Yes ... Liberty University, founded by the late Jerry Falwell, has announced that it is ending its ban on guns in dorms. Like this is supposed to make us feel any safer. They claim it's a stand against terrorists. Apparently students can already keep guns in their cars. The campus police is even offering free firearms training.
I would kind of expect this from one of the most conservative universities in America (as well as one with one of the best debating clubs).
But Jerry Falwell Jr, in making his announcement, also made an off-the-cuff (we think) remark about the need to "end those Muslims". Muslims actually do attend the Christian university. Not thinking there, pal.
Besides, what if an armed person actually came on campus and started shooting up, like what happened a few years ago at Virginia Tech? I think it would be an even bigger bloodbath, especially if students pointed the wrong way and shot fellow students or staff members.
I get the Second Amendment. But with rights come responsibilities. This idea comes off as totally irresponsible. It's only asking for trouble.
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Friday, March 1, 2013
Charles McVety vs sex ed
I really have to hand it to some social conservatives who are so sexually repressed they recoil at the word sex. I don't know if Charles McVety of the Canada Family Action Coalition is quite that regressed, but his playing on people's worst instincts would be comical were it not for what's at stake -- the kind of country that we want Canada to be. Especially when it comes to personal choices.
Chuck, a televangelist, has make himself look like an idiot several times over. He is certainly entitled to his opinion that gay and lesbian marriage is wrong. He is definitely allowed to say that, too. But it wasn't that long ago -- like, 2010 -- that he went on TV repeated the oft repeated lie that gays and lesbians prey on minors, as if to say that only homosexuals are pedophiles. Of course most reasonable people know that not to be true. But you can't convince some people about that.
Two years ago, McVety railed against the idea of "gay-straight" alliances in schools, claiming they would force students to hear about oral and anal sex. Of course the problem is, most kids know about it already. They go on the Internet. They talk to their fellow students. Heck, in a lot of cases, their own parents have talked about their escapades into the back door, openly!
And what is so wrong with standing up for open discussion about sex, or about standing up for someone who is bullied because of their choice of lifestyle? Some kids figure out they're gay by the time they're five or six even if they don't yet know the word for it.
Now, the latest front. Kathleen Wynne, the Premier of Ontario and the first openly gay chief executive of the province since its founding in 1791 as Upper Canada, now may finally do what should have done decades ago; updating the province's sex education curriculum. Something that Pointy Head, Dalton McGuinty, should have done already while he was still Premier. And naturally, McVety and his fellow regressives are whipping up a firestorm saying once again that this shouldn't be in schools, or if it is, that parents should have Power Of Veto ™
.
Why: Three words. Ignorance is bliss.
Where does that take us, though?
We only have to look in the States to see where abstinence only programs go when it comes to heterosexual sex amongst teenagers. Higher rates of genital, oral and anal sex, higher rates of disease, higher rates of pregnancies. In States where there is a frank discussion of the consequences? Lower rates of disease, lower teen pregnancies. And counter intuitively, the rate of people delaying their first time is actually higher than in the regressed states.
Because oral and anal contact inherently can be so much more dangerous, since there is often a lesser use of protection and in turn a much higher risk of exchanging bodily fluids through cuts, there needs to be education on reducing the risk.
Look, even the most progressive of progressives -- and I'm nowhere near there in the political spectrum -- would have to acknowledge that abstinence is the only way to stop the spread of venereal disease or a pregnancy.
But this is not an ideal world. Kids have sex. And they have it at younger and younger ages, because both boys and girls are starting to develop at younger ages -- mainly due to changes in our diets and in environmental factors. Matter of fact, many girls are starting to develop at age 7 and boys at 9. And their "first time" with someone of the opposite sex will probably be by the time they hit 13. If they experiment with someone of the same sex, maybe earlier.
Even thirty years ago, which gives away my age (!), my classmates and I -- both sexes -- didn't start to develop until 12 or 13 and the median for losing the cherry was 16. But we did talk about sex in the schoolyard. Straight and gay sex. And then as now, some of the chatter was based on facts but the rest on misinformation. But the discussion in class, such as it was, was only about heterosexual sex. For those in my class who were gay or lesbian and there were a couple, some use that did.
The rate of gays and lesbians in this country has likely stayed at the same rate for decades -- the difference is that now there's greater tolerance of the practice, more people who are LGBT feel comfortable in saying so. They're not about to go back into the closet. And as I have said previously, their families are just as valuable, just as vital, as "straight" families.
I have always thought that teaching kids values starts at home, but if those values are based on prejudice and misinformation there has to be a forum to present a more balanced view and without parental interference, so the kids can decide for themselves. And practically the only place that can happen, is at school.
If one had to ask McVety, one would have to suppose he might say we should go back to the days when a "troubled" teenage girl had gone to an aunt -- i.e. the homes for unwed mothers -- and the father of the baby was not allowed to even have access to what he had a part in creating, let along being told where his girlfriend disappeared to.
Knowledge is power. And the more we empower people, especially at a young age, the more we can push back at the holier than thous who claim they know better. And even turn back the tide on disease and unwanted pregnancies -- as well as bigotry. Premier Wynne should push forward, and not be bullied. Straight people like me, who have an open mind, have "gotten used to it." It's time those whose minds stubbornly closed, to get used to it as well.
Chuck, a televangelist, has make himself look like an idiot several times over. He is certainly entitled to his opinion that gay and lesbian marriage is wrong. He is definitely allowed to say that, too. But it wasn't that long ago -- like, 2010 -- that he went on TV repeated the oft repeated lie that gays and lesbians prey on minors, as if to say that only homosexuals are pedophiles. Of course most reasonable people know that not to be true. But you can't convince some people about that.
Two years ago, McVety railed against the idea of "gay-straight" alliances in schools, claiming they would force students to hear about oral and anal sex. Of course the problem is, most kids know about it already. They go on the Internet. They talk to their fellow students. Heck, in a lot of cases, their own parents have talked about their escapades into the back door, openly!
And what is so wrong with standing up for open discussion about sex, or about standing up for someone who is bullied because of their choice of lifestyle? Some kids figure out they're gay by the time they're five or six even if they don't yet know the word for it.
Now, the latest front. Kathleen Wynne, the Premier of Ontario and the first openly gay chief executive of the province since its founding in 1791 as Upper Canada, now may finally do what should have done decades ago; updating the province's sex education curriculum. Something that Pointy Head, Dalton McGuinty, should have done already while he was still Premier. And naturally, McVety and his fellow regressives are whipping up a firestorm saying once again that this shouldn't be in schools, or if it is, that parents should have Power Of Veto ™
.
Why: Three words. Ignorance is bliss.
Where does that take us, though?
We only have to look in the States to see where abstinence only programs go when it comes to heterosexual sex amongst teenagers. Higher rates of genital, oral and anal sex, higher rates of disease, higher rates of pregnancies. In States where there is a frank discussion of the consequences? Lower rates of disease, lower teen pregnancies. And counter intuitively, the rate of people delaying their first time is actually higher than in the regressed states.
Because oral and anal contact inherently can be so much more dangerous, since there is often a lesser use of protection and in turn a much higher risk of exchanging bodily fluids through cuts, there needs to be education on reducing the risk.
Look, even the most progressive of progressives -- and I'm nowhere near there in the political spectrum -- would have to acknowledge that abstinence is the only way to stop the spread of venereal disease or a pregnancy.
But this is not an ideal world. Kids have sex. And they have it at younger and younger ages, because both boys and girls are starting to develop at younger ages -- mainly due to changes in our diets and in environmental factors. Matter of fact, many girls are starting to develop at age 7 and boys at 9. And their "first time" with someone of the opposite sex will probably be by the time they hit 13. If they experiment with someone of the same sex, maybe earlier.
Even thirty years ago, which gives away my age (!), my classmates and I -- both sexes -- didn't start to develop until 12 or 13 and the median for losing the cherry was 16. But we did talk about sex in the schoolyard. Straight and gay sex. And then as now, some of the chatter was based on facts but the rest on misinformation. But the discussion in class, such as it was, was only about heterosexual sex. For those in my class who were gay or lesbian and there were a couple, some use that did.
The rate of gays and lesbians in this country has likely stayed at the same rate for decades -- the difference is that now there's greater tolerance of the practice, more people who are LGBT feel comfortable in saying so. They're not about to go back into the closet. And as I have said previously, their families are just as valuable, just as vital, as "straight" families.
I have always thought that teaching kids values starts at home, but if those values are based on prejudice and misinformation there has to be a forum to present a more balanced view and without parental interference, so the kids can decide for themselves. And practically the only place that can happen, is at school.
If one had to ask McVety, one would have to suppose he might say we should go back to the days when a "troubled" teenage girl had gone to an aunt -- i.e. the homes for unwed mothers -- and the father of the baby was not allowed to even have access to what he had a part in creating, let along being told where his girlfriend disappeared to.
Knowledge is power. And the more we empower people, especially at a young age, the more we can push back at the holier than thous who claim they know better. And even turn back the tide on disease and unwanted pregnancies -- as well as bigotry. Premier Wynne should push forward, and not be bullied. Straight people like me, who have an open mind, have "gotten used to it." It's time those whose minds stubbornly closed, to get used to it as well.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Ratinzger quits
As suprising (not) as Joe Ratzinger's resignation today as Pope Benedict XVI may have been, he did the right thing. The Catholic Church is so dysfunctional that it'll take years to begin to fix it (and although he was an insider for decades, it got to be too much even for him) -- and the fact he's had to have Midnight Mass for Christmas at 10 pm four years in a row was warning that this was going to happen. One has to wonder if he's much worse than he's letting on. Alzheimer's, perhaps? We now know that Karol Wojtyla (John Paul II) was diagnosed with Parkinson's as far back as 1989 and he thought about quitting.
Matter of fact the last time a Pope resigned was Angelo Correr (Gregory XII) in 1415 in a bold move to end the impasse between the Roman and Avignon churches and later even that of Pisa, all of which claimed to have the real Pope.
Was Ratz health the issue? Was he shoved out? Who knows, but he did the right thing by walking away before becoming so incapacitated that no one would know who was in control. Catholics, including disaffected ones like me, would need that like a shot in the head.
Doing the right thing. How refreshing.
Too bad Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau haven't figured out how to do the honourable thing for themselves and their country.
Matter of fact the last time a Pope resigned was Angelo Correr (Gregory XII) in 1415 in a bold move to end the impasse between the Roman and Avignon churches and later even that of Pisa, all of which claimed to have the real Pope.
Was Ratz health the issue? Was he shoved out? Who knows, but he did the right thing by walking away before becoming so incapacitated that no one would know who was in control. Catholics, including disaffected ones like me, would need that like a shot in the head.
Doing the right thing. How refreshing.
Too bad Mike Duffy and Patrick Brazeau haven't figured out how to do the honourable thing for themselves and their country.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Billy Graham: Wrong about gay marriage
Billy Graham, who is into his eighth decade as a minister, is one of the very few people in the States who is so famous that the only address you need to write on an envelope is his or her name only, no box number, no state, no ZIP code -- in this case, Billy Graham USA.
In most respects he certainly does deserve that distinction. Not just for his dynamic style of preaching, one that appeals to people of faith regardless of denomination. Nor for his humble living (still residing in his Montreat, North Carolina cottage rather than the super manors most televangelists favour).
In the very early days of the civil rights struggle he was in the front lines against segregation. Several times, he literally had to knock down rope lines in arenas that separated the "black" and "white" sections and told the organizers he would cancel the crusade if the service was not desegregated. As he famously said in 1969 (to huge applause from both whites and blacks): "Jesus isn't black or white. He is a Palestinian. He has brown skin, and He belongs to all of us!" He never named names but this was almost certainly a shot at Jerry Falwell, who opposed racial integration (including for the longest time refusing to perform interracial marriages).
Graham has also been scrupulous in not openly favouring any candidate in particular for any level of office. He is a registered Democrat, but always has a reserved seat at both the Dem and GOP conventions. Not too many other preachers who have that honour -- one or the other, yes, but not both.
But in the last few years, indeed as he is now in the sunset of his life, he has become quite stubborn on the issue of faith in politics. In particular gay marriage. Earlier this year, he took out ads in North Carolina newspapers urging residents there to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative. I doubt his comments swayed too many voters, the law was going to pass anyway. The Tarheel State, while one of the most progressive in the South, is still deeply religious. Many who are socially liberal on most issues draw the line at abortion and "the right to die."
That's fine. People can have whatever opinions they want.
Dr Graham, however, has taken the unusual step of going nationwide with his advertorials. In his words:
That's all well and good. Except for the fact that after Mitt Romney visited Graham earlier this week, Graham's ministry's website scrubbed a whole section that defined Mormonism as a cult. Many apologetics would point out that the LDS church has beliefs that are totally outside of Protestantism -- in fact are outside the articles of faith that the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and the dozens of Protestant denominations agree on. (Read: the Nicene Creed.)
This is about as close to a full endorsement of a political candidate as Graham has ever come. One might suppose that since there is clear firewall between himself personally and his ministry (again, something most other televangelists refuse to do) he has the law on his side.
But I do find it very troubling he has only spoken openly about gay marriage now. True, it is a bridge too far for many people. And yes, he has the right to have his opinions. However, the idea that someone who is LGBT opposes the state of Israel or is automatically pro-choice or supports the strict division between church and state is silly.
As far as marriage is concerned, there is the principle that "God is love." Jesus may have spoken of marriage as one man one woman. But that was 2000 years ago. I would happen to think that if He was here today, he'd say, who cares as long as there is love. While I am still personally troubled by the moral implications of same sex marriage, on a social level as well as a legal principle it is really none of my business who should or who should not get married or to whom.
So Dr Graham, respectfully, you have a right to your opinions, but the mindset of the free world is changing on this one. America wasn't destroyed by desegregation, or women voting or being in the workplace, or by having a central bank instead of having banks print their own money. I hardly think it or any other country will be destroyed by LGBT marriages.
Besides which, the vast majority of gay couples prefer to live common law, seeing marriage as an oppressive institution. And that's not necessary a wrong opinion either.
In most respects he certainly does deserve that distinction. Not just for his dynamic style of preaching, one that appeals to people of faith regardless of denomination. Nor for his humble living (still residing in his Montreat, North Carolina cottage rather than the super manors most televangelists favour).
In the very early days of the civil rights struggle he was in the front lines against segregation. Several times, he literally had to knock down rope lines in arenas that separated the "black" and "white" sections and told the organizers he would cancel the crusade if the service was not desegregated. As he famously said in 1969 (to huge applause from both whites and blacks): "Jesus isn't black or white. He is a Palestinian. He has brown skin, and He belongs to all of us!" He never named names but this was almost certainly a shot at Jerry Falwell, who opposed racial integration (including for the longest time refusing to perform interracial marriages).
Graham has also been scrupulous in not openly favouring any candidate in particular for any level of office. He is a registered Democrat, but always has a reserved seat at both the Dem and GOP conventions. Not too many other preachers who have that honour -- one or the other, yes, but not both.
But in the last few years, indeed as he is now in the sunset of his life, he has become quite stubborn on the issue of faith in politics. In particular gay marriage. Earlier this year, he took out ads in North Carolina newspapers urging residents there to pass an anti-gay marriage initiative. I doubt his comments swayed too many voters, the law was going to pass anyway. The Tarheel State, while one of the most progressive in the South, is still deeply religious. Many who are socially liberal on most issues draw the line at abortion and "the right to die."
That's fine. People can have whatever opinions they want.
Dr Graham, however, has taken the unusual step of going nationwide with his advertorials. In his words:
"As I approach my 94th birthday, I realize this election could be my last. I believe it is vitally important that we cast our ballots for candidates who base their decisions on biblical principles and support the nation of Israel. I urge you to vote for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman. Vote for biblical values this November 6, and pray with me that America will remain one nation under God."
That's all well and good. Except for the fact that after Mitt Romney visited Graham earlier this week, Graham's ministry's website scrubbed a whole section that defined Mormonism as a cult. Many apologetics would point out that the LDS church has beliefs that are totally outside of Protestantism -- in fact are outside the articles of faith that the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and the dozens of Protestant denominations agree on. (Read: the Nicene Creed.)
This is about as close to a full endorsement of a political candidate as Graham has ever come. One might suppose that since there is clear firewall between himself personally and his ministry (again, something most other televangelists refuse to do) he has the law on his side.
But I do find it very troubling he has only spoken openly about gay marriage now. True, it is a bridge too far for many people. And yes, he has the right to have his opinions. However, the idea that someone who is LGBT opposes the state of Israel or is automatically pro-choice or supports the strict division between church and state is silly.
As far as marriage is concerned, there is the principle that "God is love." Jesus may have spoken of marriage as one man one woman. But that was 2000 years ago. I would happen to think that if He was here today, he'd say, who cares as long as there is love. While I am still personally troubled by the moral implications of same sex marriage, on a social level as well as a legal principle it is really none of my business who should or who should not get married or to whom.
So Dr Graham, respectfully, you have a right to your opinions, but the mindset of the free world is changing on this one. America wasn't destroyed by desegregation, or women voting or being in the workplace, or by having a central bank instead of having banks print their own money. I hardly think it or any other country will be destroyed by LGBT marriages.
Besides which, the vast majority of gay couples prefer to live common law, seeing marriage as an oppressive institution. And that's not necessary a wrong opinion either.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Isn't it time to put an end to the Međugorje fraud?
Being someone who happens to be a kid born in Canada of parents from Croatia, this is bound to ruffle some feathers including some within my "ethnic group". But it's way past time to put logic into the alleged three decades long non-stop apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Međugorje, Bosnia-Hercegovina (B and H) -- and say once and for all what a lot of people want to say: The whole thing is a fraud.
The whole sordid thing started way back on June 24. 1981, the feast of St. John the Baptist. (That's a red flag right there.) It started with three "visionaries" and has since expanded to six. It would be fine if there had been a limited number of "appearances". But non stop for 31 years straight almost daily? That's about 7,500 give or take.
Those who have flocked to this former weigh station claim to feel a "presence" that's there. They believe it was the Virgin Mary that freed both Croatia and Slovenia from the "clutches" of Serbia (even though the Eastern Orthodox churches also have a high degree of devotion to the mother of Jesus); and as proof they point to, among other things, a mortar shell that plied upright into the ground near the local parish but did not explode. (Um, the Balkan War actually put an end to "duds"?)
But there are a few other problems. It's not that the first wave of visions during the last half of 1981 started an extremely lengthy row between the Franciscan order and the cadre of priests employed directly by the relevant diocese and who controlled the particular parish in question here. Nor is it the occasional "dancing of the sun" -- the same fraudulent phenomena that allegedly occurred at Fátima , Portugal, in 1917. (I'll explain why I think it was a fake in a moment).
Consider too, some of the following outrageous prophecies made at Međugorje (Source: CrisisMagazine.com) -- and keep in mind, these are just some of the whoppers -- and none of which happened:
Back to the "dancing of the sun." I don't know about Međugorje (which has taken it to ridiculous levels), but even what happened in Fátima is also highly suspicious and for this reason: When Jesus was dared by the Pharisees to perform a sign from the sky, Jesus said the only sign they would see is the miracle of Jonah (three days in the Earth followed by a comeback) -- Matthew 12:39. A reasonable person would point out that if Jesus refused to force a cosmic disturbance, why would his mother? There's no doubt something happened that day -- too many eyewitnesses to suggest otherwise. But it was Satan who did that -- not Mary or her Son.
In short, the six are all con artists -- and the commission should recommend that they be kicked out of the Church.
The whole sordid thing started way back on June 24. 1981, the feast of St. John the Baptist. (That's a red flag right there.) It started with three "visionaries" and has since expanded to six. It would be fine if there had been a limited number of "appearances". But non stop for 31 years straight almost daily? That's about 7,500 give or take.
Those who have flocked to this former weigh station claim to feel a "presence" that's there. They believe it was the Virgin Mary that freed both Croatia and Slovenia from the "clutches" of Serbia (even though the Eastern Orthodox churches also have a high degree of devotion to the mother of Jesus); and as proof they point to, among other things, a mortar shell that plied upright into the ground near the local parish but did not explode. (Um, the Balkan War actually put an end to "duds"?)
But there are a few other problems. It's not that the first wave of visions during the last half of 1981 started an extremely lengthy row between the Franciscan order and the cadre of priests employed directly by the relevant diocese and who controlled the particular parish in question here. Nor is it the occasional "dancing of the sun" -- the same fraudulent phenomena that allegedly occurred at Fátima , Portugal, in 1917. (I'll explain why I think it was a fake in a moment).
Consider too, some of the following outrageous prophecies made at Međugorje (Source: CrisisMagazine.com) -- and keep in mind, these are just some of the whoppers -- and none of which happened:
- Then Pope John Paul II would be forced out in a putsch and exiled to Turkey, where maybe a third of one percent of the population are Catholics, most of them from the Eastern rites and perhaps a few thousand are part of the Western or Roman rite.
- Germany and the US would both collapse. There's still a US. And East and West Germany along with the free city of West Berlin not only all reunited, but the fused country also agreed de facto to share its currency with any other state that wanted it, hence the Euro (which, bizarrely, B and H has adopted unilaterally as its own currency with protest but no sanctions from Frankfurt).
- There would be a lasting peace in Yugoslavia. Ha! The country was torn apart in a bloody war. B and H effectively operates as a confederation of two states with a shared capital -- not unlike Belgium although the latter uses fighting words instead of the sword. Even the two republics that were majority Catholic, Croatia and Slovenia, wasn't quite that hunky-dory until very recently and the once open border was slammed shut when Slovenia got into the EU much earlier (2004) than Croatia (admission will be mid-2013). Serbia is probably next (say, 2015) but it will be 2020 at the earliest before B and H qualifies. Add in Macedonia -- and the country will be put back together, de facto, although as part of a semi-federal Europe stretching from Ireland and the UK to Finland and Estonia. The peace will be one of economic necessity, not because of an "Ebony and Ivory" spirit.
Back to the "dancing of the sun." I don't know about Međugorje (which has taken it to ridiculous levels), but even what happened in Fátima is also highly suspicious and for this reason: When Jesus was dared by the Pharisees to perform a sign from the sky, Jesus said the only sign they would see is the miracle of Jonah (three days in the Earth followed by a comeback) -- Matthew 12:39. A reasonable person would point out that if Jesus refused to force a cosmic disturbance, why would his mother? There's no doubt something happened that day -- too many eyewitnesses to suggest otherwise. But it was Satan who did that -- not Mary or her Son.
In short, the six are all con artists -- and the commission should recommend that they be kicked out of the Church.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Romney should audition for Keystone Kops with his mouth
Remember four years ago and Barack Obama's goodwill tour of Europe -- well before the Democratic convention -- and how it brought out people in the tens of thousands; including 200,000 at Victory Column in Berlin. No surprise there as he was spreading the word of reconciliation with the NATO alliance after eight years of 43.
Fast forward to 2012. Mitt Romney, having locked up the Republican nod to challenge Obama, is now on a world tour of his own. But the crowds just aren't there. A corporate raider just doesn't have the chic of acommunity organizer.
And better for Obama's chances, the former Governor of Massachusetts keeps putting his foot in it. First, he criticized the organizers of the London Games now on. Fair enough -- having to bring in the troops when a security company can't get its act together is definitely a cause for concern.
But then he visits Israel. And here's where it gets interesting. First, as Obama has, Romney said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. That will get out the vote, but as no country in the world I'm aware of even recognizes the country's claim to West Jerusalem (instead adopting the official position of corpus separatum) it's not one that can be really put into practice, yet (sixty years plus on).
But second -- and here's where it gets fun -- Romney attempted a comparison between the relative wealth of Israel and the West Bank; noting the per capita GDP in Israel is twice the size of that in the Palestinian areas. Romney's next line: "Culture makes all the difference."
Wow. This ranks right up there with Ralph Nader calling Obama an "Uncle Tom."
And this before one of Romney's aides told reporters to "kiss my ass" -- just after Romney arrived in Warsaw.
Yes, terrorist elements -- both organized and lone wolves -- have hindered Palestine a great deal. But so have the restrictions on movements of all non-settlement residents of the Bank as well as Gaza. When you have to go through several checkpoints to get to work, while those living in the illegal exclaves as well as tourists can get around as fast as one could in Israel proper, then of course economic development will be hindered.
But to call it a "matter of culture"? This sounds like those who fought against civil rights for blacks in the 1950s and 60s. "Wait." "Sit down, boy." "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" And other sorts of crap.
Christians have a special duty to stand up for God's Chosen People. We also have a responsiblity to stand up for the rights of law-abiding Palestinians, too -- including those who are Christians -- both in the occupied lands and in Israel proper. The toll on Christians has been especially stark. In just two generations the percentage of Christians in the area has dropped from about 20% to just 2.1% -- nearly 90 percent.
So here are some questions worth asking Mitt Romney:
I wonder if Auschwitz - Birkenau is on Romney's schedule, and what could possibly happen there. If JP2 hadn't ordered a Catholic convent to get the hell out of the area on the perimeter, would Romney (a Mormon) have preferred the convent over the camp. Just asking.
Fast forward to 2012. Mitt Romney, having locked up the Republican nod to challenge Obama, is now on a world tour of his own. But the crowds just aren't there. A corporate raider just doesn't have the chic of acommunity organizer.
And better for Obama's chances, the former Governor of Massachusetts keeps putting his foot in it. First, he criticized the organizers of the London Games now on. Fair enough -- having to bring in the troops when a security company can't get its act together is definitely a cause for concern.
But then he visits Israel. And here's where it gets interesting. First, as Obama has, Romney said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel. That will get out the vote, but as no country in the world I'm aware of even recognizes the country's claim to West Jerusalem (instead adopting the official position of corpus separatum) it's not one that can be really put into practice, yet (sixty years plus on).
But second -- and here's where it gets fun -- Romney attempted a comparison between the relative wealth of Israel and the West Bank; noting the per capita GDP in Israel is twice the size of that in the Palestinian areas. Romney's next line: "Culture makes all the difference."
Wow. This ranks right up there with Ralph Nader calling Obama an "Uncle Tom."
And this before one of Romney's aides told reporters to "kiss my ass" -- just after Romney arrived in Warsaw.
Yes, terrorist elements -- both organized and lone wolves -- have hindered Palestine a great deal. But so have the restrictions on movements of all non-settlement residents of the Bank as well as Gaza. When you have to go through several checkpoints to get to work, while those living in the illegal exclaves as well as tourists can get around as fast as one could in Israel proper, then of course economic development will be hindered.
But to call it a "matter of culture"? This sounds like those who fought against civil rights for blacks in the 1950s and 60s. "Wait." "Sit down, boy." "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" And other sorts of crap.
Christians have a special duty to stand up for God's Chosen People. We also have a responsiblity to stand up for the rights of law-abiding Palestinians, too -- including those who are Christians -- both in the occupied lands and in Israel proper. The toll on Christians has been especially stark. In just two generations the percentage of Christians in the area has dropped from about 20% to just 2.1% -- nearly 90 percent.
So here are some questions worth asking Mitt Romney:
- What does Romney find so offensive about the Palestinians' "culture" and what he perceives as their "inability" to raise their standard of living?
- How does he feel about the refugee situation -- not just Muslims, but Christians and other groups caught on the wrong side of the fence?
- Does he favour continuing foreign aid to a first world country with a less than stellar human rights record -- or does he think Israel is entitled to a free pass just as his own country often believes it's entitled to? Trade should be linked to respect for rights, not to religion or a lack thereof.
- Does he favour a contigous West Bank with land swaps, or one pot-marked by "settlements" as part of a final status settlement? (This isn't Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog on the Netherlands-Belgium border, after all -- a geographic curiosity in Europe but one that's been left alone. Heck, even India and Bangladesh have finally agreed to mostly resolve the preposterous situation in Cooch-Behar where there were a total of 202 enclaves sprinkled within each other's territories; that will be reduced to just 40.) Put it this way -- would the West tolerate Palestine having it illegally occupy parts of Israel, say Sderot, Nazareth or Meggido (Armaggedon)? This is an inherent double standard.
- Lastly, as democracy continues to spread across the Middle East, will he favour extending free trade arrangements
I wonder if Auschwitz - Birkenau is on Romney's schedule, and what could possibly happen there. If JP2 hadn't ordered a Catholic convent to get the hell out of the area on the perimeter, would Romney (a Mormon) have preferred the convent over the camp. Just asking.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Harper: Going after Guergis to punish Jaffer?
Of all the arguments I've heard from the Conservative Party regarding the Helena Guergis lawsuit where she is claiming PMS and Co defamed her and dismissed her as a Cabinet minister without cause, this one has to take the cake; that the party can't be sued because it is an "unincorporated association."
The reason why law firms have reconstituted themselves as "limited liability partnerships" and why places of worship have decided to adopt articles of incorporation is so they can have the same status as places of business ending in "Limited" or "Incorporation" or "Corporation" -- the status of a person and thus to limit their liability for private wrongs; specifically, only the assets of the establishment can be seized, not the personal things owned by the proprietors.
If the Conservative Party is unincorporated then it follows some or all of its membership are personally liable. In this case, it can hardly be argued all of the party's members should be forced to pay up -- that's silly. But the senior inner cabal that got rid of Guergis on what appears to be specious grounds and / or that she was "guilty by association" because of her marriage to Rafim Jaffer.
I don't know what to make of the allegations against him either before all of this started, or the new allegations made by Team Con that Jaffer engaged in technology transfers to companies in an enemy state, Mainland China.
But my sense is the following.
First, no one should be held responsible for a spouse's or common law partner's actions unless he or she was also part of the same conspiracy.
Second, section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act establishes by statue the centuries old spousal privilege -- that communications between a husband or wife cannot be used as evidence in a criminal or civil trial under any circumstance unless one of the parties has waived that right as party of a plea bargain so as to testify against the other or one spouse has been victimized by the other and by logic must testify, whether the wrong was jointly or severally criminal or civil. (I presume that although the wording is lacking in the present law, the privilege also extends to a two husbands or two wives contract).
If Guergis was aware that her husband, Jaffer, was engaging in clearly criminal conduct, she might be morally obligated to report what can be considered by some to be an act of treason, especially as a minister of the Crown herself. But legally, she wouldn't have to even if he made such a confession to her in confidence -- and at this stage I don't even think Jaffer has been charged or indicted for anything of the sort. And for what it's worth, even if she was told such by Jaffer, that doesn't make her part of the act unless she directly abetted it in some way such as offering secure channels to facilitate the transfer.
Many of us have been fired for some reason, even if was a minor or unintentional breach of company rules. But any normal supervisor would explain the reasons for doing so, in writing.
PMS does not act like a normal person. Hiding under so-called Crown immunity, he merely invoked the "removal at pleasure" concept to get rid of someone it appears increasingly he simply hated. . And a woman, for that matter. A woman who is a Christian (I believe) married to a Muslim. This has discrimination written all over it. I'm not saying that's definitely what it is, that's for a court to decide. But it's awfully suspicious. And not just because that firing someone without cause is a frightening concept
Just because you're the country's primus inter pares (first among equals) does not give you a hall pass to do whatever you want. A Prime Minister does have tools at his or her disposal that many Presidents don't, including invoking posse comitatus (i.e. giving law enforcement powers to the military). But he or she is subject to the same employment standards expectations that bosses in the private sector are. That includes that if you fire a minister you can't do so on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion or sex. Count the ways.
If the government has proof Jaffer did something that undermined our economy to an irreparable extent, charge him with the crime, not Guergis. If Guergis is only guilty of bad judgment by allowing a parliamentary computer to be used for commercial purposes, then she should have been told that up front when dismissed or demoted -- it's not something that merits expulsion from the party.
But if evidence demonstrates this is just a witch hunt to punish a non-Muslim for marrying a Muslim -- especially a PM who claims he's trying to build bridges with Muslims -- then in my opinion PMS is no longer fit to govern and the GG, David L. Johnston (who PMS appointed by the way), should fire him "in the name of the Sovereign."
And as far as the "unincorporated association" argument goes -- come on. It's easy to identify who would be responsible within that party, and against whom a forfeiture assessment should be applied. You can probably count them with the digits of both hands. That is, of course, if.
The reason why law firms have reconstituted themselves as "limited liability partnerships" and why places of worship have decided to adopt articles of incorporation is so they can have the same status as places of business ending in "Limited" or "Incorporation" or "Corporation" -- the status of a person and thus to limit their liability for private wrongs; specifically, only the assets of the establishment can be seized, not the personal things owned by the proprietors.
If the Conservative Party is unincorporated then it follows some or all of its membership are personally liable. In this case, it can hardly be argued all of the party's members should be forced to pay up -- that's silly. But the senior inner cabal that got rid of Guergis on what appears to be specious grounds and / or that she was "guilty by association" because of her marriage to Rafim Jaffer.
I don't know what to make of the allegations against him either before all of this started, or the new allegations made by Team Con that Jaffer engaged in technology transfers to companies in an enemy state, Mainland China.
But my sense is the following.
First, no one should be held responsible for a spouse's or common law partner's actions unless he or she was also part of the same conspiracy.
Second, section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act establishes by statue the centuries old spousal privilege -- that communications between a husband or wife cannot be used as evidence in a criminal or civil trial under any circumstance unless one of the parties has waived that right as party of a plea bargain so as to testify against the other or one spouse has been victimized by the other and by logic must testify, whether the wrong was jointly or severally criminal or civil. (I presume that although the wording is lacking in the present law, the privilege also extends to a two husbands or two wives contract).
If Guergis was aware that her husband, Jaffer, was engaging in clearly criminal conduct, she might be morally obligated to report what can be considered by some to be an act of treason, especially as a minister of the Crown herself. But legally, she wouldn't have to even if he made such a confession to her in confidence -- and at this stage I don't even think Jaffer has been charged or indicted for anything of the sort. And for what it's worth, even if she was told such by Jaffer, that doesn't make her part of the act unless she directly abetted it in some way such as offering secure channels to facilitate the transfer.
Many of us have been fired for some reason, even if was a minor or unintentional breach of company rules. But any normal supervisor would explain the reasons for doing so, in writing.
PMS does not act like a normal person. Hiding under so-called Crown immunity, he merely invoked the "removal at pleasure" concept to get rid of someone it appears increasingly he simply hated. . And a woman, for that matter. A woman who is a Christian (I believe) married to a Muslim. This has discrimination written all over it. I'm not saying that's definitely what it is, that's for a court to decide. But it's awfully suspicious. And not just because that firing someone without cause is a frightening concept
Just because you're the country's primus inter pares (first among equals) does not give you a hall pass to do whatever you want. A Prime Minister does have tools at his or her disposal that many Presidents don't, including invoking posse comitatus (i.e. giving law enforcement powers to the military). But he or she is subject to the same employment standards expectations that bosses in the private sector are. That includes that if you fire a minister you can't do so on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion or sex. Count the ways.
If the government has proof Jaffer did something that undermined our economy to an irreparable extent, charge him with the crime, not Guergis. If Guergis is only guilty of bad judgment by allowing a parliamentary computer to be used for commercial purposes, then she should have been told that up front when dismissed or demoted -- it's not something that merits expulsion from the party.
But if evidence demonstrates this is just a witch hunt to punish a non-Muslim for marrying a Muslim -- especially a PM who claims he's trying to build bridges with Muslims -- then in my opinion PMS is no longer fit to govern and the GG, David L. Johnston (who PMS appointed by the way), should fire him "in the name of the Sovereign."
And as far as the "unincorporated association" argument goes -- come on. It's easy to identify who would be responsible within that party, and against whom a forfeiture assessment should be applied. You can probably count them with the digits of both hands. That is, of course, if.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Romney and the "M" word
CNN's religion section notes today that W. Mitt Romney (W for Willard) still has a major hurdle to overcome on the road to the White House. His religion, Mormonism.
Now personally I can't understand why it should be such a big deal -- who should honestly care what one's belief system (or lack thereof) is just as long as they can do the job? (I said as much last December.) But it's the United States, and the Gallup group finds that at this particular moment in time Romney may be in trouble, because 18% of Americans think being a Mormon should be something that disqualifies an otherwise competent person for any public office. Much more frightening -- that's the same percentage as in 1967 when Mitt's father, George, was running for the GOP nomination as Prez (the nod eventually went to "Dick" Nixon).
The battle won't be for Democrats or Republicans who would have made up their minds by now anyway. It's the sea of independents who, knowing as much as they do about the LDS church (whether that info is right or wrong), may decide to go with -- pardon the expression -- the devil they know; in other words, Barack Obama may not be their kind of believer; but they'll more likely believe Obama's credentials as a Christian, than Romney's good faith which many believe is not even a Christian one no matter how Romney protests that it is such.
If only one of the Osmonds were running for President -- Donny, Marie, any of them ... then there wouldn't be this debate. Sad but true.
As I said and say again, keep religion out of it. The States may have marginally improved over the last four years but it is nowhere near out of its funk yet. Stick to the real issues.
Now personally I can't understand why it should be such a big deal -- who should honestly care what one's belief system (or lack thereof) is just as long as they can do the job? (I said as much last December.) But it's the United States, and the Gallup group finds that at this particular moment in time Romney may be in trouble, because 18% of Americans think being a Mormon should be something that disqualifies an otherwise competent person for any public office. Much more frightening -- that's the same percentage as in 1967 when Mitt's father, George, was running for the GOP nomination as Prez (the nod eventually went to "Dick" Nixon).
The battle won't be for Democrats or Republicans who would have made up their minds by now anyway. It's the sea of independents who, knowing as much as they do about the LDS church (whether that info is right or wrong), may decide to go with -- pardon the expression -- the devil they know; in other words, Barack Obama may not be their kind of believer; but they'll more likely believe Obama's credentials as a Christian, than Romney's good faith which many believe is not even a Christian one no matter how Romney protests that it is such.
If only one of the Osmonds were running for President -- Donny, Marie, any of them ... then there wouldn't be this debate. Sad but true.
As I said and say again, keep religion out of it. The States may have marginally improved over the last four years but it is nowhere near out of its funk yet. Stick to the real issues.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Get with the program ... um, what should we call Catholic bishops these days?
So the Ontario Legislature passed a bill that allows "Gay-Straight Alliances" in all schools that receive public funding. That's both the non-sectarian schools and the Catholic (Roman or Eastern) schools. The wording of "Bill 13" (not sure yet what numbering it will have in the 2012 statutes) indicates that while private schools just might be able to choose to skirt the "GSA" title for such anti-discrimination groups, the headmasters and headmistresses of those schools will have an obligation to investigate and discipline discrimination and sexual harrassment against LGBT students and faculty just as there is such a requirement in publicly funded schools.
Oddly, and not surprisingly, the Catholic bishops have raised a stink about this. They suggest that having such groups would actually encourage "illicit" behaviour amongst people who ought to remain "celibate." It might even make straight people gay.
Seriously? I have mentioned this before, but §2358 of the Catholic Catechism is very clear on this point. While the relevant portion of the charter does indeed call on gays and lesbians (as well as any unmarried person as discussed in the 23 sections article on chastity) to be celibate, it also says something else about discrimination that is very crucial about how we should treat those who are in the so-called "not that there's anything wrong with it" camp.. Here's the actual text, from the Holy See's website * word for word:
Double wow.
The fact remains, there have always been LGBT students in Catholic schools as well as LGBT teachers. There were when I went to high school -- I knew many who were openly so. There always will be. They mostly likely figured out they were gay or lesbian when they were very young but didn't yet know the words for it. Like, between 5 and 10 years old.
If the bishops want to run the schools their way, then they have to call for the end of public funding of their schools. As part of the publicly funded system, Catholic Boards must accept that they're subject to the province's Human Rights Code and other supporting legislation. Bottom line, one can say that the behaviour is wrong, but it cannot compel that belief on students who probably wouldn't be persuaded in any case.
If the "seamless web of life" doctrine (which I personally do believe in) means anything, it includes among other things these two things: One, if the disclosure is in confidence that I will protect that until he or she is ready to "come out" and I will support him or her going forward in every way possible; and two, standing up and expressing openly that discrimination is wrong, that I and other like minded people will not stand for our friends and colleagues being so bullied.. Period.
In other words if someone discloses to me -- either privately or openly -- that he or she is part of the LGBT community, that I should treat him or her no better or worse than anyone else. What is wrong with that, for heaven's sake?
If I may borrow a catchphrase from right winger Bill O'Reilly, the bishops are, respectfully, pinheads.
Get with the program guys. Most of the laity actually gets it. Both parents and the younger people in their charge do also. It's time you did as well.
******
* For the record, the Holy See (the Pope and his inner cabal) and Vatican City (also headed by the pope but in fact run by a Cardinal who is the de facto Governor of the compound) are not one and the same but in fact distinct personalities in international law. Ambassadors are accredited to the See, not Vatican City (a custom going back many centuries); conversely, the "Apostolic Nuncios" (the church's ambassadors) represent the Holy See, not Vatican City. The See runs the church, while Vatican City runs the administrative and civil aspects of the territory (and allows the See to represent its interests). It may be splitting hairs, but it's also worth pointing out that for the most part the Vatican's domestic legislation is nearly identical to that of Italy's. That presumably includes, at least on paper, a ban on sexual harrassment or abuse for whatever reason. At least, one would hope so.
Oddly, and not surprisingly, the Catholic bishops have raised a stink about this. They suggest that having such groups would actually encourage "illicit" behaviour amongst people who ought to remain "celibate." It might even make straight people gay.
Seriously? I have mentioned this before, but §2358 of the Catholic Catechism is very clear on this point. While the relevant portion of the charter does indeed call on gays and lesbians (as well as any unmarried person as discussed in the 23 sections article on chastity) to be celibate, it also says something else about discrimination that is very crucial about how we should treat those who are in the so-called "not that there's anything wrong with it" camp.. Here's the actual text, from the Holy See's website * word for word:
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.Wow. Guess they skipped that one in seminary. And I guess they also skipped the section (§ 2356) about rape -- all kinds of rape (including the -- yes -- abuse of minors):
Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.
Double wow.
The fact remains, there have always been LGBT students in Catholic schools as well as LGBT teachers. There were when I went to high school -- I knew many who were openly so. There always will be. They mostly likely figured out they were gay or lesbian when they were very young but didn't yet know the words for it. Like, between 5 and 10 years old.
If the bishops want to run the schools their way, then they have to call for the end of public funding of their schools. As part of the publicly funded system, Catholic Boards must accept that they're subject to the province's Human Rights Code and other supporting legislation. Bottom line, one can say that the behaviour is wrong, but it cannot compel that belief on students who probably wouldn't be persuaded in any case.
If the "seamless web of life" doctrine (which I personally do believe in) means anything, it includes among other things these two things: One, if the disclosure is in confidence that I will protect that until he or she is ready to "come out" and I will support him or her going forward in every way possible; and two, standing up and expressing openly that discrimination is wrong, that I and other like minded people will not stand for our friends and colleagues being so bullied.. Period.
In other words if someone discloses to me -- either privately or openly -- that he or she is part of the LGBT community, that I should treat him or her no better or worse than anyone else. What is wrong with that, for heaven's sake?
If I may borrow a catchphrase from right winger Bill O'Reilly, the bishops are, respectfully, pinheads.
Get with the program guys. Most of the laity actually gets it. Both parents and the younger people in their charge do also. It's time you did as well.
******
* For the record, the Holy See (the Pope and his inner cabal) and Vatican City (also headed by the pope but in fact run by a Cardinal who is the de facto Governor of the compound) are not one and the same but in fact distinct personalities in international law. Ambassadors are accredited to the See, not Vatican City (a custom going back many centuries); conversely, the "Apostolic Nuncios" (the church's ambassadors) represent the Holy See, not Vatican City. The See runs the church, while Vatican City runs the administrative and civil aspects of the territory (and allows the See to represent its interests). It may be splitting hairs, but it's also worth pointing out that for the most part the Vatican's domestic legislation is nearly identical to that of Italy's. That presumably includes, at least on paper, a ban on sexual harrassment or abuse for whatever reason. At least, one would hope so.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
To what possible end with ...
... the "human life" thing?
Yes, I'm pro-life. Yes, I have argued here in the past there is a need to open up a debate -- not necessarily on banning the abortion procedure but how far along a pregnancy is before restrictions ought to begin, as well as to have enhanced criminal penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman (which is now the law in the case of the latter).
But a private member's motion to strike up a committee on when a human life begins? It is my opinion that this is not coming entirely from the mind of the MP in question, although he readily admitted he wants to have an "honest discussion" about abortion. Even more amazing, there'll be a second round of discussion on the floor of the House in June! To the credit of PMS, he said now's not the time to reopen the hornet's nest (although he claims his hands were tied on the tabling of the motion, saying an all-party committee randomly chose which private motions would come up for debate during this session) and he'll be voting against.
That's all well and good. But it all goes to what is sinister about social conservatism as opposed to conservatism of the progressive kind. Here's what gets my goat:
But an honest debate means exactly that -- discussing an issue that openly discloses what the discussion is all about and not using a proverbial Trojan horse. We know what they do to our desktops and notebooks. We certainly don't need them in our statute books or regulations.
Yes, I'm pro-life. Yes, I have argued here in the past there is a need to open up a debate -- not necessarily on banning the abortion procedure but how far along a pregnancy is before restrictions ought to begin, as well as to have enhanced criminal penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman (which is now the law in the case of the latter).
But a private member's motion to strike up a committee on when a human life begins? It is my opinion that this is not coming entirely from the mind of the MP in question, although he readily admitted he wants to have an "honest discussion" about abortion. Even more amazing, there'll be a second round of discussion on the floor of the House in June! To the credit of PMS, he said now's not the time to reopen the hornet's nest (although he claims his hands were tied on the tabling of the motion, saying an all-party committee randomly chose which private motions would come up for debate during this session) and he'll be voting against.
That's all well and good. But it all goes to what is sinister about social conservatism as opposed to conservatism of the progressive kind. Here's what gets my goat:
- Most of those of the political class who oppose abortion also oppose any alternatives for women in crisis. Specifically they oppose any increased social supports to make up for the fact a child is being carried to term. In fact, they already oppose taking away the social supports that currently exist -- including federal and provincial entitlement payments. This is beyond comprehension. I'm not the first to say this, but I have said it before and I'll say it again -- it's not enough to talk about family values, we need to value families.
- As well, it makes one wonder who the "socons" are appealing to -- is it their constituents (or the ones they prefer to hear from, to be more precise) -- or is it that brand of Christianity that wants to roll back the clock on women's rights, desegregation, fair labour laws and the like? It's not just the Canadian televangelists (many of whom are even worse than their American cousins in terms of financial hypocrisy); I've been in a few churches as of late where pastors have attitudes out of the paleolithic age. And I'm talking mega-churches in big cities with a large labour union history which goes to show how narrow minded some of the "little people" can be at times -- whether by choice (pardon the expression) or by being brainwashed.
- Finally, it's the good old whitewash all over again. Remember a few years back when an MP tried to reopen the abortion debate by introducing a private members bill (not just a "sense of the House" resolution as is the case here) saying that a person could be charged if he or she attacked a pregnant woman and ended up making a fetus nonviable in the process but somehow the pregnant mother survived. All pro-choice advocates, and even many conscientious pro-life people like myself saw right through it -- and thankfully the bill was withdrawn in favour of a government motion that dealt with the issue by protecting the right of a pregnant woman herself to be free from assault (which, as I note above, did in fact become law).
But an honest debate means exactly that -- discussing an issue that openly discloses what the discussion is all about and not using a proverbial Trojan horse. We know what they do to our desktops and notebooks. We certainly don't need them in our statute books or regulations.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Prop 8 struck down again
I have only had enough time to skim through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban. As we all know, the appeals panel upheld the lower court ruling striking down the measure as violating the federal constitution. It did stop short of saying sexual orientation is a "suspect class" entitled to Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny but that on the face of it the proposition nevertheless violates that amendment.
The vote in the 9th Circuit was 2-1, but what is more important is that all three judges on the panel also dismissed out of hand the so called "family values" claim that the district judge was prejudiced in favour of striking down because he happens to be gay himself. This is patently ridiculous. A judge is sworn to uphold the law and to render equal justice to all. His or her own personal beliefs can be described in obiter if that judge so chooses but he or she still has to settle the case, in this case a request for a restraining order, based on the facts. And that's precisely what Judge Vaughn Walker did in the district court case in Prop 8, the last significant one he rendered prior to his retirement.
Canada took a huge lead in recognizing same sex couples, first at common law (or "partners in fact" as the relationship is known in Québec) then recognizing marriages. The act of marriage and even common law relationships carry with them legal responsibilities. In fighting for the right to marry, the LGBT population was asking for nothing less than to also accept the responsibilities that come with marriage -- including how taxes are paid and child-parent relationships are structured.
And it's not as if the rights of the First Estate have been damaged. No minister is required to act as the arbiter of a same sex marriage ceremony in any jurisdiction where it is now legal -- any more than that minister would be forced to marry a mixed race couple (there are bigots like that still out there, but their freedom of religion in that regard does remain protected even in the new status quo).
Whatever my personal convictions are, I state again that just as it is now considered unthinkable to ban interracial marriage or an inter-faith marriage, there's no reason whatsoever to stop gays and lesbians from marrying. And for one simple reason: It's none of my business. Frankly resources could be better spent fighting polygamist communities where women are swapped several times over and teenage boys abandoned like so much human garbage, than gay or lesbian couples who want nothing more than to live and let live -- which one of the two in the end is, after all, a bigger threat to the social fabric?
The vote in the 9th Circuit was 2-1, but what is more important is that all three judges on the panel also dismissed out of hand the so called "family values" claim that the district judge was prejudiced in favour of striking down because he happens to be gay himself. This is patently ridiculous. A judge is sworn to uphold the law and to render equal justice to all. His or her own personal beliefs can be described in obiter if that judge so chooses but he or she still has to settle the case, in this case a request for a restraining order, based on the facts. And that's precisely what Judge Vaughn Walker did in the district court case in Prop 8, the last significant one he rendered prior to his retirement.
Canada took a huge lead in recognizing same sex couples, first at common law (or "partners in fact" as the relationship is known in Québec) then recognizing marriages. The act of marriage and even common law relationships carry with them legal responsibilities. In fighting for the right to marry, the LGBT population was asking for nothing less than to also accept the responsibilities that come with marriage -- including how taxes are paid and child-parent relationships are structured.
And it's not as if the rights of the First Estate have been damaged. No minister is required to act as the arbiter of a same sex marriage ceremony in any jurisdiction where it is now legal -- any more than that minister would be forced to marry a mixed race couple (there are bigots like that still out there, but their freedom of religion in that regard does remain protected even in the new status quo).
Whatever my personal convictions are, I state again that just as it is now considered unthinkable to ban interracial marriage or an inter-faith marriage, there's no reason whatsoever to stop gays and lesbians from marrying. And for one simple reason: It's none of my business. Frankly resources could be better spent fighting polygamist communities where women are swapped several times over and teenage boys abandoned like so much human garbage, than gay or lesbian couples who want nothing more than to live and let live -- which one of the two in the end is, after all, a bigger threat to the social fabric?
Monday, January 16, 2012
Foot in mouth syndrome: What is Harper's real position on gay marriage?
Towards the end of last week, news emerged that the Harper Government was taking the position that thousands of same sex marriages in Canada may have never taken place because the institution was not valid in the home countries of the couples who took out marriage licenses here. Therefore, a gay or lesbian couple who later decides to get a divorce cannot access our courts to dissolve something that "never really happened." And this actually had me reeling. No matter what one may think about the practice it is perfectly legal in Canada and we've collectively made a decision, through our elected representatives, to just move on. Some time later, Team Harper appeared to backtrack slightly but nowhere near enough.
Here's what makes me angry about it: This is the exact same excuse many Southern States used to try to stop interracial marriage. They would not recognize any such marriages that had taken place out of state -- in clear violation of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Even mixed race couples who had clear roots in the North or West put themselves in peril when they travelled on vacation to the South. Since "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" many well-intended couples were summarily banished and ordered never to come back again, "or else." Eventually it was recognized that the heart wants what it wants, and that marriage should be as colour blind as public education or mass transit. Which is as well as it should be.
To use an analogy -- and I realize I'm hyper-extending, but bear with me -- in Israel, many couples of all stripes get married civilly in Turkey or Cyprus. In fact, make that most, somewhere like 80%. Reason? Because of the very strict norms imposed by the various religious heads -- the Chief Rabbinate for Jewish people, the Supreme Imam for Muslims, the Patriarch of Jerusalem for Catholics, and so forth. A civil marriage can only be contracted in Israel if both can prove a lack of connection to any confessional group -- and that's not really easy. Just one baptismal certificate for a Christian, for instance, and game over; you get married in that denomination in Israel, or not at all -- civil marriage is not an option.
This has proven problematic for those Jews from the former Soviet Union who took advantage of perestroika and immigrated en masse to Israel, and are in the opposite camp -- they want to get married under a chuppah. Under the Law of Return, part of Israel's constitution, they gained immediate Israeli citizenship as soon as they cleared customs in Tel Aviv. But because their parents and grandparents didn't practice Judaism (because they could not) the Chief Rabbi doesn't consider them to be Jewish. Seriously. So they have to take a trip out of the country to get their marriage contracted (or covenanted if your prefer). Crazy but true.
So what of the marriages contracted out of country -- civil or religious? Israel considers them to be perfectly valid. There was some dispute as to validity for decades, but it was established beyond a doubt in 2006 by the country's courts.
I wrote a few years back about a lesbian couple who validated their marriage in a northern state then the relationship soured, one of the partners won custody of their daughter, and the other took the child to another state and was charged with spousal kidnapping. The at fault party tried to invalidate the marriage by claiming her state of abode, Virginia, banned gay marriages in its state constitution. The courts ruled against her saying that whatever the position of the voters on this one, the federal constitution overrode that and a same-sex custody order from out of state could and would be enforced even in states where the practice was outlawed.
I cannot for the life of me understand what the problem is at this time. If this is an example of what to expect from the "hidden agenda" of Mr Harper I cannot imagine what he has planned next. Splitting hairs on legal points is to be expected from all political parties, one would suppose. But it does no good to the families who could be forced apart on a "technicality."
Here's what makes me angry about it: This is the exact same excuse many Southern States used to try to stop interracial marriage. They would not recognize any such marriages that had taken place out of state -- in clear violation of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Even mixed race couples who had clear roots in the North or West put themselves in peril when they travelled on vacation to the South. Since "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" many well-intended couples were summarily banished and ordered never to come back again, "or else." Eventually it was recognized that the heart wants what it wants, and that marriage should be as colour blind as public education or mass transit. Which is as well as it should be.
To use an analogy -- and I realize I'm hyper-extending, but bear with me -- in Israel, many couples of all stripes get married civilly in Turkey or Cyprus. In fact, make that most, somewhere like 80%. Reason? Because of the very strict norms imposed by the various religious heads -- the Chief Rabbinate for Jewish people, the Supreme Imam for Muslims, the Patriarch of Jerusalem for Catholics, and so forth. A civil marriage can only be contracted in Israel if both can prove a lack of connection to any confessional group -- and that's not really easy. Just one baptismal certificate for a Christian, for instance, and game over; you get married in that denomination in Israel, or not at all -- civil marriage is not an option.
This has proven problematic for those Jews from the former Soviet Union who took advantage of perestroika and immigrated en masse to Israel, and are in the opposite camp -- they want to get married under a chuppah. Under the Law of Return, part of Israel's constitution, they gained immediate Israeli citizenship as soon as they cleared customs in Tel Aviv. But because their parents and grandparents didn't practice Judaism (because they could not) the Chief Rabbi doesn't consider them to be Jewish. Seriously. So they have to take a trip out of the country to get their marriage contracted (or covenanted if your prefer). Crazy but true.
So what of the marriages contracted out of country -- civil or religious? Israel considers them to be perfectly valid. There was some dispute as to validity for decades, but it was established beyond a doubt in 2006 by the country's courts.
I wrote a few years back about a lesbian couple who validated their marriage in a northern state then the relationship soured, one of the partners won custody of their daughter, and the other took the child to another state and was charged with spousal kidnapping. The at fault party tried to invalidate the marriage by claiming her state of abode, Virginia, banned gay marriages in its state constitution. The courts ruled against her saying that whatever the position of the voters on this one, the federal constitution overrode that and a same-sex custody order from out of state could and would be enforced even in states where the practice was outlawed.
I cannot for the life of me understand what the problem is at this time. If this is an example of what to expect from the "hidden agenda" of Mr Harper I cannot imagine what he has planned next. Splitting hairs on legal points is to be expected from all political parties, one would suppose. But it does no good to the families who could be forced apart on a "technicality."
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Lahey sentenced -- fire the bastard
We learned today that the disgraced Roman Catholic bishop of Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Raymond Lahey, was sentenced to time served for possession of child pornography on his laptop which he was stupid enough to have in his carry-on and not in checked luggage. Time served.
Some may say merely being disgraced in public fashion is punishment enough. But I have to disagree. As a member of the First Estate, indeed an "apostle" in the eyes of the church, Lahey not only should have known better but was expected to; and instead undermined the trust of a laity already disgruntled by the inaction of their church on sex abuse.
In my opinion, nothing less than excommunication (or dis-fellowship, if you prefer that term) is indicated. But that's something only the church can do, and I'm not wasting my time waiting for the Holy See to exhale on this one.
Some may say merely being disgraced in public fashion is punishment enough. But I have to disagree. As a member of the First Estate, indeed an "apostle" in the eyes of the church, Lahey not only should have known better but was expected to; and instead undermined the trust of a laity already disgruntled by the inaction of their church on sex abuse.
In my opinion, nothing less than excommunication (or dis-fellowship, if you prefer that term) is indicated. But that's something only the church can do, and I'm not wasting my time waiting for the Holy See to exhale on this one.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Perry doesn't know how to shut his big mouth
Less than a week to go before the Iowa caucuses. And Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has chosen to fan the flames. First, by associating with the most unscrupulous of televangelists (which I wrote about a few months back). Now he has come out (pardon the expression) against an entirely predictable but still unwisely chosen target. Courtesy of Ginny Grimsley's News and Experts site comes this short piece from Shay Dawkins (thanks to Ginny for letting me and other bloggers use this column):
My comments:
While I have to say that I am not surprised, it is truly troubling that it has taken this long for the US to acquit itself of the issue of LGBT persons in the military. Worse, that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" continues to be a talking point, and it still continues to be debated after DADT was repealed -- long after all its allies in NATO, with the exception of Turkey, declared it's not an issue at all nor should it be and that not only are such persons welcome in the military but to discriminate against them will come under the same scrutiny as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sex.
Here in Canada, for example, we lifted the ban in 1992, during the Mulroney administration. That's right, it was Mulroney, not Chrétien or Martin. And far as I can tell, Harper has no intention of making it an issue again. Perry is a paleolithic guy on this one: He'd turn the clock back to before DADT and send the "guilty" to a term in a military brig before being dishonourably discharged. Now, he also wants to ban abortions even in cases of rape or incest. And with nothing to offer women as an alternative either. Perry wants to bitch about unfunded mandates. Maybe someone should bitch to him about his being a "Christian" who only accepts fellow Christians who fit his definition of one.
What are America's top priorities? A sane person would say, jobs, strong families, and making America respected. Rick Perry seems to think America's priorities should be big business, letting televangelists continue to commit financial acts that would be considered tax evasion in the secular world, and making America a laughing stock. Nice choice Iowa has. No wonder why a loser like Newt Gingrich looks so much better by comparison. Yikes.
Gov. Perry’s Anti- Gay Christianity Is Not My ChristianityBy: Shay Dawkins
Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s anti-gay “Strong” TV advertisement has been getting a lot of air time in Iowa in the run up to the Jan. 3 Republican caucus. It’s also getting some surprising reaction among his fellow conservatives.
I, for one, am happy to see that his ad failed to win the endorsements of a couple of key anti-gay groups: the American Family Association and Family Leader. Because Perry’s Christianity is not my Christianity.
I’m a heterosexual raised in the Pentecostal and Baptist faiths deep in the Bible belt state of Alabama. I studied the Bible in search of the Scripture that commands Christians to judge homosexuals and I didn’t find it. Instead, I found just the opposite. For my book, The Good News: How Revealing Delusions in Christianity Will Bring Peace to All, (www.thegoodnewsbook.com), I also looked for the biblical basis for other “Christian” beliefs, including opposing abortion. I didn’t find it.
In the “Strong” ad, Perry says, “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian but you don’t need to be in a pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military.”
Really?
Why would it matter whether a soldier is homosexual or heterosexual? If he or she is ready, willing and able to defend us, our country and our freedoms – including Christians’ freedom to be Christian – isn’t that all that matters? Perry’s Christianity brands gays as evil. It seeks to turn “God-fearing” heterosexuals against their fellow man. That is not my Christianity. The true message of Jesus and the Christian Bible is to bring people comfort, not misery; promote unity, not division; and bring hope, not fear.
It’s not Jesus or the Bible that teaches Christians to be intolerant – it is other Christians. The Bible says that we should judge/condemn only people who act with the intent to hurt or harm other people (Romans 14: 13). It tells us to love our neighbors, welcome strangers, and even to love our enemies.
Jesus states that “his commandment is to love one another” (John 13: 34). The Bible goes as far as stating that “all the law of the world is fulfilled in one command: Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5: 14) and that “without love a person with everything has nothing” (1 Corinthians 13).
Perry likes to conclude his speaking engagements with “Here is what I want you to leave with: Somebody’s values are going to decide the issues of the day … somebody’s values are going to be installed. The question is going to be whose values? Is it going to be those of us of faith or somebody else’s values?”
He does not understand that his “religious beliefs/values” are based on other men’s beliefs and values; clergy often are taught what to believe in seminary. Perry’s “faith” is based on man-made, false religious doctrine -- “somebody else’s values,” as he likes to say. I’ve combed through the Scriptures and rather than finding support for Perry’s stand on homosexuality, I found a half-dozen verses that tell us homosexuality is not “sinful” for everyone.
No one should judge or condemn anyone else for being heterosexual or homosexual, atheist or believer, black or white, fat or skinny, attractive or unattractive. The Bible instructs us to be slow to judge others as “you will be judged by the same amount that you judge others” (Matthew 7: 2) and “to not make snap judgments of others” (John 7: 24).
Imagine a world where people judged and condemned only for how people treated others. I’m not sure if peace on Earth is possible, but I do know the world would be a much happier place if everyone lived by the Golden Rule, “treat others as you would like to be treated” or as Jesus stated, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22: 39).
About Shay Dawkins: Shay Dawkins is a Tuscaloosa, Ala., businessman who grew up in Baptist and Pentecostal churches. His observances about how Christianity can be divisive despite being based on one book led to his analysis of the Bible. He is the author of “The Good News: How Revealing Delusions in Christianity Will Bring Peace to All” (www.thegoodnewsbook.com).
My comments:
While I have to say that I am not surprised, it is truly troubling that it has taken this long for the US to acquit itself of the issue of LGBT persons in the military. Worse, that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" continues to be a talking point, and it still continues to be debated after DADT was repealed -- long after all its allies in NATO, with the exception of Turkey, declared it's not an issue at all nor should it be and that not only are such persons welcome in the military but to discriminate against them will come under the same scrutiny as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sex.
Here in Canada, for example, we lifted the ban in 1992, during the Mulroney administration. That's right, it was Mulroney, not Chrétien or Martin. And far as I can tell, Harper has no intention of making it an issue again. Perry is a paleolithic guy on this one: He'd turn the clock back to before DADT and send the "guilty" to a term in a military brig before being dishonourably discharged. Now, he also wants to ban abortions even in cases of rape or incest. And with nothing to offer women as an alternative either. Perry wants to bitch about unfunded mandates. Maybe someone should bitch to him about his being a "Christian" who only accepts fellow Christians who fit his definition of one.
What are America's top priorities? A sane person would say, jobs, strong families, and making America respected. Rick Perry seems to think America's priorities should be big business, letting televangelists continue to commit financial acts that would be considered tax evasion in the secular world, and making America a laughing stock. Nice choice Iowa has. No wonder why a loser like Newt Gingrich looks so much better by comparison. Yikes.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Harper's "Office for Relgious Freedom": Another Newspeak front?
Dubya got into a lot of hot water in many circles with his so-called "faith based initiative" (which President Obama has actually continued and broadened to include people of faith who are LGBT) and now Harper appears to want to go down the same path with something called the "Office for Religious Freedom." Internal memos obtained by the CBC through a FOIA request indicate that Team Harper wants to sidestep the obvious question, whether "promoting religious freedom around the world" is just a way to masquerade a true intent to let Con-friendly denominations dictate the national agenda. Just like the Department of War became the Department of Defence and "Welfare" became Human Resources Development, this is potentially a new front in the game of Newspeak.
I absolutely agree that you can't have religious freedom without free speech and vice versa. But I also happen to believe that when one is elected to government he or she has a duty to the community at large and not just specific interests, to work for the liberty of all and not just for some. Specifically, to understand that the "Great Commission" does not mean refusing to take no for an answer.
I note that two lines were blacked out in the disclosure, regarding how the government chose who to consult with on how the Office should be set up. All that was left was a smarmy line about picking people dedicated to freedom of religion. Naturally, what was censored should leave one asking who they chose -- was it those who favour their own freedom of religion at the expense of others who don't have the same religion? You can't avoid the televangelists in late night or the weekends. The way most rail against Muslims is a concern. Most televangelists shamelessly support the Jewish cause when their own grandparents most likely supported the Holocaust (without explaining the change of heart), but some through weasel words show their contempt for the Chosen People. And yes, many also rail against Catholicism, in a country where a plurality, 42% or thereabout, are Catholics.
I have said before and I'll say again that while I accept the fact faith based groups are part of the delivery end of social services, that is because I and others who accept that fact do so because such groups make a clear distinction between service and proselytizing. Blurring that line violates the accepted separation of church and state. Harper is playing a dangerous game if he thinks he can start a war of words between religious groups based on religion. Wars have started over such fighting words. Just look at Yugoslavia.
Besides which, the Office isn't needed. We already have the "Rights and Democracy" bureau which while somewhat tainted over the years is serving this purpose among many others. Why waste money with duplication? I thought Harper was a provincial rights advocate; this seems to go against that kind of thinking. He was supposed to have been for openness but the censorship even at this level makes me ask what needs to be hid.
The Salvation Army, World Vision, the Kairos partnership -- those are great examples of faith based groups who serve the community at home and around the world, and who promote freedom of religion at the same time without rubbing our faces in it. The government should certainly promote that freedom as well, but they should follow the lead of the groups who have figured out where the line is drawn.
I absolutely agree that you can't have religious freedom without free speech and vice versa. But I also happen to believe that when one is elected to government he or she has a duty to the community at large and not just specific interests, to work for the liberty of all and not just for some. Specifically, to understand that the "Great Commission" does not mean refusing to take no for an answer.
I note that two lines were blacked out in the disclosure, regarding how the government chose who to consult with on how the Office should be set up. All that was left was a smarmy line about picking people dedicated to freedom of religion. Naturally, what was censored should leave one asking who they chose -- was it those who favour their own freedom of religion at the expense of others who don't have the same religion? You can't avoid the televangelists in late night or the weekends. The way most rail against Muslims is a concern. Most televangelists shamelessly support the Jewish cause when their own grandparents most likely supported the Holocaust (without explaining the change of heart), but some through weasel words show their contempt for the Chosen People. And yes, many also rail against Catholicism, in a country where a plurality, 42% or thereabout, are Catholics.
I have said before and I'll say again that while I accept the fact faith based groups are part of the delivery end of social services, that is because I and others who accept that fact do so because such groups make a clear distinction between service and proselytizing. Blurring that line violates the accepted separation of church and state. Harper is playing a dangerous game if he thinks he can start a war of words between religious groups based on religion. Wars have started over such fighting words. Just look at Yugoslavia.
Besides which, the Office isn't needed. We already have the "Rights and Democracy" bureau which while somewhat tainted over the years is serving this purpose among many others. Why waste money with duplication? I thought Harper was a provincial rights advocate; this seems to go against that kind of thinking. He was supposed to have been for openness but the censorship even at this level makes me ask what needs to be hid.
The Salvation Army, World Vision, the Kairos partnership -- those are great examples of faith based groups who serve the community at home and around the world, and who promote freedom of religion at the same time without rubbing our faces in it. The government should certainly promote that freedom as well, but they should follow the lead of the groups who have figured out where the line is drawn.
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
From the drive-in to the Crystal Cathedral ... and back again
The in-Chapter 11 Hour of Power Ministry is so over its head that it reluctantly decided to sell off its flagship piece of real estate in Garden Grove, California. The bidding war for the Crystal Cathedral has come down to three candidates, but only two of them are really credible, reports the LA Times: the Disciples of Christ affiliated Chapman University, which would buy the property (essentially wiping out its debts) and then leasing the building back for a buck a month; and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange County which would promptly turn it into its new cathedral (after giving the church formerly run by Robert Schuller Sr a three year stay of execution).
The Times story suggests that the Chapman proposal would only be delaying the inevitable complete shut down of the ministry; besides which, Rev Schuller is also in court fighting for what he claims is a contracted $350k per year allowance for his and his wife's rest of their lives as well as the copyrights to all his sermons and video and radio appearances. (The Chapman proposal offers to buy out the family for a lump sum $2 million.) It should be pointed out that while Chapman U is one of the things keeping the OC afloat, other than Disneyworld ™, it has also managed to attract faculty that gathers scorn from both the right and the left. I'm not too sure what's left of the church would want an association like that.
As for the RC proposal -- well, Schuller has long come off as a proponent of the ecumenical movement, pointing out the similarities of Christianity rather than what divides the global Church. During the 1970s, he even had Archbishop Fulton J Sheen ("Life is Worth Living") on his show on several occasions, and numerous Catholic guests (ministry and lay) since. Some of Schuller's parishioners however aren't necessarily that open minded. Getting the "get" would be a jackpot prize for the Roman Church without question (although with all the sex abuse scandals, you have to ask where they can get the money). There would also be an irony too -- the reason why newer churches of all denominations have used regular glass instead of stained is to show that that church is looking out into the world; however, it also means the world is looking in and holding it accountable.
Perhaps Schuller forgot about that which is why his former ministry is now in the fix it's in.
I wonder too, whichever way the bankruptcy court rules, if the sale of the Crystal Cathedral might also mean the end of the spectacular annual Christmas Pageant the HoP puts on every Yuletide -- the biggest one of all. It has never failed to sell out and competes for prima donna with the series of concerts at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah. But seemingly lost in the message is that to give of your excess, not build up more and more of it -- to lay up treasures not on earth but in heaven (Matthew 6:20).
I'll give my donation money to those who actually give back to the community, openly -- or who practices the "reverse tithe," that is giving 90% of one's gross to charity and living off the remaining 10. Rick Warren, also an OCer, lives by this principle (since he earns so much from book and podcast royalties, he can afford to live just off his church's stipend while handing over the royalties to medical mission and AIDS prevention causes). Billy Graham, too, has long chosen to live a very simple life despite raking in $89 million last year and sitting on a foundation with $341 million in assets. Compare that to Frederick KC Price who drives a Rolls-Royce ™ (because "that's what Jesus would drive if he was here today") or Benny Hinn -- don't get me started again on him. As far as Schuller -- well, until the financials were forced open in bankruptcy court we weren't even allowed to know about what finer things he chose to live off of. And remember his air rage incident?
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Because either way, no amount of "possibility thinking" will get the Schullers their church back, or the wholeness of their family which had been ripped apart even before Chapter 11. (I was going to type "positive thinking / living" but that was Norman Vincent Peale, who also practiced what he preached.)
UPDATE (6:26 PM EST, 2326 GMT): A couple of points -- first, the bid from the diocese also offers a campus swap -- cathedral for cathedral -- so the Schullers wouldn't be totally out of the cold. But that would be quite the spectacle, a mass desanctification and rededication ceremony for both buildings. Many are already speculating that, even if Chapman wins, after a few years it would just kick out its "tenants" anyway and sell the CC to the RC of OC for a profit.
Second, in case you were wondering about the drive in reference -- that's how the church got started, at a drive in theatre and the fact people can still drive right up to the glass of the complex itself.
I have to wonder if everything started going downhill after the brutal rape and murder in 2002 of a little 5 year old girl who was a parishioner there, Samantha Runion; or the 2004 on-campus suicide of Johnnie Carl Jr, the music director (remember when that was breaking news on CNN -- the gunshots being fired in the empty sanctuary during a pageant rehersal?). And while the church has traditionally stuck to a form of "blab it and grab it" it has really ratcheted that up since daughter Sheila took over. Not a good sign ... and definitely against the ethic of Chapman's parent church, the Disciples of Christ, which appears on the face of it to support the principles of the Social Gospel, the exact opposite of the Word of Faith.
Bottom line ... again, it will be the Diocese that gets the Crystal Cathedral. Not if, but when.
The Times story suggests that the Chapman proposal would only be delaying the inevitable complete shut down of the ministry; besides which, Rev Schuller is also in court fighting for what he claims is a contracted $350k per year allowance for his and his wife's rest of their lives as well as the copyrights to all his sermons and video and radio appearances. (The Chapman proposal offers to buy out the family for a lump sum $2 million.) It should be pointed out that while Chapman U is one of the things keeping the OC afloat, other than Disneyworld ™, it has also managed to attract faculty that gathers scorn from both the right and the left. I'm not too sure what's left of the church would want an association like that.
As for the RC proposal -- well, Schuller has long come off as a proponent of the ecumenical movement, pointing out the similarities of Christianity rather than what divides the global Church. During the 1970s, he even had Archbishop Fulton J Sheen ("Life is Worth Living") on his show on several occasions, and numerous Catholic guests (ministry and lay) since. Some of Schuller's parishioners however aren't necessarily that open minded. Getting the "get" would be a jackpot prize for the Roman Church without question (although with all the sex abuse scandals, you have to ask where they can get the money). There would also be an irony too -- the reason why newer churches of all denominations have used regular glass instead of stained is to show that that church is looking out into the world; however, it also means the world is looking in and holding it accountable.
Perhaps Schuller forgot about that which is why his former ministry is now in the fix it's in.
I wonder too, whichever way the bankruptcy court rules, if the sale of the Crystal Cathedral might also mean the end of the spectacular annual Christmas Pageant the HoP puts on every Yuletide -- the biggest one of all. It has never failed to sell out and competes for prima donna with the series of concerts at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah. But seemingly lost in the message is that to give of your excess, not build up more and more of it -- to lay up treasures not on earth but in heaven (Matthew 6:20).
I'll give my donation money to those who actually give back to the community, openly -- or who practices the "reverse tithe," that is giving 90% of one's gross to charity and living off the remaining 10. Rick Warren, also an OCer, lives by this principle (since he earns so much from book and podcast royalties, he can afford to live just off his church's stipend while handing over the royalties to medical mission and AIDS prevention causes). Billy Graham, too, has long chosen to live a very simple life despite raking in $89 million last year and sitting on a foundation with $341 million in assets. Compare that to Frederick KC Price who drives a Rolls-Royce ™ (because "that's what Jesus would drive if he was here today") or Benny Hinn -- don't get me started again on him. As far as Schuller -- well, until the financials were forced open in bankruptcy court we weren't even allowed to know about what finer things he chose to live off of. And remember his air rage incident?
It'll be interesting to see how this turns out. Because either way, no amount of "possibility thinking" will get the Schullers their church back, or the wholeness of their family which had been ripped apart even before Chapter 11. (I was going to type "positive thinking / living" but that was Norman Vincent Peale, who also practiced what he preached.)
UPDATE (6:26 PM EST, 2326 GMT): A couple of points -- first, the bid from the diocese also offers a campus swap -- cathedral for cathedral -- so the Schullers wouldn't be totally out of the cold. But that would be quite the spectacle, a mass desanctification and rededication ceremony for both buildings. Many are already speculating that, even if Chapman wins, after a few years it would just kick out its "tenants" anyway and sell the CC to the RC of OC for a profit.
Second, in case you were wondering about the drive in reference -- that's how the church got started, at a drive in theatre and the fact people can still drive right up to the glass of the complex itself.
I have to wonder if everything started going downhill after the brutal rape and murder in 2002 of a little 5 year old girl who was a parishioner there, Samantha Runion; or the 2004 on-campus suicide of Johnnie Carl Jr, the music director (remember when that was breaking news on CNN -- the gunshots being fired in the empty sanctuary during a pageant rehersal?). And while the church has traditionally stuck to a form of "blab it and grab it" it has really ratcheted that up since daughter Sheila took over. Not a good sign ... and definitely against the ethic of Chapman's parent church, the Disciples of Christ, which appears on the face of it to support the principles of the Social Gospel, the exact opposite of the Word of Faith.
Bottom line ... again, it will be the Diocese that gets the Crystal Cathedral. Not if, but when.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Link away as much as you want, sez SCC
The Supreme Court of Canada has handed the blog world a big victory. Writing for a unanimous Court in Crookes v. Newton, Justice Rosalie Abella wrote that merely providing a hyperlink to a definitively or potentially defamatory website does not itself constitute defamation. She points out that hyperlinks are at one of the hearts of the Internet -- that to provide context to a point one is making, that person will offer such a link elsewhere for more information rather than repeating everything verbatim. To prevent people from offering such links would undercut the purpose of the Net which is access to information. While ordinary individuals do have the right not to be defamed, it is a big jump to assert that because a second person repeats a lie directly or not he or she is just as liable as the person who started the misinformation.
It's worth pointing out that one of the justices says it's not really that clear-cut. Justice Marie Deschamps wrote that providing a link to a false news website is definitely not defamatory in itself, but it could potentially be if the linker knew that it was false. In this particular case, however, the argument could not be made because it failed on one of the key tests to prove defamation -- that a receiving third party was made aware that the information was false, so she ruled for the defendants.
I did a quick check on the law on defamation in Canada, or at least the general principles around it. In the common law jurisdictions (the territories and all provinces except Québec) the courts have rejected the "actual malice" standard in the States (based on a 1964 SCOTUS ruling, New York Times v Sullivan, which ruled the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional and essentially undercut the Confederate States' attempts to block protests against segregation merely by suing anyone, black or white, who challenged the morality of Jim Crow -- it was actually against the law in many of those states to sign a petition calling for the end to segregation, or to voluntarily desegregate a restaurant in an area where segregation was required). Actual malice requires "knowledge that the information is false" or was "published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Common law here instead states that fair comment, truth, responsible communication or privilege remain defences against defamation claims, whether the target is a public or private figure. Determining defamation goes on a case by case basis but it largely depends on who the target audience. (You may remember Benny Hinn's attempts against both the CBC and NBC back in 2005 to sue for damages based on his outlandish spending sprees, until he discovered the leaked documents proving where he stayed and dined were from his own ministry. In that case, broadcast media's target audience is everyone, the defence is freedom of the press.)
The standard in Québec is actually a mixture of common and civil law principles (in part because the colonial period where English standards of freedom of speech and religion became so imbued in the province's laws that it overtook some contradicting principles in older versions of the civil code). One of the most important of these is fair comment. Unlike the rest of Canada, there is not a strict liability standard, instead there is a standard of reasonableness. That is, someone who made a defamatory statement would not be liable if he or she honestly believed it was truthful.
The relevant Article of the province's Civil Code, 1457, reads:
Once again, free speech wins. As it always should. There are strict limits as to what should not be allowed to be published or disseminated (e.g. child pornography) and it's good to know that a link, any link, does not fall within those bounds.
It's worth pointing out that one of the justices says it's not really that clear-cut. Justice Marie Deschamps wrote that providing a link to a false news website is definitely not defamatory in itself, but it could potentially be if the linker knew that it was false. In this particular case, however, the argument could not be made because it failed on one of the key tests to prove defamation -- that a receiving third party was made aware that the information was false, so she ruled for the defendants.
I did a quick check on the law on defamation in Canada, or at least the general principles around it. In the common law jurisdictions (the territories and all provinces except Québec) the courts have rejected the "actual malice" standard in the States (based on a 1964 SCOTUS ruling, New York Times v Sullivan, which ruled the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts unconstitutional and essentially undercut the Confederate States' attempts to block protests against segregation merely by suing anyone, black or white, who challenged the morality of Jim Crow -- it was actually against the law in many of those states to sign a petition calling for the end to segregation, or to voluntarily desegregate a restaurant in an area where segregation was required). Actual malice requires "knowledge that the information is false" or was "published with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Common law here instead states that fair comment, truth, responsible communication or privilege remain defences against defamation claims, whether the target is a public or private figure. Determining defamation goes on a case by case basis but it largely depends on who the target audience. (You may remember Benny Hinn's attempts against both the CBC and NBC back in 2005 to sue for damages based on his outlandish spending sprees, until he discovered the leaked documents proving where he stayed and dined were from his own ministry. In that case, broadcast media's target audience is everyone, the defence is freedom of the press.)
The standard in Québec is actually a mixture of common and civil law principles (in part because the colonial period where English standards of freedom of speech and religion became so imbued in the province's laws that it overtook some contradicting principles in older versions of the civil code). One of the most important of these is fair comment. Unlike the rest of Canada, there is not a strict liability standard, instead there is a standard of reasonableness. That is, someone who made a defamatory statement would not be liable if he or she honestly believed it was truthful.
The relevant Article of the province's Civil Code, 1457, reads:
Every person has a duty to abide by the rules of conduct which lie upon him, according to the circumstances, usage or law, so as not to cause injury to another.In the particular case here, I do not think there would have been a case under civil law anyway. We all put up hyperlinks in blog posts we write or e-mails we send. Unless we knew the information was definitely defamatory or patently false -- example, the Holocaust was exaggerated or a total lie -- why should we be held responsible? And even if we knew that, why should we be held responsible for a link even if it came with the advisory that we don't agree with the material but we're pointing it out so people know it's out there and being consumed by individual not as discerning as most are?
Where he is endowed with reason and fails in this duty, he is responsible for any injury he causes to another person by such fault and is liable to reparation for the injury, whether it be bodily, moral or material in nature.He is also liable, in certain cases, to reparation for injury caused to another by the act or fault of another person or by the act of things in his custody.
Once again, free speech wins. As it always should. There are strict limits as to what should not be allowed to be published or disseminated (e.g. child pornography) and it's good to know that a link, any link, does not fall within those bounds.
Saturday, October 15, 2011
At long last, a "churchie la femme" has been busted ...
Finally, after more than a quarter of a century, a Roman Catholic bishop in North America may finally be held to account in the courts -- the legal courts, not the canonical ones.
The sex abuse scandal that has plagued the Catholic Church has had a relatively common denominator -- more often than not bishops have played the game of musical chairs, moving an accused priest to another county or even to another diocese all together to evade prosecution. This is of course obstruction of justice, a crime in itself. I do say "more often than not" because many bishops have refused to game that way and cooperate fully with prosecutors, police and child welfare authorities. The usual means for the Vatican to deal with this has been to give a threatened bishop a passport issued by Vatican City or even more rarely by the Holy See itself (the inner cabal of the Pope and his most senior allegedly "celibate" advisers) to give that bishop diplomatic immunity.
This time, the Vatican didn't act fast enough, and thank God. The bishop in question here is Robert W. Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri, who has been charged with failure to report child abuse. The Diocese itself faces a separate criminal charge and will be tried as a corporation with the potential appropriate penalties there. (The respective penalties are pretty minor -- Finn faces a year in jail and a fine of $1000, the Diocese a fine of $5000.)
Earlier this year, Finn outraged his flock when he admitted that he knew one of the priests under his command, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, had taken pornographic pictures of minor females as early as December of last year but did not report this to authorities until May of this year. (The photos, which besides forced poses also included "upskirts," were discovered on Ratigan's laptop by a computer technician and immediately turned over to the diocese office.) Finn ordered Ratigan to hole up at a convent for a time (after a suicide attempt, the day after the discovery) and to stay away from minors but was still going to such events as Easter egg hunts and even spending weekends with families well within reach of minors.
Even more bizarre is that Finn had previously pledge such cooperation as part of a $5 million class action settlement with Kansas City victims three years ago.
Incredibly, it was only last year that the Vatican finally joined the rest of its sister churches in requiring allegations of abuse to be reported immediately to secular authorities. And the only known example of a conviction of a bishop for obstruction in recent memory was one in France.
Hopefully, this is a sign that authorities have finally had enough of giving the largest church in America a free pass. But we need more indictments and convictions. As for Finn, it is obvious he should resign. The West-Central and Northwest of Missouri deserves better than this. Even six months is way too long of a delay as was the case here. The standard should be what the law is, which is immediate reporting to the police.
The sex abuse scandal that has plagued the Catholic Church has had a relatively common denominator -- more often than not bishops have played the game of musical chairs, moving an accused priest to another county or even to another diocese all together to evade prosecution. This is of course obstruction of justice, a crime in itself. I do say "more often than not" because many bishops have refused to game that way and cooperate fully with prosecutors, police and child welfare authorities. The usual means for the Vatican to deal with this has been to give a threatened bishop a passport issued by Vatican City or even more rarely by the Holy See itself (the inner cabal of the Pope and his most senior allegedly "celibate" advisers) to give that bishop diplomatic immunity.
This time, the Vatican didn't act fast enough, and thank God. The bishop in question here is Robert W. Finn of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Missouri, who has been charged with failure to report child abuse. The Diocese itself faces a separate criminal charge and will be tried as a corporation with the potential appropriate penalties there. (The respective penalties are pretty minor -- Finn faces a year in jail and a fine of $1000, the Diocese a fine of $5000.)
Earlier this year, Finn outraged his flock when he admitted that he knew one of the priests under his command, the Rev. Shawn Ratigan, had taken pornographic pictures of minor females as early as December of last year but did not report this to authorities until May of this year. (The photos, which besides forced poses also included "upskirts," were discovered on Ratigan's laptop by a computer technician and immediately turned over to the diocese office.) Finn ordered Ratigan to hole up at a convent for a time (after a suicide attempt, the day after the discovery) and to stay away from minors but was still going to such events as Easter egg hunts and even spending weekends with families well within reach of minors.
Even more bizarre is that Finn had previously pledge such cooperation as part of a $5 million class action settlement with Kansas City victims three years ago.
Incredibly, it was only last year that the Vatican finally joined the rest of its sister churches in requiring allegations of abuse to be reported immediately to secular authorities. And the only known example of a conviction of a bishop for obstruction in recent memory was one in France.
Hopefully, this is a sign that authorities have finally had enough of giving the largest church in America a free pass. But we need more indictments and convictions. As for Finn, it is obvious he should resign. The West-Central and Northwest of Missouri deserves better than this. Even six months is way too long of a delay as was the case here. The standard should be what the law is, which is immediate reporting to the police.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
It's not obstetrics, it's obstruction
It's taken some time to write this but I can't wait any longer. It's more than obvious that the Holy See simply doesn't get it when it comes to child abuse.
Not that long ago, in July of this year, an independent inquiry in Ireland led by Judge Yvonne Murphy detailed in damning terms the massive collusion that existed between the Bishop of Cloyne and "head office" in Vatican City to ensure justice was obstructed again and again. The position of the bishops seemed to be that they had some kind of "diplomatic immunity" that shielded them from answering any questions from the Garda Síochána, the Irish FBI. After several weeks of silence, the Vatican finally posted an official response on its website on September 3 of this month -- an open letter to the Deputy PM of Ireland (who also acts as Foreign Minister, the typical Cabinet post given to most DPMs in the EU). And as a Catholic I'm not impressed one damn bit.
The time frame we're talking about is not three decades back, when much of the abuse happened, but fresh allegations that emerged only three years ago, as the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Enda Kenny noted in the Dáil (Irish lower house) on his reply to the Cloyne Report. Both the lower chamber and the Irish Senate voted for motions of censure against the Vatican -- itself quite remarkable for a country that is so heavily Roman Catholic and maintains a concordat with the Holy See.
Carefully, the Vatican claims that they're not responding to specific crimes that may still be at investigation by the Gardaí. But it makes some rather dubious claims:
Not that long ago, in July of this year, an independent inquiry in Ireland led by Judge Yvonne Murphy detailed in damning terms the massive collusion that existed between the Bishop of Cloyne and "head office" in Vatican City to ensure justice was obstructed again and again. The position of the bishops seemed to be that they had some kind of "diplomatic immunity" that shielded them from answering any questions from the Garda Síochána, the Irish FBI. After several weeks of silence, the Vatican finally posted an official response on its website on September 3 of this month -- an open letter to the Deputy PM of Ireland (who also acts as Foreign Minister, the typical Cabinet post given to most DPMs in the EU). And as a Catholic I'm not impressed one damn bit.
The time frame we're talking about is not three decades back, when much of the abuse happened, but fresh allegations that emerged only three years ago, as the Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Enda Kenny noted in the Dáil (Irish lower house) on his reply to the Cloyne Report. Both the lower chamber and the Irish Senate voted for motions of censure against the Vatican -- itself quite remarkable for a country that is so heavily Roman Catholic and maintains a concordat with the Holy See.
Carefully, the Vatican claims that they're not responding to specific crimes that may still be at investigation by the Gardaí. But it makes some rather dubious claims:
- Similar to the position it took when the US Bishops tried to impose a "one strike and you're out" rule which was vetoed by the previous Pope, JP2, it tries to hide behind a veil that expresses concerns about mandatory reporting of any allegations to civil authorities. It also says the lack of a requirement of mandatory reporting doesn't mean the allegations shouldn't be referred to the police or child protection authorities at all. I'm sorry, but one necessarily leads to the other. The Bishop Emeritus here in Hamilton, Anthony Tonnos, made clear nearly 10 years ago that on this one, regardless of what canon law might say, he is bound by the civil and criminal law -- all allegations are reported without questioning the motives of the alleged victim; that priest, nun or brother would be suspended with pay pending the outcome; and full cooperation by the bishop and his staff with authorities would be automatic while the Episcopal Corporation (i.e. the Diocese) also conducted its own internal investigation. The current Bishop, Douglas Crosby, hasn't amended this one bit.
- It claims it never interfered with procedures or processes conducted by the Irish government or its agencies. Instead, it then immediately hides behind the Apostolic Nuncio (i.e. Vatican ambassador) in Ireland and says that the issue was for the Diocese to handle, not the Embassy. That might be fine were it not for the fact the Bishops' Conference (the governing body of the Catholic Church in a given country) and the Nunciature in the same country work hand in glove and glove in hand. For instance, the Bishops may recommend a worthy priest to serve as a new bishop, but the nuncio can express his objections even before the nomination is forwarded to the Pope's desk for assent. Furthermore, if there was massive corruption going on in Cloyne, surely the Nuncio should have known about it. The Pope is free to fire a Bishop -- when the proof was in the pudding Joe Ratzinger surely gave it the silent treatment.
- As to the claim that a church cannot be bound by the "norms" of a Society, this is truly egregious. As I have noted before, no other church on the planet -- no other church -- has diplomatic immunity at its highest levels nor the ability to extend it to its underlings. If a church cannot be expected to cooperate on child abuse, financial misappropriation, etc., then it should not have state immunity at all. Its tax exempt status should be revoked and any concordats should be ripped up by the receiving state.
- It claims it never interferred with the local church. Local church officials have openly stated and admitted otherwise. Would you believe people locally or from a palace built with "indulgences" centuries ago? Exactly.
- It claims that Bishops do not represent the Church, but Christ. Well of course they do -- but any bishop showing disobedience to the Pope and his most senior advisors (all male, all allegedly "virgins") is considered a grievous violation of norms. If someone on the inside told a bishop to back off, and the bishop says as much, isn't it time to call the kettle black?
- Finally it relies on the notorious Crimen Sollicitationis, which required bishops to keep internal investigations under wraps and effectively was used to prevent disclosures to the police (by way of secret Church Trials, the successor to the Spanish Inquisition. While it also states the maximum penalty is being defrocked and the penalty has existed since 1922, such a penalty wasn't regularly applied until the last decade and a half, and only because the laity demanded it.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Enter stage right -- WAY right -- Rick Perry
Just as former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty -- probably the only guy who's close enough to the centre that he could actually beat Barack Obama in next year's presidential race -- withdrew his candidacy, current Texas governor Rick Perry announced he's running for President. If you thought Dubya was a nut for believing God actually spoke to him and speaks to him still, fasten your seat belts.
Perry has some really out there beliefs, proven by the fact he hosted a so-called "non-demoninational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting." All of the following statements were made by some of the worst of the religious right, all unchallenged by Perry:
Or the fact his governor's office has repeatedly blocked an investigation into the possibility, which now seems better than just probable, that an innocent person may have been executed on Dubya's watch?
Funny, there are wildfire and tornadoes in Bible Belt Alley, but you never hear anyone on TV's Bibleland say anything about "God's punishment" regarding that. Or the fact that Judge Kenneth Starr reviewed the Foster file -- twice -- and told Congress what five other investigations had found out: Foster committed suicide, plain and simple.
If one judges someone by the company they keep, then we're not just dealing with the totally off-base "Name It and Claim It" (i.e. Blab It and Grab It) crowd. We're dealing with a Kingdom Now cabal that wants to tear down over 200 years of the separation of church and state. One thing many has admired about America is that while it is generally religious it does not place church above state, or state above church.
It's sad that it takes "straw polls" (which don't even count for any delegates at conventions) to whittle out reasonable candidates and bring forward the crazy ones. This is 2000 all over again, except there's general gloom about the economy, multiple wars and a population that is bereft of hope but still angry enough they don't want a return to fear and loathing. If Perry somehow manages to come on top of the GOP race, I think Obama is going to whip his butt big time.
Perry has some really out there beliefs, proven by the fact he hosted a so-called "non-demoninational, apolitical Christian prayer meeting." All of the following statements were made by some of the worst of the religious right, all unchallenged by Perry:
- Oprah is a sign of the Apocalypse. -- Mike Bickle
- Blackbirds are dying because of gay soldiers. -- Dr Cindy Jacobs (she also two women kissing a "plague on society")
- The Statue of Liberty is a demonic idol. -- John Benefil (he also thinks homosexuality is an Illuminati plot to control population growth)
- Hurricane Katrina was retribution for New Orleans' "sins" -- John "I still believe Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster" Hagee. This long-time champion of Israel actually had the temerity to say Jews only have themselves to blame for the Holocaust!
- Gay rights movement "from the pit of hell" -- Dwight McKissic, denouncing comparisons between gay rights activists and the civil rights struggle of the 1960s.
- Jesus opposed the minimum wage -- David Barton, also a gay hater.
- Children of gay people are like the orphans of 9/11 -- Jim Garlow, who also thinks black America is the reason the so-called "gay rights agenda" has not gotten much traction.
- It's okay to have a "faith based" militia -- Jay Swallow (he also wants tribal casinos to be shut down)
- Black Americans are "cursed by homosexuals" -- Willie Wooten
Or the fact his governor's office has repeatedly blocked an investigation into the possibility, which now seems better than just probable, that an innocent person may have been executed on Dubya's watch?
Funny, there are wildfire and tornadoes in Bible Belt Alley, but you never hear anyone on TV's Bibleland say anything about "God's punishment" regarding that. Or the fact that Judge Kenneth Starr reviewed the Foster file -- twice -- and told Congress what five other investigations had found out: Foster committed suicide, plain and simple.
If one judges someone by the company they keep, then we're not just dealing with the totally off-base "Name It and Claim It" (i.e. Blab It and Grab It) crowd. We're dealing with a Kingdom Now cabal that wants to tear down over 200 years of the separation of church and state. One thing many has admired about America is that while it is generally religious it does not place church above state, or state above church.
It's sad that it takes "straw polls" (which don't even count for any delegates at conventions) to whittle out reasonable candidates and bring forward the crazy ones. This is 2000 all over again, except there's general gloom about the economy, multiple wars and a population that is bereft of hope but still angry enough they don't want a return to fear and loathing. If Perry somehow manages to come on top of the GOP race, I think Obama is going to whip his butt big time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)