PDA

View Full Version : NJ votes civil unions


Judy G. Russell
December 15th, 2006, 03:21 PM
After the NJ Supreme Court told the Legislature it had 180 days to cure the discriminatory treatment of gays in its marriage laws, the NJ Legislature yesterday voted to approve civil unions for homosexuals.

The gay community says it's a good thing for now, but they'll fight for the word "marriage" in the future. I think they're going at the whole issue bassackwards. They ought to be fighting to make it so that civil unions are the only unions the state cares about. If a couple wants the religious sacrament of "marriage," that's between them and their church. Government wouldn't care if somebody was married or not. That'd not only eliminate the discrimination issue, it'd also end the intertwining of church and state.

ktinkel
December 15th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Government wouldn't care if somebody was married or not. That'd not only eliminate the discrimination issue, it'd also end the intertwining of church and state.Amen! Funny no one suggests that in public. Guess it is not the right climate, just now.

Pats
December 15th, 2006, 07:23 PM
Judy, that's WONDERFUL news from New Jersey! I'm tempted to pick up and move to such a civilized state!

You are absolutely right that it should all be about civil unions. A relationship by any other label is not the state's business.

Pat

Mike
December 15th, 2006, 11:48 PM
Hooray, and d'accord. If we didn't already live in a state with very strong protections for gay couples, we'd put NJ on our list. :-)

Judy G. Russell
December 16th, 2006, 08:32 AM
Amen! Funny no one suggests that in public. Guess it is not the right climate, just now.Truth be told, I think a lot of people would go for it, automatically, if somebody would just take the public lead on it. It's the kind of "keep government out of the church" and "keep the church out of government" crossover that should appeal to everyone.

Judy G. Russell
December 16th, 2006, 08:35 AM
Judy, that's WONDERFUL news from New Jersey! I'm tempted to pick up and move to such a civilized state! It really is nice living in a very very blue Blue State. I'm not looking forward to retirement when I will probably end up in a mildly purple area of a Red State with my brothers and sisters.

You are absolutely right that it should all be about civil unions. A relationship by any other label is not the state's business. This is the way it's done in a lot of European countries: people marry in the church, but the day before or morning of, they have a civil union at the local clerk's office.

Judy G. Russell
December 16th, 2006, 08:37 AM
Hooray, and d'accord. If we didn't already live in a state with very strong protections for gay couples, we'd put NJ on our list. :-)I'm trying to get my niece and her partner to think seriously about NJ... anything would be better than VA, where they passed a really stupid constitutional amendment last fall that even bars gay couples from contracting with each other -- a provision that I think -- I hope -- will be struck down as violating the federal constitution.

ktinkel
December 16th, 2006, 10:07 AM
Truth be told, I think a lot of people would go for it, automatically, if somebody would just take the public lead on it. It's the kind of "keep government out of the church" and "keep the church out of government" crossover that should appeal to everyone.Then someone needs to get the discussion rolling, somehow.

Judy G. Russell
December 16th, 2006, 10:21 AM
Then someone needs to get the discussion rolling, somehow.Agreed. But finding someone with both the bully pulpit and the cojones ain't gonna be easy...

ktinkel
December 16th, 2006, 08:22 PM
Agreed. But finding someone with both the bully pulpit and the cojones ain't gonna be easy...Maybe we need to get Oprah to take it on! <g>

Lindsey
December 16th, 2006, 10:41 PM
anything would be better than VA
Pfffffft! Your family could be in the Ozarks, ya know. I don't think you'd find that area so much better more congenial than Virginia.

As for that constitutional amendment, if it had been on the ballot next year rather than this year, I think it might have been defeated. It was steadily losing support over time; unfortunately, making the case against an amendment like that requires a more sophisticated argument than the case for it, which only requires demagoguery. Sophisticated arguments are harder to put across, and besides insufficient time to make the case, the pro-amendment side had far more money than the anti-amendment side. Not to mention that the "macaca" stuff sort of sucked all of the air out of the election coverage. I never even knew there were two other constitutional issues on the ballot besides the marriage one until the day before the election.

Would the federal courts strike down provisions of a state's constitution regarding marriage? I'd like to think so, because getting something OUT of a constitution once it has been put in is horribly difficult. I'm not sure, though, that I can see the current federal courts doing that, not on the issue of same-sex marriage.

--Lindsey

P.S. At least Virginia doesn't have the worst drivers in the country. So there!

Judy G. Russell
December 16th, 2006, 10:47 PM
Maybe we need to get Oprah to take it on! <g>That might work. But perhaps even better would be some group on the right that realizes that foisting religion into government can also eventually end up foisting government into religion.

Judy G. Russell
December 16th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Pfffffft! Your family could be in the Ozarks, ya know. I don't think you'd find that area so much better more congenial than Virginia.I'm not going to argue over that one. Or (shudder) South Dakota, where at least their voters weren't quite as stupid as their legislature and governor...

Would the federal courts strike down provisions of a state's constitution regarding marriage? I'd like to think so, because getting something OUT of a constitution once it has been put in is horribly difficult. I'm not sure, though, that I can see the current federal courts doing that, not on the issue of same-sex marriage.The federal court certainly could, and should, strike down the provisions restricting the right to contract. The United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

Since the federal constitution provides a floor of protection, beneath which the states cannot go, the Virginia constitutional provision impairing the right to contract certainly should be held violative of the federal constitutional rights of the parties. Now I say this as though it's a slam dunk. It should be. But I know there is an argument to be made that the Contracts Clause of the US Constitutional shouldn't be read to reach this sort of private contract among private parties. I suspect that even this Court, as conservative as it is in social issues, would have a hard time accepting that two people should ever be barred from creating rights and obligations between themselves for any lawful purpose -- and the contracts barred by the Virginia amendment are things like agreeing between the parties as to inheritance and the like.

Lindsey
December 16th, 2006, 11:37 PM
Truth be told, I think a lot of people would go for it, automatically, if somebody would just take the public lead on it. It's the kind of "keep government out of the church" and "keep the church out of government" crossover that should appeal to everyone.
Unfortunately, there is a rather wide gulf sometimes between "should" and "does," (one the Democratic party fell into in both 2000 and 2004, expecting people to vote in what should have been their best interests, only to find that the electorate apparently had other concerns on its mind).

There is a very loud and fairly sizeable minority in this country that wants to see church and government more intertwined -- take conservative radio commentator Dennis Prager who kicked up a huge ruckus in early December ranting that Keith Ellison (the first Muslim elected to the House of Representatives) should be forced to take his oath of office on a Christian bible. Never mind that the Constitution specifically says that there shall be no religious test for office; never mind that Congressmen are not sworn in on any book at all in the official ceremony (though some of them may use one for an unofficial private ceremony that often serves as a photo-op). Prager says that the Christian bible is "America's holiest book," and that anyone not willing to take an oath of office on it should not be allowed to serve. Including Jews. (I should point out here that Prager was appointed to the Holocaust Memorial Council by our beloved POTUS.)

At any rate, my point is that I think it's going to be harder to get the public to adopt that formulation than you think, however sensible it may be, and however much it actually is in very good alignment with the thinking of some of the earliest European settlers who came fleeing the persecution of an established church.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 16th, 2006, 11:48 PM
The federal court certainly could, and should, strike down the provisions restricting the right to contract. The United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
I would certainly love to see it happen that way. And that actually is closely related to the main argument that was used to in fighting the amendment: that the very broad language encompasses a lot more than just marriage. Supporters denied it, but I'm pretty sure I've read that states that have adopted similar language several years ago are beginning to see lawsuits over the validity of certain types of private contracts.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 17th, 2006, 12:18 AM
Unfortunately, there is a rather wide gulf sometimes between "should" and "does,"I know, which is why I don't say this is likely to happen. But it should...

conservative radio commentator Dennis Prager ... says that the Christian bible is "America's holiest book," and that anyone not willing to take an oath of office on it should not be allowed to serve. Including Jews. (I should point out here that Prager was appointed to the Holocaust Memorial Council by our beloved POTUS.)The man is a moron. (Both of 'em.)

Judy G. Russell
December 17th, 2006, 12:24 AM
I would certainly love to see it happen that way. And that actually is closely related to the main argument that was used to in fighting the amendment: that the very broad language encompasses a lot more than just marriage. Supporters denied it, but I'm pretty sure I've read that states that have adopted similar language several years ago are beginning to see lawsuits over the validity of certain types of private contracts.The supporters can deny it 'til the cows come home, but the language of the amendment was pretty damned clear: you can't by contract create any of the effects of marriage. And that, to me, violates the contracts clause.

Lindsey
December 17th, 2006, 12:30 AM
I know, which is why I don't say this is likely to happen. But it should...
Absolutely, it's a very sensible approach and one that should make everyone happy unless they have hidden agendas. And that's where I think the problem is: the real agend of people pushing amendments like these isn't to "protect" marriage (what damage does it do to any heterosexual marriage for two people of the same sex to take wedding vows? Seems to me that's a pretty powerful affirmation of the institution of marriage), but to limit access to its special status to people as narrowly like themselves as possible.

The man is a moron. (Both of 'em.)
Dangerous morons.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 17th, 2006, 12:34 AM
The supporters can deny it 'til the cows come home, but the language of the amendment was pretty damned clear: you can't by contract create any of the effects of marriage.
That's certainly the way it seemed to me. And it's the reason that the anti-amendment side fought so hard to get the full wording of the amendment on the ballot, and not just an executive summary, as is normally done. They felt (rightly, as it turned out), that support for it would drop if people really read it. They got the full wording on the ballot, and support did drop, dramatically, but not far enough, unfortunately. We'll see how many have buyer's remorse in a few years.

Oh, I almost forgot: there's a rather ironic twist in the recent news of Mary Cheney's pregnancy:

Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of gay and lesbian advocacy group Family Pride, noted that "as Mary and Heather enter into the life-changing roles of parents, they will quickly face the reality that no matter how loved their child will be -- by its mothers and its grandparents, aunts and uncles, cousins and close family friends -- he or she will never have the same protections that other children born to heterosexual couples enjoy. Mary and Heather currently live in Virginia. Unless they move to a handful of less restrictive states, Heather will never be able to have a legal relationship with her child."
--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 17th, 2006, 01:06 PM
That's certainly the way it seemed to me. And it's the reason that the anti-amendment side fought so hard to get the full wording of the amendment on the ballot, and not just an executive summary, as is normally done. They felt (rightly, as it turned out), that support for it would drop if people really read it. They got the full wording on the ballot, and support did drop, dramatically, but not far enough, unfortunately. We'll see how many have buyer's remorse in a few years.Let's hope enough do... or that enough learn and grow...

Oh, I almost forgot: there's a rather ironic twist in the recent news of Mary Cheney's pregnancy (that her partner will never have a legal relationship with their child because of the Virginia laws).I saw that. What a shame...

Judy G. Russell
December 17th, 2006, 01:07 PM
that's where I think the problem is: the real agenda of people pushing amendments like these isn't to "protect" marriage ... but to limit access to its special status to people as narrowly like themselves as possible.Yep. And to ensure that there are state-sanctioned powerful incentives for more and more people to be narrowly like them... (and narrow-minded, as well).

ktinkel
December 17th, 2006, 08:02 PM
That might work. But perhaps even better would be some group on the right that realizes that foisting religion into government can also eventually end up foisting government into religion.That logic, which seems unassailable to you and me, seems to elude many others.

Or did. I am seeing hopeful signs in the religious right, which finally begins to see that they are being used.

I was brought up in an Irish Catholic household, and we always understood that religion had to be kept out of the schools because it would never be our version of religion. That still makes sense, once people begin to think about it.

Lindsey
December 17th, 2006, 10:42 PM
we always understood that religion had to be kept out of the schools because it would never be our version of religion. That still makes sense, once people begin to think about it.
At one time, all of the sects dissenting from the Church of England saw it that way. In the 18th century, Baptists were at the forefront of support for the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom -- when they were one of the dissenting minorities from the established religion. Funny how being aligned with political power changes your perspective...

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 17th, 2006, 11:25 PM
At one time, all of the sects dissenting from the Church of England saw it that way. In the 18th century, Baptists were at the forefront of support for the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom -- when they were one of the dissenting minorities from the established religion. Funny how being aligned with political power changes your perspective...And interesting today how those Episcopalian congregations in Virginia are choosing to leave the Church over the gay rights issue. How incredibly sad...

Judy G. Russell
December 17th, 2006, 11:27 PM
That logic, which seems unassailable to you and me, seems to elude many others. Or did. I am seeing hopeful signs in the religious right, which finally begins to see that they are being used. Yet they still think they should apply a religio-moral litmus test to candidates (witness the scathing reviews of Mitt Romney's potential candidacy...).

I was brought up in an Irish Catholic household, and we always understood that religion had to be kept out of the schools because it would never be our version of religion. That still makes sense, once people begin to think about it.Would that more people understood that fundamental truth...

Mike
December 18th, 2006, 01:13 AM
anything would be better than VA...
Were we there, I'd be doing anything I could to move.

Unless I were an expert in the arcana of VA law, with no possibilities of employment elsewhere... <g>

Judy G. Russell
December 18th, 2006, 04:47 PM
Were we there, I'd be doing anything I could to move. Unless I were an expert in the arcana of VA law, with no possibilities of employment elsewhere... <g>The sad part of this, as Lindsey so correctly points out, VA is a gorgeous state and there is much there that I wish I had more of here in the North. (Family, for one big factor. But also gentility and just plain politeness.) But there are those super-red pockets in that Red State...

Lindsey
December 18th, 2006, 10:50 PM
And interesting today how those Episcopalian congregations in Virginia are choosing to leave the Church over the gay rights issue. How incredibly sad...
It's not only over gay rights, that was just the straw that broke the camel's back where these churches are concerned. A spokesman for one of the parishes made it clear that they have never reconciled themselves with the decision some 30 years ago to ordain women (and they are really upset that a woman has been named as the church's presiding bishop), or with the notion that there might be other ways to eternal salvation besides faith in Jesus Christ. They are, in effect, Anglo-Catholics.

It's perhaps a little sad that one of them is the parish in which George Washington was a communicant, but as far as religious doctrine goes (as opposed to taking on a lay leadership role as a vestryman), Washington was more in line with the Deist ideas of Thomas Jefferson and other thinkers of the age. I don't think he would be very comfortable in the current Falls Church congregation.

(Meanwhile, how ironic is it for church of some of the 18th century's largest slaveholders to join itself to the Episcopal Church of Nigeria?)

The Virginia churches are only the latest to decide to break away from the official church; this has been going on for 30 years, though it has accelerated recently. It is a shame, but it is, sadly, not unprecedented.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 18th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Meanwhile, I see New Jersey (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html) has been in the religious news lately, too.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 18th, 2006, 11:12 PM
But there are those super-red pockets in that Red State...
The super-red pockets are getting smaller. Some of southwest Virginia went for Webb. (Those coalminers are no fools.)

It's a bit ironic that those ultra-conservative breakaway Episcopal parishes are in the bluest part of the state, but the Washington Post quoted someone the other day as saying that the more liberal members of those congregations had left long ago. So I guess those churches are just a few super-red particles that have precipitated out of the strongly blue sea around them.

And with more Democrats coming to Washington, I think Northern Virginia is only going to get bluer.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 18th, 2006, 11:58 PM
It's not only over gay rights, that was just the straw that broke the camel's back where these churches are concerned. A spokesman for one of the parishes made it clear that they have never reconciled themselves with the decision some 30 years ago to ordain women (and they are really upset that a woman has been named as the church's presiding bishop), or with the notion that there might be other ways to eternal salvation besides faith in Jesus Christ. They are, in effect, Anglo-Catholics.IOW, they are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun -- at least in 21st century terms.

Judy G. Russell
December 19th, 2006, 12:01 AM
Meanwhile, I see New Jersey (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html) has been in the religious news lately, too.I saw that article, and was pleased the kid had the gumption to stand up to the teacher and the smarts to record the conversations. I am however appalled that the school district didn't assign the teacher to, say, lunchroom duty.

Judy G. Russell
December 19th, 2006, 12:02 AM
The super-red pockets are getting smaller.The sooner the better.

And with more Democrats coming to Washington, I think Northern Virginia is only going to get bluer.Of course, a lot of my Virginia relatives don't consider anything inside the Beltway to be Virginia...

Mike
December 19th, 2006, 01:03 AM
I think Northern Virginia is only going to get bluer.
Not only because of the Reps and Senators from other states. A mutual acquaintaince of Judy's and mine (Dennis Coyle) lives in NoVA, and he says that in the elections for the beltway counties, many turned from red to blue this year.

davidh
December 19th, 2006, 12:03 PM
Meanwhile, I see New Jersey (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html) has been in the religious news lately, too.

--Lindsey
Interesting story.

I expect that many people outside the school district, on both "sides" of this issue, would see it in terms of "larger" issues of religion, law, politics, etc. But inside the district might be different.

But how about if one were directly involved? Suppose the teacher in question were very popular in the school both among faculty *and* students. Suppose, in addition that one was a fellow faculty member who happened somehow to listen in on the teacher making such inappropriate and/or "illegal statements" (boy, oh, boy, does that phrase have a bad sound to it). Ought one to "rat" on him? If I were such a colleague, I wonder if I'd have the gumption to advise him, let alone "rebuke" or "rat" on him.

Obviously, it would have been better for the school administration to "correct" the teacher before lawyers get into it. Sound biblical (e.g. Matt. 5:25) principle: usually better to settle out of court, both human courts and the "heavenly court" ( http://www.ujc.org/content_display.html?ArticleID=193349 ).

I doubt that many of the students are "fundamentalists". Probably most care little about religion one way or the other. Probably most of the students just consider the whistleblower as a traitor to the school and to a popular teacher. No good deed goes unpunished.

DH

Tangential footnote:
Would you lie for a co-worker?
http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3398

davidh
December 19th, 2006, 01:08 PM
Meanwhile, I see New Jersey (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/18/nyregion/18kearny.html) has been in the religious news lately, too.
--Lindsey

The Essential Difference Between Ethical Societies and The Churches
by Felix Adler from Adler's The Religion of Duty, Chapter Ten (New York: McClure, Phillips & Co., 1905) Note: language has not been modernized.

"The Ethical Society is like a Church in *solemnizing marriage*, and investing with dignity and sacred significance the last rites over the beloved dead."

I wonder whether the AEU and the "Ethical Culture Society" mentioned in the article would be pro or con wrt removing current authorizations in state laws for such persons as ordained clergy (and members of Society of Friends [e.g. in Fla statutes]) to effectively act as public notaries to certify the event of solemnization of state marriage licenses. (Note: current Fla. statutes apparently do not give any more "weight of solemnization" to a ceremony performed by a magistrate or clergyman over a mere notary, IMO.)

New York Society for Ethical Culture, a humanist religious community
http://www.nysec.org/

741.07 [Fla] Persons authorized to solemnize matrimony.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0741/SEC07.HTM&Title=-%3E2006-%3ECh0741-%3ESection%2007#0741.07

741.08 [Fla] Marriage not to be solemnized without a license.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0741/SEC08.HTM&Title=-%3E2006-%3ECh0741-%3ESection%2008#0741.08

DH

davidh
December 19th, 2006, 02:52 PM
A spokesman for one of the parishes made it clear that they have never reconciled themselves with the decision some 30 years ago to ordain women (and they are really upset that a woman has been named as the church's presiding bishop), or with the notion that there might be other ways to eternal salvation besides faith in Jesus Christ. They are, in effect, Anglo-Catholics.
--Lindsey

Characterising "no other ways to eternal salvation" as being Anglo-Catholic is somewhat of a stereotype, I think.

Roman Catholic position on "other ways to eternal salvation", from Catechism of the Catholic Church [1992?]:

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1259

I do not believe that articles 1259 to 1261 are basically new with Vatican II. (See also, WWII, pre-Vatican II, http://www.fourchaplains.org/ ) However, I do not have quotations handy from ancient sources to prove it.

I suspect that it is not only pro-same-sex-marriage and pro-woman-priest Episcopalians and Roman Catholics and Orthodox who subscribe to the articles 1259 to 1261. Certainly Benedict XVI and JPII, neither exactly in favor of radical feminism, agree(d) with these statements. Not to say that there's not a lot of Catholics who think they are more Catholic than the Pope ;) (e.g. SSPX).

As I understand it, priestly celibacy is NOT a dogma, but a matter of church governance and discipline (e.g. canon law). Men are not the only ones that can be greedy for power and wealth. I believe that one of the main motives for priestly celibacy was to avoid fights over church property when married priests died, so that the widow and children could not steal the property from the diocese or congregation. Perhaps if the rest of the wives of Henry VIII were as devout as Catherine, there never would have been an Anglican church. (But then we'd have missed Isaac Watts hymns, no?)

As far as male priesthood goes, I understand it has something to do with a priest acting "in persona Christi". I don't know the full history of it by any means. However, I can see definite practical difficulties with female priesthood, esp. in times of persecution. That is, it would be difficult for people to accept imposing the "seal of the confessional" on women priests, in view of the possibility that they might be subjected to torture to reveal confessions. Not to say that women are less brave than men. However, by analogy, I still think that it is even nowadays uncommon to have female infantry combatants in any country. So perhaps, because Anglicans do not recognize confession as a sacrament, female priesthood was more acceptable to Episcopalians (a.k.a. Whiskeypalians according to what I heard from a former Baptist). Another practical reason for avoiding women priests in the past was perhaps that men never changed diapers (or whatever) in those days?

It may not always be a bad thing to have some institutions that change slowly. Perhaps it is easier with hindsight than with foresight to judge truly what is a fad or fashion and what is "prophetic". For example, Reform Jewish liturgical books have been gradually increasing the use of Hebrew in services over the decades. Similary, after Vatican II, Catholic liturgies have gradually re-introduced a limited amount of Latin back into the services. Is this just an arbitrary swing of the pendulum of faddishness, or is it less trivial than that?

Not to say that gay-rights or feminism are fads. OTOH, does "enforcing" political correctness whether, for example, one thinks that PC means "pro-women-priests" or "male-only-priests", necessarily cause actual personal moral behavior? One can be any flavor of PC and still be a thief or oppressor.

DH

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 09:56 PM
IOW, they are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun -- at least in 21st century terms.
Something like that, it seems to me.

Note that the Episcopal Church of Nigeria supports (even lobbied for, by some accounts) a proposed law in Nigeria that would not only criminalize private same-sex commitment ceremonies, but would make it a criminal offense even for one gay friend to meet another at a restaurant, or for gays to organize to lobby the government in opposition to those laws. The parish members say Archbishop Akinola (the head of the Nigerian church) is only trying accommodate Muslims in Nigeria to ease tensions between Christians and Muslims in that country. If that's the case, I'm not sure what that says about the people of the Nigerian church in terms of "courage of convictions." (And note, too, that Akinola has been linked to incitement of violence against Nigerian Muslims. Some way of being conciliatory.)

Most of all, though, I wonder what it says about those northern Virginia congregations that they find it more comfortable to be allied with a church that supports making it a criminal offense for two people of the same sex to hold hands in public than to be allied with a church that would hold out the hand of inclusion to all of its members.

If that's what's necessary to secure a place in heaven, it's not a heaven I want any part of.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 10:11 PM
I saw that article, and was pleased the kid had the gumption to stand up to the teacher and the smarts to record the conversations. I am however appalled that the school district didn't assign the teacher to, say, lunchroom duty.
I thought it was a pretty amazing kid, too, and I was appalled (but, on reflection, not too surprised, unfortunately) that so much of the community had taken the teacher's side against the student. (He's even gotten death threats, the NY Times says. What is it with these right-wing Christians? Where in any of the Christian texts does it say you should kill anyone who doesn't agree with you?)

I'm not sure I'd even want that teacher doing lunchroom duty. He'd use lunchtime as an opportunity for making sermons to an even larger group. Supposedly he's a good teacher. But what is a history teacher doing teaching science? (Or, rather, anti-science.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 10:13 PM
Of course, a lot of my Virginia relatives don't consider anything inside the Beltway to be Virginia...
It's a very different part of the state than what is outside the Beltway, no question about it; but there are any number of states that have divides like that. New York, for example...

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 10:23 PM
Not only because of the Reps and Senators from other states. A mutual acquaintaince of Judy's and mine (Dennis Coyle) lives in NoVA, and he says that in the elections for the beltway counties, many turned from red to blue this year.
I remember Dennis!

Not only the elected Congressmen, but when they come to town, they bring with them staff members and campaign managers, at least some of whom will end up in Virginia. But yes, there's a bluing trend even outside of that, in no small part because independents who went along with Bush two years ago (and quite a bit of Virginia falls into the "moderate independent" category) have grown horrified at what his administration is doing to the country. I just think that an infusion of a fresh crop of Democrats to the state will help reinforce the trend.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 19th, 2006, 10:37 PM
Supposedly he's a good teacher.Perhaps in a Sunday school...

Judy G. Russell
December 19th, 2006, 10:38 PM
I doubt that many of the students are "fundamentalists". Probably most care little about religion one way or the other. Probably most of the students just consider the whistleblower as a traitor to the school and to a popular teacher. No good deed goes unpunished.I tend to agree with you, except for the extreme reaction against the kid. That's just wrong.

Judy G. Russell
December 19th, 2006, 10:40 PM
Most of all, though, I wonder what it says about those northern Virginia congregations that they find it more comfortable to be allied with a church that supports making it a criminal offense for two people of the same sex to hold hands in public than to be allied with a church that would hold out the hand of inclusion to all of its members. If that's what's necessary to secure a place in heaven, it's not a heaven I want any part of.Amen, sister. Amen. In spades.

Judy G. Russell
December 19th, 2006, 10:42 PM
It's a very different part of the state than what is outside the Beltway, no question about it; but there are any number of states that have divides like that. New York, for example...What, you don't think people in, say, Orange County NY would feel themselves one and the same with the residents of, say, the South Bronx???

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 10:42 PM
Suppose the teacher in question were very popular in the school both among faculty *and* students.
As it happens, this teacher apparently was quite popular. But what difference does that make? Would it have been OK for a popular teacher to sermonize a captive audience of students, and not OK for an unpopular one? Not in my book. Popularity should not be an insulation from responsibility when you cross the line.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 19th, 2006, 10:43 PM
Not only because of the Reps and Senators from other states. A mutual acquaintaince of Judy's and mine (Dennis Coyle) lives in NoVA, and he says that in the elections for the beltway counties, many turned from red to blue this year.And since Dennis is so intensely involved in the politics there, some of the credit for that is his, I'm sure!

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 11:15 PM
Characterising "no other ways to eternal salvation" as being Anglo-Catholic is somewhat of a stereotype, I think.
Well, that wasn't the only think I listed. I also included rejection of homosexuals as full church members and rejection of the idea of women in the priesthood. I didn't intend "Anglo-Catholic" as a stereotype; I only meant that the members of those denominations were more in line with the position of the Catholic Church than those of the US Episcopal Church.

The exerpts from the catechism you posted don't allow for salvation of someone who has deliberately chosen some other spirituality than Christianity, does it? Only for those who were too "ignorant" to know about Christianity in the first place.

As far as male priesthood goes, I understand it has something to do with a priest acting "in persona Christi".
Also known as "convenient excuse." There were women evangelists in the early days of the Christian church. But when the current orthodoxy gained ascendancy (~300 C.E., I think), other Christian traditions were rigidly suppressed.

It seems to there should be some significance placed on the fact that the first person to proclaim the news of the risen Christ, the first person to whom he revealed himself, was a woman.

Episcopalians (a.k.a. Whiskeypalians according to what I heard from a former Baptist).
Now who's engaging in stereotypes?

It may not always be a bad thing to have some institutions that change slowly.
I never said it was. I do think it is bad when an institution refuses to change or adapt at all, even in the light of new understandings.

Not to say that gay-rights or feminism are fads. OTOH, does "enforcing" political correctness whether, for example, one thinks that PC means "pro-women-priests" or "male-only-priests", necessarily cause actual personal moral behavior? One can be any flavor of PC and still be a thief or oppressor.
No, I'm sorry, Bishop Lee has bent over backwards to accommodate these guys, even to the point of flying in a retired Archbishop of Canterbury to perform confirmations for them, because they so objected to the US bishops and rejected the presence of Bishop Lee himself. That wasn't enough for them. Like all fundamentalists, it has to be 100% their way, or no way at all. Fie on them, I say.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 11:17 PM
Perhaps in a Sunday school...
Well, indeed, he probably would be. Not in a church I would be interested in attending, but in a literalist congregation, he'd be in his element.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 11:28 PM
I tend to agree with you, except for the extreme reaction against the kid. That's just wrong.
I was reading an article recently -- I think it was in The New Yorker -- about a group of Darfurian refugees who have settled in Lewiston, Maine. One of them, a teenaged girl, had originally been settled in Atlanta, but then her family heard through other friends and relatives already in Lewiston how much better the schools were, and they moved north. She said she had seen many terrible things in Darfur, but by far, an American high school was the cruelest place she had ever been.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 19th, 2006, 11:29 PM
What, you don't think people in, say, Orange County NY would feel themselves one and the same with the residents of, say, the South Bronx???
I think some of the reddest rednecks I have ever seen were in Orange County, NY! Some of those back roads are just as scary in broad daylight as, say, Chambers Street after dark.

--Lindsey

ndebord
December 19th, 2006, 11:57 PM
I think some of the reddest rednecks I have ever seen were in Orange County, NY! Some of those back roads are just as scary in broad daylight as, say, Chambers Street after dark.

--Lindsey

Lindsey,

I remember going to New Paultz (sp) and being unwilling to drive a little ways north to Kingston, home of rednecks galore and pickup trucks with rifles and shotguns in the back window. (Of course, being from Michigan, that was nothing new to me, but my friends were from Brooklyn...'nuff said.

Mike
December 20th, 2006, 01:19 AM
And since Dennis is so intensely involved in the politics there, some of the credit for that is his, I'm sure!
Most certainly. And he's very proud of his contributions.

Judy G. Russell
December 20th, 2006, 01:22 AM
Most certainly. And he's very proud of his contributions.
As well he should be.

Judy G. Russell
December 20th, 2006, 01:23 AM
Well, indeed, he probably would be. Not in a church I would be interested in attending, but in a literalist congregation, he'd be in his element.Maybe a Nigerian Church in Virginia....

Judy G. Russell
December 20th, 2006, 01:24 AM
She said she had seen many terrible things in Darfur, but by far, an American high school was the cruelest place she had ever been.We certainly don't teach compassion or courtesy or acceptance of others or...

Judy G. Russell
December 20th, 2006, 01:27 AM
I think some of the reddest rednecks I have ever seen were in Orange County, NY! Some of those back roads are just as scary in broad daylight as, say, Chambers Street after dark.The scariest time I ever had was being chased (literally) by some redneck in a pickup truck on backroads up there one night. I think, I hope, he was just out to have some fun, and not seriously intent on hurting someone, but it was scary as hell anyway.

davidh
December 20th, 2006, 07:24 AM
As it happens, this teacher apparently was quite popular. But what difference does that make? Would it have been OK for a popular teacher to sermonize a captive audience of students, and not OK for an unpopular one? Not in my book. Popularity should not be an insulation from responsibility when you cross the line.

--Lindsey I think the point is that everybody in the world is more or less subject to "gang mentality" and it takes a certain amount of courage (sometimes huge doses) to fight against "gang mentality". If anybody claims they are immune to such a (gang) temptation, they must be almost a saint or a liar or a fool or insane. There's always more or less of a temptation to "demonize" the "other side". In this particular case, it appears that the administration was stupid, cowardly, and unrighteous and the whistleblower was just the opposite. All the admins had to do was apologize to the student and tell the teacher he was out of line and subject to termination no matter how good he is if he continued to risk putting the school into an expensive lawsuit.

DH

Judy G. Russell
December 20th, 2006, 03:07 PM
I think the point is that everybody in the world is more or less subject to "gang mentality" and it takes a certain amount of courage (sometimes huge doses) to fight against "gang mentality".No doubt about that. Standing up for what's right, particularly when it's a marginalized or minority position, is very very hard.

In this particular case, it appears that the administration was stupid, cowardly, and unrighteous and the whistleblower was just the opposite. All the admins had to do was apologize to the student and tell the teacher he was out of line and subject to termination no matter how good he is if he continued to risk putting the school into an expensive lawsuit.Hear hear. I couldn't agree more.

davidh
December 20th, 2006, 04:13 PM
everybody in the world is more or less subject to "gang mentality"


Speaking of "gang mentality", I only just today stumbled (pun not intended) over the "mimetic desire", "mimetic rivalry", skandalon (pun intended), concepts of Rene Girard.

"The parallels between Girard's insights and the only recent conclusions made by empirical researchers concerning imitation (in both development and the evolution of species) are extraordinary. What makes Girard's insights so remarkable is that he not only discovered and developed the primordial role of psychological mimesis during a time when imitation was quite out of fashion, but he did so through investigation in literature, cultural anthropology, history,… (Garrels, 2004, p. 29) [3]."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Girard

" As regards moral nihilism, which seem to permeate modern society, Girard concludes that "instead of approaching any form of nihilism, stating that no truth exists as certain philosophers do," we must "return to anthropology, to psychology and study human relations better than we have done up to now." "

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3899

Lindsey
December 20th, 2006, 10:21 PM
I remember going to New Paultz (sp) and being unwilling to drive a little ways north to Kingston, home of rednecks galore and pickup trucks with rifles and shotguns in the back window. (Of course, being from Michigan, that was nothing new to me, but my friends were from Brooklyn...'nuff said.
New Paltz.

I will have to say that I found some delightful people in Orange County -- the people running the B&B where I was staying, the gentleman who was president of the local genealogical society, the staff in a little Italian restaurant about halfway between Blooming Grove and Washingtonville...

But I was coming down one back road looking for the sign to Oxford Depot, where my great-grandmother was born. I finally found a sign, pointing to what looked like a foot or bicycle path. There was a street of houses at the top of the hill, though, and the people I saw living on it were so rough looking that I wasn't about to park the car and walk down that path alone.

I found out later that there is a cemetery along that path, and that some of my Rackett ancestors are buried there. I'd be nervous about looking for it by myself, though. I'd want to have someone along who was carrying a nightstick, at the very least.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 20th, 2006, 10:23 PM
The scariest time I ever had was being chased (literally) by some redneck in a pickup truck on backroads up there one night. I think, I hope, he was just out to have some fun, and not seriously intent on hurting someone, but it was scary as hell anyway.
I can picture it -- yow! And those roads are scary enough to drive even without someone chasing you! Narrow, steep, curvy, no shoulder...

--Lindsey

Lindsey
December 20th, 2006, 10:28 PM
I think the point is that everybody in the world is more or less subject to "gang mentality" and it takes a certain amount of courage (sometimes huge doses) to fight against "gang mentality". . . . There's always more or less of a temptation to "demonize" the "other side".
Which is exactly what the Bill of Rights is there to protect minority interests from.

Just because it's easy to fall into that trap does not excuse letting it happen. All it takes to combat it is making some effort to imagine yourself in the other person's shoes.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 21st, 2006, 12:19 AM
I can picture it -- yow! And those roads are scary enough to drive even without someone chasing you! Narrow, steep, curvy, no shoulder...I managed to find a driveway up to a house that was very well lit... and the truck then drove on. As I said, I don't think he was trying to hurt anybody, just having his "fun".

Lindsey
December 21st, 2006, 05:11 PM
I managed to find a driveway up to a house that was very well lit... and the truck then drove on. As I said, I don't think he was trying to hurt anybody, just having his "fun".
That was good thinking! And whether or not he intended any harm, chasing somebody around those mountain roads can be dangerous!

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
December 21st, 2006, 08:36 PM
That was good thinking! And whether or not he intended any harm, chasing somebody around those mountain roads can be dangerous!.At the time, I was wondering how "Dueling Banjos" (per Deliverance) would sound played Orange County style...

Lindsey
December 21st, 2006, 10:56 PM
At the time, I was wondering how "Dueling Banjos" (per Deliverance) would sound played Orange County style...
LOL!! Funny you should say that -- I was thinking about "Deliverance" when this topic first came up!!

--Lindsey