Uncivil Unions: Archives
Most of us are familiar with the expression, "Be careful what you wish for", though I suspect it rarely keeps us from spending our time hoping to achieve or attain the things we seek. The fact that the California Supreme Court is set to rule tomorrow on whether the state can deny gays the right to marry will likely be a defining moment in our understanding of the concept of the double edged sword.
On the one hand, those who have waited years to have their relationships recognized may see a favorable ruling as the culmination of a dream come true. On the other hand, a favorable ruling will undoubtedly be seen as a nightmare to those who have expended untold energy seeking to prohibit any recognition of same-sex relationships. Hence, how the two sides absorb the outcome will likely have more meaning than the actual ruling.
The California Supreme Court will rule Thursday on the legality of the state's ban on gay marriage.
The justices today posted a notation on the court's Web site that the ruling in the civil rights challenge to the same-sex marriage ban will be posted at 10 a.m. Thursday. The Supreme Court heard arguments in five consolidated legal challenges in March, and had until early June to rule on the issue.
The long-awaited ruling is a crucial test of the simmering public, social and legal debate over gay marriage, triggered in 2004 when San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom allowed thousands of gay and lesbian couples to wed before the courts put a halt to the marriage licenses.
A ruling in favor of gay marriage could stoke a political firestorm in the fall if a proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage in California makes it onto the ballot. A decision on whether the initiative qualifies for the ballot is expected in June.
As such, tomorrow will bring both the culmination of hopeful expectations and the delivery of disappointment. Needless to say, that means the ruling is apt to inspire one side while inciting the other. How those perceptions are played out in terms of focus found or fear infused will likely have more to do with deciding the future of gay marriage.
So where will that leave us? Frankly, it leaves us where we've always been...needing to find the means to communicate with those we don't understand in order to remove the misconceptions that serve to maintain what has to be viewed as an untenable status quo.
In the end, without real change, today, tomorrow, and the day after are one and the same so long as the issue of gay marriage remains a zero sum equation in the minds of the combatants. Tomorrow will have a winner...but we'd all be wise to realize that it may not be a victory.
Tagged as: Amendment, California, DOMA, Gay, Gay Marriage, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage, Supreme Court
Daniel DiRito | May 14, 2008 | 1:43 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
The following video asks an interesting question - Is religion battered woman's syndrome? While provocative on its surface, the creator of the video makes a number of thoughtful observations.
More than an effort to connect religion with battered woman's syndrome, it is an attempt to force people to consider the pretext upon which they adopt their religious beliefs and to what extent that may be a flawed construct.
In my opinion, all too often people accept the religious beliefs of their parents without ever taking the time to fully understand exactly the meaning of the concepts they're assimilating into their own understanding of the world in which they live.
No doubt beliefs can serve a valuable purpose in a person's life...but they can also preclude the individual from exploring other possibilities...particularly if one has adopted their beliefs as a result of blind acceptance or forcible infliction. Hence, the similarity to the process by which a woman is able to adjust her thinking to accept the abuse of her abuser and forego her rightful ability to make determinations on her own and in her best interest.
I am always amazed at the seeming lack of suspicion with regards to religious ideology. Time and again I witness people refusing to take much of anything they encounter on face value...yet those same individuals are somehow able to compartmentalize their faith such that it is beyond reconsideration or reproach.
I've always felt that the fear of death, and the unknown quality it holds, is an immensely powerful tool in the arsenal of religious institutions. Regardless, it's as if people abdicate large swaths of their lives in order to avoid the fear of losing them. In the end, isn't that little more than a subservient march towards the very death they fear?
Come to think of it, perhaps the comparison is insufficient. After all, many women find the strength to break free of their overlords. The same isn't always true of those who acquiesce to other iterations of divine beings.
Tagged as: Battered Women, Critical Thinking, Death, Domestic Abuse, Faith, Fear, God, Religion
Daniel DiRito | May 14, 2008 | 10:53 AM |
link
| Comments (3)
While John McCain has chosen to avoid a repudiation of Pastor Hagee's endorsement of the presumed GOP nominee, it appears that the damage control has commenced. Today, Hagee issued a written apology to Catholics and the apology was accepted by Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. Ahh, yes...a marriage made in heaven...isn't that wonderful?
Like many evangelical pastors, John Hagee is no stranger to controversial statements. With his endorsement of the Arizona Senator, many of the remarks attributed to Hagee have resurfaced...and they are every bit as incendiary as the words that were spoken by Barack Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright...though they haven't garnered near the attention. In the following video clip, Hagee is seen calling the Catholic Church "The Great Whore".
Not to fear. Politics makes for strange bedfellows and none may be stranger than Hagee and Donohue. Take a look at today's exchange of pleasantries.
"Out of a desire to advance greater unity among Catholics and Evangelicals in promoting the common good, I want to express my deep regret for any comments that Catholics have found hurtful," Hagee wrote, according to an advanced copy of the letter reviewed by Washington Wire. "After engaging in constructive dialogue with Catholic friends and leaders, I now have an improved understanding of the Catholic Church, its relation to the Jewish faith, and the history of anti-Catholicism."
In the letter, addressed to Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League and one of Hagee's biggest critics, Hagee pledges "a greater level of compassion and respect for my Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ."
Hagee's letter explains some of the harsh words he has used when describing the Catholic Church. "I better understand that reference to the Roman Catholic Church as the 'apostate church' and the 'great whore' described in the book of Revelation" -- both terms Hagee has employed -- "is a rhetorical device long employed in anti-Catholic literature and commentary," he wrote.
Donohue, in a response to Hagee's letter, accepted his apology. "The tone of Hagee's letter is sincere. He wants reconciliation and he has achieved it. Indeed, the Catholic League welcomes his apology. What Hagee has done takes courage and quite frankly I never expected him to demonstrate such sensitivity to our concerns. But he has done just that. Now Catholics, along with Jews, can work with Pastor Hagee in making interfaith relations stronger than ever. Whatever problems we had before are now history. This case is closed," Donohue wrote.
Hagee is also known for his derogatory remarks directed towards gays...particularly his assertion that Katrina was simply a matter of God punishing the people of New Orleans. Hagee argued that the upcoming gay pride parade led to the devastating hurricane. His statement in that regard follows.
All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that.
The newspaper carried the story in our local area, that was not carried nationally, that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it would was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other gay pride parades.
So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the Day of Judgment, and I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.
Hagee, subsequent to endorsing McCain, sought to step back from his comments by issuing the following statement.
"As a believing Christian, I see the hand of God in everything that happens here on earth, both the blessings and the curses. But ultimately neither I nor any other person can know the mind of God concerning Hurricane Katrina. I should not have suggested otherwise. No matter what the cause of the storm, my heart goes out to all who suffered in this terrible tragedy. There but for the grace of God go any one of us."
Unfortunately, according to the Dallas Morning News, the seeming retraction apparently left a bad taste in the pastor's mouth and that led him to offer the following response to a caller, who asked during a radio appearance, why the pastor had backed away from his comments in the face of criticism.
Hagee said he hadn't. As for the Katrina, he said, God controls hurricanes and "God always punishes unconfessed sin."
Now there seems to have been some confusion at the time. While Hagee was attributing Katrina to the gay pride parade, one of his fellow evangelists, Pat Robertson, was speculating that God was angry because Ellen Degeneres, a lesbian originally from New Orleans, had been chosen to host the upcoming Emmy Awards.
As it turned out, despite all of these revelations and proclamations, the French Quarter, the epicenter of gay life in New Orleans, weathered the storm with minimal damage. Since we know that God controls all natural disasters, I guess we're left to conclude that the good Lord had an off day and simply misfired, leaving the gays unpunished and free to plan the next years parade.
Unfortunately, I had my phone turned off so I missed my own call from the Almighty - otherwise I might have been able to report my own communications and clear up any of the confusion that remains.
So where does this leave us? Well, I can't help but see politics as a numbers game. As such, it's far more important to make nice with the Catholics than with the LGBT community, since the Catholics comprise a larger voting block and they are certainly more closely aligned with the positions of the GOP than the gays and the Democrats. Besides, demonizing gays has always been an effective weapon in the arsenal of people of faith.
That brings me to the protection of marriage...one of the quintessential issues for Christians. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that today's events demonstrate that even a marriage of convenience trumps a same-sex marriage. Therefore, it is far easier for evangelicals and Catholics to kiss and make up, under the umbrella of the GOP, than it would be for any of them to alter their stance on portraying gays and gay marriage as the source of all that ails society.
The funny thing is...I've always thought that Christians frowned upon acts of prostitution...and engaging in a menage a trois. Little did I know that God would rather bless the union of three trick-turners than the loving relationships of two homos. It just goes to show that politics and prostitution have a lot in common...and if you think about it...they have maintained a long standing and fruitful connection. After all, isn't staying together through thick and thin...while procreating more of the same...what marriage is supposed to be about?
With this newfound awareness, I know you'll understand my need to excuse myself...I've got to go confess my sins...I just can't bear to be the one with the sullied soul who causes the next calamity.
Tagged as: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Bill Donahue, Catholic League, Catholicism, Confession, Evangelicals, Gay Marriage, Gays, God, Jeremiah Wright, John Hagee, John McCain, Katrina, LGBT, New Orleans, Pat Robertson, Prostitution, Religion, Same-Sex Marriage
Daniel DiRito | May 13, 2008 | 11:35 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
The gall of the religious right never ceases to amaze. Time and again, they demonstrate that hypocrisy is an essential element of their ideology. While many of these zealots frequently demonstrate their willingness to preach one thing and do another, their latest endeavor seems determined to take it to a whole new level.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a legal advocate for the right wing, is calling on churches to voice their positions on political candidates en masse on September 28th in order to create the grounds to challenge the constitutionality of the current tax code. As it now stands, the IRS guidelines prohibit churches from directly endorsing or rejecting political candidates in order to maintain their tax exempt status. The ADF wants to overturn the provision on the grounds that it circumvents their First Amendment rights and is therefore unconstitutional.
From The Washington Post:
The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Scottsdale, Ariz., will ask the clergy to deliver a sermon about specific candidates Sept. 28. If the action triggers an IRS investigation, the legal group will sue to overturn the federal rules, which were enacted in 1954.
Under the IRS code, churches can distribute voter guides, run voter registration drives, hold forums on public policy and invite politicians to speak at their congregations.
However, they cannot endorse a candidate, and their political activity cannot be biased for or against a candidate, directly or indirectly.
The Alliance Defense Fund said Friday that the regulations amount to an unconstitutional limit on free speech and government intrusion into religion.
From WorldNetDaily:
"Churches have for too long feared the loss of tax exempt status arising from speech in the pulpit addressing candidates for office," the ADF's white paper on the campaign confirmed. "Rather than risk confrontation, pastors have self-censored their speech, ignoring blatant immorality in government and foregoing the opportunities to praise moral government leaders.
"ADF believes that IRS restrictions on religious expression from the pulpit, whenever the IRS characterizes it as 'political,' is unconstitutional. After 50 years of threats and intimidation, churches should confront the IRS directly and reclaim the expressive rights guaranteed to them in the United States Constitution," the group said.
"The intimidation of churches by leftist groups using the IRS has grown to a point that ADF has no choice but to respond," said Erik Stanley, senior counsel for the ADF. "The number of threats being reported to ADF is growing because of the aggressive campaign to unlawfully silence the church.
Where to begin. First, I doubt the courts would rule in favor of the ADF since churches have always had the option to forego their tax exempt status. The bottom line - they elect their tax status knowing the conditions. I personally believe they shouldn't be tax exempt and it wouldn't surprise me if this misguided effort opens the door to discussing that possibility.
Beyond that, the dividing line between church and state is a complex matter that has been addressed numerous times by the courts. I suspect that the ADF believes that the shift to the right in the Supreme Court under the Bush administration may be to their benefit. Regardless, there is ample precedent that would need to be ignored in order for ADF to prevail.
Setting aside the legal argument, I want to focus on some of the inconsistent positions that emanate from the religious right...positions that lead me and many others to decry their penchant for hypocrisy. Two issues jump off the page.
The first is federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. President Bush and his supporters have argued that the government shouldn't provide funding for such research. The rationale for their objections is predicated upon ethical concerns that have their origin in religious doctrine. At the same time, he and those who support the ban on federal funding loudly note that they aren't preventing state and private funding for this research.
Hence the inconsistency is revealed. On the one hand, the religious right believes that it is appropriate for the president to deny funding for research that could assist numerous Americans that have no religious objections to the use of embryonic stem cells. They argue that those in favor of doing so can still conduct the research...just without the endorsement (funding) of the federal government. In other words, no one's rights are being denied so long as the research is allowed to proceed. If you favor it, fund it privately...but your federal government isn't going to use your money to do so.
On the other hand, those who endorse the logic in the above argument believe the federal government shouldn't be allowed to prohibit churches from engaging in partisan politicking in exchange for granting them an exemption from taxation. Where does that leave us? Well, it says that these individuals want the government to forego funding research that conflicts with their religious beliefs while also allowing them to use the pulpits of the churches they support to influence the outcome of elections...without those churches ever being required to pay taxation. If that isn't wanting to have it both ways, what is?
Contrast that with the secular citizen who pays taxes and wants the government to fund research that might save lives and one begins to see the absurdity of the system these religious demagogues favor. Truth be told, many of these religious organizations have already established "arms length" political entities that circumvent the IRS codes. Anyone who doubts their aspirations for the establishment of a theocracy ought to think again. The ADF directive is simply the next step in a well-crafted agenda.
The second item that illuminates the inconsistency in the rationale of the religious right is gay marriage. Proponents of measures to ban same-sex marriages contend that same-sex couples can achieve many of the same benefits that are afforded to married couples by utilizing the appropriate legal documentation. Of course they fail to mention that the lion's share of benefits cannot be achieved through any means...especially those that relate to taxation.
At the same time, they argue that the preservation of the institution of marriage and it's religious connotations is reasonable so long as the government isn't preventing gays from forming the relationships they choose. In other words, it's reasonable to restrict marriage to one man and one woman so long as the government allows gays to form the relationships they choose. The bottom line message to gays - you elect your tax status knowing the conditions.
When gays assert that this is an unfair system, the religious right is the first to cite those objections as evidence of the militant homosexual agenda and the desire of gays to force society to accept and embrace their alternative lifestyle.
Again, we begin to see the inconsistency. On the one hand, the religious right argues that the government has no obligation to recognize same-sex unions...and those who enter into them do so knowing the precedent conditions. You want a gay spouse, you don't benefit from the advantageous tax status afforded to recognized marriages. On the other hand, they want the government to recognize religious doctrine when determining whose marriages will receive beneficial treatment while also wanting their churches to receive preferential tax status absent conditions...conditions that are simply intended to uphold the separation of church and state.
Similar arguments can be made with regards to the religious right's positions on a number of issues. This includes a woman's right to have an abortion and the rights of an individual or their family members to make end of life decisions. Time and again, the religious right seeks to insert and impose their beliefs on those who do not share them while simultaneously asking the government to adopt a laissez-faire mentality with regards to monitoring the separation of church and state.
I find it amusing that those who routinely point out that the spiritual realm supersedes all else spend so much of their time in the pursuit of all things political and material. Then again, the newly emerging prosperity theology suggests that the attainment of success (wealth and worldly measures) is undoubtedly evidence that one is appropriately aligned with the Lord.
Silly me...why on earth would I conclude that any of the above positions are hypocritical. I just pray that God will help me abandon rational and reasoned thought in favor of the fabrications that come with faith. I need to accept that the teachings of Jesus Christ have nothing to do with today's Christianity. Come to think of it, maybe that's the reason the religious right insists that everyone has to be born again.
Image courtesy of TBogg
Tagged as: Abortion, Alliance Defense Fund, Amendment, Christ, Christianity, Church & State, Constitution, Embryonic Stem Cell, Gay, George W. Bush, IRS, Jesus, LGBT, Marriage, Religion, Religious Right, Same_Sex Marriage, Secularism, Supreme Court, Tax Exemption
Daniel DiRito | May 11, 2008 | 9:45 AM |
link
| Comments (0)
OK, forgive my disdain for the content of the video below, but how does the story of a 41 year old woman whose pregnant with her eighteenth child merit being a Mother's Day story on The Today Show? When did we reduce motherhood to a quantitative measurement? I'm sorry, but I just don't equate the number of children one births with the determination that a woman is a super mom. In fact, on virtually every imaginable metric, I find the choice to have eighteen children to be an example of short-sighted and self-centered aggrandizement.
The fact that this family believes that God is deciding how many children they will have only makes recognizing them on Mother's Day all the more misguided. Yes, they're entitled to their faith and to have all the children they want, but presenting that election as evidence of selfless devotion seems to ignore the obvious. Perhaps being the poster family for Christian values is a noble pursuit, but I fail to see how it is in the best interest of the mother's health, the children's well-being, or the world's already limited resources.
Having eighteen children also strikes me as a demonstration of faith that Jesus would have viewed with skepticism. In my estimation, he would have chosen the obscure single mother...who is raising a disabled child and struggling each day to make ends meet...as representative of maternal sincerity and sacrifice.
I never understood Jesus to be interested in those who sought the center stage to announce the fact that they were engaged in empathic endeavors. In fact, I think Jesus instructed that acts of sacrifice would, by their nature, provide all the reward one would ever need. Further, I believe Jesus thought that those who imagine the rewards before commencing to act weren't actually making a sacrifice and didn't deserve any of the recognition.
Look, the Duggar's may well be wonderful people, but in the end, I suspect this family's choice isn't properly motivated nor is it representative of the sacrifice that we should associate with motherhood. In our me first, top of the heap, number one or nothing chain letter society, this looks to be another example of the thinking that underlies our pyramid scheme psychosis...a pathetic pathology that values victory and despises defeat while routinely diminishing and discarding our humanity. It is the one characteristic we should cherish...the one thing we all share equally...and the first thing we set aside in our race to capture and claim the perceived pinnacle.
I don't know how many children the Duggar's will end up with...but I'm willing to concede that they win the award for churning out more children than most would ever consider. I'll also stipulate that their God is aware of their willingness to bear as many children as Mrs. Duggar's body can endure.
Beyond that, I'm not willing to conclude that having eighteen children makes Mr. & Mrs. Duggar exemplary parents, conscientious Christians, or honorable humans. The skeptic in me says their actions betray their intentions. If I'm right, they may have won the battle but lost the war. At least they have enough children to build their own perfect pyramid.
Tagged as: Chain Letter Society, Children, God, Jesus, Mother's Day, Motherhood, Parenting, Religion, Sacrifice, The Today Show
Daniel DiRito | May 9, 2008 | 2:49 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
Have a seat, take a deep breath, and then watch the following video of Christian leaders assailing militant homosexuals and portraying themselves as victims of those who are seeking to undo all measures of morality. All that's missing from this piece of persecution propaganda is a wooden cross and the hammer needed to nail themselves to it. No doubt this is an attempt to demonstrate the degree to which they are being decimated by diabolical drag queens hell bent on effecting a holocaust on the holier than thou. Man your battle stations folks...the gays are coming.
I find screeds of this nature quite amusing in light of the concurrent efforts to stereotype gays as effeminate fairies who are gender challenged. Then again, why would one expect a gaggle of 'good old boys' to cease their efforts to maintain their long standing misogynistic masquerade. Apparently gays provide them with a multitude of targets. On the one hand, they can portray gays as militaristic monsters, and on the other, they can castigate them as nefarious Nelly's. Yes, these and other aspersions are an effective means of attaching antagonistic archetypes to their ardent enemy.
One things for sure, these folks are rather adept at crafting catch phrases and interjecting derogatory imagery meant to mobilize their minions. Note some of the one's they utilize in this short video - sexual politics, militant homosexual agenda, right of conscience, suppress, silenced, religious liberty, God's standard, dominance, second class citizen, clash, totalitarian regime, Nazi Germany, concentration camp, intimidation, beat into submission, discrimination on steroids, radical, hammer of the state, Taliban, authoritarian, and fascist.
Who would have thought that men of God would be so skilled at inciting anger and animosity. Then again, these megalomaniacs probably think a crusade is just what they need to advance their Christian charade...as well as making certain the cash cow doesn't dry up. Fomenting their flocks with fear reminds me of another evangelical instigator...the one ensconced in the White House.
Honestly, these people are exasperating. Their willingness to use selective comprehension to cherry pick Christ's message is not only disingenuous; it is an abrogation of his authenticity.
These rabble rousers might find themselves on the outside looking in when their magical moment of Rapture arrives. After all, whose to say God won't prefer to populate heaven with a group of gays that demonstrated the power and persistence to bring the 'good old boys' to their knees. Besides, God must already know that most of these men are a six pack of beer away from crossing over to the other side...if you know what I mean.
Tagged as: Bigotry, ENDA, Evangelicals, Gay Marriage, Gay Rights, Hate Crimes Legislation, Homophobia, Humor, LGBT, Militant Homosexuals, Rapture, Religious Right, Same-Sex Marriage, Tony Perkins
Daniel DiRito | April 24, 2008 | 6:00 PM |
link
| Comments (2)
They say life imitates art...and if that is true, then the words spoken by Jack Nicholson in the film A Few Good Men may explain why the Bush administration and so many of its followers continue to insist on promoting abstinence as the preferred approach to sex education. Those who "can't handle the truth" and insist on wearing blinders might want to read the latest study on the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases in teenage girls.
If the information is accurate, 25 percent of girls aged 14 to 19 have a sexually transmitted disease. I'm no statistician, but if one in four of the girls in this age range has an STD, how many of of those who make up the other 75 percent must be engaging in sexual relations? Let's be honest, the STD infection rate isn't 100%...which means that many of the other girls have to be sexually active as well.
The first national study of four common sexually transmitted diseases among girls and young women has found that one in four are infected with at least one of the diseases, federal health officials reported Tuesday.
Nearly half the African-Americans in the study of teenagers ages 14 to 19 were infected with at least one of the diseases monitored in the study -- human papillomavirus (HPV), chlamydia, genital herpes and trichomoniasis, a common parasite.
The 50 percent figure compared with 20 percent of white teenagers, health officials and researchers said at a news conference at a scientific meeting in Chicago.
The two most common sexually transmitted diseases, or S.T.D.'s, among all the participants tested were HPV, at 18 percent, and chlamydia, at 4 percent, according to the analysis, part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
Among the infected women, 15 percent had more than one of the diseases.
The president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Cecile Richards, said the new findings "emphasize the need for real comprehensive sex education."
"The national policy of promoting abstinence-only programs is a $1.5 billion failure," Ms. Richards said, "and teenage girls are paying the real price."
Look, I understand that parents don't want to believe their children are sexually active nor do they want schools to encourage sex. However, admitting the difference between wishful thinking and cold hard facts may be the best way parents can protect their children...especially their daughters...from potentially fatal diseases. Reality remains reality...even in the presence of self-deception.
The death of a daughter from cervical cancer seems an exorbitant price to pay for burying one's head in the sand. Nonetheless, millions of parents continue to be willing to put their children in the position to play a deadly game of Russian roulette when it comes to sex.
Let's assume that fifty percent of girls in this age bracket have engaged in sexual activity. That suggests that parents who continue to embrace the effectiveness of abstinence only programs have a fifty percent chance of being wrong. Put in terms of risk management, at least half of the daughters of those parents who are in denial are at risk to contract an STD.
Even worse, this preoccupation with abstinence sets in motion a default mindset that accepts the habit of participating in unsafe sexual activity. Here's the equation. Once a teenager has been bombarded with admonitions to abstain...often premised on the construct of morality versus immorality (behavior is reduced to a good v. bad concept)...the decision to engage in sex is viewed as wrong.
Rarely do people about to engage in an activity they view as wrong take the time to employ prudent practices and thoughtful judgment. It's the principle of premeditation versus happenstance. I suspect many of these teenagers want the deniability that comes with an unintended act...an accident if you will. Being able to tell mom and dad that they didn't intend to break their pledge to abstain is much easier than admitting a deliberate act of defiance.
Recent reports that girls are engaging in more oral sex as a means to maintain their virginity is a clear example of the unintended consequences that come with unrealistic expectations. The emotional burdens we're heaping upon these young people is a recipe for failure and it often plants the seeds of future dishonest dalliances. If one's initial view of sex is that it must be committed as an act of deception or secrecy, one is apt to repeat that behavior.
In the end, asking children to suppress their sexual desires as a function of morality begins the process of disconnecting sex from love...its intended partner. Once sex is viewed as sin, it becomes increasingly difficult to embrace it as an act of the heart. As this sex as sin notion takes hold, I'm inclined to believe that many of these teenagers, who subsequently contract an STD, begin to internalize the diagnosis as the inevitable consequence of being "immoral" (God's punishment). Once the identity is viewed as damaged (or demonic in the extreme), the likelihood for more damage is enhanced in what I would characterize as a predictable spiral of self-loathing.
We would be far better served to instruct children on the merits of sex as an adjunct to love...giving them the tools they need to maintain both their physical and mental health. Sex is an inevitable human activity. STD's and a sinking self-esteem need not be its destructive companions.
Tagged as: Abstinence, Cervical Cancer, Condoms, Evangelical, HPV, Morality, Religion, Sex, Sex Education, Sin, STD's, Teenagers, Virginity
Daniel DiRito | March 12, 2008 | 11:06 AM |
link
| Comments (2)
A number of readers responded to the posting Hillary's Stellar Debate Moment. I truly appreciate hearing the thoughts and observations of my readers and I welcome engaging dialogue. I was going to reply in the comments section of the prior posting but I soon concluded it warranted a second posting.
I do so because I've noticed a trend that troubles me...one that is innately important to me and that highlights one of the overarching motivations behind the creation of Thought Theater. I'll attempt an explanation.
Throughout my life, I have prioritized the pursuit of more truth above all else (that doesn't mean I always lived it). In so doing, I often find I'm unable to permanently attach myself to any particular group, club, party, or affiliation. All too often, such allegiances include the requirement that each member adopt and affirm all of the beliefs (truths) of the organization...even if that arrests the pursuit of the truth...or...heaven forbid...demands the wholesale suspension of the truth.
What this means in practical terms is that I'm often viewed as a contrarian. I've accepted my role, though I prefer to characterize it as a commitment to seeking more truth...even if I find it painful...even if it makes me unpopular. What I've learned is that my pursuit of truth is far more sustaining than any of the perceived spoils that accompany affected affiliations.
Before I proceed to the topic at hand, some background might be beneficial. I attended high school at an all boys Catholic boarding school. We were allied with an all girls Catholic boarding school. Over time, it became vogue to denigrate the girls at our sister school and it became cool to date girls from the local high school. As with most trends in teenagers, the shift was facilitated by a vocal few and followed by the pliable masses.
Ironically, I (the closeted gay guy) came to the defense of the girls at our sister school...writing opinion pieces in the school paper assailing the mob mentality and the thugs who had triggered the entire ordeal. Simply stated, I defended the truth because it was the right thing to do. I took my share of flack from a few students but over time I won the respect of far more. In retrospect, it merely took someone to stand up and state the obvious. Sadly, it reinforced my belief that in the absence of a voice, the truth becomes little more than an amalgam of invented and inflicted animosities heaped upon the helpless and the hapless.
Having been bullied in grade school until I finally stood up for myself and bloodied the nose of the ringleader, I developed a keen sense of injustice and an unyielding commitment to fairness. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't remotely perfect then and I'm still not...but I can recognize a mean spirited assault in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, life isn't black and white or neat and tidy. Yes, when it comes to people, it's much easier to lump and label than it is to dissect and discern...but then who ever said the search for truth should be easy?
Hence, the most important thing I learned was that truth can be found in places and in people one wouldn't expect or predict. I came to realize that even a thug can speak the truth or act with fairness...but that required suspending my own bias in order to be objective...even while knowing I could rationalize doing otherwise. So what was the essential lesson? If I wanted fairness, I had to grant it to others...regardless of my own bias.
As I've followed politics and the upcoming election, I've found myself experiencing many of the same feelings and circumstances...and that includes allowing my own bias to interfere with the pursuit of truth. Fortunately, I'm still committed to fairness. With that in mind, I offer the following observations with regards to last evening's debate and the ongoing need to seek truth.
First, I'm including the content of an email I received in response to the posting. I also encourage readers to take a moment and read the comments in the posting as they provide the context for my remarks.
hi: i think you fell for a bit of theater--have you seen the utube of john edwards "after this is all done, we'll be ok" and its america he's worried about? or the clip of bill yakking about taking"hits." hill's greatest moment was empty gesture. the question was soft ball and hill was prepared with stolen words in an attempt to hit a home run. i thought you were more sophisticated than to buy her performance. or maybe your use of stellar was merely acknowledging the performing aspect. the message was old, the delivery not bad.
First, I love politics and I understand that it often involves emotions and that can lead to pettiness, anger, animosity, and partisanship. Human nature is such that we're all prone to bias...and politics may be the arena where it is most noticeable.
As such, I find myself troubled by the refusal of so many individuals to acknowledge any positive acts on the part of the candidate(s) they don't support. Even worse, I'm amazed that one Democrat is willing to assail another simply because they don't support the same candidate. Truth be told, how can Democrats call Karl Rove and the GOP ruthless when Democrats engage in the same behavior...within their own party's primary?
I understand the desire to win...but I have never sought to win if it involved having to abandon my belief in the pursuit of truth. That means that I accept that "the truth" won't always be on my side...and it won't always vindicate me and vanquish those that I oppose. At the same time, if I'm committed to the truth, it will always lead me towards more of it...sometimes willingly and sometimes kicking and screaming. I cherish that reality even if it has the potential to kick my butt.
I mean no disrespect by the following remark, but it needs to be said. Time and again, people, motivated by their own bias, make statements that make them appear to be "full of shit". It's the equivalent of calling a square a circle and then expecting everyone to agree with you...simply because it supports the reality you're promoting. Sometimes it works...especially if one is skilled at manipulation...but it never circumvents the actual truth...ever.
Sadly, those who choose this approach, often aim their efforts at those who, by and large, share their same basic goals and objectives (e.g. Dems on Dems)...but for any number of reasons they seek to achieve those goals and objectives by virtue of their preferred path. I view such acts as unenlightened episodes of intellectual dishonesty. It's akin to the notion that the end justifies the means. I don't think it's that simple.
Let me explain. Truth is a function of consistency and those who seek to be affiliated with the truth can only remain so if their words and deeds are in fact consistent with it. Truth requires vigilance and commitment. Call it being on the watch for the flip flop effect...call it being willing to call a lie a lie...call it an insistence that deception and deceit must be exposed whenever it rears its head...but that which isn't consistent with the truth can never be called an impartial demonstration of objectivity and rationality. Hence truth can set us free or it can make us prisoners of our refusal to face it.
So let's return to the email and the issue of Senator Clinton's "stellar debate moment". A number of folks have pointed to the hypocrisy found in Hillary Clinton accusing Barack Obama of plagiarism and then proceeding to use the words of others in her closing remarks. So what truth can we discern from this inconsistency? Here's where it gets complicated.
First, I would argue that the definition of plagiarism has been stretched to score political points. We're all guilty of using words, ideas, and expressions that we've heard or read...but that fails to meet the intent of plagiarism. Making such an accusation may be an acceptable political strategy but it isn't consistent with the pursuit of truth.
Second, this means that Hillary's actions were inconsistent with the manipulated truth she had previously sought to create. At the same time, the fact that she demonstrated this inconsistency doesn't nullify the truth of the words (borrowed and original) she spoke last night...just as her accusations directed at Senator Obama didn't negate the truth of the words (borrowed and original) he recently spoke.
The fact that the Obama campaign employed the same manipulation of the truth in accusing Senator Clinton of plagiarism following last evening's debate was also inconsistent with the truth...albeit done as a tit for tat response (a rationalization). You see...this is the danger of deviating from the consistent pursuit of truth. It becomes a never-ending struggle to create truth rather than to find it and to honor it.
So let's look at Senator Clinton's actual remarks. Those intent on assailing the Senator have focused upon a small portion of a statement that was nearly three minutes in duration. I view that as an obfuscation of the truth. Her statement was more than "we're going to be ok but I'm not so sure America will be" and "I've taken some hits in my life". Ignoring the entirety of the statement is an attempt to score political points through manipulation. It's done all of the time...but it isn't consistent with the pursuit of truth.
Further, we've all found ourselves in situations where the words of others best describe our truth as well as larger, far more encompassing "truths". After all, the bulk of our thoughts have been experienced, spoken, or written by others. There just aren't that many original thoughts or wholly unique ways to express them. If there were, we'd all be esteemed authors and poets.
That brings us back to the intended meaning of the word plagiarism. The manner in which it has been utilized in this campaign is absurd...and the more we all embrace its false meaning; the more we convolute its true meaning. Such is the process that accompanies the destruction of language and therefore our ability to communicate effectively and honestly. It's truly an example of the slippery slope effect...and the deconstruction of fundamental truths.
I challenge everyone to go back and look at Senator Obama's face while he listens to Senator Clinton's closing remarks. I'm convinced that what you will see in his face is an acknowledgment and an affirmation of the truth he's hearing...regardless of whether some small portion of it was "lifted" from others. In the end, the truth of the words she spoke resonated with Barack and with the audience. It was a real moment because the listeners grasped the truth of the spoken words...even if it was a "performance"...even if Barack thought it was a performance.
To discount her statements because one thinks she prepared and practiced speaking them is to suggest that she should be singled out as a candidate who isn't entitled to avail herself of the long-established practices of public speaking and politicking. To suggest that the question was "a softball" ignores the fact that both candidates were given the same opportunity to answer it. It was a level playing field. Negating Senator Clinton's "home run" answer because she was prepared for the question is utterly illogical.
The truth is that most of what we see in a debate is performance. Criticizing a candidate for a stellar performance is akin to shunning a good movie because one of the actors (who you don't particularly like) was superb. Yes, we're all entitled to our subjective conclusions...but passing a biased opinion off as an objective analysis circumvents the discernment of truth.
It happens all the time in politics and all too often in life. It is a virulent virus...one that has the potential to replicate so fast that we're on the verge of untruth becoming a pandemic infection. Even worse, how does one cure a disease that is self-inflicted and self-perpetuating? If the motivation to pass a virus exceeds the desire to defeat it, then sickness has trumped sanity.
Truth is never old and it remains truth whenever and wherever it is delivered. Truth isn't the sole domain of any individual; it is bigger than than...because it must be. One can dislike the messenger while still acknowledging and accepting the message.
Politics is an attempt to get voters to embrace both. Regardless, if we collectively focus on affirming truth whenever and wherever we see it, hear it, read it, or find it, we send our own message of rejection to those who may be engaged in delivering a corrupted version of it. If we consistently send that message, we inoculate ourselves from the ravages of untruth and we single out those who have become its carriers. In so doing, we begin the process of retraining the body politic to reject deceit and deception and we set in motion a system that rewards those who pursue it and perform it...consistently.
The truth is...when the end and the means are one and the same...the truth is.
Tagged as: 2008 Election, Austin Debate, Barack Obama, Bias, Democratic Nomination, Fairness, Hillary Clinton, Justice, Karl Rove, Partisanship, Politics, Truth
Daniel DiRito | February 22, 2008 | 6:07 PM |
link
| Comments (5)
In an effort to reassert their relevance, Catholic Bishops in Spain are rallying their shrinking congregations to oppose the country's sitting government and it's leader, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. The Bishops hope to influence the March 9th election and remove the secular government that brought the legalization of gay marriage and more expedient divorce proceedings.
In Spain, the Catholic Church has a long history of participating in the blurring of the lines between church and state. For much of the Franco era, the church and the state had a mutually beneficial relationship that restored the Church to privileged status and provided it with state funding. Despite having apologized to the Spanish people for their duplicity with the dictatorship, it appears the Church has once again decided to inject itself into the Spanish political process.
While the Spanish clergy has released moral-guidance notes in most elections since Spain became a democracy in 1978, it has never before so pointedly targeted a candidate.
In December, the first church-organized protest in 30 years drew 1 million supporters in Madrid; Pope Benedict XVI spoke via video link. The capital's archbishop accused the premier of taking a "step backward for human rights.''
"I can't accept that they say laws made in this legislature are undermining democracy or are a reversal for human rights,'' Zapatero, who will have lunch with the Vatican's emissary in Madrid next week, said today in a radio interview. The church's attitude "has to change.''
Zapatero's Socialists led Rajoy's People's Party by 44.6 percent to 38.2 percent in a Jan. 21-31 poll by the newspaper Publico, and it isn't a given that Rajoy will benefit from the church's efforts against the government. While 78 percent of Spain's 45 million people identify themselves as Catholics, regular church attendance fell to as low as 27 percent last year from 36 percent a decade ago, according to polling by the Center for Sociological Research.
The church "isn't doing the PP any favors,'' said Francisco Llera, professor of political science at the University of the Basque Country in Leioa, northern Spain. "It may undermine the party's support among moderate, liberal and non-religious voters.''
In my opinion, the Catholic Church suffers from the ailment that so often afflicts those who crave authority and lack the ability to employ persuasion ...when they sense their power may be diminishing, they become even more dogmatic and authoritarian. While that approach may have worked in an ill-informed and under educated world, it seems fully lacking in this day and age. Unfortunately, like with so many other hierarchical institutions, their ability to adapt to change is negligible.
When that reality is coupled with the Church's checkered past...that being their long history of erring on the side of those powerful zealots who assured their existence at the expense of their adherence to their espoused values...one shouldn't be surprised by their declining influence and the growing perception that they remain a boisterous, though increasingly irrelevant monolith. Their expanding malevolence in the midst of a changing world simply hastens their demise.
Tagged as: Catholic Church, Divorce, Francisco Franco, Gay Marriage, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapateo, People's Party, Pope Benedict, Secularism, Spain
Daniel DiRito | February 8, 2008 | 11:09 AM |
link
| Comments (1)
If you've never heard of Phill Kline, consider yourself lucky. At the same time, if you oppose those who have made a career of vilifying abortion providers for political gain, Phill Kline may be enemy number one. When one hears the expression, "What's the matter with Kansas?", the former Attorney General's fingerprints are apt to be found. Fortunately, Kansas voters rejected Kline's reelection bid. Sadly, the defeat did little to deter Kline's obsession with criminalizing the actions of abortion providers and intimidating those who have had the procedure or might consider it in the future.
Today, the Kansas Supreme Court has dealt a blow to the latest efforts of Kline and his zealous supporters to review the medical records of some 2,000 women who visited the clinic of Dr. George Tiller, a prominent medical provider who has become the focus of the anti-abortion crusade.
The Kansas Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked a grand jury from obtaining patient records from a physician who is one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers.
The grand jury is investigating whether Dr. George Tiller has broken Kansas laws restricting abortion, as many abortion opponents allege. The grand jury subpoenaed the medical files of about 2,000 women, including some who decided against having abortions.
Abortion opponents forced Sedgwick County to convene the grand jury by submitting petitions, the second such citizen investigation since 2006 of Tiller, who has long been at the center of the nation's abortion battle. His clinic was bombed in 1985, and eight years later a woman shot him in both arms.
Tiller's attorneys asked the Supreme Court to quash the grand jury's subpoenas, and the court agreed to block their enforcement until it considers the issue.
Chief Justice Kay McFarland said Tiller's challenge raised "significant issues" about patients' privacy and a grand jury's power to subpoena records.
The grand jury is seeking records of all women who visited Tiller's clinic between July 2003 and last month and were at least 22 weeks pregnant at the time. The grand jury also subpoenaed information about current and former employees and referring physicians.
The edited patient records would not have the women's names, but they would have patient identification numbers. Tiller's attorneys claimed in court last week that in an earlier investigation, former Attorney General Phill Kline was able to track down patients' names using the identifying numbers on patients' files.
The tactic has been employed by Kline and his supporters for a number of years and many of his detractors see it as an effort to terrorize women who might seek out an abortion.
Kline's effort to portray himself as a law and order prosecutor are little more than a sleight of hand designed to oppose abortion. His willingness to victimize women who have made the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy demonstrates his disregard for the privacy of these individuals as well as the lengths he will go to advance his political aspirations.
Additionally, Kline and his ilk hope to highlight the flexibility granted to physicians in making exceptions to late term abortion restrictions. The courts have required that many of the laws limiting late term abortions be designed to allow physicians to protect the health and welfare of the pregnant woman...a provision abortion opponents would prefer be omitted from such laws.
One can only hope that the Supreme Court will limit these virtual witch hunts and maintain the privacy and dignity of the women in question. All too often, those vehemently opposed to abortion fail to consider the difficult circumstances confronting these women.
The fact that these same activists frequently object to comprehensive sex education and unrestricted access to birth control simply compounds the issue. I find it ironic that many within the GOP accuse the Democratic Party of favoring a nanny state. Truth be told, countless Republicans not only favor a nanny state; they would like to mete out their own brand of punishment to those who fail to comply with the imposition of their narrowly defined beliefs.
Tagged as: Abortion, Contraception, Dr. George Tiller, Kansas, Kansas Supreme Court, Late Term Abortions, Phill Kline, Planned Parenthood, Premarital Sex, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life, Roe v. Wade, Sedgwick County, Sex Education, Teen Pregnancy
Daniel DiRito | February 5, 2008 | 2:14 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
I'm not exactly sure what prompted Al Gore to post a video in which he expresses his support for gay marriage...but what the hey...good job Al.
I've often wondered why politicians are so much more forthcoming and appealing when they are no longer seeking public office. Time and again, former politicians demonstrate a candor and reasonability that was never allowed to surface while serving as an elected official.
Just once I would like to see a candidate run for office without the typical parsing of the issues in order to appeal to more voters. Perhaps they couldn't win, but I think the unbridled honesty would overcome many of their policy differences with the voting public. Let's face it, most of the politicians we elect don't keep the promises they make anyway. At least we would know who we're choosing and that they actually put their principles ahead of political gain. Fat chance that's going to happen.
Tagged as: Al Gore, Campaign Promises, Gay Marriage, Homophobia, LGBT, Politics
Daniel DiRito | January 23, 2008 | 2:54 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
There are countless reasons why I wouldn't vote for Mike Huckabee. At the same time, I find myself in the strange position to admire the fact that he, more than his manipulative Republican predecessors, is a candidate committed to his evangelical beliefs and the followers who share them. Let me be clear...my admiration is for the apparent sincerity of the individual; not for the beliefs he and his minions hold. Conversely, my disdain is for those who have created the very dynamic they suddenly fear.
In fact, an interesting thing is happening in the GOP. The powers that be...those crafty individuals (think Karl Rove) who long ago sought to recruit people of faith with a mix of pious pandering, phobic platitudes, and pyrrhic promises...now find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Suddenly, the beast of burden that carried them to their exalted victory in 2000 (their culminating moment of presumed political dominance) has become the dangerous dragon that establishment Republican elitists are rampantly racing to slay.
If one removes the veil of religious rhetoric under which the GOP elite has traveled to reach their pinnacle of power, one would actually find they worship little more than power and the profit it brings. Like panoply on a pig, they have willingly donned the dressings of dogma and whispered sweet nothings in the ears of those who honor the ultimate populist...Jesus Christ.
Time and again, these skillful strategists took umbrage at the slightest hint of secular and scientific sensibility in order to ingratiate themselves to the faithful. If it wasn't prayer in school or religious symbols in public places or the war on Christmas or a science curriculum that includes intelligent design or research utilizing embryos already scheduled for destruction, it was penalizing a network for showing a split second of Janet Jackson's breast at the Super Bowl or the need to deny the medical evidence in the Terri Schiavo case or promoting abstinence to combat AIDS and teen pregnancy or the ever popular railing against the militant homosexual agenda bent on destroying the family and the sanctity of marriage.
When George Bush sold compassionate conservatism and the restoration of "honor" to the White House as a moral imperative wrapped in religiosity, these elitist Republicans embraced the guise with the fervor of a freshman fraternity pledge. They did so because Bill Clinton provided the opportunity to adopt their "soul saving" straw man strategy and it served their purposes at that particular juncture.
Like most zealots, they rode their hallowed horse into the ground until it culminated in the wholesale rejection of their extremist ideology in 2006...and that now leads them to believe their sullied steed cannot cross the finish line first in 2008. In truth, they actually believe it must be prevented from running the race and they desperately want it quietly, quickly, and convincingly retired.
Unfortunately, the real believers...those individuals that have been so callously manipulated...now see a truly cathartic champion in Mike Huckabee and an opportunity to flesh out the disingenuous interlopers who simply sought to maintain their insular domain.
Like any charade, the hoodwinked eventually awaken to exact their revenge on the offending individual or entity. Like most charlatans, the offenders swiftly and summarily jump ship and expose their sinister and singular self-serving identities the moment their kingdom appears set to crumble. Unable to hold their avarice at bay, their true nature spills from their mouths like water from a Louisiana levee.
Truth be told, the Mike Huckabee phenomenon is the love child of an ill-conceived marriage...one that sought to attach the prurient pursuit of power and profit to puritanical piety. Mike Huckabee simply saw an opportunity and he took it...much to the chagrin of the establishment elites...and much to the delight of the unrequited.
It now appears that the obtuse overlords who have made a career of championing conventional marriage have two problems. One, their own marriage of convenience is about to disintegrate...and two, they were foolish enough to produce an offspring that is now older and wiser and fully capable of unrestrained rebellion.
Spiteful as it may be, I'm happy to state, "Let the nasty divorce begin".
Tagged as: 2008 Election, Abstinence Only, Church & State, Evangelical, George Bush, GOP, Janet Jackson, Karl Rove, LGBT, Mike Huckabee, Religion, Religious Right, Republican Elitism, Terri Schiavo
Daniel DiRito | January 5, 2008 | 12:07 PM |
link
| Comments (0)
In his appearance on Meet The Press, Mike Huckabee, like so many other evangelicals, stated his belief that all humans are sinners. While that remark makes sense in broad terms...especially if one accepts the validity of most religious constructs...Tim Russert, in the following video, points out that Huckabee has a history of shifting his focus to the "sins" of homosexuals.
This hyper-focus on the behavior (sins) of gays is puzzling to me. Time and again, men like Pat Robertson and James Dobson point out that gays are a very small percentage of the population. If that is true, and evidence suggests as much, then why pay so much attention to this small segment of society?
Look, if evangelicals want to be viewed as god's policemen, why don't they direct their attention to the behaviors of their own? I find it amusing that they rail against any recognition of gay relationships while they seemingly ignore the failed construct of heterosexual marriage.
I think it's safe to assume that a good evangelical christian should be focused upon efforts which eradicate the most "sin". If that is true, then why haven't they taken the same aggressive approach (that they apparently reserve for opposing homosexuality) to banning divorce or directing their attention towards the rampant infidelity that plagues heterosexual marriage?
In answering my own question, my suspicion (ever mindful of human nature) is that it is far easier for evangelicals to tell gays which behaviors they need to suppress than it is to correct their own flawed behaviors. Truth be told, the real threat to conventional marriage comes from conventional heterosexuals...men and women who treat marriage like the acquiring of a new car; it's great for a few months but before long all the other models look far more inviting. One might be concerned if these heterosexuals were having affairs with homosexuals...but the last time I checked...the lion's share of adultery takes place between a man and a woman in a heterosexual marriage.
Each time a married heterosexual ends up in the wrong bed, they diminish the institution of marriage. Each time a homosexual ends up in bed with his or her partner has absolutely no impact on anybody's heterosexual marriage. If were going to attach blame, how about we pin it on the proper culprits?
If Mr. Huckabee and his fellow evangelicals truly believe sin is about the behaviors we choose, then I suggest they forego their fixation on gay behavior and clean up their own dismal track record. Besides, there is little doubt that the vast majority of gays have been birthed in heterosexual marriages. Wouldn't you think that would lead evangelicals to wonder why this sacred heterosexual environment is so conducive to the emergence of homosexuals?
If I were to apply the logic evangelicals utilize in opposing gay marriage, I might have to be in favor of banning heterosexual sex. After all, how can family values be saved if these very families are churning out all of these homosexuals? Sounds like bad behavior to me.
Tagged as: Adultery, Divorce, Gay Marriage, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy, James Dobson, LGBT, Meet The Press, Mike Huckabee, Pat Robertson, Same-Sex Marriage, Tim Russert
Daniel DiRito | December 31, 2007 | 1:30 PM |
link
| Comments (2)
There appears to have been a connection between Matthew Murray and New Life Church in 2004...one that resulted in a confrontation. Perhaps this explains why Matthew chose New Life as a target. Even more significant, the staff at New Life allegedly warned Murray's mother that Matthew might be "planning violence".
The gist of the situation seems to suggest that two staff members told Matthew's mother that he "wasn't walking with the lord and could be planning violence". From that situation, Matthew's mother found his stash of "evil" items (music, books, video games) and confiscated them. It appears he may have blamed this on the folks at New Life.
Stay tuned. I'll soon be updating this posting with additional entries from this latest cache of postings.
EDITOR'S NOTE: See the update below.
Forum Thread Number One:
First Entry:
On 09/04/06 - Chrstnghtmr wrote:
Thread: Growing up in the nightmare of Bill Gothard and Charismatic Christianity (short version) (Healing) (Posted on: 04 Sep : 13:04)
I am 22 years old and I was raised in Bill Gothard's homeschool program all the way through high school. I went to both the Basic and Advanced Seminars. My Mother was fully into both Bill Gothard's programs AND the Charismatic movement. She followed Peter Wagner, Mike Bickle, Joyce Meyer, Ted Haggard of New Life Church, Cindy Jacobs, Dutch Sheets and any other person who was popular in the Charismatic movement at the time.
In addition to all of Bill Gothard's insanity my mother was into all the charismatic/"fanatical evangelical" insanity. Her and her church believed that Satan and demons were everywhere in everything. The rules were VERY strict all the time. We couldn't have ANY christian or non-christian music at all except for a few charismatic worship CDs. There was physical abuse in my home. My mother although used psychotropic drugs because she somehow thought it would make it easier to control me(I've never been diagnosed with any mental illness either). Pastors would always come and interrogate me over video games or TV watching or other things. There were NO FRIENDS outside the church and family and even then only family members who were in the church. You could not trust anyone at all because anyone might be a spy.
At age 17, I decided to "go all out for Jesus" and do my best to practice christianity and live it out. I went to the bible to read for myself how one gets "saved." I found several different versions of getting saved from the gospels. In John it was mainly "have faith" but in Mt, Mk, and Lk, it was as found in Mt 25, that you would have eternal life by doing good works(which of course is considered heresy). So I went to the books from the man that "had all the answers," Bill gothard's Basic and Advanced seminar textbooks.
What I found were all these other rules Irealized I could never live up to, yet, the man seemed to have a biblical basis for everything. In Februrary 2001 at age 17 I plunged into a dark suicidal depression all because I thought I had lost my "salvation" and somehow couldn't live up to the rules. Every single hour of every single day, up until October 2001 I thought about ways of suicide and hating myself for not being worthy enough and failing God. I felt like there was no reason to live because I had lost my salvation and could never live up to the rules. In May of 2001, I told my parents I was depressed and they put me on 2 anti-depressants(in addition to the other crap pills they had me on to try to brainwash me).
None of that touched this depression at all. Everyone prayed, they laid hands on me, spoke in tongues over me, I sought out every kind of christian spiritual help I knew of in charismatic christianity. I through away video games, a few movies, anything that could possibly be "bringing demons" that would cause me to lose God's favour and make me depressed. I never told my parents I was suicidal however, that would have gotten me in big trouble, I just told them I was depressed.
In Oct 2001 I decided it had to end somehow, so I decided to simply reject the idea that Bill Gothard was infallible. The depression mostly cleared right up. I was still a little depressed because I saw other youth in another group doing so well and happy with life. That group was called King's Kids.
King's Kids is a youth ministry of YWAM.
I got involved with King's Kids and went on missions trips with them.
At age 18, in 2002, I went to Youth With A Mission to do their "DTS" program which lasts a total of 5 months, the last two months you go on outreach. On the YWAM base several of the other young men smoked pot, looked at porn, listened to heavy metal, AND were involved in homosexual activities. 6 of the guys made a homosexual porn videotape together on the YWAM Denver campus but only one got kicked out because his face was on the video. 1 week before I was to head out on outreach, I was told by the YWAM Denver staff that I couldn't go because I "wasn't popular and talkative enough for missions work." They admitted that I hadn't done anything wrong, just that they had prayed and felt I wasn't popular/"connected" and talkative enough. I had already raised the $2600 for the 3 month course AND payed the $2200 for the missions trip(I did get a refund).
When I got back home it was back to the good old restriction and that is when I started having serious doubts about christianity. I got on staff with another group that is a program of YWAM called King's Kids. I was on staff with them until mid 2005.
In early 2004, I was still living at home at age 20. I went to a charismatic conference at New Life church with my mother and her church. At the conference I got into a debate with two prayer team staff members. These two staff members watched me throughout the conference to find out who I was with. They found my mother and told her this story that went something along the lines of I "wasn't walking with the lord and could be planning violence." Two weeks later my mother brought over one of the pastors to search my room for "anything evil"(which included my Xbox video game and DVD collection). I tried moving all the video games, DVDs, and a few non-christian books over to a friends house, but that woman was a church member. My mother and the church leadership called that woman, got into her house and basically destroyed at least $900 worth of property. I wasn't involved in anything like drugs or anything like that. I just had video games, some books about other religions, DVDs and such.
After that incident my mother searched my room for the next 3 months EVERY SINGLE DAY. After that I decided it was over, that I had had it with christianity. Seeing how there are all these different churches and interpretations of the bible and what Jesus said, many different views on what a sin actually is and isn't, different views on what God approves of, and all kinds of different views on:On how to get "saved" and how to stay "saved," I realized that Christianity was mostly a big lie. Everyone has different ways of getting and staying saved and staying in God's favor yet somehow there's "only one God, one way to God and only one Word of God."
I had already told my mother to lay off or she'd regret it. After that incident in 2004 I immediately went into all of Marilyn Manson's thinking, ideas and music, believe it or not.
I found a LOT in common with Marilyn Manson and what he had to say, especially on his "Antichrist Superstar" album. I got involved in several other things too.
I never bothered to tell my King's Kids leaders and friends that I had changed beliefs. I just stayed on KK Staff because I enjoyed going on outreaches and helping people. In 2005, I had written some poems about my experiences and sent them to some of my friends, 2 of which were on King's Kids staff. One them got upset about it and forwarded it to the local King's Kids director. He called me up and said he needed to have a meeting right away about "these e-mails you sent." At the meeting I told him that they weren't meant for him or anyone not on the list and that I didn't see how any sin had been done. He admitted that I hadn't done anything wrong by writing poetry, but he was still upset about it because it was talking bad about christians. He told me not to go to anymore meetings and that he would call me every other week to talk. He only called me the next week and has never called again. I had faithfully served them for a totall of 4 years, 3 of them on King's Kids staff. I found out with them just who my friends really are.
After the 2005 King's Kids I have not had any other affiliation with christian groups. however I'd say I left christianity in 2004.
Since leaving christianity I have gone on to the following:
Freemasonry-Scottish Rite, York Rite, Shriners
Everything Alesiter Crowley and Thelemic Magick, Marilyn Manson, Ceremonial Magick, Hermeticism, the Golden Dawn, Kabbalistic magick and studies.
Alice A. Bailey and her books, Lucis Trust, H.P. Blavatsky, Theosophy.
This story is kind of a shortened form. A LOT went on up until age 18, and then a lot happened at age 19(2003) to now.
____________________________________________________
Every man and every woman is a star
UPDATE I:
The following postings provide some poignant and troubling insight into Matthew and his thoughts. If one believes what Matthew has written, he asserts that he is bisexual...and has participated in "every sort of sexual perversion"...a statement which likely reflects some of the very religious judgments he sought to escape.
The last entry in this posting is perhaps the most significant...and perhaps one of the most troubling. I'll offer a note of caution, in that Matthew uses some harsh and crass language in recounting an alleged conversation he had with his mother.
What is clear is his growing resentments and his determination to effect a change. I contend his rejection of his religious ideology unfortunately didn't include the ability to separate his newly chosen activities (drinking, sex, etc) from the construct of sin which had been ingrained in his psyche. While choosing to rebel, it is obvious he still loathes his actions though sees them as equal or superior to the hypocrisy and abuse he believes he experienced while attempting to live his faith.
Sadly, in the end, I suspect he couldn't find a comfortable and comforting choice...hence his decision to end his life. It's unfortunate that he apparently concluded he had no reasonable alternatives to the path he ultimately chose. I find it difficult to fathom being in that state of mind...but then that's the primary reason for this exercise.
Let's hope that our society will decide to be more proactive i