Applause to Hantschel for stating what should be obvious to all.Gay union opponents can grandstand all they want about the "defense of the family." That doesn't change the fact that these loving couples fighting desperately for this right are actually reminding us, at a time when some heteros slip easily in and out of marriage and divorce at will, how precious this institution actually is. They're making it damn near impossible for even cynical sworn bachelors and bachelorettes to deny how desirable a state betrothal can be.
...
San Francisco's weddings made me remember my own wedding day, and the wedding days of some dear friends: thrown petals, good wishes, sufficient champagne, a bridesmaid snogging one of the groomsmen. They made me happier to be married, the joy of those couples reflected onto the rest of us, showing us how lucky we were to witness that kind of love.And though those marriages were later invalidated by the state of California in a mean and small-minded court decision declaring San Fran mayor Gavin Newsom had overstepped his authority in granting them, the images of hope, of courage, of determination to live in love whatever the consequences, those images inspired me and many others. Those images were our conscience, saying, Look, how can you not approve?
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Heterosexual writes: Gay weddings "made me happier to be married"
Allison Hantschel, who celebrated her very proper 8th wedding anniversary recently, writes about how watching same-sex couples marry has helped restore her faith in the institution of marriage. She writes in AlterNet today:
Al Gore is right: We have to do something about global warming
By Nancy Jane Moore
I finally saw "An Inconvenient Truth" last night.
I'd been putting it off. I know a lot about global warming and I figured it would be depressing. I even figured it might be kind of boring -- Al Gore has the reputation for being a little dull. But I finally went, out of duty.
It was great. Gore was great: He was earnest, he was witty, he was on top of the facts. And he made very complicated things easy to understand, without sacrificing the truth or reducing them to slogans.
Essentially, the movie is the presentation Gore has been making around the world -- a way of making his talk on global warming available to a much larger audience.
Yes, in some ways it was depressing -- the facts are difficult to take. I can't say I learned anything that I didn't already know, because I have been paying attention. But it was valuable to see all the facts tied together.
And I felt inspired, perhaps because Gore, despite his knowledge of political reality, has an underlying faith that we human beings are capable of solving our problems.
Gore is providing leadership on this issue. In fact, he's what we used to call a "statesman." He's talking about the most important issue facing the human race, and he's going to talk about it regardless of whether it's politically useful to him or not.
We've had a real dearth of statesmen and stateswomen among our political leaders of late. And our country has never needed them more. The current administration hasn't just ignored the problem of global warming; it has been adopting policies that make it much, much worse. (I'll post a report soon on a significant Clean Air Act case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this coming term.) Yet almost no one in Congress or in public leadership has taken a significant stand against Bush's environmental policies. Some of them vote right, but they don't do anything else. They're too busy trying to get elected.
Al Gore is out speaking the truth. I don't know if he still wants to be President of the United States, but I do know that he is the kind of person I'd like to see running the country.
If you haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet, go see it right away. Click here to enter your zip code and see if it's playing in your vicinity.
I finally saw "An Inconvenient Truth" last night.
I'd been putting it off. I know a lot about global warming and I figured it would be depressing. I even figured it might be kind of boring -- Al Gore has the reputation for being a little dull. But I finally went, out of duty.
It was great. Gore was great: He was earnest, he was witty, he was on top of the facts. And he made very complicated things easy to understand, without sacrificing the truth or reducing them to slogans.
Essentially, the movie is the presentation Gore has been making around the world -- a way of making his talk on global warming available to a much larger audience.
Yes, in some ways it was depressing -- the facts are difficult to take. I can't say I learned anything that I didn't already know, because I have been paying attention. But it was valuable to see all the facts tied together.
And I felt inspired, perhaps because Gore, despite his knowledge of political reality, has an underlying faith that we human beings are capable of solving our problems.
Gore is providing leadership on this issue. In fact, he's what we used to call a "statesman." He's talking about the most important issue facing the human race, and he's going to talk about it regardless of whether it's politically useful to him or not.
We've had a real dearth of statesmen and stateswomen among our political leaders of late. And our country has never needed them more. The current administration hasn't just ignored the problem of global warming; it has been adopting policies that make it much, much worse. (I'll post a report soon on a significant Clean Air Act case that will be heard by the Supreme Court this coming term.) Yet almost no one in Congress or in public leadership has taken a significant stand against Bush's environmental policies. Some of them vote right, but they don't do anything else. They're too busy trying to get elected.
Al Gore is out speaking the truth. I don't know if he still wants to be President of the United States, but I do know that he is the kind of person I'd like to see running the country.
If you haven't seen "An Inconvenient Truth" yet, go see it right away. Click here to enter your zip code and see if it's playing in your vicinity.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Follow the Money
By Nancy Jane Moore
Whenever I talk about politics or world affairs with my father, he always reminds me, "Follow the money."
He's right. National leaders may dress up their saber rattling with ideology ("We're bringing democracy to Iraq"), religion ("Take the Holy Land back from the infidels"), or national defense ("The Global War on Terror), but it always comes back to the money.
It's always been thus -- think about all those Spaniards, searching the new world for El Dorado, the famed city of gold. Look at Africa, still reeling from colonization because of all its diamonds and gold.
Today money means oil. In the future, money may well mean water -- and that's likely to be true regardless of whether global warming and other human idiocies send us back to the stone age or whether we are able to keep our move toward human civilization on its shaky path forward.
But for now, it's oil. And as Juan Cole demonstrates brilliantly today on Informed Comment, the quest for control of the world's oil reserves is the only coherent explanation for US policy in the Middle East.
Using a map, Cole gives us the strategic ellipse -- location of 70 percent of the world's oil reserves and about 65 percent of the natural gas reserves. It includes Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and several former parts of the Soviet Union: Kazakhistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
Why did we invade Iraq? Well, there wasn't any oil to speak of in Afghanistan. Why are we threatening Iran? Could it have more to do with oil than the potential for nuclear weapons?
Cole also lists all the actual enemies of the United States -- North Korea, Syria, the Shiites of southern Lebanon, the Sunnis in Iraq (mostly secular, he says, with a few fundamentalists thrown in), Iran, Pushtun guerrillas in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda and other tiny terrorist groups. It looks pretty pathetic when he lays out all the facts. They're not exactly Hitler's Germany, no matter how many times Bush calls them "Islamic fascists."
And some of our allies make our enemies look good. Check out this report from Craig Murray, Britain's former Ambassador to Uzbekistan in Sunday's Washington Post:
Follow the money.
And if you still think all this warmongering is about terrorism, take a look at this report from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data gathering, data research, and data distribution organization associated with Syracuse University. According to TRAC:
Follow the money.
Whenever I talk about politics or world affairs with my father, he always reminds me, "Follow the money."
He's right. National leaders may dress up their saber rattling with ideology ("We're bringing democracy to Iraq"), religion ("Take the Holy Land back from the infidels"), or national defense ("The Global War on Terror), but it always comes back to the money.
It's always been thus -- think about all those Spaniards, searching the new world for El Dorado, the famed city of gold. Look at Africa, still reeling from colonization because of all its diamonds and gold.
Today money means oil. In the future, money may well mean water -- and that's likely to be true regardless of whether global warming and other human idiocies send us back to the stone age or whether we are able to keep our move toward human civilization on its shaky path forward.
But for now, it's oil. And as Juan Cole demonstrates brilliantly today on Informed Comment, the quest for control of the world's oil reserves is the only coherent explanation for US policy in the Middle East.
Using a map, Cole gives us the strategic ellipse -- location of 70 percent of the world's oil reserves and about 65 percent of the natural gas reserves. It includes Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, and several former parts of the Soviet Union: Kazakhistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
Why did we invade Iraq? Well, there wasn't any oil to speak of in Afghanistan. Why are we threatening Iran? Could it have more to do with oil than the potential for nuclear weapons?
Cole also lists all the actual enemies of the United States -- North Korea, Syria, the Shiites of southern Lebanon, the Sunnis in Iraq (mostly secular, he says, with a few fundamentalists thrown in), Iran, Pushtun guerrillas in Afghanistan, and Al Qaeda and other tiny terrorist groups. It looks pretty pathetic when he lays out all the facts. They're not exactly Hitler's Germany, no matter how many times Bush calls them "Islamic fascists."
And some of our allies make our enemies look good. Check out this report from Craig Murray, Britain's former Ambassador to Uzbekistan in Sunday's Washington Post:
The next day, an envelope landed on my desk; inside were photos of the corpse of a man who had been imprisoned in Uzbekistan's gulags. ... We sent the photos to the University of Glasgow. Two weeks later, a pathology report arrived. It said that the man's fingernails had been pulled out, that he had been beaten and that the line around his torso showed he had been immersed in hot liquid. He had been boiled alive.For taking a stand against human rights abuses in Uzbekistan, Murray was accused of misconduct and hounded out of his job by his own government. Uzbekistan is important to is. It's in the strategic ellipse.
Follow the money.
And if you still think all this warmongering is about terrorism, take a look at this report from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a data gathering, data research, and data distribution organization associated with Syracuse University. According to TRAC:
- Prosecution of people charged as terrorists has dropped to pre-September 11 levels.
- Assistant US attorneys have declined to prosecute nine out of ten of the international terrorism charges recommended by law enforcement.
- The median sentence for those who were convicted is 28 days. Before Sept. 11, the median sentence was 41 months.
Al-Qaeda is proven dangerous, and should be combatted by good police and counter-terrorism work. But it is small and mostly disrupted or under surveillance. If its ideology were so challenging to Bush, then he should shut up those videotapes by capturing Bin Laden and Zawahiri. He has not done it.In other words, the only thing the Bush administration is doing about terrorism is using it as a red flag to scare us into supporting his attacks on civil liberties, his incredible accumulation of executive power, and his wars. Meanwhile, the real goal is the control of the strategic ellipse by the major oil companies. Never forget that Bush was elected to be the president from Enron. Enron itself may be gone, but the power structure it represented hasn't disappeared.
Follow the money.
Two steps forward, one step back for Muslim Americans
By Pamela K. Taylor
The Islamic Society of North America, one of the largest Muslim American organizations, recently announced that for the first time a woman has been elected as their President.
Ingrid Mattson had served two terms as ISNA's vice president, and was a natural choice. She ran unopposed on the ballot, but at the recent ISNA convention the members' support for for her simply poured from the audience every time she came to the podium. It was amazing how much enthusiasm the crowd showed for her.
Needless to say this is a big step for American Muslims, one with implications for Muslims worldwide. Although American Muslim women enjoy a better status than women throughout the Muslim world, there are still far too many masjids where women are relegated to back rooms, or hidden away behind screens (or where they hide themselves away behind screens), where they are not allowed to vote in mosque board elections, or who (according to bylaws or in practice) can only serve as the "ladies' committee" representative to the board. There are too many families that still have double standards for their girls and boys in terms of education, or life goals, or moral compass.
The election of a woman to the leadership of a national Muslim organization cuts at all those notions which prevent women from participating fully in the mosque, and debunks the traditions that women cannot attain to positions of national leadership. The fact that Ingrid is relatively conservative, will, one hopes, allay fears of overseas Muslims that women's leadership defacto means the destruction of established tradition and long-standing moral and social order. Lessening those fears could open doors for other women leaders and ease restrictions of women's participation in daily life.
At the same time, her leadership will not challenge certain traditions that need to be challenged, as far as I'm concerned. Among these are traditions that say women cannot lead men in prayer (despite concrete and validated evidence that the Prophet commanded at least one woman to lead men in prayer) and thus perpetuate a two-tier social order. Her leadership will not challenge traditions that say women are a source of temptation for men, and cannot be allowed to sing or dance in public. Her leadership will not challenge traditions that are used to keep women from speaking in public or participating in sporting events.
Ingrid will try to distinguish between types of speech and singing, between "healthy" public motions (ie sports) and "unhealthy ones" (ie dancing). In the long run, though, accepting this differentiation rather than trying to educate men about treating women as human beings (again a prophetic tradition) leads to the slippery slope by which all limitations can be rationalized.
One can't help but wonder if it is really a step forward for women to come to leadership if women are going to participate in shoring up the patriarchy in certain areas. In this case, I have to say, yes, it is better that she was elected than another old immigrant guy, but it she is far from the ideal.
I hope her leadership will improve the situation many American Muslim women face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, her leadership will not change things far enough. It is, no doubt, a great step forward in many ways. I hope it will pave the way for the greater progress that is needed.
The Islamic Society of North America, one of the largest Muslim American organizations, recently announced that for the first time a woman has been elected as their President.
Ingrid Mattson had served two terms as ISNA's vice president, and was a natural choice. She ran unopposed on the ballot, but at the recent ISNA convention the members' support for for her simply poured from the audience every time she came to the podium. It was amazing how much enthusiasm the crowd showed for her.
Needless to say this is a big step for American Muslims, one with implications for Muslims worldwide. Although American Muslim women enjoy a better status than women throughout the Muslim world, there are still far too many masjids where women are relegated to back rooms, or hidden away behind screens (or where they hide themselves away behind screens), where they are not allowed to vote in mosque board elections, or who (according to bylaws or in practice) can only serve as the "ladies' committee" representative to the board. There are too many families that still have double standards for their girls and boys in terms of education, or life goals, or moral compass.
The election of a woman to the leadership of a national Muslim organization cuts at all those notions which prevent women from participating fully in the mosque, and debunks the traditions that women cannot attain to positions of national leadership. The fact that Ingrid is relatively conservative, will, one hopes, allay fears of overseas Muslims that women's leadership defacto means the destruction of established tradition and long-standing moral and social order. Lessening those fears could open doors for other women leaders and ease restrictions of women's participation in daily life.
At the same time, her leadership will not challenge certain traditions that need to be challenged, as far as I'm concerned. Among these are traditions that say women cannot lead men in prayer (despite concrete and validated evidence that the Prophet commanded at least one woman to lead men in prayer) and thus perpetuate a two-tier social order. Her leadership will not challenge traditions that say women are a source of temptation for men, and cannot be allowed to sing or dance in public. Her leadership will not challenge traditions that are used to keep women from speaking in public or participating in sporting events.
Ingrid will try to distinguish between types of speech and singing, between "healthy" public motions (ie sports) and "unhealthy ones" (ie dancing). In the long run, though, accepting this differentiation rather than trying to educate men about treating women as human beings (again a prophetic tradition) leads to the slippery slope by which all limitations can be rationalized.
One can't help but wonder if it is really a step forward for women to come to leadership if women are going to participate in shoring up the patriarchy in certain areas. In this case, I have to say, yes, it is better that she was elected than another old immigrant guy, but it she is far from the ideal.
I hope her leadership will improve the situation many American Muslim women face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, her leadership will not change things far enough. It is, no doubt, a great step forward in many ways. I hope it will pave the way for the greater progress that is needed.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Taking Back Kansas: Gov. Kathleen Sebelius still leads & even her opponent wonders
By Diane Silver
Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius continues to defy the odds in red-state Kansas as a new poll shows her holding a double-digit lead over her Republican opponent. The polster picked Sebelius to win.
The new Rasmussen Reports poll shows the race narrowing with Sebelius' lead dropping from 17 points in July to 11 points. In a poll taken Aug. 23, Sebelius leads 48 percent to 37 percent. The poll surveyed 500 adults and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent. The Rasmussen article notes:
By the way, to call Kansas a "Republican-leaning state" is to understate matters a bit. We're a Republican-dominated state with nearly twice as many registered Republicans in Kansas as registered Democrats.
The Lawrence Journal-World quotes Washburn University Political Science Professor Bob Beatty on the poll:
Meanwhile, Barnett is still trying to raise money. He told AP:
Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius continues to defy the odds in red-state Kansas as a new poll shows her holding a double-digit lead over her Republican opponent. The polster picked Sebelius to win.
The new Rasmussen Reports poll shows the race narrowing with Sebelius' lead dropping from 17 points in July to 11 points. In a poll taken Aug. 23, Sebelius leads 48 percent to 37 percent. The poll surveyed 500 adults and has a margin of error of 4.5 percent. The Rasmussen article notes:
The Governor's support has yet to rise much above 50% in any case. But the decline reflects the closer competition we often see in a final campaign stretch and have been seeing in races around the country
Sebelius's current lead is comparable to what we saw in April, when her support was at 49%. A Democrat in a Republican-leaning state, the incumbent continues to enjoy high favorables and job ratings, with 35% viewing her "very favorably," only 11% "very unfavorably." Thirty-two percent (32%) "strongly approve" of her performance as Governor.
Barnett is viewed very favorably by only 19%, and although fewer (9%) see him very unfavorably than see the Governor that way, he's still an unknown to 18%. By contrast, only 3% are "not sure" what to think of the Governor (and only 1% abstain from assessing her performance).
By the way, to call Kansas a "Republican-leaning state" is to understate matters a bit. We're a Republican-dominated state with nearly twice as many registered Republicans in Kansas as registered Democrats.
The Lawrence Journal-World quotes Washburn University Political Science Professor Bob Beatty on the poll:
Sebelius' 11 point lead represents what is now a fairly (and strikingly) consistent 8-13 point lead over Barnett in RR polls taken since January. This lead has remained consistent through the legislative session, the GOP primary, Barnett's victory, and Sebelius' first three TV ad campaigns ("Respect," "Clips" and the now famous ad of the Governor driving a school bus).
Meanwhile, Barnett is still trying to raise money. He told AP:
"It's going to be a tough race," Barnett acknowledged during an interview. "I'm not saying I will win, but I have the faith that I can win."
Monday, September 04, 2006
Yee-Haw Religion! Terry Fox opens new Kansas church & declares love for homosexuals
By Diane Silver
Anti-gay minister Terry Fox, late of Immanuel Baptist Church, drew 500 people to his first service Sunday at his new church, The Wichita Eagle reports.
His new venue, called Summit Church, meets in the Johnny Western Theatre at Wild West World in Park City, less than 10 miles from his old church. Many of the people attending on Sunday formerly went to Immanuel.
Fox' reportedly left his old church just before Immanuel's deacons were going to confront him on possible ethical lapses, arrogance and host of other issues.
Fox told his new congregation that dress would be casual so folks could come for a little religion and then spend the day in the theme park.
Fox also said that he wants to reach out to "all people." The Eagle reports:
No word yet on whether people in decades-long and deeply loving same-sex relationships would be required to abandon each other. Fox thinks such love destroys heterosexual marriage.
Actually, there's no word yet on whether Fox will tackle the issues that are really threatening heterosexual marriages such as infidelity, divorce, poverty, substance abuse, etc.
Stay tuned for further signs of Fox' love.
Anti-gay minister Terry Fox, late of Immanuel Baptist Church, drew 500 people to his first service Sunday at his new church, The Wichita Eagle reports.
His new venue, called Summit Church, meets in the Johnny Western Theatre at Wild West World in Park City, less than 10 miles from his old church. Many of the people attending on Sunday formerly went to Immanuel.
Fox' reportedly left his old church just before Immanuel's deacons were going to confront him on possible ethical lapses, arrogance and host of other issues.
Fox told his new congregation that dress would be casual so folks could come for a little religion and then spend the day in the theme park.
Fox also said that he wants to reach out to "all people." The Eagle reports:
That includes reaching out to people of any lifestyle, even if it's a lifestyle the church doesn't agree with. He cited one such lifestyle.No word yet, on whether lesbian and gay parents would have to give up their children at the church door as Fox doesn't believe queers should be parents.
"We love homosexuals," he said. "And they're welcome to come to church here."
No word yet on whether people in decades-long and deeply loving same-sex relationships would be required to abandon each other. Fox thinks such love destroys heterosexual marriage.
Actually, there's no word yet on whether Fox will tackle the issues that are really threatening heterosexual marriages such as infidelity, divorce, poverty, substance abuse, etc.
Stay tuned for further signs of Fox' love.
Labor Day Reading: Understanding the life of an American Muslim
By Diane Silver
Flying while Muslim
Recently Pamela K. Taylor -- an American Muslim -- posted two fascinating entries to In This Moment. I suspect that most folks may have overlooked her posts.
Her posts weren't about fighting for gay rights or Kansas fundamentalists or about cyclist Floyd Landis and drugs in sports.
Pamela, though, brings something unique to this blog. She gives those of us with a Waspish, Christian, non-Muslim background a chance to learn just a tiny bit about what it's like to live as a Muslim in post-9/11 United States.
In one post, she brings compassion and a deep understanding to the tragedy of the recent Israeli invasion of
In a second post, she talks about committing the "crime" of attempting to take a commercial flight while being a Muslim.
Barking up the wrong tree in Israel and LebanonFlying while Muslim
Sunday, September 03, 2006
In memory of a good neighbor, Martin Ritter Jr.
By Nancy Jane MooreMy neighbor Mr. Ritter passed last week. His death broke the hearts of everyone on the block.
We're not an especially close-knit block. People know each other, but we talk on the sidewalk, not in each other's living rooms.
But everyone knew Mr. Ritter. We often saw him walking down the street or alley, stopping to talk with each person he met. Like the traditional Zen monk, Mr. Ritter was not intimidated by rank or shows of strength. He presented the same friendly, but firm, manner regardless of whether he was talking to an elderly woman, a tough kid, or an elected official.
A tall, slim man, Mr. Ritter still walked with the cockiness of someone half his age. I don't know how old he was, but he was already retired when I first moved into the neighborhood fifteen years ago, so he certainly wasn't a young man. He'd managed to make the transition to the wise elder -- a role he definitely played on our block -- without forgetting what it was like to be young.
It was Mr. Ritter who kept making phone calls to the mayor's office until they finally sent a front-end loader out to clear the snow from our block after a particularly bad blizzard. And I'm sure he was responsible for the fact that both our street (a narrow one-way route used only by people who live here and their visitors) and our alley were repaved years ago while streets around us in worse condition are still full of potholes.
His yard has always been the showpiece of the block. His grass was always cut to just the right length -- he used clippers, not a mower. And it was real grass -- not the green weeds that most of the rest of us have. There were flowers, statues, an archway leading to the side of the house, all impeccably maintained. So was his Jaguar, kept under a cover when not in use. It must be an old car, because he's had it as long as I've lived here, but it still looks brand new.
My neighbor told me he fell from the roof he was repairing on his other house in Michigan -- so typical that he would be fixing it himself. It says a lot about his presence on the block that he was so well known even though he spent a lot of the year in other places.
Mr. Ritter never ran for public office, at least not in the years that I knew him. He provided leadership for our neighborhood not to build up his reputation, but just because it was what he did. He took care of things.
Every neighborhood needs someone like Mr. Ritter. We of the 800 block of Somerset Place N.W. in Washington, D.C., were lucky to have him for as long as we did. We're going to miss him.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
"Integrity failures" & arrogance may have forced departure of Kansas minister Terry Fox
By Diane Silver
Possible failures of integrity, arrogance toward his own congregation, frequent absences and an obsession with politics may be the issues that prompted Rev. Terry Fox' departure from Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church. He reportedly walked out just as the church deacons were preparing to confront him.
That's the word today from two deacons of the church who spoke to Joe Rodriguez of The Wichita Eagle.
The deacons also gave a detailed account of how Fox came to resign abruptly on Aug. 6, stunning the congregation he had lead for 10 years. Also discussed is the conflict between Immanuel and a new church Fox is starting in a Wichita wild west theme park. That new venue, called Summit Church, is being launched tomorrow with a service at the same time as Immanuel's 10:30 service.
Fox called most of the deacon's comments "rumors."
The Eagle reports:
The next thing Wichita needs is for someone from Immanuel to speak on the record. For a man as politically and spiritually powerful as Fox, possible lapses in judgment should be completely and publicly explained. If Fox is the equivalent of a snake-oil salesman, his new congregation deserves to know.
Fox gained fame statewide last year as one of the movers and shakers behind the push that successfully banned same-sex marriage, civil union and any other legal rights for lesbian or gay couples. Those rights could include the ability to visit a dying spouse in a hospital.
I am one of many people who fought hard to defeat Fox. I continue to oppose his political campaigns. Foolish me, though. I always thought Fox merely had a different point of view than I did. I never imagined there might be other issues
The problem,of course, is that without someone from Immanuel speaking on the record, we will not know for certain what Fox did.
Here is In This Moment's coverage of Terry Fox' strange, unfinished odyssey.
Possible failures of integrity, arrogance toward his own congregation, frequent absences and an obsession with politics may be the issues that prompted Rev. Terry Fox' departure from Wichita's Immanuel Baptist Church. He reportedly walked out just as the church deacons were preparing to confront him.
That's the word today from two deacons of the church who spoke to Joe Rodriguez of The Wichita Eagle.
The deacons also gave a detailed account of how Fox came to resign abruptly on Aug. 6, stunning the congregation he had lead for 10 years. Also discussed is the conflict between Immanuel and a new church Fox is starting in a Wichita wild west theme park. That new venue, called Summit Church, is being launched tomorrow with a service at the same time as Immanuel's 10:30 service.
Fox called most of the deacon's comments "rumors."
The Eagle reports:
The leaders of Immanuel have said little officially about why Fox left. But two Immanuel deacons, who asked to remain anonymous, said congregational leaders were upset with Fox's frequent trips away from the church, his "arrogant" attitude toward the congregation, "the appearance of integrity failures," and his constant references to political and social issues, such as abortion, from the pulpit.The entire article is well worth reading. Kudos to reporter Joe Rodriguez for staying on the story.
"You don't need to tell me that every Sunday for 52 Sundays in a row," one deacon said in reference to Fox's opposition to abortion.
The next thing Wichita needs is for someone from Immanuel to speak on the record. For a man as politically and spiritually powerful as Fox, possible lapses in judgment should be completely and publicly explained. If Fox is the equivalent of a snake-oil salesman, his new congregation deserves to know.
Fox gained fame statewide last year as one of the movers and shakers behind the push that successfully banned same-sex marriage, civil union and any other legal rights for lesbian or gay couples. Those rights could include the ability to visit a dying spouse in a hospital.
I am one of many people who fought hard to defeat Fox. I continue to oppose his political campaigns. Foolish me, though. I always thought Fox merely had a different point of view than I did. I never imagined there might be other issues
The problem,of course, is that without someone from Immanuel speaking on the record, we will not know for certain what Fox did.
Here is In This Moment's coverage of Terry Fox' strange, unfinished odyssey.
Labor Day Reading: Fighting to fly the rainbow flag in outback Kansas
First up on the list of most-read posts is the battle over the right of the owners of the Lakeway Hotel to fly a symbol of gay rights, the rainbow flag, in tiny
The controversy has included visits from the funeral-picketing
- A note about Fred Phelps & the REAL Kansas
- Investigate incident in Meade, Kansas, as a hate crime
- Fighting for the "right to coexist"
- Westboro Baptist Church teaches Meade, Kansas, about "despicable"
- It all comes together tomorrow in Meade, Kansas
- Saga of the Rainbow Flag: Kansas Equality Coalition's state board to meet Sunday in Meade
- A small-town solution to Kansas vandalism & a revolutionary bit of good news
- Phelps folds while Kansas Equality Coalition meets in Meade
- Despite broken window & threats, hotel's flag is flying
- Kansas Equality Coalition condemns incident at Lakeway Hotel
- Block hurled through window of Kansas hotel
- Bed & Breakfast in Meade, Kan., fights on
Friday, September 01, 2006
Taking Back Kansas: The Great & Invisible Republican running for governor
By Diane Silver
This is part of a continuing series on the campaign to bleach the red out of red-state icon Kansas and to loosen the Religious Right's stranglehold on the state.
Today's topic: The odd race for governor.
The campaign for governor pits the one bright spot for progressive and moderate Kansas -- Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- against a no-name Republican.
And why is no-name state Sen. Jim Barnett of Emporia the GOP candidate in a GOP state? It's very simple. All of the name candidates were scared off by Sebelius' high approval ratings.
What's the status of the race today?
Ric Anderson of the Topeka Capital-Journal accurately assesses the situation when he notes:
Barnett appears to be dialing for dollars in the hopes of raising money to pay for his own ads. Anderson reports that Barnett is supposed to begin running ads after Labor Day. At least one Sebelius ad has run since the middle of summer.
Meanwhile, one anonymous blog is claiming that Barnett is going to remove his far-right running mate Susan Wagle from the campaign. (This blog -- Kansas Governors Race -- appears to be Republican run. Its comments during the primary leaned towards one of Barnett's opponents, Ken Canfield. However, no one knows for sure who is posting on the blog.)
The really big news for Barnett is that some mainstream Republicans have endorsed him. The fact that is even news illustrates the deep split in the party between moderates and the Religious Right.
The question in the minds of some Democrats is whether Karl Rove and company will descend on Kansas. Some feel the national GOP might want to damage Sebelius, even if they can't defeat her, because of her potential to jump from governor to senator or beyond.
Although Kansas does have a tradition of electing Democratic governors, Sebelius seems to be the odd one out. She leans left and is pro-choice in the reddest of red state. She maintains a 63 percent approval rating and even gets 59 percent approval from pro-life Kansans.
Coming Soon: A post on the enigma of Sebelius.
This is part of a continuing series on the campaign to bleach the red out of red-state icon Kansas and to loosen the Religious Right's stranglehold on the state.
Today's topic: The odd race for governor.
The campaign for governor pits the one bright spot for progressive and moderate Kansas -- Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- against a no-name Republican.
And why is no-name state Sen. Jim Barnett of Emporia the GOP candidate in a GOP state? It's very simple. All of the name candidates were scared off by Sebelius' high approval ratings.
What's the status of the race today?
Ric Anderson of the Topeka Capital-Journal accurately assesses the situation when he notes:
Say what you will about Gov. Kathleen Sebelius' school finance ads -- and "dopey" really is a word, in case you were wondering -- but at least she's getting herself out there.So far the campaign has consisted of Sebelius airing TV ads (three so far), and Barnett and other assorted Republicans complaining about the ads' content.
Where is Jim Barnett? That's a question many Kansans might be asking if not for one thing: They"d first have to ask, "Who is Jim Barnett?"
Barnett appears to be dialing for dollars in the hopes of raising money to pay for his own ads. Anderson reports that Barnett is supposed to begin running ads after Labor Day. At least one Sebelius ad has run since the middle of summer.
Meanwhile, one anonymous blog is claiming that Barnett is going to remove his far-right running mate Susan Wagle from the campaign. (This blog -- Kansas Governors Race -- appears to be Republican run. Its comments during the primary leaned towards one of Barnett's opponents, Ken Canfield. However, no one knows for sure who is posting on the blog.)
The really big news for Barnett is that some mainstream Republicans have endorsed him. The fact that is even news illustrates the deep split in the party between moderates and the Religious Right.
The question in the minds of some Democrats is whether Karl Rove and company will descend on Kansas. Some feel the national GOP might want to damage Sebelius, even if they can't defeat her, because of her potential to jump from governor to senator or beyond.
Although Kansas does have a tradition of electing Democratic governors, Sebelius seems to be the odd one out. She leans left and is pro-choice in the reddest of red state. She maintains a 63 percent approval rating and even gets 59 percent approval from pro-life Kansans.
Coming Soon: A post on the enigma of Sebelius.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
