The Church of Roller Derby

I was raised in the Presbyterian Church. My father was and is a minister, and my mother was heavily involved in everything from directing the children's choir to bake sales and other organizational duties.

Every Sunday morning I had to wake up early to attend services, usually grumbling about being made to sacrifice one of just two precious chances to sleep in each week. When I was very young, I remember that my mom would wisely resort to scratching my back during dad's sermons as a way to basically pacify me, keep me from squirming or causing trouble during these longer periods of inactivity and introspection.

I never hated church. There are aspects of church life and community that I really enjoyed, in fact--mostly the potlucks, the holiday pageants (or the weirdly ambitious stagings of musicals like Godspell), the bake sales, and later the youth group outings to do service work restoring homes for elderly folks or bringing gift baskets to the residents of a mental health institute.

Still, as soon as I left home for college, I stopped going. Partially this was because I moved to a new state and wasn't familiar with any of the church communities in my new city, but mostly because I had decided that I no longer felt comfortable calling myself a Christian.

I had, and have, too many serious objections to the overall bent of the Church--too focused on outmoded beliefs about women and queer people (both groups to which I belong), too guilty of misdeeds against the very people the church is supposed to exist to help: the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, the minorities.

I saw too much lip service to serving God and too little actual service.

There has been much written about the worldwide decline in people who identify themselves as religious and/or who attend church on a regular basis, especially among younger generations. It is, most certainly, a time of major transition and transformation. Splits. Schisms.

I see that as a good thing. The Powers That Be need a stark wake-up call from the rest of the world--among all the religions and communities--that they've strayed too far from the path that I think the majority of us know in our hearts is the righteous one: to help those less fortunate, to strive for a better world, to be open and inclusive.

You don't need to believe in God to believe in that.

So where does roller derby enter into all of this, you might be asking at this point?

I've been a member of my local roller derby community for just over a year now. In that time, I've frequently joked that the sport and its community have become my new church. It often involves getting up for 8 a.m. practices on Sunday mornings, after all. And I do it gladly!

But I've been thinking. It's a whole lot more than that. And there's really something to the joke:

Roller derby is an amazing sport that requires an enormous amount of time, dedication, hard work, mental and physical discipline (don't believe me? watch the championship match between Gotham and Texas from this past weekend).

Roller derby is also an amazing community of people from diverse backgrounds and with differing abilities and talents, one that places a big emphasis on community outreach and charitable giving. The Mad Rollin' Dolls, my home league, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for local non-profits over the years. They've spent countless hours doing service work, too: packing Thanksgiving baskets for those in need, building homes for farm animal sanctuaries, serving up food at community events, being part of Make-A-Wish days, and a whole lot more.

They also band together when one of their own is in need. Right now, for instance, there's a massive fundraising drive for a Milwaukee skater who was shot during a mugging. I've seen derby folk from other countries jump in to help out with medical bills, housing needs, and more whenever called upon. We get each others' backs.

Roller derby is also, by and large, an incredibly inclusive community. We were founded by the outcasts and queers who wanted a sport of their own in a world that typically shunned them. We've built this thing from the ground up, mostly through the blood, sweat and tears of volunteer work. We have our troubles, our fights, like any family--but we stick together and find solutions. We take all-comers, so long as you're willing to give back in a positive way. Black, white, queer, straight, trans, religious, atheist--it's an open door policy.

This is my church. This is my home. This is the world I want to live in and want to help build for everyone. Whether or not you're interested in strapping on a pair of skates and ramming yourself into other human beings doesn't matter (I just happen to really enjoy that). The point is, we should apply this same ethic of service, inclusion, and community to all aspects of our lives.

You want butts back in seats at your house of worship but aren't willing to make real changes? I'd rather put on skates and roll into something better. But if you're serious, the examples of how to do more, to grow and evolve and bring people on board--they're right here, at the Church of Roller Derby.

Another ridiculous notch on Morlino's belt

I've ceased being surprised by any of the ridiculous things Bishop Morlino says or does. I am heartened by the growing chorus of dissent amongst area Catholics in response, though.

Forces advocating change in the Catholic Church clashed with the church establishment Saturday at St. John Vianney Church.

The issue was the firing last week of Ruth Kolpack from her job as pastoral associate of St. Thomas the Apostle Church in Beloit.

The firing came in a meeting with Bishop Robert Morlino. Kolpack said Morlino asked her to renounce her master’s thesis, make a profession of faith and take a loyalty oath.

Loyalty oaths? I guess some of us are still riding on the "refusing to learn anything from history" train. And as for that masters thesis found to be so objectionable?

Kolpack said her thesis discussed the evil that can come of blind obedience. She said she can understand how that could be a red flag for the bishop.

“But if he would’ve read the whole paper, he would’ve understood it... he didn’t give it a chance,” she said.

The thesis also criticizes the church’s language of worship, which refers to God with words such as “he” or “Father.”

Kolpack said that’s harmful.

“I’m concerned about women, about young girls, who grow up in a patriarchal, male-dominated society. What does it do to their self-esteem?” she said.

But heaven forbid we, as humans, strive to become more egalitarian, more compassionate, more inclusive in all things. Because apparently a centuries old text, written by men living in a very different time with very different understandings of morality and equality, should be considered infallible. This sense of refusing to grow and learn baffles me - it is, essentially, the worst kind of anti-intellectualism. It's saying that everything we can and should know has already been carved in stone, and to study those words or to come to different conclusions based on new evidence and reinterpretations is heresy.

But that's what the people in power prefer. If the hoi polloi were to start questioning the very foundations upon which these officials base their authority, well, they'd be plum out of a job. It's happened before, and they're fools to think it won't happen again.

My favorite (ie: the most outrageous) part of the article comes in the form of a quote, though:

Spokesman Brent King said that Catholics owe obedience to their pastor, bishop and the pope, because they represent Jesus.

I admit that it's difficult for me to understand why anyone could claim to be a direct representative of a man who died 2,000-odd years ago, or of a spiritual entity that goes far beyond physical being. I suspect that it results from one of two things: True delusion, or full knowledge that it's a bullshit claim but still useful in attaining a position of great influence.

My father is a pastor, and he has never claimed to "represent Jesus" (but then, he's a dirty Protestant). Rather, most clergy worth their salt simply claim to be dedicated and tireless scholars of their chosen religions, interested in sharing their knowledge and ideas, and in attempting to bring some degree of order and kindness to their fellow man.

Too many fall far short of that noble goal, though, when they get caught up in the desire for authority, glory, riches, etc. And their all-too common weaknesses sometimes lead to things like war, oppression, and senseless struggle.

So I'm glad there are people like Kolpack who are willing to keep searching, keep trying to improve the ways in which we seek truth, compassion, justice and greater meaning in life. I just wish their were fewer Morlinos to stand in their way.

Chosen by God

A brief anecdote:

There's a rather conservative church that I pass on a regular basis here in Madison (I know, gasp!) that sports a sign on its front lawn that is often updated with phrases that range from regular ol' churchy stuff to fundamentalist proclamations. Tonight I drove by and noticed that it had been changed to something about "the powers that be" having been "ordained by God."

Was this church implying that our government had been "ordained by God" or was I misreading it? They'd also helpfully supplied the relevant Bible verse, so I went ahead and looked it up when I got home.

Romans 13:1 - "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God."

That Paul, always good for a laugh. But yes, it would appear that the person who decided what to put on the sign (at least) believes that we should all submit fully to government because those in it have been handpicked by God his ownself.

I wonder, then, if this conservative church will feel the same way if Obama wins the election. Or will they suddenly decry the teachings of Paul in favor of the somewhat more anti establishment leanings of the big JC?

Which leads me to wonder - if Obama wins the election, will all those far-right-wing fanatics start sporting "Impeach Now!" bumperstickers and the like? If so, I'd be mighty tempted to start telling them to "Love it or leave it." Be good for shits and giggles, anyway.

But that's not what I believe, and I certainly as hell don't believe that any of our leaders have been ordained or chosen by God. I'm not certain why anyone, especially those as into the deep rooted fallibility of humanity as conservative Christians, could believe that.

Then again, it's just a sign, right?

Kudos to area Catholics for standing up to Morlino

This weekend I picked up a copy of the Wisconsin State Journal and read, with an increasingly large smile on my face, an ad placed by the local chapter of Call to Action containing an open letter to Bishop Robert Morlino. In the letter, which they also delivered to Morlino himself, the group expresses their concerns over several things: Morlino's insistence on building a brand new cathedral, his leadership style's effect on the morale of priests, his single-minded focus on issues like abortion and homosexuality, the exclusion of women from the clergy, and the firing of an openly gay music director.

First off, I want to extend my support to those who backed the ad/letter, and hope that this movement meets with some success in helping to open a productive dialogue within the Church.

The WSJ also included an article about the letter and responses to it:

In a statement, the diocese said Morlino is sorry that "certain groups, who claim to be Catholic, would assume postures which clearly are not in accord with the teachings of the church."

This is what really gets up my guff: Morlino certainly has every right to disagree with the letter and its claims, but where he gets off shutting the whole thing down by immediately calling into question the letter writer's very Catholicism I don't even know. I would be pretty pissed, too, if the head of my church (or any organization to which I belonged) dismissed by valid concerns so easily. But that's just how Morlino rolls, it seems, as he bats off any and all criticisms with personal attacks.

No wonder some of the priests feel threatened enough to have formed their own support group, as detailed in the article:

Asked for evidence of poor morale among priests, several of the letter signers mentioned the Association of Madison Priests. The group was formed by priests to support each other and to provide a unified voice on issues in which they differ with Morlino, according to people familiar with the group.

"They feel the need to protect each other," said Joan Weiss of Prairie du Sac, a CTA leader. "They're concerned about retaliation if they speak out in opposition in any way."

Apparently, this sort of independent priest group is fairly rare, yet another sign that the situation with Morlino and his leadership style might just be a bit extreme.

I can't say I've been particularly surprised by Morlino's various outrages ever since learning that he is the chairman of the Board of Visitors at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly the School of Americas. Why is this fact so heinous? Well, WHISC/SOA is responsible for training some of South America's most notorious military criminals, some of whom were responsible for the murder of Jesuit priests. But Morlino defended his position with the institute and ignored the opposition of clergy in Madison.

I'm not Catholic, so I have been and will no doubt continue to be criticized for sticking my nose in where some don't think it belongs. I have several close friends who are Catholic, however, and I attended a Catholic college - so you'll excuse me if I have some interest in and empathy for those struggling with their own beliefs and those so vigorously being imposed on them from on high.

What's interesting, too, is that so many people who agree with Morlino and the positions he pushes, when confronted with fellow Catholics who disagree, often call into question those people's reasons for remaining Catholics. It's the "love it or leave it" frame of mind. A good example of this can be found at the blog of a one "Fr. Z", where he addresses the current hubbub over the letter. He refers to the independent priest's group as "cowards," and outright dismisses the dissenters as being 100% "wrong."

Heck, maybe it is time for the more modern, forward-thinking Catholics to start their own branch of the Church. It'd be a shame, because I'd much rather see the whole Church work together to move, in their own way, into the 21st century. But if the modernizers did form their own group, I suspect it would take a rather large chunk out of regular Catholic membership--maybe that would teach people like Morlino and the Pope a valuable lesson, ie: if you actually listen to the concerns of your parishioners instead of being so damn rigidly hierarchical and dismissing them outright, maybe you wouldn't be facing things like the current priest shortage or declining mass attendance.

The cynical side of me says let them eat cake and suffer the consequences of their stubbornly backward-looking policies - but like I said, I have many close friends who are Catholics, and they find a lot to love in the Church, things like its commitment to social justice, and even the more traditional services. So the idealistic side of me wishes for better and more open dialogue about the future of the church, allowing real input from everyone from lay people to priests to bishops, leading to some progressive changes in how things are done. Why not allow women into the clergy? Why not a greater focus on addressing poverty, hunger, and social justice, instead of such single-minded railing against things like homosexuality and abortion? Why not, in a world where the population is ever-exploding, relax the restrictions on contraception?

Whether that means outright removal of Morlino as bishop or just convincing the guy to be a little more open to input, I don't know. That's up to the Catholics. But this public criticism, and the group supporting it, are certainly a step in the right direction and I wish them luck.

McIlheran doesn't quite get separation of church and state

Columnist Patrick McIlheran can't seem to wrap his head around the concept of separation of church and state. In his latest opus, he opines that the IRS can penalize and potentially revoke a church's tax exempt status simply because its preacher decides to endorse a specific candidate for public office from the pulpit.

This is in response "Pulpit Freedom Sunday", an event coordinated by the right-wing Alliance Defense Fund wherein 33 pastors gave sermons that explicitly urged parishioners to vote for a specific presidential candidate (mostly McCain), and then sent those sermons to the IRS as a way to openly defy the tax law.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State, along with several former IRS officials, have all sent briefs to the IRS urging them to investigate the churches that participated.

McIlheran rambles on about how this shouldn't be an issue at all, because "preachers were utterly free to rail for Lincoln or against Hoover for 178 years, and the nation seemed no more prone to divisiveness then than now. The civil rights movement was born in black churches, many of which have long been bravely, openly political. Pulpit speeches and endorsements from African-American pastors remain a staple of Democratic political campaigns."

What he utterly fails to see is that 1) because it was done in the past, does not mean it should be done now, 2) any preacher that makes an edorsement from the pulpit should be penalized, but endorsing from the pulpit is not the same as endorsing when you're just out and about. Martin Luther King Jr., it's worth noting, never endoresed a specific candidate, but he was still an active and strong force for social and political change.

McIlheran incorrectly and misleadingly asks "since when is it OK in this country for the government to rule there are certain political things certain people simply can’t say?" but that's not what's happening here. Preacher's are free to endorse a candidate so long as their church doesn't enjoy tax emept status. But once they accept the government's break, they are beholden to that one simple rule. Even then, they're free to support whatever political and social positions they so wish--just leave the specific candidates and their campaigns out of it. This seems entirely reasonable to me, and I'm a little baffled as to why the likes of the Alliance Defense Fund and McIlheran don't get it.

Separation of church and state works both ways: it keeps the government out of the pews, and, in theory, the pews out of the government. You can't have it both ways--accepting tax exempt status (the government out of your pockets) while simultaneously demanding to openly and actively meddle with who might run said government.

I hope the IRS does penalize these churches. We need to get back to maintaining some vague sense of balance. Lately it seems like organized religion has spread its fingers deep and wide into governmental affairs, whereas any attempts to back that off are met with allegations of persecution. It's ridiculous, and such ill-informed, published opinions on the matter like McIlheran's don't help at all.

Gay and religious

Though the progress made toward acceptance and equal rights by gays and lesbians in this country over the last century has been enormous, it's still no easy thing to live openly in this society. Just when you think you've found your place in the world, some comfortable niche worked and hoped for since who knows when, your whole life can get turned upside down in an instant--simply because of who you love.

This has always struck me as being deeply, deeply unfair and unjust. And so it was with a heavy heart that I read a recent article in the Wisconsin State Journal that detailed the firing of openly gay music director Charles Philyaw by St. Andrew Catholic Church in Verona, WI.

After decades of honing his musical skills, Charles Philyaw landed his dream job in 2004 as the full-time director of music liturgy at St. Andrew Catholic Church in Verona.

The church, with 1,643 adult members, was more than just a place to work for Philyaw. He and his partner, James Mulder-Philyaw, joined the parish and community.

Then in June, it all collapsed. Philyaw said he was told by the parish priest, the Rev. Dave Timmerman, that he would no longer be retained because he was living an openly gay life. He was given two weeks' notice.

Philyaw later learned that five parishioners had raised concerns about him and his partner being so prominently involved in church activities. Bishop Robert Morlino's office became involved, leading to his dismissal, Philyaw said.

I'll get this out of the way right off the bat and say that I'm not surprised to read that Morlino got involved. I've pretty much come to terms with the fact that nothing that man ever does publicly will make sense to me, or be particularly compassionate.

Aside from that, though--and more importantly--I'm saddened by the decision of the church and those members who saw fit to complain. Certainly, I can understand that, having grown up as part of a church that's pretty direct about how it views homosexuality (not well), it might be confusing and an issue worth discussing when confronted with an open, happy gay couple serving in your congregation. I don't place any blame on those involved for their desire to talk about it, and to debate, within their own church, the place of homosexual members in their congregation.

What dismays me is that it was so swiftly and carelessly dealt with via simply firing the poor guy--who'd done nothing wrong at all, and who, by all accounts, was an asset to their community.

The legal ramifications of the case will be tricky because this is, after all, a church, and churches are excluded from the state's anti-discrimination hiring and firing laws "if an employee's main duties are ecclesiastical or ministerial." I would argue that the music director is not particularly ecclesiastical or ministerial, but I'm not a lawyer, and that's something that should, perhaps, be better defined by the courts.

I'm disappointed and displeased that the Christian faith is seemingly so often hijacked by divisive in-fighting over something that really shouldn't be an issue. Poverty is a worthwhile issue, as is violence, the health of our environment, and social justice. There are lots of faithful members of the Christian community (not to mention every other religious and non-religious community) who recognize these issues and work hard to address them as best they can, and I honor them. That work, to me, embodies the true message of Christ's ministry--not this strange debate over homosexuality (which, it's worth noting, the Man J.C. never said anything about).

The most frustrating and infuriating part of the entire article deals with the diocese's attitude toward the subject:

...the diocese made available the Rev. Monsignor James Bartylla, director of vocations, who is helping to coordinate locally a program called Courage, a national Catholic initiative that counsels people with same-sex attraction.

While same-sex attraction is considered a disorder by the Catholic Church, it is not a sin in and of itself, Bartylla said. "It is acting on the attraction that makes it a sinful act, a grave depravity," he said.

People with same-sex attraction must control their desires and live chaste lives, he said. If they do so, they can participate fully in church life, including in leadership positions, he said.

Because of this distinction between same-sex attraction and acting on it, it would be a mistake to say the Catholic Church dismisses anyone from employment simply for their sexual orientation, King said.

As for parishioners who are sexually active homosexuals, Bartylla said the church would welcome them, then "begin dealing immediately" with the issue. "We'd encourage them and challenge them to come into conformity with church teaching, the same as with any parishioner dealing with sin."

If a parishioner thinks a church leader is not living according to church doctrine, Bartylla suggested that the parishioner discreetly tell the parish priest.

It's intolerance and discrimination couched in vaguely accepting terms. Asking a homosexual person to "control their desires and live chaste lives" is just as ridiculous as asking a heterosexual person to do the same thing. But then, the Church has never had a particularly healthy view of human sexuality, so I suppose this shouldn't come as much of a surprise.

I have no idea how any feeling person could look at a committed, loving relationship between two people, regardless of their gender, and see a "grave depravity."

Happily, there do seem to be a large number of Philyaw's fellow parishioners who are extremely unhappy with his being let go--and some have even signed a petition that expresses their displeasure. It will take more of that open support to put enough internal pressure on the powers-that-be before real change takes hold on a larger scale, but it's a start. After all, while litigation and equal rights laws are extremely important facets in the fight for justice and equality, the ultimate victories come through personal experience, and the opening of eyes and minds on a person-to-person basis. On that level, you can't force it--nor should you try. You have to teach by example, and Philyaw was/is doing just that.

Has Buffy slayed the church?

I stumbled onto an interesting, troubling, and somewhat hilariously weird article yesterday, citing a recently published study that allegedly claims Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been inspiring young women to leave the Church and take up Wicca.

That couldn't be right. What PhD'd sociologist worth their salt would make such a ridiculous claim? A lone TV show that's been off the air for almost a half-decade can't have that much influence on women's church attendance numbers. So I dug deeper, and leave it to the British press to actually publish the whole story, instead of just the catchy headline:

The report claims more than 50,000 women a year have deserted their congregations over the past two decades because they feel the church is not relevant to their lives.

It says that instead young women are becoming attracted to the pagan religion Wicca, where females play a central role, which has grown in popularity after being featured positively in films, TV shows and books.

The study, which mentions Buffy as just one source of information young women have had regarding more female-centric religions like Wicca, actually looks like it'd be worth a read (if I could find a copy anywhere online). The author, Dr. Kristin Aune, seems to be making the entirely plausible claim that the church's generally poor attitude toward women has driven them off in large numbers. She goes on to offer several suggestions as to how churches might work to bring women back into the fold, things like actually ordaining them, not vilifying their sexuality, accommodating women who work and/or raise children, and generally being more inclusive. Seems pretty damn reasonable to me, especially considering that, in my experience, churches that have already adopted these methods and attitudes do pretty well for themselves.

I was raised in the Presbyterian church, not the Church of England that's mostly referenced in the study, so my experience is certainly different (as is everyone's, really). Though I'm no longer an active participant or member in said church, I am thankful that I was raised by parents who both took their faith seriously and raised me and my siblings to be independent-minded, compassionate people. I was never told or shown that women couldn't or shouldn't be full participants in church (or world) activities, either as lay people, deacons, elders, or ministers. It was, in fact, a baffling surprise when I first learned about other denominations and religions that forbade women from playing any role they so wished.

My reasons for leaving the church are personal and not terribly acrimonious. But I can completely understand why other women have left out of disgust or downright disenchantment with how they're viewed and treated. If Buffy the Vampire Slayer has anything at all to do with this phenomenon of women leaving the church in droves, it is as a symptom, not a cause. More enlightened views of womanhood have existed in some form or another for hundreds (thousands, if you want to get technical) of years, and the progression we've been experiencing is just part of an ongoing process. Like all things, churches must evolve with the rest of society if they want to remain relevant, vital forces in their communities. Pulling their heads out of the generally sexist past would certainly be a good start.

Hey hey! Ho ho! Bishop Morlino has got to go!

I seriously don't know how this guy got to hold the title of bishop in the first place:

The lawsuit was filed earlier this month by Phoenix Fundraising Counsel of Madison, which was hired by the diocese to evaluate support for rebuilding the cathedral. The lawsuit says Morlino insisted the company turn over confidential information gathered from surveys and interviews, in particular the names of priests who criticized Morlino.

The company says it refused to disclose the confidential information and now can't get the diocese to pay at least $350,000 for the work it did, including a feasibility study and a planned capital campaign.

Ever since Bishop Morlino came to my attention back in college--when I found out that he sits on the Board of Visitors (as chairman) to the School of the Americas/WHISC--I suspected that maybe he wasn't such a great guy. A Catholic affiliating himself with an organization notorious for churning out many of the leaders responsible for some of the greatest human rights abuses in South America, including the brutal murder of several Jesuit priests, seems pretty absurd to me.

Let's just call this latest debacle, if it's proved to be at all true, yet more proof that Morlino doesn't quite deserve his vaunted post. He comes off as petty and a bit in love with power. I would argue that Morlino is hurting the diocese's reputation and prospects,and that they deserve far better--but that will ultimately be up to them to decide.

Num mihi dolebit hoc?

Today, you get a parable:

An uneasy peace ruled in Jerusalem. Saladin's victory against the Crusaders had cost the Muslims dearly, both in the loss of troops and in the depletion of the royal treasury. Saladin was resolved to rule with civilized humanity as far as possible. But it was an uneasy peace, with Jews, Christians, and the newly victorious Muslims all suspicious of one another.

Thus when Saladin requested an audience with Nathan, a leading Jewish merchant, the latter was very apprehensive about the Sultan's motivation. Nathan was known far and wide not only for his successes in commerce, but also for his skills in diplomacy and negotiation. Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike called him Nathan the Wise.

Nathan's suspicions were well founded, for Saladin was indeed looking to replenish his exhausted coffers with a loan or a gift from his wealthy Jewish subject. Too civil to openly demand such a tribute from the peace-loving Nathan, the Sultan instead masked his request in the form of a theological question.

"Your reputation for wisdom is great," said the Sultan. "You must have studied the great religions. Tell me, which is the best, Judaism, Islam, or Christianity?"

"Sultan, I am a Jew," replied Nathan.

"And I a Muslim," interrupted Saladin, "and between us stands the Christian. But the three faiths contradict one another. They cannot all be true. Tell me the results of your own wise deliberations. Which religion is best?"

Nathan recognized the trap at once. Any answer except "Islam" would offend Saladin the Muslim, whereas any answer except "Judaism" would place his own integrity under question. Thus, instead of giving a direct answer, Nathan responded by relating a parable to Saladin:

In the Orient in ancient times there lived a man who possessed a ring of inestimable worth. Its stone was an opal that emitted a hundred colors, but its real value lay in its ability to make its wearer beloved of God and man. The ring passed from father to most favored son for many generations, until finally its owner was a father with three sons, all equally deserving. Unable to decide which of the three sons was most worthy, the father commissioned a master artisan to make two exact copies of the ring, then gave each son a ring, and each son believed that he alone had inherited the original and true ring.
But instead of harmony, the father's plan brought only discord to his heirs. Shortly after the father died, each of the sons claimed to be the sole ruler of the father's house, each basing his claim to authority on the ring given to him by the father. The discord grew even stronger and more hateful when a close examination of the rings failed to disclose any differences.

"But wait," interrupted Saladin, "surely you do not mean to tell me that there are no differences between Islam, Judaism, and Christianity!"

"You are right, Sultan," replied Nathan. "Their teachings and practices differ in ways that can be seen by all. However, in each case, the teachings and practices are based on beliefs and faith, beliefs and faith that at their roots are the same. Which of us can prove that our beliefs and our faith are more reliable than those of others?"

"I understand," said Saladin. "Now continue with your tale."

"The story is nearly at its end," replied Nathan.

The dispute among the brothers grew until their case was finally brought before a judge. After hearing the history of the original ring and its miraculous powers, the judge pronounced his conclusion: "The authentic ring," he said, "had the power to make its owner beloved of God and man, but each of your rings has brought only hatred and strife. None of you is loved by others; each loves only himself. Therefore I must conclude that none of you has the original ring. Your father must have lost it, then attempted to hide his loss by having three counterfeit rings made, and these are the rings that cause you so much grief."
The judge continued: "Or it may be that your father, weary of the tyranny of a single ring, made duplicates, which he gave to you. Let each of you demonstrate his belief in the power of his ring by conducting his life in such a manner that he fully merits -- as anciently promised -- the love of God and man.

"Marvelous! Marvelous!" exclaimed Saladin. "Your tale has set my mind at rest. You may go."

"Sultan, was there nothing else you wished from me?" asked Nathan.

"No. Nothing."

"Then may I take the liberty to make a request of you. My trade of late has brought me unexpected wealth, and in these uncertain times I need a secure repository. Would you be willing to accept my recent earnings as loan or deposit?"

The Sultan gladly acceded to Nathan's wish.

And thus Saladin gained from his wise Jewish subject both material and spiritual benefit, and Nathan the Wise found a safe haven for his wealth and earned the respect of the Islamic Sultan.

--"Nathan the Wise", by Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, written in 1779.

P.S. Worth reading, too, is this post from Fearful Symmetries, which recounts an interesting incident wherein the DoD covers up its own figures on wounded soldiers.

God's country

Another excellent post from Griper Blade, this one about a group of Southern Baptist leaders, including the president of the SBC, signing a declaration stating that their denomination has not been doing enough to support environmental issues.

Read the post here. I'll give you a minute.

Done? Good. I love news like this. I'm not about to go join up with a Southern Baptist church over it, but it's a refreshingly positive sign. It's also a movement that's gaining steam throughout a lot of Christian denominations. Frankly, it seems a bit overdue. There are several passages in the Bible where humanity is told to be stewards of the Earth, to take care of the place, etc. The cries about global warming being a liberal ruse always seemed strange to me. Being good to our home always seemed like a nonpartisan no-brainer to me, and, as someone who grew up in the church, something that went hand-in-hand with Christianity (or any religion, for that matter).

A good example of the steps some Christian groups are taking toward positive environmental impact can be found via the Daily Mitzvah, and her following of the Tear Fund's Carbon Fast for Lent. I was giddy when their efforts were pointed out to me. This is the kind of good work I'd always looked for in the church: alleviating poverty, caring for the sick, and looking after our environment.

I never understood why things like homosexuality, which harms no one, and evolution were so divisive and heavily focused on by (some) Christians and other religious folk. Wouldn't it make more sense to follow the positive teachings found in their holy texts? To try to leave this world in better shape than what we found it in? Maybe that's the ex-Girl Scout in me talking, but it seems like the right thing to do. Matthew 5:44-45 would be a good place to start.

How is this OK?

Mike Huckabee, a fairly recently legitimized candidate for the Republican nomination for president of the United States of America, recently made the following statements to a crowd of supporters in Michigan:

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards."

How is that an acceptable thing for a candidate for the highest office in the country to say/want? May I reiterate something that I think might just be relevant?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Ring familiar? Yeah, that's the first line of the first amendment to the Constitution. I happen to believe that it's pretty damn important, and one of the core standards that has helped our country to become one of the most prosperous places on Earth. There have always been those who have worked to dismantle these, our most fundamental rights, but it seems to me that these efforts have increased quite a bit in recent decades. Huckabee may just be the next logical progression of this type of religious fanaticism, but I can't be the only one to draw parallels between that kind of rhetoric and that of the radical Islamists calling for the establishment of a worldwide Caliphate. Apparently Huckabee and his ilk don't quite catch the (horrifyingly ironic) similarities.

Mayors gone wild!

The ever illuminating Illusory Tenant has some choice observations about the Green Bay City Council nativity scene debacle. They note that the Mayor, heeding advice from The Liberty Council, has decided to follow the so-called "plastic reindeer" rule and attempt to make the creche more kosher* by placing "secular" holiday symbols next to it: a Christmas tree and reindeer.

The Liberty Council, it should be noted, is a non-profit "litigation, education and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of human life and the traditional family," so it doesn't take much brain power to figure out what their angle and bias might be.

According to a comment in yesterday's post about this whole thing, Mayor Schmitt gave an interview with WPR last night: "When asked if Hindus or Buddhists asked to put up a display there, he said that he wouldn't let them. And he gave the lamest excuse - it's what the community wanted. So, if the community wants the government to give preference to one religion above all others, he has no problem violating the establishment clause."

Seems like a pretty spineless move on the part of the mayor. Not to mention stupid.


*poor choice of words fully intended.

Making the baby Jesus cry

Green Bay is working on making Madison's Christmas VS Holiday tree kerfuffle look positively civil. Last week, Council President Chad Fradette decided that a nativity scene would spruce up the roof of the City Hall nicely and pushed approval of it through a committee that he chairs.

Madison-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, among many others, took issue with the move, rightfully suggesting that it might kinda sorta break that whole "separation of church and state" thing that's, y'know, codified in the Constitution.

Mayor Jim Schmitt tried to diffuse criticisms of the display by allowing "any religious symbols" to be put on the roof alongside the nativity scene, but it would appear that he's now backpedaling and generally wishing that the whole issue would just go away.

From the Green Bay Press Gazette:

The City Council voted Tuesday night to leave [the nativity] in place until Dec. 26, and to impose a moratorium on any other religious display until the City Council and Schmitt could develop a set of guidelines.

The council voted 6-6, with Andy Nicholson, Chad Fradette, Guy Zima, Tom Denys, John Vander Leest and Tom Weber voting to keep it. Mayor Jim Schmitt cast the tie-breaker with a "yes" vote.

A Wiccan display was installed Friday. It is a white five-pointed star encircled by a wreath. Early Monday morning, someone flagged down a police officer to report seeing someone on a ladder at City Hall, taking down the display. The suspect fled, leaving the ladder. Police later found the damaged display in the shrubs.

So basically, because some dimwitted vandal decided to deface the Wiccan display, now no one but the Christians get to have their symbols up there...at least, of course, until after the Christmas holiday has passed. Their excuse about needing to formulate a clear policy would hold more water if they took down the nativity, too, but that's not the case and their little boat is fast heading for a swamping.

I think the argument of a one Sean Ryan sums up the issue nicely:

Ryan, the man who had asked last weekend to display a Festivus pole, patterned after an episode of the TV show "Seinfeld," told the council he did it as a joke, meant to point out that religious displays don't belong at City Hall.

Ryan took exception to statements made by others saying the nativity scene was historical, not merely religious.

"I'm a Christian — don't tell me it's not my religion," Ryan said. "Saying it is not is to question (Jesus's) very greatness … But keep the nativity scene in is place — in churches, in our hearts and our homes."

Regardless of how "great" you personally feel Jesus was, it's a very sound argument and one that I don't understand why the proponents of the move don't seem to understand it. Religion and spirituality should be a private matter, left up to the individual and their chosen congregation(s). Why so many people feel the need to impose their personal choices on others is beyond me. Is their faith so flimsy that they need the external validation? The feeling of power and control over others? Surely that's no kind of faith at all, but rather a deep sense of insecurity and fear.

Freedom requires religion?

In a speech to the nation yesterday (in theory to address concerns over his Mormon faith), Mitt Romney made a very interesting, and rather troubling, statement. He said, "Freedom requires religion, just as religion requires freedom."

It's a clever turn of phrase, but more than a little disingenuous. The ability to choose one's religious beliefs and practices without pressure from any outside source is heavily reliant upon the freedoms we're granted as US citizens. That much is true. But to suggest that "freedom requires religion" is to suggest that to be free, one must have religion. I think a legion of atheists might care to disagree with Mr. Romney.

The notion isn't entirely surprising, considering its source. Unfortunately, a great number of right-leaning, evangelical Christians, Mormons, Jews, etc., have fallen prey to the misguided notion that religion is essential to leading a good, meaningful life, and that this makes it an essential component of American government. But one thing does not equal the other, and the Framers included separation of church and state for this very reason. You are, and should be, free to choose your own faith or lack thereof. Belief in God alone does not make you a good or bad person.

The funny thing is, many of our most restrictive laws in this country are the result of religious fundamentalists who believe that it's their way or the high way for everyone else. Take, for instance, Wisconsin's extremely dubious ban on gay marriages and civil unions. The effort to get that passed was spearheaded by the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin (now the Wisconsin Family Council), an unabashedly religious/Christian group with far-right leanings. I don't think they're particularly interested in freedom for their fellow citizens.

Thankfully, the effort to overturn said amendment was recently given a boost by the courts. William McConkey, a "married, straight, Christian" political science teacher, filed a legal challenge against the amendment, claiming that it violated the constitutional right of Wisconsin voters not to vote on two or more issues at once. The Dane County circuit judge ruled in his favor, throwing out an objection from the state in the process.

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Balistreri, who represents the state, filed a motion to dismiss the suit on the grounds that McConkey lacked legal standing to bring the action because he suffered no harm as a result of the amendment. Balistreri said even if McConkey could show his rights as a voter were violated because two questions were wrapped into one, "that's not enough for standing. You have to have harm as a result of the violation," he said.

McConkey, who described himself as a "Christian, straight, married" father of nine and grandfather of seven when he filed the lawsuit, is not directly affected by the ban on gay marriages or the ban on civil unions. But Pines argued that the proposed amendment violated the Wisconsin Constitution because voters had to endorse either both concepts in the question or neither, and therefore were deprived of their rights to oppose one or the other.

McConkey has standing to proceed in the lawsuit, Pines said, because his voting rights were violated.

Thank God for people like McConkey, who break stereotypes about what their religion means in terms of their political and social beliefs, and who step up to challenge injustices. He had the freedom to choose his religion, and understands that his religion does not get to choose anyone else's freedom.

The Mysterious Mr. Shoebat

Full disclosure: I'd never even heard of this guy until today when, during my pained perusal of various right-wing blogs, I came across several references to a one Mr. Walid Shoebat. A darling of the religious right and super pro-Israel organizations, Shoebat claims to be a former Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) "terrorist," having committed any number of violent acts against Jews and Israel, who has since seen the light, converted to Christianity, and now travels the country praising Israel and denouncing Islam. The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is hosting a talk by him on Dec. 4th, an event that the campus' Muslim Student Association is protesting against.

It's all a little confusing. There appears to be very little official documentation on the guy to help back up his claims of PLO pedigree (though I don't suppose the PLO keeps very precise records of its membership), and his extremist views about Islam, humorously opposite but still similar to his old views about Judaism, are certainly cause for alarm.

It has been pointing out that Shoebat, though claiming to have once beat an Israeli officer into a "bloody gore," among other offenses, doesn't seem to have ever been investigated by the US. Palestinians (and Muslims in general) with far lesser black marks on their report cards have been deported, but this man was allowed to become a naturalized citizen and to move freely about the country. That seems odd to me. He should absolutely be allowed to be here, to travel freely, to give talks, etc. What I'm suspicious about is the stark contrast between his treatment and the treatment of other men with similar (or allegedly similar) backgrounds.

See, the thing is, Shoebat's fundamentalist Christian faith holds that Jewish domination of Israel-Palestine will lead to Armageddon (the Rapture), a time when those people/countries who believe in Jesus Christ will be saved and everyone else gets to roast in hell for all eternity, including (ho! ho!), those poor Jews he now professes to love so much. How is that not antisemitic?

Charlie Sykes, Jessica McBride, and others of their ilk are up in arms that anyone would have a problem with this guy, tossing accusations of antisemitism and racism around like hot cakes. I don't necessarily agree with the MSA's contention that this man shouldn't be allowed to speak on campus. Fair is fair. But if someone takes issue with his message and his credentials, they have just as much right to criticize and call him on his shit as he does to get up and talk.

Walid Shoebat seems to simply have gone from one extremist point of view to another. This isn't growth, it's a lateral slide where nothing is really learned. Calling for an end to antisemitism is good, but following up that call by claiming that all Muslims are evil is wrong. It should be simple. Anything less is hypocrisy.

Some folks on the far-right like to act all surprised and hurt when "those nasty liberals" call foul on their favorite mouthpieces and figureheads. Oftentimes, the tactic employed to silence the critics is to accuse them of the same kind of bigotry and bias that they, the accusers, are guilty of. It's a tried and true method, but extremely detrimental to the quality of the greater debate and just downright shitty. Both sides need to rise above such petty mud slinging and get to the real issues: working to promote understanding and unbiased education for and between rival groups, dispelling stereotypes and myths, and helping the next generation achieve some kind of meaningful coexistence.

It would help if some of them stopped pushing so hard for the Rapture, too.

No one religion should get to keep Jerusalem all to themselves. The land belongs to no man, and the sooner we realize that, the sooner we can make with the peace. All sides--Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Atheist, whatever--need to ante up and do their part to make it happen. No one is completely without blame. No one bears the full brunt of responsibility. We all share it, and it will take us all to make things better.