Women in Abrahamic Traditions

The Institute for Interfaith Dialog (IID) cordially invites you to a panel discussion about “Women in Abrahamic Traditions.”

Tuesday April 6 at 6:30 p.m.

The Institute of Interfaith Dialog

4444 N. Classen Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73118

A panel discussion by the women leaders of the three Abrahamic Faiths:  The three distinguished panelists are:

Rabbi Abby Jacobson, Rabbi, Emanuel Synagogue

Dr. Barbara Boyd, Outreach Director, OU Religious Studies

Sheryl Siddiqui, Director from community relations for the Islamic Society of Tulsa

The panel will be moderated by Dr. Jill Irvine from OU Women’s and Gender Studies.  The event is not exclusive to women.  Men are encouraged and welcome to attend.  Some of the areas of discussion include: 1) How has feminism impacted the discourse of women’s participation in society?  2) How might women of the various Abrahamic traditions work together today to address women’s issues worldwide?  3) How does each religious tradition respond to issues of women’s reproductive health such as the use of contraceptives and abortion?  4) And much more….

For more information: okosman@interfaithdialog.org; 405.702.0222.  This event is free of charge and open to the public.

Still No Sunset for Patriot Act Measures

News and analysis…

Once again the US Patriot Act has entered the fray between security and freedom of speech. Within the last month there have been two separate debates circling the act. First is the issue of freedom of speech in relation to the Patriot Act’s prohibition on “material support” of terrorists groups, (a broadly defined term that includes everything from supplying weapons to teaching “terrorist” leaders how resolve disputes peacefully). Second is the recent extension of the Patriot Act without any increased restriction to protect privacy rights of citizens. These are fascinating debates to follow because it so clearly expresses how our government deals with issues of dialogue, privacy, and justice for those groups it declares suspect, and how the ideals of freedom of speech, privacy, and “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” are balanced against national security.

For an extensive background on the current debates surrounding the Patriot Act I recommend this article featured on Truthout.

The Huffington Post |  Dashing the hopes of liberals, the Senate Wednesday night instead passed – by voice vote without debate – a one-year extension of key parts of the USA Patriot Act that would have expired on Sunday.

Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government’s authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

The House was prepared to approve the extension Thursday, dropping even more extensive privacy protections approved by the House Judiciary Committee.

The Democratic retreat is a political victory for Republicans, who gained new ammunition for their election theme that the GOP can better protect America. The outcome is a major disappointment for Democrats and their liberal allies, including the American Civil Liberties Union, who believe the Patriot Act fails to protect Americans’ privacy and gives the government too much authority to spy on Americans and seize their property.

Foreign Policy  | Senate Judiciary Committee ranking Republican Jeff Sessions, R-AL, confirmed to The Cable that the current thinking was to extend the Patriot Act provisions in their current form, ignoring the changes his own committee approved.

“The Patriot Act has worked and the last thing we should do is weaken it. So I think it’s a good development that we are going to continue it as is,” said Sessions. “That’s the right direction.”

Here’s the scope of the three provisions that will be extended, according to Congressional Quarterly:

One of the expiring provisions allows the government to seek orders from a special federal court for “any tangible thing” that it says is related to a terrorism investigation. Another allows the government to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes of communication. The third provision allows the government to apply to the special court for surveillance orders involving suspected “lone wolf” terrorists who do not necessarily have ties to a larger organization.”

Alter Net | The specter of McCarthyism is again hanging over America, but this time it has found a new name. Next week, the Court will hear Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, a case that calls into question broad restrictions on speech. The lawsuit challenges parts of the Patriot Act that prohibit American citizens from speaking with groups said to be terrorists. The government argues that speaking with or on behalf of these groups can be seen as “material support.” This is an eerily similar argument to the one made against Adrian during the Red Scare. I have heard family stories of screenwriters labeled communists for bringing food to a canned food drive loosely connected with the Communist Party. This kind of guilt by association is poison for a free society.

The Patriot Act’s provisions go even further than the Hollywood blacklists that ended careers and forced an entire generation of talented artists, intellectuals, and activists into the ranks of the unemployed and exiled abroad. Now, speaking with the wrong group can get you fifteen years in federal prison.

The upcoming suit is brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights on behalf of Ralph Fertig, a civil rights lawyer and president of the Humanitarian Law Project, a nonprofit group that has a long history of mediating international conflicts. His organization hopes to do human rights trainings around the world to promote nonviolent conflict resolution — but if he does so, he may be thrown in jail under the Patriot Act. It is a tragic irony that under the current law promoting nonviolence could get an American citizen imprisoned as a supporter of terrorism. Throwing Americans in jail for trying to convince terrorist groups to lay down their arms doesn’t make us safer. It weakens our democracy.

NPR | Federal law makes it a crime to provide material support to any organization designated as a terrorist group by the secretary of state. But the definition of material support includes not just providing weapons, money or bomb-making skills; it includes providing any sort of expert advice, training or personnel — including advice on how to resolve disputes peaceably or training on how to make human rights claims before the United Nations.

The nonprofit Humanitarian Law Project has a long history of engaging in such activity, mediating international conflicts and promoting human rights. But it has stopped doing some of its work for fear of being prosecuted under the material support provision.

“My speech is particularly nonviolent,” says Ralph Fertig, president of the organization. “I’ve gone to jail in the United States for my advocacy for peace.”

The federal government, he maintains, cannot constitutionally make it a crime to help others advocate lawful, peaceful solutions to international conflicts. In particular, Fertig and his organization have helped the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the PKK, make human rights claims before international bodies. They have trained Kurdish leaders in peacemaking negotiations and have brought them to Washington to lobby. But when the PKK was designated an international terrorist organization under the Patriot Act, that all stopped, and the Humanitarian Law Project went to court.

The government, arguing that the PKK had engaged in terrorist activities that have cost some 22,000 lives, said it was justified in making the organization a pariah. Thus, the government contended, even filing a legal brief on behalf of the PKK in an American court would be a crime.

Best of the web…

Sudan Parties Sign Darfur Ceasefire  |  Al Jazeera

The conflict in Darfur, which has pitched ethnic African tribesmen against the Arab-dominated Khartoum government, has raged far the last seven years.

While numerous ceasefires agreements in the past have been short-lived, analysts say that the forthcoming elections in Sudan and increased international pressure could give this initiative a better chance of survival.

But officials warned a March 15 deadline for a final peace deal was overly ambitious.

“After the agreement is signed, the rest will come through more negotiations,” said Adrees Mahmoud, a Europe-based Jem representative, who was in Qatar for the signing.

El Sadig el-Faqih, a former adviser to Sudan’s president, who was also in Qatar, told Al Jazeera the move was a “framework to start discussing the details” and a peace deal could only go ahead when all parties were involved.

Twitter Reaches His Holiness, Now Online @DalaiLama  |  The Raw Story

The Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama has joined micro-blogging service Twitter, attracting over 55,000 followers in just two days.

The Dalai Lama’s Twitter feed — @DalaiLama — was launched on Monday, a day after he met in Los Angeles with Evan Williams, one of Twitter’s founders.

“Met the Dalai Lama today in LA. Pitched him on using Twitter. He laughed,” Williams “tweeted” following the meeting.

The next day, however, the Tibetan spiritual leader had an account and received a “Welcome @DalaiLama” message from Twitter’s new spokesman, Sean Garrett.

Drug-resistance Malaria ‘Growing’ on Cambodia  |  BBC News

Parasites are developing resistance to one of the most important anti-malaria drugs, according to experts.

Artimisinin has been highly effective, particularly in places where resistance to other drugs has developed.

But now some patients along Cambodia’s border with Thailand are taking longer to respond to the treatment.

Experts on the disease are meeting village health workers in Cambodia’s capital, Phnom Penh, to discuss ways to stop drug-resistant malaria spreading.

Utah Bill Criminalizes Miscarriage  |  RH Reality Check

In addition to criminalizing an intentional attempt to induce a miscarriage or abortion, the bill also creates a standard that could make women legally responsible for miscarriages caused by “reckless” behavior.

Using the legal standard of “reckless behavior” all a district attorney needs to show is that a woman behaved in a manner that is thought to cause miscarriage, even if she didn’t intend to lose the pregnancy. Drink too much alcohol and have a miscarriage? Under the new law such actions could be cause for prosecution.

“This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder,” says Missy Bird, executive director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah. Bird says there are no exemptions in the bill for victims of domestic violence or for those who are substance abusers. The standard is so broad, Bird says, “there nothing in the bill to exempt a woman for not wearing her seatbelt who got into a car accident.”

Such a standard could even make falling down stairs a prosecutable event, such as the recent case in Iowa where a pregnant woman who fell down the stairs at her home was arrested under the suspicion she was trying to terminate her pregnancy.

I Embrace Religions, Except Other Interpretations of My Own

In school, I majored in Religious Studies.  I learned about Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform), Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana), Islam (Sunni, Shia, Sufi), Sikhism, Ba’hai, Jainism, Hinduisms, and more.  I eventually came to the conclusion that all religions are seeking the ultimate truth.  In addition, I concluded that many religious traditions share common elements but emphasize them differently.  I can recall very clearly having this revelation in high school Sunday school while talking about non-attachment in the Buddhist tradition.  “What’s the one day that Christians focus on non-attachment?” my teacher posed to the group of us.  My mind was completely blank, is that something we talked about at all?  “Ash Wednesday,” he said, “when we receive the imposition of ashes and are told ‘Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.’”

I like to think that I am ‘beyond tolerance’ (as a t-shirt of mine says) when it comes to religious traditions.  I’m not just interested in “a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.”  I want to embrace the diversity.  Even atheists and agnostics intrigue me.  The claim that there is no God or that any ultimate reality is unknowable are themselves statements about religion.  I love to talk to those people over a cup of coffee, not because I’m a believer and want to convert them, but because they have valid opinions too.

Having said that I can sit comfortably with a great diversity of religions and not only tolerate them, but embrace their perspectives, there is one tradition with whom I cannot sit comfortably, a conservative interpretation of my own.  Perhaps it’s from the years of being asked as a child in Oklahoma if Episcopal was Christian, or having someone speculate that my youth group van was decorated in race car type flames because we were going to hell, but I cannot speak respectfully with those Christians who would close the church to women’s ordination or full participation of homosexuals, among other things.

However, I could talk to other traditions that hold these exact same views.  What is it about my own tradition that creates such a blind spot?  Perhaps it is because I perceive Conservative Christians as an incorrect interpretation, whereas I am not similarly inclined to pronounce the same opinion  in say, the Orthodox Jewish tradition.  Indeed, it never even occurred me that Conservative Christianity was a religion of which I needed to be tolerant until a few years ago when my mother pointed it out.  I had been completely intolerant of a branch of my own tradition.

A friend and Hindu chaplain writes of his experience talking to the one religion which irks him.

I fashion myself a pretty tolerant and accepting guy, but there is one “religion,” I must admit, that I simply can’t stand.  Its doctrines and practices make my blood boil. Its champions bug me, its devotees test my patience.

So it’s not surprising that a recent attempt to dialogue with one of them left me feeling like I’d just spent time acquainting my head with a brick wall.

Here, he is writing about fundamentalists but I think that his experience is relevant to my own since fundamentalists of my own, Christian, tradition are some of those with whom I find myself least able to communicate.  Maybe it’s the lack of give and take in the conversation.  Maybe it’s my own prejudice against a culture by which I was largely surrounded as a child.

An author at Paliban Daily argues that it is in the very nature of religion to be intolerant.

Religions don’t bring that same spirit of tolerance and understanding to the table. They insist on it but they will not reciprocate. They can’t. It is against their very doctrine and dogma. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, in particular, are political systems as much as they are theologies. They come with prescriptions, not only for their adherents, but for society at large. Tolerance can only be a one way street. Their doctrine, being divine, cannot be open to compromise or negotiation. They share many of the same bigotries and prejudices against women, foreigners, homosexuals and any who don’t agree with their beliefs and superstitions. Regardless of the good people want to see from religion, or have been trained to see and expect from religion, the truth is that the fundamental structure of religion is authoritarian, uncompromising and not open to negotiation. God’s laws and prescriptions cannot be edited, abridged or altered. God’s laws and teachings cannot be subject to the laws of man, society, or the state, and, most definitely, not compromised with another religion’s equally divine prescriptions and demands.

I disagree with this assessment.  Religions can embrace their traditions and suspend their claims of absolute truth.  Letting go of absolute truth claims is the only way that two people can sit down and discuss anything.  And so, it is with this appreciation that I suspend my own claim on absolute truth in the Christian tradition.  If you’re willing to sit down, so am I.

Rev. Chris Moore’s opening prayer from the 5th annual Matthews Banquet

I always get a little nervous when preparations for our annual Matthews Banquet come around.  There are so many intricate details to be worked out, and many of them have to come in sequence.  For example, we can’t book the caterer or the flowers until we know how many people we’re expecting.  We can’t know how many people we’re expecting until we have sent out invitations.  And we can’t send out invitations until we have selected our award recipient.  I actually think there’s a line on my Matthews master checklist that says, “worry about absolutely everything until you can’t eat or sleep.”  My friends tease me about this last one because everything always turns out just fine, whether I worry or not.

At any rate, one thing I never have to worry about for very long is the lineup of speakers we get for our banquets.  We have been very fortunate in the last five years to have some of the best speakers in the area assist us in honoring our recipients, and this year we were particularly lucky.  Xenia dialogue fellow and local pastor Rev. Chris Moore offered our opening blessing, and I haven’t been able to stop thinking about it.  It’s exactly the kind of charge I needed at that moment (I don’t mean a “charge” like the one you get drinking an energy drink, but charge as in “charged with a responsibility” or an assignment or challenge).

I offer you the opportunity to share in this charge, and I submit Rev. Moore’s prayer for your review:

Gracious God,

Open us up this evening. Awaken us to a new dawn.

Remind us again that you are the god who seeks not our offerings or sacrifices but seeks that we care for the orphan and widow, for the powerless and marginalized.

You are the god whose law is written on our hearts.

Create in us a new awareness. Birth in us a sense of our own power that we might act where we live and be your hands and feet in the world. Reign in our pride, temper our egos, and tame our wild individualism so that we might live out of your spirit of justice, peace, and creation in a world which does not hunger for more absolute certainty or judgement, but is starving for a little compassion.

Too often we think your work comes only in the big things, that we must change the world in a day if we are leading meaningful lives. Too often we only think of the glorious moments, we remember a speech on the steps of the capital in Washington D.C. that evoked a new dream of equality and still sends chills down our spines without also remembering of the marches yet to be walked, the sting of fire hoses yet to be felt, or the beatings and hatred yet to be endured.

We remember the names celebrated by the fleeting winds of fame, but have never know the names of people who just stood their ground, or signed their name, or simply did the right thing when the time was upon them. Remind us that your way doesn’t come in glorious light or shining spectacle. What you ask of us isn’t the spotlight or the 15 minutes. You seek our hearts and minds, you seek our dedication, you seek our souls.

As we prepare to share a meal together let us do so remembering all of those people who have produced it, from the farmers to the drivers, to the handlers to the cooks and servers. May this food nourish our bodies and may our fellowship feed our spirits. And as we gather together to celebrate one among us who has made a difference, let us remember that we can all make a difference with every day, every encounter, every decision. There are no small things to you.

Free us from the temptation of apathy or fame and set us on the same path of all of those nameless ones who have changed this world. Those who held no grand vision or elaborate plan, but who saw pain and healed it, who felt misery and responded to it, who witnessed suffering and addressed it.

Let us be present now, in this moment and beyond to a world in the need of the witness of the power of faithful love and unconditional grace. Let us, as your servant Ghandi once said, “be the change we wish to see in the world”.

Amen.

Beyond Apologetics Symposium Set for Feb. 25

Six nationally known scholars and pastors will propose new ways of thinking about ministry with transgendered, bisexual, lesbian and gay people during a public symposium at 7 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 25, at the Tabbernee Conference Center of Phillips Theological Seminary, 901 N. Mingo Road in Tulsa.

Speakers will present summaries of their scholarly work and describe its importance to BLTG people, congregations, and the broader community. Topics include the dynamics of the “closet” in church settings, internalized homophobia and sexual shame, transgender experience as a resource for pastoral care, bisexual embodiment, and contextual care with GLBT-identified people.

There will be time for questions and discussion. The symposium is free and open to the public.

The event is part of a larger project titled Beyond Apologetics: Sexual Identity, Pastoral Theology, and Pastoral Practices, which brings together 12 North American scholars and pastors to begin creating a new generation of thought and practice for ministry with GLBT people.

“We are creating conversations among scholars, ministry professionals, and broader communities who share concerns about the health and well-being of LGBT people,” said Duane Bidwell, a former member of the Phillips faculty and currently on faculty at the Claremont School of Theology in California, who co-directs the project with Joretta Marshall of Brite Divinity School.

“Congregations can access a lot of resources that offer an ‘apologetics of inclusion’ for involving GLBT persons in the life of the church without condemning them,” he said.

“We want to move beyond arguments for inclusion to arguments for engagement. Pastors and others need theological stances and practices that take the experiences of GLBT persons seriously, so that those experiences shape the life of congregations and denominations.

“Our primary goal is to help spiritual caregivers and others engage in meaningful, informed, and proactive ministry with GLBT people.”

To that end, the project will contribute to pro-active pastoral care texts and models of education for seminaries, local congregations and pastoral care specialists, including mental-health professionals who integrate spirituality into their work.

The project was initiated by researchers at two Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) seminaries—Phillips Theological Seminary in Tulsa, OK and Brite Divinity School in Fort Worth, TX. Financial support is provided by the Carpenter Foundation.

Bidwell said “Beyond Apologetics” will create practical theologies that acknowledge and integrate GLBT experiences, theologies and theories. The spiritual and theological practices and understandings that will be generated—focused on gender, identity, sexuality, and community action—have the potential to benefit people of all sexual orientations, he said.

More than twenty local, state and regional LGBT organizations and faith communities have become local partners of the project, lending their names in support of its purpose.

Scholars and pastors presenting their preliminary work on Feb. 25 include:

• John Blevins, Emory University
• Malcolm Himschoot, United Church of Christ Minister
• Joretta Marshall, Brite Divinity School
• Darnell Moore, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
• Jason Hays, Brite Divinity School
• Leanne Tigert, Andover Newton Theological School

Other participants in the “Beyond Apologetics” project include:

Duane Bidwell, Claremont School of Theology
Kathleen Greider, Claremont School of Theology
Jeanne Hoeft, Saint Paul School of Theology
David Mellott, Lancaster Theological Seminary
Benjamin Reynolds, Chicago Theological Seminary
Steve Sprinkle, Brite Divinity School

For more information, e-mail beyond.apologetics@ptstulsa.edu. You can learn more at www.beyondapologetics.wordpress.com, or on Facebook under Beyond Apologetics.

Nothing But Words™…

Human beings can be very selfish creatures. We come up with a gadget, an idea, even a word and we immediately seek to reserve it for only those people we like and punish those whom we see as stealing “our” creation. This trait has only been exacerbated  by the current global economic system of trade marks, patents, copyright, etc, where legal and monetary punishment tries to limit the use of an idea. While I understand that this system is, in theory, to prevent the exploitation of someone’s creative work ( thus allowing them to make a living off their idea), it has been corrupted in some truly bizarre ways–to the point that preexisting words, created by no one still living, are now being fought over in court.

Take for example the NFL’s recent failed attempt to claim exclusive rights to the phrase “who ‘dat”. The phase has long been in common usage and started being used by Saints fans in the 1970’s. To make matters even more confusing it was registered by two different groups in the 1980’s. But should the phrase even fall under copy right laws? After all, historians trace its usage back to the 1800’s so it was hardly the creative work of anyone now trying to claim it, and has there hasn’t been any alteration to the phrase to make it distinguishable from its generic form (such has how APPLE ®  is different from an apple).

Such disputes as the one above are quite common throughout the world and occur over almost anything you can think about. For some ludicrous examples of the global fight over names of common food products (such as catfish) read this article from Time magazine… However the fight over preexisting words can extend beyond economic greed and turn into issues of cultural heritage and exclusivism and it is these cases that really make one consider how important certain words can be to our identity.

One such case is the current dispute in Malaysia over who can use the word Allah (Arabic for God). Recent violence  has erupted over the decision of the Malaysian High Court to strike down a ban on non-Muslims using the word Allah in their literature. This issue is tied to identity and discrimination of religions minorities by the state. The population of Malaysia is largely Muslim, but also has an established Christian community which argues that it is perfectly acceptable from them to use Allah as it is common word for God used in the country. However many Malaysian Muslims argue that the word Allah is exclusive to Islam and is an integral part of Muslim identity.

Now this is an interesting case. Can it really be argued that one group has exclusive rights to a name of the divine? Yes there are countless groups out there who argue theologically that they are the favored people, that their gods are the true gods, etc, but does that mean they have an exclusive LEGAL right to a description of the holy? It can be argued that certain words have power, (true names, etc), and that they are vital part of the identity of a certain group–and by taking that word away, (i.e. letting outsiders use it), you in fact destroy the group. And what about the argument put forth by many  groups about cultural exploitation? While these arguments certainly have merit, particularly in relation to the issues of globalization and the oppression of indigenous peoples, can their line of logic be applied to something as universal and deeply personal as the divine?

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter….

Will ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Be Repealed?

Analysis …

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen last week signaled a change in the military’s attitudes about gays serving openly in the military when he told U.S. senators that repealing the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ ban is “the right thing to do.” Mullen said:

“No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”

The Pentagon says it could take nearly a year to study all the various issues caused by the ban’s potential lifting, which Defense Secretary Robert Gates said is necessary to prevent the military from “rushing into it, (and) mandating it by fiat with a very short timeline would be a serious mistake.” Over the weekend, other voices weighed in on the discussion, with Fox News war analyst Oliver North calling a possible repeal “a stunning assault on the military” and Gen. Colin Powell reversing his former position against the repeal, now speaking out in favor of allowing gays to serve openly.

Box Turtle Bulletin |  “The Military Times is a newpaper targeted at career military personnel. For the past several years the paper has been surveying its readership on the issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Tomorrow they will be releasing the latest results and today they pre-reported the findings.

“Opposition to gays serving openly in the military has declined sharply among those wearing the uniform today, the Military Times newspapers will report Monday.

“An exclusive survey of some 3,000 active-duty troops shows such opposition has fallen sharply from nearly two-thirds (65 percent) in 2004 to about half (51 percent) today. The survey results appear Monday in Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times.”

Slate |  “The secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs both endorsed the eventual repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy at a Senate hearing on Tuesday. Since its implementation in 1994, more than 13,000 members of the armed services have been discharged for homosexual conduct. We know what happens to a soldier who tells about his sexual orientation, but what happens to one who asks? Nothing. For most service members, it’s not even against the rules. The “don’t tell” half of the 1993 agreement between Congress, the president, and top military brass is a matter of federal law.”

Foreign Policy |  “Viewed from Israel, the continuing witch hunt against gays and lesbians in the U.S. military makes little sense. I have studied and written about the experience of gay soldiers in elite combat units of the Israel Defense Forces, where restrictions on gay enlistment were lifted in 1993, the same year the United States introduced the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy requiring gay and lesbian servicemembers to say in the closet or risk being discharged. There has never been any suggestion that the participation of these men has hindered the performance of Israeli combat units.”

RaceWire |  “What we haven’t heard is, who’s really being affected by this?

“From The Task Force study, Black same-sex households in the United States: A report from the 2000 Census:

““Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been used to kick Black women out of the military at a much higher rate than other groups. In fact, Black women are discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at three times the rate that they serve in the military. Although Black women make up less than one percent of servicemembers, they comprise 3.3% of those discharged under the policy.

“But wait, it gets better. The same report notes people can be discharged under DADT even if they are not gay or lesbian, apparently there are cases where men have accused women who refuse unwanted sexual advances of being lesbians, or because the women are successful and some men do not want to serve under them.”

Open Left |  “There are a whole number of ways this could be done. It could be swift implementation overnight, or the Administration could slow-walk it with a 15-year plan, complete with segregated showers and pilot programs of integrated units. Or there could be another “compromise”. Later this week I’m going to be exploring what the range of possibilities and what an ideal implementation would look like. We still have a ways to go in terms of making sure the votes are there for repeal, but a new front is opening up on how and when repeal will be implemented- an effort which is also critical to keep an eye on.”

Best of the Web …

What if Senators Represented People by Income or Race, not by State?  |  Washington Post

What if the 100-member Senate were designed to mirror the overall U.S. population — and were based on statistics rather than state lines?

Imagine a chamber in which senators were elected by different income brackets — with two senators representing the poorest 2 percent of the electorate, two senators representing the richest 2 percent and so on.

Based on Census Bureau data, five senators would represent Americans earning between $100,000 and $1 million individually per year, with a single senator working on behalf of the millionaires (technically, it would be two-tenths of a senator). Eight senators would represent Americans with no income. Sixteen would represent Americans who make less than $10,000 a year, an amount well below the federal poverty line for families. The bulk of the senators would work on behalf of the middle class, with 34 representing Americans making $30,000 to $80,000 per year.

Race, Disability and Denial  |  Racialicious

Although I have been both black and disabled my entire life, for years I lied to myself about being disabled. I could appreciate the pride that accompanied the black experience, the historic and perpetual triumphs and tragedies that inspire the progress of a people. But disability was different. Disability was a curse much worse than the curse of Ham, and instead of accepting it I fled into a lie of being someone I could never be and should have never wanted to be. I became a victim of an able-bodied orthodoxy, one memorialized into my memory, derived from the seeds of my lived experiences and the veil of myths through which those experiences are strained. I believe we all succumb to societal orthodoxies in some way, because the procurement of favor demands it and it allows us to live without troublesome confusion. But for many of us, orthodoxies become a memorial, a shine at which we pray and to which we cling, all the while privately acknowledging that the shrine is not of our making, not to our liking and that it segregates and kills us very casually, very privately and very slowly. This photo helped free me from my denial.

In Bad Faith  |  The American Prospect

In advance of yesterday’s National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama was under pressure to use the opportunity to condemn the anti-homosexuality bill pending in the Ugandan Parliament. The legislation, which would criminalize homosexuality and require the death penalty or life imprisonment for certain “offenses,” has been described by human-rights activists as tantamount to instigating a genocide against sexual minorities, who are already persecuted in the African nation.

Obama, speaking just before the first anniversary of the launch of his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, once again fell into the religion-in-public-life trap: Faith is intended for good, and we must present it as such — regardless of its exploitation for ends that are less than pure, and regardless of one’s stated commitment to secular government.

The Catholic Church vs. Women’s Ordination: An Unresolved Issue

Analysis…

The the role of women in the Roman Catholic Church has been a subject of much debate over the years–with the ordination of women as priests being one of the major points of contention. Recently there have multiple stories about the women’s ordination movement in the media, many focusing on Father Roy Bourgios, a Noble Peace Prize nominee, threatened with excommunication by the Vatican for his support of the Women’s Ordination  Conference. There has been growing support for the ordination of women around the globe yet the Vatican, leading the world’s largest Church with more than 1 billion adherents, continues to hold to its 2008 declaration against the ordination of women. What do you think about this issue?

The Huffington Post | Meet Fr. Roy Bourgeois, a celebrated priest and Nobel Peace Prize nominee. He’s joined forces with supporters of Women’s Ordination, which has been sending a clear message to the Vatican for decades–that womenpriests were part of the original Catholic Church before Canon Law was re-written and should be honored as such today. “If we are to have a vibrant, healthy Catholic Church, we need the faith, wisdom, experience, compassion and courage of women in the priesthood,” Bourgeois says of the issue. “Many learned scholars have studied the issue and concluded that there is no justification in the Bible for excluding women from the priesthood. With all due respect, I believe our Catholic Church’s teaching on this issue is wrong and does not stand up to scrutiny.”

The Washington Post | Three and a half years ago, Meehan joined a group of Catholic women from across the United States known as the Roman Catholic Womenpriests — ordained as bishops, priests and deacons, sometimes in secret ceremonies, against Vatican law. The first ceremony took place in 2002, when a renegade bishop ordained seven women in a boat on the Danube River near Passau, Germany. Most, if not all members, have been excommunicated. Bourgeois, a Vietnam War veteran, social justice advocate and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, has been trying to recruit other priests, many of whom agree with his position but fear excommunication. “I understand your fear about going public with this,” he told them, “but you and I are card-carrying members of this all-boys club, and our silence simply sends the message very clearly that it’s okay to have women sit in the back of the Catholic bus.”

Cincinnati.com | There are numerous publications by theologians which attest to the history and tradition of women’s leadership in early Christianity and up until the 12th century – as deacons, priests and bishops. See, for example, the calendars of archaeologist/theologian Dorothy Irvin and books by scholars Gary Macy, Karen Jo Torjesen, John Wijngaards, Lavinia Byrne, Ida Raming, Ute Eisen, Joan Morris, Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek. Catholics must search for the above information by themselves because male priests do not mention the words “women’s ordination” from the pulpit at Sunday Masses. Those who follow their conscience and have spoken out for women’s justice within our church and world community have been severely reprimanded by the Vatican. One such person is Father Roy Bourgeois, Maryknoll priest of 38 years and founder of the School of the Americas Watch. He and SOAWatch have been nominated for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize.

Telegraph.co.uk | “Stealth priestesses” is the way these ladies are described by their opponents (ie, orthodox Catholics). The use of the word “priestess” might seem rude – but, remember, the Roman Catholic Church is irrevocably committed to an all-male priesthood, so the prospect of Catholic women priests or deacons will always be Tabletista fantasy. My guess is that, 15 or 20 years down the line, these churches (along with a certain magazine) will have found a new home in an Episcopal communion modelled on the American Episcopal Church (TEC) rather than the Church of England. And you have to wonder: might the Catholic Church actually be healthier as a result?

Best of the web…

South Carolina Lt. Gov. Apologizes for Comparing the Poor to ‘Stray Animals’  | Truthdig

South Carolina’s Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer has apologized for comparing poor people to “stray animals” that are encouraged by gifts of food to breed uncontrollably. Bauer, who is running in the state’s gubernatorial election, told CNN while apologizing that he is “not against animals.”

Egypt’s Internet Crackdown  | The Daily Beast

On January 15, over two dozen Egyptian bloggers and activists were arrested en route to a show of solidarity following the deaths of six Coptic Christians in the southern province of Qena. Among those detained were some of Egypt’s most famous Internet activists such as Wael Abbas and Ahmad Badawy. The bloggers’ cell phones and IDs were taken by Egyptian police. Though they were released a day later, this crackdown sent shockwaves through the dissident community in Egypt. Wael Abbas was even rearrested and sentenced to six months in prison on the spurious charge of damaging an internet cable.

Sex Workers in New Orleans Are Being Labeled as Sex Offenders  | Alternet

New Orleans city police and the district attorney’s office are using a state law written for child molesters to charge hundreds of sex workers like Tabitha as sex offenders. The law, which dates back to 1805, declares it a crime against nature to engage in “unnatural copulation” — a term New Orleans cops and the district attorney’s office have interpreted to mean anal or oral sex. Sex workers convicted of breaking this law are charged with felonies, issued longer jail sentences and forced to register as sex offenders. Of the 861 sex offenders currently registered in New Orleans, 483 were convicted of a crime against nature, according to Doug Cain, a spokesperson with the Louisiana State Police. And of those convicted of a crime against nature, 78 percent are Black and almost all are women.

Would You Like a Side of Jesus with Your Deadly Weapon?

Analysis…

How ironic that on Martin Luther King Jr. Day ABC broke the story that some U.S. weapons are inscribed with biblical verse references.  Guns with the inscriptions are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places.  These particular guns are produced by the Michigan-based company Trijicon, which has admitted to Biblical meaning behind the inscriptions.  Once again, the blogosphere covers a full spectrum of reactions, from outrage at the symbolism of having Biblical references on weaponry, to defending the right of the company to print whatever they want on their product, to complete indifference.

Religion Clause | Apparently the practice was called to the military’ attention by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. MMRF’s founder, Mikey Weinstein, says members of his group that currently serve in the military have complained about the inscriptions, saying that commanders have referred to the weapons with these sights as “spiritually transformed firearm[s] of Jesus Christ.” Interfaith Alliance issued a statement calling on the Defense Department to conduct an immediate investigation and to take appropriate action if Trijicon broke any laws.

Making a Mockery | But, looking back at that quote again, the CentCom spokesperson may actually be on to something, despite him or herself.  The spokesperson argues that our currency has “In God We Trust,” so why should our weapons be free of Christianity?  In a perverse way, that actually makes quite a lot of sense.  Though our money supply serves several purposes, one of its central functions — as articulated by John Perkins in Confessions on an Economic Hitman and Hoodwinked — is to wage a kind of economic war on poor and developing nations, forcing them to open up their markets to our corporations or sell their natural resources for super cheap.  The debt gets passed along to the local population, and the ruling class makes a buck all the while.

So, in a way, it’s almost MORE honest to have Biblical verses on guns if we’re going to keep them on our currency.  Thanks CentCom, for reminding me that wars are waged in more ways than one.

Majikthise | Trijicon should lose the contract and the people responsible for the Bible code fiasco should lose any security clearances they may have. There should be an investigation to determine if anyone inside the military condoned the codes.

It is totally unacceptable for a contractor entrusted with national security to be peddling Christian propaganda. If Trijicon didn’t have enough sense to tell the Pentagon that it was inscribing Christian codes on equipment bound for wars in Muslim countries, it doesn’t deserve our trust. Trijicon is doing the Taliban’s work by reinforcing the perception that the U.S. is waging a Christianist crusade against Muslims.

Religion in American History | Leaving aside the theological issues associated with putting New Testament verses on lethal weapons, the historical connections between conservative evangelicals and the military make this story almost wholly unsurprising. (In fact, a friend pointed out that Trijicon’s practice reminded him of the movie Saving Private Ryan, which portrayed sharpshooter Daniel Jackson reciting Psalms as he sighted his German targets.) Anne Loveland’s book American Evangelicals and the U.S. Military traces the growing influence of conservative evangelicals on the military throughout the post-WWII era. More recently, I talked with Matt Sutton about his current research, which reveals the influence certain generals wielded among evangelicals in the 1950s and 1960s. My own research examines how the Christian right trumpeted missile defense and the stockpiling of nuclear arms as a way of ensuring “peace through strength” in the early 1980s. And proselytizing at the Air Force Academy in recent years led to a lawsuit (later dismissed) and task force recommendations for officers and cadets to foster religious pluralism. Whatever the outcome of the Trijicon case, the historical connections between evangelicals and the military will remain strong.

Winds of Change | So where do I stand on this? On one hand, I’m annoyed at Trijicon for doing this – they’re devout, but not stupid – and they had to know that this would be a significant issue. They have every right to print anything they want on their products, including the unexpurgated text of ‘Ulysses’ but the folks purchasing them have the right to demand that they be ‘Ulysses’-free.

I’m annoyed at the folks in the procurement process who didn’t catch this and deal with it.

I’m going to be incredibly annoyed at the pure-heart activists who are going to demand – DEMAND – that we recall every ACOG in service IMMEDIATELY. Because G** forbid we offend people before we shoot them.

On the Web…

The Evolution of Homeless Chic | Jezebel

Though he was not the first designer to aestheticize poverty — “It’s terrible to say, very often the most exciting outfits are from the poorest people,” Christian Lacroix once told Vogue — John Galliano’s spring 2000 couture collection for Christian Dior is the commonly-given point of origin for the “homeless” “trend.” This was only Galliano’s seventh couture collection for Dior, and the designer explained he had taken his inspiration from the street people he had began noticing along the banks of the Seine after taking up jogging. The collection was crafted from a specially-designed newspaper-printed silk, as well as other luxury fabrics that were ripped, aged, and abraded so that they would appear dirty, and worn with laddered tights.

Why Kids Learn Less When Schools Get Rid of Recess | Change.org

But while school administrators make excuses for why they just can’t handle recess anymore, education and child development researchers are making the case for why it needs to stay. As it turns out, forcing a child to sit inside for hours on end, with no physical or social outlet, causes a host of behavioral and learning problems, not to mention an inactive lifestyle that could contribute to childhood obesity.

A growing body of research supports the idea that physical exercise is essential for learning. For one thing, recess provides the opportunity for peer interaction, which can increase social skills and creative problem-solving. Recess also provides a much-needed break from focused academic activity, which can improve attention and retention of information, especially for kids pegged with attention problems for fidgeting and disruptive behavior in class (can you really blame them?).

US Faith-Based Group Sends Solar Powered Audio Bibles to Haiti | TreeHugger

In the stream of goods that are pouring in to aid the relief effort in Haiti, one will certainly stand out–a solar powered audio Bible. Instead of food, water, or medical supplies, US faith-based group Faith Comes By Hearing has opted to send 600 audible bibles, which are currently en route to the Port-au-Prince.

Each of the units can broadcast the scriptures in Haitian Creole to an audience of up to 300 people.

Responding to Britt Hume’s Responders

I’ll be the first to admit that as a person of faith and a leader in a faith community, I’m disturbed by Britt Hume’s comments concerning Tiger Woods on Fox News Sunday.  If you haven’t caught Hume’s comments, you can find the 35 second blurb on Thursday’s news and analysis segment, “Tiger Woods’ Come to Jesus.”  I want to tip my cap to Caitlin’s work at finding such a breadth of responses to this little faux pas, because it revealed to me some problems in our understanding of religion and faith traditions that make not only Hume’s thoughts problematic, but those of some of his defenders as well.  If we put aside the obvious softball pitchers like Bill O’Reilly, there are some intriguing defenders out there, even if their defenses aren’t nearly so intriguing.

Stuart Roy’s comments at The Hill really miss the point on this issue.  He begins with a long apologetic for Christianity based on the statistical “fact” that it’s still the recognized majority religion in the United States.  I feel like I would be repeating myself this week if I went into the problems of the moral tyranny of the majority, so I want to move on to his comments on Christianity vis-à-vis Buddhism:

Secondly, although there is a lot of discussion about this point, Buddhism isn’t a religion in the sense of belief in a higher being from whom to seek forgiveness. Instead, Buddhism says you get this from within. I’m no religious scholar, but that would put Hume’s analysis pretty much on point. In Christianity, you do seek forgiveness and redemption from a higher being, something not offered in Buddhism. You may disagree with whether or not it is necessary — if you aren’t a Christian — but his analysis was correct.

Roy is correct – he’s no religious scholar.  The assumption that forgiveness can only be granted by or through some higher power is the failing point of both Hume’s original slap at Buddhism and Roy’s misguided attempt at a defense.  If he were a religious scholar, he might realize that one of the greatest failures of Christian theology is its tendency to lock forgiveness into the relationship between an individual human being and some higher power.  When a person may somehow feel absolved of failing in their relationship to another human being (or group of them for that matter), there is no reason to seek the forgiveness of the wronged party and to engage in a process of dialogue and reconciliation.  Christianity has plagued the western landscape with this attitude that “Because I’ve made things right with God, I don’t have to worry about making things right with my neighbor.” I’m pretty sure that’s inconsistent with the red-lettered words in Mr. Roy’s unread Bible.  To make matters worse, as Christian doctrine continues to blind some of its most faithful adherents from engaging in just and caring relationships with other human beings, the sayings of the Dalai Lama strike me as highly ethical and relational.  Perhaps it’s time to take a step back and re-evaluate.

My second point of contention is more one of disappointment.  Rabbi Brad Hirschfield’s defense of religion in general as a response to Hume’s comments is well intentioned, but shortsighted.  His attack on the liberal media and blogosphere failed to recognize that some of us self-proclaimed “liberals” are also religious.

Let’s face it, many people fear faith and even more genuinely resent it being discussed in public. While there is no question about the damage which religious faith can do, there should also be no question as to the good things it accomplishes in terms of both creating personal meaning and also motivating humanitarian action. So it should be a wash. Instead though, because Hume suggested Jesus instead of rehab, both he and those who support him are attacked as Jesus Freaks and fanatics. That’s not right.

While there may have been a loud outcry from the non-religious, it wasn’t the only cry.  There are those of us within the religious community, and more specifically the Christian community, who treasure the diversity of our global religious pluralism and respect the voices of our neighbors and peers in the Buddhist faith.  Since Hirschfield seems to share this value with me, I’m having a difficult time understanding why he went out of his way to defend someone like Britt Hume who obviously does not.  He goes on to conclude his article:

I welcome Mr. Hume’s remarks even if I think his analyses of Buddhism is shallow, and his claim that it is only through Jesus that Tiger will find a better life, bordering on ridiculous. So why welcome his comments? Because I know that he meant well and because faith matters to people and it should not be banished from public conversation. Not if we are as committed to openness in the way so many of us claim to be. Now we will find out if we really are.

The sad fact is that there are a lot of people who mean well, but rather thoughtlessly and carelessly bring about more harm than good.  I’ll resist the temptation to expound a list of “well meaning” politicians who have caused egregious harm, including pointless death and destruction.  However, I will not stop short of saying that Hume’s thinking, well being though it may be, is provincial and narrow.  If he were truly interested in offering his support to Tiger Woods, Hume would be extending the invitation to dialogue, rather than wagging his finger and admonishing Woods to come to Jesus.

To make matters worse, Fox News appears to have circled the wagons around one of their own.  Not only do they fail to recognize that “fair and balanced” means you can’t casually cast aside a major world religion in an offhanded remark, but in refusing to acknowledge that Hume’s critics might have a point, they make it quite clear that the discourse is only “fair” when they are allowed to determine what is “balanced.”  While I’ve quietly thought the media circus around Tiger Woods is more scandalous than the “scandal” itself, the failure of discourse that has followed in the aftermath is perhaps the greater scandal we fail to even recognize.

Next Page »