lop off a group of people. For example, the priests and scribes wanted to not have to worry about foreigners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and the other unclean. Yet Jesus pointed out that everyone is a neighbor. Paul pointed out that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We are all of the same flesh - all human, and we cannot have one of us suffer without it affecting the rest of us.
It's not just the body of Christ, it's the family of humanity. There is no reason to leave any of our brothers and sisters behind. There is no reason to draw a line - a division - between us.
And when we do, we weaken the body. We become small and isolated. We become individuals with individual problems, and not a community that works together for justice for everyone.
For me, I will not support this bill that will half-protect me and protect some of my brothers and sisters but not others. And I will not support those legislators who are willing to defer justice for some in the name of expediency.
sources:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid49423.asp
http://transadvocate.com/enda/last-ditch-effort-the-right-wing-whopper-lies.htm
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/homotextual_charles_haynes.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/a_nontransgenderinclusive_enda_no_way.php
http://www.gendertalk.com/?q=node/239
In the fight for gay and lesbian rights, a lot of opposition has come from conservative black churches. Indeed, many black men will not identify as gay or bisexual, although they have sex with other men "on the down-low". So for black men who have sex with men, there is a cultural tearing between fighting for their equal rights as African Americans and fighting for their rights as men who have sex with men (MSM).
And when Human Rights Campaign (HRC) stood up for the black students in Jena, Louisiana, many gay and lesbian people shouted "this is not our fight".
Now, due to the backlash from conservative groups, Congress is removing protection for transgender people from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). So do I support this as a Lesbian, knowing that I will be protected from being fired or evicted based only on my sexual orientation? Or do I reject this because it I can still be fired or evicted because of a transition I made two decades ago?
For me, this is not an academic argument. It's a choice between some protection and "all or nothing". When ENDA was first proposed, HRC actively worked to exclude protection for transgender persons, with a promise to revisit the issue later to include us. They have since come to support inclusion.
It's easy to say "at least we'll get some protection" and cut off a segment of our population. After all, it's not really a loss to transgender people: we don't have protection now anyway! Yet the more we divide ourselves up into smaller and smaller groups, the weaker we become. Should there be separate gay employment and lesbian employment? What about bisexuals - when they're in straight relationships, they're already part of the majority! What about the straight-looking straight-acting folks - they can "pass", so why should they support leathermen and bulldykes?
One of the consistent themes of the Bible has to do with how we treat our brothers, sisters, and neighbors. In the Bible, people are constantly looking for a way to lop off a group of people. For example, the priests and scribes wanted to not have to worry about foreigners, tax collectors, prostitutes, and the other unclean. Yet Jesus pointed out that everyone is a neighbor. Paul pointed out that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. We are all of the same flesh - all human, and we cannot have one of us suffer without it affecting the rest of us.
It's not just the body of Christ, it's the family of humanity. There is no reason to leave any of our brothers and sisters behind. There is no reason to draw a line - a division - between us.
And when we do, we weaken the body. We become small and isolated. We become individuals with individual problems, and not a community that works together for justice for everyone.
For me, I will not support this bill that will half-protect me and protect some of my brothers and sisters but not others. And I will not support those legislators who are willing to defer justice for some in the name of expediency.
sources:
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid49423.asp
http://transadvocate.com/enda/last-ditch-effort-the-right-wing-whopper-lies.htm
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/homotextual_charles_haynes.php
http://www.bilerico.com/2007/09/a_nontransgenderinclusive_enda_no_way.php
http://www.gendertalk.com/?q=node/239
Liberal Believer pleads "Could We Have a President With Courage Please?"
The Bible tells us we have been given stewardship of the Earth, but how are our leaders working as stewards?
Do they take the power with which they have been entrusted, and use it to return greater benefit for all? Or do they bury it in there here and now?
I suspect "protecting the current economy" is a bit more of a burial than "invest it in our planet's future". As in Jesus's Parable of the Talents, time will tell... when the master reviews how the servants have handled the master's property.
The Bible tells us we have been given stewardship of the Earth, but how are our leaders working as stewards?
Do they take the power with which they have been entrusted, and use it to return greater benefit for all? Or do they bury it in there here and now?
I suspect "protecting the current economy" is a bit more of a burial than "invest it in our planet's future". As in Jesus's Parable of the Talents, time will tell... when the master reviews how the servants have handled the master's property.
As reported in the Washington Post, the US government is collecting - and retaining for 15 years - information about where you fly, drive, or sail. In addition, they are collecting information about what you carry with you, including books and flashlights.
Getting back to the golden rule (previously mentioned here), why is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people treating the people in a way (collecting information) that they (the government) would rather not be treated (executive privilege, state secrets)?
Who runs this country anyway? Apparently, not the people. While I'm not big on judging the behavior of others, it may be time we pointed out the hypocrisy of those we have chosen to be our servants. And if they're not willing to serve, perhaps it's time we asked them to make room for someone who will.
Getting back to the golden rule (previously mentioned here), why is the government of the people, by the people, and for the people treating the people in a way (collecting information) that they (the government) would rather not be treated (executive privilege, state secrets)?
Who runs this country anyway? Apparently, not the people. While I'm not big on judging the behavior of others, it may be time we pointed out the hypocrisy of those we have chosen to be our servants. And if they're not willing to serve, perhaps it's time we asked them to make room for someone who will.
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “politics”.
