Coincidence? I Think Not.

The end of the year approaches and with it two events that the Bush Administration would rather we did not notice: The death toll in the Iraq War (fortunately, we've lost that silly "Operation Iraqi Freedom" euphemism) seemed likely to reach 3000 by year's end, and the execution of Sadaam Hussein would undoubtedly unleash harsh criticism and new scrutiny of the United States role in Iraq. There was nothing that could be done about the first; it was going to happen. The second could be postponed, but not for long: under Iraqi law, executions must be carried out within thirty days after the ruling on the final appeal. It looked as if there could be some bad news days ahead for the Bush Family Mafia.
Then they got a helping hand from someone who may not have wanted to help: Gerald Ford, one of the last two truly decent men to occupy the White House, died on the day after Christmas. Ford, it turns out, never really wanted to President; he was a simple man with simple tastes who didn't particularly like pomp and pageantry. His plans for his funeral were not extravagant, like Ronald Reagan's funeral a few years ago. Nevertheless, the media could be counted on to provide intensive coverage. There would be a need to rehash Ford's long career in public service. There would be a need to dissect that career, and then it would be time to bury Jerry, not to praise him. The geography of the situation would prolong the memorial activities for days, starting in Palm Desert, California, where Ford died, then progressing to Washington, then on to the University of Michigan, where Ford would be buried.
To the Bushies, Ford's death was not the death of a friend or role model; after all, Ford was an honest, caring, and decent man. Besides, it came out quickly after Ford's death was announced that he had disapproved of the invasion of Iraq--not the way it was done, not with some simpering, self-serving disclaimer like that, but with absolute disapproval. But his death was going to occupy the media. It had to be reported because Ford had held a unique position as the first president who had not been elected to executive office. And if the media had to pay attention to the memorials for Ford, they couldn't give the death count and execution of Sadaam Hussein their full attention. And I do not doubt that phone calls were made to Iraqi authorities to noify them that it would be a good idea to hold the execution sooner, rather than later. And the puppet government of Iraq, dependent as it is on the Bush administration for its power, was willing to comply.
And while it remains to be seen how the 3000th death will be reported, the execution of Sadaam shared the space above the fold with the Ford memorials. And an amoral and stupid man took advantage of the death of a good man to divert attention from the execution of a tyrant by a puppet government.

When Does It End?

"In a recent letter to constituents, [Re. Virgil] Goode, a five-term [Republican] congressman from Rocky Mount [Virginia], wrote that he does "not subscribe to using the Koran in any way" and added: "The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran." Thus says the Washington Post.
Mr. Goode, you make me ashamed to be an American. You are a REPRESENTATIVE, but I don't believe the people who elected you are as stupid as you are. I certainly hope that most of your constituents understand that the Constitution of the United States of America, a document you have sworn an oath to uphold, protects religious freedom. And if an elected representative chooses, in his private swearing-in, to place his hand on his grandmother's Bible, the Talmud, the Koran, the Waste Land, or one of the Harry Potter novels, , it is no one's business but his own. And there is, to put it so simply that a mindless cretin like you can understand, no connection between immigration and a duly elected representative choosing to place his hand on the Koran when he takes the oath of office. Actually, you fucking asshole, there are far more Hispanic immigrants, most of them Roman Catholic, than Muslim immigrants.
I call on the people of your district to recall you. I call on the House of Representatives to throw your worthless ass out. I call on this country to deport you and anyone else who agrees with you. You are an abomination.; may God judge you--the sooner the better--as such.

Schism in the Episcopal Church

Seven Episcopal congregations have elected to leave the Diocese of Virginia and become a mission of the Anglican Church of Nigeria over the ordination of homosexuals. This matters to me because until a few weeks ago, I was technically a part of that Diocese. I was confirmed in that Diocese. I was married in that Diocese. Our kids were baptized there. While I'm now part of the Diocese of Washington, D.C., I think the actions of the Virginia parishes--church homes to about five percent of the Diocese's communicants--are ultimately detrimental to all Episcopalians.
First, there's the simple matter of sheer folly. The parishes also voted to keep property belonging to the Diocese. Let's think about this. When I moved out of my parents' house after college, I took only those things that belonged to me and those that they gave me at the last minute because they were moving, too--and that was an amicable parting. For these congregations to believe that they decide whether to keep Diocesan property is simply silly. Bishop Peter James Lee has said that he will maintain Diocesan stewardship of that property, and I hope that this means that, probably after a long court case, the Diocese keeps all the property and the schismatic parishes get nothing.
And then, of course, there's the theology. The claim of the schismatics is that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and it does--in the Old Testament. There are a lot of laws in the Old Testament. One could get confused. From the ten laws provided by God, the number and complexity exploded as rabbis wrestled with such weighty matters as how many steps one could take without violating the Sabbath and how one could tell when the Sabbath began. Jesus, in whom the schismatics profess to believe, was asked which of the laws was most important, and he responded that there were two laws: Love God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself. On these principles, he said, the law depended. The schismatics claim that to argue the primacy of these principles is to accept moral relativism. In fact, it probably does mean an acceptance of situational ethics, which is somewhat different.
To understand that, we can look at Jesus's teaching that any man who looked at a woman with lust in his heart (or, presumably, any woman who looked at a man with lust in her heart) had committed adultery, even if there was no sex act involved. How could that be sinful? There were two points to be made. First of all, the definition of sin wasn't left to people but to God, and it had to do with what was in the mind and the heart. I'm pretty sure that the men in Jesus's audience were familiar with the current definition of adultery; they were sure that they knew. It seemed really simple to them: Do someone you aren't married to and it's adultery. So Jesus punctured that balloon, saying, in essence, that what people thought sin was really wasn't impotant. Second, if you're looking at someone and lusting after their bones, you can't be loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Presumably, if you could figure out how to look at someone lustfully while still loving God with all of your heart, soul, and mind, you'd be okay. The looking wouldn't be a sin.
So when people look back at Old Testament law as a basis for present-day decisions, they're overlooking the historical reality. Law could not be written in such a way that all laws would apply in all times and all places, and in trying to interpret, people would only muck it up badly. Thus, God established principles instead. They would last. And God would always know the hearts and minds and souls of his creatures.
The schismatics essentially set aside Jesus and his teachings when they return to Old Testament law; after all, on at least one occasion Jesus defended his followers for breaking those laws. They transgress when they proclaim with absolute certainty that they know what God's law is; Jesus made clear to his followers that they couldn't even define one of the simplest of sins as God did, and they certainly couldn't be sure when someone else was sinning because sinfulness lay in the heart, mind, and soul. Thus, the Christian prescription was simple but challenging: rather than quibbling over the commas, love God completely and do only those things that you can do while keeping that love foremost in your heart, mind, and soul.
I know homosexuals. They love God, and they love their fellow man, and God will decide whether they are sinners. God will also decide whether I'm a sinner because I love them as my brothers and sisters.
If I had been a member of one of the schismatic congregations--and my sister-in-law is--I could never have voted to leave the Episcopal church because I believe that the church leaders make their decisions prayerfully and genuinely want to do God's will. If I were a member of one of the congregations that voted to leave the Diocese, I would leave the church. I've been in situations where I could no longer, in good conscience, receive the Eucharist is a couple of other members of the congregation were present because I was appalled by their actions with respect to our rector. I think that some of the people who voted to leave the Diocese may someday find themselves in a situation very similar. It is a terrible feeling to be cut off from the Sacrament, and I will pray for them.

Happy What?

I haven't posted for a while, for which I apologize to anyone who's paying attention. It's been a busy couple of months.
Now the December holidays are upon us, and they're getting to be no fun at all. Last year, Wal-Mart instructed employees to wish customers "Happy Holidays" and some evangelical Christians said it was part of a war on Christmas and tried to boycott Wal-Mart. Normally, I have nothing against a boycott of Wal-Mart; I haven't set foot in one of their stores in a couple of years. But there's no war against Christianity or Christmas in this country, and when you aren't sure of a person's religion, "Happy Holidays" is a safe middle ground. This year, though, Wal-Mart announced that their employees would say "Merry Christmas." Maybe a few non-Christians will be offended by that, but most will probably take it as an expression of general good will.
This silliness came home last week. The principal of the school where my wife teaches had spent a considerable amount of money and a considerable amount of time to decorate the teachers' lounge. There were snowmen all over the place. Unfortunately, there was an artificial evergreen tree with icicles on it and a Santa Claus that played music and shook its butt. That was as close to religion as the decor got, but that was close enough for some of the Jewish teachers, who announced that they were offended. The decorations came down around the same time that one of the Jewish teachers was making latkes in her classroom to tell her class about Hanukkah. I wish I had some standing to talk with those Jewish teachers. Here's what I'd tell them:
"Teachers seldom get the expressions of appreciation that they deserve. Here someone had made an effort to make a drab, unappealing teachers' lounge warmer and more cheerful and you complained because of an artificial evergreen with icicles--which, unlike a Christmas tree or the Hanukkah bushes found in some Jewish homes, is a natural phenomenon--and a Santa Claus--a figure frequently attacked as a symbol of the commercialism of Christmas. Because of your complaints, the decorations were taken down. Someone who wanted to show teachers some appreciation for their work will have to make do with "I tried," and the teachers will make do without the expression of appreciation. And something surely could have been worked out if you hadn't been so thin-skinned--perhaps a menorah and a star of David could have been included.
You couldn't accept that. Even if we accept that the decorations had religious connotations, you insisted on taking away the right of your colleagues to recognize a holiday sacred to many of them. Like the Puritans, like some of the Muslims in the Middle East who'd like to wipe out Israel, you can't tolerate expression of any religion except your own. Very few Americans would think that they had any right to interfere with anyone else's religious observances, but apparently you do. If you're going to teach, you need to learn that the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." And if the government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion, you should recognize that you shouldn't do it, either. You have every right to ask for equal time or space, and if some decorations need to come down to make room so that you can have extra space, so be it. But to demand that all of the decorations come down is overstepping the limits.
That overstep becomes more reprehensible when, in effect, you bring part of the celebration of Hanukkah into the classroom. What would you have done if someone had complained about one of your number preparing latkes? I'm pretty sure you would have started screaming about anti-Semitism, but you'd be dead wrong. Latkes are closely associated with Hanukkah. In fact, some web sites specifically identify them as a Hanukkah food. And when you serve them during the day on which Hanukkah begins at sundown, you clearly intend them to be associated with a religious holiday. I would merely point out two things. First of all, Christian teachers sometimes develop lessons that feature Hanukkah motifs and, if they have the knowledge or have a friend who does, they see that someone explains the holiday to their classes--as they do with Kwanzaa. Second, to demand that the somewhat secular decorations in the lounge come down and then prepare latkes in your classroom is about as hypocritical as you can get.
So here's a challenge. Before what is now called the winter break begins, many of your students will bring you gifts. All I ask is that you demonstrate some ethical consistency. To do that, you will need to return every single gift that does not clearly indicate in some way that it is a Hanukkah present. If the card says "Merry Christmas" or even "Happy Holidays," or if the wrapping carrys any design that might be associated with either the sacred or secular side of Christmas, you must return it. After all, these things, you have said, offend you, and God knows no one wants to offend you. And it goes without saying that you will not enter a home that is decorated for Christmas or set up a decorated evergreen in your own home; if an evergreen with icicles on it says "Christmas" to you, a decorated evergreen surely does, too.
Or maybe you should just help replace the decorations and add whatever Hanukkah symbols you like."