eclecticism

This Village Voice article is enough to have me seeing red: Bush White House checked with rapture Christians before latest Israel move.

It was an e-mail we weren’t meant to see. Not for our eyes were the notes that showed White House staffers taking two-hour meetings with Christian fundamentalists, where they passed off bogus social science on gay marriage as if it were holy writ and issued fiery warnings that “the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level”—this to a group whose representative in Israel believed herself to have been attacked by witchcraft unleashed by proximity to a volume of Harry Potter. Most of all, apparently, we’re not supposed to know the National Security Council’s top Middle East aide consults with apocalyptic Christians eager to ensure American policy on Israel conforms with their sectarian doomsday scenarios.

But now we know. […] The Apostolic Congress dates its origins to 1981, when, according to its website, “Brother Stan Wachtstetter was able to open the door to Apostolic Christians into the White House.” Apostolics, a sect of Pentecostals, claim legitimacy as the heirs of the original church because they, as the 12 apostles supposedly did, baptize converts in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Ronald Reagan bore theological affinities with such Christians because of his belief that the world would end in a fiery Armageddon. Reagan himself referenced this belief explicitly a half-dozen times during his presidency. While the language of apocalyptic Christianity is absent from George W. Bush’s speeches, he has proven eager to work with apocalyptics—a point of pride for Upton. “We’re in constant contact with the White House,” he boasts. “I’m briefed at least once a week via telephone briefings… . I was there about two weeks ago … At that time we met with the president.” […] When Pastor Upton was asked to explain why the group’s website describes the Apostolic Congress as “the Christian Voice in the nation’s capital,” instead of simply a Christian voice in the nation’s capital, he responded, “There has been a real lack of leadership in having someone emerge as a Christian voice, someone who doesn’t speak for the right, someone who doesn’t speak for the left, but someone who speaks for the people, and someone who speaks from a theocratical perspective.” When his words were repeated back to him to make sure he had said a “theocratical” perspective, not a “theological” perspective, he said, “Exactly. Exactly. We want to know what God would have us say or what God would have us do in every issue.”

<

p>(via Atrios)

So apparently today was the National Day of Prayer.

I’m sure that was appreciated by those Americans who are Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Mormon, pagan, agnostic, or atheistic.

Okay, so yes, the official proclamation (PDF) does make a cursory attempt at inclusivity, inviting “Americans of every faith to give thanks for God’s many blessings and to pray for each other and our Nation.” I find that less than impressive, though, considering the wording of the rest of the document is blatantly Christian in tone.

Then there was this Washington Post article about Bush’s appearance on Christian TV to celebrate the day, where I found this choice bit:

…this year’s theme is “Let Freedom Ring.” He described it as the evangelical response to efforts to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and keep the Ten Commandments out of public buildings.

“Our theme is, there is a small group of activists unleashing an all-out assault on our religious freedoms. They are targeting the Christian faith,” he said. this year’s theme is “Let Freedom Ring.” He described it as the evangelical response to efforts to remove the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance and keep the Ten Commandments out of public buildings. “Our theme is, there is a small group of activists unleashing an all-out assault on our religious freedoms. They are targeting the Christian faith,” he said.

<

p>Oh, give me a break. I’m so tired of this argument.

I wish I were rich. First thing I’m going to do when I win the Lotto is make an attempt to place monuments in every government building that has the Ten Commandments posted with key quotes from the Quran, the Mormon Book of Prayer, whatever I can find that will work well as a general catch-all for the larger pagan religions, something for the Oriental beliefs…you get the point.

Can you imagine the furor that would raise?

Sigh.

Okay, I’m done.

iTunes: “Still Alive” by Blind Passengers from the album Cyberl@b (1998, 5:04).

About a month ago, Dan Savage wrote a column for The Stranger explaining just how he, a gay man, was able to get a legal marriage license in the city of Seattle. It was pretty simple, actually.

He applied for, and was granted, a license to marry his lesbian friend.

The clerk called over her manager, a nice older white man, who explained that Amy and Sonia couldn’t have a marriage license. So I asked if Amy and I could have one—even though I’m gay and live with my boyfriend, and Amy’s a lesbian and lives with her girlfriend. We emphasized to the clerk and her manager that Amy and I don’t live together, we don’t love each other, we don’t plan to have kids together, and we’re going to go on living and sleeping with our same-sex partners after we get married. So could we still get a marriage license?

“Sure,” the license-department manager said, “If you’ve got $54, you can have a marriage license.” …Amy can’t marry Sonia, I can’t marry Terry—why? Because the sanctity of marriage must be protected from the queers! But Amy and I can get a marriage license—and into a sham marriage, if we care to, a joke marriage, one that I promise you won’t produce children. And we can do this with the state’s blessing—why? Because one of us is a man and one of us is a woman. Who cares that one of us is a gay man and one of us is a lesbian? So marriage is to be protected from the homos—unless the homos marry each other. Is it putting too fine a point on it to say that this is a pretty fucked-up situation?

Dan and Amy got their license, and last week, they got married.

Savage and Jennigs got a marriage license, got married by a minister of the Universal Life Church and plan to file their license with King County, making the marriage legal.

Afterwards the [couple] plan an immediate divorce. “We are going to try and stay married for about 55 hours and 10 minutes. We are going to just best Britney Spears,” he laughed.

So, congratulations Dan and Amy! The situation provoked a very interesting discussion on Metafilter which I’ve just spent much of the evening reading through. Lots of well-reasoned, well thought out, intelligent, and passionate arguments in favor of allowing anyone to marry the people they love regardless of which way their genitalia point, and only a couple of people trying to make reasonable arguments against gay marriage (and not doing a very good job, in my opinion). I believe this was one of my favorite posts:

There’s a large set of psychological reactions we have to an associate’s mate. Take the earlier example of a male corporate executive’s partner of twenty five years dying, and the guy having to suffer in silence. It’s not about the time off. It really is about condolences, the understanding, the empathy. You can’t use semantics to erase this; this is a fight for empathy. Gay people are insisting that other humans respect their capacity for deep, abiding love — and those other humans are protesting, because “they’d never marry such a person”.

We cannot have an honest debate without admitting openly that it’s not just about legal rights and that it’s not merely about what a church feels. You can’t legislate condolences — but you can remove the legal rubric that says it’s OK to ignore the love of another. […] If you really want to talk religion, The Creator of the Universe saw fit to breathe the binding fire of love into all mankind — He did not restrict it as a special gift to straights, any more than he did for whites (which would make whites more special) or English speakers (which would make English speakers more special) or the rich. You are familiar with the phrase that God is Love. You need to take a good long hard look at the fact that every time you reject gay marriage, you are denying a love so powerful it is willing to be martyred. That’s far more God-rejecting than anything two people in Love could ever do. But I don’t really want to talk religion here. Look. I know my viewpoint doesn’t fall into the nice, neat categories of “keep your religion out of my life” vs. “that’s unholy”. But we really need to be honest here — this is a fight for the tiny respects, not just the grandiose ones. It’s a fight for humanization, and it’s one that naturally fought by every single second class citizen throughout history.

<

p>iTunes: “Hello I Am Your Heart” by Hickman, Sara from the album Rubáiyát: Elektra’s 40th Anniversary (1990, 2:44).

Okay, so there isn’t really a lot of connection between the resurrection of Jesus Christ and a magical rabbit that distributes eggs to children…but couldn’t this church have come up with a better way of getting their message across than whipping the Easter Bunny during a church pageant?

A church that put on an Easter show said it was trying to teach about Jesus Christ.

But the people who saw the show say they were upset by performers who broke eggs and pretended to whip the Easter bunny. People who attended Saturday’s performance of an Easter celebration at a memorial stadium in Glassport, Allegheny County, quoted performers as saying “There is no Easter bunny.”

<

p>If I could draw, I’d have all sorts of fun with that combination of elements…I’m thinking something involving furries in S&M gear in front of an altar.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I need to go scour my brain to get rid of that image.

Ellenoir pointed out a fascinating page that I’d not seen before: The Heirophant’s Proselytizer Questionnaire, one person’s response to being constantly harassed by missionaries of one faith or another trying to “save” or “convert” him.

The Heirophant’s Proselytizer Questionnaire is a series of offensively phrased questions that explain my problems with and objections to the various Christian churches. I originally wrote it in 1997 as a tool that I handed out to the too-numerous proselytes who were crowding at my door, explaining that I would consider entering into a dialogue with them if and only if they could answer each and every question to my satisfaction. …Though I have received numerous responses to the Questionnaire since I wrote it, none has satisfied me enough to tempt me back to Christianity.

The questionnaire itself is a list of 153 questions for the proselytizer to answer before discussion can continue. The author admits in the FAQ that the questions are written in a very aggressive, possibly offensive style…

…It’s meant to be really offensive. If you look at the reasons why I composed it in the first place, you’ll see that my primary motivation was, quite simply, to get proselytes to fuck off when they wouldn’t do so any other way. By setting a condition for them to fulfill before I’d engage in a dialogue with them and by making the condition more trouble than it was worth to most of them, I wound up able to sleep later in the mornings than I’d been able to when I had a constant stream of preachers on my doorstep. Ensuring that the phrasing of the Questionnaire was confrontational and offensive was an integral part of the process of getting people who had essentially nothing to say to me to leave me alone.

As someone brought up in the Episcopal church who still bases many of my core beliefs in the Christian faith (though I’ve certainly had my fair share of questions, concerns, and doubts over the years), I thought the idea was wonderful — and have no problem at all admitting that I would be very hard pressed to answer many (if not most) of the questions posed.

On a personal level, I stand very much in the same camp as the author (along with Ellenoir, too, from what she said in her post): believe anything you want, just don’t try to force your beliefs on me, convince me that you’re “right” and I’m “wrong”, or attempt to frighten me into joining your religion through threats of hellfire and damnation.

This document is not meant as a personal challenge to you or to your beliefs. As far as I’m concerned, you can worship Jesus or be a Buddhist or a Muslim or have sex with Tinky Winky and call that a religion: It’s all the same to me. Really. The HPQ was meant to state my own reasons why I’m not a Christian; it’s not meant to imply that you shouldn’t be one. (There’s a big difference between the two, and many Christians would do well to learn it.) Be a member of whatever religion you want; just leave me alone and don’t push it on me. I’m not knocking on your door asking you to be a Wiccan or a Buddhist or a Satanist or an atheist or a Muslim or anything else that you’re not; all that I ask is that you extend me the same courtesy.

iTunes: “Blasphemous Rumours” by Depeche Mode from the album Blasphemous Rumours (1984, 6:23).

Have I ever mentioned how much I love Monty Python?

Spurred by the recent success of Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”, the Python boys have decided to celebrate the 25th anniversary of one of their films by re-releasing it to the theaters.

Which film?

“The Life of Brian”, of course!

The Biblical satire will be re-released in Los Angeles, New York and other US cities to mark its 25th anniversary.

Adverts will challenge Mel Gibson’s blockbuster with the lines “Mel or Monty?”, “The Passion or the Python?” Distributor Rainbow said it hoped the film would “serve as an antidote to all the hysteria about Mel’s movie”.

<

p>If it hits Seattle, I’m so there.

(via Kirsten)

iTunes: “Ich Bin von Kopf bis Fuss auf Liebe Eingestellt (“Falling in Love Again”)” by Burroughs, William S. from the album Dead City Radio (1990, 2:28).

Hey, all you atheists out there — looks like you’ve only got about a 33% chance of being right. According to Dr. Stephen Unwin, there is a 67% chance that God exists.

Dr Stephen Unwin has used a 200-year-old formula to calculate the probability of the existence of an omnipotent being. Bayes’ Theory is usually used to work out the likelihood of events, such as nuclear power failure, by balancing the various factors that could affect a situation.

The Manchester University graduate, who now works as a risk assessor in Ohio, said the theory starts from the assumption that God has a 50/50 chance of existing, and then factors in the evidence both for and against the notion of a higher being.

<

p>(via Neil Gaiman)

Following up on the “…under God…” controversy from 2002 and last year, tomorrow the case will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court — with Dr. Michael A. Newdow representing himself in the case.

Newdow convinced a divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 that the 50-year-old addition to the pledge amounts to government establishment of religion, which is prohibited by the First Amendment. But he will face overwhelming opposition at the Supreme Court. After the appeals court ruling, the Senate voted 99-0 and the House of Representatives voted 416-3 to reaffirm their support for “under God.” Other high-power individuals and groups have lined up to oppose Newdow.

As I’ve said in the past, I think 9th Circuit Court was correct the first time, and that the constitutionally-mandated separation of Church and State should mandate the removal of “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. However, as our current administration seems to consistently disregard that very separation of Church and State, to the point of claiming religious inspiration for Bush’s actions, somehow I’m not terribly optimistic about the likely outcome of this trial.

If we’re lucky, the Supreme Court will use the custody dispute between Dr. Newdow and the mother of his daughter to allow them to dismiss the case out of hand, and the constitutionality of the Pledge will stay in its current somewhat nebulous state. I’d rather have that as an end result than face a Supreme Court ruling affirming the religious language in the Pledge.

Something I pointed out last August seems to be making the rounds again, and now I’m a bit curious as to the original source. It’s a collection of proposed laws for governing marriage, based on Biblical quotations (in response to the many people basing their anti-gay-marriage stance on select Biblical verses, instead of just admitting to homophobia and bigotry).

Here’s what I know of this piece of writing, working backwards.

Today — March 21st, 2004 — Boing Boing posted about it, linking to The Common Good Network, who posted their version on February 4th, 2004.

The Common Good Network gave attribution to The Boston Phoenix, who published a more Massacheussets-specific version of the text between Nov. 28th and Dec. 4th, 2003 under the byline of Mary-Ann Greanier.

However, searching through my archives, I linked to and quoted nearly the identical text on August 26th, 2003, after discovering it through the Ex-Gay Watch via a link from Anil Dash, and linked to the original version (to my knowledge) on Public Nuisance from August 18th, 2003.

While I’m sure that Alex Frantz of Public Nuisance is flattered that his creation is still making the rounds, shouldn’t credit be given where credit is due?

In a quick update to a story from two posts back…Rev. Dammann has been acquitted!

A lesbian Methodist pastor will be allowed to continue her ministry after she was acquitted Saturday in a church trial over her sexual orientation.

A jury of 13 pastors ruled in favor of the Rev. Karen Dammann, 47, who disclosed three years ago that she was in a homosexual relationship.

<

p>Rock on.

I just found out about this from a headline yesterday, and hadn’t had a chance to look up any of the information until just now, but Bothell, WA has become the centerpoint of what could be a precedent-setting event within the Methodist church, as Rev. Karen Damman is in the midst of a church trial that could end up stripping her of her ordination — because she is a practicing homosexual.

The two reports I’ve found in the Seattle PI are more optimistic than I initially expected, though. While, of course, there’s no guarantee that she won’t be stripped of her ministry, some good points have been raised in the course of the trial.

From Methodists begin trial of gay minister:

In the Old Testament, the four places where homosexuality is addressed must be considered in the context of ancient Israeli civilization, said Kah-Jin Jeffrey Kuan, an ordained elder in the United Methodist Church and associate professor at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the book of Genesis is about the condemnation of violence and wickedness, not homosexuality, he said. Other instances call homosexuality an “abomination,” a term Kuan said does not carry the weight many attach to it now. “An abomination is ultimately a practice that is religiously, socially and culturally unacceptable in Israelite society,” he said. Under cross-examination, Kuan conceded that other scholars interpret the same material differently. The New Testament scholar said of four instances where the issue of homosexuality appears, all written by the Apostle Paul or his direct followers, only one merits consideration. The others lack a scholarly basis for examination, said Mary Tolbert, who also teaches at the Pacific School of Religion. Condemnations of things such as divorce are much stronger and are made by both Jesus and Paul, she said. The Methodist Church allows its ministers to divorce. “It seems to me if you’re going to say one verse in Romans is enough to remove a person, and their calling and all this other stuff is overlooked, then with all due respect, it seems to me you’re acting hypocritically,” said Tolbert, who later asked jurors not to replicate the crucifixion of Jesus by finding Dammann guilty.

And from Scholar challenges church case against gay minister:

A leading scholar on United Methodist law challenged the central point of that church’s entire case against a lesbian minister on trial here yesterday.

“In my considered opinion and judgment, the United Methodist Church has never declared the practice of homosexuality to be incompatible with Christian teaching,” said Jack Tuell, a retired bishop viewed by many as a top authority on the church’s rulebook, the Book of Discipline. Tuell made the explosive charge during the second day of testimony in the church trial of the Rev. Karen Dammann, a United Methodist minister who has publicly acknowledged that she is in a relationship with another woman. The trial could end today and, if found guilty, Dammann may be stripped of her ordination. Counsel for the church said the statement was a powerful challenge to their case, but called the testimony just “one man’s opinion.” “His opinion is not law. He’s not God. The General Council (the church’s legislative body) has not interpreted any of this the way Jack Tuell interpreted it today,” said the Rev. James Finkbeiner in an interview. He is arguing the case for the church.

<

p>I’ll be keeping an eye out to see where this one ends up.

iTunes: “Crablouse, The (It’s There to Stay)” by Lords of Acid from the album Crablouse, The (1994, 5:08).

I sometimes wonder how people would react to a Biblical film cast entirely with actors from that area of the world. I’d love to see the reaction…or, rather, the reactions across different areas of the globe. No matter how good the film was, I’m quite curious as to how (speaking very generically here) middle America and the Bible Belt would react to a Jesus that was swarthy, with dark, short, curly hair — who looked like Jesus probably really looked like, in other words.

In other words, like the people that our government is doing its best to make sure we’re scared to death of.

iTunes: “Natural” by Arrested Development from the album 3 Years, 5 Months and 2 Days in the Life of… (1992, 4:30).

Interesting ruminations from Alan today…

Group One blames violence in video games and movies for the behavior of today’s youth.

Group Two buys out entire theaters for church groups, youth groups and families to see Mel Gibson’s “The Passion”.

Any bets on just how separate those two groups really are?

I’m guessing that while there are definitely people solidly in one camp or another, there are probably quite a few people in both groups (and I’ll be damned if I can remember the name of that kind of diagram — you know, the two overlapping circles…) that see absolutely no conflict between the two positions. How they would manage that, I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised.

iTunes: “Mission Accomplished” by DJ Wüdi from the album Difficult Listening Hour (2001, 27:41).

The more I read about Mel Gibson’s “The Passion”, the less interested I am in seeing two hours of one man being brutally tortured to death.

However, I did love Satapher’s take on the controversy in a MeFi thread…

Wasn’t it the destiny of Jesus to die for the sins of the world? so that we might be saved?

Shouldnt this movie spark pro-semitism!? Someody had to kill the bastard — somebody had to save your soul! THANK GOD THE JEWS KILLED JESUS AND SAVED OUR SOULS. GOD DAMN.

<

p>Okay, maybe it’s a bit wrong. But it’s really funny.

To me.

iTunes: “Wreath of Barbs (Neuroticfish 2)” by :Wumpscut: from the album Wreath of Barbs (Disc 1 - Classic Remixes) (2002, 5:11).

Money allocated by President Bush to increase NASA’s budget in order to encourage space exploration, a replacement for the Space Shuttle, finishing the International Space Station, establishing a manned base on the Moon, and planning for manned trips to Mars:

One billion dollars spread over the next five years.

Money allocated by President Bush in a planned drive to “promote traditional marriage values”:

One and a half billion dollars, apparently over a single year.

I guess we’ve all got to have our priorities, don’t we?

As a long-time science fiction geek, I’d really like to get excited about the new emphasis on space exploration and research, and even a little more budgetary increase is better than none. Somehow, though, it comes across to me as nothing more than election-year grandstanding than something that’s really going to have much impact.

iTunes: “Licking Plastic” by Winx from the album Left Above the Clouds (1996, 2:40).

There’s a (mostly) amusing article in the Seattle PI today about the “War of the Fish” — that is, the “Jesus Fish” and the many variations plastered over cars all over the place.

Brothers and sisters, there’s a battle raging. It’s not a battle fought with weapons of mass destruction, Lord save us, and it’s not a battle fought in armored personnel carriers.

It is a battle, children, for the hearts — yea, verily, for the everlasting souls — of America’s trunks and bumpers. It is a battle of words and wills, and fish. Lots and lots of fish. Hallelujah! Can I get a witness?

Amen, brother. Personally, I’m fairly partial to this one…

…though there are certainly a lot to choose from. One thing about the article did really bug me, though.

Farmer, the Ashland fish maker, said the only word fish booksellers in his area wouldn’t carry was Tolerance.

Some fish, friends, are just too hard to swallow.

<

p>The only one they won’t sell. They’re quite happy to sell as many other this believe vs. that belief slogans as they can, but heaven forbid they actually suggest that we actually try to get along with each other! We just can’t have that, now can we?

(sigh)

iTunes: “I Sit On Acid (‘95)” by Lords of Acid from the album Do What You Wanna Do (1995, 4:31).

Dad sent me a link to an interesting survey asking how Christians deal with the question of theodicy.

In its simplest form Theodicy asks the question, “If there is a being, God, who is all powerful, everywhere present, all knowing, all good and loving, why is there so much evil, suffering and pain in the world.” The answers range from, “the existence of evil is proof that such a being does not exist,” to “there is no such thing as real evil.” The discussion fills the halls of academia, the corridors of seminaries and is occasionally addressed from the pulpit, particularly in response to tragedy.

Read the rest of this entry »

The consecration of Gene Robison as bishop of the New Hampshire Diocese of the Episcopal Church is an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church’s founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on traditional Christian marriage.

— Paul Emmons, West Chester University

(via Dori Smith)

Controversy Threatens to Tear Disco Band Asunder

For the first time in their three decades of existence, the disco band The Village People have inducted an openly Episcopal man, igniting a controversy that threatens to tear the fabled group asunder.

Holding a press conference in New York City today, The Construction Worker, a prominent member of The Village People since its inception in the 1970s, urged “tolerance and understanding” for its latest member, The Episcopal Guy, who joined the group over the weekend.

“From the start, The Village People have been all about inclusiveness,” The Construction Worker said. “And introducing The Episcopal Guy as our latest member is part of that tradition.”

While The Indian Chief and The Fireman were reportedly in agreement with The Construction Worker about including The Episcopal Guy in the band, The Policeman, The Cowboy, and the Leather-clad Guy were reportedly opposed, creating speculation that The Village People might split up into two smaller, somewhat less influential disco bands.

(from Dad)

After far too much controversy — which is, unfortunately, far from finished — Gene Robinson was consecrated as Bishop on Sunday. It sounds like, while there were objections raised and protests held near the site of the consecration, overall it went pleasantly and without any undue problems.

After the objections were raised, [Presiding Bishop Frank T.] Griswold thanked attendees “for bringing their concerns before us.” But he also seemed to make a case for unity when he related a story of a primate who told him that “the Holy Spirit can do different things in different places,” adding, “That is precisely what we are doing here.”

Robinson received a more effusive endorsement from the Rev. Douglas Theuner, who he is replacing. Concluding a humorous and wide-ranging address that lightened the mood in the arena, Theuner told Robinson that his consecration is not the defining battle in the history of the church that some have made it out to be. “When a young man unsure of his sexual orientation reads ‘The Episcopal Church Welcomes You’ on a sign outside the church and enters that church, that’s a defining moment in Christian life,” he said.

<

p>Many congratulations and best wishes go out to Bishop Robinson.

The lengths that people will go to in their homophobia in the name of religion is really scary. Bishop-elect Gene Robinson is currently under 24-hour FBI protection due to death threats.

The first openly gay man to become an Episcopal bishop is under round the clock FBI protection following threats on his life, according to media reports.

Gene Robinson is to be formally installed as Bishop of New Hampshire on Sunday. “The only thing that will stop this happening is if I am not around any more,” Canon Gene Robinson, who is to become the Episcopalian Bishop of New Hampshire, told the British newspaper The Independent in an interview published today. “We have to take that seriously.”

<

p>(via Atrios)

Many years ago (well…not that many, I am only 30 after all), I was part of the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska’s delegation to the Episcopal Youth Event, a huge gathering of kids involved in the Episcopal church. Not merely a local event, the EYE works on a three-year cycle: one year locally, with Diocese level gatherings; one year regionally; and every third year, the EYE is a national event that often becomes international, with attendees coming in from all over the globe. If I’m remembering correctly, I was about 16 at the time (I think this happened the summer after my sophomore year in high school), and the EYE that year was in Missoula, Montana.

That trip has always been one that I’ve looked back on fondly. It was a lot of fun, it affected me fairly strongly in a few ways, and there were three key events that helped both to shape me, and contributed strongly to my continuing to stay a part (if, admittedly, not a very active part in recent years) of the Episcopal Church.

The first thing that impressed me was the level of devotion that some of the attendees had. I don’t mean that to sound like they were ultra-conservative “Bible Thumpers”, either — merely that the church was a strong enough part of their life that they were willing to entirely transform their lives in order to attend this event. There were two or three people there who had come from Jordan (I believe) to this event, and because of the political climate in the world at the time, they were not going to be able to go home afterwards. Quite mind boggling to me at the time, and even still to this day.

The second impression that made a huge impact on me was how wonderfully inclusive the atmosphere was. While the Episcopal church, like all large organizations, encompasses people across all walks of the conservative/liberal spectrum (for instance, I and my family are all quite liberal “West Coast Episcopalians”, while George Bush Sr. is a far more conservative “East Cost Episcopalian”), I had always gotten the impression that the Episcopal church was very open and accepting. This was driven home during the EYE for me. One of the adult RA’s for the EYE was an absolutely drop-dead gorgeous girl who went by the name of Xena (or possibly Zena, this was years before Xena the Warrior Princess was on TV); dressed all in black; wore whiteface and impeccably applied Egyptian-style eyeliner with deep, blood red lipstick; and had her head shaved on one side and long on the other with her hair dyed an incredible iridescent emerald green. I figured if someone like that was not just a member, but was put in a position of authority for the event, than this was likely an organization that I could stick with.

I also think that my life-long attraction to Goth women is based partly on Xena, and partly on Mia Sara in the 80’s fantasy movie Legend, when she’s dressed in the black dress with the plunging neckline — but I digress.

The third thing that has always stuck with me was when the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church addressed all of us in a huge gathering at the amphitheater. While most people would have an immediate preconceived notion of nearly any Bishop as a somewhat dour, stuffy man, the PB was anything but that. Striding back and forth across the stage as he talked, laughing and joking with all of us, and keeping us all involved with what he was saying. During his talk, he was speaking about how so many people tend to look down on the youth of the church, discounting them because they aren’t adults yet.

“Many people say that that all of you are the church of tomorrow,” he said, and we all applauded. After the applause died down, he strode toward the front of the stage. “Well, I say that that’s bullshit!” he yelled. Then, barely pausing while we were all processing the fact that the PB of the Episcopal Church just cursed in front of a few thousand kids, he went on to declare, “I say that the youth of today are the church of today!”

The place damn near exploded.

Here we had someone very high in the church who didn’t talk down to us. He didn’t treat us as if we were inconsequential to the church at large, only to be paid attention to because someday we’d grow into good, responsible, tithing Episcopalians. Rather, he wanted us involved, wanted us to take an interest and be a part of the church we’d all grown up in, and in many cases, had more or less taken for granted. It was a wonderful moment.

What put all this into my head was a report from a Generation Dean rally at the University of New Hampshire in Durham, NH that was posted on the Dean blog today.

Dean says, “People say you [young people] are the foot soldiers of the campaign. Baloney. You are driving this campaign… and you are the driving force who are going to inherit this country after this election. And the kind of country you inherit is very much up to you….”

[…] The Governor ends by telling the more than 1,000 students and young people and people of all ages that “you have the power to change this country,” and now as the music starts up again he’s down in front, being mobbed by people who want to shake his hand, surrounded by photographers snapping pictures for the wires and the local and university press. It’s incredible.

<

p>Also, this bit from a wrapup post at the Generation Dean blog:

Dean opened his speech thanking the young people in the room for driving his campaign. UNH has received or will receive every single presidential candidate, but it was clear that Dean’s message of not using young people as campaign “footsoldiers” was a point not made before on this campus. That message clearly resonated with everyone in the room.

It is incredible. It’s always incredible when people can stop and take the time to recognize that if you can talk to today’s youth rather than at them, if you can take them seriously, and if you can tap that enthusiasm, energy, and initiative, that you can muster a force that is truly one to be reckoned with. The PB knew that at EYE, and it looks like Dean and the people at Generation Dean know it and are doing everything they can to put that boundless energy to good use, and to knock Bush on his elitist little keister in 2004.

Keep it up.

Dad sent me a couple articles over the last few days looking at Mel Gibson’s “The Passion”, lately seeming to be the most controversial religious film that almost no one’s seen since Dogma was in pre-release. Anyway, if you’re at all interested in the film or the controversy around it, both of these are worth a look.

‘You Can’t Whitewash the Events of the Bible’: New Testament scholar Darrell Bock recently spoke with Beliefnet about Mel Gibson’s film “The Passion,” which dramatizes the last hours of Jesus. Critics—including Catholic biblical scholars and the Anti-Defamation League—have raised concerns about the movie’s historicity and its portrayal of Jewish authorities. Bock saw a rough cut of the film in late August.

What Mel Missed: Most of us have yet to see Mel Gibson’s “The Passion,” but we’ve gained one sure impression: it’s bloody. “I wanted to bring you there,” Gibson told Peter J. Boyer in September 15’s New Yorker magazine. “I wanted to be true to the Gospels. That has never been done before.”

I first saw this years ago, and recently ran across it again thanks to Dave Caolo. It’s always made me laugh, hopefully you will too.

In the beginning, there was the computer… Read the rest of this entry »

The Public Nuisance has a wonderful idea: as long as the religious right is proposing a Constitutional Amendment that bases our national definition of marriage on Biblical standards, let’s go ahead and do just that. For example…

• Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen. 29, 17 - 28; II Sam. 3, 2 - 5)
• Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam. 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
• A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut. 22, 13 - 21)
• Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25 1 - 9; Ezra 9:12; Neh. 10:30)
• Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
• If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38 6 - 10; Deut 25 5 - 10)

He then goes on to follow up on some concerns brought up by his post, with some more good points:

Although it would be easy to get that impression, I want to make clear that I am not suggesting that the laws of the OT are absurd or barbaric. Whether you are a Jew, Christian, or secularist, it is important to remember that the laws were incredibly successful in their time and place. Like all laws, they were designed to ensure the community’s survival.

[…] Those who wish to condemn gay marriage are free to do so. I myself have no problems with calling it a union or using some other term, so long as the legal rights of gay people are respected. But I do dislike it when those who advocate denying equal protection to gay people hide behind a few sentences in the Bible and say that they are merely expressing God’s immutable will.

(via Ex-Gay Watch via Anil)