Christianity on The Huffington Post

John W. Whitehead: Recovering the Magic of Christmas

2008-12-04T17:55:09Z

When I was a child, Christmas was the best time of the year. And what made it so exciting was that everyone seemed to join in the fun. There was a Santa in every store, songs like "Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer" played on the radio, and people generally acknowledged that the day had special meaning because of the Christ Child -- thus the reason for the Christmas season.

But times have changed. We have grown more cynical and weary -- the hallmarks of our materialistic culture. In fact, the season for giving has turned into the season for getting. Even before the Thanksgiving turkey is gobbled up, shopping malls are decorated and playing Christmas music to get people in a buying mood.

Not only does greed now dominate the season, but a pervasive political correctness is doing away with the true celebration of Christmas. This is no more so than in the public schools, where musical programs omit all Christmas carols. Others replace "Merry Christmas" greetings with the more saccharine "Happy Holidays." Still others eliminate angels and Santa Claus as being too religious. And some schools even outlaw the colors red and green, saying they're Christmas colors.

The Christmas phobia has even invaded higher education. For example, this year, Florida Gulf Coast University has banned all holiday decorations on campus and canceled a popular greeting card design contest, replacing it with an ugly sweater competition. The reason: school officials don't want to offend anyone who might be disturbed by the mention of "Christmas."

In many cities, the Christmas tree is now referred to in more Orwellian terms as a "community tree." And Christmas parties at work are now winter parties where people whisper "Merry Christmas," as if they're dealing with pornography.

Add to this silliness a new campaign by the American Humanist Association. Ripping off lyrics from "Santa Claus is Coming to Town," the group is running ads that proclaim, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake."

But Christmas is not, nor was it ever, intended just for religious people. Even the Bible is clear on this point. As the angels proclaimed at Christ's birth, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward all men."

Indeed, the birth of the Christ Child signaled that peace could be restored to a troubled world. People could overcome their petty disputes and divisive egos and work together for a better world for everyone, especially the poor and downtrodden. In fact, when Jesus became a man, he made clear that God favored the meek, the poor, the persecuted and the peacemakers over the rich and warmongers. What a message -- one that our fractured world so desperately needs.

Sadly, the true Christmas story as represented by the baby Jesus has little to do with how we have come to celebrate the holiday. Isn't there something more important than receiving? Isn't the true meaning of Christmas about giving and helping the needy? Isn't that what we should be teaching our children?

It seems that a religious holiday would be a good opportunity to celebrate something wholesome and good. Rather than thinking about the height of the selling season, why can't it be a season of reflection and joy? Why can't it be a time to step back and meditate on the original reasons behind the holiday? Why can't it be a day to share our blessings with those who are in need?

Fortunately, we live in a country where families can still celebrate their religious holidays with freedom. We can still attend religious services, set up manger scenes and sing traditional Christmas carols. We can still read the Christmas story to our children and tell them the real reason for the season. Should you care to reclaim for yourself and your family some semblance of what Christmas really means, here are a few suggestions:

Take time to read the Christmas story found in Luke 2:1-20. Make "peace on earth, goodwill to all men" your motto for the New Year.

These are difficult times for many. Thus, sacrifice some portion of what you would spend on family and friends to help a needy family. What a great opportunity to teach our children about the spiritual reality of life. Let that be your gift in the true spirit of Christmas.

Count your blessings. And when you're done counting them, say a prayer for the less fortunate: the hungry, the homeless, the lonely, the destitute and the sick. Resolve to do your part to make a difference in the world -- even if it's just in your apartment building or neighborhood.

Teach your children to give of themselves and their time unselfishly. Volunteer at a soup kitchen. Adopt a family for Christmas. Invite someone who might otherwise spend the holiday alone to share in your Christmas festivities.

By diverting the focus, in our homes at least, from the "give me" attitude to a sharing spirit, maybe we can recapture the awe and gratitude that Christmas carols say is the greatest gift ever given to humanity.

Ariane de Bonvoisin: Rebuilding Life After Tragedy

2008-11-30T22:29:16Z

Immaculée Ilibagiza grew up in Rwanda--a country divided by tribal allegiances. During the genocide in 1994, she was forced into hiding to avoid being raped, mutilated or killed. She hid in a bathroom at a local pastor's house with seven other women for three months. Once it was safe to come out, she started working at a U.N. office, comforting a number of children who were orphaned by the genocide and later emigrated to the United States, where she is now a speaker and an author. Her first book about her life in Rwanda, called Live to Tell, sold half a million books and went on to become a New York Times best-seller.

Her latest book, Led by Faith: Rising from the Ashes of the Rwandan Genocide, further explores how her religious faith helped her rebuild her life after this horrible tragedy.

Immaculée radiates faith. She believes we are all the same people created by the same God. While she admits to questioning and being angry at God during and after her ordeal, she also believes that she couldn't turn away. She recalls asking God to give her a sign that he was with her during the genocide so that she'd know He was real.

She also, like most of us going through profound change, asked "Why?" She doesn't have an exact answer, but says we can accept what we have endured by understanding that what we are going through is just a very small part of a much bigger and eternal picture. When she was able to accept and able to face it, she was able to begin to heal. The forgiveness she has been able to extend to those who hurt her has been an ongoing and challenging process, but she came to a point where hating was hurting her. "I couldn't remember how to smile," she says. In hating, she felt like she was becoming like those who hurt her and her family, and she had to choose something more positive.

No matter what you believe about God or faith, Immaculée's interview on our Change Nation video podcast can inspire you. She explains how her faith was strengthened in the face of genocide, and what you can do to improve your relationship with a higher power.

Donna Schaper: Congratulations United Church of Christ on Gay Rights

2008-11-28T10:49:18Z

Congratulations to my denomination (and Barack Obama's and Jeremiah Wright's), the United Church of Christ, for joining a lawsuit against the theological hypocrisy of Proposition 8 in California. While it is terribly hard for one church to engage in a bitter dialogue with another church, still and nonetheless, the debate about Proposition 8 requires that such difficulty be entered.

I have no doubt that eventually the right for gay marriage will be won. We will look back on these days the way we look at "separate but equal" water fountains in dime stores. What were we thinking?

We will tell the history -- and how we found ourselves outside the Mormon Temple in Manhattan last week with a sign that said "No hate in the name of God."

It was in 1990, late in the day at the First Congregational Church in Riverhead. Two women came in and looked me straight in the eye and said, "Can we get married?" I remember saying, "No", much too quickly and with a touch of bitterness. It was my bitterness: why had just a few weeks ago I agreed to a heterosexual marriage on the spot, with a woman 9 and a half months pregnant and a man who clearly had a metaphoric noose around his head? I had agreed to perform that ceremony, reluctantly, with a kind of sadness. The other two children sat in the front row. The mother of the bride stood up for her. The sanctuary was eerily empty. I hastened to say to the two women that I would be glad to perform a civil union but marriage was something the state owned and there was no legal way for them to be legally joined. I remember walking into the sanctuary that afternoon, with the last light of the day around us, feeling duplicitous, sad, phony and not representing anything about the God I know to anyone. I was a lackey of a bad state, a mean state, and a state that affirmed heterosexuals, not gays in moral and sacramental behavior.

We performed a holy union that afternoon. The two women stared deeply into each other's eyes. They knew what they were doing: they were pledging themselves to each other. They had already been in a holy union and now the God of that little dusk and that little sanctuary joined their sacrament.

The first thing I have never understood is why some straights discourage marriage among gays. The theological and spiritual hypocrisy begins here. What horse do they have in that race? Is not one of the stereotypes against gays that they are "promiscuous? Why would we not want fidelity as a moral and family value? The second thing I have never understood is why straight marriage would be threatened by gay marriage. The third thing I have never understood is why straight people are mean to gay people. I just don't get the powerful resistance many so-called Christians have to gay marriage. It strikes me as the gospel of hate, not love, the gospel of fear, not confidence. It strikes me as the marriage of the church to one order of marriage, based in the 1950's version thereof, with no remembrance of how Jesus was celibate and Joseph a man of many wives. Sociologically and spiritually, marriage just keeps changing. I would think of all people the Mormons might understand!

Fortunately attitudes are changing. Those who measure attitudes on these matters assure us that people under 40 join me in not getting it. People over 40 are beginning to get it. The number of people who oppose gays or gay marriage is decreasing rapidly. Additionally, progressive religious organizations are getting on board and performing as many holy unions as we can. In Massachusetts and Connecticut we also perform gay marriages.

On Monday, July 04, 2005, in Atlanta, Georgia, the governing body of the United Church of Christ, direct descendant of the Mayflower Pilgrims, voted overwhelmingly to "affirm equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender," thereby becoming the first mainline denomination, and the largest Christian denomination in the world, to support same-sex marriage.

Endorsing gay marriage has surely lost some members and some churches; just as surely, it has attracted more members and churches, most notably the 5000 member Victory Church in Stone Mountain George, a largely African-American church which could no longer be at home among discriminating heterosexists. We are drinking, as Bishop Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire says, the last dregs of a bad cup of wine: heterosexism is over. Religious people will look back in ten years -- the way we now look back at slavery and the before civil rights era -- and say, "What took us so long?"

Gay marriage will come nationwide; it will be ordinary to our children. It will be more than just gay marriage: it will also free scriptural interpretation from meanness and the cementing of revelation. I don't know that my little union in Riverhead that day was the first one on Long Island; I hope not. I especially hope that it will not be the last but will instead join the great stream of people who sacramentalize and legalize the feelings they have for each other.

The Rev. Dr. Donna Schaper was Pastor at the First Congregational Church of Riverhead from 1987-1993 and is currently Senior Minister of the Judson Memorial Church in New York City.

Steve Parker: Los Angeles Auto Show -- Clean Diesels Clean Up

2008-11-27T06:05:29Z

At this year's version of the Los Angeles Auto Show, the 205-mile per hour, $100,000, 2009 Corvette ZR1 is relegated to the very rear of the Chevrolet exhibit, like the "adults only" section in video stores. The Green Car of the Year is a diesel and the usually standout exhibits from GM and Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep were strangely quiet (we'll have Ford, Ferrari, Porsche and more news in posts this weekend). And so posts are well under-1,000 words each, we'll report only on all-new cars or trucks.

(Corvette's over-600 horsepower 2009 ZR1, the $100,000 car relegated to an empty space in the back of the Chevrolet exhibit, just like so much automotive pornography).

For the past two years, Green Car Journal has given an award titled Green Car of the Year. Toyota's Camry hybrid won the first, and Chevrolet's Tahoe hybrid won last year, which, although a good choice, was hard to explain to non-tech-types.

Volkswagen's Jetta TDI clean diesel won this year, the first car with clean diesel technology approved for sale in all 50 states. Now we await the first pure, mass-produced EV to win (which will be from Nissan, if you believe company chief Carlos Ghosn, who spoke to the media at the Los Angeles show about that very thing), then the first mass-produced hydrogen-fueled fuel cell EV.

(VW's Jetta TDI was named Green Car of the Year; this is a turbocharged racing version of the car built for VW's "TDI Cup" racing series).

Nissan had the stand-out exhibit in terms of size and brightly flashing video screens. Their exhibit introduced two all-new vehicles, the 370Z and the Cube, two autos which could not be more dissimilar.

The newest Z-car is familiar-looking, and its engine is a 3.7-liter V6 producing 332-horsepower and the car is priced at just under $30,000.

(Nissan's all-new 370Z is very familiar-looking; the original Z-car turned then-Datsun into one of the top-selling car companies in the US, Nissan).

Nissan's 2009 Cube is for those who feel Scion's xB is just not funky enough. The car's website says, "Symmetry is so last year," and apparently unsymmetrical is in. Cube's 1.8-liter 4-banger offers 122-horsepower and 30+ miles-per-gallon (the + is from Nissan's website). A six-speed manual transmission or CVT (continuously variable transmission) can be picked, and while I am no lover of CVTs, Cubes so equipped will probably get better mileage than the stick shift. And it's base price is under $14,000.

(Nissan's 2009 Cube - Say no more).

Nissan's luxury channel Infiniti showed their 2009 hardtop convertible version of the current G37 coupe. The Z-car and G37 share many parts and are rear-wheel drive cars; G37 can be ordered with all-wheel drive. The car's top-up and top-down time is rated at 23 seconds; there are many people who see hardtop convertible operation times as a new form of automotive competition. Expect G37 convertible pricing in the $60K-range.

BMW rolled out their latest Mini, the Mini E (E for "electric"). Mini is leasing 500 E models, and it's going to cost the chosen lessees $850 a month. After a year, Mini takes the E back, and they'll use the cars to develop information for an E model slated for mass production.

(Mini's E attracted a lot of attention, the EV is a first for BMW).

All The General's divisions were on-hand for the show, but GM's exhibits had, apart from the 2010 Camaro and the 2009 Corvette ZR1, no really all-new models. There were a few mostly uninteresting concept cars, some looking suspiciously like ones we've seen before.

A Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid had little cachet with visitors; they'd seen it last year, and all over TV, and it might not be any closer to production now, anyway.

(Saturn's FlexTreme concept stores two Segways under its rear hatch - Interesting idea!).

A 3.6-liter V6 2010 Camaro will produce 304-horsepower and start well under $25,000. The 6.2-liter V8 makes 400-horsepower and will start at under-$30K.

The 2009 Corvette ZR1 makes 638-horsepower, and it was positioned right next to (and lower than) the Camaros. It was almost a Festival of Wastefulness, demonstrating exactly how Americans need to stop thinking about cars.

The Camaro had been seen in near-production form at the last two L.A. shows, and the ZR1 doesn't look much different from the standard 'Vette to the casual viewer (Chevy made the same mistake with earlier generation ZR1s; people who pay more for a car want their neighbors to know).

(The much-anticipated 2010 Camaro did not disappoint styling or horsepower enthusiasts; a V6 version is reasonably-priced).

The high-mileage Cruze, a Daewoo-built car which was originally planned for late 2010 U.S. sales, now has no schedule for U.S. manufacturing or sale; a Korean version already on-sale wasn't at the show.

But Volkswagen's exhibit was packed. They had much to show, even apart from their Green Car of the Year Jetta TDI. Their new CC sedan (they call it a four-door coupe) was a big attraction, as was a Touareg SUV outfitted with a clean diesel engine, but not yet available; if VW were questioning visitors about the vehicle, a Touareg TDI will be here within two years, judging by comments I overheard (research, you know).

(A clean diesel Audi Q7).

VW partner Audi showed-off their clean diesels with a messianic fervor, too, showcasing Audi's recent cross-country "Mileage Marathon." In a 23-strong contingent of Audi Q7's, Q5's and A4's using the 3.0-liter V6 TDI, and A3's using 2.0-liter TDI engines, they averaged 38.5 miles-per-gallon in a New York-to-Los Angeles jaunt between October 5 and 20.

Hyundai had a large exhibit, featuring their V8-powered Genesis sedan. There was also a pretty cool cutaway of their proposed new Blue Drive hybrid system, due in the U.S. in a year or two.

(Hyundai's cool Blue Drive gas/electric hybrid system is being developed for the company's US-market cars and trucks).

Smart had a, well, small exhibit in the vast South Hall. Available in the U.S. only at around 70 of Roger Penske's near-200 dealerships, more than 20,000 have already been sold. The U.S. is the 37th country where Smart is available, and is already third in sales, ranking behind Germany and Italy. For 2009, Brabus, a German aftermarket tuning firm, is adding their touch to the handling and appearance of the 2009 Smart Fortwo.

(German tuning company Brabus has developed an appearance and handling improvement package for Smart's Fortwo).

The Los Angeles Auto Show remains open until 8pm Sunday, November 30, in the Los Angeles Convention Center. All photos by www.SteveParker.com.

Bruce Wilson: The Religious Right's War on Christmas Began Centuries Ago

2008-11-22T17:02:59Z

[please promote this post by voting it up on digg] As journalist Frederick Clarkson observes, proclamations from Bill O'Reilly, claiming the existence of a leftist assault on Christmas, are "part of a transcendent politics of the Religious Right, and a variant of that old time McCarthism -- baiting everyone with whom they disagree as advocating a 'godless' agenda." Indeed, Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade was making the same charges back in 1960 and much earlier in the year -- in July in fact.

But how did the "War on Christmas", as a concept, originate ? As it happens, once upon a time there was a real "War on Christmas" and it was initiated by the theocratic Christian right of its day, Swiss Calvinists and Scottish Presbyterians. Here's a short overview:

The "war on Christmas" traces back, historically, to Calvinist bans on the celebration of Christmas which began in Geneva and then migrated, with the spread of Calvinist theological views, to Scotland, where Christmas was banned in 1583, a ban that remained in force four almoast four hundred years and was only lifted in the 1950's. As Amy McNeese writes, in an article, first published in the Church of Scotland magazine Life & Work,that may be one of the best treatments of the War on Christmas.

"For almost 400 years, Christmas was banned in Scotland. At the height of the Reformation, in 1583, when anything smacking of Catholicism and idolatrous excess was thrown out with contempt, Christmas and all its trappings was wiped off the official calendar...

...Reinforced by the hard arm of the law, this was a ban that had bite...

This was an age when religious belief could mean the difference between life and a very nasty death....

Scottish Presbyterians, when called on for support by the Puritans of the English Parliament in 1644, did so on the understanding that their allies would in exchange impose the ban on Christmas. For over a decade traditional English Christmas festivities were prohibited

From Scotland, the ban on Christmas spread south as Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army brought the Cromwellian revolution to England. Cromwell's Puritans banned Christmas in England for about a decade but the measure was unpopular. Feelings among pro and anti Christmas advocates ran strong and, after a second enforcement act against Christmas was passed by the English Parliament in 1647 [writes McNeese],

Again the people rebelled, this time so forcefully that armed officers had to be sent to remove evergreens decorating St Margaret's Church, near the English Parliament itself. Rioting broke out in London, Kent, Oxford, Canterbury and Ipswich, in which several people were killed. A petition with more than 10,000 signatures demanded either the restoration of Christmas or else the king back on the throne...

Even after the bans were revoked in England in 1660, Puritans and other Non-Conformists "ranted against Anti-Christ's-masse and those Masse-mongers and Papists who observe it", and were commonly known to "inveigh against New Year gifts and evergreens, or to attack the Pope by refusing to eat plum-broth; or to condemn those who ate mince-pies as Papists and idolaters"....

These attitudes were carried to the New World by English Puritans, Quakers, Baptists and Scottish Presbyterians. In America, reprisals were as harsh here as back in Scotland. In Massachusetts a five-shilling penalty was imposed on anyone found feasting or shirking work on Christmas Day...

A hundred years later the Quakers were still ranting against the Christmas pie as "an invention of the scarlet whore of Babylon, an hodge podge of superstition, Popery, the Devil and all his works".

From England the War on Christmas then crossed the Atlantic to the New World migrating with the Puritans who were fleeing the persecution of their political and theological tendency that followed the overthrow of Cromwellian government. Under Puritan rule in the Bay State Colony, Christmas was at one point legally banned for two decades.

Christmas fared worse in Scotland though and was only brought back after four centuries, in part due to the culinary experiences of Scottish soldiers during World War Two. As McNeese describes,

Abroad and in the company of English soldiers, many Scots experienced their first proper Christmas dinner. Once tasted, it was never forgotten. On their return home, these servicemen began to celebrate the festival with some style, and gradually their ideas took root.

Early in the 20th Century in America, the notion of a "war on Christmas", which had long been on the wane, got a boost, as Talk To Action contributor Chip Berlet demonstrates, in 1921 with Henry Ford's notorious and highly influential anti-Jewish tract "The International Jew".

By the America of the early 1960's, American Christian right groups such as Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade, which was at least heavily Christian nationalist if not overtly theocratic, had appropriated the notion of a "war ion Christmas" as a means of red-baiting the American left ( see section, below ). But the true, historical War on Christmas was a creation of the Protestant, theocratic right.

According To Billy James Hargis' 1960 "Crusader" article [below], published during dark days leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, during which communism was held to be stealthily advancing via liberal Protestant churches and the machinations of Hallmark Greeting Cards and UNICEF, Christmas was also then under siege from the left. But in 1960, the religious right's war on the alleged war on Christmas got started much earlier in the season than is now customary.

In 1960, the war on the war on Christmas started in July.

Below: December 9, 1960 article from "The Crusader"

Paul Jenkins: The Last Time We Vote For Bigotry

2008-11-22T12:22:19Z

For many of us, 2008 will mark the last time we vote for a candidate who does not favor same-sex marriage. Hopefully, this will be because at least one candidate from a major party will support those rights, but we should also be prepared that, as in this year's presidential election, both people running are against marriage rights, and that neither will receive our vote.

This year, it was especially painful when, close to the election and to the California vote on Proposition 8 to rescind the rights of gay couples to marry, Barack Obama said he believes "marriage is between a man and a woman." This was nothing new, but certainly not uplifting, even as he reiterated his opposition to changing the California constitution.

This starkly illustrated Obama's contradictory attitude towards gay rights: he says he deems gay and straight people (all people, in fact) to be equal, but he is "against" same-sex marriage. It begs the question: if these relationships are equal, why not treat them equally under the law? In many ways, it is far easier to accept hard-core Christian conservatives' position: they think gay relationships are evil, and therefore certainly not equal to straight ones, and should absolutely not be granted marriage rights. They are of course homophobic, but so are all other opponents of gay marriage, for isn't it the essence of homophobia to say that the love between a man and a woman is different than the love between two people of the same gender?

Surely Obama knows that when he says he believes civil "marriage is between a man and a woman," he is being inconsistent, harmful and sounds (is?) bigoted. He made the calculation, as did Hillary Clinton and countless other self-styled supporters of gay rights, that taking a position that is consistent would do him more political damage than good. That is his right, of course, but it is also ours to point out the inconsistency, and to vote and contribute accordingly. Ultimately, either these relationships are equal, or they are not.

The issue is not one of semantics and, in fact, for gay couples, marriage overwhelms all else from a legal and financial perspective: the penalties that come from not being able to marry are countless and dwarf any "middle-class tax cut" promised by Obama. For instance, few people realize that health insurance granted to domestic partners by some companies is taxable income. This means that this "benefit" is out of the financial reach for many same-sex couples, a situation that would immediately be remedied were they allowed to marry and receive health insurance in a non-taxable manner the way straight married couples do. This alone would represent hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands, in savings for each couple, far outweighing anything else that an Obama administration would be able to achieve in terms of "middle class tax cuts."

One particularly misguided lesbian wrote on another blog that marriage equality was an obsession of wealthy gay white people, that she was too busy canvassing for Obama in California (a state he won by 24 points) to think about Proposition 8, and that in her community, there were bigger problems than gay marriage, including poor access to health care. Leaving aside the fact that electing Obama and opposing Prop 8 were hardly mutually exclusive, does this writer not realize that marriage equality would in one fell swoop grant health insurance to thousands of uninsured partners who cannot afford to pay anything for the benefit, or do not even have the option of such a benefit because they are not married, including many couples in her community? That the writer accurately points to gay racism and to the poorly run campaign against Proposition 8 does not negate the real benefits marriage equality would bring to all communities.

The availability of health care benefits is just one example among many of the rights that straight couples completely take for granted and do not give a second thought to. And no, civil unions are not the answer. First of all, why go through the trouble and expense of creating an entire parallel bureaucratic universe to cater to the squeamish prejudice of, basically, older generations, those most likely to oppose marriage? Secondly, as New Jersey's failed experiment vividly demonstrates, civil unions do not grant the same rights in practice. Again, some companies reluctant to grant benefits to same-sex couples are hiding behind the fact that these couples are not married, just "civil-unioned." In hospitals, there are instances of couples being denied visitation and other rights because staff didn't even understand the concept of a civil union; in an emergency, do you really want to have to explain the legalities of domestic partnerships, or would you rather just say "I'm the wife?"

A striking fact of the anti-marriage assault in California and elsewhere is that it was mostly conducted by referenda, giving voters a direct say in whether a minority should be granted a right heretofore denied it (or, in the case of California, taking away a right previously enjoyed). If, in fact, the voice of the people is that informed and important, why not put a whole bunch of other issues to the test? Why not see what voters think of, say, late-term abortion? Why not see what voters in, say, Louisiana think of abortion, period? How about whether the United States should officially be an English-speaking country? And what should happen to illegal immigrants? Whether prayer should be legal in public schools? Affirmative action banned in all cases? Sexual harassment and discrimination laws curbed? Whether Christianity should be the official religion? In fact, whether Protestantism should be the official religion? It would not be a pretty sight. Perhaps, one can dream that in its devotion to the sanctity of marriage, the heterosexual majority would ban divorce, and severely punish adultery. That way, hypocrites from Larry Craig to Newt Gingrich to John Edwards to the Clintons (basically 90% of Washington's ruling political class) could truly show their commitment to marriage.

The quandary over same-sex marriage has also presented an opportunity for politicians from both parties to rediscover the greatness of states' rights, suddenly no longer the dirty concept it had been in the decades following the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s. Here too, though, the appeal of letting individual states decide what will happen to their own citizens is very selective, seemingly limited, in fact, to the fate of its gay population. Of course, comparing the fight for same-sex marriage to other civil rights battles is often intellectually lazy and historically inaccurate, especially as it is nearly always the facile association with the rights of African-Americans that is cited (some white gay activists are to blame but, to be fair, a number of prominent African-Americans, including Coretta Scott King have made the link). That the comparison is unfortunate does not mean marriage is not a civil right, just that it stands on its own merits. It should also not be forgotten that in Washington the Congressional Black Caucus is among the staunchest supporters of gay rights, including marriage, and that the only two black governors in the nation, David Paterson in New York and Deval Patrick in Massachusetts, are the most prominent elected politicians in the fight to legalize same-sex marriage.

The debate raging in California after the narrow passage of Proposition 8 focused uncomfortably on the role of two minorities: Mormons and African-Americans. The former financed much of the campaign to repeal marriage rights, and the latter, according to exit polls, were the ethnic or racial group supporting the proposition by the largest margin. Seemingly forgotten in the discussion was the role of the Catholic church, an opponent of gay rights in any form. Where was the outrage when Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles said he was "grateful to the Catholic Community of Los Angeles for your commitment to the institution of marriage as fashioned by God and to work with such energy to enshrine this divine plan into our state's Constitution?" Where is the disgust at an institution far more powerful, organized and global than any other anti-gay forces? And for that matter, where is the revulsion at mainstream Protestant churches who played a quieter, but no less important role in passing Proposition 8? And, one last time, what the hell was Obama doing at Saddleback Church, a bastion of homophobic bigotry, before the election? This is not to say that the Mormon church and the black churches who actively supported Prop 8 should not be held seriously accountable, but they were far from alone in their gay-bashing. The result: in California and Florida, about 20% of Obama voters also voted to ban same-sex marriage. Not quite in the spirit of the day, right?

And so the time has come to put our votes and our money where our mouth is, and to promise ourselves, those around us and politicians of all parties that while we will especially fight the hard homophobia of the Christian right, we will also no longer tolerate the malleable bigotry of those who profess to be our friends, but also say we are not quite worthy of the same rights. We want to believe, in our hearts, that Obama does not mean it when he says he is against same-sex marriage: he is too smart, too compassionate and too open-minded for that. And, as he put it with his usual eloquence in New York this summer: "It is not for me to tell you to wait for what you deem to be your right."

Elayne Boosler: Gay Marriage, Chickens, and How to Win

2008-11-12T22:50:01Z

It's hard to be totally elated at the lifting up of one group (African Americans) when another group (gays) is stripped of the most fundamental of human rights. Prop 8 in California passed; a constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman (or however many men and women men and women want to marry, one at a time). The "sanctity" of marriage is now safe. Sanc⋅ti⋅ty [holiness, saintliness, or godliness]. (So now where is that separation of church and state we're so fond of imagining?) It should chill everyone's blood that anyone's choice of whom to marry can be left up to a vote by strangers. Does Barak Obama remember when it would have been illegal for his black/white parents to marry? Who's next? Prop 8 now faces lawsuits, petitions, and daily demonstrations. If you're gay you take it personally, but aside from the religious nuts who can never be reasoned with, the way to win is to understand that it isn't personal. It's life as usual; "what's in it for me?" Again, the banality of evil.

The chickens, and Obama, knew how to sell it, while opponents of Prop 8 made a cardinal mistake; they relied on the kindness of strangers. Tennessee Williams, a national treasure who saved us from a lifetime of Cats and Grease, and who would not be allowed to marry in California, showed us the folly of that. And in California, owners of multi- million dollar properties also defeated a proposition to fund after school programs for at-risk youth because it would add fifty six dollars a year to their property taxes. Yes, even to the thousands of homes that cost from three million to forty million dollars here, just fifty six dollars a year, (the cost of one Medeco key). All you need to know about Californians, you can learn here at a four way stop sign.

There is a noble earnestness in the hope that people will do the right thing, but that is not how Obama, or the chickens, won. They won because they made their cases that voting for them was going to be better for you. For every voter that wanted Obama to win because he was the best man AND African American, there was a voter who forced himself to ignore the fact that Obama was African American, because that voter's needs were going to be better served with Obama as president. Obama knew this, so he framed this election (as he said in his victory speech) as being about you. Not him. You. And what did McCain keep saying? "I'm a maverick. She's a maverick. We're mavericks." Hey, we're over here.

The chickens won (slightly) more room because the commercials made it clear this was better for your health. Do you think if the HSUS framed the argument as "The chickens are suffering, and so are the other sentient animals who deserve to live their short lives free of pain and panic", do you think Prop 2 would have passed? I don't. It passed because the commercials made passing it about your health, and showed pictures of things you would never want to eat or have your food come from.

There are lots of people who don't care about animals, or electing the first black president, or gay people also having the right to get married in their cars in Vegas if they're too drunk to walk, or kids who have nothing, getting to play ball after school. The chickens got it right. People saw those chickens wallowing in filth and thought "Shit!! I'm not putting anything from there in my mouth!" Done deal. If they had said instead, "Do the right thing", those chickens would be living like thirty clowns in a volkswagon.

To win this fight, and it's criminal that any American taxpayer has to fight for fundamental human rights in 2008, show the opponents the advantages to them.

RATIONAL ARGUMENTS:

All marriages strengthen a society. That's why the people who consider them sacred marry so many times.

It's not a "Lifestyle", it's a life.

Less teenage suicide, the message was "hope", right?

More great homes become available when two become one.

Millions of dollars will pour into the economy for weddings; hotels, travel, bands, musicians, photographers, videographers, florists, wedding planners, caterers, bakeries, bartenders, waiters, liquor industry, clothing, taxes, real estate, furnishings, painters, jewelers. etc. etc. All those business owners vote. Promise not to elope.

More loving homes to welcome the shameful number of unwanted children languishing in orphanages. Religious people, they'll take care of you til the day you're born.

ARGUMENTS FOR THE DUMB GUYS

Less bad marriages for Liza Minnelli.

For those who believe there is a "gay agenda", where gays actually want to turn your three hundred pound beer drinking husband gay, well, now he'll be safe.

Take a page from "A Day Without a Mexican" and do the same, exaggerate the stereotypes: "A Day Without a Homosexual." 80% of Americans' hair will look like shit. The Desperate Housewives will be without makeup and great clothes, aagghhh how old are they?? Ballet companies will be missing lots of dancers, women forced to lift themselves. Small numbers in audience for Bette, Kathy, Equity Waver Theater. Half the women in America will have no one to talk to about what they're going through. Bronzer sales plummet. No one buying cashmere throws. Choirs reduced by half, harmony suffers. No one to sell shoes at Barney's. Retail sales down; no one to show buyers the possibilities. "Fabulous" dropped from dictionary. America loses ability to bounce back with grace.

And as one commenter wrote last week, and I wish I could find his name again but I tried and couldn't, "If people are against gays having sex, let them get married. That will put a stop to it".

Robin Tyler: Why We Feel Betrayed

2008-11-12T19:31:14Z

With regard to African American voters, 70 per cent of your community sided with the same kind of bigots who supported slavery, who fought against interracial marriage, who vote to send your people who are addicted to prison instead of rehabilitation centers, and who vote to cut off aid to your families, saying that it is a 'moral' issue because 70 per cent of your children are born out of wedlock, and therefore, you should be responsible. These are the bigots with whom you sided! You got in bed with your enemies, the very people who have f----d African Americans again and again, in the name of 'morality' and their religious beliefs.

But I want to say that despite my overwhelming sense of betrayal, I am, as our community is, still firmly committed to continuing our fight against racism. Because, as Dr. King said, "injustice against one is injustice against all."

The California Supreme court struck down the ban on Inter-racial marriage in 1948, (Perez v Sharp), and thanks to the landmark Federal Supreme Court ruling in the case of 'Loving v Virginia', all state miscegenation laws were struck down in 1967.

And yet it wasn't until 1991, 24 years later, that interracial marriage was supported by a majority of Americans. Had the Caucasian people who supported "Yes" on Prop 8 been voting on your right to interracial marriage, until 1991, just 17 years ago, you would have lost. And as I sat in the California Supreme Court on March 4, 2008, the bigots used the same argument against us that they used against you. " It was 'tradition.'" And the justices answered, "so was slavery." And the bigots argued, "God doesn't want interracial marriage which is why he put the races on different continents." And in 2008, California Supreme Court justices ruled, "It is illegal to hide discrimination behind religious beliefs.

That is why we have a court system. That is why the United States constitution says that 'the rights of a Minority may not be denied by the Majority.' That is why Proposition 8 is Illegal. This is not just about marriage equality. This is about civil rights, which Dr. King said is for everyone. Bayard Rustin, the great African American leader who was gay, who called for and organized the 1963 March on Washington, D.C., turned over in his grave Nov. 4, 2008.

This is not an issue for only 'rich white gays.' Black male same-sex couples in the U.S. are almost twice as likely to be living with a child as a white same-sex couple. Black female same-sex couples in the U.S. are just as likely to be living with an adopted or foster child as a black married opposite-sex couple. Many of these African American couples want to get access to marriage so they can provide a more secure future for their children.

And Barack Obama, I voted for you -- even though you said your Christian religion would not allow you to support same-sex marriage. Well, I did not vote for you to be my Christian president. I voted for you to be my president.

You said you were going to be the president of all the people. You even mentioned the word "gay" in your election-night speech. Well, how can you be the president of all of us when LGBT Americans do not have one civil right on a Federal Level?

The gay community wants total and equal rights with the straight community, including marriage. Offering gays only domestic unions and civil partnerships are separate and not equal. When African Americans had to drink from separate water fountains, it was called segregation. It meant they were not good enough to drink from white water fountains, that somehow, they would 'taint' the water, because they were 'less.' To ask us to accept only domestic unions and civil partnerships are marriage segregation. It means that you consider our relationships to be less than yours, that somehow we will destroy the 'sanctity' of marriage. How has my marriage affected yours?

Fifty per cent of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Eighty per cent of people ordered to pay child support, most of them men, do not pay it. Three out of every four children are sexually abused. And speaking of sexual abuse, the Mormons campaigned against us and for limiting marriage to one man and one woman. These are people, who, despite their denials, have not even begun to prosecute the polygamous marriages in which child sexual abuse is rampant. And they call us immoral.

We must not make this a fight with the African American community, or we will all slide to the bottom. That is what the right wing wants. We need to reach out and to keep educating minority communities. And we need to remember the numerous churches and religious Individuals and the 250 California rabbis who sided with us.

But, our passivity has ended. Tens of thousands of lesbians and gays will continue to Protest all over the USA, and we should not get off the streets. We must finally see ourselves as a civil rights movement, and act accordingly. Power is never given, it has to be taken.

What do we want? Equal Rights! When do we want them? Now!

Robin Tyler was the original plaintiff, along with Diane Olson, in Tyler vs. the County of Los Angeles, which gave lesbians and gays the right to marry in California when the state Supreme Court ruled in their favor. On June 16, 2008, they became the first and only gay couple to wed in Los Angeles County. Rallies are being organized all over the USA for Saturday, Nov. 15, in front of City Halls. robintyler@robintyler.com

Theresa Darklady Reed: Halloween "Hell Houses" Act Out Depraved Christian Wet Dreams

2008-10-31T16:47:01Z

Looking for something to really scare the pants off of your kids and other loved ones as the Halloween season draws to a close? Drop by your local fundamentalist Christian "Hell House" and find out what torments await you once you've died and gone to hell.

Typically orchestrated by church or parachurch organizations, Hell Houses luxuriate in the graphic depiction of all manner of sin -- for a good cause, of course.

The cause?

Saving the miserable souls of undeserving sinners who delight in wickedness -- like celebrating Halloween.

Although similar to more familiar secular live-action haunted house attractions, Christian Hell Houses pack their rented space with brief but gruesome mini-stories, accompanied by some degree of explanatory narration. But these vignettes aren't being recreated in order to share a fun bit of fright - they exist in the hopes of literally scaring the devil out of visitors.

Their message is spread throughout the year, but during the month of October their physical manifestation cashes in on the holiday spirit and the hope that attendees won't know what they're getting into until it's too late.

Featuring graphic, exaggerated, and clearly opinionated reenactments of abortions gone horribly bad, teen suicides, excessive intoxication, illegal drug use, adultery, homosexuality, Satanism, occult practices, and pre-marital sex, Hell Houses communicate a clear message to their guests: repent and accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior -- or die and burn for all eternity.

After enduring a cascade of sounds and images ranging from demons cackling over the misfortune of unwed mothers and unrepentant homosexuals to the casting of sexually active men and women into hellish flames, visitors are reassured by visions of salvation at the hands of Jesus - who then leads everyone to a land of punch and cookies.

According to Wikipedia, Jerry Falwell provided the world with the first Hell House experience during the late 1970s. Scaremare still exists today and has spawned a multitude of fundamentalists with something sexy and violent to do during October without officially being involved with a holiday that many insist is based in Satanic teachings.

Pastor Keenan Roberts, now of Colorado but originally from Roswell, NM, enthusiastically embraced the Hell House tradition, not only creating his own in Arvada, CO but providing instructions and kits for churches that wish to indulge in their own horror ministries.

Secular critics complain that Hell Houses not only unfairly prey upon the fears of young children and adolescents but often dupe prospective patrons into laying down cash for what they think will be a light-hearted scare by failing to mention that they have a decidedly evangelical spin.

That view is shared by Christians who take a dim view of high-pressure conversions, with many contending that the likelihood of long-term spiritual success is limited and their methodology manipulative. Further complicating acceptance of Hell Houses by even bible believers is the fact that many view their heavy-handed fear tactics to be a form of child abuse - and not all consider the "sins" depicted to necessarily be sinful.

Nonetheless, they are an increasingly common national occurrence.

According to ReligiousTolerance.org, a typical Hell House experience includes graphic and factually inaccurate re-enactments of such things as the murder of Columbine High School student Cassie Bernall's by a fellow student who allegedly killed her for her faith. Joining this scene are those depicting innocents being sacrificed by Wiccans during Satanic rituals, demon possession brought on by exploring the occult, witches forcing teens to commit murder, and drunk drivers slaughtering their passengers. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 have provided modern Hell House organizers with new scenarios to present, as well.

Late-term abortions, complete with raw meat, considerable screaming, copious blood and callous medicos are perennial favorites, of course - although more sensitive churches have begun depicting the baby killing women as filled with guilt and remorse in order to promote the invention of something called "Post Abortion Syndrome." Also in the sex vein are examples of tragedy resulting from sex before marriage, spousal arguments that drive men to adultery and the supposed evils of same-sex relationships.

Audio effects are often provided by a Hell House specific CD featuring "the voice of suicide, the voice of God, and the bone-chilling demon declaration of 'HELL HOUSE' in the opening scene." According to Roberts, Hell House kits run a tidy $200+ and "show young people that they can go to hell for abortion, adultery, homosexuality, drinking and other things unless they repent and end the behavior."

Never one to let others appear more self-righteous than themselves, the fictional followers of Landover Baptist church have developed their own satirical, if non-existent, Hell House, which they claim is the only spot of church land where non-believers are welcome during the year.

Sounding all-too-authentic by insisting that Halloween is Hebrew for "Satan Ruleth," the fanciful church claims that the holiday celebrates the fall of humankind and the rise of Catholicism - and the LandoverBaptist.org website describes their unique interpretation of the Hell House phenomena as "a reality-based adventure that takes people on a 7-scene journey, each scene depicting the hell and destruction that Satan and His world bestow on those who choose to not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Personal Savior, submit to God's authority, join a Bible-based church, and participate in and financially support the Baptist faith."

This year's fantasy-rich vaporware Landover Baptist Hell House is billed as featuring "an unparalleled experience of horror," according to commentary on the subject, which claims that "Real Corpses from Turkey's Earthquake that would have been wasted in mass graves, will (sic) frozen and delivered to Landover Baptist Church, to be used in the Godly purpose of winning souls! We intend to so traumatize people with images of death and Hell, that they will have no choice but to fall flat on their faces in the conversion tend and repent, get baptized and get their little Devil loving souls into church!"

The entire tour of Landover Baptist's fictive Hell House is billed as taking approximately a half hour to view its 10 scenes. One vignette has allegedly been shortened to a mere 30 seconds, "in an effort to cut down on all the vomit we had to clean up between groups last year."

Highlights of the fright fest include the funeral of a gay teen who died from AIDS contracted by touching ink from a "pedophile homosexual Secular-History teacher," the suicide of a drunken father responsible for the auto related death of his family, a graphic teen suicide autopsy, a pot smoking devil who introduces children to the drug before being begged to impregnate them, Satan both performing and devouring an abortion while disguised as a Jewish doctor, a gay man raping a live chicken that is then cooked and served to the audience, and unrepentant souls being whipped and beaten until converted.

A signed medical waiver is supposedly required before entering the Landover Baptist Hell House, which, among other things, hopes to bring salvation to "teenagers influenced by the poison of negro music."

Although Landover Baptist church is an unrepentant satire, in the real world much of what it promotes is not. While there is no official word about whether its development owes any direct thanks to Roberts' Hell House Outreach kits -- odds are strong that the lampoon is a more than fitting homage for a profoundly anti-sex, anti-equality message that belongs buried in the dark ages of antiquity.

John H. Tucker: War Waged by Christian President Results in Christian Massacre, Say Disaffected Iraqi-Americans

2008-10-31T12:07:27Z

Dave Nona is an Iraqi-American living the immigrant dream. After arriving from Baghdad in 1968, Nona, now 60, owns a house and two cars, sends his three kids to private school and runs a construction-development business with two of his six brothers in West Bloomfield, Mich. Like most Republicans, he worships once a week and staunchly opposes abortion and gay marriage.

But this year, Nona -- who like the majority of Iraqi-Americans is not Muslim, but Christian -- will vote for Sen. Barack Obama.

To understand why, one must look to Mosul, the longtime home of Iraq's Christian population, which lately has been a wellspring of violence. Over the last month, several there have been the victims of murderous extremism, and at least one church has been bombed. More than 2,000 Christian families have evacuated their homes, according to the Human Rights Ministry. No one has claimed responsibility for the violence.

President George W. Bush has been slow to acknowledge the exodus, infuriating many Iraqi-American Christians who were among the president's earliest and staunchest supporters.

"He's basically destroyed one of the most ancient Christian communities in world," said Ron Stockton, a professor at the University of Michigan-Dearborn and co-author of the Detroit Arab-American Study, which explored attitudes toward Arab-Americans in the months following Sept. 11. "This is his unintended legacy."

"Most Americans have no clue that the biggest victims of this war made by this Christian president have been the Christians of Iraq," said James Zogby, who runs the Arab-American Institute.

Nona is one of about 300,000 Iraqi-Americans affiliated with the Chaldean Catholic Church. Theologically aligned with Rome, the church is made up almost entirely of Iraqis and Iraqi emigrants who trace their roots back 7,000 years ago to Mesopotamia. Because of their deep faith, family values and entrepreneurial spirit -- 65 percent of Chaldean-American heads of household own at least one business, according to a recent survey -- they tend to vote Republican.

This year, because of newly formed bitterness toward the Bush administration, that is likely to change.

Nona is no longer willing to call himself a Republican because of the president's perceived lack of interest in the Christian massacre. "I think it's the ultimate irony that the lasting legacy of this great country's fight against Islamic fundamentalism is the destruction of one of the oldest Christian communities in the world," he said.

Martin Manna, head of the Chaldean-American Chamber of Commerce, in Farmington Hills, Mich., said Bush's tepid response to the violence signals his embarrassment over a failed war policy. It also symbolizes a breach of loyalty to Chaldean-Americans, who have been quick to sign up as translators for U.S. military in Iraq, said Manna. "Our folks stepped up every time, and this is the thank-you we receive."

For many of the roughly 120,000 Iraqi Christians living in Detroit, the persecution in Northern Iraq is the most compelling factor in the election, said Manna. "There's not a Chaldean here without family back home," he said. Several of the group's leaders have been actively campaigning for Obama.

There are still several Iraqi-American Christians who support John McCain. Some of the support is attributable to social issues, but much of it stems from fear that troop withdrawal will make an already-violent situation in Iraq worse.

"If the Americans withdraw it will be a catastrophe," said Ban, 27, who moved to New York two years ago as a refugee. She declined to give her last name to protect her family in Baghdad. She likens the persecution in Mosul to that of the Jews 60 years ago. "If I had the right to vote, I'd vote for McCain," she said. "His policy is to keep the troops. I'm relying on them for the safety of my family."

Harith Sulaiman, 40, a Chaldean living in New Jersey, added: "When you break a glass, you must put it back together."

Chaldeans began arriving to the United States in the 1960s and '70s as immigrants in search of better economic opportunities, which they quickly found. They earned money through small business ventures, settled down into suburban communities near Detroit and San Diego and -- though no formal study has been done -- have always leaned Republican. They have not followed the voting patterns of Arab-Americans, who supported Democrats, Republicans and Independents nearly equally in the mid-1990s before drifting toward Democrats in 2002, according to Zogby.

Both Obama and Sen. John McCain have acknowledged the violence in Mosul. Obama recently wrote a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asking for her support on behalf of vulnerable Christians, and McCain met with several of the group's leaders in Detroit.

Religious discrimination against Chaldeans is nothing new in Iraq. For years they could not rise above a certain military rank. But that changed when Saddam Hussein rose to power. Under his vision of a secular Iraq, they began to prosper.

"You've gotta give Saddam some credit here," said Stockton. "He wanted to build a national identity that did not have sectarian differences. The Chaldeans actually flirted with him."

Manna agreed. "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator, but at least our people could worship freely," he said. "They didn't have to worry about going to church and being kidnapped."

Chaldeans, Assyrians (who belong primarily to the Church of the East) and other small groups combine to total about 400,000 Iraqi Christians in the United States, though estimates vary. That number is compared to between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqi Muslims. Most members of the latter group are Shiites who entered the country as refugees during the Gulf War and the present-day conflict.

Now, once-conservative Iraqi-American Christians are part of a growing community leaning more to the left with each passing day of the war.

"We are literally witnessing a very real extinction in Iraq, and no one seems to care about it," said Nona.

Martin added: "The minority Christian population is being decimated. History shows that once Christians leave Iraq, they don't come back."

Robbie Gennet: There is No Such Thing as a Christian Democracy

2008-10-28T17:21:43Z

There is no such thing as a Christian Democracy. There is no such thing as a Muslim Democracy or a Jewish Democracy either (or a solely Heterosexual one, for that matter). True Democracy means True Equality and no religion sees itself as equal to all the others (and they feel especially unequal to secularism and atheism). Of all the problems we face in unifying the "United" States of America, one of the largest and most damaging is those who believe that their religion should be the official religion of our Democracy. In this country, the vast majority of them feel that the USA was founded as a Christian nation and should be run like one, which is anathema to the true Democratic ideals of our founding fathers. They never once think how they would feel if they were a minority and another religion was trying to assert its dominance over them in society. Let's look at two quotes from our presidential candidates that expose their feelings about American Democracy:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all." --Sen. Barack Obama, 6/28/06

"The Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian Nation." - John McCain on video

And just for good measure, three quotes from some of our Founding Fathers as shown in Bill Maher's excellent film "Religulous":

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." -- Thomas Jefferson
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." -- John Adams
"Lighthouses are more useful than churches." -- Benjamin Franklin

There is a fast growing percentage of the US population who does not choose organized religion at all and in many cases, follow or even acknowledge a god. Add to that the millions of American non-Christian believers of every other faith and you wind up with a large swath of the population of our country. Regardless of how sure you are that Christ will herald the Rapture and all sinners will go to Hell, connecting those beliefs with government is massively disrespectful of all the non-Christian citizens you share the country with. The main problem has to do with faith itself. People of every religion must accept certain dictates and definitions about how and why things are in their belief system and they must believe that their religious laws are "right" and all other beliefs (and non-beliefs) are thereby wrong. You can see how this is incongruous with Democratic equality. I may not believe in Jesus Christ, but my non-theistic lifestyle doesn't require my feeling superior to people of religion. Nor does it require convincing or recruiting other people to believe with me. But how often we see the holier-than-thou finger-pointing and the smug air of blind faith lorded over those who are different. Religion divides. And nobody's right.

A billion Muslims think the other 5 billion people on the planet are wrong. A billion Christians think the other 5 billion people on the planet are wrong. To the casual observer, it would seem to be a losing battle, a giant hedging of bets on red or black, a certainty in the one you picked and a total ignorance towards the many other colors of the rainbow. A 50% chance of being right and yet, the believers all seem so sure of their beliefs. In many ways, life is 50/50- either things go your way or they don't. That's life and the chances we take while living it. Having expectations of outcomes sets up disappointments and let's face it, none of us can predict the future. The past is gone and the future is uncertain, leaving only the moment you exist in as the one sure thing. Eckhart Tolle's best-seller The Power of Now is about that very subject, and there is great power in accepting a reality where we aren't bound to past and future but to Right Now. And Right Now more than ever, we need the kind of Democracy that provides the Freedom and Equality that America truly stands for.

Beyond religion, beyond race, beyond class, there is a world that waits for us to come together as one people, one race, one love. All it takes is a decision by each of us to accept our fellow citizens as equals so we can be truly unified by our fundamental rights of Liberty, Justice and the Pursuit of Happiness, three unalienable rights as promised in the Declaration of Independence. And for the record, the American Heritage Dictionary defines 'unalienable' as "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away." Those who seek to take away or subjugate the rights of others are inherently un-American and don't respect true Liberty and Justice for All. Religious elitism goes against the very foundation of Democracy and the principles that this great country was built on. If America is to truly be a shining beacon on the hill, it's light must reach all people, not some chosen few.

John Seery: Proposition 8: "It Is Written, but I Say unto You."

2008-10-28T17:11:16Z

I just don't get California's Proposition 8, the initiative for a state constitutional ban against same-sex marriage. It's become the most expensive "social issue" ballot measure ever. The stakes are high.

In my neighborhood, there are yard signs for and against the measure. I must say, I'm simply baffled by the "Yes on Prop. 8" folks. I've listened carefully to their arguments, I've tried to heed their sentiments, I've tried to respect their "moral" concerns. But I just don't buy it. In fact, their campaign saddens me greatly.

My wife and I have been together for almost 25 years. We have two beautiful children. For the life of me, I simply cannot see any way that same-sex marriage threatens my marriage, not by any stretch of the imagination. Not in the least. I just don't get the claim about how the ban is necessary to "protect marriage."

The argument about procreation doesn't make any sense. If that were the crux of the matter, then marriage would be proscribed or discouraged for older hetero couples, or infertile couples. Such childless marriages are no less sacred or celebrated. And it's not as if the presence of same-sex married couples is going to inhibit the procreative tendencies of hetero couples. Why presume that these sexualities are competing or in active conflict with one another, as a zero-sum trade-off? Is the sheer idea of same-sex coupledom somehow a romantic turn-off for certain heteros? Are the "Yes on Prop. 8" folks implying that a sizeable number of otherwise hetero individuals will convert to homosexuality if same-sex marriage is permitted, and that's why the breeding foundations of society are allegedly imperiled today? Will hetero couples have less sex because they'll get depressed that same-sex couples will now be sharing the institution of marriage? The procreative argument just doesn't fly. Maybe someone out there can explain it to me.

The main animus, as far as I can tell, against same-sex marriage is religious (I could proffer psychological explanations as well, but those seem derivatively intertwined with the religious reasons). The offended religiosity claims to be based on Scripture. It all boils down to a couple of passages in Leviticus, and maybe a few scattered comments in Paul's letters. To take those passages seriously, however, one today must read them selectively and tendentiously while ignoring their clearly antiquated aspects. I don't see any way around it. If a man lies with a male as with a woman (Lev. 21:13), then that "abomination" requires that they both be put to death--along with the death penalty for adultery and other offenses. If the "Yes on Prop. 8" folks are sincerely convinced that Leviticus requires them to oppose same-sex marriage today, then why aren't they following Scripture more rigorously and calling for the death penalty--not only for homosexuality but also for heterosexual adultery? I just don't get how one can be actively incensed by one line of Scripture but then be completely oblivious to the very next line. If you're a literalist and you believe every word in the Bible is God's revealed word, then you have no exegetical right to pick and choose which passages in Leviticus matter to you today and which don't.

Christians in particular surely ought to read the books of the Hebrew Bible, such as Leviticus, in the manner in which Jesus suggested they be read. Max Weber, the great sociologist of religion, insisted that Jesus' main charismatic appeal and divine-like authority could be traced to his personalist rejection of Scriptural literalism. For Weber, the key to the entire spirit of Christianity is to be found in the Sermon on the Mount, precisely when Jesus repeats time and again: "It is written, but I say unto you." [Often translated as, You have heard, but I say unto you."] With those words, Jesus reforms Scriptural law and prophesy, subsequently telling his followers that they must read past the strict letter of the law and, instead, inquire into its greater meaning, the "spirit" of the law.

That said, I simply do not see how any devout Christian today can read the Sermon on the Mount scrupulously and still support Proposition 8. Jesus' unconditional embrace of the disaffected and the marginalized in society--the poor, the meek, the persecuted--simply doesn't square, in the above Weberian sense of Christian spirituality, with the invidious, exclusionary, self-righteous, and judgmental tendencies that sanctimoniously inform the rationale behind Proposition 8. In his 1919 address, "Politics as a Vocation," Weber warned that the Sermon on the Mount is an absolute ethic; it is, he said, "no joking matter." The commandments therein are "not a cab, which one can have stopped at one's pleasure." Turning the other cheek, forgiving trespasses, loving your enemy, judging not: those are not pretty verses to be heard and then merely mouthed. Those words, rather, must be lived, and lived consistently, doing whatever one does for the least of one's brethren.

Christine Wicker: Evangelical Leaders Using God Like a Hired Gun

2008-10-28T07:42:18Z

They tried branding Obama the anti-Christ. They tried linking him with Islamic terrorists. They've implied that unknown powers bought his allegiance by financing his education at Ivy League universities. They've used their pulpits to endorse McCain, hoping to spur a fight with the I.R.S. that would rouse their troops.

None of these tactics has brought their errant minions under control.

So using God like a hired gun to terrorize the town's people, the evangelical Christian mullahs are declaring that Obamageddon is at hand, using that very word and asking as the Religious Right/Republican Townhall magazine did in a September headline, "Could We Survive a Barack Presidency?"

Evangelical publisher James Strang answers the survival question by warning his readers that people who hate Christianity will take over the country once Obama is elected.

In fact, "life as we know it will end," Strang writes.

Last week Focus on the Family's James Dobson added his own doomsday predictions with a 16-page rant about evils that will befall the United States by 2012 if Obama is elected. A British commentator dubbed Dobson's list of a parade of horrors.

As a warm up Dobson blames misguided young evangelicals for putting Obama in office. It's them he's hoping to scare most. But they and emergent church leaders such as Brian McLaren, who endorsed Obama, have broken ranks and won't be coming back. He's truly delusional if he thinks they're listening to him.

A great mass of other evangelicals, who never followed the evangelical mullahs and never will, are also going for Obama. Maybe Dobson thinks they'll listen to him.

Not likely. They're using tried-and true-evangelical tactics on behalf of their own cause.

Seattle's Jim Henderson, a former Pentecostal preacher and head of Offthemap.com, is trying guilt.

He recently sent a mass email urging his friends to support Obama because he has the character and bearing to be president, and because his election gives Christians the opportunity to transform historical wrong.

The enslavement of Africans contributed greatly to our nation's wealth and has never been addressed directly and concretely by our leaders, Henderson wrote. Linking that lack of repentance to the country's $13 trillion of debt, he told his friends that our current troubles are a matter of reaping what we've sown. He then cited the chance to elect Obama as an example of "God's mercy - as a way through this historic dilemma and one that will do for our national character what reparations never could."

He and his ilk won't be convinced by Dobson's scare tactics. They're more likely to agree with a new bumper sticker popular in Colorado, where Focus on the Family is based.

It reads, "Focus on your own damn family."

So which evangelicals are left? Oh, I know. How could I have left them until last? The true faithful. The ones who always listen to Dobson.

He's going after evangelicals who may stay home on election day because they paid too much attention to his reasons for refusing to support McCain earlier in the year.

At that time, thinking that he was powerful enough to quash McCain's nomination, Dobson chastised fellow evangelical Gary Bauer for supporting the senator from Arizona.

"The Senator," Dobson said in a press release from Focus on the Family, "is being touted by the media as a man of principle, yet he was involved with other women while married to his first wife, and was implicated in the so-called Keating scandal with four other senators. He was eventually reprimanded by the Congress for the 'appearance of impropriety.' The Senator reportedly has a violent temper and can be extremely confrontational and profane when angry. These red flags about Senator McCain's character are reminiscent of the man who now occupies the White House."

The man who now occupies the White House? Oh yeah. That guy. Isn't he the last president the Religious Right elected?

But let's forget about that. Many of God's men have fallen. God's people move on.

Dobson's jeremiad against McCain also noted the senator's love of alcohol and gambling, as well as his acceptance of support from Log Cabin Republicans, a gay group.

Pretty strong stuff. All true. But let's forget about that.

The Republicans anointed McCain anyway.

When Dobson saw that threats to take his toys and go home didn't keep McCain from winning the nomination, he forgot his previous scruples. Now Dobson sees McCain as God's man. It's Obama who's the devil. And under God's direction, as he always is, Dobson is speaking out again. But this time he is no longer dealing in truth.

As he notes in the letter's preface, Dobson is now imagining things, things that could happen if Christians don't unite behind McCain and give that adulterous, profane, violent, scandal-tainted, bought-out-by-the-homsexuals drinker and gambler the most powerful elective office in the world.

In the letter Dobson imagines Boy Scouts disbanding rather than allowing gay scout leaders the complete license they will get if Obama is elected. He imagines the Pledge of Allegiance being banned in schools. He imagines Communism gaining new power. He imagines doctors killing children just minutes before birth. He imagines Americans forbidden to own guns. He imagines television and radio stations forbidden to preach the Bible. He imagines ministers, lawyers, doctors, social workers all being punished for following their consciences.

Dobson may have gotten his letter idea from Christian radio's Janet Porter who wrote an imaginary "Letter from a Future Prisoner" last year. She was fear mongering over the idea the Hillary might be elected. If that happened "thought crimes" would be instituted. Christian books would be banned. Christian speech would be called hate speech.

Porter, an even bigger drama queen than Dobson, imagined herself in prison doing hard labor merely for defending her faith. And who does she imagine in the cell next to her?

No, no. Not Jesus. Don't be ridiculous.

It's a home-schooling mother weeping inconsolably because her innocent children have been put in foster care.

All because they loved Jesus.

All because that adulterous, profane, violent, scandal-tainted, bought-out-by-the-homsexuals drinker and gambler didn't win the presidential election.

It's enough to make Mickey Rooney weep.

Robbie Gennet: The Problem with Education

2008-10-27T16:07:30Z

A government who educates its people serves to sharpen a blade that may ultimately do it in, while the government who under-educates their population seeks to create a docile flock that is easily misled and controlled. They want people smart, but not too smart. Ignorance breeds hate, which we're seeing plenty of at Palin rallies these days. But when we talk about educational reform, it is important to consider things from the government's point of view. In the eyes of John McCain and the Republicans, if they make the public school system as dysfunctional as possible, then they can push vouchers and "choice" so that parents can send their children to private schools on the governments dime. Most often, those are religious (read: Christian) schools and they don't have the accountability issues (or separation of Church and State issue) that the Public School System has. This is a backhanded way of bridging that church-state divide and having government (read: taxpayers) fund religious education. Barack Obama wants to actually reform the public school system so that every child in America can get a world class education becoming of the richest country in the world. By raising our standards of what we expect from our students and preparing them to be globally competitive, we make our best investment in America's future. Obama's concentration on science and math is especially important as we have fallen farther and farther behind the rest of the developing world in both of those categories. But here's the rub: science, more so than math, doesn't always jibe with what religion teaches.

The "War on Science," as Hillary Clinton called it, includes the Creationism/Intelligent Design movement and has cost us dearly in global competitiveness. There is no room for superstition when we are turning out a sub-par working class whose outsourced jobs are being filled by better qualified candidates in India and points elsewhere who understand and adhere to the empirical basis of scientific fact. It is unfortunate for those of blind faith that their beliefs keep butting heads with things like logic, reason and reality. Sarah Palin's views on dinosaurs are a symptom of the endemic irrationality that has gripped our nations discourse during the "Culture Wars." We must firmly grasp empirical truth to lift ourselves from this quagmire of stupidity. This is not meant to be a blanket generalization; there are some people who let their feelings of faith guide their moral behavior but still understand that the world is billions of years old and not the center of the universe. That dinosaur bones weren't hidden all over the earth by a God who just wants to test our faith in him. The idea of a big practical joker in the sky screwing with people's heads by planting false evidence of large reptilian beings is as absurd as imagining that he/she is listening to every individual prayer made by the faithful or intervening in football touchdowns and Alaskan gubernatorial races. And if, like George W. Bush indicated, God has had the ear of the most powerful man on earth and has given him all the advice that has led us down this dark 8 year path, that doesn't exactly give me faith in God's advice, let alone His teachings being used in private schools funded by school vouchers. If God's advice led George W. Bush to his decisions, perhaps we should subpoena God and see what he told our president to do in His name. We'll need some mighty big handcuffs for a deity perp walk...

This is really about who educates our children and ultimately, why. Blind faith must be left at the doorsteps (or trash bins) of our schools and our students must be taught by competent (and well-paid) teachers who understand that we as a nation and people have fallen behind and that our children are our future. To give one example, India is a very spiritual country but Hinduism hasn't stopped their growing economy, their emphasis on education or their ability to anticipate and adapt to coming trends in the world economy. Science isn't the enemy of their religion, but it is the enemy of illogical, unfounded dogmatic belief systems that cling to "facts" that can never be proved. Can American Fundevangelical Christianity ever accept that evolution is real? That the world and universe are billions of years old? That The Bible is not the "word of God" but a heavily edited book written by mortal men who had no concept of physics or science? Whether or not Christianity does or does not accept these things should have no more bearing on our Educational System than whether Aesop's Fables do. Sending our children to religious schools to avoid science is antithetical to giving them the proper tools to compete in the global economy. You can be assured that in the laboratories and factories of India, China, South Korea and Japan, they are no more concerned with being guided by the teachings of Jesus than they are by the phone book. And they are excelling in those areas most crucial to the new economy, while we stagnate and fall ever farther behind.

It is time to rescue our Educational System and give our children a better understanding of the world we live in and their place in it. If our public schools are competitive with other countries at every level, parents will have no need for vouchers to send them elsewhere. Leave the religious teachings to Sunday school and give our children the foundation for a better and brighter future by making our public schools second to none. There is no greater investment we can make in our country than in its people, especially the youngest among us. Let us truly leave no child behind so that America can move ahead!