Live your life without fear of death

My Sunday movie was My Sunshine, a Japanese movie that seems appropriate leading up to the Olympics next month. It’s appropriate to me because about all I watch of the Olympics are the opening and closing ceremonies and the figure skating. The setting is on Hokkaido, the northern island of Japan. The exact city might have been mentioned on a sign or building but was not translated. Takuya is in his young teens and occasionally stutters. He is the goalie of his hockey team and not good at it. The figure skating class takes over the rink when the hockey team is done and Takuya becomes enamored with Sakura, one of the better ones and quite good. Movie descriptions say she is from Tokyo but no reason is given for why she is here and not there. Takuya tries mimicking the spins he sees Sakura do, but doesn’t do well in hockey skates. Her coach watches him and offers his old figure skates (amazingly they fit!) and offers to given him lessons for free – there are a lot of girl figure skaters and not enough boys. As Takuya improves the coach suggests he and Sakura become an ice dancing team. Her mother thinks she’s better than that. I enjoyed it. It’s a good film but I would not say it’s a great film. Now for some spoilers. There are a couple reasons for mentioning them. One is the description of the movie isn’t right. It implies that Takuya and Sakura grow close and experience young love. They become a decent dancing pair, but I didn’t see them become more than friends. The other reason is about the coach. The movie says that he is from Tokyo. The implied question is why is he here in northern Japan and not Tokyo or other big city – he is good enough to coach the impressive Sakura. We eventually see the reason – he’s gay. And attitudes in northern Japan are still quite conservative. So there is no final triumphant showing at the ice dancing competition. That the coach is gay is not in the description and I didn’t know that when choosing this film. Back to the description. It has the phrase, “unspoken feelings begin to surface,” implying a growing love between Takuya and Sakura. But the “unspoken feelings” are between the coach and his lover, as far as I can tell, and they don’t “begin to surface.” With all that I’m not sure how I would have succinctly described this movie. Tovia Smith of NPR reported that Bishop Rob Hirschfeld of the Episcopal Church in New Hampshire told a community of faith leaders about the “cruelty, the injustice and the horror … unleashed in Minneapolis.” Then he warned of “a new era of martyrdom.” When talking to a reporter he said:

I've asked them to get their affairs in order to make sure they have their wills written, because it may be that now is no longer the time for statements, but for us with our bodies to stand between the powers of this world and the most vulnerable.

Yeah, that went viral. Some faith leaders responded by essentially saying glad he said that. They’ve been thinking something similar and feel relief that someone spoke out. Others wondered if they would be that brave, but know they need to move beyond taking no risk. Others said this didn’t diffuse tension, it seemed more of a war cry. The church should be about peacemaking and to build bridges. I add that ICE isn’t about to diffuse tension or make peace, though building bridges to conservatives is a big help, but outside of ICE protests. Another opinion is that they didn’t sign up to be a martyr, they have a family and congregation who rely on them. I add the family is definitely a concern, but the congregation will survive, get another pastor, and might appreciate the example. Hirschfeld replied to criticism:

What I said to the clergy (was) “I'm just asking you to live your life without fear of death. Be prepared. I'm not asking you to go look for that bullet.” I'm simply saying be ready, have your affairs in order, have your soul ready, in case you find yourself in trouble.

That trouble may not come from ICE agents. New Hampshire is an open carry state and rallies and vigils prompt MAGA people to counterprotest, which could turn violent. Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin said that if Hirschfeld wanted to stand with the vulnerable he should stand with the ICE agents. Yeah, that sort of inverse logic is expected.

Elected officials can’t possibly be that vicious

Thom Hartmann of the Daily Kos community and an independent editorial writer wrote about how Republicans have cheated their way into the White House for more than a half century. That is a long coup. Hartmann wrote the books, The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America and The Hidden History of the War On Voting. Hartmann wrote that in 2024 “4 million Americans were either denied their right to vote or their votes were discarded.” He worked from info by Greg Palast and the US Elections Assistance Commission. 4.7 million voters were purged from voter rolls, some through “vigilante” vote fraud hunters given lists of who to challenge. Over 2.1 million mail-in ballots were disqualified for minor clerical errors. 1.2 million provisional ballots were rejected. These are mostly ballots of people who didn’t have the proper ID when they got to their polling place or their name was purged. They voted on provisional ballots and told their registration would be checked. They were usually not told that unless they went to the clerk’s office with ID and proof of address, their ballot was likely thrown out. In Georgia Republicans cut the number of ballot drop boxes by 75%, but only in black majority counties. All these were not isolated incidents, they were part of a coordinated national strategy. The more conservative numbers of suppressed votes was at least 2.3% or over 3,500,000 votes. Harris would have beat the nasty guy by 1.2 million votes, winning both the popular vote and the Electoral College. This isn’t speculation. This has documented evidence. It’s what Republican officials designed their laws to do. Now for the history. In 1968 Lyndon Johnson had a tentative agreement for lasting peace in Vietnam. Nixon used envoys to tell the corrupt South Vietnamese politicians that if they held off signing when he became president he would give them a richer deal. The failure of the peace deal is why Humphrey lost and Nixon won. But Nixon didn’t sweeten the pot. The war went on for another five years with 22,000 more American soldiers dead and more than a million Vietnamese dead. Johnson called Nixon’s action treason. In 1980 Ronald Reagan did something similar to Jimmy Carter during the Iran hostage crisis. Reagan worked out a deal with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Komeini to keep the hostages until after the 1980 election in exchange for spare parts for the American weapons the deposed Shah had previously purchased. A second act of treason. Carter lost his second term and Reagan won. That spare parts deal continued into the “Iran Contra” scandal. If I remember right low level operatives, like Oliver North, went to jail, but Reagan was merely embarrassed. George HW Bush didn’t use treasonous means to get into office, but he did use racism – the Willie Horton ads – and he did kill investigations to protect Reagan, for whom he had been VP. But, in a sense, if Reagan hadn’t done that treasonous act Bush I would not have been president, making him illegitimate. That brings us to George W Bush. His brother (presumably Jeb) purged 57,000 black voters from the rolls in Florida. That made Florida too close to call (Bush was up by less than 600 votes), prompting five justices of the Supreme Court to award the presidency to Bush, rather than Al Gore. The news didn’t give much notice that Antonin Scalia’s son worked for the law firm defending Bush II (Scalia didn’t recuse) and Ginni Thomas, wife of Clarence, was paid to work on the Bush transition team (Clarence didn’t recuse either). A year later a consortium of newspapers did their own recount and concluded Gore had won. No one noticed that news because the 9/11 attacks happened two months before. In 2004 to get reelected, Bush II became a “wartime president.” Bush I became that in a three-day war and Junior concluded that was the best way to have a two-term presidency (he said his father lost in 1992 because he wasted the advantage). And to be a wartime president, he lied. Back in 1991 I was a fan of Bush I (this was before Republicans became explicitly anti-gay and I learned how awful Reagan had been). Then I saw that Papa Bush accumulated all this political capital – and did nothing with it. So, yeah, he wasted the advantage. Back to Junior. His lies got us into war with Iraq and Afghanistan. And he won a second term (though I heard what happened in Ohio that year was skeezy). Those lies also cost 900,000 Iraqi and 7,000 American lives (though veterans are still committing suicide) and added $8 trillion to the national debt. And in 2016 the nasty guy benefited from: Republicans using Interstate Crosscheck to purge millions of voters, mostly people of color. Russian and other foreign actors flooding social media in support of him. Paying Stormy Daniels to keep quiet. Talking daily about Hillary Clinton’s emails, including an empty accusation the week before the election. The cost of the nasty guy’s first term was: Unnecessary COVID deaths. Iran would still be in compliance with Obama’s nuclear deal. The rich would not have gotten another $2 trillion in tax cuts. The Supreme Court would not have been stolen.

America has ignored GOP crimes to seize and hold the White House long enough. The immunity Ford gave Nixon has echoed down through the decades, leading to a packed Supreme Court that gave new immunity to Trump and two unnecessary and illegal wars (not to mention tax cuts for billionaires that have gutted our middle class). It’s time, at long last, to tell America the true story of Republican electoral crimes.

In the comments citixen said that Hartmann forgot REDMAP, the Republican effort in 2011 to gerrymander as many states as they controlled to get maximum Republican representation. Michigan was one of those states (isn’t anymore). While citixen has a point, the article was about presidents, not Congress or legislatures. Rambler 797 pointed out that in those key years Democrats had incumbent problems. 1968 – Support for the Vietnam war dropped and Humphrey was not advocating change. 1980 – Support for Carter dropped because of stagflation. 2000 – Gore was awkward, a climate radical, and squandered incumbent advantages of being Clinton’s VP. 2004 – In a time of dropping support for the Iraq war Kerry ran as a War Hero. 2016 – Clinton’s support was already sagging in Midwest working class states. 2024 – Support for Biden collapsed, Harris lost ground with working class and immigrants, and the party was split over Gaza. And why did Bush I lose in 1992, McCain in 2008, or the nasty guy in 2020? A big reason why those three lost is the country was quite fed up and tired of them and their predecessors. Also, one premise of Republican cheating is that the election would be too close or they would lose without it. That implies the prospects of those Democratic losers were better than Rambler797 says they were, and without that meddling Democrats would have won. Commenter democratos says Hartmann used the words “treason” and “traitor” without reference to their legal definitions. Ximena Bustillo of NPR reported on white South African refugees arriving in the US. These are the first refugees the nasty guy’s administration has allowed in and more are expected. Refugees from other countries are on hold. The nasty guy says they are welcome here because of the violence they faced back home. Of course, the question: The refugees from Afghanistan didn’t face violence and won’t if they return? Many Afghan refugees were stuck abroad after being approved for travel when the nasty guy changed the rules. A judge ordered the administration to restart the refugee program. The State Department says they’re still considering it (meaning, they are defying a judge’s orders). Michel Martin of NPR talked to Sean Rowe, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church on the denomination’s decision to not help resettle Afrikaners. It will end its long partnership with the US government to support migrants. Rowe said the decision is straightforward. They are committed to racial justice. They are a sister church to the Anglican Church of South Africa, home church to Archbishop Desmond Tutu who fought against the racism of Apartheid. They are saddened and ashamed because of the refugees who are being denied entrance, especially those who worked with the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fast-tracking Afrikaners is not morally just. Rowe said that the nasty guy seems to think some people, white people, are more valuable than others, people of color. That doesn’t fit with the morals of the Episcopal Church. Since 1980 the Episcopal Church has helped resettle more than 100,000 refugees. Since January their program has been shut down, no refugees coming to the US. Helping Afrikaners ahead of others doesn’t make sense. They will continue to work with migrants and the most vulnerable, though not as partners with the US government. Alix Breeden of Kos talked about why the Afrikaners wanted to come to the US. They, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Deputy Secretary Christopher Landau have been spreading the false narrative they had endured racial discrimination and violence from the government of black South Africans. They also feared their property would be seized without compensation. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa disputed that narrative, saying they are not being persecuted, hounded, nor treated badly. They are leaving because they don’t want to embrace the changes directed by their constitution. South Africa is implementing the Expropriation Act, which will redistribute some land owned by white farmers to black farmers. This is in response to Apartheid, under which black farmers were not allowed to own land and were driven into extreme poverty. This Act seeks to redress the land imbalance. And as the nasty guy’s administration welcomes white Afrikaners, they ended the Temporary Protected Status of Afghans. They said in a sense Afghanistan is all better now, it is safe to go back. Though it isn’t. Landau was asked why Afrikaners are welcome and Afghans are not. He replied that a criteria was “they could be assimilated easily into our country.” Ooh, that’s a troublesome word. Ask American Natives what assimilation got them. But what that answer is saying is, “We the administration get to decide who we will welcome and who we won’t.” I kept waiting for some news report would say the reason the nasty guy welcomed the Afrikaners and not others is because they are just as racist as he is. Alas, none that I read put it that bluntly. Lisa Needham of Kos wrote the nasty guy is doing a good job of pissing off religious groups. With this effort he annoyed the Episcopal Church. He pissed off the US Conference of Catholic Bishops by refusing to pay $13 million the denomination had already spent on refugee resettlement. They sued, lost, and appealed. Public-private partnerships don’t work when the public funding is removed. Polling shows Evangelical Christians broadly support general refugee resettlement and are annoyed it is being limited to White South Africans. I said the Afrikaners are racist? Down in the comments of a pundit roundup for Kos Aaron Reichlin-Melnick tweeted:

WOW. The Trump admin said they will review social media and deny immigration benefits to people saying antisemitic claims. They're even trying to deport people with green cards on alleged claims of antisemitism. Anyway, here's a tweet from an Afrikaner they flew here on Monday.

That Afrikaner is Charl Kleinhaus, whose icon is a Christian cross. He tweeted:

Jews are untrustworthy and a dangerous group they are not Gods chosen like to believe they are. Where is the Temple that must be their concern and leave us alone we all believe in the God of Abraham, Moses and Jacob! I almost said something ugly ...

Not “almost.” And... Hey Big Guy! You said you would deny immigration benefits to people saying antisemitic things? Look right here! Back to the body of the pundit roundup Chitown Kev had a few interesting quotes. First, Catie Edmondson and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times on the Republican controlled House trying to get a budget reconciliation bill passed by Memorial Day:

Even as the committees approved their slices of the plan in party-line votes, House Republican leaders faced dissent in their ranks that could delay or derail passage. Conservative lawmakers have argued the proposed cuts to Medicaid, which stopped short of an overhaul in an effort to protect vulnerable Republicans, do not go far enough. And Republicans from high-tax states like New York were furious about a provision that would increase the limit on the state and local tax deduction to $30,000 from $10,000, a cap they regard as far too low and which was still being negotiated. The plan is also facing Republican opposition in the Senate. Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have said the current bill is fiscally irresponsible. Senator Susan Collins of Maine has said she opposes at least one Medicaid provision in the legislation. And Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri described the bill’s changes to the government health program for the poor as a nonstarter, saying they amounted to “taxing the poor to give to the rich.”

Yeah, a Republican said that. Paul Krugman, writing in his own Substack about cuts in support for renewable energy:

The purpose of these cuts, sadism aside, would be to partially offset the cost of huge tax cuts for the rich — cuts that would still explode the budget deficit. The cruelty is mind-boggling. In fact, I have both a suggestion and a prediction for major media organizations: I’d like to see them do focus groups with ordinary voters, describing these plans. My prediction, based on what we’ve seen in the past, is that many voters will simply refuse to believe the policy descriptions, insisting that elected officials can’t possibly be that vicious. But they can be and are.

Jennifer Weiss-Wolf of The Contrarian wrote about the “pink tax.” But the excerpt didn’t sort out whether this “tax” is actually imposed by the government or just a pervasive price differential practiced by corporations. I think it’s the latter. The pink tax refers to gender-based pricing. Things marketed to girls and women are priced higher than the corresponding product for men and boys. Examples are toys, bikes, scooters, shampoo, shaving gear, body lotion, and deodorant.

Finally at rest

Those of us who were around in the fall of 1998 remember the national outrage when Matthew Shepard was killed – beaten and tied to a fence in bitter cold weather and left to die. He did a few days later. This was the first time the country had been outraged by the death of a gay man.

Matthew was an active member of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church in Caspar, WY before his murder. Matthew’s funeral at St. Mark’s was well attended that year. But his ashes were not interred. Parents Dennis and Judy were understandably afraid that whatever location was chosen would be desecrated or be the focus of weird pilgrimages.

Judy Shepard became an LGBT rights activist. Her efforts were helped by Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. He has since retired. Judy asked Gene if Matthew’s ashes could be interred at the National Cathedral in Washington DC, an Episcopal church. Gene helped make it happen.

So on October 26, twenty years after Matthew’s death, his ashes will be laid to rest. There will be a public celebration of life followed by a private interment. I’m delighted to hear the National Cathedral is a place where the ashes of a gay man would be welcome.



This story has made me feel teary for a second reason. My parents’ ashes are just a few feet from where I’m typing these words. It has been more than three years since Dad died. He told me to do nothing with his ashes until after his wife died so they would be handled together. It has been more than a year since Mom died. Last fall was too busy and last spring was too muddy. I’ve started plans for the final trip and I need to finish the details. I’ll have time about a month from now.

Appropriate for a teenager

On the marriage front:

All three employees of the clerk's office in Decatur County, Tennessee have resigned. They refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Bye! At least they have the decency to resign when they won't fulfill all of the duties of their job. Other clerks elsewhere across the South have also resigned.



And some clerks need a push. The ACLU has filed suit against Rowan County, Kentucky clerk Kim Davis who has refused to issue marriage licenses to all couples. Plaintiffs in the suit include both straight and same-sex couples.



Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been slow to allow same-sex marriage even though the Supremes and the 5th Circuit have ordered him to do so. He was waiting for the Federal District Court, the one that had said refusing same-sex marriage is permissible. The 5th Circuit had given that lower court until July 17th to rescind their earlier ruling, now that it conflicts with the Supremes. The District Court managed to do it in a day. Commenter Franck Rabeson characterized the conversation this way:

Jindal: “We won’t allow same-sex couples to marry in Louisiana until Supreme Court of the United States says othewise.”
SCOTUS, June 26, 2015: “Ahem.”
Jindal: “… all right. Well, there’s also the Fifth Circuit of Appeals that needs to…”
5th Circuit, July 1, 2015: “Ahem.”
Jindal: “Dammit. Well I’m waiting for the relevant district c–”
District court, July 2, 2015: “A-freaking-HEM, dude, get the hint already!”

No matter. At the time all but two parish clerks were ignoring Jindal and issuing licenses to same-sex couples. And now all of them are.



The Episcopal Church, at a convention this week, has approved by a wide margin two new liturgies on a trial basis. These liturgies will be used when marrying same-sex couples. One of them is a gender-neutral version of the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer.



Tobin Grant of the Religion News Service did some surveying of the opinions of members of various church denominations. He also looked at various denomination official positions. He then ranked all of them by acceptance of homosexuality. United Methodists are in the middle. Grant found that denominations towards the top and bottom of the lists were the ones most likely to issue a statement on same-sex marriage, those towards the top in favor, those towards the bottom stating their displeasure. Those in the middle, respecting the split opinions of their members tended to stay quiet.



Ari Ezra Waldman, a lawyer writing for Towleroad, takes a look at the dissents issued by Alito, Thomas, and Scalia in last week's case that brought marriage equality. He'll discuss the Roberts dissent in another post.

Scalia: Yeah, he was as rude as we expected him to be. Many of his talking points were from conservatives who think liberals talk down to them. Scalia sneers that Kennedy found a right that "lesser legal minds" – Scalia lists some of the great names of the Court – did not. Waldman reviews those legal minds and says,

True, none of these great jurists declared that the Constitution protects a gay person’s right to marry the person that he or she loves. But they never had the occasion to do so.

Alito's dissent appears to be built around protection of the majority. This ruling, Alito says, "facilitates the marginalization" of Christians. Oh, that old line. Waldman wrote:

Alito’s concern is misplaced. At worst, he is doing what he and Scalia do best: fear monger and predict gloom and doom. Such overreaction is more appropriate for a teenager, not a Supreme Court justice.

Thomas: The most quoted part of his dissent begins:

Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.

According to Waldman, in just a few words Thomas (1) absolved those who held slaves, (2) reduced same-sex marriage to "governmental benefits, " and (3) denied that dignity is harmed by institutionalized discrimination. But the issue is whether the Constitution allows states to damage a person's dignity.

One befuddled bully

Some of the things of note while I was gone.

The record high temperature has been tied or broken 900 times across the central part of the country in the last month. The report doesn't say how many times in how many different cities, though it indicates the heat is a problem from Texas to North Dakota to Michigan (at least). Insert your favorite global warming jokes here.



The Michigan legislature may be working to push gays back in the closet, but there is an increase in the number of gays in local offices and candidates for the next election. Charles Pugh is Detroit City Council President. Craig Covey used to be mayor of Ferndale and is now on the Oakland County Commission. Chris Swope is City Clerk of Lansing. And three gay candidates are in the running for seats in the Lansing City Council.



Gary Glenn is the head of the Michigan chapter of the American Family Association (declared by the SPLC to be a hate group). He has been very good at making gay lives miserable in the state, for starters he spearheaded the 2004 marriage protection amendment here. He will be making next year's campaign to try to replace senator Debbie Stabenow a bit more interesting by hinting he might be a candidate. Some wonder if he is really all that different from the rest of the GOP field. I wonder if it is better to have him in the race or out of it. Will the spotlight show how ridiculous he is or will it make the rest of the GOP field look moderate in comparison?


Gay marriage begins this Sunday in New York. Among the first couples will be Rod and Ricky, two puppets from the off-Broadway show Avenue Q. Some think it is cute. Others think we're handing a weapon to our opponents.



I had written about the extensive research by Jim Burroway of Box Turtle Bulletin that showed how the anti-gay treatment Kirk Murphy got at age four from George Rekers was the reason why Kirk committed suicide three decades later. Burroway now describes four other children that Rekers cited in research. Alas, he doesn't know the real names of these children or what happened to them in the last 40 years. Rekers claims success. Burroway says we only have his word on it.



Several bishops (though not all) of the Episcopal Church in New York have told their gay clergy that now that gay marriage is legal, if they have a partner they must get married. The reasoning is that the church has asked all people to live in committed monogamous, faithful relationships and pastors must demonstrate what that is like. If a straight couple must marry, so must a gay couple.

Bishop Provenzano of Long Island also drew a strong distinction between church and civil marriage. Marriage is of the church and it also happens to create a civil agreement. He has no interest in that civil agreement. But if you want a church wedding you must profess the teachings of the church.



Stephen Colbert adds a story to the It Gets Better project. When he was young he was bullied. Another guy was bullied too and was called "queer". The kid responded. Yes, I am queer. Kiss me and let me prove it. Result: one befuddled bully.



San Diego held its Pride Parade this past weekend. A large (reportedly 350) contingent of military service members, perhaps 70% of them active, marched in the parade. They wore t-shirts showing which branch they serve in. This is important because (1) it's a first, (2) it shows the swiftness of change, (3) it shows most military men are fine with having a gay colleague, and (4) with Don't Ask, Don't Tell still officially on the books there could be disciplinary problems for those who marched.

A lesbian bishop!

Mary Glasspool, lesbian, has now been ordained as the second homosexual bishop in the Episcopal Church. She will serve in Los Angeles. The attendees had to bypass protesters to get into the arena. The protesters were annoyed that not only is Glasspool a lesbian but that both bishops being consecrated were female. There were only two protesters who made themselves known inside (quickly escorted out). The rest of the ceremony went off without problems.

The ceremony was held in an arena that's part of the Long Beach Convention Center -- at the same time the Long Beach Pride festival was also on the Convention Center grounds. Either one would have been enough to draw Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church "God Hates Fags" clan so how could he resist a twofer? Leave it to the gays of Long Beach to turn a protest into a party. The Phelps gang was soon surrounded by conterprotesters with signs such as these: "I hate Brussels sprouts." "I have a sign." "I can't believe it's not butter." They make as much sense as the Phelps' signs.

Refusing to hold justice as a hostage

Candidates for Bishop in the Episcopal Church diocese of Los Angeles area included two gays. And one of them, Mary Glasspool, was elected. After Gene Robinson was made bishop the Episcopal Church got enough condemnation from the worldwide Anglican Church that the Americans put a hold on more gay bishops. Then it became obvious the worldwide church was holding justice hostage, so the Episcopalians lifted their hold. This is the first gay bishop since the hold was lifted.

The fear behind the claim

Here is proof that allowing gays to get married does not require churches to perform them. Only now, over 5 years after gay marriage was legalized in Mass., will Episcopal pastors there be able to sign marriage certificates. Perhaps what the Fundies fear is not that government will force them to marry gays but that their own gay people will want a religious ceremony. Will they have to leave a Fundie church to get it or will the demand force the Fundie church to change?

Inclusion in the face of exclusion

I commented a couple days ago that the Episcopal Church, in their national convention, chose to allow gays to be bishops. That means they chose inclusion of gays at the risk of their exclusion from the Anglican Communion. The House of Bishops have taken the next step in asking for the collection and development of liturgies for blessing same-sex couples.

I'm not the only one who has concluded various denominations are losing members primarily because of their stance on gay issues (and many who are gay friendly get tarred by the same brush wielded against our loudest opponents). Opposing gays is not a survival trait. That means it's just as well the Episcopalians allow the ties to be severed while the Anglicans die away. Who wants a church leader who believes in the right thing yet won't do it for political expediency?

The trial balloon succeeded

The Episcopal Church has ended its moratorium on more gay bishops by passing a resolution allowing each diocese (district) to decide for itself whether to consider gay candidates. The head of the worldwide Anglican Church is (naturally) disappointed.


A gay mayor is asked to officiate at a straight friend's wedding. The mayor's husband (they were married in Calif. a year ago) ponders the situation in which the mayor can officiate at weddings, even out of state, but his own marriage is not recognized in the state where he now lives.


Gay marriages performed elsewhere are now recognized in DC. The time in which Congress could overrule the district has passed. Apparently, this was a trial balloon for allowing gay marriages to be performed in DC. Since so few in Congress made a stink (and no effort to repeal) next up on the city council's agenda is the real thing.

No, you can't take it with you

St. James Episcopal Church recently lost a ruling in the Calif. Supreme Court. The rules for becoming a congregation of the Episcopal Church (or any denomination) mean that though an individual congregation paid the construction costs and mortgage for a church building it is held in trust for the denomination, who are the actual owners. St. James is in a snit over Bishop Gene Robinson and wants out of the denomination. The Supremes said, fine, you as a congregation can leave. The building cannot.

Rick Warren has stuck his nose into this situation and said you stood up to the forces of evil and lost your building? Come use ours. Which gives the impression Warren is aiding the schism of a denomination of which he is not a member. Is this good? Will United Methodists and Presbyterians be his next targets? We have enough trouble with such groups as the Institute of Religion and Democracy. But, as I've concluded before, perhaps a schism is a good thing. Why should a congregation be forced to compromise on its bigotry?l

Another Episcopal splinter

Another diocese breaks away from the Episcopal Church, this one in Quincy, Ill. The next one likely to split is Fort Worth. They follow San Joaquin, Calif. and Pittsburgh. It isn't just gays. These four also refuse to ordain women. There probably won't be any more after Fort Worth.

The best stand to take

Here is a long, rambling, interesting essay on the issue of gays and the Anglican Church by an "indigenous" pastor (one local to a small church who hasn't attended seminary). Here are some ideas from it.

The Anglican Lambeth Conference, coming up this month, does not set policy, like the United Methodist General Conference last April. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the nominal head, is not a pope, able to issue decrees. However, they can pass resolutions and one resolution passed in 1998 was that homosexual practice was contrary to the teaching of Scripture. It was done through careful diplomacy leading up to that conference. Resolutions cannot be enforced.

So, when Gene Robinson was ordained 5 years later (in 2003) it was seen as those Americans going it alone against a world-wide understanding. Actually, Canada provided a little fuel for the fire is 2002 by adopting blessings for same-sex ceremonies. But Americans rubbed others noses in it when electing a woman as their head in 2006.

The rift comes down to three questions: (1) Is Jesus who he said he is, providing only one way to salvation? (2) Can the authority of scripture be trusted? (3) Are there moral absolutes or merely suggestions on how we are to act?

All that means the rift goes back to the "Elizabethan Settlement" of the 16th century after Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church. What is the source of authority -- Scripture or the pope? Anglicans settled on Scripture, tradition, and reason (later John Wesley would add experience). While the "Settlement" put an end to beheadings, nothing was settled. England went through its own civil wars, regicide, several religious movements and a population that ends to avoid churches.

What is now different is the global scale of the split. In 1960 there were only 50 million Christians (of all denominations) in Africa, now there are over 300 million. In that time most African countries became independent and are now eager to impose their clout on their former colonial masters.

Another way to look at it is marginalized people aligning and converging (a messy process) and the "straight, white, male, clerical, overly educated, financially secure, English-speaking, well-pensioned, professionally established" are being moved to the margins as the formerly marginalized move to the center. In this thinking, fundamentalism is a vestige of a binary view of us and them, orthodox and heretic.

But what good is that binary if Christianity is implicated in militarism, usury, sweatshop labor, and environmental rape? Why is the split over gays? As Gene Robinson puts it:

“I don’t believe there is any topic addressed more often and more deeply in Scripture than our treatment of the poor, the distribution of wealth, of resources, and the danger of wealth to our souls. One third of all the parables and one sixth of all the words Jesus is recorded to have uttered have to do with this topic, and yet we don’t hear the biblical literalists making arguments about that.”

One of the African Anglican bishops complains of Robinson's ordination by saying the Episcopal Church has violated that 1998 understanding but also the faith their own fathers taught in Africa as missionaries. "We stand where their ancestors stood." Put another way, the African bishop is saying that he gave up his gods, his family structure (polygamy was normal), and his language, even risking being accused of encouraging Western encroachment for the gift of the Christian faith. Now Americans are changing the faith he changed his life to receive.

Lots of people have said and say now that communication is the key. But the "Listening Process" the Anglicans have been trying to practice over homosexuality hasn't gotten very far. The communion bread can only communicate when we stop talking. Communication carries risks: It leaves little room for the ambivalent -- he isn't likely to post on blogs as the two sides bash each other. When we spend so much time "communicating" we are spending less time actually doing -- we are being asked to "take a stand" when the best stand to take is with an actual person in an actual place, such as standing with the gay man whose partner just died of AIDS.

Back to Robinson's issue of the church and the poor: The churches with the most need, such as in Appalachia, should get the priests with the greatest skills. Alas, priest allocation in the Episcopal Church is based on free-market principles. The priests with the greatest skills go to the churches with the greatest resources.

-----

British news media are reporting there has been a secret meeting between the conservative Anglican bishops, the ones boycotting the Lambeth Conference, and advisors of Pope Benedict. The issue is primarily the inroads gay clergy have made in America and Britain, though women bishops were also discussed. The disgruntled Anglicans are discussing greater unity with the Vatican. Whether that means healing the centuries old split between the conservative Anglican and Catholic churches at the expense of the world-wide Anglican Communion remains to be seen.

Finding a spiritual home

A sweet My Turn essay in Newsweek about a Catholic gay man who finds a spiritual home in the Episcopal Church. He wishes that he wasn't so hungry for God or perhaps be satisfied with being "spiritual, but not religious." Since "Christian" has such a bad reputation among gays, he would have preferred a Druid spiritual awakening. But he has found a church home and feels blessed that on the day he became a member Bishop Gene Robinson was in attendance.

Episcopals throw out rebellious bishop

Last fall, the San Joaquin Diocese of the Episcopal Church, led by Bishop John-David Schofield, split away from the national church and aligned itself with the Anglicans of South America. This was in response to the national church not being repentant over consecrating Gene Robinson. Now the national church has thrown out Schofield and barred him from any of his duties as bishop. Those members of the Diocese who want to remain with the national church will be meeting to elect a new bishop.

Bishop Gene Robinson and the future of the church

I've just finished the book Going to Heaven: The Life and Election of Bishop Gene Robinson by Elizabeth Adams, published Sept. 1, 2006. Though, on occasion, it seems it goes into a bit too much detail it all serves to show how much of a non-event his rise to bishop was to New Hampshire and such a big event to the rest of the world. He had already served as bishop's assistant for over 15 years and his faith and manner of working was already well known throughout the state. Reading it has been a needed antidote to the Right's nonsense, even when the book itself documents how the Right is using Robinson to split the church. Here are some thoughts from the book.

Robinson was asked what it was like to be at the center of something that caused so much pain, confusion, and anger. He responded that Jesus did the same and that it was the churchy types, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who were angry. But the same statements that angered them sounded like good news to those on the margins. Bishops on the Right are angry with Robinson, but his new position is wonderful news to the gays who feel pushed away by the church.

The bible is the primary guide to faith, over experience, tradition, and reason. It is the description of God's love affair with humans. It needs to be weighed against historical understanding and then discussed in a community because it is so easy to make the bible say what we want it to say. This discernment is necessary but not easy. The bible must be taken seriously, but not literally. Easy to say the bible is literally true or not true at all. But each verse must be seen in the context of the whole. You can't raise one verse in importance. Saying one verse is no longer important doesn't bring the whole thing crashing down.

If the bible needs that much discussion and interpretation how do you know how to live your life? Never mind that we are notoriously bad at actually following the bible's directions. In terms of a particular verse, you don't know how to live. The certainty comes in knowing that heaven is there for you. Like the prodigal son, before we have a chance to tell God, "I'm sorry," he'll have the ring on our finger and have ordered up a party. Salvation doesn't depend on getting each verse interpreted correctly. So we read the bible to understand what God is saying to us, and we as a community might disagree on that.

Since we are going to heaven we can take risks, we can think extravagantly about what the church should be. But the church rarely takes risks. It should be about so much more than survival. Churches want to emulate Christ but don't seem to want to get their hands dirty.

As for his opponents, Robinson says they don't seem happy. The Good News hasn't made them joyful. But he needs to satisfy God and his own heart and conscience, not his opponents. Is he a spiritual leader or deceived by the devil? Look at his work, the people he ministers to.

The Anglican Communion worldwide says that homosexuality will divide the church. This one thing is more important than creeds millennia old? Than a baptismal covenant? Than the Trinity? This one thing trumps all that and more? We can still commune together even while we wrestle with the issues. African bishops are increasingly saying that, no they can't commune while they disagree and the only acceptable way to resolve it is to do it their way.

Reasons why homosexuality is a hot-button issue: It (and women's ordination) mark the end of patriarchy. It is painful for straight white males to give up power. The worldwide church sees Americans as cheeky upstarts partly because of many other things America is doing (Iraq) and the general low regard for America. Society and culture have changed so much and so quickly (and in a secular direction) that there is a hunger by some people for something that doesn't change, that can't change, and a literalist interpretation of the bible is one thing that can remain absolute (at least in the eyes of today's literalists).

African bishops are the most vocal against gays. A good deal of that is the culture they are in. Africa hasn't had its Stonewall moment yet. The culture still considers homosexuality taboo. The Christian church is always looking over its shoulder at Islam, which also bans gays. They can't be seen as espousing Western values.

Up through about 1960 Episcopalians (and many other denominations) had no trouble living with a broad range of views, from conservative to progressive, within one church community. This was at a time, however, when Christianity was the dominant religion in America and was pretty much the big background presence in all public life. Two Supreme Court rulings changed that: banning prayer in public schools and Roe v. Wade. Having lost it's grip the Right could no longer be tolerant of any ideas but its own. Takeover is the goal and schism (or threat of it) is one way to increase their influence. The efforts have been slow, but relentless. I, of course, see it in the United Methodist Church where, next April at General Conference, for the first time membership standards will be debated (and the only reason to have standards at all is to exclude certain people).

How do we know if a change to doctrine is valid? Does it increase understanding of God? Liberate our spirit to be more in the image of Christ? Make us more compassionate, just, living, and free? If so, it is of God.

When faced with another issue of inclusion the church uses the same rhetoric and same delaying tactics. Robinson and New Hampshire stirred the hornets because they didn't delay. For every step forward someone does it and the church (and society) figures out it is okay. We can't wait for everyone to believe it is okay before doing it. The real issue isn't theology, but power. We form groups of people like ourselves and want them to remain that way with control in the hands of the insiders. And we'll do some nasty things to maintain that exclusion and control.

Robinson took part in a debate on the topic of gay clergy, talking about how God had worked in his life. As he spoke the audience hung on every word. The next debater talked about how rules need to be maintained and the proper way of doing things was to change the rules. The audience turned him off. Religion must dialogue with its own culture. The church is dying because it is in thrall with the past. For example, many people, including men, don't want to be a part of a church that degrades women. The church makes itself irrelevant.

Some people think religion is about rules and if it weren't for the rules the human spirit, a wild and snarling animal, could not control its passions and would pounce the moment you turned your eye. Civilization would crumble. This rulebook comes with promises attached -- follow the rules and you get the prize. It's a white-knuckle ride, always fearful that you'll mess it up just before the finish line. This rulebook has the added benefit of putting the brakes on change and defining who is "in" and who is "out." But it alienates the religion from society and science. It tends not to attract converts, in spite of the primary task being the Great Commission -- go and make converts.

Others think religion is about "Look at the gifts God gives us!" If we accept God's love we learn to love ourselves and those around us. It releases creative energy, it breaks the bonds of slavery, sets captives free, restores sight to the blind. It is about Hope. It deals with ambiguities and uncertainty, a guide to the current life as well as the next one. This religion supports the spirituality of people turned off by religion. It supports attempts to eliminate the barriers between people, racism, homophobia, environmental degradation, social injustice. The primary task is the Great Commandment -- love one another. I believe in this church.

The book is worth the read.

Since the book was published, the issue of homosexuality has indeed begun to divide the church. Many individual Episcopal churches have withdrawn from the American structure and have associated themselves with Anglican bishops in Africa or South America. And a week ago, the San Joaquin Diocese in central California, all of the churches in that region, voted to leave the Episcopal Church USA. A commentator theorizes this is the first visible sign of the Second Reformation that began with the Stonewall Riots, a small act similar to Martin Luther nailing his list to the church door. It will split denominations as completely as the Reformation split the Catholic Church. He notes that in all other issues -- slavery, divorce, diet, women's issues -- no church now relies strictly on the bible for its understanding. It has allowed the influence of culture. The only issue still under sola scriptura, in which the only source of truth is the bible, is homosexuality.

Interpreting the Bible on homosexuality

The latest noise in the ongoing Anglican-Episcopalian debate on homosexuality prompted an article in the Chicago Tribune about what the Bible says on the issue and how the Bible should be read. "We don't worship the Bible, we worship Jesus Christ," says Rev. William Persell, Chicago's outgoing Episcopal bishop. The Bible is a core document and if we find internal disagreements or if we disagree with Paul or Leviticus we need to come back to Jesus for a conversation about those passages, says Liz Stedman, a lesbian pastor. While the body of the article counters some of the passages, it ends with a bare listing of the problematic 7 verses. Alas, it doesn't offer alternative definitions of many of them. For the record:

Genesis 2:21-25: Saying that male and female is needed to create life and straight marriage is the norm for 95% of the population says nothing about the morality of gay relations practiced by maybe 5% of the population.

Sodom and Gomorrah: Elsewhere in the bible the crime is said to be inhospitality to strangers, not amoral sex.

Leviticus: The people who trumpet this one don't follow anything else in Leviticus and can't say why this is the only one that must be followed. Besides, Jesus says salvation is through him, not the law.

Romans 1:26-28: The quote is missing the leading "Therefore" which means much of this perversion is a result of disobeying God. It does not say loving same-gender couples are automatically perverted.

Corinthians 6:9: "Homosexual offenders" is a mis-translation of a Greek word whose true meaning is unknown.

Timothy 1:10: Huh? Doesn't even mention gays, unless we are lumped under "perverts" and that cannot be assumed. Another case of bad translation.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-scripture_thinknov18,0,6677080.story

Details of my rebuttal at:

http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf