Bishop Robinson is being consecrated this Sunday. I have already read that Fred Phelps is planning to be there to protest. (On a related more positive note, the town of Casper, Wyoming voted to refuse Phelps' proposed monument that would declare Matthew Shepard to be burning in hell.) I certainly understand that this is a painful issue for some Episcopalians--and many other people of faith. There is much talk of schism. If there is any issue that they truly believe is against God's will, and they feel pushed to accept it, it can be troubling. What is important, in my mind, even if you believe someone is in the wrong, is to learn the facts. Try to see the world through another's eyes. Try not to stereotype, or jump to conclusions. Mark Steyn, of the Chicago Sun Times, wrote derisively of the election of Gene Robinson, referring to him as a man who broke up his family because he put his sexual appetites before his daughters. I doff my hat to the bishop. This week he got the church to endorse not just his gayness but his narcissism. Wow--what a jerk. Abandoning his family like that. Except that today I read in the Columbus Dispatch: At age 13, he and a group of school friends had flipped through a copy of Playboy together, and the experience had troubled him. "I was aware that their reaction to these pictures was different than mine. This was clearly a whole lot more exciting to them that it was to me," he recalls. "At exactly the same moment, I also knew that I better pretend otherwise." Later, Robinson entered therapy. He tried to change his desires. He even married a woman and had two daughters. Before the wedding, Robinson told his wife about his attraction to men. But at age 39, after undergoing therapy with his spouse, he decided to accept his homosexuality, believing "this is really who I am and who God created me to be." He told his wife. Then he flew to Lexington to tell his mom and dad. "To say it was difficult is an incredible understatement," he recalls. "It was pretty awful, and I wasn't sure I was going to be allowed to stay there." But his parents didn't kick him out. "We've accepted it, and he's our son and we love him and he's a wonderful person," his mother says. "As he says, he's the same boy he's always been." On the last day of their marriage, Gene and Isabella "Boo" Robinson brought a priest to the judge's chambers to witness the divorce decree. Then they went to a church, took Communion and returned their wedding rings. The next year, Robinson met Mark Andrew while on vacation in the Caribbean. The pair has lived together in Weare, N.H., since 1989. And I have further learned that Robinson, 56, will be presented by his two daughters, his ex-wife and his partner, Mark Andrew. It sounds like his wife and daughters are truly accepting of what happened--they are even taking an active role in celebrating this important day with him. And he even told his wife about his attraction to men before they married. Again, I really can understand and sympathize with people who feel genuinely torn over this. But I really take issue with people who don't have all the details demonizing Robinson with their cries of narcissism.

In the spirit of my last post, here is the holidays page I put together for Letter Lane last year. Letter Lane is an educational site for kids--there is a page for each letter of the alphabet, and a character whose name begins with each letter. We tried to make sure that the characters represented the diversity of cultures in the U.S. I added this page as a resource to help children learn about the variety of celebrations that take place at the end of the year--a number of different celebrations of light. Now that it is about to be November again (yikes!) I want to update the page, remove any dead links, and add new links if I can find any. (It would be nice to find some new pages to replace some of the more annoyingly pop-up laden ones.) If you have any good sites to recommend for this page, please pass them along to me.

Last week at St. Stephen's, we had Dr. Asma Mobin-Uddin lead a Sunday forum before church, as well as preach the sermon during Mass. The forum was sort of an introduction to Islam. I was familiar with much of what she said already, because I had checked out the "Idiot's Guide" on the topic (never be ashamed to check out an "Idiot's Guide" or a "for Dummies" book). Of course, a lot of other people at church knew a fair amount about Islam as well--there is a lot of focus on interfaith outreach an communication there. But it was an important reminded of how different the truth is from the impressions we get from television. Since it is the beginning of Ramadan, I think I am going to devote some posts at the Religious Left to helpful links about the month-long celebration, and links about Islam in general. I truly believe that ignorance, which often leads to fear and distrust, is one of the greatest enemies we face today. At the same time, we are sometimes afraid or embarrassed to ask about certain issues, especially potentially loaded ones like race and religion. Or we don't know who to ask or how to find out. Anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to pull together some links for people who would like to learn more. Here is an article featuring the woman who spoke at our church: Muslim Women Say They Find Liberation in Modest Attire Ramadan links from Education Planet Essentials of Ramadan, the fasting month Includes the wisdom beyond fasting. Understanding Islam Understanding Islam and Muslims

FYI--when I was trying to find the Moyers transcript, I found a link to the PBS Religion and Ethics Newsweekly.

NOW with Bill Moyers recently featured an interview with Joseph Hough of Union Theological Seminary. MOYERS: You recently did a very radical thing. You called on the children of Abraham — Muslims, Christians and Jews — to engage in an act of refusal. HOUGH: Well, my perception, Bill, is that there is a definite intentional move on the part of political leadership in this country. In the direction that I think is not at all compatible with the prophetic tradition in Islam, Christianity, or Judaism. And that is the obligation on the part of people who believe in God to care for the least and the poorest. That central teaching, that sacred code, I think, is very well summed up in Proverbs where the writer of Proverbs says, "Those who oppress the needy insult their maker." "Those who oppress the needy insult their maker." And I think that it would be a wonderful thing if we could stand together, these three great Abrahamic traditions, and say, "Look, we do not countenance this sort of thing. It is not only unfair, it is immoral on the basis of our religious traditions, and we believe it's an insult to God." You can read the rest of the transcript here.

Article in Boston.com about General Boykin's "my God is bigger than yours" approach: "The ethical dilemma facing all religions today, but perhaps especially religions of revelation, is laid bare here: How to affirm one's own faith without denigrating the faith of others? The problem can seem unsolvable if religion is understood as inherently dialectic -- reality defined as oppositions between earth and heaven, the natural and the supernatural, knowledge and revelation, atheism and theism, secularism and faith, evil and good. If the religious imagination is necessarily structured on such polarities, then religion is inevitably a source of conflict, contempt, violence. My faith is true, yours is idolatry. My God is bigger than your god. My God is a warrior, and so am I. But there can be such a thing as an inclusivist religious faith that rejects this way of thinking. Instead of polarity, this other way of being religious assumes unity -- unity between God and God's creation, which serves in turn as a source of unity among God's creatures. This reconciling truth is what all the great religions -- certainly the three Abrahamic religions -- assert when they identify God, most basically, not with conflict but with love. General Boykin says that his God is "real" because his God brings him victory in battle. But the first standard against which the reality of God is measured, even in Boykin's own Christian tradition, is not "bigness" or power but empathetic love. God is love, and the only way to honor God is by loving the neighbor. This is not a minor theme but the essential affirmation. Therefore Boykin has it wrong -- but so do legions of his fellow believers, from the Vatican to those revival tents to the Oval Office. The general's offense was to speak aloud the implication of a still broadly held theology. But that theology is dangerous now. A respectful religious pluralism is no longer just a liberal hope but an urgent precondition of justice and peace. In the 21st century, exclusivist religion, no matter how "mainstream" and no matter how muted the anathemas that follow from its absolutes, is a sure way to religious war."

I saw an article this morning about William Sloane Coffin, and was reminded that he has been a consistent defender of GLBT rights. Here are some excerpts from his essay, "Homophobia: The Last "Respectable" Prejudice": Why all this intolerance? Because while the unknown is the mind’s greatest need, uncertainty is one of the heart’s greatest fears. So fearful, in fact, is uncertainty that many insecure people engage in what psychiatrists call “premature closure.” They are those who prefer certainty to truth, those in church who put the purity of dogma ahead of the integrity of love. And what a distortion of the Gospel it is to have limited sympathies and unlimited certainties, when the very reverse—to have limited certainties but unlimited sympathies—is not only more tolerant but far more Christian. For “who has known the mind of God?” And didn’t Saint Paul also insist that if we fail in love we fail in all things else? The opposite of love is not hatred but fear. “Perfect love casts out fear.” Nothing scares me like scared people, for while love seeks the truth, fear seeks safety, the safety so frequently found in dogmatic certainty, in pitiless intolerance. So I believe the captives most in need of release, those today whose closet doors most need to be flung open, are really less the victims than their oppressors—the captives of conformity—the racists, the sexists, the heterosexists, all who live in dark ignorance because their fears have blown out the lamp of reason. So groundless are these fears that fence them in, I am reminded of the entry for November 1939 in E. B. White’s journal, One Man’s Meat, which he wrote while living in Maine: A friend of mine has an electric fence around a piece of his land, and he keeps two cows there. I asked him one day how he liked his fence and whether it cost much to operate. “Doesn’t cost a damn thing,” he replied. “As soon as the battery ran down I unhooked it and never put it back. That strand of fence wire is as dead as a piece of string, but the cows don’t go within ten feet of it. They learned their lesson the first few days.” Incidentally, the article I saw this morning, was about Coffin presenting an award at Yale: Coffin presented the Yale Divinity School’s first William Sloane Coffin Peace and Justice Award to another longtime peace activist, Cora Weiss. But this was a night to pay tribute to Coffin, too. In an interview, the Rev. Frederick Streets, current Yale chaplain, said Coffin is "a consistent voice of moral conscience for the nation. He has the prophet’s courage, spirit and vision and a pastor’s heart."

How about this--I have something more uplifting to counteract the "be afraid" posts. I read someone's story about being mugged today. The striking part was that the individual moved on pretty quickly to wonder what needs to happen in society to make this sort of event less likely--not in terms of punishment for the guilty, but in terms of making peoples' situations less desperate. It reminded me of something that a friend of mine wrote 3 years ago. In his essay, he tells about being mugged just two days before the September 11 attacks, but then goes on to process the meaning of all this: Over the next few days, I was met with this steady stream of positive aspiration and yearning for wisdom, restraint and connection in order to heal the devastation and to prevent its escalation. I received email from people who I'd only recently met (or who I've not met at all) that contained the same hopeful, hurt and thoughtful message. I was amazed and inspired by this. I still am. I (along with the members of the local sangha) also received guidance from our spiritual teacher on how to orient and control our thoughts in regard to this disaster. As an admonition against feelings of uncertainty and anxiety, she made that point that "we have never known what is going to happen next. We've never known." It is best for us to recognize and accept this circumstance, she said, and to apply ourselves to practice and calm, compassionate response. This was necessary not only for our stability and benefit, but so that we would be able to aid those who need us at this time. "Everybody has something to offer, something to give, and it is our duty to help others mine that understanding and activity within themselves." It's this essential aspect of shared, interconnected life and destiny, and the potential outcomes of our thought and actions at this time, that has left the largest impression on me. Again and again during the past two weeks, I've had to acknowledge the fortune that I have with my life and my connection to sources of wisdom and its teachers. I'm glad that I am able to promote and generate the benefits of this wisdom for others. I am very happy to have received the words and concerns and declarations of many friends and colleagues and other passengers on planet Earth. I have a sense of hastening change, of a massive social or global imperative for responsibility and accountability and equanimity. I sincerely hope that the illusions and constrictions of fear and hatred can be overcome by respect and love. This will be realized, of course. I just hope that this world might experience its emergence into peace sooner than later.

I hate to do this--I hate to have two posts in a row to say, essentially, "Be afraid--be very afraid!" But I can't help but think it is the right thing to pass these things along. The motivations of these people are more dangerous if most people are unaware of them: Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin has been assigned to a position where he will "aggressively combine intelligence with special operations and hunt down so-called high-value terrorist targets including bin Laden and Saddam." This man's driving ideology: “Well, is he [bin Laden] the enemy? Next slide. Or is this man [Saddam] the enemy? The enemy is none of these people I have showed you here. The enemy is a spiritual enemy. He’s called the principality of darkness. The enemy is a guy called Satan.” Why are terrorists out to destroy the United States? Boykin said: “They’re after us because we’re a Christian nation.” NBC News military analyst Bill Arkin, who’s been investigating Boykin for the Los Angeles Times, says the general casts the war on terror as a religious war: “I think that it is not only at odds with what the president believes, but it is a dangerous, extreme and pernicious view that really has no place.” ... Boykin also routinely tells audiences that God, not the voters, chose President Bush: “Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he’s in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this.” Boykin tells NBC News that, given his new assignment, he is curtailing such speeches in the future. He says, “I don’t want … to be misconstrued. I don’t want to come across as a right-wing radical.” Must...restrain...sarcasm! Another quote from Boykin: “But who is that enemy? It’s not Osama bin Laden. Our enemy is a spiritual enemy because we are a nation of believers. You go back and look at our history, and you will find that we were founded on faith. Look at what the writers of our Constitution said. We are a nation of believers. We were founded on faith.” [PICTURE OF SATAN] “And the enemy that has come against our nation is a spiritual enemy. His name is Satan. And if you do not believe that Satan is real, you are ignoring the same Bible that tells you about God. Now I’m a warrior. One day I’m going to take off this uniform and I’m still going to be a warrior. And what I’m here to do today is to recruit you to be warriors of God’s kingdom.”

This article discusses Bush's sense of being called by God to fight "evildoers" but also explains about the Project for the New American Century. If you don't know about that, you really should find out. People close to the president say that his conversion to evangelical Methodism, after a life of aimless carousing, markedly informs his policies, both foreign and domestic. In the soon-to-be-published The Faith of George W. Bush (Tarcher/Penguin), a sympathetic account of this religious journey, author Stephen Mansfield writes (in the advance proofs) that in the election year 2000, Bush told Texas preacher James Robison, one of his spiritual mentors: "I feel like God wants me to run for president. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. . . . I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it." Mansfield also reports: "Aides found him face down on the floor in prayer in the Oval Office. It became known that he refused to eat sweets while American troops were in Iraq, a partial fast seldom reported of an American president. And he framed America's challenges in nearly biblical language. Saddam Hussein is an evildoer. He has to go." The author concludes: " . . . the Bush administration does deeply reflect its leader, and this means that policy, even in military matters, will be processed in terms of the personal, in terms of the moral, and in terms of a sense of divine purpose that propels the present to meet the challenges of its time." Some who read this article may choose to view it as the partisan perspective of a political liberal. But I have experienced wars—in India and Indochina—and have measured their results. And most of the men and women who are advocating the Bush Doctrine have not. You will find few generals among them. They are, instead, academics and think-tank people and born-again missionaries. One must not entertain any illusion that they are only opportunists in search of power, for most of them truly believe in their vision of a world crusade under the American flag. They are serious, and they now have power at the top. Read the rest here.

The Rev. James R. Adams, President of the Center for Progressive Christianity, explains why the organization advocates equal rights for gay and lesbian people: The experience that finally turned me into a fervent supporter of equal rights for gay and lesbian people was my testifying before a committee of the House of Representatives that was considering the possibility of overturning the recently enacted District of Columbia domestic partners act. Although I had the support of my two church wardens, both professional lobbyists, I was not prepared for the hatred and vitriolic denunciation of homosexual people that I found in that committee room. From the way a southern congressman attacked me for my support of the domestic partners act, I gathered that lesbians and gays had now replaced communists as the people to hate. When members of the St. Mark’s vestry learned of the verbal abuse that the congressman hurled at me, they drafted a letter to him supporting my position. One paragraph of that letter, when the language is expanded to include more than one congregation, can explain why The Center for Progressive Christianity finds that it must support equal justice for gays and lesbians: "To discriminate against some members of our congregation is to discriminate against us all. We choose to stand together. Since some of our members are homosexual, so are we all in the face of discrimination. Since some of our members are Jewish, so are we all in the face of discrimination. Since some of our members are children, so are we all in the face of discrimination. We are mothers, fathers, single, married, gay, straight, old, young, African-American, handicapped; we are many faces of humanity. As a congregation, however, we are one." As progressive Christians we are one. We will stand along side any of our sisters and brothers who have a legitimate appeal for justice in the church or in society at large.

Marcus Borg presents the biblical prohibitions against homosexuality in context: But if we think of the Bible as a human product, then this is not one of the laws of God, but one of the laws of ancient Israel. And it tells us that within ancient Israel, homosexual behavior was considered unacceptable. Then the ethical question becomes: "What would be the justification for continuing to see things as ancient Israel saw things?" – especially when, as most of you would know, the law prohibiting homosexual behavior is imbedded in a context in Leviticus in the holiness code, the purity code, as it’s sometimes called, which also prohibits the planting of two kinds of seed in the same field, or the wearing of garments made of two kinds of cloth. Now how many of you have blends on this morning? I mean, why aren’t we bent out of shape about that? So, anyway, the Bible is a human product. We need to be utterly candid about that, and not out of a misplaced sense of reverence or respect say, "Well, I really think it comes from God somehow." We just make it enormously confusing when we say that. The Bible is the response to the experience of God, but as the response to the experience of God, it is a human product.

From the Columbia Encyclopedia entry on marriage: Marriage is usually heterosexual and entails exclusive rights and duties of sexual performance, but there are instructive exceptions. For example, Nayar women of India would ritually marry men of a superior caste, have numerous lovers, and bear legitimate children. Among the Dahomey of West Africa, one woman could marry another; the first woman would be the legal “father” of the children (by other men) of the second. These examples highlight the functions of marriage to reproduce both a domestic division of labor and social relationships between different groups. Such functions are served even by the more common type of marriage, the union of one or more men with one or more women. In most societies men and women are valued for their different roles in the household economy. Marriage therefore often occasions other economic exchanges. If a woman’s labor is highly valued, a man may be required to offer valuable goods (bride-price) or his own labor (bride-service) to his wife’s family. If a man’s labor is more highly valued, the bride’s family may offer goods (dowry) to the husband or his family.

Former Republican senator Alan Simpson shared his thoughts about creating a constitutional amendment defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual in an article published in the Washington Post: As someone who is basically a conservative, I see not an argument about banning marriage or "defending" families but rather a power grab. Conservatives argue vehemently about federal usurpation of other issues best left to the states, such as abortion or gun control. Why would they elevate this one to the federal level? What's more, it is surely not the tradition in this country to try to amend the Constitution in ways that constrict liberty. All of our amendments have been designed to expand the sphere of freedom, with one notorious exception: prohibition. We all know how that absurd federal power grab turned out. My old and dear friend Dick Cheney put it best when he said during the last presidential campaign: "The fact of the matter is we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody. . . . And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard. . . . I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy in this area."

After finding the page about the 8 types of marriage that are mentioned in the Bible, I remembered a sermon on sexuality and spirituality that was given by Mark Belletini, Senior Minister at First Unitarian Universalist Church in Columbus, OH. Here is what he says about sexuality in the Bible. I'm not saying that all the sexuality in the Bible is good; some of it is quite awful. But that is also true for all of the spiritual doctrines found there as well - some grand, some terrible. Holy Father Abraham? His is the story of a man with several wives, concubines, a man consumed by jealousy and the idea of spouse-sharing. The sons of holy Noah, who were the only righteous family left on earth? They "uncover their father's nakedness," which is only a Hebrew idiom for incest. Lot flees Sodom only to sleep with his own daughters, who consciously seduce him in order to bear his children. Jacob marries out of convenience but lusts for another woman, his wife's sister to be exact, for most of his adult life. The Egyptian eunuch Potiphar clearly buys Joseph as a sex-slave for himself, only to have his wife spend a whole chapter trying to seduce the handsome Hebrew. The Lawbook attributed to Moses spends a lot of its time telling people not to act like their Canaanite and Philistine neighbors, both of which cultures used priests and priestesses as sexual surrogates in the temple, sex serving as a form of communion with their gods. Ruth makes love with Boaz in the harvest field. Great King David, the noblest and most holy figure in the whole book by some accounts, passionately kisses prince Jonathan in a meadow near the palace. Their love as "companions" clearly makes King Saul furious. After Jonathan's death, David has another man murdered so he can claim the gorgeous widow… as one more wife among his many. He also dances naked in front of the Ark of the Covenant, eliciting lust from just about everyone, and making his first wife Michael stew about his shamelessness for several chapters and verses. Great king David's son Amnon cunningly and brutally rapes his half-sister Tamar. David dismisses the weight of this act with a slight wave of his hand, which makes Tamar's full-brother Absolom so mad that he eventually murders Amnon, declares war on his own father, and almost destroys the dynasty. Solomon courts the Queen of Sheba lavishly with gifts. The prophet Hosea marries a prostitute to make a sermon point. Isaiah walks around naked as another illustration of wisdom. Jesus makes it a practice to have dinner with socially unsavory types, including, apparently street-walkers; furthermore, he promises us that these street-walkers will find God's blessing way before all the highbrow religious priests do.

From the Shepherd Initiative web site: What was the sin of Sodom? Some “televangelists” carelessly proclaim that God destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of “homosexuality.” Although some theologians have equated the sin of Sodom with homosexuality, most no longer agree with this interpretation. Announcing judgment on these cities in Genesis 18, God sends two angels to Sodom, where Abraham’s nephew, Lot, persuades them to stay in his home. Genesis 19 records that “all the people from every quarter” surround Lot’s house demanding the release of his visitors so “we might know them.” The Hebrew word for “know” in his case, yadha, usually means, “have thorough knowledge of.” It could also express intent to examine the visitors’ credentials, or on rare occasions the term implies sexual intercourse. If the latter was the author’s intended meaning it would have been a clear case of attempted gang rape. Horrified at this gross violation of ancient hospitality rules, Lot attempts to protect the visitors by offering his daughters to the angry crowd, a morally outrageous act by today’s standards. The people of Sodom refuse, so the angels render them blind. The angels then rescue Lot and his family and both cities are destroyed. Several observations are important. First, the judgment on these cities for their wickedness had been announced prior to the alleged homosexual incident. Second, all of Sodom’s people participated in the assault on Lot’s house; in no culture has more than a small minority of the population been homosexual. Third, Lot’s offer to release his daughters suggests he knew his neighbors to have heterosexual interests. Fourth, if the issue was sexual, why did God spare Lot, who immediately commits incest with his daughters? Most importantly, why do all the other passages of Scripture referring tot his account fail to raise the issue of homosexuality? WHAT WAS THE SIN OF SODOM? Ezekiel 16:48-50 state is clearly, people of Sodom, like many people today, had abundance of material goods. But they failed to meet the needs of the poor, and they worshipped idols. The sins of injustice and idolatry plague every generation. We stand under the same judgment if we create false god or treat others with injustice.

I found an interesting page on the Religious Tolerance web site describing eight types of marriage that are mentioned in the Bible. 1.The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman, consummates the marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences between the customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of ancient Israelites. In ancient Israel: Inter-faith marriages were theoretically forbidden. However, they were sometimes formed. Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate. Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that developed during a period of courtship. A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could be proven to be one was stoned to death by the men of her village. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity. 2. Polygamous marriage 3. Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. 4. A man, a woman and her female slave 5. A man, one or more wives, and some concubines 6. A male soldier and a female prisoner of war 7. A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. 8. A male and female slave Read more of the specifics here. You might want to bookmark the site in case you ever hear someone talking about the need for family values based on the bible.

A lighter moment from The Onion around the time of 9/11: God Angrily Clarifies "Don't Kill" Rule.

I have seen a number of articles lately saying that Republicans are planning to make opposition to "gay marriage" a major issue in the 2004 election. But buoyed by the latest polls and alarmed that gay couples in at least four states have filed lawsuits seeking the right to marry, conservative Christians are urging the Republican Party to make opposition to gay marriage a major campaign issue in 2004. "We can prevail on this one. That's all the buzz among Christian groups," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, co-founder of Faith and Action in the Nation's Capital, which evangelizes among federal officials. "This is an opportunity to stop the liberal social juggernaut that has been in motion for 40 years What that tells me is that those of us who oppose that agenda, and are capable of articulating the reasons why Americans do not need to fear the GLBT community, need to start doing just that. I, for one, must admit that I am not too good at speaking up about topics that inspire this kind of fear and discomfort. When I try, my face goes all red. But then I think about Matthew Shephard's mother, who would not have sought out the role of gay rights activist, but who accepted it when she realized that she could help make a difference. I realize I need to find my voice--because more sane, compassionate voices are needed to speak up against the bigotry and ignorance. I might need some help, though. Are you with me?

Article on MSN's Slate: How Prayers Poll--debunking myths about the religious right I heard about this guy who called himself "evangelical," said he lived a "Bible-centered life," had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ … and voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush. A confused, lonely, iconoclast? Actually, in 2000, at least 10 million white "evangelical Christians" voted for Gore. Many people, especially secular liberals, misunderstand the nature of religion in politics—which is, to be fair, ever shifting. To them, if it's not about Jerry Falwell or Joe Lieberman, it's kind of a blur. So, just in time for another religion-packed election, here is a guide to sorting through some common myths about God and American politics: Read the full article here.

Click here for a page where the Electronic Frontier Foundation has automated the process of writing a letter to your representative asking him or her to support the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility act of 2003 (HR 2239).

Off topic, I suppose, but this really seems like a crucial issue: I think we need to start looking harder (or smarter, or something) for ways to get the voting machine tampering concerns to be common knowledge. I know we are in primary season and the candidates seem to be focussed more on taking each other down. But it would be nice if we could all lean on our candidates a bit to get them to unite in an effort to draw attention to this problem. Also, Michael Moore is apparently looking for suggestions as to who he could give his tax cut money to--with the goal of getting Bush out of office. I don't know where they could be shown, but some kind of entertaining but accurate public service announcements about the voting machines and who controls them. Somehow this information has to get out of the left wing Internet and into the minds of average Americans. These are the animations about voting machines that I am aware of: Grand Theft America http://www.bushflash.com/gta.html Voting Machines (from Too Stupid to be President) http://www.toostupidtobepresident.com/shockwave/votingmachines.htm VoteRevolution http://takebackthemedia.com/voterevolution.html Have I missed any? What other constructive brainstorming ideas do you have? I know that sites dealing with this are Bev Harris' Black Box Voting site at http://www.blackboxvoting.com, where you can download her book as a PDF for free. There is also Verified Voting at http://www.verifiedvoting.org Please share your thoughts and other resources here.

I just read a comment at Blog for America addressing more completely the kind of equal rights we are talking about when we talk about civil unions. According to the PFLAG web site, marriage offers a unique set of rights, privileges, and benefits. Because lesbians and gay men cannot marry, they have no right to: Accidental death benefit for the surviving spouse of a government employee; Appointment as guardian of a minor; Award of child custody in divorce proceedings; Beneficial owner status of corporate securities; Bill of Rights benefits for victims and witnesses; Burial of service member's dependents; Certificates of occupation; Consent to post-mortem examination; Continuation of rights under existing homestead leases; Control, division, acquisition, and disposition of community property Criminal injuries compensation; Death benefit for surviving spouse for government employee Disclosure of vital statistics records; Division of property after dissolution of marriage; Eligibility for housing opportunity allowance program of the Housing, Finance and Development Corporation; Exemption from claims of Department of Human Services for social services payments, financial assistance, or burial payments; Exemption from conveyance tax; Exemption from regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants; Funeral leave for government employees; Homes of totally disable veterans exempt from property taxes; Income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates; Inheritance of land patents; Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society; Legal status with partner’s children; Making, revoking, and objecting to anatomical gifts; Making partner medical decisions; Nonresident tuition deferential waiver; Notice of guardian ad litem proceedings; Notice of probate proceedings; Payment of wages to a relative of deceased employee; Payment of worker's compensation benefits after death; Permission to make arrangements for burial or cremation; Proof of business partnership; Public assistance from the Department of Human Services; Qualification at a facility for the elderly; Real property exemption from attachment or execution; Right of survivorship to custodial trust; Right to be notified of parole or escape of inmate; Right to change names; Right to enter into pre-marital agreement; Right to file action for nonsupport; Right to inherit property; Right to purchase leases and cash freehold agreements concerning the management and disposition of public land; Right to sue for tort and death by wrongful act; Right to support after divorce; Right to support from spouse; Rights and proceedings for involuntary hospitalization and treatment; Rights by way of dour or courtesy; Rights to notice, protection, benefits, and inheritance under the uniform probate code; Sole interest in property; Spousal privilege and confidential marriage communications; Spousal immigration benefits; Status of children; Support payments in divorce action; Tax relief for natural disaster losses; Vacation allowance on termination of public employment by death; Veterans' preference to spouse in public employment; In vitro fertilization coverage; Waiver of fees for certified copies and searches of vital statistics. It's important that we be educated about these matters. This is a divisive, emotional issue for many people. Some feel so strongly that "gay marriage" is against the teachings of the Bible that they might feel that they must oppose it to be a "good Christian". But we are also told to "be compassionate as God is compassionate", and compassion would seem to dictate that we grant equal rights and protection to all of God's children.

I looked at the Marriage Protection Week web site (you really *don't* want to go there) to find out why marriage needed protection. Here is their statement of purpose: "The sacred institution of marriage is under attack. There are those who want to redefine marriage to include two men, or two women, or a group of any size or mix of sexes: One man and four women, one woman and two men, etc. If they fail to secure legal protection classifying these arrangements as 'marriage,' they want to include all these mixtures under the definition of 'civil union,' giving them identical standing with the mThey have gained the support of the national media and many politicians. "Their efforts are intended to force, by law, 97% of Americans to bow down to the desires of the approximately 3% who are homosexuals." Some of the participating organizations are the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, and the National Religious Broadcasters. By putting his stamp of approval on this divisive tactic of the "Christian Right", Mr. Bush is telling us that is is unwilling and unable to be the president for *all* Americans. At first I only knew that Marriage Protection Week was starting around the time of National Coming Out Day, which was pretty tacky timing on its own. I later found out that October 12 is the 5 year anniversary of the death of Matthew Sheperd. Fred Phelps wants to commemorate this anniversary by erecting a stone monument in Matthew's hometown, declaring that he is in hell because he "defied God's warning" about homosexuality. It would be nice if George Bush would speak out against this kind of hate. But in his silence (coupled with his proclamation of Marriage Protection Week) he is aiding and abetting it. By the way, I shouldn't assume that everyone knows what the proponents of civil unions are really asking for--especially since the phrases "civil unions" and "gay marriage" are often used interchangably in the press. Here is what the Human Rights Campaign site has to say: "These special interest, so-called 'family' groups — and now the president — are misleading the American people when they insinuate that civil marriage for gays and lesbians would weaken other marriages," said Birch. "We're seeking things like Social Security survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights and equal tax treatment when inheriting our partner's estate, none of which threaten other families. Let's be clear about what we're seeking: fairness under the law — a basic principle the American people overwhelmingly support."

FYI--Public Christian has a page about "Why many Christians do NOT vote Republican." It is also available as a PDF here.

Since there have been problems with the archives here, and I have been told that the page still doesn't load properly sometimes, I have created a Religious Left Live Journal. I have migrated a number of older posts over there, and am putting new posts on both sites. Not sure what I am going to do in the long run, but for now I am going to hang on to both sites. I think it's called "mirroring" a site--or it's kind of like that anyway.

I was just checking out the CNN web site and was pleasantly surprised to read that there is a new Mister Rogers book out. "Mister Rogers may have left a void in millions of lives when he died but Mrs. Rogers hopes a new collection of his plainspoken wisdom will provide comfort to them as it did for her. Joanne Rogers says "The World According to Mister Rogers: Important Things to Remember," from Hyperion Books, was published for people who grew up watching Fred Rogers' public television show. It serves as testament to his timeless message of love, friendship and respect. "Most of the people who read this book will feel as if they're having a visit with him. I do, and I think that's why I cherish it so," Rogers said." That's neat. I wrote a letter to Fred Rogers about a year before he died. I can't remember everything I said in it, but I know that one thing I said was that I didn't want to miss the chance to tell him what his show had meant to me as a child and teenager ("comfort television"), that I was pleased that my children were able to see his program as well, and that I admired all of the good he worked to do in the world. And he actually wrote me back--a genuine, thoughtful, personalized letter. I look forward to reading his book. So much of what I read lately is political, or it's for work. It will be a nice break to spend some time listening to this man's gentle wisdom again. Here are some words that we all need to hear right now: "I have a very modulated way of dealing with my anger. I have always tried to understand the other person and invariably I've discovered that somebody who rubs you the wrong way has been rubbed the wrong way many times." "We live in a world in which we need to share responsibility. It's easy to say 'It's not my child, not my community, not my world, not my problem.' Then there are those who see the need and respond. I consider those people my heroes." "There's a generous current in the American spirit. And if we can simply give voice to that once in a while, I think it's a good message." Thank you, Mister Rogers, we needed that!

Today we are celebrating the feast of St. Francis. The more I examine my own personal theology, the less I find it important to focus on the stories and whether or not they are *literally* true. I focus more on the message--the idea. So, even though the actual *stories* about St. Francis are apocryphal to say the least, I am very moved by what St. Francis represents--"lover of all creation, patron saint of animals and the environment". I like that, even though the church I attend is Episcopalian and not Catholic, it has chosen to celebate the rich meaning of this feast day, and has chosen to open its doors to our beloved pets today and welcome them for blessing. I have learned in the past few years that the peace prayer of St. Francis was not written by him, but I continue to find it meaningful and moving: Lord, make me an instrument of your peace; Where there is hatred, let me sow love; Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; And where there is sadness, joy; Grant that I may not so much seek To be consoled as to console; To be understood, as to understand, To be loved as to love; For it is in giving that we receive; It is in pardoning that we are pardoned, And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

I would like to move on to more spiritual topics pretty soon, but I really think this effects us all--somehow it has to get more mainstream attention. Article by Greg Palast: http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=283&row=0 Since reading this article yesterday, I have discovered that this made the news in August. I never heard it. Certainly didn't get the kind of play that the sex allegations got--I *heard* about those. Here's more home / utilities / press releases NEWS RELEASE Oct 03, 2003 Schwarzenegger: Total Amnesia? Enron E-Mails Show Arnold Met With Ken Lay During Energy Crisis Santa Monica, CA --Internal Enron e-mails confirm that Arnold Schwarzenegger was among a small group of executives who met with Lay at the posh Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel in May of 2001, in the midst of California's energy crisis. View the e-mails. The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, which obtained the e-mails, is calling on Schwarzenegger to acknowledge the meetings and disclose the information that was presented and discussed. The meeting with Enron occurred ten days after rolling blackouts darkened California for two consecutive days; Schwarzenegger has previously said that he does not remember such a meeting. "You don't meet with America's most well-known corporate crook in the middle of California's biggest financial disaster and not remember," said FTCR's senior consumer advocate Douglas Heller. "Mr. Schwarzenegger should come clean about what happened at that meeting and if he shares Ken Lay's views on energy regulation." http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/utilities/pr/pr003708.php3 Also here: http://www.utne.com/web_special/web_specials_2003-08/articles/10757-1.html here: http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/081903G.shtml here: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2003/Arnold-Enron-Connection15aug03.htm and here: http://www.oaklandtribune.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,82%257E1865%257E1570050,00.html

How is it that when Clinton committed his "sins", we heard from the Republicans about how "character counts" and we need someone with better "values" in office. Doesn't Arnold's level of support just fly in the face of all that? So many of us feel like we can't just stand idle and let this man be elected without at least *trying* to have an impact. Here's something we can do: Dear MoveOn member, 24 hours ago, we launched an emergency ad campaign to tell California voters the recent revelations about Arnold Schwarzenegger's life and character. As of 2pm, more than 12,000 people have contributed and enabled us to reach our goal of $500,000. The ad will begin playing throughout California on Sunday. It's appearing on at least 10 national news programs today. Incredible. Yesterday, there were revelations about Arnold Schwarzenegger's physical harassment of women -- charges which he has refused to deny. Today he is struggling to explain statements he has made throughout his life regarding Adolf Hitler and another Nazi war criminal. As the Schwarzenegger campaign reels, it's clear that the outcome of this election is up in the air. Today, we're asking you -- no matter what state you live in -- to do something this weekend to ensure that Schwarzenegger is defeated. We're asking you to participate in MoveOn phone banking to California to make sure that voters know the truth. Every Californian deserves to know the truth about this man who will be elected unless they vote No Recall on Tuesday. To sign up to help, click here: http://moveon.org/pac/lapb/ Our online phone banking system is easy to use, and if you have free weekend minutes on your cell phone, you'll be able to make the calls for free. If thousands of MoveOn members call tens of thousands of California voters this weekend, that we could make the difference in this race. Click here to sign up to phone bank and we'll email you back with simple instructions and phone numbers of voters to call: http://moveon.org/pac/lapb/ With only a few days to go, it's critical we get this stunning new information into as many hands as possible. If you've read what's come out about Arnold Schwarzenegger's record and character, you'll want to get on the phone and talk to California voters about this. Please take a look at these news articles from yesterday and today: LA Times: Women Say Schwarzenegger Groped, Humiliated Them NY Times: Schwarzenegger Admired Hitler, Book Proposal Says Washington Post: Effect of Allegations Is Unpredictable; Race's Focus Shifts The recall campaign has been so short, and Schwarzenegger has received so little scrutiny from media that California is in danger of electing this man without knowing this very important and scary information about his record and character. California is the most populous state and it is the fifth biggest economy in the world. We can't let California be hijacked in this bizarre election by a man like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Together, we have the power to defeat the recall by making these calls this weekend. Please sign up right now to make calls today, Saturday or Sunday: http://moveon.org/pac/lapb/ Sincerely, -- Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack The MoveOn Team October 3, 20003

The more I hear about Diebold voting machines and others like them, the more concerned I become. I encourage everyone to become informed about this issue--it is vital to address this issue if we want to maintain any sort of representative government. If you go to the Black Box Voting web site, you can download chapters of Bev Harris' new book of the same title. Another good resource is the Verified Voting site, which also has handouts you can download. More about the concerns about these touch-screen/electronic voting machines: Who's behind these private companies? It's hard to tell: The corporate lines -- even the bloodlines -- of these "competitors" are so intricately mixed. For example, at Diebold -- whose corporate chief, Wally O'Dell, a top Bush fundraiser, has publicly committed himself to "delivering" his home state's votes to Bush next year -- the election division is run by Bob Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The brothers were originally staked in the vote-count business by Howard Ahmanson, a member of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing "steering group" stacked with Bushist faithful. Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist "Christian Reconstructionist" movement, which openly advocates a theocratic takeover of American democracy, placing the entire society under the "dominion" of "Christ the King." This "dominion" includes the death penalty for homosexuals, exclusion of citizenship for non-Christians, stoning of sinners and -- we kid you not -- slavery, "one of the most beneficent of Biblical laws." Read the rest of the article here.

The following is by Warren Brown, who has asked that it be shared. The American Liberal Creed Liberals recognize the value and rights of all people; Liberals recognize that we share the world with others; Liberals support the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and champion their equal application to all citizens; Liberals champion knowledge above ignorance, learning above dogma; Liberals recognize that the concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is futile without education, healthcare and employment; Liberals recognize that government of the people, by the people, and for the people is for the service and protection of all, regardless of economic status; Liberals recognize that public works and institutions serve the public interest, and taxes support those works and institutions; Liberals recognize that "every person for themselves" leads not to a diverse, enlightened and viable society, but only to jungle-like "survival of the fittest"; Liberals recognize that an individual, not government, controls their own body; Liberals recognize that neither government nor commerce is suitable to meet all of our nation's challenges, that there is a place for both; Liberals propagate this message, defend it, and vote for and support those who do.