Many R 2 Blame 4 Trump

 THERE IS PLENTY OF BLAME TO SHARE

+Bishop Durrell Watkins, D.Min. 

   I'm super annoyed. I know, take a number. But I'm not just annoyed by Our Clockwork Orange administration, or by Christian Nationalism (more broadly known as white supremacism), or by the earth crying out in pain (& her tears can cayse us quite a bit of pain) in response to abuse humanity has inflicted upon her. I'm annoyed by the all too common narrative that VP Harris was a bad choice & JB before her (& thst narrative is what made her a candidate).  If only the D's had made wiser choices(!). Um, no.

   I don't buy that  we had bad candidates (when T has a chance in hell, quality isn't the issue, & Harris is as good a leader as we might hope for & better than we deserved). I don't buy that D's are too liberal or too conservative, too much like GOP, too little like Rust belt America. Few D candidates are as left of center as FDR who saved this country from ruin. Both FDR & Johnson promised government help to address poverty and in differing measure, to address racial discrimination. And even if Dems are left of the vibe of the moment, their job is to sell their ideas, not hide/disguise/deny them to win elections. 

   This is a racist, homophobic, sexist country (one's singular lesbian friend or one hardline POC candidate does not negate this), wealth (even by those who lack it) is our religion, & the commercialized American church has embraced the greed & hatred & called them holy. Oligarchy, racism, neo-fascist leanings, & theocracy have conspired together to dominate this country, destroy its diversity, & diminish its compassion. This has been in the works for 40 years & they made a grab for power (complete with attacking the capital & being pardoned for it!!) when they knew few ppl of consequence would stand in their way. That is not the cause of any one or seven Dem tickets. 

Inexiable nonvoters are hugely to blame, as is the media who sold fact checking & truth telling for ratings & $$ while giving free air time to the most loathsome voices in American politics. 

   The coalition of evil told us they were coming (a rare instance of honesty) & the mild middle & pusillanimous media held the door open for them as they came. 

   And, the largest share of blame goes to every eligible voter who saw women's rights bulldozed, trans* people demonized, social safety nets put on the chopping block (as I angrily mix metaphors), & racist rhetoric normalized & thought, "Hell yeah, that sounds pretty good". 

   As culpable are those who saw how ugly it all was & supported it anyway for tax breaks or cult like loyalty to a brand. "I don't feel that way" means squat all if you in fact vote that way.

   We've lost house, senate, scotus, and WH...that coup took decades, not one Tuesday in one November. With little left to lose we may as well offer the bold alternative. They call centrists the "far left." I wish we could organize a loud & fully committed Left. We can at least speak up as conscience demands & vote every single time (local too). 

   But for now, the "how did we get here" question cannot be answered with "people didn't like the old guy who wasn't demonic & they didn't like the woman of color, so what could they do but empower an amoral dictator?" 

   No. People chose perfidy & cruelty & avarice and now we have chaos (as we did in his first term, but now there are fewer adults to restrain him and his dementia has worsened). Maybe we'll learn from this...but I have doubt.

   This is a huge mess. We can all do what we can, if not with real hope of healing, then as least with the consolation of having engaged in moral resistance. But this burning dinosaur turd is not because a Black woman was thrust into a candidacy with only 100 days to build a movement. It's because we've watched bigotry & greed grow larger, stronger, & more organized for over 4 decades without calling it out consistently & with conviction. Some are now coming to the realization that may have been a mistake. (dw)

45 (34) is Problematic

 Personal sharing (views not necessarily reflective of anyone else or any group or organization). 

An unpopular, intellectually stifled, morally bankrupt, one-term president who lost pop vote by almost 3 million votes & 4 years later lost by 7 million votes, refused to concede, incited a brutal insurrection in an attempt to overturn election results, twice impeached, boycotted the swearing-in of his successor, first former president to be indicted, 34 felony convictions, adjudicated rapist...

and that's beside "grab 'em by the pxxxy", shithole countries, Mexico will pay, his tragic mishandling of covid, birtherism, "lock her up", tax cuts for billionaires, the apology he owes the Exonerated 5, & packing scotus with antichoice liars who said under oath they considered Roe settled law...

& all that's beside collusion with Russia, tax evasion, draft dodging, less job growth than his  predecessor & his successor, gassing peaceful protestors, & saying he wants to be dictator for a day.

My God! Who, with any sort of conscience, or memory, would even consider voting for him? How much must one hate immigrants, refugees, LGBTQ, women, BIPOC, the Academy, the environment, civil rights, & general prosperity to vote for him over almost anyone with a brain & a soul?

I'm sad, scared, disgusted, & furious that he has any chance at all. He wasn't a good president & you'd have to look hard to find many people who are worse humans. 

Speaking only for myself, a voting citizen & no one else, I distrust anyone who finds him even remotely acceptable. I expect to have room for about 10 new friends after this, but seriously. WTAF? Darth Vader, Jabba, Hannibal Lector (his hero!), Dracula, Satan, & Mussolini can't be on the ballot so he is the sociopaths' booby prize? 

How is it even necessary or controversial to point out that he's a gadomn narcissistic criminal menace unfit for leadership? It makes no sense for any decent person to support him to any degree.

This isn't about party but about naming a racist felonious grifter & trying to protect my country from him. There are people from more than one party who share this sentiment (though I am not claiming to speak for them). This is from ME to whom it may concern.

That's all. Please register to vote. Please vote. Every time.

#deplorables

(dw)

Pro-Gay, Pro-Trans, & Pro-Choice, with Bible Verses

Pro-Gay, Pro-Trans, & Pro-Choice, with Bible Verses (by Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins)

On the sub/Reddit thread “Gay Christians” a straight identified poster asked, “Is being gay ever approved or said as okay by God or Jesus in the bible? Is transitioning to a different gender a sin? And do you (a gay Christian) believe in abortions (why or why not)? It would be nice for scripture to be included [in your response]. Asking because I’m curious.”

A day later, the OP (original poster) had received 25 responses, including this one from me:

The very few verses used to condemn LGBTQ people are all in the context of violence or exploitation. Love is never condemned.

We now know that gender isn't binary so "transitioning" is just a matter of coming to terms with one's gender experience & identity & then living in one's truth. Eunuchs in the Bible were considered a sort of third gender and Isaiah says they have a special place in God's all-inclusive house of prayer.

I am pro-choice. I believe everyone should have bodily autonomy. In the creation myth Adam is just a body until the breath of life enters him. His life begins with the ability to breathe on his own, not with simply being formed.

Those biblical nods were because you asked for them. I actually do not limit my moral reasoning to ancient texts that have been interpreted in countless ways & used to justify such horrors as war & slavery. I study scripture but I don't use it in place of independent thinking.

That said, I will add a verse that I find to be true, not because it's in a sacred book but because it has proven to be healing in my own life: "God is Love & WHOEVER lives in love lives in God & God lives in them."

When Business Ethics "Trump" Religion

CEOs leaving the Trump corporate advisory board to protest racism and authoritarianism prompted him to disband the committee entirely. However, so far not a single evangelical has left his religious advisory board in protest. How/when did big business leaders become more ethical than religious leaders? How embarrassing for those of us who are persons of faith!
The religious right has long worshiped their fears and prejudices and tried to tell us they were principles, values, and devotion...but now, I wonder if they honestly believe their own hype. Has this unrepentant, unreflective, racist, xenophobic, mendacious, sexual predator really become the cultic symbol and savior for christian fundamentalism? And if so, whatever have they done with the justice seeking, compassionate, healing, radically inclusive Jesus?

Today's Sexy Lenten Bible Reflection

Today's Sexy Lenten Bible Reflection
by Durrell Watkins

"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses." Ezekiel 23.20

People who use the bible to justify their own prudery don't realize how earthy, human, lusty, and scandalous the scriptures are (which is precisely why I love them):
from oral sex,masturbation, the admiration of male and female body parts, and outdoor love making in the Song of Songs/Song of Solomon,
to God's "womb" being mentioned in the book of Job,
to Mary's (then) scandalous out of wedlock pregnancy (no matter how divine the sperm donor is said to have been, Mary never became Mrs God),
to Jonathan and David's obvious same-gender love affair,
to King David dancing naked in the street,
to Onan's coitus interruptus,
to Levirate marriage (where a man is compelled to have sex with his widowed sister-in-law! - see Onan),
to Jesus being with a naked man in the dark in Mark 14,
to penises (male circumcision) being discussed openly and in great detail with some frequency,
to the Apostle Paul in Acts visiting LESBOS (Mytelene),
to Solomon having 1000 spouses (and several people having multiple spouses, but Solomon totally wins)!

And those are just some of the examples where bodies and sexuality are celebrated or at least discussed openly without condemnation; there are also reprehensible sex-acts (in my judgment) that are, nevertheless, stated as matters of fact without a lot of commentary or condemnation in the bible, such as:

Samson accusing his enemies of plowing with his heifer (an insulting way of accusing them of being in bed, either figuratively or literally, with his wife),
Abraham pimping out his wife Sarah,
and Lot having incest with his daughters (in a story often used to condemn homosexuality even though consensual same-gender sex is NOT part of the story, but those who refer to Sodom and Gomorrah never seem to be blasting Lot for sleeping with his daughters...of course, the off-spring of those unholy unions just happened to be the enemies of the writer of the story, so its more of an ethnic slur against neighboring peoples than a story about sexual morals anyway).

There are times when sex is condemned, but it always when the sex is non-consensual, in violation of a covenantal relationship, or exploitive, an example being when ex-Temple prostitutes convert to Pauline Christianity and St Paul tells them to cover their hair until it grows out so they will no longer be mistaken with their former profession.

In addition to those incomplete lists, there are also the times that sexuality is implied:
What was Jesus' relationship to his "beloved" disciple; what was his relationship to Lazarus; and what was his relationship to Mary of Magdala?
What is the significance of Ruth making a vow to Naomi that is often repeated in heterosexual wedding ceremonies today?
What was Paul's thorn that prayer could not remove?

And let's add just a touch of irony to the whole thing by recalling the preferred translation used as a weapon against sex-positive people in general (and same-gender loving people in particular) is the King James Version, named for homosexual Queen James himself!

I mean, be as puritanical as you want to be, but find some reason other than the bible for it, and at very least, please stop using the bible as your excuse for denying same-gender loving people dignity and equal rights.

In Metropolitan Community Churches we see sexuality as a gift to be cherished and celebrated. Loving, consensual, adult relationships, sexual or not, regardless of the gender identities of the people in the relationships, are not condemned by scripture, by sound reasoning, or by Metropolitan Community Churches. Isn't it time to stop blaming sexual misgivings on the bible?

We don't need to look up the "rules" for sexual relationships in an ancient book where the most righteous often had sex lives seldom seen today outside the porn industry! We can sort out what is fair, just, loving, and good for ourselves and then hold ourselves and one another accountable, insisting only that our sexual relationships be (as one community puts it) "safe, sane, and consensual."

We can be moral, responsible, loving, kind, generous, faithful, bound by promises that we freely make, and live in joyous, sensual relationships. Spirituality and sexuality do not pose a dichotomy. I am proud to be part of the MCC tradition that has affirmed that boldly and consistently since its founding on Oct 6, 1968!

Sharing a Colleague's Wise Words (about Privilege)

“Talking about privilege is difficult, if it makes you uncomfortable that's probably a good thing. Growth is uncomfortable. Let's all examine the places we have privilege. Are you white? Are you able-bodied? Are you not trans? Are you a man? Are you straight? Are you financially comfortable? Are you well educated? These aren't things that should make you feel shame! But if you are in these categories (especially if you are in most of these categories) please have some awareness about those whose lives are complicated simply by not being you.” Rev Jakob Hero (MCC minister/hospital chaplain)

Guns are a safety issue for some, but not always against real potential attackers

In response to what is approaching an epidemic of mass shootings in our country, I made a fairly simple statement on Twitter (my Tweets get posted to my FB page) statement about how we must get past our love/worship of guns in order to pass some sane legislation to make it more difficult for unstable people to get weapons.
Universal background checks, waiting periods, penalites for people who go around the process, and no military grade weapons (automatic) sold on the open market at all...These steps (already in place in some measure in some places) surely would make it a little more difficult for unstable people to become domestic terrorists and would allow the hunters of the world and those who feel they need hand guns or shotguns for protection to not feel violated by their government...I wouldn't ask for anything more (I personally would be comfortable with much stricter gun control, but could be satisfied with this more moderate approach).

In response to my concern about the many lives lost to recent mass gun attacks, a relative became very defensive, insulting, angry, etc. I realized that in his regional and economic circumstances, the world can seem unsafe, and conservative (almost fundamentalist) religion and firearms (which he has never used other that to shoot inanimate targets...he doens't even hunt) are what he makes him feel a bit more secure in a changing and complex world.

After some back and forth (I admit that at first I got caught up in the tit for tat exchange), I finally offered what I hoped was a conciliatory statement (bascially calling for a "cease fire," as it were). I offer it as a means of preventing heated exchanges that are unlikely to lead to change and can harm relationships.

Here is what I said:

"One's own Facebook page is for expressing one's own opinion...your sharing your values on your page is your right and so far (I believe) I have never attacked your beliefs on your FB page (and I hope I never do). Disagreement is fine, but blowing up on someone's FB page isn't likely to change their views or leave anyone feeling good about the exchange.
 
On the other hand, personal story telling is important, and if you need to share your experience, your page or mine is a safe place to do that, just know that my world is a little to the left of yours and responses may not be compatibe with your worldview.
 
I'm still not certain how wanting safeguards against violence is threatening to your way of life (I don't believe you would want to shoot up a mall or a park, and would probably through yourself in harm's way to stop someone who did), so the personalizaiton [of the issue] still puzzles me; but in the end, we elect our representatives, we contact our representatives, and society moves one direction or another (usually back and forth over time).

Arguing with me won't further your cause(s), but sharing your views on your page, to your reps, in letters to the editor, etc. might help shape some public opinion one way or the other, and at very least will let you feel "heard." I just don't think other people's FB pages are the place for that (unless invited to do so). It too easily becomes argumentative with hurt feelings to follow.

I will continue to share my values in my venues. Everyone does. That's the place for them. If you agree with them, you can "like" them or "share" them, if not, ignore them. Now, if i\I come for you on your page, I've crossed a line and you can respond with both barrels (to use a metaphor consistent with the conversation). Otherwise, we can just assume that we disagree about certain social issues.

Should Christians Support Military Strikes on Syria?

This week's question for the Q&A in the Sun Burst (Sunshine Cathedral's weekly newsletter) came from someone at the church Labor Day picnic. It doesn't answer people's political views or their emotional needs, but it does frame the issue in the context of an avowed non-violent tradition:

Q&A with Rev Dr Durrell Watkins
Question: As Christians, should we support attacking Syria?

Answer: The answer to questions of military intervention are always complex and defy simple answers. I can tell you that early Christians were pacifists and I can remind you of the angelic prayer from the Nativity story, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward all people.”

There is also an ancient Jewish tale of God reprimanding the people of Israel when they were celebrating the drowning of Egyptian forces. God, according to the tale, reminded them that the Egyptians were children of God also and God was very sad that they had perished.

And, of course, we know that peaceful revolutionaries such as Gandhi and Dr King changed the world with non-violent resistance.

From political or national security perspectives, there are probably arguments for and against military action. Ethicists might weigh in with their own understandings. From a theological viewpoint, or at least from my theological viewpoint, I always prefer peaceful solutions, or at least attempts at peaceful solutions to major conflicts. I always hope military action will be a last resort.

If a dictator has committed genocide against his own people, then it would be obscene to remain silent in the face of such atrocity. However, there may be ways of showing disapproval of such action and of standing in solidarity with the oppressed short of drone strikes that will also cost human lives. I also wonder why we find one act of atrocity to be worthy of military action and another to not require such action. We seem oddly selective about our moral outrage in these situations.

My opinion, or yours for that matter, will unlikely change the course of events. But I hope as a faith community we never are comfortable with rushing to violence. And, come what may, we should continue praying as we do every Sunday, “May peace prevail on earth.”

Various Thoughts & Prayers Re: Possible Strikes on Syria

"Jesus’ call to be peacemakers takes us in a different direction than missile strikes. I believe the just cause being laid out against Assad is indeed a moral case, and I trust both President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry’s intentions around that cause. But I believe that the military strikes now being proposed are not the best moral response to this moral crisis — and they could ultimately undermine both our moral case and the moral intentions." Jim Wallis

Even some of the most conservative religious voices oppose military intervention at this point: "Geoff Tunnicliffe, CEO of the World Evangelical Alliance, pointed out the negative effect military strikes would have on Christians in the Middle East. New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan said in a letter to Obama that strikes would be 'counterproductive' and 'exacerbate an already deadly situation.' And the Southern Baptist Convention’s Russell Moore echoed the concerns, saying, there are just-cause principles missing 'both to justify action morally and to justify it prudentially.'"

“War brings on war! Violence brings on violence."
Pope Francis, who supports a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war, calling upon people of faith around the world to pray and fast for peace this Saturday, Sept. 7.

Prayer for Peace in the world:

"Great God...save us from ourselves, save us from the vengeance in our hearts and the acid in our souls.  Save us from our desire to hurt as we have been hurt, to punish as we have been punished, to terrorize as we have been terrorized.  Give us the strength it takes to...trust rather than to fear, to try again and again to make peace even when peace eludes us.
We ask,... O God, for the grace to be our best selves. We ask for the vision to be builders of the human community rather than its destroyers. We ask for the humility as a people to understand the fears and hopes of other peoples. We ask for the love it takes to bequeath to the children of the world to come more than the failures of our own making. We ask for the heart it takes to care for all the peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq, of Palestine and Israel [and of Syria] as well as for ourselves...
[M]ay we be merciful and patient and gracious and trusting with these others whom you also love.
This we ask through Jesus, the one without vengeance in his heart. This we ask forever and ever. Amen" - Sister Joan Chittister, OSB

 

"Let nothing disturb thee, nothing affright thee; all things are passing, God never changeth! Patient endurance attaineth to all things; who God possesseth in nothing is wanting; alone God sufficeth." Northumbria Community blessing

 

Prayer for Peace (adapted): 

"Eternal Hope, in whose perfect kin-dom no sword is drawn but the sword of righteousness, no strength known but the strength of love: So mightily spread abroad your Light, that all peoples may be gathered under the banner of...Peace, as members of one global family. Amen."

 

Under the heading of there is nothing new under the sun:

"[In 1914] Paul Jones was ... made Bishop of the Missionary District of Utah. He was an outspoken pacifist, and when World War I began in 1914, he spoke against it. As the war progressed, and when the United States entered the war in 1917, many Americans were vehement in holding that pursuing the war was a moral duty, and opposition to the war was immoral.In the spring of 1918... Bishop Jones resigned as Bishop of Utah. He continued to speak out within the Church as an advocate of peace and the Christian renunciation of war, until his death on 4 September 1941." James Kiefer

 

"If all our options are bad, why pick the one that involves missiles?" Rachel Maddow

 

Q&A with Dr Durrell Watkins

Question: As Christians, should we support attacking Syria?

Answer: The answer to questions of military intervention are always complex and defy simple answers. I can tell you that early Christians were pacifists and I can remind you of the angelic prayer from the Nativity story, “Peace on earth, goodwill toward all people.”

 

There is also an ancient Jewish tale of God reprimanding the people of Israel when they were celebrating the drowning of Egyptian forces. God, according to the tale, reminded them that the Egyptians were children of God also and God was very sad that they had perished.

And, of course, we know that peaceful revolutionaries such as Gandhi and Dr King changed the world with non-violent resistance.

From political or national security perspectives, there are probably arguments for and against military action. Ethicists might weigh in with their own understandings. From a theological viewpoint, or at least from my theological viewpoint, I always prefer peaceful solutions, or at least attempts at peaceful solutions to major conflicts. I always hope military action will be a last resort.

If a dictator has committed genocide against his own people, then it would be obscene to remain silent in the face of such atrocity. However, there may be ways of showing disapproval of such action and of standing in solidarity with the oppressed short of drone strikes that will also cost human lives. I also wonder why we find one act of atrocity to be worthy of military action and another to not require such action. We seem oddly selective about our moral outrage in these situations.

My opinion, or yours for that matter, will unlikely change the course of events. But I hope as a faith community we never are comfortable with rushing to violence. And, come what may, we should continue praying as we do every Sunday, “May peace prevail on earth.”

(from Sept. 8th, 2013 edition of The Sun Burst, Sunshine Cathedral's weekly newsletter)

 

"As humanitarians confronting the horror of the Syrian civil war, we must consider how we can best protect civilians, end the violence, and uphold the international prohibition on using chemical weapons. But we shouldn't make matters worse on the ground just to answer war crimes with a limited and largely symbolic show of force." Credo Action

 

11 Reasons Why We Shoud Not Attack Syria

http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/eleven-reasons-why-we-should-not-attack-syria#.UiSfQHAP2tE.facebook

 

 

 

 

 

Biblical Arguments Against Marriage Equality Don’t Hold Up

Biblical Arguments Against Marriage Equality Don’t Hold Up
Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins

Those who invoke the bible to defend their heternormative and homophobic views need to understand that the bible can be understood in more complex ways than would make them comfortable. There are biblical heroes who form non-traditional families of choice, there are couples who have covenantal relationships outside the cultural definition of marriage, and there are plenty of examples of people practicing polygamy (but none as enthusiastically as “wise” Solomon with his 700 wives, 300 concubines, and a legendary one night stand with the Queen of Sheba!). What constitutes a relationship, a family, or even a life-long covenant in the Jewish and Christian scriptures is not as cut and dry as the opponents of marriage equality would like to believe.

What people who use the bible as a weapon to protect their privilege and marginalize others need to know about the bible is that rather than being a memo dictated by God, it is a collection of writings by many authors spanning three continents and more than a thousand years. It is a very complex and diverse collection of writings.

Other things people who would bash others with the bible should know include:

1.      The bible is not the bible in the bible.

The biblical canon was closed centuries after the life of Jesus. The church existed for generations before there was a Christian bible. And even still, the bible one accepts differs slightly depending on if one is Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, Mormon, or Jewish. Whether there is one testament or there are two or three and how many books are in those testaments depends on which tradition within Christianity one embraces.

2.      The bible is a human document.

Some believe the bible is divinely inspired, others do not, but either way the actual writing was done by humans, the reading is done by humans (and readers make meaning), and how the words are used are determined by humans. With or without the notion of a divine presence nudging people to record their thoughts, opinions, beliefs, and desires, the obvious fact remains that the work of biblical writing, reading, interpreting, and application is the work of human-beings, and humans don’t always agree.

3.      There are no original texts.

The original documents, that is, the first pieces of paper (or papyrus) upon which the biblical authors wrote no longer exist. The oldest scriptural documents extant today are hand written copies of hand written copies (which leaves quite a bit of room for human error).

4.      Biblical ethics and knowledge don’t always withstand the test of time.

Biblical writers accepted slavery, child abuse, war, and the secondary status of women without question. Biblical writers assumed the earth was flat, never knew of the Americas, and had never heard of the law of gravity. Aerodynamics, quantum physics, and depth psychology were unknown to the ancient writers. The biblical writers didn’t know about the egg cell or chromosomes, and therefore didn’t even understand procreation the way we do today. Their creativity and genius should not be ignored, and yet, what they did not know was a lot. We learn more as time goes by; we are not limited to what people knew millennia ago.

5.      The biblical texts were not written in any modern language.

The biblical texts were written in ancient languages (sometimes without any punctuation), so translation issues must always be considered. Our bible is a translation of copies of copies of copies of texts handwritten in ancient languages in ancient, pre-scientific cultures. It’s still fascinating and beautiful and useful, but not if used as a weapon to defend bigotry and discrimination.  

I can’t think of any legitimate reason to deny equality to any member of our society; but when people use religion to deny that equality, I become particularly angry. Religion at its best should help people experience hope and joy, and believe in their sacred value. Religion at its best should celebrate love (not condemn it). Religion at its best should help people experience liberation rather than perpetuating oppression. I can’t think of any reason to deny equality to any member of society, but religion provides the weakest excuse of all for denying equality.  

Marriage equality one day will be the law of the land. I am one of those hoping that such a day comes very soon; but even before that day, my wish is that those who oppose equality would no longer do so in the name of religion.

Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins is the Senior Minister of Sunshine Cathedral in Ft Lauderdale.

Sunshine Cathedral is a progressive and inclusive ministry affiliated with Metropolitan Community Churches and the International New Thought Alliance.
www.sunshinecathedral.org

Scalia Needs to Rethink “Morality”

Scalia Needs to Rethink “Morality”

Written by REV. DR. DURRELL WATKINS

Justice Anton Scalia has shockingly compared homosexuality to murder. He asked a Princeton student, “If we cannot have moral feelings about homosexuality, can we have them about murder?” Obviously, such a comparison is inflammatory and hurtful to same-gender loving people and their friends and families.

Justice Scalia justifies his hateful rhetoric by calling his opposition to homosexuality a moral argument. Never mind that Justice Scalia lacks the moral authority to make such pontifications, and that his unrestrained personal prejudices actually imply that he may be incapable of rendering impartial, fair, legally sound judgments in matters of full equality for same-gender loving people. What is most troubling is that this otherwise educated and clearly powerful person seems to be operating under the assumption that sexual orientation is a choice, and that even if it were, only one choice would be acceptable.

I’m gay, same-gender loving, Queer (yes, I muti-identify). Of course, my homosexuality is a matter of public record (I’ve been out and an activist for my entire adult life), so of course I disagree with Anton Scalia and all who try to disguise their heterosexism as moral values.

For me, my same gender love and attraction are innate. That said, if homosexuality were a choice it would be a VALID choice.

I no longer at this point in my life try to deconstruct homophobic interpretations of isolated scriptural verses (there are a total of about six in all of the bible that are used abusively against same-gender loving people), make excuses for the understandings of human sexuality in antiquity, or “prove” that same-gender love is as sacred as any other love. I don’t need to defend myself or my love against people who use religion like a weapon to exclude, abuse, control, or vilify any minority including LBGT people. I also no longer need to appeal to psychological, sociological, or biological arguments to justify same-gender love and attraction (copious though such arguments are).

I simply know myself to be a good person, my relationship to be a blessing in my life, and my love to be part of that universal energy of love that many of us call God. If same-gender love and attraction are healthy (and I insist they are), then whether such love and attraction are the result of biology, psychology, socialization, or choice doesn’t matter. Good is good no matter “why” it exists.

The reason that same-gender relationships can't be compared to heinous acts such as pedophilia, bestiality, incest, rape, and MURDER is that none of those things are about mutuality. All of those activities have a victim. People being attracted to each other, sharing time and intimacy together, and even loving each other are mutual, victimless, life-enhancing experiences. Two people choosing to share intimacy and perhaps a life together cannot by any reasonable person be compared to exploiting, assaulting or murdering someone!

"Moral" arguments against violence or abuse of power make sense. "Moral" arguments against consensual adult relationships are just bigotry posing as morality.

People are entitled to their prejudices I suppose, and I guess they are even entitled to pretend their prejudices are ordained by a supreme power (how convenient when one’s deity hates one’s enemies as well!), but let’s not confuse fear and hatred of the other, even when such fear and hatred are wrapped in religious language, as morality.

Justice Scalia’s anti-gay rhetoric (which, ironically, is anything but just) may appeal to homophobes and religious zealots, but it is increasingly out of the mainstream of 21st century thought. The day will come when even powerful people like Justice Scalia will not be able to deny or delay justice and equality for all people. As the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” If we want to make moral arguments, we will talk about tolerance rather than demonizing others, inclusion rather than marginalizing others, and instead of vilifying people for their consensual adult relationships, we will demand “liberty and justice for ALL.”

 

Durrell Watkins holds sociology and theatre degrees from Henderson State University and Goddard College, respectively, as well as a Master of Divinity degree from Union Theological Seminary and a Doctor of Ministry degree from the Episcopal Divinity School. He is the author of Wrestling with God without Getting Pinned: Old Stories, New Thoughts, & Progressive Spirituality (Outskirts Press, available at Amazon.com), and is the Senior Pastor of the Sunshine Cathedral in Fort Lauderdale (www.sunshinecathedral.org).

What's right?

What’s right?
Rev. Dr. Durrell Watkins


“It seemed there was always close correlation between true believers and high body counts.”
Dan Brown


Isn’t it odd that people who are the most certain that they are right (and in order to be right they feel everyone with different opinions must be wrong) often are the very ones who seem so insecure in their “rightness” that they need to silence, control, punish, or exclude those they believe to be not right. Discrimination, violence, wars, insults, abuse…so much damage has been done for the cause of “righteousness.” My beliefs sustain me. I don’t need to prove they are right and I don’t much care if anyone shares them. As long as I’m allowed to live with dignity, freedom, and peace, then let every person hold his or own cherished beliefs. But when people believe that I don’t have a right to exist, to love, or to celebrate my life, those are not empowering personal beliefs; those are oppressive attitudes that must be challenged. Otherwise, the abuse will continue without end. And that just isn’t right!


I can cherish what I believe to be right for me without denying anyone else their rights and dignity.

For Me, Pro-Choice IS Pro-life

According to a commentary offered by a cable news network anchor on August 22nd, 2012, in 1930 alone, more than 2700 American women died from illegal abortions (that's more than 7 per day throughout the entire year and that is just one year!). When abortion was illegal, people still sought them, but b/c they were illegal they were done in unsanitary places, often by people who were not medically trained, & so women died. I may or may not "believe" that a fertilized egg is a person, but I know with total certainty that a woman is a person, and I am "pro" women's lives and I trust women to make their own choices for their own bodies.

{The number of 2700 women dying in 1930 was reported on the Rachel Maddow Show, Aug. 22, 2012, MSNBC}

All Hail the Weather Deities

The fundies and right wing crazies have blamed earthquakes, hurricanes, and even terrorist attacks on divine retribution, saying God was punishing cities or countries that valued diversity and civil liberties. Now, a hurricane is heading for the GOP convention, and of course many of those right wingers hide out in the GOP. It is so tempting to use their rhetoric (even playfully) to suggest that God is out to get them; but let's not. Let's take the high road, if for no other reason than to show we have a more intelligent understanding of meteorology than that. The gods don't send bad weather to show displeasure. Weather just happens, and if we happen to be in the the flood plane or tornado path or near a fault line, we'll just get caught up in nature's drama. Of course they were idiotic to blame disaster on people they don't like; let's not be as idiotic.

Who are people?

I could never and will never embrace a philosophy that says corporations and fertilized eggs are persons with rights but same-gender loving individuals are not.

Loving people don't condemn people for their love

Using the bible against people like a weapon isn't loving. It wasn't when people used the bible to keep women silent and it wasn't when people used the bible to defend and promote the evil practice of slavery.


Of course some people will be homophobic (or racist, or xenophobic, or other scared of or afraid of "the other"), and some will even try to convince themselves that their prejudices are God's prejudices. We are free to believe in any deity (or no deity) and to beleive whatever we will about our fellow human beings. But, regardless of our beliefs, all people have a right to live lives of dignity and all people should have equal rights.


Hate who you want to hate and even call it love, but don't keep other citizns marginalized. That's where the problem lies.


LesBiGay people are being told to deny who they are, to be ashamed of their very ontology, and to give up the people they love most in the world. You may not think that matters, but if it were you, regardless of how seriously you take the Golden Rule (which is also in the bible you know), would you want to have church and state (which should be separate) try to keep you and the love of your life apart? Of course not.


I don't care if you hate me; i don't even care if you fool yourself into believing that hating me is loving me, just don't try to keep me from having all the rights, privileges, and protections you take for granted. You don't have to bless my relationship, but neither should you try to keep me from having it and from it enjoying all the protections that yours does.

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/gaysouthflorida/2012/08/tears-anger-fill-temple-beth-moshe-in-north-miami-as-conservative-pastor-meets-lgbt-activists.html#comment-form#storylink=cpy

It's My Life, Not an Issue

http://gaysofla.com/articles/commentary/255-its-my-life-not-an-issue.html

Piece I wrote for SoGayFla.com

Enjoy

Debate Over Hate?

At last night's LBGT Inclusion forum, I was honestly surprised to learn/remember that those who oppose complete LBGT equality don't see the humanity of the people they are hurting, nor are they willing to acknowledge that they are hurting people. They kept speaking about their right to disagree with our "sexual ethics" (I don't recall anyone disclosing what their sexual ethics were).


It boils down to they have decided it's wrong for love to be shared between persons of the same gender and their right to believe that gives them, they believe, the right to deny equality to those whose love and attraction isn't heteronormative.

They kept presenting it as a difference of opinion (with their opinion deserving the force of law) and those who said the legislation of their homophobic views caused pain and suffering to same-gender loving people were actually "hateful" to religious people (forgetting that at least one gay clergy person was in the room).


Very frustating that they think their prejudice deserves protection but my relationship doesn't. We still have so much work to do.

Sad? Silly? Crazy? Cruel? The Pope's Attitude Is Anything But Good

According the AP, "marital fidelity and a 'moral view' of sexuality are the best strategies to stop the spread of AIDS," said Pope Benedict while welcoming Namibia's and South Africa's new ambassadors to Vatican City. “Only a strategy based on education to individual responsibility in the framework of a moral view of human sexuality, especially through conjugal fidelity, can have a real impact on the prevention of this disease,” Benedict said. Apparently the moral view, for the pope, doesn't include the use of life-saving condoms.

Maybe it's just me, but i'm a little annoyed with someone who takes a life-long vow of celibacy presenting himself as the authority on human sexuality. And I'm furious that decades into the AIDS crisis, "conjugal fidelity" is the best response a major religious leader can offer. The Pope's advice is flawed for AT LEAST three reasons:

1. Covenantal fidelity is just that...faithfulness to a covenant. The covenant two people make may exclusive..."You and me and no others will we see." But a covenant can also exist between three persons..."We three are all it will be" or even between four persons, "Us four and no more." You see, covenants are negotiated and honored by the people living with them.

I'm a little conservative about this personally, and prefer the two person model, but other relationships are built on different values and seem to do fine. Fidelity isn't about how many people make up the relationship. Fidelity is about keeping your promises. Such fidelity will provide emotional safety within a relationship, but will not magically protect one from AIDS. If the covenant allows for "extra curricular" sexual activity, or if someone within the covenantal relationship is HIV positive, fidelity to the promises made will not prove to be an anti-viral strategy.

2. That leads to the second reason this out-dated, hopelessly irrelevant papal point of view just doesn't work. Even in the most conservative, old-fashioned (by Western Christian standards), narrow way of thinking, monogamy is not a magic barrier against a virus. If there are two people in a relationship, and they choose (and I insist that it is their choice to make, not the pope's) to be monogamous, but one of them is HIV positive, monogamy will not keep the virus in one body while preventing it from spreading to the other. Condoms, by way of contrast, will.

3. Finally, I do agree that a "moral view of human sexuality" is needed. And the moral view would suggest that we should not value dogma over human lives. Condoms save lives. Let's use it as a mantra: Condoms save lives! Condoms save lives! Condoms save lives!
It's the 21st century and time to acknowledge that human sexuality is good, human-beings are capable of negotiating their own relationships and the terms of those relationships, and people shouldn't have to die because a celebate man nearing the end of his life doesn't understand that.

Now, let me be clear...celibacy is a perfectly valid life-style choice (as long as it is freely chosen and not demanded).
Monogamay is a valid choice...if that is what both parties in the relationship mutually agree to.
Open relationships can be moral, again, if the parties agree that is what they want and they are faithful to whatever rules they agree on in order to keep them emotionally safe in the relationship.
And, loving relationships that invovle more than two people (such as a three person relationship), if the relationship is mutual and life-giving, can also be healthy, moral, and holy.

Life and love and human sexuality are more complex than the pope's antiquated rule book from patriarchy's hey-day seems to allow. Yes, people in relationships should keep their promises, and we should trust them to make promises they can keep, but my relationship (or yours) is really not the pope's business. And regardless of the promises people make to each other, condoms must be available for their physical safety. I'm just not willing to risk human lives to protect the rules that give the pope his power.