GlynnHarper.com

I'm consolidating my Blogs.

2006-05-27T11:11:00.000-05:00

Like a glutton whose eyes are bigger than his stomach in an "all you can eat" cafeteria, I ended up with too many blogs on my plate so I'm consolidating them down to two:

1. My church blog at www.christchurchsatx.blogspot.com (with a links to and from Christ Church, San Augustine, Texas web site .)

2. My "literary" blog Glynns Book Reviews, which is linked to and from my Glynns Books Web site.

Both the Christ Church, San Augustine blog and the Glynns Book Reviews blog have RSS links that enable you to be notified by email whenever the content changes at either of the blogs and either of the web sites.

I will no longer upload posts to his blog after May 31, 2006. This blog will be deleted after six months from that date.

2006-01-15T18:23:00.000-06:00

I'm Back

Sorry to have been gone so long, but I've been busy on other things. I'll spend some time tomorrow catching up, but I also want to get a major revision done at my web site www.glynnsbooks.com too, so it may take me awhile.

See you.

2005-05-13T10:25:00.000-05:00

AFA Action Alert
The American Family Associate is at it again. Their most recent "Action Alert" sent out by email urges recipients to write, call, and email the Parent Teachers Association (PTA) protesting that the PTA has excluded an organization styled "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Ex-Gays" (PFOX) from exhibiting at the June PTA conference. The PTA allows the legitimate organization PFLAG to exibit at the convention. I have written the following letter to the PTA and urge you to write a similar letter. You can email the PTA at info@PTA.org. If you had rather call or fax, the numbers are:

Phone: 312-670-6782
Toll-Free: 800-307-4PTA (4782)
Fax: 312-670-6783

Mr. Michael W. Cathey
Public Relations Manager
National PTA
541 N. Fairbanks Ct.
Ste. 1300
Chicago, IL 60611-3396

Dear Mr. Cathey

I have learned that the American Family Association has targeted the PTA with an email “Action Alert” protesting your excluding advocates for Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Ex-Gays PFOX) as an exhibitor at your convention in Columbus, OH. Their email urges recipients to write you protesting your action. Interestingly the AFA did not provide your address; all letters of protest are to be sent to AFA and forwarded to you.

I want you to know that your are entirely correct in excluding PFOX. Although PFOX has a superficial similarity to the pro-gay group PFLAG, the two groups are similar only in name. PFLAG has the goal of providing education and support to Gay men and women and their friends in combating and correcting the unfairness and ignorance of those who would use this legitimate and natural sexual orientation for ideological and political purposes. PFOX on the other hand exists only to undermine the work of PFLAG by perpetrating the lie that constitutionally homosexuals can somehow ‘change.’ So-called ‘ex-gays’ surface periodically with persons and organizations making claims that homosexuality can be ‘cured.’ This false and dangerous practice has been debunked over and over again and exists only to persecute homosexuals, not to cure
them. Allowing PFOX representation at your convention would be the equivalent of allowing advocates for phrenology at an AMA conference.

I applaud your decision not to allow PFOX at your conference. Please stick to your principals.

Sincerely,
Glynn C. Harper

2005-04-02T09:54:00.000-06:00

Which Famous Homosexual Are You?
Brought to you by Rum and Monkey

2005-01-05T09:12:00.000-06:00

Click below to donate to the Tsunami Relief Fund

2004-12-29T11:16:00.000-06:00

On Moral Values and religion, so called.

The following quotation from Charles Dickens' preface to his Pickwick Papers seems particularly apt (as well as Dickens' quote from Jonathon Swift) during our present day discussion of moral values, Christianity, and religion in general.

"Lest there be any well-intentioned persons who do not perceive the . . . difference between religion and the cant of religion, piety and the pretense of piety, a humble reverence for the great truths of Scripture and an audacious and offensive obtrusion of its letter and not its spirit in the commonest dissensions and meanest affairs of life, to the stand that it is always the latter, and never the former which is satirized here. Further, that the latter is here satirized as being, according to all experience, inconsistent with the former, impossible of union with it, and one of the most evil and mischievous falsehoods existent in society – whether it establish its headquarters, for the time being in Exeter Hall, or Ebenezer Chapel, or both. It may appear unnecessary to offer a word of observation on so plain a head. But it is never out of season to protest against the coarse familiarity with sacred things which is busy on the lip and idle in the heart, or against the confounding of Christianity with any class of persons who, in the words of SWIFT, have just enough religion to make them hate, and not enough to make them love, one another."

2004-11-14T08:17:00.000-06:00

A Good Quote for Sunday

Slapping the Other Cheek by MAUREEN DOWD
NY Times OP-ED COLUMNIST
Published: November 14, 2004

"You'd think the one good thing about merging church and state would be that politics would be suffused with glistening Christian sentiments like 'love thy neighbor', 'turn the other cheek,' 'good will toward men,' 'blessed be the peacemakers' and 'judge not lest you be judged.'

"Yet somehow I'm not getting a peace, charity, tolerance and forgiveness vibe from the conservatives and evangelicals . . .I'm getting more the feel of a vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels.

"Sounding more like the head of a mob family than a ministry, Dr. [James] Dobson [founder and chairman of Focus on the Family] told Mr. [George] Stephanopoulos about a warning he issued a White House staffer after the election that the president and Republicans had better deliver on issues like abortion, gay marriage and conservative judges or 'I believe they'll pay a price in the next election.'

****

"Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Dr. Dobson about his comment to The Daily Oklahoman that 'Patrick Leahy is a '"God's people-hater."' I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people," noting that it was not a particularly Christian thing to say about the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. (Especially after that vulgar un-Christian thing Dick Cheney spat at Mr. Leahy last summer.)

"'George,' Dr. Dobson haughtily snapped back, 'do you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about?' Why not? The TV host is the son of a Greek Orthodox priest."

Perhaps "Do as I say and not as I do." is in the Bible somewhere, but I can't find it.

2004-11-13T09:06:00.000-06:00

St. Philip and the Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39)
What is to prevent me from being baptized?

Throughout the history of the Church, from Old Testament times to the present, scripture has been interpreted for the most part by heterosexual white men. Only occasionally have they set out intentionally to misrepresent what scripture says, but it would be impossible for these straight men to read anything in scripture without filtering it through their world view as heterosexaul males.

Their experience, training, and socialization have conditioned them to ponder the ideas and principals they read with a particular view that blinds them to many things that leap out at women, racial minorities, and lately to homosexuals when they read the Bible. One such passage is the story of St. Philip and the Eunuch. It is found in the 8th chapter of Acts, which was written by the author of the Gospel of Luke and is a continuation of the Gospel which relates the beginning of the life of the Christian church after the Resurrection.

According to the story, Philip, one of Jesus’s apostles is wakened by an angel and told to go south on the wilderness road that runs from Jerusalem to Gaza. On the road, Philip encountered an Ethiopian eunuch, a high official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians who is the treasurer for her court. He has been in Jerusalem for Passover and is returning home. Seated in his chariot, he is reading from the prophet Isaiah. In those days people were not accustomed to reading silently and had to read a text aloud or have someone read it aloud to them in order to understand it.

Philip hears the eunuch reading and prompted by the Holy Spirit, he goes over to the chariot and joins the man. He asks the Ethiopian if he understands what he is reading and the man answers by saying: “How can I understand unless someone guides me?”

The passage the eunuch is reading is Isaiah 53:7-8 which deals with the suffering servant of the Lord, one of the passages that early Christians believed prophesied the coming of Christ, the Messiah. It reads: “Like a sheep he was lead to be slaughtered, and like a lamb he is silent before the shearer, therefore he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can explain his generation? His life is taken away from the world.”

The eunuch asks Philip who the prophet is talking about, himself or someone else. Philip begins to speak and starting with the passage from Isaiah, he tells the eunuch the hole story of the Gospel: the good news about salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

As they are going down the road, they come to some water and the eunuch says, “Look there is some water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” He stops the chariot and both he and Philip go into the water where Philip baptizes him. When they come out of the water, Philip is snatched away by the Spirit of the Lord and the eunuch sees him no more, and goes on his way rejoicing.

At first brush, this story seems to be only an instance in which the Gospel begins to be proclaimed outside of Jewish circles into the gentile world, which is a major burden of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Both books relate the Gospel story for gentile ears, and Acts in particular tells how Paul proclaimed that Gospel to non-Jews. This first brush however overlooks some important details of the story.

Not only is Candace’s servant a gentile, but he is also a eunuch. The story tells us that the eunuch as been to Jerusalem to worship, which makes him what is described as a “God fearer,” a non-Jew who was attracted to the Jewish religion, its ethics, and its belief in one God. As a eunuch, however he was prohibited from becoming a Jew. Conversions to Judaism was rare in those days, but it was impossible for someone who was not a “whole man” that is one with intact testicles. Because the eunuch was castrated, he could not become a Jew and therefore a part of the salvation promised to Jews.

When Philip explained to him that salvation was offered to all through Jesus Christ, his immediate response was: “Then what is to prevent me from being baptized?” Philip’s response is to take him immediately into the water and baptize him. One can certainly understand why afterward “he when his way rejoicing.”

In the New Testament epistle to the Galatians (3:28) Paul writes that “in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave and free, there is no longer male or female; for in Christ for all of you are one. The story of Philip and the eunuch shows clearly that he too can be added to this list of those made one in Christ.

Adding the eunuch to the list, however, requires a reason for doing so. What does he have in common with the others? In each of the pairs in Paul’s list one of the two could not be a Jew according to the traditional understanding of scripture and its interpretation. Under the old Jewish understanding, the eunuch was excluded from salvation, under the new dispensation in Jesus Christ, he is now saved.

A Jew, of course was an heir of Abraham and a party of the covenant he received from God, but a Gentile was not. A slave also could not become a Jew, but a free man could, and a woman was part of the Jewish covenant only through a male; her father, a brother, a husband, or as in the case of Naomi in the book of Ruth, her kinsman Boaz. It was because of Naomi’s need to be attached to a man’s household that the widow had to leave Moab, which prompted one of the most poignant expressions of loyalty in the Bible, when her daughter-in-law Ruth declared “Whither thou goest, I will go.”

The importance of the eunuch’s being added to the list is not only because in Christ he was a child of God, but also because his inclusion changed a traditional scriptural interpretation defining who could be a party to God’s covenant. This is an important point for those who have difficulty with changes to the traditional reading of scripture.

In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus Christ also mentions eunuchs. During one of his private teaching sessions after a discussion with the Pharisees about divorce (a subject that begs discussing with respect to the "protection" of the institution of marriage) his disciples asked him if it might not be best never to marry.

Jesus answers: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

This passage suggests something unsettling for anyone who looks to scripture for guidance in how to enter the Kingdom of heaven, but it must be particularly frightening for those who believe in literal the interpretation of the Bible. With the exception of Origen, a 3rd-century Christian mystic who did in fact emasculate himself in literal obedience to the Lord’s words, I have never heard of any other man who destroyed his manhood because of Jesus’s words, regardless of how insistent the person might be about taking the Bible literally. Presumably the literalist would not object to using reason and a 21st Century world view in interpreting this particular passage.

The traditional interpretation is of course not literal, in spite of Origin’s believing he would please God by doing so. The traditional interpretation, which reflects the sensibilities of heterosexual men, is that being celibate is the best way to serve God. This understanding is certainly one that underlies the Roman Catholic requirement that priests be celibate, although in recent times Roman Catholic practice seems to have begged the issue with respect to pederasty as a disqualification for continuing to be a practicing priest.

The interpretation that Jesus is referring to celibacy seems charmingly naive, however, to those who are familiar with eunuchs in their historical context. Eunuchs may have been unable to father children, but they certainly were not celibate. Their primary function was to serve highly placed females as guards, ministers, and advisors. They were a fixture in the domestic lives of queens especially because the were incapable of begetting a bastard heir.

Another argument that Jesus was suggesting celibacy when he encouraged men to become eunuchs was that he was not worldly wise enough to know much about the immorality of the “street,” and therefore would have been ignorant of the sexual excesses attributed to eunuchs. That suggestion is laughable when one considers that Jesus was often criticized for cavorting with prostitutes, drunks, tax collectors and other riffraff. The fact that eunuchs might have been part of that riffraff does not require a greater degree of supposition than other factors that influence the interpretation of scripture.

Eunuchs also served as male concubines for kings and other rich and highly placed men in the ancient world. Mary Renault in her novel The Persian Boy tells the historically accurate story of Boaz a castrated favorite of the Persian king Xerxes who later became the lover of Alexander the Great. Castration of boys continued well into the 18th century in Europe to preserve the soprano and contralto voices of young boys by keeping them from entering puberty. The sexual escapades of these famous castrati are well known tales told by opera buffs.

Clearly a castrated man was not the equivalent of a celibate man. In fact, they were considered unclean and unacceptable as Jews not only because they lacked testicles, but also because of their reputation for sexual excess. So much for the celibacy of eunuchs.

Looking at the story from Acts and Jesus’s words in Matthew with a gay man’s eyes reveals a possibility that is obscured by the delicacy or prejudice of heterosexual interpretation. Jesus’s first and last words about eunuchs contains an essential clue to understanding him. He begins: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.” And he ends with “Let anyone accept this who can.”

Jesus frequently speaks cryptically to his followers preceding his words by saying, “Let those with ears to hear, hear.”and similar expressions. He speaks cryptically not only because of the danger of his enemies misrepresenting what he says, but also because much of his teaching goes counter to accepted, traditional beliefs (including scriptural interpretation) of his time. He is in constant conflict with Pharisees who try to trap him into blasphemy. He speaks sometimes in riddles which can only be understood because he uses an insiders’ argot, much like the argot of oppressed groups, such as street gangs, racial minorities, and homosexuals whose expressions and choice of clothes have meaning only to the initiates of a group.

Gay men and women are very familiar with the need to speak in code and the code is in constant flux. As gay-speak becomes intelligible to the straight world, it changes to preserve the ability to communicate without being understood by those outside of or not trusted by the group.

Few lexicons of gay-speak are ever current. By the time they are compiled, the argot has moved on, but a gay man or women can usually surmise a new term or meaning without having to be taught what it means. The context and the intent are usually quite clear even if the expression is a new one. The ability to constantly reformulate and invent verbal code goes along with being in any tight-knit group, particularly a persecuted one.

Gay men and women, live in a world of code-speaking. For one thing code is necessary because the information conveyed would be shocking, and probably repulsive or disgusting to outsiders, although not necessarily so to a member of the gay group. The more disgusting to the outsider, the greater necessity for the code.

The discussion of sex acts in a gay context, such as cunnilingus, analingus, fellatio, and the use of sex toys, and drugs are, for the most part, commonplace among gay men and women, even among those whose sex habits are more restrained than others. A group of gay men are just as apt to discuss sexual encounters as straight men, and perhaps with the same amount of graphic detail, and no more attention to the bizarre. The difference is that being overheard and understood would have far greater consequences than if a group of straight men were overheard.

While it is not possible to know exactly the meaning of the code in Jesus’ statement about eunuchs, it does provide clues to those who regularly use insiders’ code in speaking. Jesus is obviously encouraging his disciples to consider a particular sort of ministry, one that he can not describe plainly. To a Gay man, the subject of eunuchs immediately suggests something sexual in nature given the sexual associations with eunuchs in ancient times. Their condition as non-reproducing males has a parallel with the fact that usually a homosexual male is a genetic endpoint. Figuratively a gay man, even though virile and capable of fathering children as many do, is perceived as a social eunuch. If Jesus is suggesting becoming a social eunuch, however, he does not seem to be suggesting that his followers become non-active sexually.

When receiving instruction for confirmation from an Episcopalian priest, a candidate for confirmation asked if his being queer would prevent him from being confirmed. The priest did not tell the man he had to stop being queer, or that a queer could not be a Christian. He told him to be a queer for Christ. In a gay man’s ears, Jesus is saying that there are (social) eunuchs who have made themselves (social) eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. A gay Christian is called through his homosexuality to proclaim the Gospel to the gay world and he can do so only by entering it. A gay man is called to take Christ into the baths and the bars, the streets and the beds: wherever gay life takes him. He imitates Christ who took the Gospel into the homes of sinners, into the company of prostitutes, drunkards, and all the other outcasts and riffraff of his day. Who, but the gay man can take the Gospel into those places in the gay world?

Shocking? Certainly, but Jesus prefaced his statement saying, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.” And he ends with “Let anyone accept this who can.”

At this point, it is necessary to reiterate that this discussion is not meant to persuade non-gay men and women of its validity. For them it is a shocking idea, but it is not written for them. It is written to provide a gay person with insight into scripture from a gay person’s life and experience. Whatever Jesus intended to convey to his disciples, he had to convey in verbal code. If he had been merely encouraging them to a life of celibacy, encoding his message would have been unnecessary.

The story of the eunuch in Acts and Jesus discussion in Matthew both offer persuasive evidence that Jesus Christ intended his Gospel message for many who had traditionally been denied salvation under the old covenant God made with the Jews. The fact is that Biblical reinterpretation is not only permitted but required. This seems clearly to make contemporary protestations about “reinterpreting” scripture pointless. If the Hebrew scriptures had not been reinterpreted by Jesus Christ, most of those currently claiming eternal truth in "traditional" interpretations would not now be eligible to become God’s children. “Let anyone accept this who can.”

2004-11-12T10:44:00.000-06:00

Free States versus Slave States

For an eerie look at the correlation between the former slave states (and territories) and the "red" states in the November 2 election, click on the link below. This illustrates pretty clearly the politics of divisiveness being practiced by the political and religious right. The battle for freedom in the United States did not end at the close of the Civil War, it's continued unabated through the Civil Rights movement of the sixties right up to the present combatants in the homophobia war.

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

2004-11-12T07:58:00.000-06:00

Victory for the Blue States?

A quote from Frank Rich's article published in the New York Times, November 14, 2004.

On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide

After you read the quote, click on the article to read about the rank hypocrisy of the "moral right wing." After that you might want to refer your "Evangelical" acquaintances to Matthew 7:1-27, in particular where it says (vs 21) "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.'"

"There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.

The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out."

2004-11-03T17:32:00.000-06:00

Can Lesbians and Gay Men Survive Scape-Goat Politics?

Twenty-three percent of self-identified Gay people voted to re-elect George W. Bush. Presumably they are happy with the election and confident that their greatest concerns will be protected, defended, and respected in whatever way is required. For many of the 77% of gay people who did not vote for him, however, George W. Bush’s re-election to the presidency is not just disappointing it is deeply frightening. Homosexuals are now the scapegoats of that was not abundantly clear before the election was over.

As dangerous as this blatant use of homophobia is in providing a political scapegoat by the Republican Party, it is not the greatest danger however. The real danger is that because scapegoat politics is effective and very difficult to combat, the Democratic Party may not be able for very long to provide political cover for homosexuals. If “moral values” are effectively defined by conservatives as prohibiting the rights of Gay people, will Democrats continue to resist demonizing homosexuals themselves? Doing so might appear to be anathema to Democrats (at least liberal democrats) but so is losing elections if they are consistently lost on the issue of “moral values.”

Scapegoat politics has given right-wing conservatives a tactical victory–the winning of one particular election–but in doing so it has proved that the strategy of scapegoat politics still works. The scapegoat strategy helped the Republicans leave their long exile in the wilderness after their pro-business policies brought on the Great Depression. During the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the Republicans allied themselves with the southern racists, which eventually destroyed the southern base of the Democratic Party as it became an anathema to racists. Black Americans became the scapegoat.

With white bigots holding their backs in the south, the Republicans were able over the next several years to increase their support nationally by proclaiming the conservative mantra of low taxes, less government, fiscal responsibility, and a subtle form of xenophobia, while at the same time providing enough “states rights” (code for pro-white) sops to maintain the loyalty of the southern racists. The flawed ideology that underpins right-wing conservatism weakens it however when it must depend on reason and empirical evidence. It depends, as does all ideology, upon having enough emotional content to overcome rational contradictions. Their so-called conservative ideals did not have enough emotional content to win them a national majority. Racism does have enough emotional content, but it doesn’t work well enough outside the south to provide a national majority either, particularly as social acceptance of racism slowly erodes.

The answer, of course, is not that the scapegoat strategy does not work. It works just fine. From time to time, however, you have to find a new scapegoat. Ideally the new scapegoat ought to work with the same population base provided by the old scapegoat, but the new goat also has to engender emotion in a new and larger group of people than before. In other words, not enough people in the United States hate blacks, so they need to exploit the cultural distaste for a new group. If the 2004 presidential election shows anything, it shows that homosexuals are the new scape goat of choice, and it was an obvious choice.

The Black American has served as an effective scapegoat in the south and continues to do so, but there are too few racists outside the south to provide enough political support to control the country. Besides, middle-class Blacks make good Republicans if they think (and here emotion plays a part) that their newly acquired affluence will be served by “low taxes, less government, fiscal responsibility, and a subtle form of xenophobia.” White people are not the only ones who are fooled by promises of something for nothing, which is the falsehood that underlies the conservative ideology of government.

Foreigners have always served as scapegoats in American politics: Irish, Asians of all varieties, Hispanics of several varieties, especially Mexicans, and lately anyone who could possibly be from the middle east, even Indians and Pakistanis. For the most part, however, none of these make an effective scapegoat to replace blacks. For one thing, each of the hyphenated sorts of Americans has enough political power in enough places to have political protection. In addition, other than their foreignness (their ‘non-European whiteness’) they do not make a very good scapegoat particularly one that can be made socially acceptable.

Religion once had and still has some value in scapegoat politics. Jews and Catholics especially in the past have provided targets for harnessing the emotional energy of hate for political purposes. Jews, because in some places they are still scapegoats, have not been attracted to scape goat politics for the most part. They remember in particular the hideous experience of being scapegoats in Nazi Germany. They also have been political scapegoats in the United States, in western society in general, and in the middle east in particular. Being scapegoats themselves, they resist, for the most part, being taken in by scapegoat politics.

Unfortunately the same thing can not be said for the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The great irony in the actions of the Roman Catholic Church is that it has fulfilled the worse fears warned about them when they themselves were a scapegoat: direct interference in politics by telling elected officials (under threat of excommunication) how to vote and telling Roman Catholics who to vote for and who to vote against. They can afford to forget their scapegoat past now because they have enough political power to protect their own interests and to ignore the plight of the scapegoats who have taken their place. They are also institutionally immune to being hurt because their institutional power is not located in the United States or answerable within it. This is the case because lay Roman Catholics have very little power over the hierarchy. This was made perfectly evident in the on-going attempts among lay Roman Catholics to hold the hierarchy accountable for their shameful handing of child molestation charges against members of their priesthood. This is particularly offensive in the light of their postures of righteousness about homosexuality, and women’s issues, particularly abortion.

The Criminal Element of Society also makes a convenient scapegoat. “Law and Order,” issues, particularly drug related crime (murder, robbery, and other violent crimes), are closely related to poverty, poor education, and lack of vocational skills. These conditions are usually associated with racism since blacks are more likely to live under these conditions. Criminals make effective scapegoats because they have almost no political power, especially if they are poor criminals. Criminals are not reliable scapegoats however when crime rates fall and the general public grows weary of an ongoing, non-effective “war on drugs.” There is also a growing opinion that the war on drugs is as futile as Prohibition and is doing as much social harm as Prohibition did.

Unpopular political positions are sometimes a convenient scapegoat. The latest was the vilification of anti-war sentiment during the Viet Nam era, which enjoyed a revival in 1992 and 1996 against Bill Clinton’s antiwar activity and again in 2004 in the attacks on John Kerry’s war record as well as his post-war activity exposing the underlying disgrace of the war. It is a tribute to Republican manipulation of the public in that they could invent and sustain the artificial image of George W. Bush as a patriotic leader in wartime and that this image could be sustained in the face of the vague records of his service during the time of the Viet Nam War.

Diseases have provided convenient scapegoats as well. Tuberculosis, cancer, bubonic plague, small pox and typhoid fever are examples that resulting in creating scapegoats out of victims of disease. The most recent scapegoat disease showed up during the AIDS crisis when those infected and the community in which the early infections occurred provided a convenient scapegoat. HIV disease as an effective scapegoat faded somewhat as the disease spread into other populations, but in passing into and out of the Gay male population, it left a very attractive taint for making scapegoats of Gay men–and ironically of Lesbians, who were a population least effected by the virus.

With so many candidates for scapegoat, why are Gay men and women the obvious choice? For the most part their numbers would suggest some degree of political power. Gay people and their friends managed very well to sway public opinion and mobilize a resistant government in dealing with the AIDS crisis. One advantage they had in that struggle was that they were virtually united without the incredible 23% defection of their numbers as in the 2004 election.

In some areas of the country where the general public is liberal on social issues Gay people do have political cover and even some elected representation from among their numbers. These areas are those where the political majority are Democrats who have historically been less susceptible to the allure of scapegoat politics at least with the traditional scapegoats. Unfortunately the number of liberal regions in the country is declining and at the same time moving away from a liberal attitude toward some issues, characterized as “moral values” such as legal abortion and the acceptance of homosexuals in society.

Another problem with homosexuals exercising political power commensurate with their numbers is the matter of visibility. AIDS, for all its tragedy among Gay people, their friends and families, made homosexuals visible in a way never before seen in modern times. Gay men who died from HIV disease or became sick from it, were forced to acknowledge their own sexual orientation. Friends, and particularly families, had to acknowledge homosexuals among their own friends and relatives where previously they had been able to ignore their existence. Now that AIDS is no longer “outing” Gay men, however, they are free to go back into the closet or never leave it (other than for the occasional venture out on the Internet or through “phone sex,” public restrooms, and anonymous bar crawling–often out of town.)

Even some Gay men and Lesbians who have publically acknowledged their orientation feel safe from the consequences of being made scapegoats because somehow it will not effect them personally. Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary is a good example of a Lesbian who appears to consider herself and her partner immune from the consequences of being part of a scapegoat group. Her father will not always be in power, however, and in a country sufficiently swayed by the emotion generated by homophobia they may not always be safe. One day, there will be a time when scapegoat politicians do not remember Dick Cheney. The closest historical parallel is of course Jews who felt safe from Nazis because of their wealth, social position, or public stature. Unfortunately many wealthy public figures ended their lives in a gas chamber.

Lesbians and Gay men provide an ideal scapegoat however. They appeal to the same population that embraces racism because most racists are also religious conservatives and religious conservatives are easy sells for homophobia because of their literal interpretation of the Bible. Like Islamic arch-conservatives they have managed to pervert religion to the service of hate. In its heart Christianity is a religion of love, acceptance, and tolerance. It is a religion that cares deeply about the underprivileged, the sick, hungry, homeless, and outcast. Nothing in the religion supports scapegoat politics and it is only though the most disgraceful misreading of scripture and the most callous definition of “morality” that a large segment of Christianity has been taken captive by political manipulation.

The lure of homophobia goes well beyond the southern racist population however. Religious conservatives are not always racists, but they are almost entirely homophobic. Homosexuals as scapegoats, therefore extends the appeal well beyond the deep south into the very heartland of America, even into the suburbs as well. Homophobia also extends well beyond the traditional “conservative” white populations. It appeals to many blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other ethnic groups that are usually socially conservative and resist any suggestion that they include gay friends and relatives themselves. For this reason, most of the gay people in these cultures are deeply closeted and are in denial about their security.

Homosexuals as scapegoats also provide a perfect target. First to a great degree they are an invisible minority and too often a silent minority that depends on a few brave vocal and visible leaders who carry the struggle for too many who will not stand up for themselves–or are deluded into thinking they do not need defending. A history of ignorance and misinformation about homosexuality makes breaking though that history of ignorance particularly difficult. It is difficult to dispel the long-standing religious objections that are still promulgated as true, sometimes in ignorance and sometimes with a will to misrepresent the truth.

Homosexuals themselves provide much of the ammunition used against them. Gay Pride parades and the infamous “Southern Decadence” festival held annually in New Orleans provide a wealth of opportunities to characterize Gay men as degenerate, immoral, sex-crazed and disgusting particularly to mid-America. Although much of mid-America is represented in the revels of Gay Pride parades, and Southern Decadence they are still “shocked and disturbed” by the assumption that Gay Pride excesses accurately reflect the lives and values of Lesbians and Gay men as a whole. One suspects that with an intent to do so, one might gather enough evidence of depravity and immorality at NasCar rallies, Rodeos, and even the goings-on after hours of many who attend conventions of religious conservatives. Even a short residence in New Orleans reveals a very hypocritical underbelly of most conservatives of any ilk.

Sodomy laws were only recently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the aura of illegality still shadows the very act through which homosexuality expresses itself existentially. The very court decision that legalized private homosexual practice has in itself fueled the homophobic engine that makes them effective scapegoats. Scapegoat politicians make good use of an innate distaste towards homosexual acts by generating fears that decriminalizing homosexuality threatens society endangering the traditional family, the moral level of society and finally invoking God’s anger. In the midst of the national tragedy of 9/11 a prominent evangelical Christian leader suggested that the attack was a consequence of God’s abandoning the United States because of leniency towards Lesbians and Gay men.

This article opened with the statement that as dangerous as this blatant use of homophobia is in providing a political scapegoat by the Republican Party, it is not the greatest danger however. The real danger is that because scapegoat politics is effective and very difficult to combat, the Democratic Party may not be able for very long to provide political cover for homosexuals. The Republican route of the Democratic party in the 2004 election shows how successfuly they have used scapegoat politics.

How long can any politician afford to ignore such a dynamic and hope to be elected? This does not augur well for the future of Gay rights and should be a source of real concern among Gay people. The fact that 23% of gay voters chose to support the party that has made them scapegoats is deeply disturbing and indicates that Gay people have a real task before them in looking to their own welfare. The time is past when they can look for protection from the kindness of straight Democrats. In particular they need to realize that they can not look for protection from Republicans with the false hope that they are rich enough, socially secure enough, or such prominent public figures that their welfare is secure.

2004-11-03T08:25:00.000-06:00

Viewing the Bible with 21st Century Eyes

Differences in World View

Interpreting of the Bible, both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, begins by recognizing from the very start, that the Bible was not written in the language or with the viewpoint of people living at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Such a patronizing statement is necessary because unless that fact is kept constantly in mind a new look at scripture is not be possible. This is because the principal argument of a religious conservative is always that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God: that the words we read, written in modern English, or perhaps in the early 17th century English of the King James Bible, convey to us with precise, literal, exactitude of meaning, God’s will for us.

Depending on the issue, of course, conservatives of different degrees of permissiveness, and one would suspect, self interest, differ on the literalness of their literalism. This should be kept in mind because conservatives of a literal bend are not united on the literal meaning of each and every passage of scripture.

Each era of human history has it own way of viewing the world and deciding what is socially acceptable based on that viewpoint. It is a constant of human nature that each era will revise social acceptance for their own time. Perhaps this social turmoil is due simply to an inherent and perhaps perverse restlessness in human nature. This restlessness is influenced by what each new age believes about nature, both human and otherwise. As a result it is impacted by technology, affluence or lack of it, and the broad or narrow base of education among the people at large. As a general rule, the more conservative a person, the more apt he is to see perversity in human restlessness. The more permissive individual will be less fearful of the change brought about by the restlessness of human nature, and most likely will be part of the restlessness himself. There is also a direct correlation between the degree to which a conservative will suffer a loss of power, wealth, and position as a result of social change.

With this principal in mind, one can readily see the vast chasm that exists between a 21st century world view and that of the ancient civilizations in which the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament were compiled. It is also important to keep in mind not only the difference between modern and Biblical times, but also the differences that developed over the time span separating the most ancient part of the Hebrew scriptures and the most recent parts of the New Testament.

The argument for considering the differences in viewpoint between different eras is not just a simple matter of logical reasoning. Archeological evidence, research in anthropology, comparative religion, linguistics and a diversity of academic fields support and illuminate the changes that distinguish the viewpoints of historical and modern societies.

Another important thing to remember is that even though societies can be separated by time, they can also share many common ideals and principals. This constant in ideals and principals lies at the base of all that is good in humanity, and it is the search to achieve these social and spiritual ideals that believers seek in Holy Scripture.

The Dangers of Literal Interpretation: Discovering how best to grow towards eternal truth and goodness often requires peeling away the multi-layered obscurity of ancient society that hides the truth. Often this ‘peeling away’ requires challenging the literal words themselves in order to understand their truth in a modern context. This process is anathema to a literalist, at least when dealing with those issues that threaten his personal happiness, power, or position. Conservatives sometimes term this sort of interpretation “spiritualizing scripture” although the term, which they use with derisive intent, does violence to any traditional religious doctrine of “Spirit.”

When the conservative resists a discovery of real truth in scripture, he plants at least two land minds in the path towards it. First, his attempt to protect his own position in society keeps him in error with respect to the will of God. This is especially serious if he does so in defiance of what his reason tells him about God’s ongoing revelation through science and human intellect. The conservative’s resistance also presents a far graver danger in that he reinforces and keeps in place barriers that deny access to God for others. Those whom society keeps on its margins, but who seek God, might find Him if the minefield of literalism were cleared away. Tragically the religious conservative, in maintaining barriers that his intellect should tell him ought not to exist, thwarts the spread of the very Gospel which the conservative claims to love and seeks to proclaim.

Divisions in Western Christianity: After the great schism between the east and west in 1053, Christianity was united under Papal dominance until the late fifteenth century when that unity came apart. In the late sixteenth-century Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, posited at about the same time the Pope excommunicated the Church of England (Anglicans) during the reign of Elizabeth I, that truth in Holy Scripture could only be discovered through a process that combined Reason, Tradition, and Scripture.

Hooker’s position was in opposition not only to the Roman Catholic Church, but to most of the Protestant reformers as well. The Roman Catholic position held that only those authorized by the Church could interpret the meaning of scripture. Further, ordinary people were forbidden even to read the words of scripture in the language of their everyday lives. According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, only the Church, governed and control by Christ’s vicar on earth, the Pope, was competent to discern God’s will for the world and his people. The restlessness of human nature at the time resisted the totalitarian governance of the church because the Roman Church had become corrupt. Those, like Martin Luther, who as a priest, knew and read scripture, raised issues with the authority of the church based on what he perceived to be the will of God through his reading of the Bible. The rest is history, as the saying goes.

Challenging the authority of the Papacy took at least two major forms: totally protestant, which claimed that only the words of Scripture had authority: Sola Scriptura, to use the Latin term. This view accepted no authority in the ancient practices of the Church. Unless a doctrine or belief was explicitly stated in scripture, it was corrupt. Although this position might be understandable given the absolutist mentality of society at the time, combined with a great deal of ignorance of biblical and church history, it had the result of abandoning very important elements of the ancient Christian faith. On the European continent, this literalist Christianity developed into an extremely legalistic, judgmental, and forbidding faith derived in great part from a one-sided
reading of the Hebrew prophets and the angry, vengeful God they describe. Its very absolutist positions, however, were very attractive to a plague-ridden, poor, and unenlightened populace who were just emerging from the intellectual darkness of the Middle Ages.

Reformers in other places, particularly the Swedish expression of Lutheranism and those in England took a different course. It is necessary to describe this process in England in order to understand the positions taken in this article. Henry VIII’s problems over divorce and the resulting fight with the Papacy are well know and are the major initial cause of England’s break with Rome. Henry, however, is by no means responsible for the final breach under Elizabeth I in 1585. Mary Tutor return the Church of England to papal obedience when she became queen at the death of her half-brother Edward VI. When Mary died in 1558 and Elizabeth ascended to the throne, she inherited a kingdom dangerously divided between the “new Protestant religion” of
continental Europe and the “Old Religion”, the Roman Catholic Church. In an astute decision which was undoubtedly based on political necessity more than on religious conviction, she established the Church of England as neither Protestant nor Catholic, but under her own person as Head of the Church. This resulted in Papal excommunication of Elizabeth and all adherents to this ‘new religion’ in 1585.

Elizabeth’s newly reformed Church of England retained most of the ancient Christian traditions abandoned by the Continental reformers. Following the protestant reformers, the Church of England allowed clergy to marry, but more importantly the church retained the sacraments, or divine channels of God’s Grace made available through the institution of the Church. In the reformed Anglican catholic version, the sacraments were retained in two forms. The first, influenced by the new respect for the Bible as source of authority are termed “dominical,” that is the two established by Jesus Christ, which are Baptism and Holy Communion.

The five other sacraments are termed ‘sacramental in nature’ and are believed to be ordained by the Holy Spirit after the text of the Bible was established by canon. These five are confirmation (the adult affirmation of baptismal vows) ordination (the making of the three-tiered ministry, deacons, priests, and bishops). marriage, penitence (confession), and unction (anointing for healing.)

The other ancient catholic traditions having to do with vestments, ceremonial, the decoration and embellishment of churches and cathedrals, were a battleground within the Anglican Communion for centuries. The way in which this conflict was resolved is important not only to understanding the genius of Anglicanism, but also in recognizing that disagreement among Christians is not only possible, but can lead ultimately to finding unity in truth, however temporary that peace may be. Elizabeth I, as head of the Church of England, made very few demands in terms of belief. What she did require was that her subjects worship together using the Book of Common Prayer, the essential, defining liturgical document that unites the diversity among all the separate independent Anglican Churches throughout the world. Each of these owes its beginnings to the Church of England, including the Episcopal Church in the United States.

The important point to remember is that unity within the body of Christ does not demand unity of belief since it can rarely be found even under the most benign of conflicts. The outcome of this common worship gradually removed the initial catholic/protestant divide in the Anglican Communion and (except for the fairly recent conflict over homosexuality and the ordination of women) brought the entirety of the communion to the point were internal differences are minimal and the differences with Roman Catholicism have been reduced primarily to resisting the claim by the Pope to absolute authority in matters of faith and morals, the same position rejected by the Church of England in 1585.

Recent human restlessness in Anglicanism has increased this distance again, however, because of the decision in most parts of the Anglican Communion to ordain women as priests and bishops, and now the decision, at least in the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church in Canada, and in some cases the (mother) Church of England itself, to do away with the ancient anathema towards sexually active homosexuals. A majority of Episcopalians (if not all) have decided to bring homosexuals into the full life of the church, which includes ordination as priests and the consecration of bishops.

Restlessness of the Spirit among members of the Episcopal Church has now resulted in fuller expansion of freedom in Christ. While conservatives bemoan a loss of the moral authority of the Church, and most certainly a perceived loss of their power and influence in the Church, they are in fact retarding the work of the Holy Spirit.

Their response to the present conflict is to threaten separation, in defiance and most certainly ignorance of traditional Anglicanism, the ancient via media or middle way. It is while pursuing this middle way that we remain in communion with each other and await the resolution of our differences, trusting that the Holy Spirit will resolve conflict over the passage of time. This has always been the true, and perhaps uniquely Anglican path to reconciliation. A policy of separation can never remedy difference in belief, and is a most un-Anglican path. Elizabeth I would have had the heads of separatists on a pike.

Joy over the full inclusion of homosexuals in the Church comes at the expense of many who object to the decision. Their pain is regrettable, but there is no reason to grieve their loss. Those who threaten to leave the church are like those southern aristocrats who moved to Mexico after the Civil War trying to regain the lives they lost when their slaves were freed. They are like disgruntled men who objected to giving the vote to women. They are like the racist southerners who abandoned the Democratic Party in the 1960s because of the civil rights movement.

If a homosexual could sustain a lifetime of commitment to the Gospel while being held outside the fold during most of his life, then surely straight Christians can endure the presence of gay people among them as equals. The gain of gay people has cost straight people nothing of value. They can still marry. They can still worship. They can still serve as ordained ministers. They can still participate in the governance of the church. Their threats of separation are clear evidence of spiritual poverty.

The Three-legged Stool: As was mentioned above, the late sixteenth-century Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, posited that truth in Holy Scripture could only be discovered through a process that combined Reason, Tradition, and Scripture. This is the origin of the ancient Anglican metaphor, the three legged stool. According to Hooker, each of the legs, reason, tradition, and scripture must be present in order to rediscover God’s truth in each succeeding age. In actual fact, this is the position now taken in Biblical interpretation by most non-Roman Catholic Christians, and non-literalist denominations in western Europe and North America. Were it not for the Papal practice of silencing progressive Roman Catholic theologians, it most likely would also be the public position of most of those theologians. A tendency to interpret scripture based on reason, tradition, and scripture exists as a source of conflict and virtual separation among many literalists as well, particularly among educated Southern Baptists and other conservative denominations in the United States.

Christian sects such as the Amish can disdain the modern world and isolate themselves from it, but can not change that world or turn back its unstoppable encroachment on the world they prefer. The tragedy is that they refuse Christ’s command to spread the Gospel to a hurting world by deciding to separate themselves from it. The same must be said of those who refuse to proclaim the Gospel in terms that are understandable in the world as it changes. Their religion is like a bee preserved but lifeless in an amber sarcophagus: like the corpse of Lenin enclosed in glass within the Kremlin walls, relics of a time that has long since passed away and no longer relevant to a living world.

The concept of the three-legged stool is central to the arguments and interpretations that must be made in order to rescue the Christain faith from a Christian version of the Taliban. The great danger to Christianity and religion in general is not in abandoning "traditional" understandings. The greatest danger is that preservation of these understanding will erode the revelance of religion in the modern world and certainly endanger the true mission of religion--providing hope and comfort to those who need it most in an ever-changing world.

2004-11-02T14:34:00.000-06:00

Domine Non Dignus Sum: Lord I am not Worthy
The Story of the Roman Centurion and His Slave Boy
(Matthew 8:5-13 & Luke 7:2-10)

One of the most common suppositions about homosexuality and the Bible is that “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.” Or, “Homosexuality is unknown to the Gospels and is only acknowledged as existing in the Pauline Epistles,”the inference being that Jesus was ignorant of homosexuality.

If one looks at the story of the healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10 from the viewpoint of a Gay man rather than a straight man, however, a far different understanding emerges. Not only is Jesus knowledgeable about same-sex love, but he accepts it and through his action honors it as much as he does any other love between two people.

Even within the societal context of his time, however, which had no knowledge of homosexual orientation as a fact of human nature, it is wrong to assume that Jesus was not “street wise." In Evangelical circles it is generally believed that because Jesus was "totally God" as well as "totally man," he was omniscient--that is all knowing--and therefore knew things his fellow human beings did not know at the time.

The religious conservatives' assumption of omniscience however gets misplaced quickly when one tries to apply it to his knowledge of human sexuality and human relationship, in which case he suddenly becomes completely without knowledge of sex. Or perhaps they would prefer the idea that Jesus, because of his omniscience "knew" that the bond between the centurion and his slave was completely "innocent." of sexual relationship. "Puh-lease!" one is drawn to say. For a gay man or a Lesbian, no omniscience is required at all to see what the relationship is between the Roman soldier and his "boy." Omniscience is not even required. To suggest that Jesus did not know what was going on impugns his wisdom in a fashion that is on the edge of blasphemy if not completely over the line.

The details of the story are essentially the same in both versions: a Roman centurion in great distress over the illness of his slave boy seeks out Jesus in a desperate attempt to find a cure for the servant. To overarching point of the story is that Jesus praises the Centurion as an example of faith. He says of the Centurion: “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said,” Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” and the servant was healed at that very moment.

Understanding the thrust of the story is easy. Jesus commends those who have faith in him, even non-Jews. The context of the story is also clear, at least to a Gay man. Jesus knows, understands, and accepts the relationship between the centurion and his slave boy, but a look at the social setting is necessary to appreciate what Jesus understood.

First, who was the centurion? He was a foreigner, a gentile, and a high official of an occupying power. His social position and power were infinitely superior to that of Jesus, an itinerant preacher and faith healer who would have been beneath contempt for the Roman if he had not been in a condition of emotional turmoil. He was so distraught over the illness of a slave that he would humble himself before Jesus in a desperate attempt to get help for his servant. In spite of the social distance between them, in both versions of the story, he shows respect for Jesus by calling him “Lord.” In the Lucan version of the story he sends word to Jesus saying: “. . . I am not worthy to have you come under my roof . . .” in the version in Matthew he goes to Jesus, but says: “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word and my servant will be healed.”

This humbling of himself is remarkable, but the reason he humbles himself is even more remarkable. It shows clearly how emotionally involved he is with his servant. It not simply the case of having a seriously ill chattel at the brink of death. He was not seeking healing for a piece of property. A Roman centurion was hardly likely to humble himself to such a degree unless his relationship with the boy was far closer than to a piece of property–even a piece of property for whom he had a degree of affection. What the centurion felt was far deeper than affection.

The other instances in the Gospels in which Jesus’ help is sought as a healer is from persons with very close relationships to the person who needed healing; the widow of Nain who seeks healing for her son (Luke 7:11-15, Jairus who asks Jesus to raise his daughter from the dead (Mark 5:22-24,35-42 and Luke 8:41-55), and of course Lazarus’ sisters Mary and Martha (John 11:1-44).

If each of these stories of faith in Jesus’ healing power presupposes the closeness of a family relationship, then to deny the same close relationship between the centurion and his slave boy is unsupportable. Their relationship is at least as close as that of a parent and a child, or of siblings. It is clear that the boy is not a son or a brother, although Jesus treats the relationship as comparable. What is the relationship then?

The term in English for the object of the centurion’s concern is variously translated as ‘servant’ or ‘slave.’ In the Greek text from Matthew, the boy is called ‘pais’ (παις,) translated ‘servant’ in Matthew 8:6, 8 and 13 .) In the passage from Luke the boy is referred to both as a ‘doulos’ (δουλος) who was ‘entimos’ (εντιμος)’ to him , translated as a ‘slave who was dear’ to him (Luke 7:2.) Later in verse 7 the centurion refers to the boy as ‘pais’ (translated servant in the English) and in verse 10 he is again ‘doulos’ (translated ‘slave’ in the English.)

Because the choice of words doulos and pais refer to the same person, it is important to try and understand what the words implied in the Greek text and why both were used as if they were synonyms. They were not exact synonyms, but in the context of the Gospel passage, they overlap in meaning.

The literal meaning of doulos (δουλος) is slave and is unambiguous. The word always refers to someone who is the property of another and a subordinate. Paul often uses doulos to refer to the relationship between a Christian and Jesus Christ (e.g., Romans 6:18,22 and 1 Corinthians 9:19.) In these cases there may be a sense in which the relationship connotes love, but it is unambiguously a relationship of obedience as owed by a chattel to his owner.

The literal meaning of pais (παις,) is child or boy, even son, but there is a great deal more ambiguity in its meaning than in the meaning of doulos. The translation of pais in other places provides a great deal more nuance in the meaning of the word than merely a servant.

In Matthew 12:18 where in referring to Jesus, the Gospel quotes Isaiah saying: “Behold my servant (παις) whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom My soul is well pleased. . .

In Luke 1:54 in the Magnificat of Mary: “He has helped his servant (παις) Israel in remembrance of his mercy. .”

Luke1:69 in the song of Zechariah “. . .and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant (παις,) David.”

In Acts 4:25 when the friends of Peter and John exclaimed: “Sovereign Lord. . .who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant (παις,) (sometimes translated ‘child’) didst say by the Holy Spirit. . .”

From these examples it is clear that the meaning of the word παις, ranges from an ordinary servant (Matthew 14: 2, Luke 15:26) to Israel, King David, and the Son of God, Jesus Christ himself.

The word is sometimes considered to refer to a slave who has a special relationship to the master as in ‘son-servant,’ i.e., one who enjoys special favors and privileges not given to a δουλος or ‘slave-servant.’ This would certainly seem to be the case with the παις, in the story of the centurion in Luke. Both terms are used in the Gospel of Luke, but in Luke 7:2 the term δουλος is amplified by the word entimos (ἔντιμος) which is translated ‘dear,’ ‘honored,’ and in some cases ‘precious.’ In 1 Corinthians 3:12, εντιμος is the equivalent of gold, silver, and precious (ἔντιμος) stones. In 1 Peter 1:19 it is equivalent to the precious blood of Christ. When the Gospel of Luke tells us that the centurion’s servant is δουλος ἔντιμος, it definitely raises the boy’s status from that of a mere servant.

Perhaps more revealing about the relationship of the slave to the centurion is illustrated in Luke 14:7-9 where Jesus tells a parable to the guests invited to dine at the house of an important man. He remarks on how the guests chose the places of honor, saying to them, “When you are invited by any one to a marriage feast do not sit down in a place of honor, lest a more esteemed (entimoteros – έντιμότερός) than you be invited and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. . .” Clearly if the slave was entimos (έντιμος) he enjoyed a place of honor in the centurion’s household and perhaps even at his table, scarcely the relationship of a mere household slave.

It also seems to be within the bounds of speculation to wonder about the close relationship between the Greek word entimos and the English cognate ‘intimate,’ in the sense of an intimate relationship, which comes into English from the Latin intimus, only one step removed from the Greek root from whom Latin borrowed it. clearly the δουλος ἔντιμος suggests more than a piece of valuable property.

When looked at from a Gay view of life, it is not a stretch to assume that a modern translation could refer to the παις as the centurion’s ‘boy,’ in which case the nature of the relationship becomes quite clear. Making that assumption not only answers the question of why this exalted Roman official is moved to humble himself to Jesus – he is pleading for the life of his lover – but it seems clear that Jesus knows the nature of their relationship and he finds their love as worthy of his concern as the other instances where he is moved to act because of the faith of those who come to him hoping he will heal their loved ones.

From the perspective of a Gay man, reading the passage in this light has the power to draw one into a relationship with Jesus Christ far closer than is otherwise possible. A Gay person can appreciate the story first-hand as an example of Jesus’ love and compassion for gay relationships, rather than a second-hand view given by Jesus’ concern for the love of parents toward their children or siblings for each other. It provides a Gay person with the vehicle for faith in Jesus Christ which the Gospels are intended to provide. Denying Gay men or Lesbians this sense of connection to Jesus Christ is nothing short of denying them personal access to the Gospel. The story answers for them the question raised by the eunuch in Acts 8:26-39: “What is to prevent me from being baptized?”

2004-10-30T10:42:00.000-05:00

Quote of the Day

"If we're one of the richest nations in the world, our soldiers shouldn't be sent out looking like the Beverly Hillbillies," said the mother of one soldier in the unit, who, like many parents, asked not to be identified for fear of repercussions for their children.

Read the entire New York Times article: Along With Prayers, Families Send Armor

2004-10-30T09:34:00.000-05:00

It's not a mistake unless you admit it happened.

Once again the Bush Administration is hiding behind "national security" to protect itself from criticism regarding 9/11. Read Part of 9/11 Report Remains Unreleased; An Inquiry Is Begun By JIM DWYER in today's New York Times.

2004-10-29T11:11:00.000-05:00

And another Quote:

This one from Paul Krugman in the New York Times It's Not Just Al Qaqaa

"The story of Al Qaqaa has brought out the worst in a campaign dedicated to the proposition that the president is infallible - and that it's always someone else's fault when things go wrong. Here's what Rudy Giuliani said yesterday: "No matter how you try to blame it on the president, the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough?" Support the troops!"

Support the Troops?? Sure unless faulting them will save the President's butt.!

2004-10-29T11:03:00.000-05:00

Quote for Today
from Letting Down the Troops
By BOB HERBERT

"This has been a war run by amateurs and incompetents. Whatever anyone has felt about the merits of the war, there is no excuse for preparing so poorly and for failing to see, at a minimum, that the troops were properly trained and equipped."

2004-10-23T08:21:00.000-05:00

Quote for Today and my thoughts about it

New York Times OP-ED Columnist write today in his piece "The More Things Change...

"It just so happens that America is evenly divided about what sort of leader we need: the Republican who leads with his soul or the Democrat who leads with his judgment. Even the events of the past four years have not altered that disagreement."

Since Mr. Brooks supports the re-election of Geo. W. Bush, it seems odd that anyone intelligent enough to write for a national newspaper would prefer a leader who acts out of ideology rather than reason. When I assess a leader's decisions made from reason, I at least am able to assess the decision as being supported by careful thought that considers the facts available. When a leader's decisons are based on ideology rather than consideration of facts I have no assurance that reality has been part of the decision. This is frightening enough when I hold the same ideology. It is absolutely terrifying when I think the ideology is flawed.

2004-10-21T08:49:00.000-05:00

Quote of the Day

From Maureen Dowd in the New York Times
Casualties of Faith
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: October 21, 2004

"J.F.K. had to fight the anti-papist expectation that his Oval Office would take orders from heaven. For W., it's a selling point. Some right-wing Catholics want John Kerry excommunicated, while evangelicals call the president a messenger of God. 'God's blessing is on him," the TV evangelist Pat Robertson says, adding, "It's the blessing of heaven on the emperor.'"

2004-10-20T08:05:00.000-05:00

Another Good Quote for the Day

"[John Kerry] ought to ask Bush if he wants to rethink his answer to Schieffer's question. (Is homosexuality a choice?) Homosexuality may not be a matter of choice -- but willful ignorance sure is."

From The Mary Cheney Flap: a Gaffe vs. Ignorance

By Richard Cohen
The Washington Post
Tuesday, October 19, 2004; Page A23

2004-10-20T06:40:00.000-05:00

Quote of the Day
On Friday's "Crossfire," Jon Stewart said what many viewers feel helpless to correct: that news programs have become echo chambers for political attacks.

Mr. Carlson (of "Crossfire") took the offense, charging that Mr. Stewart had no right to complain since he had asked Senator John Kerry softball questions on "The Daily Show," Mr. Stewart looked genuinely appalled. "I didn't realize - and maybe this explains quite a bit - that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity." When Mr. Carlson continued to argue, Mr. Stewart shut him down hard. "You are on CNN," he said. "The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."

2004-10-19T09:24:00.000-05:00

Quote of the Day
from the NY Times article: The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War By MICHAEL R. GORDON, Published: October 19, 2004

General Garner said the administration's mistakes had made it easier for the insurgency [in Iraq] to take hold.

"John Abizaid was the only one who really had his head in the postwar game," General Garner said, referring to the general who served as General Franks's deputy and eventually his successor. "The Bush administration did not. Condi Rice did not. Doug Feith didn't. You could go brief them, but you never saw any initiative come of them. You just kind of got a north and south nod. And so it ends with so many tragic things."

2004-10-18T10:09:00.000-05:00

Still More about "Outing" Mary Cheney to those like NY Times' Wm. Safire who have been living in a Cave in the Woods.

This from Christian Gratham's blog at Outlet Radio (October 15, 2004):

"Republican U.S. Senatorial candidate from Illinois via Maryland, Alan Keyes, will be in Washington, D.C. today to speak at an anti-gay marriage rally of Christian conservatives titled Mayday For Marriage. Keyes, whose daughter is a lesbian, is an outspoken opponent of equal rights for gays. Recently, Keyes called Dick and Lynne Cheney's daughter a "sexual hedonist."

"Joining Keyes are a host of conservatives who view Dick and Lynne Cheney's position on equal marriage rights with public disdain. Many conservatives have scurrilously used their daughter Mary Cheney's "lesbianism" for their political agenda over the past four years. Curiously, the Cheney's have never defended their daughter from conservative attacks."

2004-10-18T09:57:00.000-05:00

More on the Cheny Lesbian War

For an enlightening discussion of the issue click on Mary's Silence On Lesbian Squabble 18 October 2004 and read this article from the Rainbow Network.

2004-10-18T09:38:00.000-05:00

Quote of the Day from Bob Herbert in the NY Times OpEd article: A War Without Reason

"There should no longer be any doubt that the war in Iraq is an exercise in lunacy. It was launched with a spurious rationale, the weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be a fantasy relentlessly stoked by obsessively hawkish middle-aged men who ran and hid when they were of fighting age and the nation was at war. . . . .There is no way to overstate how profoundly wrong they were."

2004-10-18T08:46:00.000-05:00

If you think the Supreme Court erred in 2000 in the selection of "W" for President then read what it will be like if W is gets another term.

In the NY Times OpEd Piece Imagining America if George Bush Chose the Supreme Court
By ADAM COHEN this morning the opening paragraph ought to be enough to scare the living daylights out of anybody who's as yet "undecided" in who to vote for.

"Abortion might be a crime in most states. Gay people could be thrown in prison for having sex in their homes. States might be free to become mini-theocracies, endorsing Christianity and using tax money to help spread the gospel. The Constitution might no longer protect inmates from being brutalized by prison guards. Family and medical leave and environmental protections could disappear."

If you think the Taliban was bad, what do you think the United States will be liked if it is under the moral guidance of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Jimmy 'the shrimper' Swaggert?

2004-10-18T08:31:00.000-05:00

Has Bill Safire been living in a cave in the woods?

Where has he been? In his NY Times OpEd piece The Lowest Blow this morning, he says "Until that moment [in the debate], only political junkies knew that a member of the Cheney family serving on the campaign staff was homosexual."

Really, Mr. Safire!! Mary Cheney has been a professional Lesbian for years. She was the official Coors liasion with the Gay public repairing public relations damage of beer company incurred way back in the 70s for homophobic actions and comments that caused them to lose significant business in the Gay world who boycotted Coors beer for a time. In addition, Ms. Cheney's Lesbianism has been public knowledge since the last debates in 2000 when Dick Cheney publically distanced himself from George W. Bush's homophobic pandering to the religious right. Rather than "outing" Ms. Cheney, both Kerry and Edwards, if anything, outed the rank hypocrisy of mom and pop Cheney in claiming love for a daughter then hiding her out of sight so they could condemn [so-called] Defense of Marriage Act, a staple in the GOP attempts to demonize Gay men and Lesbians.

Talk about contorted! I love my gay daughter, but I don't think she and her partner deserve to be treated with the respect due to people in a committed relationship.

Safire once again shows his butt to the world. Come out of the cave, Bill!

2004-10-17T19:27:00.000-05:00

We can't all be Stephen King, but then we don't all want to be either.

His new book is reviewed in the NY Times today and the review is another indicator of how big-time publishers are failing the reading (and writing) public.

'The Dark Tower': Pulp Metafiction
By MICHAEL AGGER

Some quotes:

". . . would anyone read these things if they weren't by Stephen King? It's not an idle question. King has built the series into a monument to his ambition."

"At times, the series feels like a dumping ground for his wackier notions (a talking monorail that likes riddles) and for the further explication of ideas from his previous books (the superflu from ''The Stand'')."

The big guys in publishing (in this case Donald M. Grant in association with Scribner) are still pushing the same 'ole, same ole' by their brand name writers whether or not they're still turning out good books. The controversies surrounding Ann Rice's latest mess "Blood Canticles" is a perfect example. Amazon.com was literally swamped by negative reviews, which Ms. Rice answered with the venum of one of her vampire characters essentially accusing her readers of failing to worship her sufficiently. (Full disclosure time: I was one of the reviewers that hated the book.) You can go to the site for Blood Canticles at amazon now and all the bad reviews are gone. Although she still only rates three stars for the book the remaining reviews are glowing (and none of the reviews is from readers, just professional reviewers.)

2004-10-17T19:13:00.000-05:00

Big Publishers gripe about who the National Book Award named as the five finalists for the annual prize. I for one am delighted that the heavy hitters in the publishing world are miffed about not having any of their books chosen by the National Book Awards. It's perhaps a warning to them that "bottom line" considerations are not the best way to judge a book.

A couple of interesting quotes:

"We are completely closing ourselves off from the culture at large," said Larry Kirschbaum, the chairman of the Time Warner Book Group, "we are supporting our demise."

and

Esther Newberg, a literary agent at International Creative Management, said, "We are not helping the book business this way, and we're not exactly flourishing already."

Still, many booksellers, and even Barnes & Noble.com and Amazon.com, were caught flat-footed by the National Book Award finalists. Both report waits of four days to two weeks for [two of the books] "Florida" and "Ideas of Heaven."

Click on the following link to read the complete article in the New York Times.

New Novels, Big Awards, No Readers
By EDWARD WYATT

2004-10-17T08:25:00.000-05:00

My Favorite Quote of the day is from Maureen Dowd on the NY Times OpEd Page
Referring to the contention of the Roman Catholic Church that voting for Kerry would be a sin, Dowd says: "Like Mr. Bush, these patriarchal bishops want to turn back the clock to the 50's. They don't want separation of church and state - except in Iraq."

2004-10-17T08:08:00.000-05:00

Why I'm Voting for Kerry: The New York Times says it best

2003-09-21T06:37:00.000-05:00

BREAKING CAMP
My novel A Perfect Peace is now in print and can be ordered soon from Amazon.com. I will be breaking camp in New Orleans on about October 15 and going on the road for a promotion/book signing tour and will be away for about a year.

I have decided to sell the house so I won't be encumbered with that responsibility while I'm gone and now plan to resettle in New Orleans after the tour. I will be blogging here frequently while I'm traveling and will also maintain my web site at www.glynnharper.com. Email will remain the same at glynn@glynnharper.com.

The house goes on the market on October 1 preceded by an estate sale on September 27 (9am to 4pm) and 28 (noon to 4pm). After the house is sold, I will purchase a travel trailer and a pickup to pull it, then I and the dogs will depart on our adventure.

Stay tuned!!

2003-08-28T15:22:00.000-05:00

CRIMES AGAINST NATURE
One of the charming things about New Orleans for a fairly new resident like myself, who loves the city and its tell-it-like-it-is, let-it-all-hang-out culture, is the delicately phrased offense of “A Crime against Nature”. Although I xpect the major concern for offending “Nature” in this case reflects attitudes more deeply imbedded above the Orleans/Jefferson parish line, than below it. Nevertheless, as a pastor I have found myself on occasion called upon to make bail for a friend charged with this arcane Crime, although in my estimation his real offense is sartorial: wearing Rhine stone spectacles and an ill-fitting aqua knit pantsuit of a certain age while hitting on a vice officer, whom I suspect was more offended by the Rhine stones and aqua knit than being hit on. At least I would be.
Recently however, I have come to think that this particular category of crime ought to be retired as it relates to ill-dressed transvestites with no fashion sense and the bad judgement to hit on police disguised as good looking men on the prowl. The category ought to be retained, however, to describe another, more disturbing offense, which ought to arouse and offend the dignity of all open minded residents below Canal. A new vigor has come into an age-old dream of our city worthies, and one worthy in particular, who has taken it as a personal mandate to Clean Up the French Quarter. This Crime Against Nature is the offense of arresting people caught urinating in the street. That, the arrest, is a shocking Crime Against Nature.
In my estimation as someone who likes the Quarter pretty much as it is, or even as it used to be 20-odd years ago, would be very distressed if it became Disney Land on the Mississippi, with only entertainment and vistas that are suitably family oriented, in this particular case meaning a very exclusive kind of traditional family: one momma, one pappa, and some kids. In accommodation to the modern world of course, the kids don’t all have to have originally belonged to both of them. Without voiding their claim of being traditional, some of the kids may once have been just hers and some just his, suggesting a less than unflawed past, but not admittedly a flawed present.
I may be working from an old out-dated version of the Gospel, but my version says that Jesus Christ was most concerned about those we call the marginalized, the non-conforming, including the poor, the demon-possessed, the unclean–even including unclean street people–not to mention the sick (mentally as well as physically). Jesus even had the temerity to say that the harlots and tax collectors would enter the kingdom of Heaven before the self-proclaimed righteous. But others read the Gospels differently than I do, and I am willing to let them be indifferent to the unclean and care only about the clean and righteous if they want to.
Because of my reading of my old out-dated version of the Gospel, however, I do hate to see all this flotsam and jetsam of the world run out of the part of town I moved into, hoping I might be able to tell them about an old-fashioned–dare I say traditional?–Good News that God loves everybody. I love it here because I like telling everybody God loves them even if they can not or do not want to clean up their acts. Maybe it is not my place to tell them how clean their acts ought to be. God loves them from everlasting, as the Psalm says and not because of any particular merit of their own. When I was baptized, I promised to respect the dignity of every human being and I do not think respecting their dignity is telling people they can not live in my part of town because they might offend the tourists, most of whom I imagine would be disappointed if they saw nothing in New Orleans but the same sanitized world they can find at Disney’s Epcott Center.
Which brings me back to Crimes Against Nature. The real crime against nature is encouraging folks to drink a bladder full of beer and providing no place to get rid of it when Nature calls. I hope someone with better knowledge of human physiology will correct me if I have it wrong, but is not urination the natural consequence of drinking fluids? Now I wish one of the City Worthies would tell me what we are supposed to do if Nature calls as a result of drinking
water, or soda pop, or even eating snow cones, but especially after imbibing several brews, the very life blood that courses through the arteries and veins of the French Quarter economy. Sure you can go to a restroom if you need to go when you are still in the place where you bought the beer, but what if you leave the bar where you bought it and you are walking along Bourbon street when you get an urgent call. Well, I supposed you could pop into the nearest bar, but wait! The restrooms are only for customers and you are not one there. So OK, you go in anyway and order another beer so you can use the rest room. I imagine the City Worthies would leave it undrunk on the bar top and just use the restroom and leave, but City Worthies have unusual powers not possessed by tourists and mere small-bladder citizens like myself. So, you take your beer and go on walking down Bourbon Street, but you have not solved the problem, you have just made it worse. In order to be legal, you have now entered an endless loop that will leave you hopelessly drunk and liable to arrest for barfing on the sidewalk and, to the outrage of all non-urinating people as far west as Algiers, you have to relieve yourself on the sidewalk. Now you could just go in your pants, but I had rather go to jail than humiliate myself like a first grader who did not yet know about one finger or two fingers.
Ah, yes, we could provide public restrooms maintained by the city for the convenience of our visitors and citizens, who after all come to the French Quarter to fill their bladders, even if it is not the end result that we talk about when we promote our many charms. We invite folks to come party, but we do not tell them where they can go potty when they must face the mundane consequences of the partying we encourage. We do not want to pay for maintaining public pissoirs as they do in Paris. Besides, think of all the old fashioned Crimes Against Nature that might happen in public pissoirs.
There is a solution, even if, and excuse the pun, it is a little potty, as the British would say. The city should require every establishment that sells liquids of any sort–be they water, soda pop, or snow cones–to give the purchaser a ticket or token good for one free potty stop at any other establishment that sells liquids. Better still, make these potty pieces look like Doubloons, and make them of a golden hue to carry out the theme. Stamp a date and the name of the festive occasion on them, and I guarantee people will collect them and sell their collections for huge profits on e-bay.
Alas, I doubt the City will accept my idea. City Worthies do not get to be worthies by having either a sense of humor or a sense of compassion. I believe however, that eventually the Supreme Court of Louisiana with its usual profound insight and compassion towards Crimes Against Nature will decide it is unconstitutional to encourage people to drink without making provision for a legal and convenient place to urinate. The court will decree that the city provide a remedy or stop issuing liquor licenses. Unfortunately I suspect that the worthies, instead of issuing potty pieces as I suggest, will opt for compulsory cauterization at the city limits requiring us all to carry a picture ID attesting to such. That will keep those street people where they belong, wherever that is, but to tell the truth, I for one will be pretty Put Out [sic] about it.

2003-08-28T15:09:00.000-05:00

Another Christian Perspective on Southern Decadence

I am a Christian minister who takes great joy in proclaiming the Gospel in Downtown New Orleans. I believe that the Vieux Carrè and other downtown neighborhoods are home to the same sort of people that Jesus Christ showed a special compassion for; those who were marginalized and alienated from mainline culture and the religion of his time. It distresses me greatly when moral purists attempting to speak for all Christianity take aim at the excesses at New Orleans festivals such as Southern Decadence. Their attempt to enforce their own moral values does nothing to further the Gospel and does much to impede it.

I watched the Decadence parade last year, and I saw nothing different than I have seen at many previous parades including Mardi Gras parades. As a matter of fact, I thought last year’s Decadence parade was tame compared to those in the past. I saw none of the blatant sex acts that so offended my more sensitive Christian brothers and sisters, but then I do admit that I did not go out looking for that sort of behavior with a video camera.

I do believe that had I looked for the lewdness and excess that they found I would have found it too, just as it can be found at Mardi Gras, Essence, and Jazz Fest. But my belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ would not be well served by seeking out sin and trying to prevent it by coercion. For one thing, the sexual "in your face" attitude of many of those whose behavior many find so offensive, has its roots in the anger and frustration they feel toward a religion that is presented to them as condemning their sexual orientation and any openness about human sexuality in general.

Offended moral purists protest that their point in this instance is not about homosexuality, but homosexuals find the protestations cynical and deceptive. Moral purists withhold all comfort to those for whom homosexual behavior is normal behavior. Instead they voice the same condemnation for acts in private that they condemn as lewdness in the streets.

Jesus Christ had little to say about sexual sin, but he had a great deal to say about religious hypocrisy. He also condemned many other sins such as greed and the indifference to the poor, issues that I would think should demand as much attention by the greater New Orleans Christian community than sexual acting out in public.

I am distressed as well because religion based on moral puritanism is tainted by the same excess we in the Western world find frightening about the religious fundamentalists in the Muslim world. Moral coercion makes a mockery of the religious freedom we enjoy in the United States. Hateful self-righteousness alienates those who are its target, preventing them from hearing the true Gospel of love and forgiveness. True morality flows from conversion and not the other way around.

2003-08-25T12:21:00.000-05:00

Sermon on First Gay Bishop

My sermon on Approval of the election of the First (Active, openly) Gay bishop is printed on the sermons page of my web site www.glynnharper.com.

2003-07-22T07:10:00.000-05:00

Ordination and Institution of New Rector at St. Anna's

I attended Bill Terry's ordination to the priesthood and institution as rector of St. Anna's Sunday evening. It was awfully good to see the folks at St. Anna's again for a brief respite from my one year banishment. The service was wonderful. I was very proud of "my kids," who received awards from Bishop Jenkins for serving as "Bishop's Acolytes."

2003-07-22T07:07:00.000-05:00

I enjoyed my third Sunday at St. Timothy's, La Place

I enjoyed being supply priest at St. Timothy's in La Place Sunday. I have one more Sunday with them. On Sunday August 3, I go to St. Matthew's in Houma for three services: 8:00am, 10:00am and 5:00pm. I'll hae to get up a 4:00am to get there on time. Whew!!

2003-07-22T07:03:00.000-05:00

At least we're not much worse than Egypt in civil rights for Gays!!

The New York Times reported in an article in today's paper that 11 homosexuals were aquitted of sinning

2003-07-17T22:21:00.000-05:00

Sid came over tonight

2003-07-15T18:52:00.000-05:00

More Rants from the Right on Same-sex Marriage

I can't recall where I read the description of a mentally ill person as having a mind full of eels and coat hangers, but it describes exactly what the inside of Maggie Gallagher's mind must look like. I'm referring of course to her piece, The Stakes: Why we need marriage. (Tattled from Andrew Sullivan's Blog site.) Does she actually get paid for publicly displaying dementia? Is it a new kind of reality show in print? It's indescribable. You'll just have to read it for yourself.

2003-07-15T11:35:00.000-05:00

Patterns of Corruption and Uranium Quicksand

Two items in todays New York Times, an editorial, "Uranium Quicksand" (which I can't seem to get a working link to) and an opinion article by Nicholas Krugman Pattern of Corruption," go on at length about the present administration's mendacity concerning the Uranium/Niger flap. But they don't go far enough.

I don't understand why everyone seems just now to realize that the Bush bunch are liars. They lied about his Harken Oil stock sale (he didn't know as a member of the boards auditing committee that the value of the stock was about to drop?) they lied about how he got rich when he sold the Texas Rangers. They lied to get him elected governor of Texas, they lied about his record as governor (tell us again how he "helped" kids get an education when he opposed the bill that accomplished it.) They lied during the 2000 campaign (what evidence is there of "Compassionate Conservatism" in his track record so far? They lied about the real purpose of the huge tax cuts and the size of the deficit? (Is there any evidence that those who received the bulk of the money have actually "invested it to create new jobs? How much and where, and where are the jobs."

The tragedy is that the Republicans tried for 8 years to invalidate Bill Clinton's election with scarcely anything to go on and finally, because of his puerile shortcomings, got him for trying to weasel out of the consequences, but all the work to find him and Hillary guilty of anything important (Like lying to get us into a preemptive war) fizzled.

The Congress (neither Reps, or Dems, have got the guts to keep after the liars that now rule from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave) won't do anything. It's up to the media to keep the heat on. Please, don't fail us now!!

2003-07-14T19:08:00.000-05:00

Anne and Brenda Bost's Wedding

The Episcopal Bishop of Bethlehem (PA) is in the process of writing a book on same-sex blessings. The first chapter describes Anne and Brenda Bost's wedding last September at St. Luke's in the Fields Episcopal Church in Greenwich Village NYC. Anne and Brenda are the daughters of Walter Bost, a friend at St. Anna's Episcopal Church in New Orleans.

2003-07-14T16:44:00.000-05:00

Homophobia is alive and well in the Diocese of Texas

The following article was sent to me by my friend Dwight in Texas. The bishops of Texas have a long history of homophobia, which I have personally felt the brunt of during my 12 years as a priest in that wilderness.

If you're interested check my essay on the Religious Conservatives .
42Ak *** Houston Chronicle Thursday, June 12, 2003

Area clergy to vote
against gay bishop

Anglican leaders fear division in church

By RICHARD VARA
Houston Chronicle Religion Editor
Episcopal Diocese of Texas Bishops
Claude E, Payne and Don A.
Wimberly said Wednesday they plan
to vote against confirmation of an
openly gay priest as bishop of New
Hampshire.
"We have consistently opposed
ordination of noncelibate
homosexuals, and we oppose the
confirmation of the New Hampshire
election," the bishops said in a
statement.
Saturday's election of the Rev. V.
Gene Robinson by the New
Hampshire diocese has created a
firestorm in the 2.3 million- member
Episcopal Church in the United
States, as well as in the worldwide
Anglican Communion.
Bishops-elect are usually confirmed
by a majority of standing
committees of the nearly 100 dio-

ceses in the U.S. church. But be-

cause Robinson's election fell within
120 days of the church's biennial
General Convention, he must be
approved by the House of Bishops
and the House of Deputies.
Wimberly said he and Payne issued
the statement after church members
and other bishops called diocesan
headquarters in Houston for their
reaction to Robinson's election.
Payne will retire in June but
will be a voting member at the July
30 convention in Minneapolis.
Wimberly will succeed Payne as
diocese leader.

Their statement criticized
Robinson’s election because "it
simultaneously funnels the
creative energy of the faithful
away from mission into internal
conflict. The issues of gay
ordination and the blessing of
same-sex unions have embroiled
the Episcopal Church in a more
than 20-year debate between
traditionalists and liberals. It has
also caused a growing rift
between more progressive
Western churches and the more
conservative churches of Asia,
Africa and South America.
The Rev. Laurens "Larry"
Hall, rector of St. John the
Divine Episcopal Church in
River Oaks, said he agrees with
Payne and Wemberly’s
decision.
Robinson's election "initiates a
confrontation with the world
communion," Hall said. "So for
the first time in history, I think
the Anglican Communion will
be divided."
In 1998, a worldwide meeting
of Anglican bishops in
Canterbury, England, approved
a stance describing
homosexuality as incompatible
with Scripture.
However, Archbishop of Can-
terbury Rowan Williams and
U.S. Presiding Bishop Frank
Griswold have ordained openly
gay priests.

2003-07-11T17:28:00.000-05:00

**New Chapters of Eye of the Beholder are Posted**

You can download EOB Chapters 1-4,7 (Becky's story) and Chapter 5, which starts Gunther's story.
Click to Download

2003-07-11T17:27:00.000-05:00

**New Chapters of Eye of the Beholderare Posted**

2003-07-09T15:08:00.000-05:00

A Challenge to the People of Iraq

Do Iraqis have what it takes to be free?

As the United States continues to pay for Iraqi freedom with American lives, do the people of Iraq themselves have what it takes to achieve freedom in a liberal democracy? A people has seldom become a free society as the result of a gift from another nation. Not many of the former colonies of Imperial nations have been able to maintain their freedoms, perhaps because their freedom came too easily.

Now that the casualties begin to rise among the Iraqis who are cooperating with the Coalition, will the Iraqi people have the will and the courage to pursue freedom, or will they succumb to fear and intimidation? Will they continue to serve as interpreters and put their families at risk? Will they continue to train to enforce the law if they risk death on the day they graduate from police training? Will they support the establishment of civil government? Will they cooperate in establishing and supporting educational institutions? Will they be able to protect the infrastructure being built for them?

I believe most Americans support our presence in Iraq whether or not we like the way we got there, but I think our staying in Iraq through the long haul will depend on how willing Iraqi people are to take the same risks Americans are taking on their behalf.

President Bush made a foolhardy challenge to those attacking our troops by telling them to: "Bring it on!" Perhaps the challenge that needs to be made now is for Mr. Bush to challenge the Iraqi people to "Step up to the plate and fight for your own freedom." If the people of Iraq aren't willing to stand up to those who are trying to return the country to tyranny, why should American troops continue to die there?

2003-07-09T13:54:00.000-05:00

Now We're Talking Gay Rights!!!

A New York Times article in today's paper tells about a former Army lieutenant colonel who has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy and the military sodomy statute. This will really get the right-wing religious homophobes seeing red>.

2003-07-08T11:00:00.000-05:00

Leonard Pitts' Recent Column.

In his column "Timid Media tiptoe back into the 1050s" Leonard Pitts writes about the dilemma journalists have in deciding whether or not to print all they know if doing so might be harmful to the public interests. He says, in part: ". . .you could say that the media outlet that refuses to cooperate with government in a time of crisis sacrifices national security on the altar of journalistic principle. . . [and] the flip side of that argument. . .is that the editor or producer who too readily surrenders jounalistic prepogatives fails in his or her primary mission: to inform the public without fear or favor. Some . . . wonder if that's not precisely what has begun to happen."

Mr. Pitss didn't ask for a vote, but here's mine anyway. I vote for journalistic principle every time. To assume that most Americans can not decide between what the media report and what the government claims is insulting. If it's true that we can't make our own judgements about what to believe, the game is lost already.

If, from time to time the media end up with egg-on-face disease, I trust them to admit it a lot sooner than the government. How long has it taken for the Bush administration to admit that Saddam's attempt to buy uranium in Nigeria was a fraud? I'm not even sure they've really admitted it yet. How can you tell with so much buck passing going on? Answer? It's up to the media to report what they know, especially if it differs from what government says.

Mr. Pitts writes a great column, which I read in the New Orleans Times Picayune.

2003-07-05T10:32:00.000-05:00

Canadians Still Leading the Pack in the Anglican Communion

An article in the New York Times reported today that in Vancouver, British Columbia, The Right Reverend Michael Ingham, Anglican bishop of the greater Vancouver area is quoted as saying about the resistance of the religious right to blessing same-sex unions:
"Conservative Protestants and evangelicals who have vilified the pope for years have now found themselves in alliance with a conservative pope on issues of sexual morality," he said. "What you are seeing across the world is a realignment of global religion where the forces of conservatism are finding more cause with each other across religious boundaries than within their own religious traditions."

The conservatives, he says, want to roll back the 18th century Enlightenment "because it brought rationalism and individualism into the Western world." He adds with a giggle, "The fact that it delivered us from superstition and church imperialism is forgotten."

Once he begins throwing darts at the right, there is no stopping. "Conservatives say you cannot pick and choose, but that's exactly what they do because the same texts that condemn homosexuality condemn the eating of shellfish," he said. "I haven't heard any conservative churchman campaign against shellfish in the last few years."

You Go, Bishop Ingham!!

2003-07-02T07:55:00.000-05:00

Big Brother is Here

There is news from the AP this morning that the Defence Department is developing a system to monitor activity "in foreign countries" that can record make, model, license number, face of driver, etc. with face recognition software to provide a permanent record of everything the system observes. It's called the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and is only supposed to be used "in foreign countries." The project is being overseen by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is helping the Pentagon develop new technologies for combatting terrorism and fighting wars in the 21st century.

There is probably no way to keep DARPA from being used eventually in the U.S., but in the mean time we need to get rid of lots of "culture war" laws (such as the Texas Sodomy Law) or else we'll see law enforcement having a fieldday rounding up marijuana smokers and other minor sorts of combatants in the culture wars.

2003-07-01T18:29:00.000-05:00

**My Novel Eye of the Beholder is being serialized**

I have decided to serialize my novel Eye of the Beholder on a new blog site glynnsbooks. It may take awhile to get the formatting right, but I'm working on it. There's also a "tip jar" with a modest (voluntary) donation of $1.00 per chapter as you read them. Total chapters, about 29.

2003-06-27T12:21:00.000-05:00

What's wrong with the Courts' being involved in the culture war?
Remember the Civil Rights Movement?

The court has taken sides in the culture war,'' Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for himself and Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas, suggesting the ruling would invite laws allowing same-sex marriages.
It's not the first time that the courts have had to step in and protect the rights of a minority from the oppression of the majority: Remember that "local law and opinion" resisted giving full civil rights to Black Americans in the sixties. If the U.S. were ruled strictly by what the majority in local areas thought was best, we'd still have compulsory prayer in schools, and a great number of popular decisions that oppress a minority. The genious of liberal democracy is not the rule of the majority, but the protection of the rights of minorities. Why is that so hard for the right wing to understand? The principal certainly got lost among the right when the Supreme court ruled in Bush vs. Gore. Why wasn't the Florida Legislature allowed their constituional right to decide which delegation of electors would represent Florida? It wouldn't have changed Bush being declared winner, but it would have been constitutional.

2003-06-27T11:28:00.000-05:00

While the Democrats take straw polls on the Internet

Another OP-Ed piece in the NY Times today, Happy Days are Virtually here again says that "Political wonks eagerly await the government's quarterly report next week on the fund-raising totals by the nine Democratic presidential candidates. For Americans not engaged by raw money as a worthy denominator of political life, there is an alternate universe of pre-primary competition at work — a virtual primary on the Internet this week run by a pressure group on the Democratic left called MoveOn.

This is about the time in the presidential election calendar when anyone from state parties to third-grade classes starts taking straw polls. The MoveOn effort is more extensive than most — enthusiasts clicked on for the two-day primary that drew more than 300,000 voters. The virtual tally — results of which were not expected until today — would top the combined turnouts in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina in 2000.

2003-06-27T11:18:00.000-05:00

More About Lobbies' Threat to American Democracy?

In Paul Krugman's in today's New York TimesToward One-Party Rule he underscores the degree to which the Republican Party, especially a project by Pennsylvania's Senator Santorum is coercing corporations in the United States to hire only Republicans. Krugman writes in part: "The Washington Post explains, Mr. Santorum's colleagues have also used "intimidation and private threats" to bully lobbyists who try to maintain good relations with both parties. "If you want to play in our revolution," Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, once declared, "you have to live by our rules."

Lobbying jobs are a major source of patronage — a reward for the loyal. More important, however, many lobbyists now owe their primary loyalty to the party, rather than to the industries they represent. So corporate cash, once split more or less evenly between the parties, increasingly flows in only one direction.

And corporations themselves are also increasingly part of the party machine. They are rewarded with policies that increase their profits: deregulation, privatization of government services, elimination of environmental rules. In return, like G.M. and Verizon, they use their influence to support the ruling party's agenda."

Scary? Damn tooting!

2003-06-26T18:50:00.000-05:00

Supreme Court strikes down Texas Sodomy Law

Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we're free at last. (Sort of. Nothing in the Court's opinion addresses the other ways Gays/Lesbians are discriminatated against, e.g., including them as a protected class in hate crime legislation.)

2003-06-26T18:11:00.000-05:00

Have Lobbies Destroyed American Democracy?

In Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom he makes a frightening argument that ". . . lobbies, which do most of the monitoring and influencing, have gained power compared with the target of their efforts -- the government." Zakaria quotes journalist Johnathon Rauch as saying as far back as the 1970s: "the American government probably has evolved into about what it will remain: a sprawling, largely unorganized structure that is 10% to 20% under the control of the politicians and voters and 80% to 90% under the control of the countless thousands of client groups [lobbyists].

This view is made even more frightening by an article that began on the front page of today's New Orleans Times Picayune. The article was 129 column-inches long (that's 10 3/4 feet) detailing the family connections of some 17 U.S. senators and House members who had one or more close members (sons, sons-in-law, and spouces) employed in lobbying Congress. Two are the sons of Senator John Breaux of Louisiana and Trent Lott of Mississippi, and include a list of prominent members of both houses and both political parties, who sit on important committees that control the writing and passage of laws that directly benefit the lobbyists the Congressional family members work for with the express purpose of influencing legislation. These scions of solons are pulling down compensation in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The article is by Chuck Neubauer, Judy Pasternak and Richard T. Cooper of the Los Angeles Times.
Headlines that appeared in the Times Picayune are "Lobbying lucrative job for sons of senators," "Family connection appeals to clients," "Lawmakers deny impropriety," (If you believe that, let me sell you a bridge.) and "No expertise required for some lobbying jobs." Quoting from the article: "When BellSouth hired Chet Lott (Sen. Trent Lott's son) it had a stable of seasoned communications lobbyists. Lott was living in Kentucky, running a string of pizza franchises and playing polo, having dabbled in country music."
I begin to despair that the government in this country can be fixed short of a Constitutional Amendment limiting the amount of money special interest groups can spend to influence legislation while defending their blatant buying of influence as Constitutionally guaranteed "freedom of speech."

2003-06-25T13:47:00.000-05:00

The Real Importance of the Supremes Ruling About Affirmative Action

The most important aspect of the Supreme Courts ruling allowing Affirmative Action on the part of the Graduate School at the University of Michigan is not that minority (race) can be considered in admissions. The most far-reaching aspect of the decision is that it affirms the independence of institutions of higher education to set their own educational philosophy and the means through which they accomplish it. The independence of institutions of higher education from government interference is one of the ways in which liberal democracy is kept from degenerating into illiberal democracy through governmental controls.

One can imagine that in the future, race may not be an overriding consideration if racial diversity becomes a natural outcome of present day affirmative action, which one might optimistically hope. Other types of diversity may become important however. For instance, the ratio of men and women students in universities continues to move toward a majority of women. It may be that affirmative action may be necessary in order to provide a diversity of sexes. One might also think that in a more enlightened time, universities may want to ensure diversity by affirmative action in including a fair share of openly homosexual students as well if, indeed, a well rounded education includes the opportunity to associate with all aspects of society.

2003-06-24T07:21:00.000-05:00

Great News! Release date set for A Perfect Peace

I received a note from my publisher. My novel A Perfect Peace is set for release on September 15, 2003.

2003-06-23T17:21:00.000-05:00

Supply at Holy Comforter

Enjoyed my second Sunday as vacation supply priest at Holy Comforter. I'll be in the pew visiting St. Andrew's Sunday, June 29, then I'll be supplying in LaPlace all four Sundays in July. I'm still available for August supply work.

New Page listing the books I'm reading/have read on my Web Site

I've added a new page to my web site of the books I am reading or have read recently. I've included a short discussion and whether or not I recommend them. Also there's a link to Amazon.com if any of them interest you.

2003-06-21T17:04:00.000-05:00

Essay on my web site about the religious right

I have written an essay in response to a letter from a religious conservative that appeared on the letters section of Andrew Sullivan's blog site. Click this link to read the letter. My essay is on the essays page on my web site. Click this link to read it.

2003-06-20T13:26:00.000-05:00

Homophobia is alive and well in the Diocese of Texas

The following article was sent to me by my friend Dwight in Texas. The bishops of Texas have a long history of homophobia, which I have personally felt the brunt of.
42Ak *** Houston Chronicle Thursday, June 12, 2003

Area clergy to vote
against gay bishop

Anglican leaders fear division in church

By RICHARD VARA
Houston Chronicle Religion Editor
Episcopal Diocese of Texas Bishops
Claude E, Payne and Don A.
Wimberly said Wednesday they plan
to vote against confirmation of an
openly gay priest as bishop of New
Hampshire.
"We have consistently opposed
ordination of noncelibate
homosexuals, and we oppose the
confirmation of the New Hampshire
election," the bishops said in a
statement.
Saturday's election of the Rev. V.
Gene Robinson by the New
Hampshire diocese has created a
firestorm in the 2.3 million- member
Episcopal Church in the United
States, as well as in the worldwide
Anglican Communion.
Bishops-elect are usually confirmed
by a majority of standing
committees of the nearly 100 dio-

ceses in the U.S. church. But be-

cause Robinson's election fell within
120 days of the church's biennial
General Convention, he must be
approved by the House of Bishops
and the House of Deputies.
Wimberly said he and Payne issued
the statement after church members
and other bishops called diocesan
headquarters in Houston for their
reaction to Robinson's election.
Payne will retire in June but
will be a voting member at the July
30 convention in Minneapolis.
Wimberly will succeed Payne as
diocese leader.

Their statement criticized
Robinson’s election because "it
simultaneously funnels the
creative energy of the faithful
away from mission into internal
conflict. The issues of gay
ordination and the blessing of
same-sex unions have embroiled
the Episcopal Church in a more
than 20-year debate between
traditionalists and liberals. It has
also caused a growing rift
between more progressive
Western churches and the more
conservative churches of Asia,
Africa and South America.
The Rev. Laurens "Larry"
Hall, rector of St. John the
Divine Episcopal Church in
River Oaks, said he agrees with
Payne and Wemberly’s
decision.
Robinson's election "initiates a
confrontation with the world
communion," Hall said. "So for
the first time in history, I think
the Anglican Communion will
be divided."
In 1998, a worldwide meeting
of Anglican bishops in
Canterbury, England, approved
a stance describing
homosexuality as incompatible
with Scripture.
However, Archbishop of Can-
terbury Rowan Williams and
U.S. Presiding Bishop Frank
Griswold have ordained openly
gay priests.

2003-06-20T12:49:00.000-05:00

A Day of Sacred Conversation: Regarding homosexual individuals and practice

The General Convention Deputation of the Diocse of Louisiana and the Bishop have invited Diocesan clergy and lay representatuves to "A Day of Sacred Conversation from 9:30 a.m. (registration begins) to 4:00 p.m. on Saturday, July 26, 2003 at St. Martin's Episcopal School, 5309 Airline Drive, Metairie, LA for the purpose of discussing how does the Church and individuals respond to the resolutions and issues coming before the Convention as regards homosexual individuals and practice. A catered lunch will be served. Cost of registration is $12.00.
This is a signifcant opportunity for those who are invested in this issue to hear and be heard. "It is hoped that this day will help us to hear one another and help our fellow Louisianans as they journey to Minneapolis."

2003-06-18T07:18:00.000-05:00

More about Gay/Lesbian Unions

Today's issue of The New York Times has an article about Canada's legalizing Gay/Lesbian unions. I guess we will soon have to add that issue to the list of Evidence of U.S. backwardness along with the death sentences and natural life sentences. This is another issue in which the United States continues to lag behind the evolution of Society.

2003-06-17T18:51:00.000-05:00

News from Jill in Michigan

Talked to my friend Jill in Harrison Township Michigan today. Good to get her news and hear what's happening to her DIL Rebecca and son David. Jill's looking for a rector for her parish Grace Church in Mt. Clemens, Michigan. Anybody know a good priest who wants to go to Michigan? Hi, Jill! Hi, Rebecca!

2003-06-17T17:57:00.000-05:00

Hillary Bashing Redux

A letter to the editor in today's New Orleans Times Picayune takes Hillary to task for her "Crass Commercialism" in making a book tour to promote her new book Living History instead of minding the store in the Senate. The writer compares Hillary unfavorably to other former first ladies whose presidential husbands were unfaithful: Jackie Onassis "who lived a life of quiet dignity," and Eleanor Roosevelt who "devoted her life to helping others on a national and international scale." The writer failed to mention that Mrs. Roosevelt wrote several books (Including book tours) lectured extensively (for money) and a regular newspaper column. The writer also overlooked other Senatorial examples of "Crass Commercialism:" Senator Elizabeth Dole, her husband former Senator Bob Dole (who ran unsuccessfully against Bill Clinton for president instead of minding the store) and Viagra!!

2003-06-17T17:35:00.000-05:00

News from my friend David in NYC,

Just got a call from my friend David in NYC. It was good to hear from him as always. Gave him my web address and blog address so he could see how smart I am. Hi David!

2003-06-16T09:28:00.000-05:00

Supply at Holy Comforter

I was supply priest at Holy Comforter. yesterday morning while the Chaplain, Fred Devall is on vacation. I will be there again next Sunday. Holy Comforter is the Episcopalian worship center at the University of New Orleans (Lakeside campus) and Southern University at New Orleans. The center is part of the Evangelical vision of Charles Jenkins, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana. I enjoyed being behind the altar again for the first time since my retirement at Easter. Like an old fire horse who hears the bell on Sunday morning, it was good to be back in harness. Since it was Trinity Sunday, I pointed out that the Trinity is one of the things that distinguishes Christianity from other monotheistic religions. My sermon centered on explaining the Holy Trinity in terms of human existence: the physical, human image we see in a mirror (the son), the reality of the potential self, created in the image of God (God the Father, which lives behind the human image) toward which we journey in a lifetime of discovery and revelation, and our human soul, which is immortal and unperishable like the Holy Spirit. I distinguished the human "spirit," which animates our material bodies but which is lost at the end of mortal life, from our human soul which continues to exist after physical death. In God, of course, there is no similar distinction between spirit and soul because the Godhead is immortal, immutable and omnipotent. Eventually I will expand the sermon in the Sermons link on my web site www.glynnharper.com.

Letter to the Editor of The New Republic

I emailed the following note to The New Republic Magazine

Re: Andrew Sullivan’s The Euro Menace, June 16, 2003>. I for one take some comfort in the prospect of a United States of Europe, which might serve as a counterbalance to the bullying behavior of the U.S.A. as characterized by the current administration. As a loyal, patriotic American, I am frankly embarrassed and shamed by our country's "do as I say and not as I do" behavior. For instance (as Peter Beinart points out in TRB from Washington in the June 9, 2003 issue) the decision to end the ban on developing low-yield tactical nuclear weapons while opposing the development of nuclear weapons by others. If an unchecked U.S.A. troubles me, as a citizen, I can only imagine the fear it must engender in the rest of the world where our credibility and trust continue to erode in the face of the arrogance of the Bush Administration.

2003-06-14T19:59:00.000-05:00 STAIR Training this Morning I attended a STAIR (Start The Adventure In Reading) training session this morning. STAIR is a tutoring program for 2nd graders who need special help in learning to read. I've been familiar with STAIR since my time as Interim at St. Andrews and since I am now retired I wanted to help out with helping kids learn to read. The kids are mostly from a local elementary school where some of the kids at St. Anna's and others in the neighborhood go to school. Since retirement, I miss interacting with the kids, so I'm looking forward to working with them. I remember how much I enjoyed Mother reading to me and my brothers before we started to school and also how much I enjoy reading now. I can't imagine life without having a good book to keep me company when TV and the movies don't offer anything interesting. Besides, with my budding career as an author, I'm just training readers of my own writing. You can read about my new novel by going to my web site and clicking on the "my books" link. 2003-06-13T18:58:00.000-05:00 Things in the News Today that Gave Me Pause Generic Drugs The president has been touting pending rule changes by the FDA to prevent the brand name drug companies from keeping generics off the market indefinitely (e.g. Paxil which should have been a generic years ago) by filing repeated patent infringement challenges that trigger multiple 30-month delays -- sometimes for nothing more than packaging changes. But similar legislation was killed last year by drug company lobbyists and pharmaceutical lobbies were non-comittal Thursday on whether they would accept the FDA's changes, which could be challenged in court unless a pending Senate bill ratifies the changes. Consumer advocates fear the incremental FDA rule could doom bigger reform. New Rules promise faster generic drugs. Reported by Lauran Neergaard, AP medical writer, Page A-9 in today's New Orleans Times Picayune. Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird On the News Hour with Jim Lehrer last night there was a wonderful tribute to Gregory Peck showing his speech to the jury in the movie version of Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. I may just buy the movie to send that clip to a couple of racists I know that still don't think there's anything wrong with racist jokes. More Hillary Bashing by Gentlemen Bill Safire Despite his spirited defense of Martha Steward in William Safire's article today, Safire excuses her untruthfulness as merely exercising her right to a personal defense of her reputation, and pointing out that merely "lying" is not the same thing as purgury. He says "Even a wealthy woman who created a company that employs thousands and genersates taxable profits is entitled to act like a jerk on occasion without risking a charge of . . . criminal [conspiracy]." Earlier in the article, he says the U.S. Attorney, after a year-long investigation has not accused Steward of insider trading because ". . .he decided that would be too difficult a charge to persuade a jury to believe." Then Safire trashes Hillary Clinton by saying that "In the Hillary Clinton Travelgate case, the independent counsel Robert Ray concluded that her sworn testamony was 'factually false', but he declined to procecute because he didn't think a jury would convict the first lady of perjury." First of all, Safire assumes that the independent councel's opinion was better evidence of Clinton's guilt than the discretion of a jury, which certainly sounds like Safire believes that guilt by prosecutorial opinion, even by a lily-livered prosecutor, outweighs a jury trial. Let's see now, what it boils down to is that the U.S. Prosecutor gave Hillary a pass, which was wrong, but he didn't give one to Martha Steward under similar circumstances, which was also bad. The difference of course is that it's fun to bash Hillary and gentlemanly to defend Martha Steward. Burning the Flag Redux A consitutional amendment to ban burning of the U.S. flag has reared it's head again, but according to Cokie and Steve Roberts in their article today, instead of "putting this turkey back on the shelf where it belongs" this time the jingoistic patriotism resulting from 9/11 might sway enough votes to change the outcome. They quote Rep. Mike Pence, (R) Indiana as making the case that "This (banning flag burning) is about this Congress exerting its ability to express community standards in this democracy." The Roberts say: "That statement shows a profound misunderstanding of the true meaning of democracy. The rule of the majority always has to be balanced against the rights of the minority; particularly unpopular minorities." This seems to me to be one more instance of the danger of radicals on the right and on the left. Long live the American Taliban? All power to the people? Maybe it ought to be legal to burn the flag only after you've wrapped yourself in it. The Old Republican Prescription Drug Bait and Switch After long labor and in the midst of the great sound of Republican trumpets, the House has squeezed out a prescription drug benefit for Medicare. The trouble is, it leaves a gapping hole in the middle of coverage AND it does not go into effect until 2006. If you're an old folk, waiting three years for assistance is not very promising AND 2006 will be two years into the next administration. Anybody want to bet that it will ever go into effect, especially if W. wins another term? Now you see it now you don't, just like the tax cuts that will expire at about the time the drug benefit kicks in. 2003-06-12T18:05:00.000-05:00 Well, thanks to Biz Stone's book, Blogging, I got my blog spot up and running, and I finally got enough of my web page done to try it out too. I don't have a link to it from my blog yet, but if you want to see what it looks like on its first day, go to www.glynnharper.com. Now I'm hungry and the dogs need a walk before my daily fix of the New Hour with Jim Lahrer. 2003-06-11T15:27:00.000-05:00 This is my first post to my new blogging site. As a beginning, I just sent this letter to the editor of the (New Orleans, Louisiana) Times Picayune: I wonder why those in the conservative religious community who cheered the Louisiana Legislature's prohibiting gay/lesbian marriages, were so profoundly silent when the same legislature made it legal for two heterosexual drunks to meet on Bourbon Street and get married without the 72-hour waiting period. It seems to me a peculiar silence for those whose objections to Gay marriage include a grave concern for the sanctity of marriage. Why are straight drunks who have known each other only a few hours less threatening to the success of marriage than two gay people who have lived together faithfully for years? I also wonder about the motives of the "ministers" who perform these quickie marriages. Maybe it's the same motive as the legislature: its a way to make a quick buck. Is it homophobia? Cynicism? Hypocrisy? Or just plain greed? Maybe all of the above? The Rev'd Glynn C. Harper

GlynnHarper.com

I'm consolidating my Blogs.

Sermon on First Gay Bishop

Ordination and Institution of New Rector at St. Anna's

I enjoyed my third Sunday at St. Timothy's, La Place

At least we're not much worse than Egypt in civil rights for Gays!!

More Rants from the Right on Same-sex Marriage

Patterns of Corruption and Uranium Quicksand

Anne and Brenda Bost's Wedding

Homophobia is alive and well in the Diocese of Texas

Area clergy to vote against gay bishop

Anglican leaders fear division in church

New Chapters of Eye of the Beholder are Posted

New Chapters of Eye of the Beholderare Posted

A Challenge to the People of Iraq

Do Iraqis have what it takes to be free?

Now We're Talking Gay Rights!!!

Leonard Pitts' Recent Column.

Canadians Still Leading the Pack in the Anglican Communion

Big Brother is Here

My Novel Eye of the Beholder is being serialized

What's wrong with the Courts' being involved in the culture war? Remember the Civil Rights Movement?

Remember the Civil Rights Movement?

While the Democrats take straw polls on the Internet

More About Lobbies' Threat to American Democracy?

Supreme Court strikes down Texas Sodomy Law

Have Lobbies Destroyed American Democracy?

The Real Importance of the Supremes Ruling About Affirmative Action

Great News! Release date set for A Perfect Peace

Supply at Holy Comforter

New Page listing the books I'm reading/have read on my Web Site

Essay on my web site about the religious right

Homophobia is alive and well in the Diocese of Texas

Area clergy to vote against gay bishop

Anglican leaders fear division in church

A Day of Sacred Conversation: Regarding homosexual individuals and practice

More about Gay/Lesbian Unions

News from Jill in Michigan

Hillary Bashing Redux

News from my friend David in NYC,

Supply at Holy Comforter

Letter to the Editor of The New Republic

STAIR Training this Morning

Things in the News Today that Gave Me Pause

Generic Drugs

Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird

More Hillary Bashing by Gentlemen Bill Safire

Burning the Flag Redux

The Old Republican Prescription Drug Bait and Switch

Area clergy to vote
against gay bishop

**New Chapters of Eye of the Beholder are Posted**

**New Chapters of Eye of the Beholderare Posted**

**My Novel Eye of the Beholder is being serialized**

What's wrong with the Courts' being involved in the culture war?
Remember the Civil Rights Movement?

Area clergy to vote
against gay bishop