The World Vision Thing

h/t to the Millennial Pastor for
the great image (& responses)

You heard about this, right?

On Monday, World Vision announced in Christianity Today that it was changing its hiring policy so that gay Christians in legal marriages could be hired. Rich Stearns, president of World Vision, explained the policy change this way:

"It's easy to read a lot more into this decision than is really there," he said. "This is not an endorsement of same-sex marriage. We have decided we are not going to get into that debate. Nor is this a rejection of traditional marriage, which we affirm and support." "We're not caving to some kind of pressure. We're not on some slippery slope. There is no lawsuit threatening us. There is no employee group lobbying us," said Stearns. "This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues. We're an operational arm of the global church, we're not a theological arm of the church."

The shit immediately hit the fan with close to 5,000 people canceling their sponsorships of children. In less than 48 hours, Stearns announced that the board reversed the decision, saying it was a mistake.

"We made certainly in retrospect was a bad decision, but we did it with the right motivations. We weren’t trying to harm, or trying to find revenue, we weren’t doing it for wrong motives. We were trying to find some kind of solution to a divisive issue that would create some space of togetherness around differences within the church. Our regret is that we caused more division instead of finding a place of more unity."

So by Wednesday, I had a fair number of thoughts going through my head. Let me see if I can set them out in any sort of coherent order.

First of all, I'm hugely disappointed by how this whole thing played out. And although I'm upset at those who decided to withdraw their sponsorship of children, I have to admit I understand it. I have not been a financial supporter of World Vision in part because of its conservative Christian background (not the only reason, but one of them). So I'm certainly in the same boat as people who don't want to support an organization that they think represents values counter to their own.

I'm much more disappointed with World Vision, for a few reasons:

• They (apparently) didn't anticipate this. Really? Knowing the political climate we live in, knowing the reactive nature of our current Christian culture, knowing that homosexuality is THE hot button topic...they hadn't thought through the plan? 
• They didn't give this any time. Rachel Held Evans had begun rallying the troops to solicit new donors. I suspect many other church leaders would have done the same. I'd come home on Tuesday, after learning about the reaction, planning to donate to World Vision as a show of support for this change, knowing they were getting a beating. But they reversed the decision so quickly, I hadn't gotten to it yet. 
• It seems tremendously short-sighted. They said they weren't trying to find revenue, and that may be true, but I think they lost a great deal of revenue in the long run by the reversal. Look at these charts, people! Do you see which way these lines are trending? 






It's inconsistent. Of course, if opposition to the marriage of same-sex couples truly were one of the fundamental principles under which World Vision operates, then looking at the approval rates would be irrelevant. However, one post I read this week noted that World Vision Canada has had a non-discriminatory hiring policy for over 15 years. Which leads me to believe
This is a failure of leadership, not a principled decision. Was it based on the financials? It certainly could be. Their latest 990 (financial reporting) shows that expenses were higher than income in 2011 and 2012, at an increasing rate, so there may be serious financial pressures at work. But I am reminded of Friedman's book A Failure of Nerve, which explains that leadership means holding fast in the face of conflict, rather than immediately reacting to loud and negative voices. 

I was appalled at this particular statement in Stearns' retraction: "We’re learning that a number of people are calling back since the reversal to reinstate their sponsorship. They’re forgiving; they’re saying, ‘Hey we stand with you.’” That, sir, is not forgiveness, any more a child stopping a tantrum after you buy him a toy means the child has forgiven you.

I wish them the best, but I continue to believe this was a huge mistake.

***

FWIW, here are some of the international aid organizations to which I contribute, in case you're looking for other organizations to support:

Against Malaria Foundation: www.againstmalaria.com

CA Bikes: cabikes.org

Evidence Action: www.evidenceaction.org

Kiva: www.kiva.org

Partners in Health: www.pih.org

Various & Sundry: The arc of the moral universe and its fashion requirements

Yesterday, I watched Kris Perry and Sandra Stier get married at San Francisco City Hall, courtesy of a live feed online. Who'd'a'thunk it would have happened that fast after the Supreme Court decision on...Tuesday? Wednesday? I forget. So much has happened.

It's been a crazy week in many ways, made even more remarkable by the events that could be seen from a distance.

Not only did I get to watch two women get married 30 miles away, I also got to watch the most amazing political moment in Austin, Texas on Tuesday night. Did you hear about this? A Texas state legislator named Wendy Davis attempted a 13-hour-long filibuster to stop the passage of SB5, a bill that "would ban abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and force many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities and be classified as ambulatory surgical centers."

Also, doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles — a tall order in rural communities. If signed into law, the measures would have closed almost every abortion clinic in Texas, a state 773 miles wide and 790 miles long with 26 million people. A woman living along the Mexico border or in West Texas would have to drive hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion if the law passed. The law's provision that abortions be performed at surgical centers means only five of Texas' 42 abortion clinics are currently designated to remain in operation.

Tuesday evening as I watched events unfold on Twitter through the hashtag #standwithWendy, I found myself on the edge of my seat. Would she be able to continue the filibuster, without water, food, or a break for the restroom, until the session ended at midnight? Would legislators stop her filibuster on technicalities? And then, when they did, would other legislators be able to stall the action long enough to get to midnight. And then, when that wasn't enough, would the crowd in the rotunda be loud enough to drown out the call for a vote. And then, when the vote was taken, did it happen after midnight? And did they change the time stamp on the vote? It was amazing to watch. A-ma-zing.

And then the follow-up: the type of shoes she wore to stand for all that time has become a sensation. Check out the reviews on Amazon. Here's one:

If you are looking for a shoe that will never yield to the floor, pressure or good ol' fashioned boy's club bullying this is the shoe for you. It has been tested for hours, opportunities to yield to oppression were presented yet this shoe stayed firmly in place holding up half the sky for 13 hours. Highly recommended.

 In other fashion news, let us admire Ewan McGregor in his fabulous kilt as he receives the OBE.

That's quite lovely.

But back to the news. The satirical law website Lowering the Bar offers these Top Ten Notable Facts about the Gay Marriage Decisions. Did you know this was the "First use of phrase "legalistic argle-bargle" since 1824's Gibbons v. Ogden"? That's a primo completely made-up fact, right there.

You might also want to celebrate the end of the Supreme Court session with this fabulous T-shirt:

As I said, a crazy week. I didn't know the arc of the moral universe was going to be quite such a roller coaster. But carry on, people, a step at a time. Get comfy shoes if that's what it takes. And I am very thankful for the people who spend their life fighting the good fight. 

Pilgrimate to the shrine of The Martyrs of Uganda

Today is the feast of the Martyrs of Uganda, and five years ago today, since I was there, I made a pilgrimage to the shrine at Namugongo. Here's the post I wrote in 2008 on the blog I kept during my short time in Uganda.

A friend of mine who is preaching at the midweek service at his church this week noted that today, June 3rd, is the feast of the Martyrs of Uganda. He asked if this was an important observance here.

The answer to that is that it's a friggin' HUGE observance in these parts. It's a national holiday, for one thing. Banks, post offices, government offices are all closed. MCDT is closed. Walking around the neighborhood, more of the small shops around here are closed today than were closed on Good Friday.

Here's the deal, very briefly: in the late 1800's, various pages and members of the Bugandan court became Christian converts, both RC and Anglican. In 1886, the Bugandan king, or kabaka, Mwanga II, told them to give it up. (N.B. There is also the issue of the kabaka forcing young men to have sex with him, which complicates the issue of homosexuality in Uganda (but also seems to put paid to the argument that the Europeans brought homosexuality with them).) When they refused, these converts were tortured and killed in various nasty ways, leading up to a group of some 30 Christians being wrapped in straw mats and then burned at Namugongo, about 10 miles from the city center.

The observance is bigger than just Uganda, too. This event is credited as the beginning of indigenous Christianity in Africa. I read in the paper last week about a group of pilgrims from Kenya who were walking 600 km to the shrine in Namugongo. People come here from all over the continent.

Various miracles were attributed to the RC martyrs, leading to their canonization in the 1960's. I'm not sure when the Anglican martyrs were canonized; the whole process is different. But the general sense I get is that these martyrs are important, not only for their great faith and sacrifice, but because they're "some of our own." I'm not sure how many other great holy sites and pilgrimages are in sub-Saharan Africa, but this certainly is one of them.

I decided to pay my respects and make a short pilgrimage as well. Below is a picture of the shrine that I lifted from the web.



Only imagine it so thronged with people there were parts where you couldn't move. One man walking near me told me that 3 MILLION people come to the shrine. I don't know about that, but I have no doubt tens of thousands of people were there. (Note: I've added pictures I took when I was there at the bottom of this post.)

I took a boda boda to the base of the hill leading to Namugongo and walked over a couple of hills, following a trickle of people headed that way. Once I reached the area of Namugongo, the people filled the streets, walking on the left side, like traffic, with no cars allowed through. On either side of the street were vendors of all descriptions. Lots of them were selling paper visors with a depiction of the martyrs surrounded by flames on it. There were also some pretty graphic T-shirts with the slogan, "Martyrs of Uganda, pray for us." There was also lots of other stuff: clothing, umbrellas, cooked grasshoppers--you name it.

But as far as the religious part of it went, this seemed to be a Roman Catholic celebration. Even though the martyrs were both RC and Anglican, I didn't see any Anglican presence there at all.

I went to the shrine and walked all around the grounds. The shrine itself wasn't open, apparently, but there was a service going on from an open-sided grass thatched hut by a large rectangular pool. I couldn't quite tell because I could never see it, but my guess is that's where the service was coming from. Again, thousands upon thousands of people sitting on the grass or the muddy ground to listen to it from loudspeakers all over the grounds. I heard some of the prayers of the people, offered in all different languages: Swahili, Luganda, Luo, etc. The grounds of the shrine, too, were packed with vendors. Many were selling religious tracts, rosaries, and things of that nature. But I also saw some Manchester and Arsenal underwear for sale. Behind the toilets, there were people cooking matooke, beans, and other food.

I also saw one child with a badly burned face, sucking his thumb as a vendor tried to sell him and his mother something.

There was something about it all that was incredibly moving. I was of course reminded of Jesus' cleansing of the temple, but I also got at least an inkling of what that might have looked like, of how important it was for people to come to that one location, of what a huge windfall it was for the vendors as well as profitable for the temple.

One boy tried to sell me a certificate, signed by the bishop (I think), that certified that I had made a pilgrimage to the shrine of the Martyrs of Uganda. I was very tempted, too. But I don't actually need a certificate. I've still been there. And it was mighty powerful, too.

These pictures give you a sense of the going to and from Namugongo, as the crowds got bigger and then dissipated again.

My favorite profile pic for equality

I'm posting it now for posterity before he changes it back.

Changed my profile pic for marriage equality.Also, for bacon.
— Matthew Inman (@Oatmeal) March 26, 2013

Let's hear it for equality! And bacon!

Various & Sundry: Thimbles, wine, culture, and song

Oy! I'm glad to have a little time finally to blog. So much to blog, so little time. Let's start with the obituary pages this week:

Have you ever thought about thimbles? "Diane Pelham Burn, who has died aged 79, was an international authority on thimbles and other needlework tools," and after reading her obituary, I took thimbles much more seriously.

“It is hard for us to imagine how rare and valuable needlework tools once were,” she told an interviewer. “The British Museum has on display a last will and testament that was written around 1600 in which a mother bequeathed her treasured needle to her daughter. A single needle. It was a very important possession.”

Eye-opening.

My favorite blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates had two great contributions this week. First, on his own blog on the Atlantic, he spoke of the limits of free will--simply fascinating insight. And in the NY Times, he has an op-ed about culture as a set of tools that is nuanced and subtle and illuminating. Do check them out.

Also in the NY Times is a strange and wonderful essay from a man who looked for a writing job in the wine industry. He nails the culture in two sentences: "In California, casual equals power. The people in ties valet park the cars of the people in polos." Oh so perfect. The rest of the story about a truly abysmal interview is cringingly hilarious.

Also in cringingly hilarious wine news, Tom Wark does a painfully funny take-down of a wine review. Be sure to read to the end.

The New Yorker has an article about a Gay Pride event in Uganda.

Uganda’s Pride was a weekend- long event, made up of film screenings, a fashion show in drag, and all-night (and into the morning) parties. Two hundred and fifty tickets had been sold, though, as a vivacious trans woman named Cleo told me, fifty-some people showed up on Thursday and Friday, because many were still wary about gathering in large groups. “We couldn’t have done this kind of thing two years ago, and for those that were here back then, they almost can’t believe things are safer and better now,” Cleo said. The first two days went off without a hitch, and more people, predictably, showed up for the evening bacchanals.

"Safer and better"--wow. Good to hear that. And kudos to the kuchus who are making this happen.

Burned out on the Olympics yet? Or is everything starting to take on an Olympic tinge? I loved this Olympic-level competition for national anthems. Anthems are scored by

1. Transcendence of Historical Suffering (Freestyle)
2. 200m Inculcation of Hard-Won Optimism
3. Compulsory Tingliness
4. Volksgeist, the Expression of the Spirit of the People

Which nation's anthem will bring home the gold? You'll just have to read the article and see. No tape delay available.

Obit du jour: Rose Robertson

A spy obit, and so much more. Let's start with this great sentence:

After leaving school, she took a series of secretarial jobs, but her unremarkable existence changed dramatically during the war when she was recruited into SOE and later parachuted into Nazi-occupied France.

Yes, that would change one's existence. While there, she worked with "two young gay anti-Nazi fighters," which leads us to stage two:

In 1965 she took in two young male lodgers. On eventually learning that they were gay and had suffered because of their parents’ homophobic attitudes, Rose Robertson set up Parents Enquiry. This was the first organisation in Britain — and possibly the world — dedicated to advising and supporting parents and their lesbian, gay and bisexual children. She ran it almost single-handedly, without payment, from her home in south-east London until the 1990s.

Perhaps the best part of the story is that Parents Enquiry no longer exists, in some measure because it's no longer needed. And in some measure it's no longer needed because she offered it.

Various & Sundry, October 21

Whew! It's been a crazy couple of weeks and I'm gearing up for a garage sale tomorrow, but I wanted to post a couple of things to keep you occupied this weekend. Let's see here...

Loved this story about the man who accidentally received as size 1,450 slipper--not the 14.5 he ordered. Or it may be a PR stunt. Either way, this is a great photo:

In baseball-related news, according to the Futility Closet, "In 1990, weary of repetitive interviews, Phillies pitcher Don Carman posted this list of responses on his locker." It certainly...covers the bases.

Alton Brown also offers a great list of responses on how to fake it as a food and wine connoisseur. e.g.:

How to fake it as a wine connoisseur: Look at the wine list and narrow in on something like the Brunellos. Then look for a year that's missing, and say, "Do you have the '84?" And the waiter will say "no." And then they might recommend a different year, but you should reply, "Yeah but that year was too 'wet'" and they'll agree because they won't know the difference. And soon the conversation will get going and you're safe.

Very good, sir.

 I was touched by this report in Stars and Stripes about gay and lesbian servicemembers adjusting to life after DADT. The video interviews are particularly lovely.

I thought I knew both cheeses and fonts, but Cheese or Font showed me I don't. Quick now: Carnova--cheese or font? See? It's tough!

 And finally, the fabulous PeaceBang stands up for the rights of fat people to have opinions about aesthetics. Preach it, sister:

Vocation does not come in small, medium and large. The love of beauty and aesthetics is a calling, an orientation of the eye and of the heart. Pigeons, never let anyone tell you that you have the wrong sized body for the work you were called to do. Never let anyone tell you that you’re too ugly to be out in front. And never stop helping your people see the difference between admirable self-discipline around diet and exercise and moral righteousness. They’re two different things but have been intentionally, ingeniously and successfully conflated by the multi-billion dollar diet and beauty industries to be equivalent in the public mind. Self-hating people are much more susceptible to the latest weight-loss or beauty product. There’s a lot of economy riding on you and me feeling bad enough to go spend some money about it. 

Jesus never said nothing about loving only skinny kids. I was no better a person when I weighed 105 lbs than I am now. It just takes a whole lot more denim to get around my butt.

Amen, amen.

Sermon: Jacob and Rachel and Leah and Laban

Yesterday’s Old Testament lesson was about the marriage of Jacob to Leah and Rachel which seemed like a wide-open invitation to me to knock down the notion that there's a "Biblical concept of marriage." Well, maybe there is, but I don't think it's one we should follow, as you will see. Here’s my sermon (taken from notes, so not exact--and probably better for writing it down):

So let’s talk about the Biblical basis of marriage...

It will probably not come as a shock to you that I support same-sex marriage and the inclusion of gays and lesbians in the church. This sermon is not really about that; it is more about how we use and abuse scripture to support our culturally held positions. But given how often people use the Bible as a basis for talking about what marriage ought to look like, this lesson seems a prime example for exploring that the Bible may not be as clear-cut as we would like it to be.

Leaving aside the issue of the two wives, let’s take a look at how this passage describes marriage.

First of all, if you look at the story, you will see that Laban, Jacob’s uncle, is giving Jacob one of his daughter as a payment. She is basically traded away for seven years worth of work.

Second, the woman involved apparently has no say whatsoever in whom she marries. At the last General Convention, I heard Barbara Harris, the first woman bishop in the Episcopal Church who knows a thing or two about contentious issues, preach about the issue of the ordination of homosexuals, and she pointed out something interesting. She noted that until recently, all marriages were same-sex marriages, because they were contracts between a father and a groom.

Third, you will notice that Jacob doesn’t know who he is marrying. [From congregation: because it’s dark.] He marries someone and he doesn’t even know who it is.

Fourth: When Jacob complains to Laban that he has been duped, Laban, the girl’s father, says, just “finish out the week.” A week?! That’s what qualifies as sufficient time for an official marriage?

I’d also like to point out a parenthetical remark that may seem insignificant: it says, “(Laban gave his maid Zilpah to his daughter Leah to be her maid.)” Let’s be clear about this: he is giving his daughter this woman to be her slave. And we’re not just talking about someone to do the dishes, here. In the next chapter of Genesis, which you won’t hear, Rachel and Leah get into a child-bearing war that escalates rapidly as Rachel sends her “maid” to Jacob to bear children for her, and Leah sends her “maid” to Jacob to have further children.

And finally, and here is my favorite part, the line that echoes through history, when Jacob asks Laban why he has sent Jacob Leah instead of Rachel, Laban replied, "This is not done in our country--giving the younger before the firstborn.”

“This is not done in our country.” It’s not the done thing, it goes completely against the norms. I can just imagine how the rest of that conversation goes as Laban would explain that if he allowed Jacob to marry a younger daughter, then other men would want to marry younger daughters. And if that happened, then maybe the daughters would start to get ideas that they should have input in who they marry. And if that happened, then father might start getting cut out of the marrying-off process altogether. And you know what? He was absolutely right. And I don’t think any of us would want to go back to the way it used to be in their country.

***
In the Gospel for today, Jesus tells a series of parables, and unlike the previous two weeks, these parables are not explained with equivalents: “the sower is this, the seed is this, the wheat is this, the weeds are this...” Instead, we are left awash with images about the kingdom of heaven. In some of the parables, the kingdom of heaven is an object, like a treasure or a net. In some, the kingdom of heaven is an actor, like the merchant. In some, it’s kind of a mix: a seed that grows or yeast that spreads.

What it is not is a checklist: the kingdom of heaven is not something you can find by ticking off the proper boxes. Instead, Jesus gives us something far more tricky: AMBIGUITY

And that’s not easy. We want the Bible to give us clear-cut answers and straightforward directions and to tell us Exactly What To Do. But maybe it’s not as easy as that.

This series of parables ends with a final parable which, you will notice, is not describing the kingdom of God. Instead it says, “Every scribe...” It’s a parable about the readers and interpreters of Scripture. It says, “Every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old."

What is old and what is new. What this says to me is that we are called neither to get rid of all the old traditions in favor of what is the new wave of the future. Nor are we called to cling to our past and avoid strange new innovations. Instead, we need to be wise enough to find the treasure in them both and use them. It’s not as clear or clean as we would like it, but in the messy jumble of all the options, that is where we search diligently for the kingdom of heaven.

Various and Sundry, July 1

Well, the obituary highlight of my week--and yours, too, I'm sure--was the life of Norma Lyon, the 'Butter Cow' lady. The obit in the NY Times is the only time I've seen "you betcha" in an obituary. The Grim Reader pointed me to her obituary in the Wall Street Journal, which proclaims her "the most eminent butter sculptor in America" and reveals:

Ms. Lyon used low-moisture, salt-free butter—never margarine—for the bovines, which she built by dabbing softened butter on a wire-mesh armature. She worked inside a glass walk-in refrigerator, kept at 40 degrees Fahrenheit, and took a couple of days to produce a 600-pound cow.

Awesome! But Peeps are still my medium.

In the "whatever happened to..." category, there was also obituaries this week for Randall Adams. Who is Randall Adams, you ask? He was the man whose death sentence was overturned because of the incredible film The Thin Blue Line.

He actually died last October in such obscurity that the word only trickled out to the news media this week. The filmmaker Errol Morris, whom I follow on Twitter, reports, "How did the media find out about the death of Randall Adams? (Michael Rosenthal first told me; Ann Petrone confirmed it; and I tweeted it.)"

His was not a happy life. And the injustice he endured was staggering. The Times obit ends:

At the time his conviction was thrown out, wrongly convicted prisoners could get a lump sum payment of $25,000 if pardoned by the governor. But Mr. Adams was ineligible for the money. He had not been pardoned; his case had been dismissed.

He also did not receive the $200 given to prisoners when they are released on parole or on the completion of their sentences, Mr. Schaffer said. Again, Mr. Adams did not qualify.

A few church-ish articles to close. The first is a spot-on critique of a church culture that revolves around being relevant. "The desire for church to beat pop culture at its own game is a futile one," the author writes.

"If there is one thing our culture does not have in short supply, it’s entertainment. People do not need to get up on a cold Sunday morning, get dressed, get the kids ready and drive to another building to hear a bit of comedy or see a well-produced skit. Diversions devised by the best professional entertainers in the world are easier to procure than that. Amateur hour from some local wannabes who have forgotten their real mission will not win this competition."

Oh yes.

This made an interesting companion piece to the blog entry at the Internet Monastery contrasting Lutheran theology with that of a megachurch. And with this college student's shock and horror upon attending a megachurch.

And finally, Andrew Sullivan's thoughtful reflection upon first visiting a gay bar led to other people's equally thoughtful responses. The common thread: it was like church. And that has something to do with the articles I linked above. I'm just not sure what it is yet.

Perhaps it is that we keep trying to force God to be in the church and force people to be there because we believe we have contained God in there. And then God goes and shows up in the gay bar.

No, there's more to it than that. I shall ponder.

Have a great weekend!

Various and Sundry, February 4

Quickly, quickly, because there's much to do today.

You people out there in snow-land, be careful! And go easy on the shoveling, eh?

In sporting news, I'm rooting for Aaron Rodgers and the Packers for Sunday's Superbowl. Go Cheeseheads! And I loved this article about the guy who invented the Cheesehead hats, using foam from his mother's sofa.

I thought this obituary for Maria Schneider, who starred in The Last Tango in Paris, was a rather sad one. Kind of says something that she's quoted as saying, “Never take your clothes off for middle-aged men who claim that it’s art.” I also find it perhaps a painful image that she was cast as Mrs. Rochester in Zeffirelli's Jane Eyre of 1996.

Boy, do I have nothing intelligent to say about the protests in Egypt. But I did love this photo which shows "a team of Egyptian Christians forming a massive human shield to protect their Muslim countrymen as they prayed during the violent protests" on Tuesday.

And in other protest news, this 19-year-old makes the case for gay marriage as well as anyone I've seen:

More on the murder of David Kato--an incoherent rant

Well, it's been a mighty fine display of protestations of innocence regarding the murder of David Kato this week. Yup, a lovely round of hand-washing and -wringing.

We've finally gotten the "crazy person" defense. Took a bit longer than the Tucson shootings because you could go first to the robbery gone wrong notion, or even better gay-on-gay violence (because gays are naturally violent, don't you know) or--better yet--the "it's Africa" excuse, much more subtly, though. After all, the people trying to wash their hands of any involvement with this killing are getting money from these folks.

We've gotten "taking our words out of context", "jumping to conclusions", and "a moment to take very serious stock and to address those attitudes of mind which endanger the lives of men and women belonging to sexual minorities.” Even a lovely bit of righteous indignation that anyone could THINK to imply they are involved.

You know what no one has said yet that I've heard? No one has said I'm sorry. I'm even good with an "if" clause, as in "I'm sorry if what I have said has led someone to do this terrible thing." "I'm sorry if our lack of response has made things more difficult." Nothing. Nada.

Well, I'll start with myself, then. I'm sorry. For things done and left undone that may contribute anything to a climate of fear and hatred, I am most sorry, and shall work to amend my life.

This morning GayUganda tweeted "Ok. Now i know what to ask. Kuchus [gay Ugandans] need spiritual re assurance. Books and literature. Gay positive. Christian. Moslem." We can do that.

One other thing I'd like to add: I would like to see us mark the sin of bearing false witness. Why don't we do that? Why don't we call it the sin that it is? That would be one of the big 10 after all. It is amazing to me how little we hear about it, compared to homosexuality. False witness, like "gay people recruit children." Can't the Archbishop of Canterbury at least speak against that? Or will he just continue to take stock?

Various links on this subject

On the end of DADT

For me, Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a reminder that sometimes a compromise is compromising.

I wasn't paying much attention at the time, but as I remember it when this deal was struck during the Clinton administration, it was considered a step forward from an outright ban on gays in military service.

In retrospect, from my perspective, DADT proved itself to be oppressive, with gay servicemembers bearing the burden. Was anyone kicked out of the military for not asking? Because surely a lot of people were kicked out even when they didn't tell.

I wonder if one of the things to be learned from this is that a compromise is unacceptable when the burden of the compromise is unevenly shared. And I hope we can begin to see that "I think it's icky" (or "wrong" or "sinful") is a very different burden from "I will not be allowed to serve. I will lose my livelihood. My loved ones will not get the support your loved ones get."

And perhaps once and for all we can get past the tired "troop morale" trope that got trotted out for African Americans and women. It's time for that old saw to retire.

This morning on Twitter, Obit Mag said RIP DADT, with a link to a 2008 article about gay WWII vets. I thought about their stories as I listened to the President's speech this morning.



RIP, DADT. I understand why you were born. But you still lived too long.

Brainwashing

One of the words I keep coming back to in NY gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino's speech last Sunday was the word "brainwashed." As in:

I just think my children, and your children, will be much better off, and much more successful getting married and raising a family. And I don't want them to be brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid or successful option. It isn't.

[emphasis mine]

It struck me as odd at the time because, as I understood it, one of the major techniques of "reparative therapy" used to "cure" gays was a form of brainwashing. I tried to see if I was remembering correctly and found this article from the BBC:

Those who volunteered for such treatments - often in preference to jail terms - were shown pictures of naked men and given a series electric shocks or drugs to make them vomit.

When they could stand it no longer, they were shown pictures of naked women, or films of nudist colonies, as a relief from the pain - or, in some cases, taken out on "dates" with young nurses.

All of which sounds to me like the traditional understanding of brainwashing, a la The Manchurian Candidate.

But in the course of finding this article, I saw far more often this trope of "brainwashing" applied as it was used in Paladino's speech.

Here, for example, is a rant from a website called Tradition in Action, reviewing a video called It's Elementary, "The groundbreaking film that addresses anti-gay prejudice by providing adults with practical lessons on how to talk with children about gay people." (In light of the need to eliminate bullying from our schools, this actually seems useful to me.) What I'm going to do is post the preview for the documentary and then post the rant, and then some thoughts. So first, take a look at this.



OK, got that? Here's how the writer at Tradition in Action views this:

Must-See Video!
Homosexuals Brainwashing Our Children

I am very concerned about what's shown in these videos and think that everyone should view them so they realize how our children in public and private schools are being taught tolerance for the homosexual sin, the sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. I do not want my grandchildren being brainwashed by the pro-homosexual rot that is portrayed in these videos...

There are no adequate words to describe these sub-humans who would turn every country on the face of the earth into pro-sodomite totalitarian States. How dare they be allowed to commit spiritual abortion on the souls of our children without an outcry loud enough to be heard in Heaven!

[emphasis mine]

***

Here's the thing. Is it "brainwashing" or is it "repeating things I don't believe to be true"? Are some Christian schools "brainwashing" children not to believe the theory of evolution, or are they teaching what they believe to be true?

And though I believe it's the latter, I have to have some sympathy with those who claim brainwashing. Because people are hearing over and over and more and more often that homosexuality is not evil--"big whoop," as the little guy says in the video. For those who think it is evil, it really must be intolerable. And as more and more people agree that homosexuality is not evil, "brainwashing" must be the reason. It can't possibly be that people have weighed the evidence on both sides and come to their own conclusion.

BUT--the "sub-human" thing? That is not on. You can see why gays are bullied, beaten, and murdered if that's the message people are taught.

Is it brainwashing if that's what you've heard all your life? Not if my own definition holds. But it sure is repeating things I don't believe to be true.

My strong opinion is that the messages that get repeated to us do form us. I don't think that's brainwashing, but I do think that's brain-shaping. I can understand why some people don't want the messages they loathe repeated. But I also believe they hate the message because of the hate-filled messages of their past.

It gets better

It's Thursday so it must be time for me to swoon over Tim Gunn yet again. Well, I can't help it. Not when he does things like this:



I hope you've all heard about the "It gets better" project, sponsored by Dan Savage in wake of the numerous suicides of youth in the past month. Gays and lesbians from all walks of life have been invited to make videos to reach out to youth, sharing their experience and saying, yes, life does get better.

But it does raise the question: why is life so bad in high school? Surely it doesn't have to be that way. What do you think could be done to make high school a better place for young people to be?

Today's obituary page

I thought today's Daily Death alert from the NY Times was a particularly interesting juxtaposition of people.

First of all, you've got a 50/50 split of men and women. Well, one of each, so it's not that notable. But when you realize, as the NYTpicker does, that in August there were obituaries for 70 men and 6 women, you celebrate the little things. "And for the year 2010 to date, the NYT has chronicled the deaths of 606 men, and only 92 women," the Picker goes on to add.

Is there no female equivalent to the man who invented the Cheeto? Or the man who designed the Greek coffee cup? Those are but two of the dozens of obituaries in the last year commemorating men who weren't particularly famous, but whose achievements earned them attention on the NYT obits page.

Preach it!

So today we've got one man and one woman. The man: Seymour Pine who led the police raid on the Stonewall Inn.

In 2004, Inspector Pine spoke during a discussion of the Stonewall uprising at the New-York Historical Society. At the time of the raid, he said, the police “certainly were prejudiced” against gays, “but had no idea about what gay people were about.” ...

When someone in the audience said Inspector Pine should apologize for the raid, he did.

"His wife of 45 years, the former Judith Handler, died in 1987."

The woman: Virginia B. Smith, "a lawyer and economist who helped shape the contours of higher education as president of Vassar College, as a high public official in Washington and as a member of influential private research groups."

Ms. Smith was chosen to lead Vassar from among 450 candidates for the job partly because she had a strong vision for using the Vassar presidency as a model of innovation for American higher education, said Elizabeth Runkle Purcell, who was chairwoman of the selection committee...Ms. Smith’s appointment as the eighth Vassar president was announced in April 1977. When The New York Times asked her why she had been chosen, she replied matter-of-factly, “Because I was the best qualified.”

Impressive as all get-out, this woman. She is survived by her partner of 57 years, Florence Oaks.

Just such a wonderful study of contrasts and yet themes that resonate still today. I love how the obituaries flesh out history--literally--and how they point to the life we live today.

On marriage: Mind your own business

It wasn't until I was in seminary that I heard for the first time the notion that "the church should get out of the marriage business." The argument is that if marriage is a civil contract related to property and inheritance rights, taxation and other financial issues, and custody concerns, then that's really a state issue. The church's job should be to counsel and bless.

It wasn't until same sex marriage became an issue that I started hearing that "the government should get out of the marriage business." The argument here is that if marriage is indeed a sacrament, then it is completely inappropriate for the government to provide such a thing.

A number of years ago, I remember hearing from friends about their daughter's wedding in Costa Rica. They told me that it was in two parts: the legal wedding, performed by a judge, and then the religious ceremony. I was looking this morning to see if I had indeed remembered this correctly. This answer is, sort of. "The catholic priests are the only "pastors" of any religion who have the legal authority to carry out a marriage. For this reason, protestant parishioners must first get a civil marriage and then proceed with the religious ceremony," apparently.

It seems to me that one of the complications to this issue is that both the church and the state have a role in the wedding business. Marriage has a legal meaning. It also has a spiritual meaning. The problem is that we've squished them together. They really don't fit.

I agree that the church should be out of the marriage business: the part that decides on the legal ramifications, the financial entanglements, and the general "what does this mean in a court of law" questions, and marks the relationship with red tape.

I also agree that the government should be out of the marriage business: the part that blesses and prays for people, and marks the relationship with religious ceremony.

Of the two, the faith side has the mushier job, which seems in keeping with the fact that people have many different faiths. Getting married should mean the exact same thing for everyone, legally, but will mean vastly different things for people, religiously. Isn't that the way it is already?

I personally would love to see the Costa Rica two-step process for everybody. Everybody is legally married in front of a judge with a set kind of swearing-in and then, separately, have whatever kind of religious ceremony suits them best. Well, I can dream, can't I?

My two cents.

My further two cents on church wedding issues.

Logic is not prejudice's strong suit

So let's talk about Don't Ask, Don't Tell for a moment, shall we? So. The policy means that gays aren't banned from serving in the military, right? It means that gays and lesbians can serve in the military, but they can't say they're there. And if you do admit you're there or other people find out you're there, then you're kicked out.

Here's what I love (in a bitter sort of way) about the threatened filibuster of the troop funding bill. John McCain is supporting the filibuster because, and I quote: "I'm going to do everything I can to support the men and women of the military and to fight what is clearly a political agenda."

Ummm...does that not include the gay men and women in the military? Cuz they're there, you know. Been a policy for almost 20 years (as opposed to an unspoken practice, which has been forever). And would holding up troop funding to prevent the overturn of DADT not be...oh how should we put this...a political agenda?

My other favorite is the group America's Survival that says that the overturn of DADT would allow "disease tainted gay blood to threaten our troops." Again: dude. Gay people...already in military. You're worried about gays and lesbians being diseased? You'd think the proper homophobic answer would be "We want to know who those gay folks are so we can subject 'em to extra testing! Overturn Don't Ask, Don't Tell!"

(Also, as one commenter pointed out: "And I always thought it was bullets and things that explode that 'threaten our troops.' Silly me.")

It's shooting fish in a barrel, I know, to point out how this prejudice is irrational. But what kind of bogeymen are these folks imagining? What are they fighting? The people they're so afraid of are wearing fatigues and defending their country. Talk about sacrifice.  God bless them. 

Comic from Dan Piraro.

Kurt's Dad's (Burt Hummel) Speech GLEE

Beautifully done.

Anti-homosexuality bill update

This just in from GayUganda:

I actually had not seen this. But, here is a report about the Anti-Homosexuality Bill in Parliament.

Kampala - A Ugandan parliamentary panel said on Friday there is little backing for the country's widely-condemned anti-gay bill and no timetable had been set for its debate.

"I think it is useless and will not achieve what it intends to achieve," said Alex Ndeezi, a member of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee tasked with reviewing the bill before it can be presented to the house.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Quotes of the Day: on Constance McMillan and controversy

The first quote is a comment from this article about Constance McMillan.

My Name is Austin. I'm 15. I myself have dealt with hate for some time. Its sad to me that the majority of you all are only increasing the amount of hate in our world. Most of you are no better than teenagers. Callings names, pointing blame, fighting. It's childish. Fact of the matter is, Constance was not treated fairly. Point blank. No arguments. You can't debate that one. But the problem won't be fixed by a bunch of adults fighting online. Fighting fire with fire only creates a bigger fire. Someone stand up and be the bigger person, the bigger community. If you're going to call someone crude, vicious names, you can't expect them to do any different. Please, for the future, lets not act like children. My love goes out to Constance and the countless others facing hate.

For those who don't know the story, Constance McMillan is a young woman who asked permission of her school's administration in Itawamba, Mississippi to bring a female date to prom and to wear a tux.  The administration decided instead of allowing that to cancel prom altogether.

After much struggle, a judge found that the school couldn't bar McMillan and her date.

Here's where it gets weird: the parents and school set up a fake prom to which Constance and her date and five other people (two with learning disabilities) were directed.  The rest went to the "real" prom.    It's all just beyond cruel, as far as I'm concerned.

The Bloggess wrote a beautiful post in response to this...outrage (I just don't have the words; everything seems too tame).  She wrote,

Fighting intolerance about mental illness, or race, or lifestyle or whatever labeled “flaw” we are saddled with makes us strong.  And today instead of using my strength to say how much I hate every single person that thought that this horrible act of cruelty was in any way acceptable to do to a human being I’m using it to do something so much harder.  I’m using it to say that I still love you.  And that I hope for change.  And that I know that I am imperfect and I am changing and that I hope you can too.

 So do I.