More Bad Theology from the Far Right

I have some strong observations to make on the public debate surrounding gun control. Before I make those observations I would like to share an essay and a video from Dr. Anthea Butler, a religious studies professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Butler, as usual, has stated her position in a thoughtful manner. I like listening to what Dr Butler has to say, even if I don't agree with everything she has to say. Thank you Dr. Butler!

Here is a link to Dr. Butler's comments. This link goes to an article at Religion Dispatches, December 19, 2012.

God Has Answered the Republicans

And the answer is "No."

This must be what happened. It is at least the theology that Far Right Christians use on others. God punishes those in the midwest with a tornado for not praying enough. God punishes the east coast with Superstorm Sandy because of the Homosexuals and God wants babies to be born from rapes. This is a pretty vengeful God, but apparently God only punishes liberals and Democrats because I haven't heard one word about how God  is showing approval of liberal policies since the election went our way and every one of the "Rape Politicians" lost their seat. Surely God has spoken!

But Democrats don't tend to have this type of theology so nobody has even been looking for the Far Right Christians to make this admission. I work as an interpreter however and so I have interpreted what the Democrats would be saying IF they had the vengeful theology that Far Right Christians seem to have.

Since I don't believe in the type of God who punishes I want to change the subject a little bit.

I have heard or read statements from Republicans which say that they consider America to have irreparably changed after the election. I find this stunning because to me the world is exactly the same as it was the day before the election.

I wonder, are we even looking at the same things?

I know I am looking at people's access to public institutions. I see the Republicans as trying to restrict access to certain governmental institutions. But I think the Republicans are looking at something else.

What are they looking at?

At work last month we had a couple of people come and talk to us about 401k plans. The woman who was presenting told us a story:

"When I was 18 I realized that my parents were not going to take care of me forever. I realized that if things were going to get done, I had to do it. And so I had to take responsibility for myself. So I'm standing here today as your mother, telling you that you've got to take responsibility for yourself. Nobody else is going to do it for you."

If I hadn't heard Mitt Romney talking about the 47% I would have not understood what this woman was saying to us. She was saying that she didn't want to have to pay for people who haven't saved enough money to retire.

The problem is that she was talking to several people who were CNA's. On the pay scale, CNA's are on the bottom. Some of our CNA's have two jobs, just so they can make it.

This woman who came to my work place to present 401K plans to us was a Republican, and it would seem that finances are the bottom line for many Republicans.

The question is, how do we reconcile finances with increasing access to governmental institutions? Can we hear each other? Or is the only way through this to keep saying awful and hateful things about each other?

I hope we can listen to each other, but to do that we must have understanding for each other's theologies and we must understand that each of us is a human being. So God doesn't enter into our disputes in order to punish one side and we should understand that we are all trying very hard. I may be a Democrat but I am also an adult and I contribute to society. A human being's value comes from being a human being. My value does not depend on my job, or my race or my gender. This is where we must begin.  

All This Talk About Rape...

It seems that everywhere there is some man talking about rape. When I read them, or hear them, I see men talking about rape as if it is something very cavalier. They stand up in front of people and give their opinions on rape.

 

Some describe rape as legitimate or not.

 

Others say not to worry about pregnancy from rape because it doesn't happen.

 

Others say just shut up and enjoy it.

 

Or, that it is just a case of buyers remorse.

 

I'm sure there are more horrible comments from public men in our society giving us their opinions on rape, but I think the above examples are enough. The above examples show that these men have been talking about rape for a while--because two of the above links are from past years. Nevertheless,

 

 

STOP IT!!

 

STOP IT RIGHT NOW!!

 

It's disgusting. And it shows that rape has something to do with these men's sense of themselves. They seem to have an entitlement to rape.

 

LET ME BE VERY CLEAR!

 

Being a man and being masculine should have NOTHING to do with the ability to rape someone! It is not masculine to rape someone, no matter what the Bible says. We need to find a new definition of masculinity. One that does not destroy people. In the meantime, all of these men should be voted out of office. They don't need public pulpits anymore. They don't need to be allowed to hurt people just so they can be leaders.

 

RAPE WILL NOT BE TOLERATED!!

 

And the fact that they have linked abortion to rape means that abortion must be legal and access to abortion must be unencumbered!

 





Biblical Ideas about Male and Female Roles Are Not Especially Helpful

Unless you think Bronze Age notions should be dictating our public policy in 2012.

Over two thousand years ago, the Hebrew Bible set up boundaries between the Israelite community and neighboring, non-Israelite communities. The Bible concerned itself not just with geographic boundaries; much of the Bible is concerned with placing limits on behavior. In this way, the Bible was able to define the limits of biblical society—keeping that which was inside society’s bounds pure by limiting contact with that which was outside society’s bounds and therefore impure. 

Much of what was defined as the masculine role in society was protected in this way from the feminine role in society. Deuteronomy 25:11, 12 illustrates this: “If two men get into a fight with each other, and the wife of one comes up to save her husband from his antagonist and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, you shall cut off her hand; show no pity.”

Thankfully we no longer cut off women's hands, but other biblical laws that restrict women's rights made it into modern times. One such law was a law that restricted women from inheriting land. Numbers 27 presents an act of petitioning whereby Zelophehad’s daughters were able to gain limited inheritance rights. One could draw an unbroken line from the time of Zelophehad’s daughters through history, clear into the twentieth century, to see how women’s rights to inherit and to own property were severely restricted. In the Bible, male and female relationships and roles were maintained through rigid enforcement of boundaries.

Biblical gender roles are not something that we left behind in the Bronze Age—many biblical notions about gender roles are still prevalent in today’s society. We must ask ourselves if American society should be more concerned with maintaining boundaries or if it should be more concerned with creating a society where every citizen has equal access under the law. While our Constitution is very clear on this matter, our society remains confused. Because of this, we need to examine how we define gender and how this definition has been influenced by religious ideas. In this way we will be able to create new roles for men and women—roles that are constitutionally based and roles which enhance each person’s ability to participate in our society.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a good illustration of biblical gender roles. In the story (Exodus 19:5-10,) Abraham's relative Lot received two angelic visitors. The people of Sodom were unaware that the visitors had been sent by G-d and only knew that the two visitors were from afar. After the visitors entered the city, the townspeople became angry and they began banging on Lot's door, demanding to rape the visitors. Incredibly, instead of telling the townspeople that their behavior was despicable, Lot offered his daughters as fodder for the rape in an effort to protect the visitors.

This story is abhorrent, and very difficult to understand from a modern perspective. Why were the townspeople wanting to rape the visitors? Why did Lot offer his daughters instead of trying to protect the visitors? In an effort to understand this story, many people have attempted to explain Lot's actions.

Some commentators explain that Lot offered his daughters because the homosexual demands of the townspeople were too disgusting to countenance. Other commentators explain that the town of Sodom was destroyed by G-d because the townspeople were not hospitable to the angelic visitors. Dr. Rachel Havrelock, of the University of Chicago, has a different explanation which makes more sense[i]. Dr. Havrelock, argues that the townspeople of Sodom wanted to rape the angelic visitors as punishment for transgressing the city's boundaries without permission. In other words, the townspeople of Sodom wanted to punish the visitors through the humiliation of penetration (rape) because the visitors had penetrated the town’s borders. For Havrelock, Lot offered his daughters as fodder because it was more preferable to have his daughters penetrated (raped) than to allow his male visitors to be “humiliated” in this way.

 Our society must examine how we view “penetrators” and how we view “the penetrated.” All my life, I have listened as men told one another “to not be like women.” When I was a kid I heard boys say to one another, “You throw like a girl,” or “You’re a sissy.” Now that I am an adult I have heard many men express concerns that women are going to emasculate them. I have always wondered why men are so concerned with being emasculated—as a woman I have no experience with testicles and do not understand the relationship men have with their testicles. But if I view the fear of emasculation through Dr. Havrelock’s hypothesis, then I begin to understand. Men are afraid that a woman will somehow make it impossible for them to penetrate—they are afraid that a woman has the power to make them impotent. The biblical role of man as “penetrator” is alive and well—as is the biblical role of women as receptacles for penetration (and humiliation.)

           

 The story of Sodom illustrates how males can also be humiliated through this rigid definition because men are especially vulnerable when they allow themselves to be penetrated. Society views homosexual men as a group of humiliated penetrators—men who accept the societal role of women—that of being receptacles of penetration. I say it this way, because gay men have always been special targets of anti-homosexual groups. Many gay men have been murdered simply because they were gay. As a Lesbian, I have sometimes felt invisible as a homosexual person. But now I see that women are already humiliated because we can be penetrated. I also see that women’s issues and LGBT issues are one and the same thing. A gain for one group is a gain for the other and the story of Sodom illustrates how this is so.

Recently, some state governments have attempted to pass legislation requiring a trans-vaginal ultrasound as a gatekeeping mechanism for anyone trying to access abortion services. This is an attempt to establish government-sponsored rape (via the trans-vaginal wand) as punishment for out-of-bounds sexual intercourse. (The fact that women who have had sexual intercourse outside of the bounds of marriage are the biggest targets of this legislation cannot go unmentioned.) The state legislators who are supporting these efforts are acting in a way that is reminiscent of Lot and the townspeople of Sodom. The Far Right Christian community is banging on the door, demanding that women who have sex outside established “bonds of marriage” be brought to justice and the legislators who are in favor of raping women through the use of the trans-vaginal wand are Lot—they are offering up their daughters to be raped in order to satisfy the demands of the crowd.

This type of legislation must not be allowed. Women and men have the right to live in freedom from religious law and from religious norms and controls. This right is given to us by the First Amendment which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It does not matter if a woman has sex outside marriage and it does not matter if a man is homosexual—First Amendment rights still apply.

Those of us who are in the LGBT community must begin to view women’s issues and LGBT issues as First Amendment issues—precisely because today’s notions of gender roles are biblically based. Gender roles need not be rigidly maintained or regulated in our society because American society stands on Constitutional principles—not on antiquated, Bronze Age religious notions of male and female roles. American society is great because we allow our citizens to participate in society. American society is great because our constitution allows each citizen to have equal access to public institutions. Keeping homosexuals from accessing marriage and keeping women from accessing healthcare does not make American strong. Rather, rigidly maintained gender roles restrict a person’s access and ability to participate in society and tear America apart. By cutting out segments of our population, we are in effect cutting our own necks. We are all in this together.

---

[i] Havrelock, Rachel. River Jordan: the Mythology of a Dividing Line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2011. p. 43-45.

The Move to Make the United States a Christian Country Has Begun

I am watching and I don't like what I see. 

There is an organized effort to make Christian Law the law of the land. We need to understand what is happening and not simply see this as "a bunch of looney tunes." We need to claim our First Amendment rights because we in the United States are protected from being forced to live under Christian Law.

Here are some recent examples of the organized attempt to instill Christian Law as the Law of the Land...

Example 1

I took this photo off Charlie's political website: http://www.charliefuqua4staterep.com/biography

Here's the link to an article in the Huffington Post:
Charlie Fuqua, Arkansas Legislative Candidate, Endorses Death Penalty for Rebellious Children

This isn't imaginary. It's real. Charlie Fuqua has also written a book. It entitled God's Law: the Only Political Solution.

 

Example 2

I took this off Paul Boun's political website. http://paulbroun.com/about/

Georgia Representative Paul Broun makes videotaped remarks where he denounces science and calls it a lie. Representaive Broun is a federal legislator. He is not just giving us his personal beliefs. He is participating in the effort to instill Christian Law.

Here is a link to the Washington Post Article describing Paul Broun's viedeotaped remarks:
GA Rep. Paul Broun Calls Evolution, Embryology, Big Bang Theory lies 'From the Pit of Hell'

Here is a link to a utube video--it just shows you exactly who Paul Broun is. Remember, this guy is a physician. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPYxzzMem18&feature=player_embedded

Example 3

Legislative Effort to Pass HR 1179-Respect for Rights of Conscience Act of 2011

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry--Sponsor of HR 1179. I took this photo from his website: http://fortenberry.house.gov/images/fortenberryphoto.jpg

The effort to pass the above bill has led to some interesting discussion. Here is a link to a Far Right website which explains what they are trying to do with this amendment: Opposition Continues to Grow Against Obama's Unprecedented Assault on Religious Liberty

One of the sponsors of this act is Rep. Scott DesJarlais, from Tennessee. You remember Rep Scott DesJarlais. He is the physician who is accused of trying to force his mistress to have an abortion. So he is a physician. He is a Representative, and he's sponsoring the religious freedom act HR 1179.

Here is a link to the article describing what happened: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/scott-desjarlais-abortion-pro-life_n_1953136.html

Example 4

The Dominion Mandate and the Christian Reconstruction Movement

Check out this web page: http://cicministry.org/scholarly/sch001.htm
Bob DeWaay has written a very nice summary of the Dominion Mandate. I would argue that the Dominion Mandate has influenced United States' politics and the above references I have made are a reflection of the influence of this movement.

We Need Not Be Silent About This! The First Amendment protects us from the influence of the Christian Religion!  When you see people and legislators making religious arguments to bolster their political views watch out! Listen closely! Are they attempting to have us all living under the strong arm of Christian Law?

Keep educating yourself about the meaning of the First Amendment. It is not just something that lets us speak our minds freely and its not just something that allows for religious tolerance. The First Amendment also states that the federal government will not make laws that establish a religion. That is precisely what they people I have written about here are trying to do--they are trying to establish Christianity as the basis for our laws. If we let them do this we will very negligent.

Let me know what you think! Speak up!

Joe Hutchison, Poet Extraordinaire!!

Joe is holding a poetry reading in Indian Hills. Come up and listen to him. He's a great poet!

Photo of Joe, taken from his website: www.perpetualbird.blogspot.com

Here is the link to his poetry reading: http://perpetualbird.blogspot.com/2012/10/november-1-reading-signing-discussion.html

What is the Sound of One Hand Clapping?

Oh my...

It's no wonder we're not going anywhere--because nobody is listening any more. We have two sides of a political debate and each side only talks to themselves. The article I just read is proof of that.

Here's the link to a RedState article which calls women "stupid" over and over again: http://www.redstate.com/2012/09/24/stephanie-cutter-women-will-vote-for-obama-because-theyre-stupid/

This article is really bad, but what really gets me are the comments. The number of times that women (who do not vote with the TeaParty) are called stupid is simply astonishing. I may disagree with the TeaParty but I'm certainly not stupid.

However, I can begin to see the two sides to this debate.

The one side sees the TeaParty's efforts to control access to birth control, abortion and gay marriage as an attempt to limit freedom. The second side sees everything through the lens of jobs--therefore if jobs are being created for women that's good enough. Women should just shut up and stop complaining.

I am glad to place importance on creating jobs--I just know how badly it feels to be shut out of society's legal mechanisms. I also believe that once we figure out how to include each citizen into our societal process the jobs will begin to take care of themselves. If each person has a place, then jobs will begin to increase, no question about it. But if we continue to shut out huge segments of our population--because we think they're stupid or lazy or whatever other label we want to put on them, then our society will become smaller and smaller and the number of people who have jobs will decrease.

Calling people stupid simply because they don't agree with you does not help the situation. We need to enter into relationship with each other in order to figure this out.

We Need to Realize When We Are Being Bullies

Here is a link to a conversation between a CNN reporter and Haroon Moghul:

http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/09/23/exp-haroon-moghul.cnn

Haroon Moghul is somebody to listen to. He is saying that Americans don't understand Islam very well. He is also saying that the stupid video that was put out contained lies and was an offensive depiction of the Prophet Muhammed.

So instead of saying that we can't believe how violent Muslims are, and how we can't believe that they "just don't understand free speech," we need to be saying we are sorry. An offensive video was made and even though we didn't put the video out, we condemn it and we are sorry that it caused so much pain.

There is such a thing as escalation and there is such a thing as deescalation and what we have been doing with our insistence on condemning all Muslims is escalation.

We are big enough to deescalate this. We are big enough to say we are sorry. We need to stop condemning the actions of others and take responsibility for our actions.

No more stupid videos. No more depictions of the Prophet Muhammed. We invite Muslims to the table. We invite Muslims to participate. This is deescalation. This is good action.

If Church and State Don't Mix, Where do We Go From Here?

Check out my essay written for the Denver Post Hark Blog.

We simply have to begin dealing with these issues because once we deal with issues of church and state we can begin to create our society. Otherwise, all we doing is sitting around arguing.

Here is the link: Linda's Denver Post Hark Link

Somebody Else is Saying that Gay Marriage is A First Amendment Right!

I found a utube video with a guy who is saying exactly what I am saying. It is very exciting to see this! Gay marriage is a First Amendment issue because it is my right as a gay person to live in freedom from religious law and the people who are opposing gay marriage are doing so because it is against their religion. Take a look at this guy's video. He wants you to tell him what you think. I would also like you to leave a comment.

Freedom of Religion and Gay Marriage

I Apologize to Muslims

I am sorry.

 I am sorry the release of that movie has hurt Muslims. I think the movie is despicable as are the anti-Muslim feelings that go with it. I am sorry. I am sorry that Americans are spending so much time condemning the actions of others without first taking responsibility for ourselves.

 It is true--Americans did not release that movie--it is the act of a few individuals and not of all of us. Nevertheless, the movie comes out of a generalized fear that many Americans have of Muslims. I say that we need to declare this fear and look at what our fear is doing to us and to the world.

For those who think that Americans are not afraid of Muslims, I offer the following example--Pat Robertson.

Huffington Post Article About Pat Robertson's Hatred and Fear of Muslims

There are other examples of the same type of behavior--I have simply chosen one article to put up on this blog. I am asking Americans to examine their fear of Muslims. I apologizing to Muslims for that movie. I think it is despicable.

****

I have some ideas and opinions on the First Amendment and I'd like to add them here:



First off, the First Amendment is for the United States. One should not expect that First Amendment rights exist outside of the United States. If we run around the world being rude to people (or worse) we should not expect that First Amendment rights apply.

Second, what happened with the release of this stupid movie is hideous. And the people who put out this video are not protected by First Amendment rights because the First Amendment does not give a person the right to say lies about someone else or to defame their character. The makers of that stupid movie had no right to say what they said.

Third, I am not sure why we expect Libyans to fully understand First Amendment rights when they have recently come out of years and years under the rule of a dictator. Americans have had over 200 years of First Amendment rights and we do not understand them very well either. 

I want the people who are responsible to know that they have hurt many people and because this movie has hurt many people it has hurt me.

Dr. Barbara Bellar is Running for Office in Illinois and She Is Using Some Very Bad Theology to Do It

Dr. Barbara Bellar is running for office in Illinois. Dr. Barbara Bellar seems to be extremely outspoken, judging from her website and the transcripts of one of her recent campaign speeches. I wish more doctors shared these attributes of hers because I see doctors as a mostly silent bunch on issues of healthcare. This is why I began reading what Dr. Bellar was saying. Here is a link to a recent campaign speech she gave.

Dr. Barbara Bellar Speaks Out Against Obamacare.

Dr. Barbara Bellar is against Obamacare. From her words I wonder if she is against Obamacare as much as she is simply against  President Obama. I wonder if she is against President Obama because Obamacare is more a product of the Republican party than it is anything that President Obama proposed.

I agree that there are problems with Obamacare, but I am glad that we have begun making changes to our healthcare system. I am glad we are doing something. We can't leave our current healthcare system as it is. I have seen that in my time as a chaplain.

Dr. Barbara Bellar writes that she has seen "the slow erosion of continuity of medical care stolen from the citizens of the United States." As a chaplain it is hard for me to understand why a physician would write that access to medical care is lessened by Obamacare. As a chaplain it is hard for me to understand how a physician can think that people are receiving adequate healthcare.

Let me be clear: the United States has a problem because not everyone can access healthcare in this country. Some people can access the system but others cannot. In our system, those that can access the system complain incessantly about those that cannot, all the while doing NOTHING TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM. This is unethical behavior. If you will do nothing to change the system so that everyone may access medical care you are responsible for letting people die.

I'd like to see a physician speaking about what we can do to create a system where everyone can access healthcare. Where are all the physicians in this regard? But a physician who complains about attempts to open up our healthcare system? I certainly am not interested in going to that doctor for healthcare.

 ***

On page 4, Dr. Barbara Bellar writes, "It violates our freedom of religion to practice as we believe and not have the government say what you will and will not hold as deeply convicted principles in your life."

What?

Dr. Barbara Bellar is against opening up access to our healthcare system because it violates her freedom of religion? Nonsense. Dr. Barbara Bellar is not saying that it is against her religious belief to buy insurance. Dr. Barbara Bellar is saying that entering into a public system is against her religious beliefs because some of the money in that public system might be used to pay for someone else's abortion. This is very similar to the position the Catholic Church has taken. They don't want to pay for abortion and because of this they are claiming freedom of religion. This is a backward argument.

The First Amendment guarantees that, "government will make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof." Our government cannot restrict access to abortion based on the religious objections of a few. If our government were to pass a law restricting access to abortion based on a certain group's religious opposition, then our government would be guilty of passing a law which established Christianity and this would be a clear infringement of First Amendment rights. 

Obamacare does not say that all women must have abortions. Government is saying that abortions are available as needed. Dr. Barbara Bellar says that government should stay out of healthcare decisions but then she says government should make the decision that abortion services will be available only to the very rich. She is speaking out of both sides of her mouth. She is being disingenuous. If government were to make the decision that abortion services are available to only a select few, then government would be making a very big healthcare decision; one that would infringe upon First Amendment rights.  

What would happen if a group came along and said that it is against their religious beliefs to access medical care on Sundays? In our current system, we allow for people to access medical care on Sundays and we even allow our insurance programs to pay for services received on Sundays. But if it against a group's religious rights to access medical care on Sundays shouldn't we prohibit medical care for everyone on Sundays? Surely it is against this group's freedom of religion to have to pay into a system which allows some people to access medical care on Sundays--a day clearly prohibited for this religious group. Nonsense. If it is against your religious beliefs to not access medical care on Sundays, then don't go to a doctor's office or a hospital on Sundays. It's that simple. But keeping me from accessing medical care on Sundays because you don't want to have to pay for it means that I have to live under your religious law--and that is an infringement of my First Amendment Rights.

***

In her sermon, Dr. Barbara Bellar then turns her attention to birth control services. I have never before heard of a physician who was against birth control. Have you? I can't imagine walking into a doctor's office and asking to be examined so that I can then receive birth control and having the doctor say, "I'm sorry. It is against my religious beliefs to provide birth control."

What country are we living in? If you had told me in 2011 that we would be discussing the legality of birth control in 2012 I would have been astonished. We should be discussing whether or not doctors who refuse to give patients birth control should still hold a medical license. I think Dr. Barbara Bellar may be surprised by the answer.

I Applaud Bishop Desmond Tutu

I applaud people standing up for what they believe in. I applaud clergy people taking a stand. I'd like to see more people standing up just like Bishop Desmond Tutu. Thank you!

                                                                  This picture is taken from The Guardian website with the article I have linked to.

                          Why Bishop Tutu Says He Had No Choice But To Spurn Tony Blair

Equal Access for All

Marian Wright Edelman has written an excellent essay on equal access for everyone and how we do not have equal access in America.

                                                                                                 Picture from the Huffington Post Website

Here's the link to her article: Marian Wright Edelman: The Racial Divide: Will It Widen Or Close?

We simply have to work together in this society to insure that all of us can live the life we are supposed to live and all of us can nurture and share our gifts with society. We are cutting ourselves off at the roots by cutting off most people in our society.

Joe Hutchison--Poet Extraordianire--Two Poetry Readings

You're Invited! (Two Readings Coming Up This Month)

Joe is a great poet. Come hear him read poetry!

Republicans Say Rape Can Be Classified as "Forcible" and "Legitimate." So does Father Groeschel, Catholic Friar from New York.

The Republican party recently made headlines by trying to define rape as only when it is "legitimate" and "forcible." This Catholic friar is doing the same thing, but he also explains what rape is when it is illegitimate and not coerced.

                                                                                    This picture taken from the Huffington Post website.

 

Here is a link to the Huffington Post article describing the Friar's comments.
From the Huffington Post: Father Benedict Groeschel, American Friar, Claims Teens Seduce Priests

This guy is wrong. Rape is rape. Pedophilia is rape. The people who think rape is sometimes justifiable are wrong.

This guy is a mainstream Catholic Friar from New York, just as Akin, Ryan and others are mainstream Republicans who are currently in office. Shocking. I am glad that we are hearing how these guys really think. But they need to be told their view of rape is the view of the perpetrator and perpetrators do not need to be in charge of the government, nor of the Catholic Church.

Far Right Blames Hurricane Isaac on Gays, Yet Says Nothing About Republican Convention

What on earth is going on?

Here's the story that goes with the photograph, taken from the Huffington Post website:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/hurricane-isaac-southern-decadence-gay-festival-new-orleans_n_1843636.html?ir=Gay%20Voices

Blaming Gays for the world's troubles simply doesn't cut it. Once again, if God is going around causing trouble--hurricanes and tornadoes, etc., then God needs to be charged either with criminal mischief (in this case) or with murder (in the earlier case of tornadoes--see previous post.)

What would have happened if the Republicans had to cancel their convention due to Hurricane Isaac? Would God have then been on the side of Democrats? Come on! This is bad theology and we all know it!!

God doesn't punish. Let's get the story straight. We are in hurricane season.

Far Right Wants to Expand Access to Semi-Automatic Weaponry While Controlling Access to Birth Control, Abortion and LGBT Marriage

WHAT IS GOING ON?

As the crow flies, I live about a mile from the Aurora theater shooter's apartment. I take my kids to Red Robin and Joe's Crab Shack (where two people who were shot worked) and my friend's daughter was sitting in the front right section of the theater when the shooter entered Friday morning. So, even though the shootings did not directly impact my life, I feel I have been personally touched. Because of this, I have been thinking a lot about the shooting--and I have been watching the public discussion surrounding gun control.

There seem to be two main groups of people--those who like guns and those who do not. These two groups are talking right past each other. Those who do not like guns argue that access to semi-automatic rifles must be limited and those who do like guns argue that access must be unrestricted. As for myself, I am strongly in the group that believes society has no need for semi-automatic rifles, but I have been closely watching what the other side is saying.

Facebook is one reason I have been watching the discussion so closely. One of my Facebook friends who is a frequent poster has been writing quite a lot about his love for semi-automatic rifles. From this person’s previous posts on Facebook I know that he gets "a hard-on" when he holds a cocked gun at someone's head. Aside from being a frequent poster on Facebook, this person is also a cop and if he is getting sexually stimulated by guns then I am willing to bet others are too. That this is an unexamined part of gun ownership means that our society should begin to look at why people own these types of guns.

I am a chaplain. My own stereotype of chaplains is that they are not a gun-toting bunch. But at one of my previous jobs I found that wasn't true. Listening to lunch time discussions I found that many chaplains regularly carry guns and that they do so as a part of their religious beliefs. In fact, I found out that some churches celebrate the fact that nearly all of their members are concealed permit holders. What this really means is that some churches celebrate the fact that Sunday morning services are filled with guns.

I can understand that shooting someone can be sexually stimulating. What I don’t understand is how religion fits into all of this. What about Christianity is conducive to blowing someone away with a powerful rifle? When I look at Fundamental Christians, I see people who are concerned with end times and with preserving past power structures. Fundamentalist Christians have been concerned with the apocalypse for almost two thousand years and it cannot go without comment that many people on the Far Right are very concerned that we have a Black president. Is there something that links the apocalypse with people's need to buy semi-automatic rifles?

In the press coverage after the shootings we heard from ammunition companies who said that buying large amounts of semi-automatic ammunition is not uncommon. These companies said that people regularly buy large amounts of ammunition because it is necessary for use on the gun range. But I don't think gun ranges are really why people are buying box after box of ammunition. People’s fear of the apocalypse has more to do with it. So does the fact that we have a black president. In other words, people who like semi-automatic rifles are buying large amounts of assault ammunition to protect themselves during end times. They don't need normal guns to protect themselves because these are not normal times.

People who want to control access to semi-automatic rifles need to shift the focus of this conversation. We do not need to speak of 2^nd Amendment rights anymore because controlling access to these weapons does nothing to diminish 2^nd Amendment rights. Rather, we need to speak about why large segments of our society have such a tremendous need to kill people—and make no mistake about it—if you are stock-piling semi-automatic ammunition you have a tremendous need to kill people.

What is really going on here? We can see from the public discussion that access to semi-automatic weapons and semi-automatic ammunition is a big deal. But we are so busy arguing about our right to protect ourselves that we are missing the bigger issue. Mixing sexual gratification with religion means that we are trying to expand men’s right to sexual gratification while at the same time trying to limit women’s ability to control their sexuality. All we have to do is take one look at the Far Right’s struggle against access to birth control and abortion to know that. Once we know what is really happening we will have the ability to take action. Society must take action to limit the public’s access to semi-automatic weaponry. To do otherwise is to bring back the Middle Ages.

Access to Birth Control, Abortion and LGBT Marriage are All First Amendment Rights

Here is a letter I wrote to Anthea Butler, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Butler has a lot to say about religion's role in the public sector. I wrote this letter to Dr. Butler because I'd like to see SOMEBODY talking about the issues of SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL and ACCESS TO ABORTION as a FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. Before I wrote to Dr. Butler I wrote to Marty Rouse of the Human Rights Campaign. Neither person ever wrote back. We need to change the conversation surrounding these issues. They are all First Amendment issues, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Let the conversation begin!

Dear Dr. Butler,

I am a Jewish chaplain working at a hospice in Denver. I am also
Lesbian. I have been watching the debate on the legality of homosexual
marriage but I want to do more than just watch. I want to change the
national conversation we are having. I also want to unite the effort
to maintain access to birth control (and abortion) to the effort to
legalize same sex marriage. Here's why:

Every argument I have seen against these issues is religiously based.
Homosexuality is a sin, marriage is between one man and one woman and
life begins at conception. These are all arguments which the Far Right
says come from the Bible. The First Amendment of the US Constitution
says that government can make no rules which respect one religion over
another. I am having trouble understanding why no one is saying that
religiously based laws have no place in our constitutional system. As
I watch the public debate I am beginning to realize that no one is
seeing what is going on because we are talking about Religion—and yet
when we talk about Religion, we do not talk about how religion has
changed—and I see two religious systems at play: I see the pre-modern
concept and I see the post-modern concept of religion.

We on the religious left are not making any headway with the religious
right because we are talking past them. In essence we are having two
religious conversations. We must understand how religion has changed
over the last years in order to frame this conversation correctly. The
religious right sees themselves as being philosophically pre-modern.
Anything that smacks of post modernism is thus shunned and ignored. We
must bring this out into the open--begin talking about how we cannot
base our society on the Bible in the way we used to base our society
on the Bible--without even thinking about it.

We on the religious left are spending our time talking about how
religion and the Bible DON’T discriminate against gays and women—and
yet the Bible is chalk full of these examples. The Bible hasn’t
changed.  Rather it is we who have changed. We no longer base our
Truth on Bronze Age ideas—ideas which were extant BEFORE the concept
of “zero” even took hold.  As liberal clergy, we must begin to frame
the conversation—embracing the modern concept of religion—because for
the first time in history, religion now has the possibility of being
about a relationship with the Divine, when before religion was about
control.

Access to Birth Control, Abortion and LGBT Marriage are All First Amendment Issues

First Amendment

There is much discussion currently in the public arena about homosexuality, access to birth control and access to abortion. I see the issue of LGBT Human Rights (specifically the right for LGBT individuals to be married legally and to receive all of the governmental thereof) as a First Amendment Right. (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”)

I also see the issue of access to birth control and abortion as a First Amendment Right.

I have not heard one person say anything about First Amendment Rights in connection with homosexuality or access to birth control. I am confused about this, but I also know that religion has so permeated our culture that it almost makes up the very air we breathe. Most of us have no idea the extent to which religion plays a role in our lives.

The key issue in this argument is that religion has historically tried to define and control gender roles. The aim of having proper sexual roles has been to protect masculinity. A woman’s virginity is valuable because it protects and maintains a man’s masculinity. At all times women must act in a way that protects masculinity while men must never be associated with a feminine role. Men and women who transgress these laws have historically paid the ultimate price by being put to death. Since biblical times, history is full of examples of men and women being brutally put to death for acting in a way not in accordance with the biblical stance on masculinity. In the following section, I give a few of the more grievous biblical verses which regulate gender roles in order to protect masculinity.

• Leviticus 20:13 is the famous verse which states that, “If a man lies with a man, as with a woman,” he shall be put to death.

• Deuteronomy 22:13-21 deals with a man who accuses his new wife of not being a virgin. When a man accuses his new wife, her family is to provide evidence (a bloody bed garment) of her virginity; otherwise the woman will be put to death.

• Deuteronomy 22:22-29 deals with what should be done to a virgin who has been raped. If she was raped in the city, she is to be put to death because she could have screamed and didn't. If the woman was raped in the field, she is to be left alone (because there was no one to hear her screams.) The man is also put to death in these circumstances, but it is because he took another man’s woman. And if the woman who was raped was not betrothed, the rapist is to pay her father and marry her.

• Deuteronomy 25:11-12 deals with putting a woman to death if she intervened in her husband's fight with another man and during that fight she grabbed his “secrets.” The punishment is to cut off the woman’s hands. This is typically not seen as a death sentence but a cursory Google search will show that death from such an injury is not only a possibility: it may be an inevitability—particularly without proper medical care.

• Romans 1:26-27 condemns homosexual behavior—men with men and women with women.

• Corinthians 16:9-10 condemns the sexual attraction and behavior that one man may have for another man.

• Timothy 11:9-10 calls homosexuals sinners by comparing them to murderers.

Many homosexual people (and others) are very passionate about religion and see it as a positive force in their lives. That religion has been used to control people is unthinkable to many. It would not surprise me if people within the LGBT population express outrage over what I am saying. (Dan Savage’s recent comments on the evils of religion for the LGBT population and Jay Michaelson’s impassioned response are examples of this type of outrage.) Both men used LGBT epithets to describe people they disagreed with. This shows the extent to which culture and religious influence permeates the very core of our beings. (Dan called the people who walked out of his talk “pansy-asses” and Jay called Dan “The Gay Santorum”.) For many people, religion is either bad or it is good. I am not saying either. I am saying that the anti-homosexual argument is religiously based, as is the argument for limiting access to birth control and abortion. I am also saying that government cannot make laws which are biblically based.

When I look at homosexuality it is easy for me to see that breaking traditional gender roles is at the heart of the issue—and male homosexuals have paid the price for that transgression with their blood. When I look at access to birth control and abortion I see that women are paying a very heavy price for having to guard masculinity. They are paying with their lives. Lesbians have been lumped together with other women and so have not been traditionally visible in the homosexual arena.

I see a couple of things happening here. Religion is confusing—and religion is changing. The fact that the role of religion has changed over the last 50 years is obvious—yet the ways that it has changed remain invisible to most people.

When I was in my residency to become a chaplain I shared a tiny office with a man who was ordained by Calvary Chapel, a large non-denominational church that began in southern California. You can imagine that both this gentleman and I were perturbed to be sharing such a small space together. Yet we were able to speak honestly and frankly about our two positions and grew to be quite fond of one another. I learned some crucial things about the far right side of the Christian Church from my year of sharing an office and I would like to share what I have learned.

These churches (and movements, denominations or whatever term they use to describe themselves) are biblically based. This term is confusing to other religious movements like the Methodists, Presbyterians and Conservative Jews (although as Jews they are Talmudically based and not biblically based) who are also quite fond of the Bible. However, when Calvary Chapel, Evangelical Frees and the Church of Christ say they are biblically based, they really mean that their definition of “the truth” is based on the Bible. When they base “truth” on the Bible they are not doing so rationally; rather they are describing themselves philosophically. These far right Christian movements see themselves in opposition to post-modernism. Anybody who they identify as post-modern is thus “against God.” This is the basis for their stance against homosexuals and their stance against post-modernism explains why the Catholic Church and the far-right Protestant movements came together to agree not to pay for birth control.

I believe we can thank the Catholic Church for bringing all of this to the forefront in such a graphic way. Instead of arguing with the Catholic Church, Calvary Chapel, Evangelical Frees and the Church of Christ (among many others) we can simply accept what they say. Yes, it is against “your”religion to provide access to birth control and abortion and it is against“your” religion to allow LGBT people to have the governmental benefit of legally sanctioned marriage. And BECAUSE of that, the government cannot place the laws of Christianity over the laws of the people. There can be no law (biblically based) passed by our government which limits access to birth control or abortion and there can be no law which limits a person’s right to marry. These are constitutional rights, laid out by the First Amendment of the United States. I as a woman and a lesbian do not have to live under the repressive regime of the Christian Church. I do not have to live under the repressive regime of the Jewish Religion and I do not have to live under the Law of Islam, end of story.

If Pat Robertson is Telling the Truth We Must Charge God With Murder

                                                                This picture came from the Huffington Post article, original photo from YouTube.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/pat-robertson-tornadoes-prayer_n_1321686.html

If God really is responsible for the recent deaths during the rampaging tornadoes, then we need to take action. We cannot allow God to murder people as retribution for "not praying enough."

When Pat Robertson makes statements like this, what he is really saying is that God is a terrorist.

We all know that God is not a terrorist. And yet, we allow Pat Robertson to make statements like this without telling him what he is really saying. Pat Robertson is wrong.

Here's what I know to be true:

God is love.

God does not punish.

I want to participate in creating a society where we all care for one another. I want to participate in creating a society where we all can participate. This is what the religious clergy of this country should be talking about.

If clergy describe God as a murderer and a terrorist, people feel like they deserve the bad things that are happening to them. This simply isn't true.