Going toe-to-toe with the Christianists

Today on one of my favorite blogs in the whole world, Pam’s House Blend, we get the otherwise cryptically-named article by Pam Spaulding herself entitled:

And Blankenhorn and Rauch think these people will compromise on marriage?

(The cryptic reference to Blankenhorn and Rauch is to an op-ed piece on compromise in federal recognition of civil unions that ran earlier in the week in The New York Times, A Reconciliation on Gay Marriage, by By DAVID BLANKENHORN and JONATHAN RAUCH
Published: February 21, 2009 )

I won’t go into the proposed “compromise” here – that’s not the thrust of Pam’s thoughtful essay.

What Pam writes about here is the right-wing Christianist rhetoric about gays that rings lodly in the halls of Congress and the inner recesses of our state legislatures. Today’s featured nutcase is Colorado State Senator Scott Renfroe, a Republican from Greeley, Colorado.

Renfroe was quoted in opposition to a bill to grant insurance benefits to gay partners of state employees (a bill that passed in the Colorado Senate after his less-than-inspiring speech) as saying “I oppose this bill because of what my personal beliefs are. I think that what our country was founded upon was those beliefs also.”

What are Renfroe’s beliefs? He certainly can’t be a Christian. Then again, even Pope Benedict XVI isn’t really a Christian. People with the sort of belief about LGBT people that Renfroe has, if they claim to be Christians, are lying. They’re Christianists – people who pervert and twist the kerygma of the message of the Good News, and use it as a justification for attempting to take their bigoted feelings about people who are different from themselves, and make their bigotry the law of the land.

How do we deal with the Christianists? Toe to toe on the theological level.

Every time they cite Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination"

We should turn the other cheek with 1 Samuel 18:3:

“Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul”

and 1 Samuel 18:21 (KJV and most other translations are confused):

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain,"

giving the impression that David will be marrying one of Saul's two daughters. So let’s not use the old KJV or other mistranslations of this verse. The literal and accurate Darby gives us:

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be upon him. And Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time."

The first time was with Saul's son Jonathan, the second with Saul's daughter Michal). That means David and Jonathan were married.

The American Standard version (ASV), also a reasonably good translation, differs from Darby in only two words:

"And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time."

John Nelson Darby was the leader of the Plymouth Brethren movement in the 1800s. He was extremely gifted in linguistics. Darby is reputed to be a very rich and accurate translation. By going to the available original language sources rather than translating from St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate, (Douay-Rheims does the best job of that, but most non-Catholic Christianists think that the KJV was "authorized" by God rather than King James . . . ), Darby gets to the essence of what otherwise looks like a completely fumbled passage. After all, when homophobes do the translating, they're more likely to try to obscure the meaning of anything quite as powerful an example of same-sex marriage clearly stated in the Bible as the sacred covenant between David and Jonathan.

How does this relate to Leviticus 18:22? Simply put, at worst this verse from the "holiness code" relates only to a single kind of male-male sexual activity. Some theologians will also link this prohibition to the story of Sodom, and indicate that it relates only to the practice of anal rape, commonly used in the ancient Near East as a way to humiliate a defeated enemy by "using him as one would use a woman" (which has nothing to do with a loving gay relationship). Others would link it to a prohibition of sacramental religious relations with transgendered priestesses of Near East agricultural goddesses (Astarte, Ishtar, etc.), relating more to Caananite religion as the forbidden "competition" for the Hebrews at the time of Leviticus.

The Christianists and their erroneous understanding of Sacred Scripture can be challenged, and should be challenged, on their own theological turf. Too often LGBT people will turn away from Christianity, thinking that the Christianists are the bearers of the Good News. They are not - they pervert the Bible with their Un-Chriatian foul bigotry spawned by Satan. Unless they repent they will be numbered among the goats on the Day of Judgment, asking in their confused false righteousness:

"Lord, when saw we thee . . .a stranger, . . . and have not ministered to thee?

Then shall he answer them saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as ye have not done it to one of these least, neither have ye done it to me.

And these shall go away into eternal punishment, and the righteous into life eternal."

- Mt. 25:44-46 (Darby)

This relates back to one of my favorite passages, Isaiah 56. I often will cite verses 3-5, but see 6-7:

Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the LORD, to serve him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant;

Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.

- Isaiah 56:6-7 (KJV)

Strangers are not only those who are from foreign countries and cultures, but also those in our midst who are different by our natures or circumstances from the majority - whether it be based on race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, etc.

Real Christians embrace the wonderful diversity in God's creation, while Christianists, even the Pope, abhor it. Like the men of Sodom, their desire is to obliterate us, to humiliate us, to deny us human rights and common decency, solely because we are different, because we are "strangers," because we are aliens in our own native land and culture.

Marriage Equality in the Year of St. Paul

Until June 29, 2009, the Roman Catholic Church is celebrating a special jubilee year dedicated to commemorate the approximate 2000 years since the birth of St. Paul the Apostle.

In honor of St. Paul, let’s start this essay as a meditation on his writings on the issue of the purpose of marriage, expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

In addition to this passage from St. Paul, let’s take a look at the recent reports coming from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, North Carolina, reported in an article in The Raleigh News and Observer on Sunday, February 15, 2009, entitled Push is on for same-sex celibacy: Raleigh diocese directs ministry at gays, lesbians

I learned about this from a blog essay written by Pam Spaulding, the proprietress of the Pam’s House Blend blog (a blog I highly endorse for its well-written essays), entitled Raleigh, Charlotte dioceses pushing same-sex celibacy, NC marriage amendment

Now that I’ve identified the sources of the reportage, let’s get to meat of the reports.

It seems that the Diocese of Raleigh is embarking on two initiatives related to marriage:

First, the Raleigh diocese is organizing a diocesan chapter of Courage, a group that encourages gay Catholics toward a celibate life, and

Second, the Bishop of Raleigh is planning on joining with the Bishop of Charlotte (also in North Carolina) on February 24, 2009 to endorse a proposed amendment to the North Carolina state constitution to define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman, to enshrine in the state constitution a ban against equal marriage rights for non-heterosexual people.

I actually don’t object to the bishop starting up a Courage chapter – but I believe that Courage itself is too limited in its scope. It should be aimed at all unmarried Catholics, and not just those with a homosexual orientation. The reason is very much associated with 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

While I would welcome an expanded Courage aimed at all sexual orientations, I strongly object to the bishops in North Carolina on the one hand trying to discourage promiscuity only for gays by pushing celibacy on them (which works only for those few actually called to a celibate life), and at the same time encouraging the adoption of a constitutional anti-marriage amendment that would serve the opposite purpose, as a secular encouragement of promiscuity in the gay population.

I also disagree with the Roman Catholic hierarchy on its objection to the idea of marriage as a sacramental covenant that is not open to non-heterosexual people. Holy Matrimony as a sacrament should be open to non-heterosexual couples on the basis of the sacred marriage covenant entered into between David and Saul’s son Jonathan (see 1 Samuel 18).

Why do I take these points of view?

Simply because anyone who reads and understands the Bible properly must know that the Church (and all Christian leaders) should, like St. Paul, be teaching that the highest calling for all Christians is to celibacy, while marriage, even though a sacremant as well as a civil right, should be seen only as the last resort for those Christians whose libidos are such that they cannot remain celibate.

By closing the option of sacramental marriage to gays and lesbians, the Roman Catholic hierarchy sets up those of them who cannot live a celibate life, and who, being unmarried *and* without an option to marry, cannot contain their sexual libidos, to a life the Church can in its gross immorality gleefully condemn as sinful.

(A preferable alternative and truly moral point of view is to understand that God does not require the impossible. If marriage is not a sacramental or secular possibility for gays and lesbians, any actions they take to assuage their libidinal feelings outside of marriage cannot be sinful – they have no option to marry, God does not require the impossible, and thus the Church cannot reasonably expect all gays and lesbians to be called to celibacy.)

By closing the option of sacramental marriage to gays and lesbians, the Roman Catholic hierarchy also actually encourages them to enter into lives of promiscuity – by providing no moral alternative. It is a wonder that so many gays and lesbians are able to find a way to live non-promiscuous lives with long-term partners in informal or even legally recognized domestic partnerships, civil unions, and civil marriages. And wise governments, seeking societal stability, will find ways to encourage marriage as a choice for all. The Church, however, ignores this phenomenon and paints a picture of a “homosexual lifestyle” that is purely sybaritic, self-indulgent, decadent and promiscuous. It is this “lifestyle” that the Church creates as a straw man – as if the only alternative for the gay population is celibacy.

On the Raleigh diocese website, this promiscuous “gay lifestyle” is the main reason for the creation of Courage. The diocesan webpage starts with a quote from “Mark,” a Courage member:

“I thought I had the homosexuality under control. I'd been a Catholic for five years, went to daily Mass, prayed the rosary daily, went on one or two retreats a year, and volunteered at my parish. Yet, after a series of crises occurred, I once again became involved in addictive, homosexual behavior. So what happened?”

“Addictive homosexual behavior” is a code word for that straw man “promiscuous gay lifestyle.” I’m not about to deny that such a lifestyle actually exists – but I will deny that it is the only path taken by gay people.

The diocese goes on:

In a recent interview, Fr. Check talked about his experience in counseling those with SSA. “The problem of same-sex attraction does not reduce well to a few words,” he said. “It is certainly no place for slogans or hastily formed conclusions. Most importantly, it calls for abundant and genuine charity, something that in my opinion tends to be conspicuous in its absence from much of the discussion of the topic.”

NCC spoke with a Raleigh woman active in Encourage. Her son was 23 when he announced defiantly – by email -- that he was gay. “I was devastated,” she says. “My son was sinning, alienating himself from me and from God, and I didn’t know how to parent him. All I could say to him was, ‘I love you with all my heart. Stay close to God.’” In her search for compassion and support, she learned about Courage/Encourage in 2004, and became an advocate for the establishment of a chapter in the Diocese of Raleigh.

The perception that people with SSA are happy is a myth, she says: “When my son is ‘acting out’ the SSA lifestyle, his whole personality changes. He becomes distant, cruel and defensive. When he’s not living it, he’s just the opposite, compassionate and empathetic.”

“The problem of same sex attraction is often vexing to those who struggle with it,” Fr. Check concurs. “Shame, loneliness, and a sense of hopelessness are the enemies. Often people with SSA also struggle with sexual addiction, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety or other mental illness. This remains true even in the places where sexual promiscuity is widely tolerated.”

This whole line of reasoning is specious. That mother would have done herself and her son a lot more good had she gotten involved with her local P-FLAG ghapter. This whole straw man “SSA lifestyle” (SSA = same sex attraction) is not any different from an OSA lifestyle (where OSA means “opposite sex attraction.” Let’s see how much sense the foregoing makes if we make the substitution (and also, as the Church seems to do with SSA, make the same assumption about OSA, that it involves lots of wild promiscuous sex parties):

In a recent interview, Fr. Check talked about his experience in counseling those with OSA. “The problem of opposite-sex attraction does not reduce well to a few words,” he said. “It is certainly no place for slogans or hastily formed conclusions. Most importantly, it calls for abundant and genuine charity, something that in my opinion tends to be conspicuous in its absence from much of the discussion of the topic.”

NCC spoke with a Raleigh woman active in Encourage. Her son was 23 when he announced defiantly – by email -- that he was straight. “I was devastated,” she says. “My son was sinning, alienating himself from me and from God, and I didn’t know how to parent him. All I could say to him was, ‘I love you with all my heart. Stay close to God.’” In her search for compassion and support, she learned about Courage/Encourage in 2004, and became an advocate for the establishment of a chapter in the Diocese of Raleigh.

The perception that people with OSA are happy is a myth, she says: “When my son is ‘acting out’ the OSA lifestyle, his whole personality changes. He becomes distant, cruel and defensive. When he’s not living it, he’s just the opposite, compassionate and empathetic.”

Of course, if a person living a real promiscuous OSA lifestyle then turns to God, the Church might encourage that individual to settle down into a marriage, if he or she can’t remain celibate.

The Church presents no moral alternative to gays and lesbians – only the (impossible for most) idea of living a celibate life. And the treatment of “internalized homophobia” blames the homosexuality itself for the effects of what one might fairly refer to as a “culturally-induced stress disorder.”

Let’s take another look at the last of the originally-quoted paragraphs:

“The problem of same sex attraction is often vexing to those who struggle with it,” Fr. Check concurs. “Shame, loneliness, and a sense of hopelessness are the enemies. Often people with SSA also struggle with sexual addiction, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety or other mental illness. This remains true even in the places where sexual promiscuity is widely tolerated.”

This is turning the whole problem upside-down! The side effects come from the lack of self-acceptance found in those who feel conflicted between the false teachings they have been exposed to about their natural orientation, and their experience of the orientation itself. The struggles cease when the individual comes to the realization that the Church is wrong, and that the individual can be good and moral and loved by God even if they are gay and having a chaste gay relationship.

The Church finds itself in this conundrum, and is itself the cause of so much of the grief (though secular society and parents and family members must also share some of the blame), because its moral theology starts with false premises about natural law. When the Roman Catholic hierarchy insists that "homosexual acts" are sinful for those with a "homosexual inclination," the hierarchy relies on a false understanding of Natural Law. Homosexual acts are only sinful for those with a heterosexual inclination (they should read and understand Romans 1 with the insight that an "act in accordance with (one's) nature" is not an "act against Nature").

The Roman Catholic Church insists on celibacy as a test for a priestly vocation - to insist that all whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual must be celibate or sinful is a perversion of the message of scripture.

The hierarchy should take a closer look at St. Paul – and to the story of David and Jonathan.

It’s about time that the Roman Catholic Church re-examined its schizophrenic teachings about homosexuality – on the one hand, that gays be treated with respect, and on the other hand, that homosexual activity cannot be condoned.

Such a teaching flies in the face of St. Paul’s teaching – sure, in context, Paul was writing directly about heterosexual people – but the point is extendable to non-heterosexual people as well.

God does not expect the impossible. For those of any sexual orientation who are called to celibacy, God will provide sufficient (and efficacious, if they exercise their free will to do so) grace for them to be celibate. For those who cannot remain celibate because they burn with libidinous passion, regardless of their orientation, a legal, moral and sacramental path must be made available for them to be able to live chaste lives within a marital bond.

To that end, an organization like Courage should be open to all unmarried Catholics – who, straight or gay, should be strongly encouraged to remain virginal, chaste and celibate as their primary goal – and that only those Catholics (and all other Christians) whose souls burn with sexual desire that they cannot completely control should be allowed to marry. (Of course, for those who are not Christian at all, there would be no need for the secular law to address the idea of celibacy as a calling – secular law should permit equal marriage rights for all as a matter of providing a level playing field.

To St. Paul, it’s clear that marriage for the Christian is not for procreation – that was a value suitable solely for those who lived before Christ came as the Redeemer, and for pagans and unbelievers. For those who have accepted Christ, and are not already married at the time they are baptized as Christians, the primary calling is clearly to celibacy. . . if they can handle it. Celibacy should not be the expectation only for priests, gays and lesbians.

Oh, and if I didn’t mention it earlier in this essay (I didn’t), the Church has painted itself into the same sort of moral corner with the trans population. We are not allowed to marry the same sex (or the opposite sex). We, too, are all expected by the Church to achieve the impossible (impossible except for a few) that God does not expect.

God does not expect the impossible - why should the Roman Catholic Church?

In defense of Lynn Conway

After looking at the caption of a disturbing message that came into my e-mailbox ("Kenneth Zucker attacks Dr. Lynn Conway's freedom of speech"), and doing some research, I don't think the caption is accurate: it's not an attack on Dr. Conway's freedom of speech; it is a scurrilous attempt to falsely discredit Dr.Conway as a liar and a defamer.

I took a look at the letter and the attachments mentioned in the message. these are found at the following hyperlink:

http://www.intersexualite.org/Zucker-attacks-freedom-of-speech.html

It does not appear to me that Dr. Conway's site itself contains defamatory material. The paragraph quoted on her site from the linked site contains no defamatory material. The fact that there is a hyperlink, and other material on the linked site that may arguably be defamatory (assuming they are untrue and malicious) should be immaterial - the link in question is the equivalent of a citation in an academic thesis - it indicates "here is the source for the quote." Under US and Canadian law, it is clear to me that Dr. Conway's use of the hyperlink is protected from "Dr." (an honorific I don't recognize in his case) Kenneth Zucker (who is better referred to hereafter, like Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter books, as "[he who must not be named]"). [He who must not be named] and his lawyer know or should know better.

In the meantime, the actual material alleged to be defamatory is confusing from a grammatical point of view.

". . . alleged that as a child [he who must not be named] had sexually abused her."

Was [he who must not be named] a child at the time? Was the alleged victim a child at the time? (Of course the answer to these questions becomes immaterial if there was no actual sexual abuse that occurred - they'd be on the order of "when did you stop beating your wife" when asked of someone who has no wife, or if he has one, has never beaten her.)(Please note that I am not intending to imply that [he who must not be named] has sexually abused anyone - my sole purpose in quoting the material is to point out the grammatical vagueness.)

My idle question about whether the alleged perpetrator or the alleged victim was a minor at the time would be pertinent only if the accusation regarding sexual abuse was true. Peter M. Jacobsen, the author of the lawyer letter harrassing Dr. Conway, does not indicate in what way the arguably false statement is alleged to be untrue - is it because he is interpreting it as meaning that at the time of the (presumed) abuse, the quoted material indicates that his client was underage, or that the purported victim was underage, and that the *opposite* interpretation is true? Is it false because both parties were adults? That they were b oth adults and any sexual contact was consensual? Or are we to understand that the falsity is related solely to the allegation that sexual abuse took place, regardless of the age of the alleged perpetrator or purported victim? Mr. Jacobsen does not make that clear, and this makes us wonder about how this might be similar to former President Bill Clinton's assertion under oath that

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

(which, BTW, was true - as long as by sexual relations one expressly means "sexual intercourse.") I am going to make the assumption that the lawyer here believes that the falsity is based on the accusation that sexual abuse took place regardless of the relative ages of the parties. Anyway, so much for reporting on the first thing that crossed my mind in a stream of consciousness as I read the letter and its enclosures.

Turning to matters of legal substance, it's clear to me that this allegation of second-hand defamation by a mere referential hyperlink is an attempt to silence Dr. Conway, who has been an outspoken critic of people like Kenneth Zucker (oops, I mean [he who must not be named]) and Michael Bailey.

The author of the letter, who might be a Canadian lawyer (I have no idea if he is or is not) who at least dabbles in the law of defamation should be aware of the 2008 decision in Crookes v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc., (he can look up the citation himself) in which a Canadian court held that the publication of a hyperlink to an allegedly defamatory site is not "publication" within the ambit of the law of libel. Canada ordinarily treats "free speech" issues with much stricter regulation than the United States, but this case does not follow commonwealth decisions that go the other way, notably in Britain and Australia. If Lynn's site had said "go to this link to learn the shocking truth about [he who must not be named]" then the Canadian court would have been more likely to have found the publication of the link to be defamatory. In this case, though, all the link is, is the equivalent of an academic citation to the original source material for the material that was actually quoted.

A PDF with the entire Crookes decision is found here, at the following hyperlink:

http://www.p2pnet.net/stuff/crookes%20vwikimedia.pdf

Trying to find American cases is a little more difficult - here is a hyperlink to a US COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES decision in an unrelated matter (actually a child pornography case under the Uniform Code of Military Justice) that relates to the publication of a hyperlink being held to not equal publication of the information contained in the hyperlink:

http://pub.bna.com/eclr/070199_051408.pdf

On the other hand, we have a federal statute that is clear and on point - 47 U.S.C. 230 (c) (1), which is one part of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that survived judicial review. Section 230 provides:

“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

- and just in case someone thinks a state or local law has to be checked, the answer is no - that's covered by 47 U.S.C. 230 (e) (3), which states:

“No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

It is clear that Dr. Lynn Conway should be able to use a hyperlink as a citation to a site that arguably contains defamatory material, as the source of the non-defamatory material contained on her own site.

There is a California case interpreting the language of the statute, Barrett v. Rosenthal (40 Cal. 4th 33; 146 P.3d 510; 51 Cal. Rptr. 3d 55; 2006 Cal. LEXIS 13529), which makes it clear that the federal law is not limited to protecting ISPs but is also applicable as protection for so-called "distributors."

I would suggest that Peter M. Jacobsen do a little basic research on United States and Canadian law before sending threatening "lawyer letters" on behalf of his clients that appear to have no legal basis.

But let's get to the bottom line here: We know that [he who must not be named] performs harmful reparative therapy on children. I have seen some of the results of his so-called therapy on television, and I am sorry to say that on the basis of the mental suffering caused by his abusive treatments, this is a person whose credentials should be revoked, strictly on the basis of the fact that his treatments are abusive of the children he is purporting to treat. It is an outrage that this man has any connection with the American Psychiatric Association, much less a chairmanship of a committee rewriting a portion of the DSM. I may only have a BA in psychology and a JD (you can call me "Dr." too, but that's not customary), and I am not likely to ever be called upon as an expert witness on matters of child abuse, but I know the results of child abuse when I see them. And Kenneth Zucker's reparative therapy on children with gender identity issues *is* child abuse. Truth is an absolute defense under the law of defamation, so it does not bother me to make the allegation of child abuse solely on the basis of having seen television clips of children that Zucker (Darn, I mean [he who must not be named]!) has treated.

What [he who must not be named] and his lawyer are doing here is prestidigitation - they are trying to paint Professor Conway falsely with a "libel" brush in an attempt to discredit her, to take the focus off the abuse this man is foisting off on the public as treatment for children exhibiting a cross-gender identity, regardless of how the child ultimately resolves the identity issue as an adult.

Professor Conway deserves our support. I hope she continues to speak out on issues that affect us. And I hope that she is not deterred by threats of legal action that are intended to discredit her falsely.

Start a Dialogue? Yes, we CAN!

Now that Rev. Rick Warren has delivered his invocation at the Obama inauguration, perhaps we can start to focus on how we’re going to be advancing the cause of gaining recognition of equal civil rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people under federal law.

For those who don’t think we should be ready to move forward, ready, let’s recap the situation:

Rick Warren is the pastor of the Saddleback Church, an evangelical mega-congregation in Lake Forest, California, and is the author of a best-selling book, The Purpose Driven Life.

His notoriety in LGBT circles peaked when, after having equated same-sex marriage with incest, pedophilia and polygamy (though it’s pretty obvious to me that the equivalency of these things in his mind may charitably be limited to “these are things Rick doesn’t equate with marriage”), he was invited by the Obama people to deliver the invocation at the Inaugural.

Here is what he said at the time, in an interview:

Rick Warren: But the issue to me is, I’m not opposed to that as much as I’m opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Steven Waldman: Do you think, though, that they are equivalent to having gays getting married?

Rick Warren: Oh I do.

If it was merely a matter of drawing a line from Point A to Point B, it might have been what Joe Solmonese of HRC hysterically called “a punch in the gut.” Or it might not.


There was was more to it – there was a point in the presidential campaign at which Barack Obama and John McCain appeared to speak at the Saddleback Church, and Rick Warren endured much criticism from hard core Right Wing Christianists for allowing Obama to speak.

I’ll let singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge have the floor now – I’ve said and written from a similar viewpoint, but I think I’ll give the platform to her. She actually had a chance to talk to Warren. Here is what she says about her meeting:

"On the day of the [Muslim Public Affairs Council ] conference [at which Rick Warren was the guest speaker] I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn’t sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection. He struggled with Proposition 8 because he didn’t want to see marriage redefined as anything other than between a man and a woman. He said he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about proposition 8 when he mentioned pedophiles and those who commit incest. He said that in no way, is that how he thought about gays. He invited me to his church, I invited him to my home to meet my wife and kids. He told me of his wife’s struggle with breast cancer just a year before mine. When we met later that night, he entered the room with open arms and an open heart. We agreed to build bridges to the future.”

After her meeting, Melissa Etheridge bravely went forth with her message of peace and reconciliation:

"I believe I understand Obama's choice here. I believe that Barack Obama wants to be the President of the entire United States. Pastor Rick Warren reached out to him, brought him into his church during the campaign, which outraged many members of his church. Yet he reaches across and I think this is Obama reaching back and going, 'I think we can disagree on things, yet we can still all move forward. We need to get past our differences.' And I just want to make sure that as the liberals and progressives and Democrats or whatever you want to call us are moving into this new time with this new president do not say that they, the Evangelicals who say such horrible things about gays, they have to stay over here and we're not going to let them in. That makes us no better than the last administration."

After hearing the actual words Warren used, Melissa continues:

"Just because he (compares gays to incest or polygamy) does not mean I have to not speak to him, or don't ever want to be in his company. We had a crazy experience at the Muslim Public Affairs Council conference...We met, we spoke. He's a fine person...He said he was trying to make the definition of marriage not change, not necessarily saying that gays are pedophiles or any of that stuff. One can draw whatever they want from that. This is what he told me."

Now, I am going to reproduce the Rick Warren invocation here, highlighting what may be words of conciliation:

Let us pray.

Almighty God, our father, everything we see and everything we can't see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story.

The Scripture tells us Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one. And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

Now today we rejoice not only in America's peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States.

We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership.

And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven.

Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all.

May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (hay-SOOS), who taught us to pray, Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.

Amen.

I underlined the parts of the prayer that seem to be showing a conciliatoty attitude. Certainly invoking the idea of a loving God who loves all his creation (even gay and trans people) is a good start.

Invoking the idea that as Americans, we must be dedicated and committed to "freedom and justice for all" doesn't seem to close the door on civil marriage for same-sex couples.

And if I want to be charitable (and why shouldn’t I be?), I would put a very positive spin on his “When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.”

Of course, this last sentiment might be in accord with one of the schizophrenic sections of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church with respect to the treatment of gay people:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,[140] tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."[141] They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Now, aside from the catechism being totally incorrect about Sacred Scripture and natural law in relation to “homosexual acts” in Paragraph 2357, leading to the false conclusion that such “acts” cannot be approved, the next section, with regard to the treatment of gay people, says “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Now, I know Rick Warren isn’t Catholic, but perhaps he’s suffering from the same sort of schizophrenic “I want to treat gay people with compassion, but I can’t condone gay marriage or human rights laws” theology that grips the Catholic hierarchy.

I think that unlike those evangelicals who believe that “homosexuality is a choice” Warren may be reachable on the theological side. (Alas, with the Catholic hierarchy, the encrustations of mistaken “tradition” keep the Church on a wrong course.)

Let’s look at Warren’s prayer asking for forgiveness for failing to treat “our fellow human beings and all the earth” with the respect we deserve as a start.

On the other hand, it may not be so far removed from the Pope’s 2008 Christmas Greeting to the Curia and Prelature referred to in my last post. The key is to discern what Pastor Warren might mean, regarding the LGBT community, to be the respect that we “deserve.”


I think that Pastor Warren, despite being “on the other side” on the marriage issue, may have a more open mind on the subject than he gets credit for when things are painted in pure black-white, good-evil terms. And he isn’t encrusted with as many barnacles of “tradition” as the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

We have to remember, too, that President Barack Obama, while certainly better on LGBT issues than anyone who has ever been President of the United States, still himself falls short of endorsing full equal civil rights for our community. There is a need for dialogue with the Administration as much as there is a need to dialogue with those with whom we have a fundamental disagreement.

The immediate and marked change on the White House website, including us under Civil Rights in the Administration’s agenda, is a huge step. The inclusion of “gender identity and expression” for the first time in the anti-discrimination hiring policy of this administration, in addition to the inclusion of sexual orientation (first added by President Clinton), is also monumental.

We have hope. With this Administration, we have a chance to change minds – and the opportunity is also clear that we must engage those who oppose the recognition of our rights with clearly articulated arguments from all perspectives. We do have the Judaeo-Christian ideological high ground, as well as the constitutional high ground, as well as the critical underpinning of the basic underlying rational philosophy under which the United States was created. It is only a matter of articulating these things in a way in which reasonable opponents can understand.

There may well be a basic disconnect between our understanding and that of our opponents. We can look at the same constitution, and the same sacred scripture, and the same philosophical writing, and come to such an amazingly and diametrically opposed conclusion.

If we can come to the point where we can resolve this underlying disconnection, I believe that we will find much more support in unanticipated places – support we can never find if we do not engage in the conversation. We may not have to convince, we may only have to go so far as to get the opposition to realize that “reasonable minds may differ” in order to defuse the opposition. After all, America is founded on the idea of respect, tolerance and free exercise for the religious beliefs of others as well as ourselves. If we can convince Christianists that their beliefs are not the only valid Judaeo-Christian understanding on our issues, they might well be willing to go the distance with regard to civil marriage – especially when they come to the realization that there would be no infringement of their right to refuse to sanctify a marriage that does not follow their interpretation of scripture.

Yes, we CAN!

Another “Galileo Moment” from the Vatican?

Benedict XVI’s 2008 Christmas greeting message to the Roman Curia and Prelature, given on December 22, 2008, is finally available in an official English text from the Vatican website. Not having an official English translation previously made it more difficult to divine the exact meaning of the Pope’s words.

There is a controversial part of the address which was interpreted in the press as being a condemnation of transsexuality, homosexuality, or both, depending on how the translation was made into English from the previously available Italian or German versions. While I am aware of (and disagree with) the Vatican position on transsexual people from the 2003 Catholic News Service news report of a leaked Year 2000 “sub secretum” document issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after reviewing the official English translation, I am not entirely sure that the Pope’s statement really constitutes a condemnation of my people. But the Pope’s talk can be interpreted as an attack on feminism, gay marriage, and “gender” that isn’t based on birth-genital-essentialism.

Here is the relevant portion:

“Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian creed, the Church cannot and must not limit herself to passing on to the faithful the message of salvation alone. She has a responsibility towards creation, and must also publicly assert this responsibility. In so doing, she must not only defend earth, water and air as gifts of creation belonging to all. She must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood.

If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work.

What is often expressed and understood by the term “gender” ultimately ends up being man’s attempt at self-emancipation from creation and the Creator. Man wants to be his own master, and alone – always and exclusively – to determine everything that concerns him. Yet in this way he lives in opposition to the truth, in opposition to the Creator Spirit.

Rain forests deserve indeed to be protected, but no less so does man, as a creature having an innate “message” which does not contradict our freedom, but is instead its very premise.

The great scholastic theologians described marriage, understood as the life-long bond between a man and a woman, as a sacrament of creation, which the Creator himself instituted and which Christ – without modifying the “message” of creation – then made part of the history of his covenant with humanity.

An integral part of the Church proclamation must be a witness to the Creator Spirit present in nature as a whole, and, in a special way, in the human person, created in God’s image.

From this perspective, we should go back to the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sex as a consumer good, the future against the exclusive claims of the present, and human nature against its manipulation.”

Time Magazine’s brief commentary, based on earlier unofficial translations indicated:

“Without actually using the word [transsexual], Benedict took a subtle swipe at those who might undergo sex-change operations or otherwise attempt to alter their God-given gender. Defend "the nature of man against its manipulation," Benedict told the priests, bishops and cardinals gathered Monday in the ornate Clementine hall. "The Church speaks of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this order is respected." The Pope again denounced the contemporary idea that gender is a malleable definition. That path, he said, leads to a "self-emancipation of man from creation and the Creator."”

I think it may be a stretch to call this a “subtle” swipe at transsexuals, without looking at the background that leads ti this conclusion. It would require a misunderstanding of the nature of transsexuality to come to this conclusion. Of course, there is every indication of serious error in the Roman Catholic Church’s approach to transsexual people that involves just such a misunderstanding.

There is very little in the way of official and available doctrinal material published by the Church on the subject of transsexuals. The most prominent item is a “sub secretum” document sent by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to papal nuncios in the year 2000, and then distributed to bishops in 2002 (and then leaked to Catholic News Service in February 2003). My only source for the test is the tantalizingly brief CNS report – I have never seen the actual document.

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- After years of study, the Vatican's doctrinal congregation has sent church leaders a confidential document concluding that "sex-change" procedures do not change a person's gender in the eyes of the church. Consequently, the document instructs bishops never to alter the sex listed in parish baptismal records and says Catholics who have undergone "sex-change" procedures are not eligible to marry, be ordained to the priesthood or enter religious life, according to a source familiar with the text. The document was completed in 2000 and sent "sub secretum" (under secrecy) to the papal representatives in each country to provide guidance on a case-by-case basis to bishops. But when it became clear that many bishops were still unaware of its existence, in 2002 the congregation sent it to the presidents of bishops' conferences as well. "The key point is that the (transsexual) surgical operation is so superficial and external that it does not change the personality. If the person was male, he remains male. If she was female, she remains female," said the source.

From what I can glean from the news reports, the position announced secretly by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith appears to be a “birth-genital- essentialist” view, that gender identity is determined by the physiology of one’s genitalia at the time of birth. Genitalia develop along one of two duct systems wolffian and mullerian, both of which are present during fetal development. The duct system that remains undeveloped eventually withers away after birth. The result of the Church’s genital-based essentialism is the belief that there are only two possible sex assignments, each based on genital shape at birth.

This genital essentialism fails to take into account the physiological development of the entire fetus. Focus solely on genitals, though, and in better than 99.9% of all people, the other physiological developments, particularly in the brain, are consistent with genital development, and thus, for those people, the Church’s genital-based essentialism actually seems to work.

However, the Church ignores the scientific evidence of different physiological development in the makeup of transsexual brains that leads to a gender identity that is opposite that which is expected based on genital expectations. This leads to an erroneous understanding of te nature of that one-in-a-thousand who does not fit into the societal and Church expectation of gender.

The psychological factor of gender identity has a physiological basis in brain structure, according to the most recent scientific authority. This was first identified in a Dutch study made in 1994. While in most people the brain structures are in accord with the external genitalia, which is not true with transsexuals and transgender individuals.

The physiological situation with genital formation is also not clear-cut in all cases. In addition to male and female, there are intersexed individuals. Intersex is the current term that covers persons formerly identified as hermaphrodites, that is persons with genital structures that contain some of the elements commonly attributable to “male” and some elements commonly attributable to “female” sex assignments. It also includes those individuals with chromosomal variations that vary from standard XX and XY in the 46th chromosome. In addition, there are persons with XY chromosomes who have an insensitivity to androgens, whose chromosomes are technically “male” but whose bodies develop into a “female” form because of an inability of their cells to process testosterone.

The social issues relating to transgender, transsexual and intersexed individuals are not easily dismissed. We are not some sort of new phenomenon, we have been around since the dawn of human history. Scientists, no longer blinded by ancient Aristotelian pronouncements or Victorian Darwinian theory regarding “sexual selection” have begun to observe that binary gender is not the universal rule, even in the animal kingdom, often used as a rationale for observations of natural law.

It is easy for the Church hierarchy to dismiss a tiny minority of people who are different as being “disordered,” rather than recognizing the serious error the Chuch itself has made in its birth-genital-essentialist assumptions.

The Church hierarchy uses a very selective interpretation of sacred scripture to come to the conclusion that humanity is divided into male *or* female.

If we refer to the Bible and other ancient sources, it is clear that intersexed, transgender and transsexual people existed in biblical times. There are over twenty references in biblical texts to “eunuchs.” This is a catchall for a number of different sexual minorities not classified in accordance with the binary in accordance with external genitalia.

The clearest recognition of this comes in Matthew 19:12, in which Jesus is quoted describing different sorts of eunuchs. Some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by human intervention, and some become eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus was careful as to the last, stating that only those who can accept this should accept it.

If we look at the Pope’s 2008 Christmas greeting message to the Curia and Prelature on one level, it would seem to be first an attack on feminist philosophy that stresses equal human rights and dignity. Just in March 2008, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a ruling against “gender-neutral” references to God, such as “The Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier” and reaffirmed the patriarchal formulation of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” Cardinal Urbano Navarrete (a Jesuit priest recently elevated to the rank of Cardinal in a rare case of receiving the rank without being ordained a bishop, who is also one of the Vatican’s “experts” on transsexuals) penned the official commentary of the ruling. Any baptism using a gender-neutral inclusive formulation has been ruled to be invalid.

On another level, the Pope’s Christmas greeting to the Curia and Prelature is yet another of the Church’s attacks on gender-neutral marriage. The Church can only legitimately speak to sacramental marriage for members of the Church, and not to the secular civil recognition of marriage and marriage rights. For the Church to go beyond the sacramental issue and to widen the scope to insist that its official prejudice be inscribed into secular law, is an outrage, especially in nations such as the United States that recognize the free exercise of religion, and prohibit the government from imposing a religious belief on the people as a matter of law.

If the Pope’s statement Is to be construed as an attack on the transgender community, it requires an acceptance of the prerequisite genital-based “gender essentialism” which is the first fallacy in the Church’s gender identity structure. And we know from what little material there is that is available, that this is the Church position – so I must conclude that even if the language may make it seem a bit less clear, the Pope’s message may fairly be construed as yet another demeaning of the transgender community.

The scriptural reading on which we should meditate when we read the Pope’s message is Matthew 7:15-27 (Douay-Rheims translation):

15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

24 Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock,

25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand,

27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.

Benedict XVI is one of these false prophets – he wears the mantle of the shepherd of the flock, but by showing that he has little concern for different sheep, he reveals his ravening wolf nature. By basing his, and the Church’s, arguments on false premises that are against scientific wisdom, he is like the tree that bears evil fruit, or the man who builds his house on a foundation of shallow sand without deeply-rooted pilings.

The message as against feminism? The Catholic Church bears the evil fruit of patriarchal domination. One need only read German Theologian Uta Ranke Heinemann’s work “Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven” to get a grasp of the sexist misogyny that has gripped the Roman Church from the time of the Church Fathers in the fourth century.

The message as against gender-neutral marriage? Many of the documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the issue of homosexuality are based on false interpretation of sacred scripture.

The message as against transsexual and transgender people? The foundation of the Church’s “sub secretum” teaching is founded on the shallow sand of an ill-conceived understanding of natural law, based more on Aristotle and “Scholastic theologians” than on the observations of modern science. It is a teaching that, like the condemnation of Galileo, will not stand up to the rain, the flood, and the wind of rational scientific inquiry.

When God created human beings, we were created “male and female” in the image and likeness of God – this means that God is “male and female” for us to be created in God’s image. And each of us, individually, is not only male or only female, but is “male and female,” just as God is. Indeed, some may be “mostly male” and others “mostly female” and still others may have distinct parts that developed ion different directions. But we are all children of God.

Benedict’s word’s are truly based on “antiquated metaphysics” and are not rooted in science or natural law. When the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as “man and woman,” Benedict means rather “man *or* woman” – and he disregards the “language of Creation” found in his own Sacred Scripture.

In the past year, a Reform Rabbi from Pleasantville, New York, reported on his discovery of a hidden Name of God found in the Tetragrammaton (the four letters that represent “the Name of God” – usually rendered in English as YHWH). The Rabbi realized that if the Tetragrammaton were to be read and pronounced *backward* it would result in the Name of God working out as Hebrew (hu/hee) for “He/She” – which correlates directly with the clue found in Genesis 1:27 – that “male and female” is the image and likeness of God.

Rabbi Mark Sameth writes in his article, after thirteen years of research, “If we read the text as a mystic might, paying extremely close attention, assuming that the text conceals more than it reveals, we may find hints regarding God’s androgynous nature, so to speak, peeking out through the surface level of the Torah.” He comes to the conclusion, correctly I think, that the God of the Israelites was not a masculine, patriarchal deity, but a he/she bi-gendered God. This is a far cry from the sexist, misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic utterances of Benedict XVI – stated in soft tones and with great apparent concern for the welfare of humanity, but with the sharp teeth and fangs showing beneath the mantle.

Against this backdrop of an all-inclusive God, the Roman Catholic Church’s ruling clinging to masculine-gendered terminology for the Trinity even more “antiquated” and illogical. Of course, recognizing a bi-gendered God might mean that the Vatican would have to revisit the idea of the eligibility of women for the priesthood, and the eligibility of transgender people for any kind of religious vocation.

The Roman Catholic Church eventually “got it” when it came to Galileo, even if it took nearly 400 years for Benedict XVI’s predecessor John Paul II, to get around to apologizing for the Inquisition’s actions under Urban VIII, and rehabilitating Galileo, previously found to have been a heretic.

Perhaps Benedict XVI could learn from this quote from Galileo “The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach how to go to heaven and not how to go to the heavens.”

Maybe Benedict might work on helping Roman Catholics make their own marriages work better, rather than imposing on a secular world the narrow, ill-conceived antiquated, outdated and and unscientific views of the Church on the rights of women, gays and trans people. When the Church meddles with Caesar, it is as bad as Caesar meddling with the Church.

Senator McCain's Constitutional Error?

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

In the most recent (the third and last) presidential debate for the 2008 election, I found Senator McCain's apparent ignorance of the last phrase in the reservation to be the reason for his answer to the question on women's reproductive rights and the appointment of Supreme Court justices:

SCHIEFFER: But you don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

MCCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think there were a lot of decisions that were bad. I think that decisions should rest in the hands of the states. I'm a federalist. [Senator McCain apparently doesn't know what a "federalist" is.] And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the United States Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. Now, let me say that there was a time a few years ago when the United States Senate was about to blow up. Republicans wanted to have just a majority vote to confirm a judge and the Democrats were blocking in an unprecedented fashion.

We got together seven Republicans, seven Democrats. You were offered a chance to join. You chose not to because you were afraid of the appointment of, quote, "conservative judges."

I voted for Justice Breyer [Ed. note: I think he meant Justice Alito] and Justice Ginsburg. Not because I agreed with their ideology, but because I thought they were qualified and that elections have consequences when presidents are nominated. This is a very important issue we're talking about.

Senator Obama voted against Justice Breyer [Ed. note: I think once again that he meant Justice Alito - at least he's consistent!] and Justice Roberts on the grounds that they didn't meet his ideological standards. That's not the way we should judge these nominees. Elections have consequences. They should be judged on their qualifications. And so that's what I will do.

I will find the best people in the world -- in the United States of America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.

Senator McCain's ignorance of the meaning of the term "federalist" is too readily apparent (it means someone who supports a strong central government, not the "state's rights" view that the senator has maintained for a long time - perhaps Senator McCain should call himself an anti-federalist - but his friend or rather, Governor Sarah Palin's friend) Joe Sixpack and his economic adviser Joe the Plumber probably don't know what a federalist is, either - it just sounds comfortingly "pro-American.")

He also doesn's understand the term "litmus test" (He clearly wants one - his idea of "qualifications" is a litmus test - but doesn't want to admit it because he doesn't like the term.) He doesn't even understand the idea of "strict adherence to the Constitution" is a "litmus test" or he might not be so critical of Roe v. Wade, especially in light of that last clause in the tenth amendment.

Senator McCain should reflect on what the tenth amendment really means. The Bill of Rights, including the tenth amendment, was added to the Constitution to protect individual liberties. The tenth amendmenr makes it clear that powers not apportioned to the federal government are apportioned to the states - or to "the people."

I believe the intent of the founding fathers with that last phrase was to implicate that even the states have limits on what they can legislate - and those limits are where their laws interfere with the individual civil and constitutional rights of the people themselves. Of course, there is a bit of disagreement among constitutional scholars about the exact meaning of the phrase - but Senator McCain is no constitutional scholar.

When it comes to women's constitutionally protected reproductive rights, Senator McCain's so-called "states rights" (not federalist) standpoint doesn't wash because it interferes with the individual rights of the people.

Senator McCain stands for the proposition that, constitutionally, the idea of equal marriage rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is an idea that states should legislate, and the federal government shouldn't interfere, at least if the federal Defense Against Marriage Act is not held to be unconstitutional.

Senator McCain may not agree with the Loving v. Virginia decision - a 1967 decision by the United States Supreme Court hat held that there are limits on the states in issues relating to marriage rights - and the right to regulate marriages does not include the right to prohibit marriages between members of different races. Again, the rights of the people, guaranteed by the federal Consitution, trump, or rather limit, the states' rights to discriminate, even in an area like marriage traditionally seen as "reserved to the states."

Senator McCain, like his friend President Bush, and also doesn't seem to understand the concept of judicial activism - it isn't judges legislating from the bench. It's judges standing up to the tyranny of the majority. It's judges protecting individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution from encroachment by either the federal government or the states. Judges who don't recognize that role have no place on the United States Supreme Court.

This last debate is just one more reason for people to be voting for Senator Obama on November 4th.

Can Roman Catholics vote for Obama?

Can Roman Catholics morally vote for candidates who support laws that protect women's rights to reproductive health (including abortion) or equal marriage rights for all citizens (even gays and lesbians)?

My short answer is that if Catholics have an informed conscience, they should feel free to ignore the immoral instructions from members of the Church hierarchy that make opposition to abortion rights the litmus test for supporting a candidate - but who at the same time ignore the issue of the prosecution of an unjust and immoral war.

There is a controversy that Catholics in American politics face - the fact that the Church hierarchy insists on mandating that their personal beliefs as Catholics must guide their work as legislators, government executives or judges (at least on the abortion issue).

Catholic public officials in a society ostensibly based on the principles of freedom and individual liberty, who may well as a matter of their own "moral" belief would not make a choice themselves to have an abortion, but who see a difference between their own personal beliefs as Catholics and the imposition of those beliefs on others who do not believe in the same way, are in trouble with the Catholic Church hierarchy.

For just one example of the directives that go out from the Vatican to constrain Catholic public officials in America, take a look at the following 2003 document published by the Vatican and issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (a Catholic Congregation in the Curia formerly known as The Holy Office and earlier, The Inquisition):

In this document, the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy actually states:

"When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."

There are conservative Catholic bishops in America who have denied access to the sacraments to Catholic politicians who don't vote as the Church requires, when it comes to abortion or gay rights.

Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden, a practicing Catholic, has been denied Holy Communion in the Diocese of Scranton, because the local bishop, like the people behind that dreadful document on marriage, is trying to meddle in American politics. (Sadly, the hierarchy doesn't do the same to Catholic politicians who vote for unjust wars.)

There is apparently an inherent conflict between the philosophy of tolerance and respect for disparate religious viewpoints that marks the American Experiment in establishing a democratic republic that has protection of individual rights, differences and dignity, and the repressive attitude of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which wants to impose its version of Catholic morality on the secular world.

In my view, the Church oversteps its bounds. The private moral decision as to whether to have an abortion should belong to a woman. If she is a Catholic, she absolutely should take into account her beliefs as a Catholic as to the sinfulness of the decision. In America, people should have the right to make their own moral choices as long as no other living person is harmed.

While the Church considers all the rights of personhood to commence with conception, that actually doesn't have a great deal of support in sacred scripture (a much more likely time for "soul infusion" would be when a born person takes their first breath - but I shouldn't be arguing theology here).

There is certainly room for people of good will and different faiths to disagree.It's a similar thing with marriage - the Catholic Church doesn't have to sanctify a marriage involving a same-sex couple. If the Church wants to excommunicate gay Catholics who get civilly married, that is the Church's right.

But to tell Catholic politicians that even if they are never going to enter into a gay marriage themselves, that they must oppose civil marriage rights for gay people or be in a state of sin, goes against the principles under which the United States was founded.

Catholics in American public life are thus faced with a dilemma - if they obey the Church, they accept the anti-American idea that the Church position on a controversial issue is not only for Catholics, but must be imposed on everyone. If they don't, they can be denied access to the Sacraments, and be judged public sinners.

The Church hierarchy's position on this is untenable. Essentially, the only moral choice for a Catholic who respects the hierarchy's teaching and the underlying principles of American liberty and civil rights is to stay out of politics.

The moral depravity (yes, moral depravity!) of Church leaders who use their clout to try to force Catholics in politics to vote against their own consciences and the principles of American democracy and the liberties and freedoms we cherish - especially when it is on two issues and ignores a myriad of other issues, is despicable.

If a politician were to introduce legislation that would force women to have abortions, the Church would be right to be against it. If a politician were to propose that would force all churches to bless gay unions, the Church should rightly oppose it. These would be laws that interfere with personal moral choices that do not harm other people. (Fetuses may be "human life" but they are not (yet) people.)

But when Church leaders don't use their moral suasion to oppose an unjust war such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq, when they ally themselves with those whose political philosophy lacks true compassion for the poor and downtrodden, but instead rail against gay rights and women's rights. they show the true extent of their erroneous thinking.

Their meddling in American politics could hurt Catholics in American politics, too. it was not so long ago that Catholics were viewed with nearly the same sort of suspicion that many modern Americans see in Muslims today - Catholics were different; they didn't eat meat on Friday; their religious rites were in a foreign language; they were different from the WASPs who ran the country and were the majority.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy had to tell people that he would not be taking his marching orders from the Vatican.

In 1960, the Catholic Church wasn't giving orders to Catholics in public office. In 2003, they did.

If it wasn't for the fact that many Catholics in politics have used their consciences to try to separate Church teaching from the good of the American people, we'd be in a lot more trouble in this country than we already are.

What might work in a country where Roman Catholicism is the official state religion and all the people in the society must belong to the Church (or else) fails terribly in a nation built on principles that include religious freedom and individual human rights.

The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy oversteps its bounds when it interferes with the individual liberties guaranteed to all Americans.

So to my Catholic friends, use your moral compass and informed conscience and please vote for Obama on November 4th - he may not be perfect but he's a lot better than the other major candidate.

Foreign Policy: Missing a History Lesson on Iran?

The recent vice presidential debates had me cringing at some of the answers from both sides, particularly on the issue of marriage rights. But there were other areas where I am not so sure that any of the major candidates seemed to be very strong - one of those things is with regard to Middle East foreign policy, particularly as it relates to Iran. Here is a segment from the Biden/Palin debate last week:

IFILL: Let's move to Iran and Pakistan. I'm curious about what you think starting with you Senator Biden. What's the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan? Explain why.

BIDEN: Well, they're both extremely dangerous. I always am focused, as you know Gwen, I have been focusing on for a long time, along with Barack on Pakistan. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons.

Pakistan's weapons can already hit Israel and the Mediterranean. Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be very, very destabilizing. They are more than - they are
not close to getting a nuclear weapon that's able to be deployed. So they're both very dangerous. They both would be game changers.

But look, here's what the fundamental problem I have with John's policy about terror instability. John continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it's going to come as our security services have said, it is going to come from al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where they live. That's where they are. That's where it will come from. And right now that resides in Pakistan, a stable government needs to be established. We need to support that democracy by helping them not only with their military but with their governance and their economic well-being. There have been 7,000 madrasses built along that border.

We should be helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in the region so that we're actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that's where bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actionable intelligence.

IFILL: Governor, nuclear Pakistan, unstable Pakistan, nuclear Iran? Which is the greater threat?

PALIN: Both are extremely dangerous, of course. And as for who coined that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was the General Petraeus and al Qaeda, both leaders there and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and the leader of al Qaeda.

An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons period. Israel is in jeopardy of course when we're dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran. Iran claiming that Israel as he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should be wiped off the face of the earth. Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire nuclear energy, nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, the Castro brothers, others who are dangerous dictators are one that Barack Obama has said he would be willing to meet with without preconditions being met first.

And an issue like that taken up by a presidential candidate goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment. A statement that he made like that is downright dangerous because leaders like Ahmadinejad who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel should not be met with without preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first.

I honestly don’t think that either the Democratic or the Republican candidates, or, for that matter, most of the people in the American foreign policy establishment, have a real grasp of the issues that Iran poses toward stability in the Middle East.

Indeed, the single most destabilizing presence in the region is the presence of the American military in Iraq, and the single most destabilizing event was the ill-conceived and catastrophic invasion and occupation of Iraq. The result of the American invasion has been the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure and the balkanization of that nation as competing mostly-sectarian interests, previously held in check by the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussein, have erupted into violence.

No one seems to take into account the history of the region, and the fact that the United States has since 1953 succeeded to the colonialist mantle in the region previously held by the British, dating back to their “great game” diplomacy in which there were twin goals of (a) exploiting resources in the region, and (b) denying Czarist Russia, and later the Soviet Union, access to a warm water port to maintain a powerful navy fleet.

Both Iraq and Iran have suffered from American interventionism, and Americans, sadly, do not seem to have maintained a proper historical perspective. Essentially, we seem to suffer from a collective amnesia when it comes to politically expedient short-term “solutions” that have turned into long-term nightmares.

First, let’s look at some truly “ancient history.” Iran is one of the few nations in the world to have had an independent existence that goes back to ancient times: the Persian empire, the Parthian empire and Persia, with some intervening occupations by Macedonian Greeks, Mongols, and some others, have evolved into modern Iran. When Islam swept across the region, Iranians developed their own version of Islam, Shi’ia, which has doctrinal differences with the Sunni Islam that prevails in much of the rest of the middle east (excepting, notably, southern Iraq, which has a Shi’ite majority).

More recently, Persia/Iran has been humiliated by British colonialism in its “great game,” much in the same way the Brits humiliated the Chinese empire. Unlike the situation in which China was opened up to Western exploitation by British foisting of opium on the Chinese in trade for Chinese goods and the auctioning of areas of Chinese influence to other western powers, the Brits forced the Persian government to accept British control of its tobacco and petroleum industries, in return for nearly nothing.

Smarting from the abuse of the British, the Persian government developed close ties with Nazi Germany, prompting an allied (pre-American involvement in World War II) imvasion and occupation of Iran – the British military forces smashed the Shah’s armies in a month.
After World War II, Iran emerged with a constitutional monarchy, and a democratically-elected government, headed by the dormer sha’s son as monarch, and led by a Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh.

In 1953, spurred on by false reports from the British that Mossadegh was going to transform Iran into a communist country, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles sent the CIA in to effectuate a coup d’etat against the democratically-elected government. Iran had already nationalized its oil industry, giving the boot to the British control of its petroleum industry. In 1953, the American-sponsored coup succeeded, leading Iran into a brutal dictatorship under the leadership of Shah Reza Pahlavi. America succeeded to Britain in the exploitation of Iranian oil resources during this time, and as long as the Shah was an American friend, the United States looked the other way at the brutality of the regime.

During the time of the Shah’s regime, the only freedom existed in the mosques, and even so, many of the Shi’ite religiousl leaders ended up in exile, including the Ayatollah Khomenei, who spent many years in France.

When the revolution came in Iran, it was led by the religious elements, and the Ayatollah set up a religious theocracy in the country – a development that was not forseen by the Eisenhower administration when it engineered that coup in 1953.

During all that time, while the government of Iran was America’s friend, it was clear that America was not the friend of the Iranian people. And when the Iranians took American embassy workers hostage, and painstakingly reconstructed shredded embassy documents that showed the extent of Americn complicity in the Shah’s regime, American amnesia took hold.
President Jimmy Carter declared that the 1953 coup was “ancient history,” during a February 13, 1980 press conference:

Q: . . . Mr. President, do you think it was proper for the United States to
restore the Shah to the throne in 1953 against the popular will within Iran?

PRESIDENT CARTER: That's ancient history, and I don't think it's appropriate
or helpful for me to go into the propriety of something that happened 30
[actually 27] years ago.

(See the analysis published by the conservative Cato Institute in 1991 .) The Cato Institute paper covers a lot more than just the Iran situation – and all of what it does cover is relevant.
What is clear to me is that since 1953, the United States has consistently messed up in the Middle East. Support for Israel, while an important part of our foreign policy, has only played one part in the drama.

Right now, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons. China has nuclear weapons, as does India and Israel. Iran may well develop them, regardless of the further efforts the United States makes to alienate the Iranians.

While Senator Barack Obama’s avowed willingness to meet with the Iranian government “without preconditions” has met with hostility from the MaCain/Palin camp, it may well be that going to Iran with an olive branch and an acknowledgment of the wrongs done to Iran by America in the past, and acknowledging Iran’s interest in the region, including as a part of the solution to the Iraq crisis, will go far to help create an atmosphere in which relations can be repaired over time.

Of course, this is farther than even Barack Obama is openly willing to propose.

In the debate on this point, Senator Biden gave a better answer – that Pakistan is perhaps a greater danger in the region at this point than Iran. The best intelligence estimates has the Al Qaeda leadership in the ungovernable mountain region of northern Pakistan and Afghanistan – and points out the numerous anti-American Islamist Madrassas schools that have sprouted like mushrooms in the border areas of Pakistan, training potential future Al Qaeda militants.

Of course, all one has to do is look at the legions of “home-schooled” American kids whose parents espouse a different sort of religious fundamentalism, and the many public school systems in the United States that still teach thinly-veiled Christianist mythology as if it had any scientific validity. In many regards, these are no better than Madrassas schools, yet they are tolerated and even encouraged.

If America does not change our own course into the future, if we do not learn from the mistakes of America’s past foreign policy and present military policy, the future of our foreign policy looks as bleak as the dystopian vision of the “social conservative” Republican Orwellian nightmare does for domestic policy.

As our own “home-schooled” and ill-educated children grow up into future Sarah Palin clones, America will have a lot more in the way of collective amnesia, when dealing with the products of Madrassas schools where a great deal of the hatred instilled in the students is actually based on things that Americans don’t learn about in our own history.

We have an opportunity with this presidential election, to stem the tide of the “social conservative” dystopia that had its roots in the Reagan administration and has only begun to flower under the regime of George W. Bush.

Still, the road ahead isn’t guaranteed to be bump-free. It is going to take a decade to repair the economic damage the Bush Administration has wreaked on the American people with its “asleep at the switch” oversight of the mortgage lending market, antitrust, and wall street investment firms, combined with the economic devastation the cost of its ill-conceived and disruptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. The destabilization of the Middle East caused by the invasion and occupation, and the ignorance of the Bush Administration’s “lone cowboy” foreign policy has damaged America’s leadership role, prestige and honor in the world.

I don’t see the Obama/Biden ticket as a panacea. They’re wrong on important issues like marriage, but even on that, they’re less wrong than McCain/Palin. They’re better on every other foreign and domestic issue as well.

Does Sarah Palin secretly support Obama?

First, here's how we're doing with the Trans Community Supports Obama campaign:



Now, on to my current thoughts:

I don't really want to pick on Sarah Palin, perhaps because there are times she seems to be somewhat defenseless. While I would not criticize her for being a woman, or being "qualified" to be President (the proper age and a natural-born citizen - something John McCain actually isn't!), and I think it's nasty to harp on her so-called lack of "foreign policy experience" as a so-called qualification, when the last President to be elected who wasn't a Governor or Vice President was then-Senator John F. Kennedy. Obviously, foreign policy expericnce wasn't important when people elected either George W. Bush (all right, he was technically appointed by the Supreme Court as part of a bloodless coup) or Bill Clinton.

Anyway, all that aside, I saw a Katy Couric television interview of Governor Palin, and here is a Q&A from the interview transcript that intrigued me (emphasis added):

Couric: When President Bush ran for office, he opposed nation-building. But he has spent, as you know, much of his presidency promoting democracy around the world. What lessons have you learned from Iraq? And how specifically will you try to spread democracy throughout the world?

Palin: Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism also. It's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around this, around the world.

Whoa! Avowed "social conservative" Sarah Palin is actually calling for us tio spread democracy to bring freedom, independence, tolerance and respect for equality?

Is this the same Sarah Palin who called for a referendum to change the Alaska constitution tom deny same-sex partner benefits? (while she did veto a law that would strip the rights after the state supreme court held that same-sex partners are entitled to insurance benefits, she did so because she took good advice that the law would be unconstitutional. However, she wants to change Alaska's constitution to take away equal rights.

Is this the same Sarah Palin who opposes same sex marriage?

Is this the same Sarah Palin who opposes women's reproductive health rights?

Is this the same Sarah Palin who supports freedom and equality only for people who share her narrow religious beliefs? who thjinks the Iraq war is God's war against Islam? Who thinks the Iraq war is a fight against Al Qaeda? Who cut financing for a shelter for young unwed mothers?

If Sarah Palin really meant what she said, she means she is voting for Barack Obama! Because she and Senator McCain don't support freedom, respect, or tolerance for people who don;t fit their narrow view of who is entitled to freedom, respect, or tolerance.

On the other hand, she obviously means those words in the usual conservative Republican Orwellian Newspeak way:

Let's translate what she really meant to say:

(Not the real quote - biut translated into American English from Newspeak):
Palin: Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread [democracy] Conservative capitalistic Western American Culture for those who desire [freedom] to lose their cultural heritage, [independence] the loss of independence and an enforced alliance with the United States, [tolerance] enforcement of Traditionalist Christianist or similar fundamentalist-type Values, [respect for equality] and tolerance of inequality for those who don't agree or who are different.

All the more reason to make that donation to the Obama campaign - have you given yet? It's still not too late!

Here's the link again.