Bishop Nazir-Ali, shame on you!

'A senior Church of England bishop have warned that Anglican youth clubs, welfare projects and charities may close because of new gay rights laws.

The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, said that the Church of England's charities would be "affected" by the rules, which will force them to give equal treatment to homosexuals.

He declared: "It will be the poor and disadvantaged who will be the losers."'

--Steve Doughty, writing for Daily Mail in the UK

Here's some background. The UK government is passing some new laws that would forbid discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation. Churches in the UK have put up a united front against the regulations. The Roman Catholics have threatened to close adoption agencies rather than give children to gay couples. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is the Bishop of Rochester in the UK, and you've heard his threats above.

Here's what it sounds like. It sounds like +Nazir-Ali is trying to hold the "poor and disadvantaged" hostage, to force the government to give ground on a piece of legislation that he doesn't like. In fact, it sounds like he's saying that Church of England charities already discriminate against gays and lesbians in the provision of services, and that he supports such discrimination.

+Nazir-Ali may have been quoted inaccurately or out of context. But I haven't heard him protest. And from where I stand, his statements sound like bigotry, plain and simple. They bring to mind what Jesus says in Matthew 18, "But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Furthermore, some of the claims made by religious groups at what they would be forced to do are outlandish. An advertisement claims schools would be forced to "actively promote homosexual civil partnerships (from primary school age)" in their curricula. It claims that heterosexual policemen and firemen could not legally "refuse to join" a Pride parade. For the first, it is not likely that schools will teach alternative forms of marriage from primary school age. Additionally, the words "actively promote" give the false impression that schools are going to be able to force the children to be gay, that the minute after this hypothetical lesson, all the boys will be screwing each other like rabbits in the bathroom. This is a ridiculous idea.

For the second, I think the authors deliberately confused the act of providing police and fire coverage for a Pride parade with joining a Pride parade as participants. I'm not familiar with UK laws, but police and fire departments probably cannot refuse to provide coverage for a Pride event, and since they're getting paid with public dollars, it seems fair that they can't. It would also seem fair if the emergency departments tried to assign people with no objections to the Pride events, but that's beside the point. The point is that some Christians in the UK are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. It should remind us of what was done with the Equal Rights Amendment in the US.

Is a compromise possible? Elizabeth Fernandez, writing for the San Fransisco Chronicle, highlights how a US Catholic adoption agency came to an accomodation between San Fransisco nondiscrimination laws, and the instructions of the Vatican not to place children with same-sex parents.

'While the agency will no longer directly place children in homes, it will provide staff and financial resources to connect needy children to adoptive parents, expanding from 25 placements a year to assisting in the adoptions of as many as 800 children annually, say those involved in the program.'

Indeed, some children are being placed with same-sex couples. But the workers in this adoption agency are OK with it. Indeed, it seems their Board of Supervisors passed a nonbinding resolution asking the local church to challenge the Vatican. Their new archbishop, +George Niderauer, told them to find a solution that would allow them to be faithful to their mission: allowing families to adopt children. For +Niderauer and Catholic Charities of San Fransisco, the children came first.

For +Nazir-Ali, either the children and the poor come second, or he's too stupid to find a solution.


Doughty's article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=419280&in_page_id=1770

Fernandez' article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/27/BAGDLKQ52G1.DTL

Christians concerned advertisement:
http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/sor/docs/LCFAdvert.pdf

By demanding that Keith Ellison not swear his oath on the Koran, some Americans confuse jingoism with Christianity

Keith Ellison (D-MN) is America's first Muslim congressperson. Being a Muslim, he wishes to swear his oath of office with his hand upon the Koran. America stands for freedom of religion, among many other freedoms, so his wish appears perfectly reasonable to me ... if being Muslim were a problem for Minnesotans, they would not have elected him.

Dennis Prager, writing for the American Family Association, insists that:

"He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization."

"America, not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on."

"Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath?"

"But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America."


Some posters on Titus One-Nine, a conservative Anglican blog, espouse similiar sentiments.

RAMcClain: "Let him resign if he refuses to swear on the Bible. I don’t believe we should give in to him, or anyone else who chooses otherwise."

Dee in Iowa: "The voting on AOL’s question as regards this is 2 to 1 in favor of him having to use the Bible. FYI I voted with the minority…."

MK: "1. because it represents Muslim expansionism into the accepted ways of the United States, which are Christian in foundation."
"He was raised a Roman Catholic and attended a Jesuit high school, then apostasized to Islam when he was 19. What did he learn at school?"

Christopher Hathaway: "Maybe it’s time we challenged the idea of a secular State indifferent to the religion which gave it life. The Koran knows no such thing as true religious freedom. I say keep that damned book as far from our government as possible."
"I think I have made clear my loathing of Islam as a vile and dangerous religion. It is not friendly to Western civilization."
"This country is a country based upon the freedom given to us by God, the God of the Bible, not the god of the Koran."


There's no easy way to say this, but the church in Nazi Germany (both Catholic and Protestant) confused jingoism with Christianity, and for the most part failed to condemn Hitler. For us to conflate Christianity and jingoism in America is to tread down the same path.

Prager's comments on "multiculturalism" are quite disturbing. Many White Americans seem to be afraid that their country is being overrun by people of color - Arizona, for example, declared English as the official language of the state. Prager is Jewish, and that makes it a lot more interesting. He forgets that Jews were once subject to discrimination and persecution in the US. If some political figure were to make a similar statement when anti-Semitism was still acceptable, it would invite, or at least legitimate, attacks on Jews.

Prager also comments that Jewish legislators in America have always sworn on the Bible. Indeed, Sens Coleman and Wellstone of Minnesota, both Jewish, swore on Bibles. But, they felt comfortable doing so. This isn't a Christian-only state. The oath is to the Constitution, not to the Bible. If Ellison can only honestly swear his oath on the Koran, then he absolutely should do so.

And, to bring us to face our racism, I should ask: if we elected a Jewish senator who insisted on swearing on the Torah, would the response be quite this vitriolic?


Titus One-Nine page:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=16490#comments

Prager's piece at American Family Association:
http://www.afa.net/aa112806_2.asp


Addendum: Titus 1:9 is maintained by Canon Kendall Harmon of, I believe, South Carolina. The articles he posts are usually very good and give a good view of the conservative side of the Episcopal Church. A lot of liberals and moderates frequent his blog as well, but some of the more virulent conservatives post things that are not so good.

Four Church Women of El Salvador, and a Condemnation of Sexual Violence

This is in memory of
Sisters Ita Ford and Maura Clarke of Maryknoll
Jean Donovan
Sister Dorothy Kazel, Ursuline Sisters of Cleveland
(The icon is by Anthony Lewis and it's available from Trinity Stores at the link below)
Murdered Dec 2, 1980

And all the victims of rape and other forms of sexual violence, male and female ... some of whom are my friends


Around the time of the Salvadoran civil war, these four women, and other Americans, served as missionaries in El Salvador. Dorothy, for example, taught Salvadorans how to read and write with a program known as CARITAS (caritas means charity in Latin), and empowered them to teach their fellow Salvadorans. The war started in 1977, and Dorothy found she couldn't leave. She worked with refugees, and with mothers who had lost their children. Dorothy said, "I could not leave Salvador, especially now ... I am committed to the persecuted Church here." She and her sisters found that they had to live out God's preferential option for the poor, no matter what it might cost.

On the night of December 2, Dorothy and Jean Donovan went to the airport to pick their fellow missioners up. Ita Ford and Maura Clarke were returning from a Maryknoll sisters in Nicaragua. Five members of the Salvadoran National Guard intercepted them outside of the airport. They were taken to an isolated spot, and were raped and shot at close range. Their naked bodies were found buried in a shallow grave the next morning.

Rape as a weapon of war is only one form of sexual violence. In male-female rape, most rapists are known to their victims. Sexual violence may arise in a married relationship, or in an ordinary dating relationship. It may arise in a casual sexual encounter, where ability to consent is impaired by drunkenness. These latter forms of sexual violence are more common than stranger rapes, and more common than rape in war. They are no less a violation of human dignity.

And men are raped very often in prison. Transgender inmates in male prisons are almost certain to be raped. And shame regarding perceived homosexuality may contribute to underreporting, and many human rights groups allege that prison officials tolerate it because it is used to keep the prison population in line. The rape is one violation of human dignity, and our shame and failure to confront it is another - the same goes for not confronting men raping women.

I previously mentioned on this blog that liberal Christians need a sense of sexual ethics. One facet of those ethics must be that we strongly condemn all forms of sexual violence. In fact, Christians of all stripes ought to condemn sexual violence. And yet, it seems we haven't spoken out enough. Andrew Greeley, writing in the Chicago Sun Times, asks why the Catholic Church has remained silent on the topic of violence against women, despite condemning all sorts of "sins of the flesh" and "sins against life."

Greeley also points out that too many men - including some clergy - need to boss women around to affirm their masculinity. Such men are cowards. Their attitude contributes to a culture which denigrates women, and makes it more acceptable to coerce them. If you are truly brave, you won't be threatened by a woman who is your equal.

Conservative Christians would have us restrict sex to married relationships. For some people, because of their personal and cultural beliefs, it is the right thing to do. It is a choice that liberals ought to respect. However, it will not end violence against women, and it will not end prison rape. Violence against women does not necessarily have to involve forced or coerced sexual intercourse. It can include things such as the actions of the legislature in South Dakota - they completely banned abortion in the state, without exception, and they were using women as a tool for political gain. To my mind, that is an act of violence no less than rape.

We also have to take a good, hard look at the ugly parts of our Scriptures. Some Christians accept their Scriptures as completely infallible - that every word and every passage is completely free from error. There's no easy way to say this - ths is a completely idiotic notion. Many others believe in Biblical inerrancy, which is a limited form in Biblical infallibility - the Bible is correct on issues of faith and practice. This can still be dangerous, because it can still allow rigid interpretations depending on which passages you define as issues of faith or practice. Let's look at the story of Lot, which I have previously mentioned on this blog.

Lot is the only righteous man in Sodom. Male angels come from God to visit him. All the men in Sodom gather outside his house and pound on his door. They want to have sex with the angels - to rape them. Lot refuses - the angels, as guests, are under his protection. He offers to let the city rape his two daughters, who are still virgins. The angels spirit Lot away, and God burns the city to ashes.

99.9% of us would say that God does not condemn violence against women. And yet, Lot put his daughters in grave danger, and faces no punishment. What is going on? If I were God, and I were into the use of fire, there is no way he would have escaped with less than second-degree burns. In fact, in Judges 19, the same thing happens to a Levite and his concubine, only this time, he lets the men of Bethlehem Judah gang-rape the concubine, who dies the next morning. He isn't punished either. And there are other verses in the Bible where rape is treated lightly.

The Bible is a narrative. It is a story about humankind's dynamic response to God. It is the result of a bunch of men (and I don't mean men in the universal sense) coming to know God more and more. It is imperfect, because those men were imperfect. I once heard a story where an Episcopal priest took a Bible, threw it on the ground and stamped his foot on it. He said, "This is just leather, paper, and ink. The word of God is in our hearts, and our minds, and our actions."

I'm not saying to disregard the whole Bible. I'm saying that if you blindly affirm everything in it, you allow others to fall back on it for less savory purposes. When Malcolm X confronted Elijah Muhammad over the latter's shameless infidelity, Muhammad fell back on Biblican figures like David to justify himself. X saw right through Muhammad's flimsy excuses, and eventually they broke their relationship.

If you believe, as I do, that the word of God is in our hearts and minds and actions, then join me in condeming all forms of sexual and relationship violence, and in praying for all victims of such violence, especially Ita, Maura, Jean and Dorothy, killed this day 26 years ago. And let us always oppose all aspects of culture that denigrate women or stand in the way of their equality. Let us in fact take a page from the relationships of same-sex couples, where egalitarianism is often more present.

Amen.


Link to the icon and a brief blurb at Trinity Stores
http://www.trinitystores.com/?detail=617&artist=11
http://www.trinitystores.com/main.php4?&detail=617&artist=11&more=1

Brief bio of Sr Dorothy Kazel
http://www.ursulinesisters.org/dorothy1.htm

Andrew Greeley's article in Chicago Sun Times
http://www.ncdsv.org/images/ChurchNotSpeakingUpforWomen.pdf

World AIDS Day - another part of sexual ethics



Today is World AIDS day. From the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church:

"Words, words, words won't help us in our fight against the pandemic. Now is the time for action."

As people across the world pause to commemorate another World AIDS Day, my mind is drawn to these words, spoken by my brother Archbishop, Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town, earlier this year at the United Nations High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS.

My purpose in writing on World AIDS Day, then, is not simply to add more words to a debate that is already long on rhetoric but short on action. Rather, I hope my words will remind Episcopalians that our voices –- if united as ONE –- can make a critical difference in the fight to rid the world of a pandemic that claims the lives of 8,000 of God's people each day, destabilizes entire regions, and keeps hundreds of millions of people living in extreme poverty.

On this World AIDS Day, I urge all Episcopalians to join the "ONE Episcopalian" campaign, a unique partnership between the Episcopal Church and ONE: The Campaign to Make Poverty History. By becoming a ONE Episcopalian, you can unite your voice with more than 2.4 million Americans who are working, ONE by ONE, to create a world free of AIDS and deadly poverty. You can sign up online at www.episcopalchurch.org/ONE, and it takes less than ONE minute.

The resources and strategies for preventing HIV and treating AIDS are fully within humanity's reach. Mobilization of resources by the United States and other countries over the past four years has increased treatment rates more than eight-fold in Africa and brought new hope to millions of people. Still, HIV-prevention efforts lag as infection rates continue to rise in many of the world's hardest hit regions. At least 4.3 million new infections occurred in the past year alone, with more than six in ten coming in Sub-Saharan Africa.

In order to turn the tide, governments must put full resources behind efforts like the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Moreover, existing programs have to be continually adapted to ensure that they are as dynamic as possible in meeting the needs of local communities. Most importantly, prevention and treatment efforts must be combined with efforts to fight poverty, empower women, and build the sustainable communities envisioned by the Millennium Development Goals.

2007 promises to be a significant year as both the U.S. Congress and the international community will face key decisions in the fight against AIDS and poverty worldwide. More than ever, the voices of citizens like us will be critical, and by joining the ONE Episcopalian Campaign, we can ensure that our voices are heard.

On Sunday, Christians around the world will enter into Advent, the season of preparation for the great feast of the Incarnation. Our belief that, in order to redeem the world, God put aside all heavenly glory to make his dwelling in our midst –- challenges us to carry our worship of God out of our churches and homes and into the world around us. May the Child of Bethlehem, the tiny and vulnerable One in whom all the fullness of God is pleased to dwell, inspire us anew to worship him in the world by working to end HIV/AIDS and build a creation that truly shows forth the glory of God.

The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori
Presiding Bishop and Primate
The Episcopal Church



http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_79953_ENG_HTM.htm
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ONE

Dorothy Day, died Nov 29, 1980

Credit to the Daily Episcopalian (blog.edow.org). For some reason I didn't have Dorothy Day up on my calendar of saints, but she died 26 years ago, and she was an activist for women's and worker's rights. Interestingly, she wrote in support of free love and birth control in 1910, and had an abortion in the 20s, but she opposed the sexual revolution of the 60s. And as I said in a previous post, liberal Christians need a concrete sense of sexual ethics.

In any case, through it all, Day maintained a commitment to the poor and to nonviolence. The Catholic Worker Movement has over 185 houses providing social services; they are independent of the Roman Catholic Church. Their beliefs are listed here: http://www.catholicworker.org/aimsandmeanstext.cfm?Number=5

Dorothy Day didn't want to be called a saint. She felt it would trivialize her. So, don't call her a saint; instead, go and do likewise.


Link to Robert Lentz's icon on Trinity Stores - that's the image
http://www.trinitystores.com/main.php4?detail=33&artist=1

The Catholic Worker Movement homepage:
http://www.catholicworker.org/

The Catholic Worker, a mirror site for some articles from TCWM:
http://www.catholicworker.com/

Her Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day

"An unfounded obsession with homosexuality"

It is not good that many Christian groups are obsessed with their members' sexual conduct. I remember several sessions in my Bible study class as a teenager and as a new convert to Christianity where the aura of guilt hung heavily in the air as our group leader told us to refrain from masturbation and to not succumb to homosexual temptations. I may not have had the second, but almost everyone, male and female, masturbates. I was no different. That guilt stayed with me for a long time.

The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina is moving to expel churches that "affirm", "approve" or "bless" same-sex relationships. There are apparently a dozen of them. From the Washington Post article below, "The growing acceptance of gays in popular culture and the fact that homosexuality has powerful advocacy groups made the stance necessary, Baptist leaders said." Mark Harris, the head of the committee that proposed the measure said, ""In our day and time, no other sin marches so defiantly across our national landscape."

I had no idea that the use of hallucinogenic drugs was so widespread among Christian conservatives. Let me give you another example of sin. Americans allowed their administration to engage in war, based on fabricated evidence, and against international law. According to the Iraq Body Count (link below), between 48,000 to 54,000 Iraqi civilians have died based on newspaper reports of deaths; the British medical journal Lancet estimates as many as 100,000. As of today, 2,879 American servicepeople are dead and officially, over 22,000 are wounded. Some estimates that the sanctions that preceded the war, which were instituted by President George HW Bush and continued by Presidents Clinton and Bush Jr, killed as many as half a million children under 5. Madeleine Albright said that those deaths were justified. Americans apparently only just woke up and realized that the casualties (at least, the American casualties) were actually not all that justified. The military keeps no official body count. Many Republican leaders expressed contrition for the war, but it sounded more like they regretted being caught lying rather than actually regretting the suffering they had helped inflict. Many Democrats waffled between pro-war and anti-war for political gain.

There is indeed sin marching across the American national landscape. There's the war, there's the blaming the poor for their own plight and the refusal to provide universal healthcare. There's the cutting of taxes for the rich while eliminating programs that provide a safety net to the poor. And by the way, Mark Harris, whatever you're smoking, it's probably illegal too. There's an article (link below) about how the president-elect of the Christian Coalition had to step down because he wanted to broaden their agenda to include poverty reduction and fighting global warming. Imagine that - Christians supporting poverty and environmental destruction. And these are the Christians who have the gall to question other Christians' legitimacy because they differ on issues of sexuality. These are the Christians whose obsession with sex produces wilfull blindness to what's actually going on in the world.

I'm not saying we should all just go at it like rabbits without regard to the consequences. We do need sexual/reproductive ethics that addresses reality: that teenagers will have sex whether or not they are taught about birth control; if they're not taught, the result is unwanted teen pregnancy. That pronatalism among Roman Catholics and some conservative Protestants is harmful to an already overburdened planet - and that it helps keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. That birth control should not be seen as a sin. That human personhood should not be seen as beginning at conception, but that embryos are indeed forms of human life and should be treated with dignity. That abortion rights should be protected, women and men informed of the choices and the potential consequences, and trusted to make the right decision based on their own sense of ethics and personal situations. That lack of abortion rights means that women will go to desperate measures to get one, jeopardizing their lives, and that attacks on abortion rights are at best potential attacks on womens' equality.



3 Christian groups move to condemn gay sex: Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/14/AR2006111401337_pf.html

The antigay obsession: Boston Globe (may require registration)
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/11/18/the_antigay_obsession/

Pastor chosen to lead Christian Coalition steps down in dispute over agenda
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/us/28pastor.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

Iraq body count
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

More racism...

By now, many of you will have heard of Michael Richards' racist tirade against a couple of Black hecklers at his performance. Not so long ago, Mel Gibson went on a drunken, sexist and anti-Semitic rant when he was arretsted for drunk driving. I'm sure that everyone is beating this issue to death and psychoanalyzing Richards by remote. I hate to follow the crowd. But I really have something to say, so I'll say it.

If you're reading this blog, you've read my post on the Syro-Phonecian woman. (http://weiwentg.blogspot.com/2006/06/he-left-that-place-and-set-out-for.html) She asked Jesus for healing. He responded with what was likely the equivalent of "chink". She persisted, he healed her ... and subsequently, he never denied any of the Gentiles when they asked to be healed. Nor did he insult them.

You've also read me excoriating Singapore, my native country, for its own refusal to acknowledge racism.

Leonard Pitts Jr, writing for the Baltimore Sun (link below), lambasts America for the same reason. Apparently, TMZ.com, the website that first aired the footage, had a survey showing that 40% of respondents didn't think Richards was racist. Pitts contends, and I agree, that you don't launch a 2-1/2 minute tirade with multiple references to "niggers" and a reference to a lynching without being racist. It is good that Richards apologized publicly, and is trying to do so privately to the hecklers. It is not enough.

Many well-meaning White Americans persist in denying that their country is racist. I have to say, this is very unfortunate. People of color in America should not forget that racism is not only a Black/White issue, and they should not forget that they are racist among themselves.

America's problems with race relations have not been solved. They will not be solved before we can admit to ourselves that we are sinful, and one of those sins is racism. And one of the biggest barriers to recognizing racism is the guilt. We're so guilty that in 21st century America, there is racism. We're guilty about the past treatment of Africans and Native Americans. We're so guilty that we repress it and deny it, and that is just as bad as the original sin.

But, if we admit it, we can start to talk about it, and then we can start to do something about it.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.pitts26nov26,0,4427975.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines