November 21, 2008

Special Comment on Gay Marriage

This is a very moving clip of a special comment by Keith Olbermann on November 10, 2008 in response to Proposition 8 repealing the rights of Gay couples to marry.

Script:

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

September 25, 2007

Nestar from Uganda

"When two elephants are fighting, it is the grass that suffers"

Nestar from Canadian Foodgrains bank.

Nestar has been working in Canada for 11 months. She grew up in war torn Uganda. She lost 3 brothers and 1 cousin when she was 5 years old.

If the link is still good listen to her speak on GodTalk.com

Note: Our Wonder Mill has no affiliation with GodTalk. Their views are not necessarily our views.

March 12, 2007

Blessing on WonderCafe

An Irish Blessing


May the blessing of light be upon you,
light on the outside, light on the inside.


With God's sunlight shining on you,
may your heart glow with warmth like a turf fire
that welcomes friends and strangers alike.


May the light of the Lord shine from your eyes
like a candle in the window
welcoming the weary traveler.


May the blessing of God's soft rain be on you
falling gently on your head, refreshing your soul
with the sweetness of little flowers newly blooming.


May the strength of the winds of Heaven bless you
carrying the rain to wash your spirit clean,
sparkling after in the sunlight.


May the blessing of God's earth be on you.
And as you walk the roads,
may you always have a kind word for those you meet.


May you understand the strength and power of God
in a thunderstorm in winter,
and the quiet beauty of creation
in the calm of a summer sunset.


And may you come to realize that,
insignificant as you may seem in this great universe,
you "are" an important part of God's plan.


May He watch over you
and keep you safe from harm.

( I love this song - part Gaelic- any Irish in our midst ?)

music Roma Downey and Phil. Coulter (Touched by an Angel)
Scroll down to the very bottom - click arrow on Real Player

http://www.jessiesweb.com/blessing.htm

February 14, 2007

Walter Wink and the New Testament

I think I want to explore Walter Wink. I never heard of him before WonderCafe. Here he is quoted by Rev. James Murray to explore homosexuality in the New Testament. Often when Leviticus is quoted, it is easy to counter those quotes as many of the beliefs found in it are dismissable - stoning rebellious teenagers, preventing women from leaving their homes during their menstral cycle, etc. I find wrestling with the translations of Paul not as effective, but do like the story of the baptism of the Eunuch as helpful.

Rev. Murray wrote:

Walter Wink makes this point about how we all interpret the Bible's injunctions about sexuality.

"For example, virtually all modern readers would agree with the Bible in rejecting: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But we disagree with the Bible on most other sexual mores. The Bible condemned the following behaviors which we generally allow: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, exogamy (marriage with non-Jews), naming sexual organs, nudity (under certain conditions), masturbation (some Christians still condemn this), birth control (some Christians still forbid this).

And the Bible regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most of us do not. Likewise, the Bible permitted behaviors that we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for the girl, age 11-13).

And while the Old Testament accepted divorce, Jesus forbade it. In short, of the sexual mores mentioned here, we only agree with the Bible on four of them, and disagree with it on sixteen!"

I could respect the opinion of someone who spoke against homosexuality if they abided by all of these Biblical standards. Homosexuality is no better or worse than any of these other sexual issues. By how we are abiding by the commandments on this list, we are all either A) condemned to hell or B) part of an ever-evolving process of learning how to live together in an ethical manner.

January 26, 2007

Noah's Ark and the beauty of Myth

This was part of a thread on the Bible and whether it should be read as myth, fact or legend. I found it fascinating.

JamesK (Fri, Jan 26/07, 04:34 pm)wrote:

Serena
I believe the pile of pages we call the Bible is a fact. And history points out that it is a selection of old (and very old) writings, all of which were created by men and, possibly, women. The "selecting" and discarding was done by other men.

What they selected was a mixture of myths and legends.
Noah and his ark is a myth because it is totally unworkable (for one, you can't flood the whole earth).
Many of the Old Testament stories are likely legends because they contain some elements of what probably happened.
Most of the New Testament is likely fact but got a bit twisted in the telling and recording.
In short - the Bible is a huge mixture.

monasksit (Fri, Jan 26/07 08:38 pm) wrote:

Floating boats and Noah's ark, how about this tidbit I stumbled on from Genesis:

Gen 6:19"(U)And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female.

20"(V)Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

Gen 7:2"You shall take with you of every (B)clean animal by sevens, a male and his female; and of the animals that are not clean two, a male and his female;

3also of the birds of the sky, by sevens, male and female, to keep offspring alive on the face of all the earth.

Almost like two versions of the same story, one, the one I was more familiar with, using the common two-by-two motif, then the lesser- known seven-by-seven (or I guess that would be actually 7 pairs so it would be 14 by 14), creating havoc in many illustrators lives for sure.

Beautiful, wonderful, mystical and inspiring myth that challenged our ancestors and still makes us pause to think even in this modern era. Amen and Awomen!

klaatu (Fri, Jan 26/07 08:40 pm):


"Beautiful, wonderful, mystical and inspiring myth that challenged our ancestors and still makes us pause to think even in this modern era."

You got it, monaskit!

StephenGordon (Fri, Jan 26/07 09:24 pm):

trivia tidbit I once heard but am not certain of, my math skills are terrible. The 7 clean was supposedly done so that while the land was flooded Noah would not have to eat of the unclean.... I'm just saying...

I think the more mystical, interpretive tidbit to chew on is that Noah knew what was clean and unclean before the giving of Torah on Mt. Sinai. This is also apparently when humans began eating meat. =)

monasksit (Fri, Jan 26/07 09:47 pm):

Oooh, good point! Noah was not only 600 years old, but he could see the future and Moses's orders about diet. Cool! Too bad he didn't warn his descendants to not sew coats of many colors for their spoiled youngest sons :)

Myths are meaningful, I repeat, Myths are meaningful!

StephenGordon (Fri, Jan 26/07 10:11 pm):

Noah is a good place to also see the influence the time period had on the importance of recorded events.There were eight people remaining in the entire world. They were Noah, Shem, Ham, Japheth... and??? and??? well Noah's wife and the son's wives.... their names were???
Some things were important in ancient times and some things were not.

January 19, 2007

Reading Scripture the Jewish way

A wondercafe poster has been explaining scripture in a very unique way. She has a lot of experience with Judaism, and the way it looks at the Bible is very refreshing. She sent me the following info:

It is PaRDeS. like a dreidel the letters are initials. They stand for Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod.

Peshat = the surface meaning
Remez = allusions or allegories
Derash = midrash way of finding new lessons
Sod = the hidden mystical Kabbalah way

January 03, 2007

The Bible on Homosexuality

Sighsnootles posted this on WonderCafe.ca and I think it is a great summation of the Bible's stance on Homosexuality.

Genesis 19: 1-28 - The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah

first of all, i want to say that the common reaction to this story ticks me off right from the get go... the fact that lot was going to send out his two daughters to be gang raped by an angry mob, and nobody has a problem with this?!?!? anyways, i digress....

there a few errors in the translation from the hebrew scriptures to the english version we have now that i feel are pretty major to the interpretation... the word that has been translated as intercourse is 'yada', which means 'get to know'. had the author of this scripture wanted to say that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with lots visitors, he probably would have used the word 'shakab'. this word denotes sexual activity. the word 'yada' appears in the hebrew scriptures over 900 times, and in every other context is used as meaning to get acquainted with someone. yet, in this particular passage, it somehow was changed to mean 'intercourse'.

therefore, that entire passage should read something more like this... 'where are the mortals who came here tonight?? bring them out here so that we may get acquainted with them.'

now, if you look at it again, there are a few other problems as well... for the story to be a condemnation of homosexuality, the ENTIRE CITY must have been homosexual. this is impossible, but even if it were true, why on earth would lot have sent his DAUGHTERS out to a homosexual male mob??? it states that lots daughters were virgins, and we know that sacrificing virgins was something very common in pagan idol worship. and we also know that lot lived in a pagan city.

elsewhere in the bible, sodom is refered to again, in ezekiel 16...
"Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw fit"

the hebrew word that was translated as 'detestable thing' is towebah, and this word literally translates out as 'to commit idol worship'.

therefore, the problem of sodom and gamorrah isn't homosexuality at all. the sin commited here is idol worship.
______________________________________________

Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13

leviticus is an interesting book. if you look at the context of the time it was writeen, the isrealites were living in a real 'get out there and multiply' kind of time... they were the chosen ones, so they had a duty to be really fertile. therefore, even masturbation was a HUGE sin.
leviticus is also part of the 'mosaic law', which also forbade haircuts, shaving, and wearing clothing with blended fibres, among other things. the law was such that if you broke one law, then you were guilty of breaking them all.

so, for us to use the leviticus passages to condemn homosexuality, we would also be equally condemning people who shave and get their hair cut.

we allow people who shave and get their hair cut to get married, accept sacraments, and share equally in our church, so it doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever to forbid equality to homosexuals based on the levitical text.
__________________________________________
Romans 1:26-27
1 Cor. 6: 9-11
1 Tim. 1:9-11

i've discussed this one on another thread, but basically, the words that translated out as homosexual or 'men who lie with men' in these texts were 'arsenokoites' and 'malakos'.

arsenokoites litterally means 'lift bed', but bible scholars now believe that at the time, it was used to denote a male temple prostitute. malakos litterally translates out as 'spineless', or coward.

now, in my 'new american bible for catholics', there is an asterisk by the term 'homosexual' in these particular passages, which states...

'the term translated as 'practicing homosexuals' refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with boy prostitutes, i.e.boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the greco-roman world.'

therefore, i'd suggest that the texts above are a condemnation of pedophilia, prostitution, promiscuity, and idolatry, and not at all a condemnation of a consensual, committed homosexual relationship.