Forgive me for getting religious on you here, but I hate it when conservatives claim they have a monopoly on God. It's just not true. It is possible to be a liberal and a person of faith, too.
People are starving. Countries are at war. Genocide still happens. Our environment is in danger. Homelessness is increasing. Diseases are spreading. The gap between the richest and the poorest is expanding. Health care is beyond the reach of many. The list goes on and on, yet "evangelical christian" groups focus on abortion, pornography, and gays. It's baffling...
It bothers me a lot when the Religious Right claims God and Jesus as their own - as if no one else has faith or spirituality. It takes a lot of pride to make such a presumption. I'm especially irked by those who tell others to repent and seek salvation. Perhaps they should tend to their own souls first.
When I was growing up, we were taught that people would know we were Christian by how we lived. I believe this meant following Christ's teachings. The essence of these teachings is incorporated in Matthew's Gospel, particularly from the Sermon on the Mount :
"'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?' Jesus replied: '"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
"Do not judge, or you, too will be judged;"
"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
"Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother, and love your neighbor as yourself."
"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well."
And, of course, the Beatitudes:
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 3)
Blessed are the meek: for they shall posses the land. (Verse 4)
Blessed are they who mourn: for they shall be comforted. (Verse 5)
Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. (Verse 6)
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. (Verse 7)
Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. (Verse 8)
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. (Verse 9)
Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Verse 10)
Doesn't sound like the agenda of the Religious Right to me. In fact, when these groups actually hired advisors who advocated a social justice platform, those advisors were dismissed. I guess feeding the hungry just doesn't bring people out to vote like gay-bashing does.
Personally, I think there needs to be a new word in our vocabulary, for there are people who are "Christ-like," and then there are the "Christians." I know people from many religions - and some athiests, too - who are more "Christ-like" than many of the "Christians" we hear about today.
Now, I don't claim to be perfect, nor do I claim to be a most holy person. But, I am a work in progress and I am trying. I am living my faith to the best of my ability. I'm sure people on the Religious Right believe they are, too.
So why don't we all try to do better at living "Christ-like" lives according to His own words? We can help each other along the way without condemnation. We can make our world a better place if we solve so many of the REAL problems that affect people and our planet today.
Something tells me there would be more emphasis on the poor, hungry, meek, mourning, persecuted, and peacemakers if we focused on Christ's actual teachings rather than those of Jerry Fallwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the like. Just a hunch...
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Friday, August 15, 2008
It's past time for South Bend to amend human rights law
VIEWPOINT (South Bend Tribune)
8/15/08
By DON WHEELER
In the summer of 2006 an amendment to South Bend's Human Rights Ordinance was introduced in the South Bend Common Council. The concept of the original HRO was to protect citizens from discrimination in housing, the workplace, etc., but a clear gap in that protection had been identified. It was pointed out that there was no protection for citizens on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — real or perceived.
Like many people, I read about this with only passing interest. It seemed clear there was a problem, a clear solution had been proposed ... it seemed to be mostly just a housekeeping type of issue.
Imagine my astonishment when the amendment failed by one vote.
I had paid scant attention to the opposition's rhetoric. The claims were factually incorrect and the concerns seemed clearly based upon fear and dislike of people different than themselves. It seemed unnecessary to point out the irrationality.
I should have known better ... because these arguments have a familiar ring to them.
I grew up in Evanston, Ill., and in the late 1960s, it was a common practice that Realtors did not show homes in certain neighborhoods to people of color. By city ordinance (at any rate) this was not illegal. But it came to pass that many people in the community loathed the practice and dedicated themselves to ending it. My mother was one of those people.
She and I marched on several occasions, over many weeks, holding signs, chanting and singing for several miles each time. Each time we would rally at an African-American church at the beginning and another at the end. For a Caucasian boy approaching his teen years, it was quite an experience.
The rhetoric in opposition to our cause was typical of any case where certain people wish to retain institutionalized discrimination. Phrases like "we know what's best for these folks," and "it would be giving these folks special status, special rights" are merely code for a desire to dominate and oppress and — let's face it — they're inspired by hatred and fear.
So when I hear people say things such as, offering people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered equal protection under the law amounts to "special rights," I am not fooled. I've heard this stuff before.
And it's pretty frustrating that all that's asked for in the proposed amendment is a place to complain about ill treatment. That place doesn't even have to be created — the Human Rights Commission already exists.
And we don't have to guess whether there's ever cause to complain. The Chicago Tribune recently published two articles describing blatant job discrimination against transgendered people.
It recently came to light that a career justice department official was denied a position she was imminently qualified for, because the decision-makers thought she might be a lesbian. I have personally heard stories of employment and housing discrimination suffered by some of our GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered) citizens locally, as well.
I think, though, it's important to realize that this is not really about the GLBT community. What it is about is us as a community. We know that not all of our residents are protected equally. What matters is what we do about it. And, make no mistake, if we do nothing we are very much doing something. We are saying that in South Bend, Ind., if enough people are uncomfortable with some other people, it's OK to discriminate against those other people. We have the power to do that, and actually — as of now — we are doing that.
Well, I think we need to stop doing that and I hope you do, too. It's time for the South Bend Common Council to revisit this measure — and make it our law. It's time for citizens to make plain to their representatives as well, that it's time to do the responsible thing.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke many strong words, but the phrase I think of most often is: "There comes a time for all us, when silence is a betrayal."
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Don Wheeler lives in South Bend.
8/15/08
By DON WHEELER
In the summer of 2006 an amendment to South Bend's Human Rights Ordinance was introduced in the South Bend Common Council. The concept of the original HRO was to protect citizens from discrimination in housing, the workplace, etc., but a clear gap in that protection had been identified. It was pointed out that there was no protection for citizens on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity — real or perceived.
Like many people, I read about this with only passing interest. It seemed clear there was a problem, a clear solution had been proposed ... it seemed to be mostly just a housekeeping type of issue.
Imagine my astonishment when the amendment failed by one vote.
I had paid scant attention to the opposition's rhetoric. The claims were factually incorrect and the concerns seemed clearly based upon fear and dislike of people different than themselves. It seemed unnecessary to point out the irrationality.
I should have known better ... because these arguments have a familiar ring to them.
I grew up in Evanston, Ill., and in the late 1960s, it was a common practice that Realtors did not show homes in certain neighborhoods to people of color. By city ordinance (at any rate) this was not illegal. But it came to pass that many people in the community loathed the practice and dedicated themselves to ending it. My mother was one of those people.
She and I marched on several occasions, over many weeks, holding signs, chanting and singing for several miles each time. Each time we would rally at an African-American church at the beginning and another at the end. For a Caucasian boy approaching his teen years, it was quite an experience.
The rhetoric in opposition to our cause was typical of any case where certain people wish to retain institutionalized discrimination. Phrases like "we know what's best for these folks," and "it would be giving these folks special status, special rights" are merely code for a desire to dominate and oppress and — let's face it — they're inspired by hatred and fear.
So when I hear people say things such as, offering people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered equal protection under the law amounts to "special rights," I am not fooled. I've heard this stuff before.
And it's pretty frustrating that all that's asked for in the proposed amendment is a place to complain about ill treatment. That place doesn't even have to be created — the Human Rights Commission already exists.
And we don't have to guess whether there's ever cause to complain. The Chicago Tribune recently published two articles describing blatant job discrimination against transgendered people.
It recently came to light that a career justice department official was denied a position she was imminently qualified for, because the decision-makers thought she might be a lesbian. I have personally heard stories of employment and housing discrimination suffered by some of our GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered) citizens locally, as well.
I think, though, it's important to realize that this is not really about the GLBT community. What it is about is us as a community. We know that not all of our residents are protected equally. What matters is what we do about it. And, make no mistake, if we do nothing we are very much doing something. We are saying that in South Bend, Ind., if enough people are uncomfortable with some other people, it's OK to discriminate against those other people. We have the power to do that, and actually — as of now — we are doing that.
Well, I think we need to stop doing that and I hope you do, too. It's time for the South Bend Common Council to revisit this measure — and make it our law. It's time for citizens to make plain to their representatives as well, that it's time to do the responsible thing.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke many strong words, but the phrase I think of most often is: "There comes a time for all us, when silence is a betrayal."
Democracy is not a spectator sport.
Don Wheeler lives in South Bend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
