Why Paul Morrison & a sex scandal matter whether or not you live in Kansas

By Diane Silver

Oh, what a mess. No matter what happens now, Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison will forever be linked to the image of tacky sex in somebody's empty office while his staff toils a few feet beyond a closed door.

This is not the image that 58 percent of Kansas voters had in mind when we tossed out former AG Phill Kline last year. The idea was to restore professionalism to the Office of Attorney General.

I suppose this will reveal me as being terminally naive, but the thought of Morrison's out-of-bounds sex life absolutely shocks this little lesbian.

This scandal, of course, has everything: sex (confirmed), infidelity (confirmed) and allegations of sexual harassment, attempting to gain information about the private workings of a DA's office and attempting to interfere with a federal lawsuit (all of that is unconfirmed). The scandal also has a bit of junior high in it, drawing a portrait of an Attorney General who is obsessed with a political rival he has already vanquished. (It's past time for Morrison to head to the chalk board to write a thousand times: "I need to grow up.")

This scandal matters, oh my, how this matters. It matters to Kansans, of course, because these allegations call into question the integrity of the state's highest ranking law enforcement officer. It matters to the state's Democrats because the D's don't have all that many high profile candidates to run for statewide office. Losing one in this manner could really hurt, particularly when the D's are finally challenging the GOP's hold on the state.

But what happens next could well shake more than just the Sunflower State.

* Depending on how she handles this, fellow Democrat Kathleen Sebelius could see her national political ambitions soar or crash to Earth. Before this happened, the governor was poised to run for the U.S. Senate. She has even been mentioned as a possible vice presidential candidate.

* A Republican turned Democrat, Morrison was helping to lead the charge to break the religious right's stranglehold on Kansas. If he isn't vindicated, Morrison's fall could taint other efforts to toss out social conservatives. It could provide new energy to the ultra-conservative wing of the GOP and give them a nifty new campaign issue. As writer Thomas Frank has noted, what happens in Kansas helps move the nation. If Kansas could toss the darlings of the religious right out of office, then other red states could follow our lead.

It is worth noting that outside of a truly stupid sexual affair nothing else has been confirmed. The rational thing to do is to wait, take a deep breath and let the investigations run their course. It's also worth noting that stupidity in sex is not an impeachable offense, and so far, that is the only thing Morrison has admitted. Nothing else has been proven.

From a cold, hard, crass political point of view, though, the best bet for Democrats may be to lean on Morrison to resign now. Sebelius could then appoint Morrison's successor and the party and state could have three years to recover before the next election.

What course of action do I favor? At this point, I truly don't know.

Religious Right Watch: Minister calls IRS Gestapo for questioning his church

By Diane Silver

The IRS is turning into the Gestapo, says a seemingly bewildered Pastor Mark Holick of Spirit One Christian Center, of Wichita. How can they possibly be questioning his church's tax-exempt status, he asks.

My thoughts?

About frigging time.

The law says that a church cannot campaign for or against a political candidate. Churches can campaign on issues, but not candidates. The IRS says Spirit One may well have jumped into the 2006 election for Kansas attorney general, governor and could be intervening in the upcoming presidential election.

One of the IRS concerns are messages that appeared on the church's sign in the last year. These involved Paul Morrison, who was then a candidate for attorney general; Ken Canfield, who was then running for the GOP gubernatorial nomination; and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, who was running for re-election.

Here are just a few of the messages.

• Morrison accepts blood money from abortionist Tiller. How many babies??

• Canfield supports life and traditional family, Barnett does not.

• Paul Morrison early release of felons. Reginald Carr multiple murders.

• Abortionist Tiller has given $300,000 to Sebelius. Price of 1,000 babies!

The Wichita Eagle has detail on Spirit One Christian Center, while KAKE-TV has video and a story.

Monday Reads: Iraq, the Democratic closet, global warming & blogging against theocracy

By Diane Silver

It's been another busy day here at In This Moment. The good news is that I've not only been slaving over a money job, but I've been researching a series of posts I hope to put up within the next few days.

My goal with those upcoming posts is to come closer to understanding Americans For Prosperity, an anti-tax, anti-spending organization that has been successfully influencing Kansas politics for the past few years. I want to get my facts right, so stay tuned for further developments.

Meanwhile, here are some national items that caught my eye.

Wisconsin civil servant Georgia Thompson may have spent months in prison for no other reason than the fact that she worked for a Democratic governor. At least, that's the claim the New York Times made today in an editorial, which noted that Thompson's case may well be another layer on the politicalization of the U.S. attorneys offices.

The Chicago-based United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit seemed shocked by the injustice of her conviction. It took the extraordinary step of releasing Ms. Thompson from prison immediately after hearing arguments, without waiting to issue a ruling. One of the judges hinted that Ms. Thompson may have been railroaded. “It strikes me that your evidence is beyond thin,” Judge Diane Wood told the lawyer from Mr. Biskupic’s office.

Oh darn... I missed this weekend's blogswarm against theocracy. I would have loved to have participated. Thanks to Talk To Action for pointing it out. I agree with Talk To Action's Frederick Clarkson: Go forth and read!

There's a great article over at Alternet today where Laura Flanders rightfully berates Democrats for hiding from cultural issues like gay marriage. Excerpted from her book Blue Grit, the article notes:

The truth is that Democrats, progressives, and fair-minded Republicans will never be anti-gay or anti choice or anti-racial justice enough to quiet their opponents. The only people left with any doubt about where Democrats stand on cultural issues are those whose lives are at stake. Those inconveniently irreverent and striving real people -- whom pundits dare not mention by name but allude to with the code name "culture" -- those Americans are the Democrats' base, whether the party likes it or not
....

The LGBT movement has a word for a frame that's built around the fear of being honest: a closet. And there's only one exit: coming out. People who are clear about who they are, and who clearly respect themselves and their beliefs, attract respect. Consider Lupe Valdez, a fifty-seven-year-old lesbian Latina who was elected Sheriff of Dallas in 2004. Valdez is the first woman, first gay person, and first Hispanic ever to be Sheriff of Dallas, and the first Democrat to hold the job in twenty-five years. A former prison guard and federal agent, the 5'2" daughter of migrant workers was opposed by the unions representing many of those working in the sheriff's department. She was outspent three-to-one.

At the last minute, her opponent, the favored candidate, raised alarms about her acceptance of campaign contributions from Washington-based Gay and Lesbian Victory fund. How did she win? People in Dallas were ready for a change. Their Republican sheriff, a twenty-year incumbent, had just been indicted on charges of corruption. Valdez cast herself as an agent of change and made her sexuality work for her, rather than against: "I'm not like anybody in here. I'm the element of change. I'm a lesbian" she said. A third of those who voted for her were cross-overs, voters who didn't vote a straight Democratic ticket. Now Valdez is the only woman among 254 sheriffs in Texas.

Salon.com reports that the military is so stretched that injured troops are being shipped back to Iraq. Meanwhile, The New York Times notes that the surge in Iraq has yet to produce much in the way of great results.

The New York Time's Paul Krugman had a great column on Republican's "little lies," and how they can be as effective as the Big Lie, for example, that got us into war in Iraq. Krugman's argument is that the GOP is attempting to slime Speaker Nancy Pelosi with a ton of little lies.This is behind the Time's paywall, so here are some excerpts.

First, there were claims that the speaker of the House had demanded a lavish plane for her trips back to California. One Republican leader denounced her "arrogance of extravagance" -- then, when it became clear that the whole story was bogus, admitted that he had never had any evidence.

Now there's Ms. Pelosi’s fact-finding trip to Syria, which Dick Cheney denounced as "bad behavior" -- unlike the visit to Syria by three Republican congressmen a few days earlier, or Newt Gingrich’s trip to China when he was speaker.

Ms. Pelosi has responded coolly, dismissing the administration's reaction as a “tantrum.” But it’s more than that: the hysterical reaction to her trip is part of a political strategy, aided and abetted by news organizations that give little lies their time in the sun.

Fox News, which is a partisan operation in all but name, plays a crucial role in the Little Lie strategy -- which is why there is growing pressure on Democratic politicians not to do anything, like participating in Fox-hosted debates, that helps Fox impersonate a legitimate news organization.

But Fox has had plenty of help. Even Time's Joe Klein, a media insider if anyone is, wrote of the Pelosi trip that "the media coverage of this on CNN and elsewhere has been abysmal." For example, CNN ran a segment about Ms. Pelosi’s trip titled "Talking to Terrorists."

The G.O.P.'s reversion to the Little Lie technique is a symptom of political weakness, of a party reduced to trivial smears because it has nothing else to offer. But the technique will remain effective — and the U.S. political scene will remain ugly — as long as many people in the news media keep playing along.

And last, but certainly not least, Daniel Gilbert from The Huffington Post figures out how to get folks to take Global Warming seriously. Here's a hint: It involves gay sex and/or folks biting the heads off kittens.

--------

Photo: Dallas Sheriff Lupe Valdez

Rep. Ellison speaks up: It's time for a "politics of generosity & inclusion"

By Diane Silver

Much attention has been focused on Rep.-Elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. In today's Washington Post he finally speaks up for himself and does so most eloquently. The entire piece is worth reading for what it says about who we should be as a country.

Here's an excerpt.

Recently, I have become the focus of some criticism for my use of the Qu'ran for my ceremonial swearing in. Let me be clear, I am going to be sworn into office like all members of Congress. I am going to swear to uphold the United States Constitution. We seem to have lost the political vision of our founding document -- a vision of inclusion, tolerance and generosity.

I do not blame my critics for subscribing to a politics of scarcity and intolerance. However, I believe we all must project a new politics of generosity and inclusion This is the vision of the diverse coalition in my Congressional district. My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families. I was elected to articulate a new politics in which no one is cut out of the American dream, not immigrants, not gays, not poor people, not even a Muslim committed to serve his nation.

Pamela K. Taylor and Nancy Jane Moore have posted about Ellison on In This Moment.

Just a little more on Rep. Ellison & Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an

By Pamela K. Taylor

In the past few weeks, the blogosphere has been afire over Rep.-Elect Keith Ellison's plan to take his oath on the Qur'an during the ceremonial Congressional swearing-in that is taking place this week. Led by nationally syndicated pundit Dennis Praeger and goaded on by Republican representative from Virginia, Virgil Goode, Ellison's critics have complained that using a Qur'an is un-American, claiming that only Bibles are acceptable for taking oaths as this country is a Christian nation.

Now it has surfaced that Ellison is planning to take his oath on a Qur'an owned by none other than, our third President, Thomas Jefferson, the principle author of the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson was also author of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, and a staunch supporter of religious freedom.

This law reads:

"No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

One can't help but think that Thomas Jefferson would wholly approve of Mr. Ellison swearing on the religious book that means the most to him, especially as it is one from Mr. Jefferson's personal library.

As an Ellision spokesperson says, "Jefferson's Quran dates religious tolerance to the founders of our country," he added.

The Qur'an itself was published in 1764, some twenty years after Ellison's ancestors arrived in America.

One can only hope that representatives with opinions such as Mr. Goode's -- who called Mr. Ellison's proposal a threat to American values -- will reconsider just what America's values are. We have never been a nation dedicated to implementing Christianity, or even to Christian values. Rather, we were founded on the notion that religion and morality is fundamentally a personal issue, one which the state has no business regulating, whether that relates to the God you worship, your choice of marriage partner, or any other moral issue.

For more discussion on the issue, look at In This Moment's comments and click here, or here, or here.

The Quran, Mr. Ellison & Thomas Jefferson

Following up on Nancy Jane Moore's post about the uproar over the country's first Muslim Congressman taking the oath of office on a Quran instead of a Bible... Rep.-elect Keith Ellison will take the ceremonial oath on a Quran owned by Thomas Jefferson.

Good for you, Mr. Ellison!

Read Nancy's post for an overview of the stupidity of the attacks on Ellison.

"Congress shall no make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

By Nancy Jane Moore

A right-wing congressman is attacking Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, for planning to take the oath of office using a Quran instead of a Bible.

Actually, the attack by Virgil Goode, a Republican from Virginia, goes further than that. According to Juan Cole on Informed Comment, he said:

The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran . . .

This is wrong on so many levels that it's almost impossible to count them. First off -- and most obvious -- persons taking an oath who wish to use a holy book in support of that oath should obviously use a book that means something to them.

Secondly, the official oath for members of Congress uses no books at all -- they are sworn in en masse raising their right hands. Many have private ceremonies for family and supporters and use holy books at that point.

Third, Mr. Ellison isn't an immigrant. As I understand it from the NPR report this morning, his people go back in this country to the 1700s.

And most importantly, any requirement that people use a holy book from a specific religion to take an oath for public office -- or that they follow a specific religion to get elected to public office -- violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. I can't think of a more egregious attack on the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" than to require use of a Bible for taking public office oaths.

This is a tempest in a teapot, of course. No one is going to stop Mr. Ellison from taking office or swearing his oath as he pleases.

But it does show that there are people in this country who consider Muslims -- all Muslims -- as enemies.

And worse, it is just the kind of behavior -- like Bush's use of the word "crusade" when setting off to war -- that reinforces the idea that the US is attacking Islam.

Wikipedia has a thorough report on this controversy, if you want the facts without searching through rants on the blogosphere.

Me, I agree with Professor Cole:

So Virgil Goode should consider emigrating himself, to someplace where his sort of views might be welcome. They certainly aren't in the United States of America. And they never have been part of this country's values and principles.

Happy Bill of Rights Day

By Diane Silver

I have to run off to get to work in a minute, so there's not much time to ponder the importance of the 215th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. However, I did want to take a second to put up a link to that important document and to remind readers why the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution are such a key part of our society.

I think they are at the core of the American Dream. To me that dream has never been about becoming rich as much as it has been about freedom -- the freedom to simply be who you are and to pursue your dreams. The Bill of Rights preserves that freedom. Thanks, founders, for giving us that gift.

Religion & meaning: How to talk about Islam and atheism

Let me call your attention to the fascinating exchange between Bill and our very own Pamela K. Taylor. Bill started with a comment on Pamela's post about the veil in Islam, and then a dialogue on Islam, atheism, religion, rigidity and meaning ensued.

It's good stuff, and it shows how people of very different perspectives can talk reasonably. Here are some snippets.

Bill:

I'm sure there is importance to these rituals, but I think when their observance is seen more important than the underlying reason for them, true meaning is lost in the religion and the religious leaders are capable of corrupting people into following their will instead of the actual religion.

Pamela:

I think you are raising really important issues when it comes to rigidity in faith...To me, it's not extreme at all to pray five times a day in a ritual format, rather the prayers are a beautiful ritual, that provide just the right balance -- short reminders throughout the day of your true place in the universe (something I think atheists can relate to very well, or I least I certainly did when I was an atheist...

The Fundamentalists' Bad Bet

I'm tied up with other activities on Friday, so I'm reposting a slightly revised version of a post from November that, alas, isn't even close to being out of date.
--------------------------------------------

It’s no secret that many fundamentalists want to demolish the wall between church and state in the United States. They’re not particularly shy about their wish to tear down the two-century tradition of forbidding government from promoting religion.

“We must fight against those radical minorities who are trying to remove God from our textbooks, Christ from our nation. We must never allow our children to forgot that this is a Christian nation. We must take back what is rightfully ours.” – Moral Majority founder Rev. Jerry Falwell, 1993 sermon

“This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God’s help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on Earth can stop us.”- Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church pastor Rev. D. James Kennedy in the 1997 book Character and Destiny

What strikes me as odd is that campaigning for religious government is like making a truly bad bet.

Tearing down our traditional wall between government and religion will result in a fierce struggle over which religion will control government and make our laws. (Some would argue that this fight is occurring now and that progressives have already lost. However, that’s a discussion for anotherday.)

What fundamentalists are betting is that Christianity will win. Actually, they’re betting their narrow version of Christianity will end up in control.

What if they’re wrong?

What if Islam with more than 1.5 million followers in the United States and 1.3 billion worldwide won the fight? What if a more liberal form of Christianity won? What if the victor were the Episcopal Church, which consecrated out-gay minister Gene Robinson as a bishop?

Perhaps even more frightening -- even for fundamentalists -- is the thought of what might happen if their own narrow form of Christianity does become the one, government-approved religion? What happens then? Can they keep control forever? What do they have to do to us who don’t agree with them? How far will they have to stray from teachings of Jesus to keep hold of our government?

I’ll tell you right now that I’ll never give up my beliefs. I don’t intend to accept Jesus into my heart, at least not the way fundamentalists mean it.

What will they do with me and the people in my church and the people I’ve sat with in Zen meditation? Will they make us into second-class citizens who pay taxes but receive nothing in return because only "good" Christians are allowed access to government services?

Will our churches be closed?

Will there come a day when atheists or people who believe in other religions are banned from teaching, serving as judges or running for political office?

What if we protest? Will fundamentalists put us in prison?

Will we only be allowed to survive as long as we pretend to be good fundamentalists?

Separation of church and state isn’t about destroying religion. It’s about allowing all of us, including fundamentalists, the right and the space to worship the way we want. To destroy the wall between government and religion is to take the worst kind of gamble. It's one I don't want to make because I believe the stakes are simply too high.

If religious dominationists get what they want and turn the United States into a theocracy, I don’t see how anyone, including the dominationists, will have won.

The fundamentalists' bad bet

By Diane Silver

It’s no secret that many fundamentalists want to demolish the wall between church and state in the United States. They’re not particularly shy about their wish to tear down the two-century tradition of forbidding government from promoting religion.

“We must fight against those radical minorities who are trying to remove God from our textbooks, Christ from our nation. We must never allow our children to forgot that this is a Christian nation. We must take back what is rightfully ours.” – Moral Majority founder Rev. Jerry Falwell, 1993 sermon

“This is our land. This is our world. This is our heritage, and with God’s help, we shall reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ. And no power on Earth can stop us.”- Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church pastor Rev. D. James Kennedy in the 1997 book Character and Destiny

What strikes me as odd about this is that campaigning for religious government is like making a truly bad bet.

Tearing down our traditional wall between government and religion will result in a fierce struggle over which religion will control government and which religion will make our laws. (Some would argue that this fight is occurring now and that progressives have already lost. Alas, that’s a discussion for another post on another day.)

What fundamentalists are betting is that Christianity will win. Actually, they’re betting that their narrow version of Christianity will end up in control.

What if they’re wrong?

What if Islam with more than 1.5 million followers in the United States and 1.3 billion worldwide won the fight? What if a more liberal form of Christianity won? What if the victor were the progressive arm of the Episcopal Church, which consecrated out-gay minister Gene Robinson as a bishop?

Here’s another scenario, one that could have an even greater impact on fundamentalists and, yes, even on their own souls.

What if their narrow form of Christianity does become the one, government-approved religion? What happens then? Can they keep control forever? What do they have to do to us who don’t agree with them? How far will they have to stray from teachings of Jesus to keep hold of our government?

I’ll tell you right now that I’ll never give up my beliefs. I don’t intend to accept Jesus into my heart, at least not the way fundamentalists mean it.

What will they do with me and the people in my church and the people I’ve sat with in Zen meditation? Will they make us into second-class citizens who pay taxes but receive nothing in return because we would have to subscribe to their religion to receive services?

Will our churches be closed?

Will there come a day when atheists or people who believe in other religions are banned from teaching, serving as judges or running for political office?

What if we protest? Will fundamentalists put us in prison?

Will we only be allowed to survive as long as we pretend to be good fundamentalists?

Separation of church and state isn’t about destroying religion. It’s about allowing all of us, including fundamentalists, the right and the space to worship the way we want.

To destroy the wall between government and religion is to take the worst kind of gamble. The stakes are simply too high.

If fundamentalists get what they want and turn the United States into a theocracy, I don’t see how anyone, including those supposedly victorious fundamentalists, will have truly won.

4 Comments:

Sue Lange said...

Silver,

You make some very valid comments. I too, have been frightened by the recent push by people saying they represent Christianity to restrict freedoms in this country. I used to despise people that disparaged "Christians" putting them all into one puritanical box. "There are many Christians," I would say. Then after the Christian Coalition seemed to have such an effect on the last presidential election, I too began disparaging Christians and thinking that perhaps the communists were right after all.

I came across something that gave me hope, though. Alexis du Tocqueville's "Democracy in America," has a section on separation of church and state. This book was written in the early 1800's in a time when the US Constitution was still young and no one was 100% sure it was going to work (as if we are now). The Civil War had not been fought and states still had all their rights so it was a different time. Separation of church and state was really being tested then and not well understood. For research on this section du Tocqueville interviewed members of the clergy to see what their take was on it. He determined that the clergy were the ones most behind the separation in this country between the two entities. Their argument was that in a governmental system such as exists in the U.S. the church will not survive if it allies itself to the government. In other words, when whoever is in power in the government falls, as they always do in our system (Democrat to Republican to Democrat to Republican: We've all experienced this in our own time), the church will fall with it if they ally themselves to the government. We will see this with the Christian Coalition. They have backed their man and the country seemed to agree with that at election time, but now the party of the president is running scared. What will the Christian Coalition do if the worst happens? Will they then ally themselves with those satanic Democrats? The ones they have been badmouthing for so long? They will have to if they want to keep their power, but then everyone will see them for what they are: not religious leaders at all but politicians, the worst sinners on the planet. It does more harm to religion than it does to the people when there is no separation of church and state.

5:40 AM

Justine said...

Interesting article on Fundamentalism. As an atheist, I certainly share your concerns about what some people call the "christofacist' forces in the country. I think the alarm bells are going off in many places, however. I read an article in Salon saying that now some Jewish organizations are beginning to worry as well, in spite of the fundi support of Israel's seizure of all of Palestine (a necessary step in their 'final days' scenario). Secular Jews have distrusted these fundies all along, but now some conservative groups are beginning to see the viciousness under the facade.
Keep on hoping, and keep on talking and writing, as I do.

8:03 AM

Silver said...

Sue and Justine, I agree with what you're saying. Many people of faith and religious organizations have always supported the separation of church and state as a way to protect religion. It's ironic that one, narrow slice of Christianity is now claiming that keep the government out of religion is somehow an attack on faith.

11:51 AM

Tracy said...

Reclaim this nation for Jesus Christ? Huh?
It's very clear to me from the words of the man himself that being the head or figure-head of nation(s) is the exact opposite of what the man wanted.
I have to laugh at the irony every time I see a new, expensive vehicle with a liscense plate that says JESUS. Exactly the kind of thing he would have despised.
If they want to be TRULY FUNDAMENTAL they should sell their belongings and give to others.

These are the views I get from reading his words. Am I the only one? Thought I might need a second opinion. If Jesus wants and/or needs the mightiest military nation in modern history, then I must be reading about the WRONG Jesus!

1:23 PM

The lesbian and the fundamentalists

I am a lesbian, feminist, single mother whose spirituality is closer to New Age and Buddhism than Christianity. This spring I battled the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in Kansas. Imagine my surprise when I realized how much I have in common with fundamentalists.

We don’t subscribe to the same theology or the same politics. We might scream at each other if forced into the same room for more than five minutes. However, we do share one important thing: We both sense a hole in our culture.

This hole is the empty place left by the absence of spirit, or if you prefer, religion in American society. It’s a hole created by a web of ideas that push people away from pursuing any form of spirituality. If a person is religious, this absence keeps many people, particularly those from the political left, from speaking out about their beliefs.

The hole is widened by the idea that if you can’t measure something it doesn’t exist. It’s deepened by the belief that anyone who is religious is deluded or superstitious and that no sane, educated person would be that way. More than that, this hole is turned into a chasm by the idea that religion has nothing to add to our struggle to survive in a post-9/11, post-Katrina world.

We live in a time where a subway ride can be a death sentence and our government – the so-called good guys -- condone torture. This is a time when the people we voted into power can’t even carry out the most basic of governmental tasks, which is to help people after a natural disaster.

Meanwhile, our jobs can be, or already have been, shipped overseas. Technology and culture change so quickly that even an old socially radical, Internet junkie like me can feel out of date in a matter of minutes. (They’re doing what at my son’s school? What the heck is a podcast?) All of this goes on, of course, against the backdrop of the heartbreak, illness and death -- the normal tragedies of life.

We stand on ground that’s shaking beneath our feet, and we have no way of knowing when this quake will end. In all of this, I can’t see how we can ignore anything that can bring us some perspective, maybe some solace, and perhaps even a bit of ethical or moral analysis.

More than that, I’m sick and tired of having to justify a belief that is as real to me as the twitter of birds or the crisp smell of fresh snow in my native Michigan. Pretending not to believe is like cutting off my arm and smiling while I hide the fact that I’m bleeding. It is no less destructive to my soul than hiding the fact that I’m a lesbian.

This blog entry is a plea, or perhaps even a challenge, to all those of a secular bent who think only fools have faith: Stop forcing me to lie. Stop ridiculing those who see a nonmaterial world where all you see is material. Stop claiming that talk of morality is based on immature superstition. We who believe are not necessarily your enemy any more than everyone who is secular is always your friend.

It’s not the believing that sets us up in opposition. It’s what we do with our beliefs.

This is where I part company with many fundamentalists. I believe there are many paths up the mountain to enlightenment, or if you prefer, to God. I believe there are many paths to morality, including secular paths.

The desperate need of some strands of Christianity and Islam to force people to live the same way they do, believe what they believe and to impose their laws on the rest of us is truly terrifying.

This is dictatorship at its worst. Whether imposed by violence, as some Islamic fundamentalists try to do, or by a political takeover, as some Christian fundamentalists want to do here, this impulse to mold everyone into one image could well destroy us all.

I stand in a decidedly odd place.

I am terrified of fundamentalism and the apparent need of some of its followers to destroy the religious freedom that is the foundation of this country. At the same time, I stand with my fundamentalist brothers and sisters in acknowledging the importance of faith and spirit.

As much as we disagree, we do have common ground. Perhaps that can yet save us all.

10 Comments:

Mike said...

Hi, nice to see you blogging...I will be back often to hear what you have to say.

Take care,
-Mike Silverman

3:19 PM

Silver said...

Mike! Thanks so much for the hello. Mike, isn’t Red Letter Day, your blog? Folks, go over and check it out at: http://www.mikesilverman.com/log.html

5:15 PM

Anonymous said...

Great to see you blogging--I too will stop by often. -- LuAnn

8:36 PM

Nancy Jane said...

I was just reading the Utne Reader in the grocery checkout line and saw an article on religion that you might find interesting. Apparently some Christian fundamentalists are coming around to your political point of view -- they're finding they have more in common with you than they used to think, too. The article was mostly about a guy named Donald Miller, who is apparently making a name for himself in Christian publishing, but whose political heart is on the left. You might want to check him out.

7:42 PM

Silver said...

Thanks! I'll check that out.

11:32 AM

Pamela K Taylor said...

Hi Dianne,

As a progressive Muslim, I find a lot of what you say resonates with me, both in this post and others. The determination that there is only one true way and we must encourage/force everyone to follow it, is a scary thought, especially in the times we live in where people of all faiths or lack there of are increasingly brought together.

I don't know if you are familiar with Tikkun and its attempts to form a Network of Spiritual Progressives (I think that is what they are calling it.). You might be interested in their work, if you haven't heard of them. I think it is so important for progressive people who are spiritual to come together to work for justice, tolerance, and harmony.

Pamela Taylor
(broad universe member)
(Wiscon regular)

9:08 AM

Silver said...

Hi Pamela!

It's great to hear from you. We do live in frightening times, but I think there's also opportunity. Perhaps, we'll finally be able to confront the issue of religious tolerance in a positive way. I have to admit that getting to know you even as an acquaintance has helped smash some of my stereotypes about Muslims.

Thanks for the mention of Tikkun, http://www.tikkun.org/. I'm just becoming aware of their work.

11:55 AM

CarynMG said...

Hi there,

This is a wonderful piece, Diane, and I love the line about there being many paths to morality. One thing that constantly occurs to me is that we need to find ways to talk to each other -- the lesbian to the Christian fundamentalist, the Jew to the Muslim -- across the divides. I've seen amazing things happen when when civil dialogue -- and real listening -- can happen.
Caryn

9:04 PM

Eri said...

Hi Diane--I too live in Kansas and blog about some Kansas issues...
zwords.blogspot.com

Thanks for your informative posts and for your open-minded view.

--Eri

7:13 PM

Silver said...

Thanks so much Caryn and Eri for your comments and for reading this!

I don't always succeed, but I want to makeIn This Moment a place where civil dialogue can thrive. I worry, though, that such an approach is a sure-fire way to fall into Blog Oblivion. It seems as if speaking in a civil tone isn't the best way to get noticed in the overcroweded blogosphere. It will be interesting to see if folks come to a place where politics, hope and respect share the page.

5:47 PM