as I live a few more questions

I'm baaack...

...ya miss me?  ;-) 

Well, one thing I have discovered in my Internet "diet" (I won't say I was off the Internet completely, because I was checking my email and my facebook page every so often) is that, while you can certainly spend too much time on the Internet, it's also very difficult to live 100% without it nowadays.  As an example, I spent part of August writing fiction for the Brokeback Mountain fanfic community i am part of, and you would not believe how frustrating it is not to be able to quickly check some fact without the Internet handy.  For example, for one chapter I needed to understand exactly how one makes a Molotov cocktail, since one of my main characters has one thrown through her kitchen window (remember folks: conflict drives plot).

Anyways, to get the ball rolling, I wanted to highlight something that I found on my one of my favourite browse-through sites, metafilter.  A comment on a recent post about polygamous Mormons has put into writing something that I have often used in my arguments against those who want to deny same-sex marriage rights to queers because the Bible lays out the guidelines for a "traditional" marriage.  I have argued that there has NEVER been a "traditional" standard of marriage, that it has varied a lot in differnet cultures and eras, and this commenter backs my assertion up:

I'd like to point out - because I've not been given a chance to yet on metafilter - that whether you're a fundamentalist Mormon, a fundamentalist Baptist or a fundamentalist Presbyterian, there is simply no valid argument to be made for "traditional" marriage by drawing on scripture. None. Not in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament. The Hebrew Bible is quite possibly the worst place to start - the language it was written in doesn't even contain a word for "wife." It has the designator "his" - as in, "his woman," even for "his first," or "his second" woman and so on. But there's no word for wife. Women are purely property - utterly in the same sense as "his oxen" or "his seventy two slaves and fourteen comely eunuchs." The New Testament is an even worse place to begin - if that's even possible - Paul sure as hell didn't want us getting married. ESPECIALLY (you can tell I'm using science) because the world was about to end - which is what most fundamentalists believe! He says, "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife." He goes on - "Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that. I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none, and those who mourn as thought they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no possessions, and those who deal with the world as thought they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away."

He also states clearly that marriage is not a sin - but there are plenty of things that aren't considered sins in the Bible (drinking wine in moderation) that fundamentalists avoid.

This has always been something that bothered me.

Of course, I suppose I shouldn't look to the fundies for a bastion of clear scriptural interpretation.

So far that one comment has received an amazingly high number of "favorites" among metafilter readers; obviously it's struck a chord.

3 a.m. Observation

(Yes, it's 3:00 a.m. and I'm awake.  My sleeping has been totally fucked up since I've had to have my antidepressant meds adjusted, and it's extremely exhausting and frustrating.  I've been tinkering with various ways to feel less depressed for a while now.)

Anyways, the thought that came to me at 3:00 a.m.:

There's something deeply wrong with a society where, for far too many people, it is easier to get a Big Mac than a big hug.

Hand Of God

Tonight I had the privilege of catching the broadcast TV premiere of Hand Of God, a documentary created by Joe Cultrera, the brother of a victim of child sexual abuse at the hands of Joseph E. Birmingham, a pedophile priest who was simply shuffled from parish to parish, instead of being removed from service or sent for treatment (if it is possible at all to cure a pedophile).  I can completely relate to Joe Cultrera's story of childhood abuse, and how that abuse can play itself out in your life and relationships for decades afterward.  Here's the PBS page on this documentary with other documentation.  People in a position of power to stop the abuse simply swept in under the rug in an attempt to spare the Catholic church from scandal.  It is in particular a very damning indictment of now-Bishop John B. McCormack, one of the "shufflers".

The thing that shocked me the most -- shocks me to my boots -- is that alleged pedophile enablers such as priests John B. McCormack and Bernard Law not only kept their positions in spite of evidence they covered up for abusive priests, but they still serve the church, and have even been promoted over time!  (John McCormack was made a bishop, while Bernard Law received a post at one of Rome's major basilicas.  Law's fancy Vatican bio conveniently omits the pedophile priest scandal and his resignation as Archbishop.)

What sort of message does this send to the world?  Protect the Church's ass at the expense of innocent children, and you get promoted?? 

Soy Made Me Gay

James Rutz, author and chairman of Megashift Ministries, claims that soy makes kids gay: "Soy is feminizing, and commonly leads to a decrease in the size of the penis, sexual confusion and homosexuality. That's why most of the medical (not socio-spiritual) blame for today's rise in homosexuality must fall upon the rise in soy formula and other soy products." 

read more | digg story

Here We Go Again...

A second Denver-area evangelical megachurch pastor steps down after admitting he cheated on his wife with other men:

A month ago, the Rev. Paul Barnes of Grace Chapel in Douglas County preached to his 2,100-member congregation about integrity and grace in the aftermath of the Ted Haggard drugs-and-gay-sex scandal.

Now, the 54-year-old Barnes joins Haggard as a fallen evangelical minister who preached that homosexuality was a sin but grappled with a hidden life.

"I have struggled with homosexuality since I was a 5-year-old boy," Barnes said in the 32- minute video, which church leaders permitted The Denver Post to view. "... I can't tell you the number of nights I have cried myself to sleep, begging God to take this away."

...

Sitting cross-legged in jeans and an open-collar shirt, Barnes spoke in his video about evolving feelings growing up in a firm moral family: from confused little boy to adolescent racked with self-loathing and guilt.

In their only talk about sex, Barnes said his father took him on a drive and talked about what he would do if a "fag" approached him.

Barnes thought, "'Is that how you'd feel about me?' It was like a knife in my heart, and it made me feel even more closed."

Heartbreaking.  And unfortunately, his story is not unusual among gays and lesbians.  The pressure to conform and the fear of rejection can twist a life beyond recognition.  I feel sorry for Rev. Barnes, not scorn. 

Two Journeys (Part II)

This post, although it may not look like it, is a follow-up to an earlier post I had made in November, wherein I talked a bit about Rev. Ted Haggard's and my own spiritual journeys.  Today I was taking a brief break from my research, and I was blog surfing when I came across a rather intriguing quiz on Beliefnet.com, a website whose mission statement reads:

Our mission is to help people like you find, and walk, a spiritual path that will bring comfort, hope, clarity, strength, and happiness.

Whether you're exploring your own faith or other spiritual traditions, we provide you inspiring devotional tools, access to the best spiritual teachers and clergy in the world, thought-provoking commentary, and a supportive community.

Beliefnet is the largest spiritual web site. We are independent and not affiliated with any spiritual organization or movement. Our only agenda is to help you meet your spiritual needs. (source)

The quiz I took is called, rather tongue-in-cheek, the Belief-O-Matic, and bills itself thusly:

Even if YOU don't know what faith you are, Belief-O-Matic™ knows. Answer 20 questions about your concept of God, the afterlife, human nature, and more, and Belief-O-Matic™ will tell you what religion (if any) you practice...or ought to consider practicing.

Warning: Belief-O-Matic™ assumes no legal liability for the ultimate fate of your soul.

Basically, it's church-shopping just taken to its ultimate extreme ;-)  Love the disclaimer :-) ...anyway, I was sufficiently intrigued to try my hand at the quiz questions, and here are my results:

Your Results: The top score on the list below represents the faith that Belief-O-Matic, in its less than infinite wisdom, thinks most closely matches your beliefs. However, even a score of 100% does not mean that your views are all shared by this faith, or vice versa. Belief-O-Matic then lists another 26 faiths in order of how much they have in common with your professed beliefs. The higher a faith appears on this list, the more closely it aligns with your thinking.     1. Unitarian Universalism (100%) 2. Liberal Quakers (96%) 3. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (79%) 4. Neo-Pagan (76%) 5. Reform Judaism (75%) 6. Mahayana Buddhism (73%) 7. Theravada Buddhism (71%) 8. New Age (69%) 9. Secular Humanism (67%) 10. Baha'i Faith (67%) 11. Taoism (66%) 12. Jainism (62%) 13. Sikhism (61%) 14. Hinduism (58%) 15. Orthodox Quaker (54%) 16. New Thought (52%) 17. Nontheist (49%) 18. Scientology (47%) 19. Orthodox Judaism (42%) 20. Islam (39%) 21. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (35%) 22. Seventh Day Adventist (32%) 23. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (27%) 24. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (23%) 25. Eastern Orthodox (12%) 26. Roman Catholic (12%) 27. Jehovah's Witness (10%)

Apparently, I'd make a lousy Jehovah's Witness.  And a miserable Catholic too. But what's interesting to me is how the quiz results actually match up with what I had already been thinking about myself and my spiritual beliefs.  What I have been reflecting on for well over a year now is that the Unitarian Universalist church seems to be the best spiritual "home" for me

And then I had an idea: I would take the Belief-O-Matic test a second time, only answer each of the questions as I would have fifteen years ago, before I burned out of my job, before I came out of the closet, but after my separation and divorce.  Results?

1. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (100%) 2. Eastern Orthodox (95%) 3. Roman Catholic (95%) 4. Orthodox Quaker (92%) 5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (90%) 6. Seventh Day Adventist (88%) 7. Sikhism (71%) 8. Orthodox Judaism (68%) 9. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (63%) 10. Liberal Quakers (62%) 11. Baha'i Faith (60%) 12. Reform Judaism (60%) 13. Hinduism (59%) 14. Islam (59%) 15. Unitarian Universalism (54%) 16. Neo-Pagan (40%) 17. Jehovah's Witness (36%) 18. Jainism (34%) 19. Mahayana Buddhism (34%) 20. Scientology (34%) 21. Theravada Buddhism (34%) 22. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (32%) 23. New Age (26%) 24. New Thought (24%) 25. Nontheist (22%) 26. Taoism (22%) 27. Secular Humanism (21%)

Veeery interesting.... and again, it confirms something I already knew about myself.  Over the past decade, I have undergone a near-complete transformation on what I believe.  Which makes sense, given that most of my formerly firmly-held opinions were blasted out of the water by my later experiences.  More on this later, in another blogpost.

Swearing on the Koran

I am watching radio show host and columnist Dennis Prager attempt to justify his hatred and intolerance on CNN, and I am getting angry.

He is going on and on about how it would undermine American values and society if newly-elected Muslim congressman Keith Ellison uses a Koran instead of a Bible in a second, swearing-in ceremony (which seems to be more of a photo opportunity than anything else, but that's a separate issue).

America is supposed to be a country which honours the separation between church and state.  Many Americans seem to have forgotten that in their zeal to brand America a Christian country run on Biblical principles.  Dennis Prager, for all his TV bluster in maintaining that he is not a religious bigot, is once again showing the rest of the world just how intolerant Americans can be. 

Yes, there can and should be some limits to accommodating religious faiths in government (for example, I did agree with the decision that halted the proposed imposition of Sharia law in family legal disputes in the province of Ontario).  But a person of a non-Christian faith should be free to choose any book she wants in a swearing-in ceremony, without having her patriotism called into question.  It's about the oath itself, not the book used on which the oath is sworn.  In fact, a book is not even required for such a ceremony.  It may have personal meaning to the person being sworn in, but it is essentially a prop to a cermony, nothing more.

I am constantly reminded of the Woody Allen quote from the 1986 movie Hannah and Her Sisters: "If Jesus came back and saw what's going on in His name, He'd never stop throwing up."

Hallelujah, Dan Savage!

Dan Savage is a columnist who happens to be gay, and who writes a love and sex advice column called "Savage Love".  And he just wrote a column that sums up how I feel about the whole "ex-gay" movement exactly.  So, I'll give a link to it, but it's so good I'm just gonna quote the whole thing here. 

I consider Rev. Ted Haggard a beaten-to-death topic, and I am now retiring it from Ryan's Rant list :-)

I live in Colorado Springs, home to the right-wing conservative evangelical movement. As the nation recently learned, the founder of New Life Church, Ted Haggard, was fired after a male prostitute revealed that Haggard bought sex and drugs from him. It's hard not to feel a bit sorry for him, even though I have always hated everything Haggard stood for. How do you view all of this? Does Haggard deserve our sympathy? Or do we point our fingers and laugh?

Confused Coloradoan

 

[Dan Savage's response]

We should make a joyful noise, CC, whenever a powerful hypocrite is exposed. God should bless Mike Jones, the male prostitute who exposed Ted Haggard, and you should balance whatever sympathy you feel for Haggard against the misery he inflicted on the countless numbers of gay young people his church has "counseled." If you want to feel bad for someone, feel bad for Haggard's kids, not Haggard himself.

Now, I realize Haggard is ancient fucking history at this point—there was an election last week, huh?—but there's something I just gotta get off my chest: For more than a decade, the religious right has insisted that homosexuality can be cured. Just give your heart to Jesus, and—poof!—you're straight! If there is any justice in the world—and there seems to be, judging from last week's election returns—Haggard's downfall should be the death of the "ex-gay" movement. No more ex-gay ad campaigns, no more credulous stories about "successful" ex-gays in daily papers or on cable news.

Arguing with religious people about the futility of giving your heart to Jesus—at least where "cures" for homosexual orientation are concerned—can be maddening. As with evolution, they aren't moved by science, data, or irksome facts. Not even the existence of ex-ex-gays gives them pause. Anything is possible through Christ, they blandly insist, and if you're sincere enough in your devotion to Christ, if you invite him into your heart, he will cure you.

Hello, fundies? I know you're reading this, because every week I get e-mails from concerned Christians who just happened to chance upon my column—cough, cough—and write to share the wonderful news: I don't have to be gay! If I give my heart to Jesus—if I have faith—he will cure me!

Well, my fundie friends, did you see that letter of apology Haggard wrote to his congregation? I'd like to wrap it around a brick and shove it up all of your fat asses. But since I can't do that, I'll just quote from it. In his mea gulpa (Haggard gives lousy head, according to Jones), Haggard copped to "sexual immorality" and described himself as "a deceiver and a liar." Those details made it into most of the headlines. These details didn't:

"Describing a lifelong battle against temptations that were contrary to his teachings," says the Denver Post, "[Haggard] had sought assistance 'in a variety of ways,' and while he had stretches of 'freedom,' nothing proved effective. 'There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life,' Haggard wrote." [Emphasis added.]

If you believe that Jesus Christ can change the sexual orientation of a believer, why on earth did he refuse to cure Haggard? Haggard founded a church that has 14,000 members! Thousands were brought to Christ by Haggard's preaching. Mixed in with Ted's meth-fueled gay-sex romps and hypocritical gay-bashings were, without a doubt, thousands of good works.

Did Jesus help Haggard out? No. Haggard struggled with temptation all his life. He tried to battle off his "dark" desires, but nothing proved effective. There was no cure for Haggard, no miracle. No matter how long he struggled, no matter how much faith he had, Haggard's sexual orientation remained unchanged. Nothing helped. Not prayer, not Jesus H. Christ on his cross.

Nothing.

If giving his heart to Jesus couldn't cure Haggard, what hope is there for the likes of me? If Jesus can't be bothered to work a miracle for the most powerful evangelical minister in the country, what "hope" is there for the average dyke?

None.

The ex-gay thing is over. It's dead. It was bullshit from the start, and it's bullshit now. And I will personally track down and bitch-slap the next fundie douche who sends me an e-mail explaining how Jesus can cure me. And I will personally track down and shit in the mouth of the next cable-news anchor who entertains—even for an instant—the notion of a miracle cure for homosexuality.

Consider yourself warned, Paula Zahn.

(Source: Dan Savage, Savage Love column, Nov. 15, 2006)

Mark Driscoll on the Ted Haggard Scandal: Blame the Wife?!

I'm sorry.  I am really sorry. 

But it's such a spectacular trainwreck, with so many colourful, pretty secondary explosions, that I just cannot take my eyes off it.  The latest launch into Ted-inspired lunacy comes from some wingnut fundamentalist pastor named Mark Driscoll, who expounds on the best ways for men of the cloth to avoid such temptations:

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

So... you're saying that Ted's troubles may be his wife's fault?  Shakespeare's Sister rather appropriately rips Driscoll a second asshole:

Yeah, if only Mrs. Haggard had navigated that virgin-whore dichotomy a little better, Pastor Ted never would have sought solace in the massage stylings of a male escort. Also, I bet if she’d shaved her pussy, he never would have bought that meth.

Pandagon has some more info on the "hip" Rev. Mark Driscoll, quoting from this Salon article:

He riffs about waiting in a supermarket checkout line behind a woman who said to him, “You sure got a lot of kids! I hope you’ve figured out what causes that.”

“Yeah,” he flipped back. “A blessed wife. I bet you don’t have any kids.” The congregation hoots and hollers. “That shut her up,” he mutters.

What a charming guy, eh?

I'll Take "Repulsive and Dark" for 500, Please

Steve Schalchlin of Los Angeles, writer of the blog The Bonus Round, writes further on one of the issues that I touched on briefly in my previous post: how the underlying assumptions about homosexuality as "dark" and "repulsive" are a big part of the problem here in Ted Haggard's rehabilitation.  He says it much, much better than I could, so just go read it yourself.  Thanks.

I'm gonna get off this hobby horse for now; I'm starting to get splinters in my ass ;-)