The Mommy Wars

Politics often provides us with the Theater of the Absurd, but, recently, it has surpassed the boundaries of 'absurd' and fallen into the Deep Well of The Ridiculous.

Some members of the Republican Party, aided and abetted by Fox News, have a penchant for creating a raging controversy out of absolutely nothing.

They've done it before with ACORN and the President's birth certificate.

The latest example is The Hillary Rosen - Ann Romney "Mommy Wars".

If you haven't been paying attention - and really, why would you except it's so hard to avoid bumping into this story every where you turn? - it all started when Hillary Rosen, a CNN commentator,  made a comment about Ann Romney.

She said, and I quote, "Ann Romney hasn't worked a day in her life".

WELL! You might have thought Ms. Rosen accused Ms. Romney of being a welfare queen!

To be truthful, Ms. Rosen ought to have added two words "for pay" - but she was, in fact, responding to a ludicrous comment by Mitt Romney that, despite being a multimillionaire, he can identify with average Americans because his wife keeps him informed of what working-class women are thinking.

Ah, context. Pesky thing, that.

Makes a bit more sense now, right? You know. Like reading scripture in context.

The truth is, as Rosen was trying to point out, Ann Romney, in her life of luxury as a mother of five -- with multiple homes, dressage horses and Cadillacs -- has no more idea what it's like to struggle as a single-mom waitressing in Las Vegas or Kansas City than Mitt does. But, with Ann Romney's help and the forces of Fox News, some Republicans quickly turned Rosen's comment into an attack on all stay-at-home mothers.

Gloria Steinem, one of the mothers of the Feminist Movement, called the whole thing "stupid", saying:

“The women’s movement has spent 40 years saying there are women who work at home and women who work outside the home, in order to make clear that homemakers work harder than any class of worker," Steinem said. "But what is distinguishing about the Romney situation is that they’re rich. [Ann Romney] doesn’t have to worry about money. And that’s what [Rosen] meant. So don’t make any more of it. It’s stupid.”

Except, of course, it was a little political ploy to divert attention from the "War on Women".

Nice try, guys, but no cigar.

I have to say that my personal favorite comment came from the Catholic League:

Isn't that just the BEST?

"Lesbian Dem" who adopted vs. the Mormon mom who "raised five of her own".

I don't think you can fall deeper into the "Deep Well of The Ridiculous" than that.

The debate seems centered on the premise that all two-parent families have a choice as to whether one or both work. That's still true for upper middle class families but this choice is denied to most American families who have had to sent two people into the workforce whether they wanted to or not.

Perhaps the generals on the front line of the War on Women also want to divert our attention from a study released this week by the Center for American Progress, which notes:

"In 2010, among families with children, nearly half (44.8%) were headed by two working parents and another one in four (26.1%) were headed by a single parent. As a result, fewer than one in three (28.7%) children now have a stay-at-home parent, compared to more than half (52.6% in 1975, only a generation ago."

These changes have more to do with economics and the continued inequities of the tax code system than anything to do with the "mommy-wars" - getting the "little women" to argue among themselves over the sacred American cultural icon of "motherhood" - which some Republicans are now trying to wage in order to divert attention from the War on Women.

Breadwinning wives are even more common in families with lower incomes, according the the CAP report:

"Seven in 10 (67%) working wives earn as much or more than their husbands in the bottom 20% of income distribution for all families. And about half (45.3%) of working wives are breadwinners in families in the middle of the income distribution, up from four in ten (39.1% in 2007 and only 15.2% in 1967."

So, as Joe Biden often says, "here's the deal": If you want more households in which one parent can stay home with the kids, you need to boost the incomes of average American families - and especially of poorer families.

Gloria Steinem is right: The "Mommy Wars" are "stupid". For millions of American moms (and dads), debates about "feminism" or "social conservatism" are irrelevant.

It's about money.

The irony is that when conservatives are trying to win votes from religious and social traditionalists, they clearly want to restore what they think are the "glory days" of the 1950s family - immortalized by television shows like "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" - but they refuse to acknowledge that it was the high wages of (often unionized) workers that underwrote these arrangements.

The thing of it is that Ann Romney had - and, continues to have - choices. God Bless her. She seems to have done a good job with her brood of five. Mazel Tov!

Choice, however, is the byproduct of justice. Which is why, in the Reproductive Rights Movement, we have begun to shift our language from "Reproductive Choice" to "Reproductive Justice".

In some states in America, if a woman who lives in poverty has to scrape together bus money to visit an abortion clinic that is a few hundred miles away, she's not going to also have the money for a hotel room where she must wait out the 24 hour period, now required in many states, before she can have the abortion. She has the "right" to an abortion, but the injustice of poverty prevents her from access to making a good "choice" for herself and her family.

And, if she has that child anyway? Well, she knows she's not going to be able to count on getting help from the same people who limited her reproductive rights to now raise that child. Indeed, she's going to get judgement heaped upon judgement for getting pregnant in the first place (as if she could do that all on her own) in the form of social stigma and very limited, albeit fragile, assistance to help her feed, clothe and shelter her family - not to mention no assistance in helping her out of her poverty.

When there is justice in our economic system, more families will have more choices to determine the number of children they will have and raise their families in the way that is best for them.

Perhaps Ms. Romney can "report" that to her husband.

If he'll listen.

Then again, maybe probably not. It won't get him votes in November.

Gloria Steinem says this about the choices we face at the polls: “We’ve rarely had a more clear choice," she said, "between 100 percent hostility on the Romney side and 80 percent support on the Obama side.”

I don't know about you, but I'm not getting into the "Mommy Wars". I'm not stupid. I can do the math. I know which lever to pull in the voting booth to get better odds at actually winning the War on Women.

I think lots of Mommies (and Daddies) - and millions of other women (and men) - know that, too.

Words Matter: Empathy vs. Judgement

I am so jazzed about what I'm learning I just had to share some of it with you.

Some of you know that I'm attending the Board Meeting of the RCRC - Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice - based in Washington, DC.

We - people of all faiths: Christian, Jew, Muslims - are meeting today with Representatives and Senators on Capitol Hill regarding issues of Reproductive Choice and Justice.

Well, the word is actually "lobbying" but we don't want to say that, exactly. Which, in fact,  gets directly to my point.

Which is: Words matter. A. Lot. More than we realize. Especially in the super-heated political climate that is our current national reality.

It really is 1984, kids. And, Big Brother is not only watching, he's listening. Closely. Very, very closely.

To. Every. Word.

It's all about how you frame the discussion. It's about connection. And, it's about the power of story.

It's all about relationships - the one thing the church says She's all about and yet fails miserably.

It's not about proving your point or making sure your opponent knows that you are right (right as you may be), but eliciting from your opponent not a sense of judgment or righteousness, but rather, a sense of empathy.

Here's the thing: We know that the Religious Right is wrong. Very wrong. But they have won many of their arguments on the mere supposition that they are right and to be right is to "win" - to be "superior".

And, in this time of economic fragility, superiority has a currency all its own.

We know of another regime which will not be mentioned which killed millions of people who were considered "outcasts" because they did not fit the narrow description of what "they" determined was "right". Or "good". Or "normal". Or "superior".

We are in serious (no, I mean serious) danger of repeating history.

We do not want to become what we reject. What irony! So, the idea is to move from the repugnant judgment of the Right to a stance of empathy.

For example:

Yes, we want to protect the religious liberty, conscience and health of all individuals by opposing attempts which would allow discrimination by religiously-affiliated institutions.

Liberty means protecting choices, not eliminating them.

Instead of talking about "choices" we want to talk about "personal decision making".

We want to affirm dignity, respect, empathy, families.

It is a big job to be a parent and every woman needs to be able to decide when she wants to become a parent so she can be the best parent she can possibly be and share that parenting with a man who will be a great father to their child.

We want to move away from the self-satisfaction of calling someone "anti-choice" to a place where we can say that they are what they are: people who think that a woman can't be trusted to make her own decision.

It doesn't trip off the tongue as easily and it's not as self-satisfying as throwing judgement at judgement, but it not only says what is truth but....and this is important....elicits empathy.

We want to acknowledge that it's okay to differ - this is, after all, America - and this is not about "them" or "they" but "us". Americans. Dedicated to the idea of liberty and justice FOR ALL.

And then, we want to back all of that up with personal stories.

As one person pointed out: "They may forget what you said, but they'll never forget how you made them feel."

It was very humbling as well as deeply enlightening to hear these young people prep us for our meetings with Representatives and Senators on Capitol Hill. This is the stuff of true religions - to be humble. To not boast or judge. To 'lay your life down for a friend".

In the end, I think this will win the war. Oh, we'll lose a few skirmishes and even a few battles, but empathy and not judgment will win the war.

And, make no mistake: this is a war. It's a Jihad being waged by the evangelicals and Roman Catholics. I don't like that language any more than you do, but it is what it is.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Those are the first words of the first chapter of John's Gospel.

Words matter.

Word to your mother.

Religion and Politics

I can't remember a time when religion and politics were stranger bed fellows.

Oh, I'm not naive. It has ever been thus. Religion and politics are two threads closely intertwined in the very DNA of this country.

But this - this religious-political "War on Women" - is just flat out bizarre.

I'm old enough to remember the flap about the presidential election of John F. Kennedy, a devout Roman Catholic. He would be the first - and, remain the only - Roman Catholic President of the United States. (Please, God, that it may be so at least for 2012.)

Indeed, the issue was so white-hot at the time, that on September 12, 1960, Kennedy was invited to speak to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, a group of Protestant ministers, on the issue of his religion.

This is the same speech that another Roman Catholic running for the presidency, Rick Santorum, said made him "almost throw up" because, he said, “In my opinion it was the beginning of the secular movement of politicians to separate their faith from the public square, and he threw faith under the bus in that speech.”

Kennedy said, in part:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

And so, here we are, 50 years later, witnessing the "whole fabric of our harmonious society" being "ripped at a time of great national peril". Which, in truth, makes me almost throw up.

Thanks to Kennedy, the fact that Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon and Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are wildly different Roman Catholics is not playing a central role in the debates as it did when he was running for president.

Indeed, Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York appeared Easter Day on Face The Nation and quashed the idea that no one should vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon.

Make no mistake: Religion and Politics are the discordant notes we hear coming from the unharmonious music of the campaign trail as well as the Congress in Washington, DC along with State Senates and Houses of Representatives around the country.

And, the victim? Not politicians but predominantly the very ones that religion - and, a good democracy - is supposed to concern itself with: the poor and the oppressed.

The most visible battle is the one being called "The War on Women" mainly because it is a battle over erosion of reproductive choice and laws that protect women against sexual assault, rape and domestic violence.

The thinly veiled hidden agenda of this political war comes from two religious fronts: a highly funded and politically active Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops and a conservative Evangelical base which funds the Tea Party Movement of The Republican Party.

In that same television interview, Cardinal Dolan pledged to fight President Obama’s contraception policy - even though the White House modified it so that religious-affiliated hospitals, universities and charities would not have to directly offer or pay for contraception.

“We didn’t ask for the fight, but we’re not going to back away from it,” Mr. Dolan said, adding it put the church “in a very tough spot.”

"Tough spot," indeed. Especially since polls of Roman Catholic women consistently reveal that anywhere between 90-97% use some form of contraception.

Which, I would concede, is a problem for the Roman Catholic Church. It should not, however, play a role in dictating what is part of good, preventative health care for women.

I have gotten a good deal of flack from some of my brothers - and even a few of my sisters - about "buying into" the "myth" of a Republican War on Women.

Indeed, I think they are deeply embarrassed by the Republican Party. And, who wouldn't be?

It's easier to believe that the War on Woman is a "myth" fabricated by the Obama Administration in order to win votes than to believe that any Republican would actually believe in some of the stuff that's on the Platform of the (not-so) Grand (anymore) Old Party.

Lincoln must be rolling over in his grave.

Most of it comes disguised as "religious purity" - meaning that the church and her priests ought not get involved in politics.

I'd love to agree, except that the whole War on Women is being funded and fought by men (and, sadly, some women) who are fueled by their religious beliefs about the role and status of women.

It's hard to hear the logic of limiting availability of contraception to women while at the same time eroding a woman's right to abortion and not hear a "natural order theology" that leaves a woman barefoot and pregnant and dependent upon men to make decisions for her and men in total control of creation.

Which, apparently, is the point.

This has been the foundation of the religious and cultural ideology of patriarchy for centuries.

I don't know what's more insulting: that these good prelates hold such a low opinion of women or that they think we're so stupid we don't understand the religious agenda behind their political rhetoric. 

So, yes, I'm going to open my mouth. It's not that I want to speak up it's that I can't remain silent in the face of such blatant, bold, unmitigated sexism and misogyny.

Pierre Whalon, bishops of the Convocation of Episcopal Churches in Europe, recently wrote this in an article in the Huffington Post:

The only way we bishops (or rabbis, or imams, or prophets, etc.) should publicly intervene in the politics of a democratic society is through linking our particular concern to the common good, not the rights of our particular religion. Nor can we argue purely from revelation: why should other citizens respect our opinions if we do not present them as applicable to all people regardless of religion?

I couldn't agree more.

I do what I do and speak out when I do not just because of my religious beliefs or place on the political spectrum, but because these two factors are linked to the common good of women and men of every religious persuasion.

It's not about defending my religion - it's using the best of my religion to fight for what's right for everyone - not just people who believe what I believe about God and what it means to be part of the family of God.

I and many other women  - and men of quality who are not afraid of equality - have been put in a 'tight spot' by these prelates-cum-religious politicians.

In the words of Cardinal Dolan, "We didn't ask for this fight, but we're not going to back away from it."

You can take that to the Altar as our Offering - a sacrifice of thanks and praise to a God who created us - men and women of all ages and races and nations and tribes and religions - equal.

In Good Conscience

Having conversations with your friends, neighbors and fellow parishioners about contraception and politics?

Need some foundational principles, core values, guidelines, and language to talk about this (because, yes, it's 2012 and yes, apparently, we still have to talk about this)?

Been searching all over the internet for some answers?

Well, folks, search no more. You're in luck.

Please click on this link to a page from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) website.

If you scroll to the bottom of that page and click on the link In Good Conscience: Guidelines for the Ethical Provision of Health Care in a Pluralistic Society, you will find a model document which was designed to assist health care institutions to develop policies regarding access to health care in general and reproductive health care in particular.

It was developed by ethicists, theologians, and health care and religious professionals in a project facilitated by the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.

The document articulates core values, guidelines and language which is of invaluable assistance for people of faith who find themselves in the midst of dueling wars - "The War on Women" vs. "The War on Religion" - ironically declared by politicians seeking to be "The Leader of the Free World" who are, of course, the only "real Christians".

For example, here are the Core Values which inform the Guidelines:

1. Universal Access to Quality Care

Every person regardless of age or condition must be afforded access to quality health care. In America’s increasingly profit-driven system, it is particularly urgent to ensure that economically disadvantaged persons enjoy equal access to quality care.

2. Health of the Whole Community

The health of the whole community must not be undermined by the forces of health care privatization and sectarianism.

3. Respect for the Human Being as Moral Agent

People should be free to exercise their moral agency and religious freedom when receiving health care.

4. Respect for the Principle of Informed Consent

The bond of trust between patients and health care providers is built on shared decision-making.Patients or their surrogates must be provided with complete information in order to participate fully in their own medical care.

5. Respect for Evidence-based Medicine

The scientific model on which the theory and practice of modern medicine is based must be respected.

6. Respect for Medical Ethics

The philosophical principles on which the theory and practice of biomedical ethics and professional medical ethics are based must be respected.

7. Respect for the Conscience of All Parties in Health Care Decisions

No one person may compel another to act against their own conscience. Therefore, as a matter of practice, no one individual’s conscience may take precedence over the conscience of another.

8. Respect for Separation of Religion and State

The separation of religion and state makes possible the civic setting in which the ethical provision of health care can coexist with authentic religious pluralism. For this reason the separation must be protected.

9. Respect for Constitutional Law

In keeping with respect for religion–state separation, the constitutional guarantee of both freedom for religion and freedom from religion must be maintained.

10. Respect for Community Stakeholders

In light of our diverse and pluralistic society, the interests of all community stakeholders must be respected in the policies, governance, and provision of health care. People of all economic means must be afforded the opportunity to access quality health care, and community resources must be allocated in such a way that no one is shut out, even if it means some sacrifice by others. Cultural and religious pluralism strengthens our society as a whole as we bring to each encounter a rich background of values, beliefs, and practices. Health care institutions should honor their patients, employees, and communities by creating an environment in which difference is respected.

Good stuff, this. You won't be disappointed.

One quick tip of the biretta to one of the members of the working group who developed this document: the Rev'd Geoff Curtiss, rector of All Saints in Hoboken, NJ who also serves as VP of the Board of Christ Hospital in Jersey City, NJ.

At one point in its recent history, Christ Hospital removed itself from an attempted partnership with Bon Secours’ Health System, in part, because of a conflict in these issues. Geoff has also served as a deputy to General Convention.

In Good Conscience: http://rcrc.org/programs/ingoodconscience.cfm

The Contraception Tango

You could almost hear the Obama administration humming "I won't dance, don't ask me."

The last Republican debate featured, as Rachel Maddow pointed out, "Four White, Wealthy Men Talk(ing) About Contraception".

Actually, they were stepping all over each other, trying to get the radical right-wing nut vote - and, money - so one of them could be, ironically enough, 'Leader of the Free World'.

They did this for over fifteen minutes. In a nationally-televised debate. About access to birth control. In the year 2012. From four rich white guys who are also opposed to abortion.

You can't make this stuff up.

Rick Santorum wanted to talk about "the increasing number of children being born out of wedlock in America" and "children being raised by children."

Ron Paul spent some time explaining his belief that "immorality creates the problem" of Americans wanting access to birth control.

Newt Gingrich, saying that he prefers to discuss Obama's support for 'infanticide,' sometimes served as a referee between the other three candidates. "If we're going to debate about who is the extremist on this issues," Gingrich said, "it is President Obama, who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies."

Mitt Romney then did a daring arabesque and, putting his foot right in his mouth (again) said, "I don't think we've seen in the history of this country the kind of attack on religious conscience, religious freedom, religious tolerance that we've seen under Barack Obama."

Which is rich, when you think about it for one red-hot second.

Here are the facts on the ground: As part of a plan for preventative health care, the Obama administration is including contraception coverage. This is a decision a clear majority of the country heartily supports - including the majority of Roman Catholic women who use some form of birth control.

Statistics from the CDC and Planned Parenthood report that 98% of women of child-bearing age in this country have used some form of contraceptive method at some point in their lives. One would assume (since no actual figures are available, this being a 'privacy issue') that, since the RC Church likes to tell us that they are the largest Christian denomination in the world, a significant percentage of that 98% are Roman Catholic women.

This would also include women who are part of the movement among conservative Evangelicals known as "Quiverfull" which promotes procreation, and sees children as a blessing from God, eschewing all forms of birth control, including natural family planning and sterilization.

The administration is exempting churches and other houses of worship, and has crafted a compromise so that religiously-affiliated employers will not have to pay for contraception coverage directly. Instead, insurance companies will have to pick up the bill. If - and that is a big IF - the woman is fortunate enough to actually HAVE a job that actually provides health insurance.

So, this is the biggest "attack" on religious freedom in the history of the United States?"

Reality check, Mr Romney. This is why you're losing your bid for the Republican nomination for the Presidency.

Paul, Santorum, Romney & Gingrich

During the debate, Romney added that Obama is "requiring the Catholic Church to provide for its employees and its various enterprises health care insurance that would include birth control, sterilization and the morning-after pill. Unbelievable."

It's unbelievable, sir, because it's not true.

Perhaps you were sitting too close to Mr. Santorum, who, by your own admission, "has a history of making statements that aren't grounded in the truth."

So, let's tell the truth here, shall we? The issue isn't about contraception. Neither is it about a so-called "attack on religious freedom".

It's about votes and money. It's about power and control. It's about selling your soul - or, your mother, or your youngest child, or your dog, or whatever you need to do - to regain the crumbling foothold on the rapidly dwindling dominant social paradigm of "man on top".

What we're witnessing, folks, is the awkward dance between religion and politics which has animated this country since our inception. It's in our DNA.

We've also seen the Feminist Fandango, the Racism Rag, the Abortion Fuge and the LGBT Cha Cha.

It's always performed with a bible in one hand and a fist full of Super-PAC money in the other, all dancing furiously toward the ballot box.

This particular presidential race provides us with our very own version of "Dancing with the Stars".

Actually, it reminds me more of a scene from the movie, "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"

As Maureen Dowd recently put it, “Every election has the same narrative: Can the strong father protect the house from invaders? That question is burning now that intelligence sources are warning that Iranians might be coming to strike on U.S. soil. And, this time, we’re also asking: Can the strong father save the house itself from going into foreclosure?”

The message of this political-religious dance step is that leader who cannot or will not protect religion appears too weak to protect us from the dangers of the unknown in this age of uncertainty and blurred boundaries.

We want "God the Father" to protect and defend us. We also want "God the Mother" to nurture and tend to us. What we're getting is testosterone on steroids.

These guys are bound and determine to prove that they can protect us from ourselves - which seems to mean protecting us from the full and equal rights of women.

It's embarrassing, really, to see grown men - intelligent, white, well-educated, wealthy, heterosexual men - behave in such desperate ways. You can smell the desperation in every encounter and in every political speech. It smells like the inside of an old running shoe.

At the end of the debate, the candidates were asked how they would describe themselves in one word, the candidates replied with the following:

Paul: 'Consistent.'
Santorum: 'Courageous.'
Romney: 'Resolute.'
Gingrich: 'Cheerful.'

Cheerful? Cheerful? Well, I suppose he had to say something that didn't make him sound too desperate.  I guess he proves the old saying that, "Ignorance is bliss."

Places, everybody. Lace up your dancing shoes. The bad news is that the dance is far from over. In fact, it's really only just begun.

The good news is that, if you pour yourself a stiff bourbon or open a bottle of wine, you might even enjoy parts of the show.

Meanwhile, you can find the President and his administration, over there. On the sidelines. They would be the ones looking cool, calm and collected.

And the women? Well, there will always be the over-enthusiastic cheerleaders with their pom-poms and pony-tails, urging their boys to "Go team! Go!".

The others - the smart ones, anyway - are sitting on the other side of the room, waiting to be asked to dance by the cool guys in the room when the slow dance begins.

Some of the really smart ones have already started a graceful, elegant dance with each other. 

And, a five, six, seven, eight.....

The hate that hate produced

I was in high school when Malcolm X was assassinated.

I've been trying to remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard the news.

I can tell you exactly where I was and what I was doing the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated. I can even tell you what I was wearing.

I remember the voice of the Principal over the intercom, telling us in somber tones, his voice filled with emotion, that "President Kennedy has been shot. The President is dead. School will be dismissed early. Please form orderly lines as you wait for your buses in front of the school. And, God Bless America."

I even remember how my teacher, Mrs. Lowenstein put her head on the desk, cried out, and heaved big sobs of sadness as the grief waved over her body and seemed to shake the entire classroom.

Interestingly enough, I don't seem to remember anything about the day, forty-seven years ago today, when Malcolm X was shot and killed.

I do remember being afraid. JFK had been shot in November of 1963. This was less than two years later. It felt as if the world were going mad. Assassinations seemed to be a virus in the air.  Martin Luther King, Jr. would be shot and killed three years later in April of 1968. Robert Kennedy would be shot and killed in June of that same year.

Mostly, I remember being angry. My anger was mostly around what I remembered Malcolm X said when President Kennedy was shot. “[Kennedy] never foresaw that the chickens would come home to roost so soon,” said Malcolm.

I remember thinking, "Well, I guess those same chickens found another place to roost, didn't they?"

It would be years later that I learned that Malcolm X had been "silenced" by Elijah Muhammad for 90 days - reportedly, for making that statement.

In March 1964 Malcolm terminated his relationship with the NOI. Unable to look past what he discovered as Muhammad’s deception in his personal life, Malcolm decided to found his own religious organization, the Muslim Mosque, Inc.

Shortly after that, Malcolm went on a Hajj - a spiritual pilgrimage to Mecca, Saudi Arabia - which marked a deep, life altering transformation in the man. For the first time, Malcolm shared his thoughts and beliefs with different cultures, and found the response to be overwhelmingly positive. When he returned, Malcolm said he had met “blonde-haired, blued-eyed men I could call my brothers.”

He returned to the United States with a new outlook on integration and a new hope for the future. This time when Malcolm spoke, instead of just preaching to African-Americans, he had a message for all races.

His voice was cut short, however. On February 14, 1965 the home where Malcolm, Betty and their four daughters lived in East Elmhurst, New York was firebombed. Luckily, the family escaped physical injury.

A week later, during a speaking engagement in the Manhattan’s Audubon Ballroom on February 21, 1965 three gunmen rushed Malcolm onstage. They shot him 15 times at close range. The 39-year-old was pronounced dead on arrival at New York’s Columbia Presbyterian Hospital.

For whatever else Malcolm X stands for to various people of various races, he stands for me as a reminder of the power of racism to destroy the minds and souls of people of all colors.

Racism is a socially-transmitted disease that affects both white and black - and every shade in between - blinding us to the fullness of each other's humanity.

It's still difficult to read some of Malcolm's early speeches and the anger and hate that were seething just under the surface of his words.

It is, as both Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm preached, "The Hate that Hate Produced."

In a 1959 television program by the same title, journalist Mike Wallace interviewed Malcolm X and asked if all white people were evil. Malcolm explained that white people collectively were evil, saying, "History is best qualified to reward all research, and we don't have any historic example where we have found that they have, collectively, as a people, done good."

When he was asked about the NOI schools, such as the University of Islam, Malcolm denied that they taught black children to hate. He said they were being taught the same things white students were taught, "minus the little Black Sambo story and things that were taught to you and me when we were coming up, to breed that inferiority complex in us."

America couldn't hear those words in the late 50s and 60s without having a violent, angry reaction. We had a difficult enough time hearing the words of non-violent protest of Martin Luther King, Jr. We have a hard time hearing them now.

It doesn't make them any less true.

I know my American History classes in high school never revealed anything about the horrors of slavery. Oh, we studied the Civil War and learned that it was all about slavery which we knew, philosophically, was wrong. Then again, I lived in the North. Our hands were clean, we were told. It was those awful, ignorant people from the South. It was all their fault. See?

Eventually, the truth comes out. Eventually, we learned the awful, horrible truth about our complicity in racism. How it enslaves us all. How it damages the soul of the one enslaved and the one who enslaves.

No one's hands are clean. 'Sweet Honey in the Rock' sings of the complexity of this reality in their song, "Are My Hands Clean?" (You can read the lyrics here.)



We learn, if our hearts and minds and souls can bear to hear the truth, how racism continues to be perpetuated in organizations and systems like education, health care, employment, our government, and yes, even religion.

Things have improved - some - but the sad fact remains that the most segregated hour in this country continues to be during Sunday morning worship.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic or negative, but based on what I know about the Church, I don't expect that to change anytime soon.

In his Autobiography, Malcolm harks back to his time in middle school, when he was one of the top students in his school and made the mistake of telling his teacher he wanted to be a lawyer. “That’s no realistic goal for a nigger,” Malcolm’s teacher told him.

Thinking back on that, Malcolm says, "My greatest lack has been, I believe, that I don’t have the kind of academic education I wish I had been able to get. . . I do believe that I might have made a good lawyer."

What gave rise to Malcolm’s rage and "the hate that hate produced" - was that for all his intellect, and all his ability, and all his reinventions, as a black man in America, he found his ambitions ultimately capped.

Today, the President of the United states is a black man who came up out of a single-parent home and illicit drug use, became a lawyer, and created himself as president.

I don't think it is either solicitous or untrue to say that the fact that Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States of America stands today - and will for all time - as the greatest legacy of Malcolm X.

Oh, the work is far from done. Racism is still a virulent and persistent socially transmitted disease that infects too many hearts and minds.

In a 1962 rally, Malcolm said: "Who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lips? Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind?"

Since then, we have done much to re-image our ideas of beauty, but hatred has a persistent ugliness which continues to distort the images of every child of God of every race, creed, and age.

Ossie Davis famously eulogized Malcolm X as “our own black shining prince.”

I think, today, forty-seven years later, more and more Americans - indeed, people all around the world - are willing to embrace that statement as our reality.

So, let me just say, thank you, Malcolm. Thank you for your rage and your anger. I understand it now as a gift. I didn't once. I apologize for that. Truly.

Somehow, because you grew past "the hate that produced hate", I think you'll understand and accept - and yes, even love - those of us who have grown past "the ignorance and prejudice that produced ignorance and prejudice".

May we continue to learn from your life and your legacy.

May "As-Salamu Alaykum" be, one day, more than a greeting.

May it be our commitment to the way we live our lives.

Laughing At Adversity

Rick Santorum told the crowd at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) that insurance companies shouldn’t cover birth control and that women should buy their own birth control because it "just costs a few dollars".

He also said that Romney won CPAC's straw poll by a few votes, implying that Romney had bought some tickets for those in the audience who then voted for him.

Romney's camp responded with this quote: “Rick Santorum has a history of making statements that aren't grounded in the truth."

Gee, ya think?

I can't say anything about the CPAC straw poll, but I do know that birth control doesn't cost "just a few dollars". According to Planned Parenthood:

Oral contraceptives or “The Pill” range between $35 and $250 for the initial provider visit and the cost of a monthly supply of pills ranges between $15 and $50 a month, which amounts to between $180 and $600 a year depending on woman’s medical coverage. This means some women without insurance coverage for contraception may pay over $850 the first year of their prescription. Other forms of birth control are far more expensive. For instance, the cost for a monthly supply of birth control patches ranges from $15 to $80 dollars, or between $180 and $960 a year. Combined with the doctors visit, uninsured women could spend over $1,200 dollars in the first year.”

Men, on the other hand, can pick up a twelve pack of condoms at Walmart for under ten dollars or buy one condom for 75 cents at a gas station vending machine. There is no prescription or doctor visit required. It’s much easier and less expensive for men to practice safe sex than it is for women.

By comparison, even a vasectomy costs less than a years worth of birth control patches. Planned Parenthood can do the procedure for $1,000 or less and, if done properly, it should last forever. The patches can cost $1,200 with a doctor visit and women have to pay that cost every single year.

See also: Santorum's history of "making statements that aren't grounded in the truth".

But, Santorum isn't the only one. There's lots of statements - many of them about women - that simply aren't grounded in the truth. There is no paucity of anti-women candidates running for office - and running Congress.

Men who think women can’t make their own decisions about their bodies. Men who think women should be told who to have sex with (no lesbians) and when (only when married). Men who think women are just baby carriers who should serve the demands of men.

It's all so hideous as to be unbelievable. Except, it's true: all these men who are either running Congress or running for election to be President of the United States are telling these lies about women.

So, what's to be done?

Well, some women have decided to use the best tool against this sort of deceit and licentiousness.

Humor.

Case in point: Janet Howell, Democratic Senator from Virginia, had had just about enough when the Virginia senate proposed a bill requiring women to undergo an ultrasound before having an abortion.

So, Howell attached an amendment to the bill that would require men to have a rectal exam and cardiac stress test before being prescribed Viagra for erectile dysfunction. "We need some gender equality here," she said.

Well, it didn't work. No gender equality. Not in Virginia. Not that day, anyway. The amendment failed but the bill passed.

But, so did the sense of humor - it passed from one senator to another.

Republican Senator Brian Crain of Tulsa, Oklahoma, introduced the "Personhood" bill, which sought to legally define human life as beginning at conception - even before implantation in the womb - and offered more legal protection to a one-celled zygote than its fully grown adult mother.

Democratic Senator Constance Johnson introduced an amendment which stated: "Any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina shall be interpreted and construed as an action against an unborn child."

Can't you just hear Monty Python singing, "Every Sperm Is Sacred"?

And, it's just as hilarious.

The State Senator later willingly withdrew the amendment, telling her colleagues that she had introduced it to highlight the ridiculous sexism inherent in a Personhood Law that would force women to be pregnant.

Another pro-choice legislator, Democrat Jim Wilson, attempted to add an amendment to the bill that would require the father of the child to be financially responsible for the woman's health care, housing, transportation, and nourishment while she was pregnant.

The amendment also failed, but it didn't fail to make the rather sharp point of very reason women make the difficult choice not to carry a pregnancy to term.

There's a wonderful scene in "The Witches of Eastwick" where one of the women is thrown over the banister and is falling to certain death.

"Laugh!" say the other two. "Laugh!"

She begins to laugh and then floats to the floor, unharmed.

Laughter may not win the War on Women, but it certainly helps to win some of the battles.

Laughter can be like that other wonderful scene in that movie, where Jack Nicholson, (aka Satan), is driven into a church and asks the congregation,

"So, what do you think? Women? A mistake (like tidal waves and earthquakes)? Or, did He do it to us on purpose? Because I really wanna know! Because, if it's a mistake, maybe we can do something about it! Find a cure! Invent a vaccine! Build up our immune systems. Get a little exercise. You know, twenty pushups a day and you never have to be afflicted with women, ever again."

I think Rick Santorum and a few other Republicans could have given that little speech - and done it just as effectively so we could all laugh and laugh and laugh them right out of the running - and, please God - right out of office.

It may not be the best way to rid ourselves of these sexist, misogynist imbeciles, but it would at least make having to deal with them a bit less stressful.

I still remember when Senator Ann Richards (D-TX), gave the 1988 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention. She said of George Bush, Sr. "He was born on third base and thought he hit a triple."

During that same speech, she also said, "Poor George, he can't help it — he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."

As I recall, "Old #41" didn't win re-election. Bill Clinton did.

So, there's hope, I think, in laughing at adversity. Especially when some of these guys hand us humor on a silver platter.

Like, what old Rick Santorum's famously said about congressional efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He said, and I quote: "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?".

Yup, that'll sure scare the beejesus out of any terrorist and we'll all sleep better at night knowing we're safe from 'Teh Gay'.

This guy is almost as good as former Vice President, Dan Quale who said, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is."

So, what do you think? The current crop of Republican politicians? A mistake? Or, did God do it to us on purpose? Because I really want to know. Because, if it's a mistake, maybe we can do something about it! Find a cure! Invent a vaccine! Build up our immune systems. Get a little exercise. You know, twenty pushups a day and you never have to be afflicted with these imbeciles, ever again.

And now you're going to remind me that President #41 may have been followed by #42, but he was followed by #43 who was none other than "Shrub" - aka "Bush the younger" - a perfect example of a a waste of a sperm and ovum if ever there was one - who once said, "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office."

Until then, I suspect laughter is the best medicine we have.

As that great Texan political commenter and feminist, Molly Ivins, once said, "Good thing we've still got politics in Texas - finest form of free entertainment ever invented."

It's universal, Ms. Ivins. It's absolutely universal.

And, that's a statement which is, unfortunately, well-grounded in the truth.

Finding the Messiah

As the election year grinds its way forward, one is either completely aghast or thoroughly amused by the Republican nomination process.

As Agent J in "Men in Black" said, "This definitely rates about a nine-point-oh on my weird-shit-o-meter".

I read a quote somewhere that President Obama, in response to a question about his re-election campaign strategy, said, "Perhaps we'll just run transcripts of the Republican debates."

Democrats would be too quick to snicker.

I remember - oh, way back to 2004 - when "The Democratic Johns" -John "Swift Boat" Kerry and John "The NC Scoundrel" Edwards - ran for election and lost to Dubya and The Dick?

I know it's painful, but remember when the Democrats were in the driver's seat of the Political Clown Car? You know your election process is in the crapper when there are two Johns in the lead.

In 2008, the Democrats bested the Republicans by beating them at their own religiously-based political game.

We ran the Messiah.

I cringed then and I cringe now at the thought that one man could be the savior of The Democratic party in particular and the abysmal state of this country in general.

"Change we can believe in" and "Yes We Can" were two of Obama's campaign slogans.

We read the "we" and substituted "he".

Even Obama himself was uncomfortable with that slogan and said, "I’m asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington . I'm asking you to believe in yours."

"We are the ones we've been waiting for," he said.

Still, we didn't listen. Or, we heard what we wanted to hear.

We don't listen today. Many are 'disappointed" with the President. They feel betrayed. He didn't 'save' us like he promised. Note: That was never a campaign promise. Salvation was not the issue. Change - and hope for change - was.

Granted, there has not been enough change for my taste, but after 26 years of activism, mostly in the church, I have a much better understanding of the political process.

Change is the thing we say we want most but resist best.

Many young people who voted for Obama in 2008 say they aren't going to vote for him in 2012. They say they may even vote for a Republican. Ron Paul is, apparently, the new hero for many in the younger generation.

Which makes my head spin.

As Stephen Colbert said, "Yes, Obama duped young people by not doing every single thing they want. So now, they’ll all vote Republican. It’s like when I want some bread, I won’t settle for half a loaf. Instead, I will have a muffin made of broken glass".

Barack Obama is neither the Messiah nor the Anti-Christ. Neither is Ron Paul.

They are politicians, people. Get a grip!

Rabbi and author Harold Kushner retells a story in his book, “Living a Life that Matters.” It’s a legend about a young boy who receives a bar mitzvah gift of a beautiful scarf that he uses as a prayer shawl; it’s a gift that he absolutely cherishes and treats as sacred.

One day, when the boy passes a beggar in the street who is dressed in rags, he recalls the ancient teaching that the Messiah will appear on earth as an outcast and stranger, waiting for “someone to recognize him and reach out to him, at which point he will reveal himself and redeem the world from sickness and misery.”

The boy gives away his prized possession, so that the beggar has something with which to wrap up his bare and bleeding feet; the boy is hoping, of course, that the beggar is the Messiah, and that he will have helped usher in the age of redemption.

As it turns out, though, the beggar is not the Messiah, just a person grateful for the care from another human being.

Rabbi Kushner preached about the legend at his own son’s bar mitzvah, and offered this interpretation:

“…no matter how much we would like to, we can’t bring the Messiah and solve the world’s problems. Nor can we bring the Messiah for ourselves and solve our own problems.

But maybe we can bring the Messiah for someone else. We can be the supporting actor who gives someone else’s life story a happy ending, and we can hope that someone will come along and do the same for us.”

I've always loved this story, because it has many applications for the human condition. I think it speaks quite well to our present political climate.

I think it's important to see ourselves as "supporting actors" in this life who try to give someone else's life story a happy ending.

I think it's also important to elect public officials who can, to the best of their ability, work to give our life story a happier ending than we could imagine right now - for ourselves and for our children and our children's children.

Let's not be distracted by the media circus which is leading us up the the "Deal-breaker" primary in South Carolina.

We need to stay focused on the issues as well as our own personal responsibility in our own lives and the quality of life of this nation.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Get involved.

For Christians, there is only one Messiah.

Note to Ron Paul: Jesus was a Jew. Remember?

We are the ones we have been waiting for.

The sooner we learn and understand that, the healthier our lives will be.

War on Women

Oh, I know what you're thinking.

It's just a little hyperbole from 'what's left of the Left'.

An over-reaction by women who are....you know....well....'emotional'.

The so-called 'War on Women' is a bit of an overstatement, isn't it?

Why, no, actually. No, it isn't.

Incidences of domestic violence are on the rise all over the world. Human trafficking - especially of women in the sex trade - goes on unabated. Girl children do not receive the same education as boy children in many countries around the globe.

And here, in this country, two powerful forces have combined to restrict and erode the Reproductive Rights of Women: The Republican Party and The U.S.Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Over the past two years the GOP-controlled House of Representatives has launched one of the most extreme assaults on women's choice the U.S. has seen in decades.

Republicans voted twice to slash federal family planning funds for low-income women, moved to prevent women from using their own money to buy insurance plans that cover abortion, introduced legislation that would force women to have ultrasounds before receiving an abortion and, most recently, passed a bill that will allow hospitals to refuse to perform emergency abortions for women with life-threatening pregnancy complications.

But the erosion of women's rights didn't begin with the GOP takeover. President Barack Obama's health care reform law contained some of the most restrictive abortion language seen in decades.

While the bishops have always been vocal on the issue of choice, they have emerged since the 2009 health care reform debate as one of the most powerful anti-abortion advocates on Capitol Hill.

Now, they are stepping up their attack on women's choice with a new, high-intensity campaign aimed at the latest front in the national anti-abortion battle: birth control. There is growing concern that they might have just enough sway over lawmakers to succeed.

I share that deep concern which is why I am delighted to let you know about my recent election to the National Board of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC) for a three-year term.

RCRC is a coalition of religious leaders - lay and ordained - representing over 40 denominations and faith groups. I will join John Vanderstar, who serves on the Strategic Planning Committee and has represented the Episcopal Women's Caucus for many years on that board, as the only two Episcopalians on the Board.

For the past four years, I have served as national convener of the Episcopal Women’s Caucus and past president of the New Jersey chapter of RCRC. I have participated in and coordinated training sessions for “A Peaceful Presence” at several outpatient clinics in Northern New Jersey and participated in the state chapter’s lobbying efforts in Trenton and Washington, D.C.

Episcopal News Service ran a story about my election. You can find it here.

In it, I am quoted as saying,

“I believe that the ‘war on women’ is real. Reproductive rights — from education to prevention and early intervention — are being eroded by the very people who say they believe in God and Jesus as well as ‘smaller government,’” Kaeton said via e-mail. “The work and voices of RCRC have never been more important. I am excited and honored to join this stellar board. My sleeves are rolled up, and my running shoes are on.”

I'm writing this as fair warning. Not only will you be hearing more about this important issue of growing concern, I will be enlisting your help to get the word out about the various marvelous programs being sponsored and coordinated by RCRC.

The War on Women is real. It's being waged in a legislative session - or Roman Catholic or Evangelical Church - near you.

I don't like the war-imagery either but we are fools if we don't arm ourselves with information and education. We must use the weapons of our hearts and minds and voices to work against this silent, stealth assault on women.

Go over to the RCRC web pages and check out where your denomination stands on Reproductive Rights. Learn how to be in touch with your law makers. Discover some of the wonderful educational programs that are available for your congregation.

Stay tuned for 'Messages from The Front' of the battle.

I'm going up to the front lines in DC.

I'm glad to know you've got my back.

After Tuesday

Well, Michele "Crazy Eyes" Bachmann is out (Thanks be to God) but, being a "good girl", says she'll support whomever gets the nomination.

Rick "Yee-haw" Perry went back to Texas to "reassess" his campaign and is now back in the race (the very definition of "all cattle, no cowboy hat").

Newt "The New Catholic Moral" Gingrich came in fourth but said the Really Important thing about the Iowa Caucus is that 3/4 of the state's Republicans voted against Romney.

Ron "No Government (Unless I Run It)" Paul picked up a few celebrity endorsement (Kelly Clarkson, Chuck Norris and Vince Vaughn) but still came in third - and, only three percentage points behind the top two, who were only separated by eight (8!!!!) votes.

Rick "I'm More Roman Catholic Than The Pope" Santorum rode "The Santorum Surge" to collect 24.5% of the vote - and, also collected more than $1 million dollars within twenty-four hours of his.... "victory".  Not bad for a guy who can't put two sentences together to make a coherent thought.

Mitt "Why Don't Republicans Like Me?" Romney emerged the narrowest of victories but you would have thought he won the lottery - which he can't play, of course, because of his religious beliefs.

And John "The Only Intelligent Choice (so I won't win)" Huntsman didn't show up, campaign or invest even $1 dollar in television ads in Iowa is busy planting seeds of hope in the hard, cold ground of New Hampshire.

Still, Huntsman picked up 745 votes or 0.6% of the votes, and even Herman "I don't remember her...or, her...or, her..." Cain picked up 58 votes, placing him - at 0% - in a statistical dead heat with those who voted for someone named Buddy Roemer (31 votes).

There were also 135 people said they had "No preference" and 117 people who voted for "Other".

What does it all mean?

Beats the heck out of me.

I'm pretty sure it means that the Republican Party is in pretty bad shape. Then again, we knew that after the last Presidential Election.

I mean, a junior senator from Illinois and a Black Man was elected President of the United States over a seasoned senator from Arizona who was a Vietnam Vet and POW and..... well ..... Sarah Palin.

Okay, okay. But, a lot has changed in the political landscape over the past 3.5 years. It's not going to be so easy this time - especially if Mitt Romney gets the nomination from his party and Republicans are united in their effort to "Take Back America and Return It To God". 

Oh, they'll say it's about "the economy, stupid", but some of us ain't that stupid. We know. We see.

This is about the "new religion" of "Politicalism" - an odd hybrid of politics and the Very Hard religious right of an even odder conglomeration of evangelicals and Roman Catholics who are united in their moral outrage over a Quite Queer combination of Reproductive Rights (contraception and/or abortion) and Marriage Equality (homosexuality).

These are people who want "smaller government" but want the government to control what happens in a woman's body and what happens in the privacy of someone's bedroom.

Why? Because, well, because the Bible tells them so. That's why.

After Tuesday's Republican Caucus in Iowa, one thing has become very clear to me: I suspect that the framers of the Constitution - if they were able to hear these candidates -  would be absolutely rolling over in their graves.

We're at a very interesting - when it's not absolutely terrifying - confrontation at one of the principle foundations of this country: Freedom of Religion.

Inherent in that freedom is freedom FROM religion - meaning that Agnostics and Atheists have as much rights under the Constitution as Christians, Jews, Muslims and any other form of religion.

Tell that to some of the folks who are running for President who believe - with all the room in their 'grinchy too-sizes-too-small' hearts - that this means that you can express your CHRISTIANITY any way you want.

Well, mostly. As long as your Christian religion teaches you to 'believe' in the 'right things'. You know. Like they do about abortion and homosexuality. And, as long as you have 'real religion' and don't belong to a 'cult' like Mormonism.

My friend, Ted Mollegen, when we were both part of the New Commandment Task Force - a collective of Episcopalians from across the theo-political spectrum of the Church to try and find a way to avoid the schism that is now upon us - taught me something I will never forget.

Ted said, "You have the absolute right to swing your arms as widely as you want, but that right stops at the end of my nose."

Which brings up interesting questions about the application of religion and politics in a country founded on the principle of "Freedom of Religion".

The way I understand it, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann and Barack Obama and Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton can hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. Or, not.

The tricky part comes from the fact that their religious positions and values must not - can not - interfere with the interpretation or application of the law of the land.

Religious Freedom

So, for example, Rick Santorum can believe anything his RC church teaches him. He simply can not use that belief to stand in the way of the civil or human rights of others.

Mr. Obama can believe anything his UCC church teaches him. That his particular religious perspective is more in tune with the laws of the land and the proposed changes to the laws of the land does not make him "right" and Santorum "wrong".

That's another issue. A religious issue. Religious issues are religious issues. Legal issues are legal issues. Hopefully, our religious education and training and formation mold us and shape us to be moral agents, but - at least theoretically - laws in a country built on the foundation of "Freedom of Religion" inhabit a place which is simultaneously apart from religion and inclusive of the morality of religious teaching.

Lady of Justice

That's a difficult balance - a murky place filled with complicated questions and complex, difficult answers.  I think that's why the symbol of the legal system is a blindfolded woman, balancing the scales in her right hand while holding a sword in her left hand.

I think that's what it takes to achieve a "more perfect union". Not perfect, but "more perfect". In other words, the laws are not perfect but are perfected, as St. Paul said, "in the doing".

We need the friction of our oppositional views to form the 'refiner's fire' of democracy so that we can become 'more perfect'. That takes maturity and intelligence and imagination - qualities which seem to be sorely lacking in this country at this particular moment in time.

That being said, to allow a religious perspective - any religious perspective - to define laws would be to turn a democracy into a theocracy - which is the danger of politicians who claim to be "religious leaders" and, ironically, the reason we were in Iraq and are still in Afghanistan.

We have met the enemy, as Pogo said, and it is us.

Religious Oppression

After Tuesday's Caucus in Iowa, I've gotten much, much clearer about these three things:

1. Religious freedom is one of the foundational principles of this country which guarantees freedom of religious practice and expression - ALL religion - as well as freedom FROM religion.

2. The Sacred Texts of our religion are not to be worshiped. They are to help us and guide us to worship God and be moral agents of compassion and justice.

3. The Constitution is not a sacred text. We are not supposed to worship the Constitution. We are supposed to govern the government by the Constitution and use the sacred texts of our religion to govern our own lives.

After Tuesday, I don't know that this is clear to everyone in this country.

Before November, 2012, I pray to God that we'll all be much clearer about these things.

That being said, I also know that there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

And, none so deadly as those who can't laugh at themselves. (Click on picture to enlarge)