Tip of the Hat to Gail who sent me an automobile sized bumper sticker, the same one that now electronically graces the sidebar of this blog. If we ban Republican Marriage, people like me--daughter of two stalwart Republicans--will not be able to counterweight them later. What to do, what to do?? Should we continue to allow them to marry and reproduce, knowing that they are apt to produce solid Democratic Party off-spring? Or should we ban such marriages so they will taste the pain of ostracism? Something to mull.
Gail also brings my attention to an opinion piece in the July 7th (2008) Seattle Post-Intelligencer written by syndicated columnist Amy Goodman: To Whom Does Obama Respond? Ms. Goodman documents several actions of Senator Obama that seemingly go against his own stated values. And she is right about Obama's motives. He is likely stretching himself beyond his personal values in an attempt to appeal to the broadest spectrum of potential votes.
Ms. Goodman cites an apparent position change on the pending (as of 7/5/08) FISA amendments. However days later, Sen. Obama voted with his colleagues, Sen. Dodd and Sen. Feingold, to oppose giving communication companies immunity for past releases of customer records to the federal government Homeland Security agencies. When that amendment failed, however, Sen. Obama voted for the overall package of FISA changes that included the immunity provision. As I say both of these votes took place after Ms. Goodman's article.
It is noteworthy that the senior senator from Arizona was only one of two Senators who were not present to vote on either FISA amendment. Senator Ted Kennedy was in treatment for glioblastoma cancer. Senator McCain was....?
I'd have preferred that Sen. Obama continue to oppose a FISA that permitted immunity; many of us would have preferred that he continue to vote with Sen. Dodd and Sen. Feingold. That he chose to do otherwise was probably a practical choice, but not a morally sound one.
As for Ms. Goodman's opinions on other Obama statements, some of which I like and some of which I don't, Obama is answering questions in the context of the moment--never a good situation for a candidate's credibility. I would like to know what details surrounded these other issues. For example, overall I dissapprove of the way NAFTA has worked in practice. I'm guessing he feels the same way overall. But if he were being asked a specific question about a narrow issue within that topic such as establishing NAFTA with Colombia, his anwer might indeed appear to conflict with previous statements. Free trade isn't fair trade, but regulating and increasing trade with a Colombia, seriously working to clean up its historical drug cartel economy, may give them badly needed alternative economic support in transition.
Ms. Goodman also cites Obama's opinions of Supreme Court decisions on overturning DC's ban on handguns (favors the ruling) and on prohibiting the death penalty for child rapists (disagrees with the ruling). Taking Ms. Goodman's accuracy as a given, these statements give me the willies. These are 180 degrees from my opinions on these decisions. Watch it, Barack!
She concludes that Senator Obama may well be losing some voters in an attempt to appease others. One of the most attractive qualities of Candidate Obama was his apparent commitment to values like my own. He is not going to lose me over this, because the alternative is unthinkable. But it's a shame that he's slip-sliding on his own values. I like him for his values, and failing his integrity in this way may lose him as much as believes he will gain.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Different, Just Different!
What is good? What is bad?
What is good to you may be bad to me, and vice versa.
I strive to remember that judgment is God's business, not mine.
When I catch myself identifying a person or situation as 'bad', I try reframing it as different rather than bad.
Funny how things that are different become interesting--or even good!
What is good to you may be bad to me, and vice versa.
I strive to remember that judgment is God's business, not mine.
When I catch myself identifying a person or situation as 'bad', I try reframing it as different rather than bad.
Funny how things that are different become interesting--or even good!
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
So What Happened at Lambeth 2008?
...my friend, Kristin, asks...
Well as nearly as I can tell, it happened exactly the way the ABC planned it. The Willing-to-Try-Gang met for a few days in highly-structured activities designed to promote a thorough deep conversation in which all sides actually HEARD each other. The indaba group process produced a document that digested their communications. It set forth the discussions of MANY problems in the Anglican world, not just sexuality issues.
So it gave the Willing-To-Try-Gang a rich perspective of the Anglican Communion and its difficulties in each province, some of which desperately need help with protecting women and children in the most basic ways, for instance. Put into perspective, my particular little gripe aint nothin'. The inclusive church folks got their voice into the indaba process and the get-outa-Dodge extremists got their voice in the indaba process. The voices that the bishops often haven't heard for all the clammor of sexuality extremists, are the ones who are saying, "Our children are dying, our women are being raped, our battle with AIDS and other diseases is not working, we have arable land but no way to develop agriculture, and on and on and on....
Where does this leave the Anglican Church in Canada, the Episcopal Church, and others who may be ready to become inclusive churches? Once again the whole and healthy part of the Anglican Communion is placing the moral burden of that decision on the individual provinces. Right where it ought to be. That Abp. Rowan Williams is a smart cookie.
Bishop Smith's Lambeth Daily blog was an insightful look at the process. He gave a sketch of what was happening every day and expressed his feelings about the progress. Some days, good and hopeful, some days apprehensive. It was a good perspective to observe.
The Integrity blog was pretty comprehensive for the inclusive church organizations.
The one grinding regret about Lambeth 2008, one which Abp. Rowan may regret also, was the deliberate and very enforced 'disinvitation' to Bp. Gene Robinson. But I think it made the Willing-to-Try-Gang bigger than it would have been otherwise. It was not only a heart-rending insult to a good and Godly man, but it was an insult to the good and Godly people of his diocese and to the Episcopal Church. Bp. Gene had two blogs, The Gene Pool, and Canterbury Tales from the Fringe.
A respected blog from the traditionalists' point of view is Canon Kendall Harmon's Titus 1:9. I am directing you to Canon Harmon's blog that quotes Bp. Smith followed by KH's comments which are mild compared to the 10 (or more) comments from readers.
So, in as far as you'd like to...read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. General Convention 2009 is right around the corner. And the moral burden of where do we go from here rests on TEC's shoulders.
Well as nearly as I can tell, it happened exactly the way the ABC planned it. The Willing-to-Try-Gang met for a few days in highly-structured activities designed to promote a thorough deep conversation in which all sides actually HEARD each other. The indaba group process produced a document that digested their communications. It set forth the discussions of MANY problems in the Anglican world, not just sexuality issues.
So it gave the Willing-To-Try-Gang a rich perspective of the Anglican Communion and its difficulties in each province, some of which desperately need help with protecting women and children in the most basic ways, for instance. Put into perspective, my particular little gripe aint nothin'. The inclusive church folks got their voice into the indaba process and the get-outa-Dodge extremists got their voice in the indaba process. The voices that the bishops often haven't heard for all the clammor of sexuality extremists, are the ones who are saying, "Our children are dying, our women are being raped, our battle with AIDS and other diseases is not working, we have arable land but no way to develop agriculture, and on and on and on....
Where does this leave the Anglican Church in Canada, the Episcopal Church, and others who may be ready to become inclusive churches? Once again the whole and healthy part of the Anglican Communion is placing the moral burden of that decision on the individual provinces. Right where it ought to be. That Abp. Rowan Williams is a smart cookie.
Bishop Smith's Lambeth Daily blog was an insightful look at the process. He gave a sketch of what was happening every day and expressed his feelings about the progress. Some days, good and hopeful, some days apprehensive. It was a good perspective to observe.
The Integrity blog was pretty comprehensive for the inclusive church organizations.
The one grinding regret about Lambeth 2008, one which Abp. Rowan may regret also, was the deliberate and very enforced 'disinvitation' to Bp. Gene Robinson. But I think it made the Willing-to-Try-Gang bigger than it would have been otherwise. It was not only a heart-rending insult to a good and Godly man, but it was an insult to the good and Godly people of his diocese and to the Episcopal Church. Bp. Gene had two blogs, The Gene Pool, and Canterbury Tales from the Fringe.
A respected blog from the traditionalists' point of view is Canon Kendall Harmon's Titus 1:9. I am directing you to Canon Harmon's blog that quotes Bp. Smith followed by KH's comments which are mild compared to the 10 (or more) comments from readers.
So, in as far as you'd like to...read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. General Convention 2009 is right around the corner. And the moral burden of where do we go from here rests on TEC's shoulders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)