As this story unfolds (see the latest in the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100300704.html ), I cannot help but shake but my head about the ignorance it shows about sexuality issues and their coverage. Added to the alcohol excuse, we are now being told that Representative Foley had been sexually abused as a teen by a clergy person. Is that supposed to help us understand lurid emails soliciting teenage pages? Yes, such sexual abuse is soul scarring, if it did happen, but it doesn't explain away or excuse abuse of another generation.
Have you heard any progressive religious leaders in the media talking about the Foley "situation"? But, there was Tony Perkins the head of the Family Research Council on CNN saying that the reason that members of Congress didn't act was "because they would be seen as homophobic or gay bashing." Apparently Newt Gingrich has been saying the same thing.
This IS NOT a story about Congressman Foley's homosexuality. For the record, an attraction to 16 and 17 year olds isn't pedophilia either. In fact, given how teenagers of both genders are held up as the sexual ideal in our culture, it's probably very common. That doesn't mean that adults can morally act upon it.
It is a story of sexual harassment and the abuse of power. As I said yesterday, it is also an abuse of power that the leadership didn't take immediate action to stop it. I wonder if the public would have felt differently if a sixteen year old female page was getting these types of emails from a Congressperson; I would not have.
I have written before about the criteria for a moral ethical sexual relationship -- consent, nonexploitation, honesty, mutual pleasure, and protection. I've also written before that a sexually healthy and moral adult understands that there is a difference between having a sexual feeling and acting upon it -- including emailing about it to someone who by definition is not in a position to consent or not be exploited.
I joined three other progressive faith leaders to in responding to this story on Faith in Public Life. You can listen to the audio at http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2006/10/faith_common_sense_and_protect.html
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Ivy League Protects Rights of Transgender Persons
I have a lot of ties to Yale. I attended the Yale School of Public Health in the late seventies and I met my spouse there. When I began to explore my call to ministry, I was granted a research fellowship there. Last semester, I was a visiting professor there.
So, I felt very proud to read this morning that the Yale Corporation had voted to add an anti-discrimination clause against gender identity and expression into its by-laws. Since 2002, every Ivy League School has done so; so have at least 75 other collleges. There is a list of schools banning gender discrimination at www.gpac.org/genius
In all of my sexuality work, I find people least understanding of people who express gender variance in their identity or public expression. Only the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ have ordained openly transgendered people to the clergy, although other denominations have had clergy who have transitioned.
We are a long way to full inclusion of transgendered people in church -- or in society. Let's pray that the Ivy's will lead the way.
Monday, October 02, 2006
More on Foley
Since I wrote on Friday, we have learned that these charges against Mark Foley began OVER A YEAR ago, and that the House leadership knew about them and did nothing. NOTHING.
I can't help but thinking that this is a very close parallel to what happened with the Catholic priests who were abusing children and the Bishops who moved them to other parishes rather than remove them from office.
This is the same Republican leadership who tout abstinence-only-until-marriage education, pass laws restricting access to abortion for young people, try to restrict access to the Internet -- but did nothing when they learned of one of their own soliciting teenagers literally in their own house.
Someone commented on my blog that the age of consent in DC is 16, and therefore the page might not have been a minor. But Representative Foley isn't a teenager -- he is an adult man with power over these pages. His actions, whether or not they turn out to be illegal, were immoral. They violate the very concept of consent and non-exploitation.
Surely the House leadership should have taken action long before ABC did.
I can't help but thinking that this is a very close parallel to what happened with the Catholic priests who were abusing children and the Bishops who moved them to other parishes rather than remove them from office.
This is the same Republican leadership who tout abstinence-only-until-marriage education, pass laws restricting access to abortion for young people, try to restrict access to the Internet -- but did nothing when they learned of one of their own soliciting teenagers literally in their own house.
Someone commented on my blog that the age of consent in DC is 16, and therefore the page might not have been a minor. But Representative Foley isn't a teenager -- he is an adult man with power over these pages. His actions, whether or not they turn out to be illegal, were immoral. They violate the very concept of consent and non-exploitation.
Surely the House leadership should have taken action long before ABC did.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Mark Foley's Resignation
I am just back from a long day at a meeting discussing abstinence-only education at the Harvard Law School, and just logged on to read emails when I read the story about Rep. Mark Foley's resignation for sending sexually explicit emails to a 16 year old Congressional page. I actually felt kinda sick reading the emails (which are posted at ABC's website if you want to read them yourself.)
How terribly sad for everyone concerned, and how ironic that Rep. Foley has been the chair of the caucus on missing and exploited children. I wrote back in June how misguided this bill was in concentrating on registries for treated sex offenders to keep children safe from abuse.
Because the facts are again that abuse of children is perpetuated by people children and teens know and often know well. Ninety percent of the time. Just like Rep. Foley knew this young man, had his email address, and was from the content of the emails, starting to groom him for a sexual relationship.
This young man knew to tell. But not all young people do. That's where prevention has to come in.
But the other sad part of this story is I have to wonder would this story have been different if Rep. Foley had been able to publicly acknowledge that he was a gay (Republican!) man and could have lived openly among his colleagues. Might that have meant that he could have made life affirming sexual decisions with other adults rather soliciting minors on emails? Of course, that is speculation, but I have to wonder how being in the closet affected him.
Scripture reminds us to not cast the first stone. For tonight, my prayers go out to both the Foley family and the yet unnamed young man. For tomorrow, I hope that the media will use this story as a teachable moment to talk to young people about sexual abuse. If they don't, I hope you will.
How terribly sad for everyone concerned, and how ironic that Rep. Foley has been the chair of the caucus on missing and exploited children. I wrote back in June how misguided this bill was in concentrating on registries for treated sex offenders to keep children safe from abuse.
Because the facts are again that abuse of children is perpetuated by people children and teens know and often know well. Ninety percent of the time. Just like Rep. Foley knew this young man, had his email address, and was from the content of the emails, starting to groom him for a sexual relationship.
This young man knew to tell. But not all young people do. That's where prevention has to come in.
But the other sad part of this story is I have to wonder would this story have been different if Rep. Foley had been able to publicly acknowledge that he was a gay (Republican!) man and could have lived openly among his colleagues. Might that have meant that he could have made life affirming sexual decisions with other adults rather soliciting minors on emails? Of course, that is speculation, but I have to wonder how being in the closet affected him.
Scripture reminds us to not cast the first stone. For tonight, my prayers go out to both the Foley family and the yet unnamed young man. For tomorrow, I hope that the media will use this story as a teachable moment to talk to young people about sexual abuse. If they don't, I hope you will.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Sex Education at Church
Our eighth grade son started attending the "Our Whole Lives" sexuality education program at our church this past Sunday. This comprehensive program will run for the next twenty eight weeks. It was jointly developed by the Unitarian Universalist Association and the United Church of Christ, and it provides honest, accurate, and age-appropriate information on sexuality subjects, including abstinence, decision-making about sexuality, contraception, sexual orientation, STD prevention, and masturbation.
People often ask me why my children need a sexuality education program. After all, they ask, don't you provide them will all the information they need? Actually, Greg asked the same thing. But, the reality is that we can't provide him with an opportunity to talk with his peers about these issues under the guidance of a trained adult and there are no doubt areas he would rather discuss with someone besides his mom. Our school system does NOT have a sex education program; thank goodness, our church does.
Now I am a bit biased about the OWL program, as I was an early advisor on its development and one of the pilot testers. But, as a parent, I am also thrilled that my church is sharing responsiblity for educating my child about these important issues, and that he, and the 23 other students, are learning early that sexuality and religion do go together.
Contrast that with the call I got this week from my daughter who is a college senior. She had just come from a lecture by some peer educators on abstinence where the slogan used was "Have you ever had an orgasm to die for?" She was furious -- "Mom, these are scare tactics. They don't help, they just deny people the information they need to make sure that sex can be safe." These aren't school mandated or government abstinence-only programs; these are student-led efforts. It's puzzling to me that abstinence-only groups are spreading on college campuses, and one can only hope as I told my daughter that other groups are making sure that comprehensive health education is available.
The folks at the UUA are now working on a young adult OWL curriculum. It can't come out soon enough. I'd hate to think my eighth grader is better prepared to make healthy sexual decisions than some 20 year olds on campus.
***
I am off to meetings at Harvard today on abstinence-only education, and I will take Monday off to observe Yom Kippour. "See you" on Tuesday.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Another Religious Leader Weighs In
My post from Monday has engendered lively discussion among some of my progressive colleagues who are religious leaders. Here's a note from the Rev. Meg Riley who is the Director of Justice Ministries for the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Dear Deb, I think it's a complex discussion. I stand unequivocably for full glbt equality, including marriage equality, and for women's reproductive choice including choosing abortion. I work with many groups, both within the UUA and in interfaith coalitions, that agree with me about those.
But I also work on issues such as Darfur, economic justice, racial justice, peace, religious liberty, the environment, and the death penalty, with a number of groups who disagree about sexual justice issues. As Bernice Johnson Reagan wrote in an essay in coalition building, "Coalition work is done in the streets. You do not go to a coalition seeking mothers' milk..."
While I'm privileged to work for a religious group (UUA) which supports my own convictions on most issues, I work in many justice arenas to find the broadest group possible which shares my view. I never pretend to be anyone but myself--an open lesbian partner/ mom / UU minister. I don't feel that I am backing away from sexual justice issues by focussing elsewhere; I think there are other issues which demand commitment and attention. Over the years, in coalitions, I have watched a number of areas of disagreement--notably about the Middle East, abortion, and gay rights, take down too many good efforts. I think it is key to leave room for disagreement on some issues while moving forward on others.
This doesn't mean that I need to say "All points are equally valid." I have moral convictions. But I do need the discipline to say, "The nature of coalition work is that we are here because we agree about X and want to be strategic and effective in taking action about X" and let go of Y, Z, and A B C. Where I think any group hits morally troubled waters is when it purports to have 'the answers A-Z' to the religious right. Complexity isn't popular these days, but I have to hold on to my conviction that any adult, regardless of public declarations of a simplistic manner, understands that it is descriptive of the essence of life. All the best, and thanks for your provocative questions.
Of course, I agree with Meg that there are times we need to put aside our own issues to work in coalition on pressing human concerns. When I attend meetings on hunger or Iraq or poverty and so on, I don't enter those rooms carrying any agenda but the one that I am there for. But, what I don't do is turn away from or put down other people's commitments either. I understand that not every mainstream or progressive religious leader will embrace sexual justice issues -- but when some of my colleagues deliberately marginalize them or worse speak out against women's moral agency and the full inclusion of GLBT people, I am called to speak out.
Dear Deb, I think it's a complex discussion. I stand unequivocably for full glbt equality, including marriage equality, and for women's reproductive choice including choosing abortion. I work with many groups, both within the UUA and in interfaith coalitions, that agree with me about those.
But I also work on issues such as Darfur, economic justice, racial justice, peace, religious liberty, the environment, and the death penalty, with a number of groups who disagree about sexual justice issues. As Bernice Johnson Reagan wrote in an essay in coalition building, "Coalition work is done in the streets. You do not go to a coalition seeking mothers' milk..."
While I'm privileged to work for a religious group (UUA) which supports my own convictions on most issues, I work in many justice arenas to find the broadest group possible which shares my view. I never pretend to be anyone but myself--an open lesbian partner/ mom / UU minister. I don't feel that I am backing away from sexual justice issues by focussing elsewhere; I think there are other issues which demand commitment and attention. Over the years, in coalitions, I have watched a number of areas of disagreement--notably about the Middle East, abortion, and gay rights, take down too many good efforts. I think it is key to leave room for disagreement on some issues while moving forward on others.
This doesn't mean that I need to say "All points are equally valid." I have moral convictions. But I do need the discipline to say, "The nature of coalition work is that we are here because we agree about X and want to be strategic and effective in taking action about X" and let go of Y, Z, and A B C. Where I think any group hits morally troubled waters is when it purports to have 'the answers A-Z' to the religious right. Complexity isn't popular these days, but I have to hold on to my conviction that any adult, regardless of public declarations of a simplistic manner, understands that it is descriptive of the essence of life. All the best, and thanks for your provocative questions.
Of course, I agree with Meg that there are times we need to put aside our own issues to work in coalition on pressing human concerns. When I attend meetings on hunger or Iraq or poverty and so on, I don't enter those rooms carrying any agenda but the one that I am there for. But, what I don't do is turn away from or put down other people's commitments either. I understand that not every mainstream or progressive religious leader will embrace sexual justice issues -- but when some of my colleagues deliberately marginalize them or worse speak out against women's moral agency and the full inclusion of GLBT people, I am called to speak out.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
National Religious Leaders Respond
I did not mean to imply yesterday that there were NOT progressive religious leaders who support sexual justice issues. Indeed, the Religious Institute is a network of more than 2600 religious leaders from more than 40 faith traditions that support the Religious Declaration on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing.
There are nationally recognized religious leaders who understand and articulate the connection. For example, my friend and colleague Rev. Barry Lynn who heads Americans United has an excellent new book out called Piety and Politics which demonstrates how attacks on sex education, gay rights, and women's moral agency are of a single piece with attacks on the separation of church and state, the teaching of evolution, the posting of religious symbols in public places, public prayer, and so on. He urges readers to say no to theocracy, and in one of my favorite passages, he writes:
"The goals of Christ and the goals of the Religious Right seem to have little in common. Christ did not spend his time trying to forge a faith-based government. He did not obsess over the sexual habits of people. Were he here today, I find it inconceivable that Christ would parade in front of abortion clinics screaming at teenage girls or picket a gay man's funeral hoisting a sign with a hateful homophobic message."
Rabbi Michael Lerner from Tikkun sent me this message about yesterday's blog:
Dear Debra, It is certainly true that the Religious Right tries to make the issue of abortion and homosexuality the central issues in American politics. We at the Network of Spiritual Progressives unequivocally oppose any attempts by the state to prohibit reproductive choices for women or to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying with the same attendant rights gives to heterosexual marriages. Yet at the same time we agree with Jim Wallis in insisting that we not allow the Right to set the terms for politics in the U.S. Our task as spiritual progressives, we believe, is to change the dominant discourse so that it does not persist in its narrow fascination on private sexual and reproductive choices, important as they are, while ignoring these other areas that Jim Wallis mentions (poverty and economic issues in particular). We at the NSP also believe that issues of peace and non-violence, human rights and civil liberties, torture, and addressing the fundamental spiritual crisis in America should be central to the agenda of a progressive movement, and that we should insist on broadening the public discourse away from a narrow focus on abortion and homosexuality.
I agree completely. I wish I could spend more of my time working with clergy and congregations on how to be sexually healthy, how to help people integrate their sexuality and their spirituality, how to help people live sexual lives with holiness and integrity -- and less time responding to the religious rights attacks on people's most personal and private decisions. But, as long as the religious right makes abortion and gay rights central issues in their agenda for America, progressive and mainstream religious leaders must engage these issues as well.
There are nationally recognized religious leaders who understand and articulate the connection. For example, my friend and colleague Rev. Barry Lynn who heads Americans United has an excellent new book out called Piety and Politics which demonstrates how attacks on sex education, gay rights, and women's moral agency are of a single piece with attacks on the separation of church and state, the teaching of evolution, the posting of religious symbols in public places, public prayer, and so on. He urges readers to say no to theocracy, and in one of my favorite passages, he writes:
"The goals of Christ and the goals of the Religious Right seem to have little in common. Christ did not spend his time trying to forge a faith-based government. He did not obsess over the sexual habits of people. Were he here today, I find it inconceivable that Christ would parade in front of abortion clinics screaming at teenage girls or picket a gay man's funeral hoisting a sign with a hateful homophobic message."
Rabbi Michael Lerner from Tikkun sent me this message about yesterday's blog:
Dear Debra, It is certainly true that the Religious Right tries to make the issue of abortion and homosexuality the central issues in American politics. We at the Network of Spiritual Progressives unequivocally oppose any attempts by the state to prohibit reproductive choices for women or to prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying with the same attendant rights gives to heterosexual marriages. Yet at the same time we agree with Jim Wallis in insisting that we not allow the Right to set the terms for politics in the U.S. Our task as spiritual progressives, we believe, is to change the dominant discourse so that it does not persist in its narrow fascination on private sexual and reproductive choices, important as they are, while ignoring these other areas that Jim Wallis mentions (poverty and economic issues in particular). We at the NSP also believe that issues of peace and non-violence, human rights and civil liberties, torture, and addressing the fundamental spiritual crisis in America should be central to the agenda of a progressive movement, and that we should insist on broadening the public discourse away from a narrow focus on abortion and homosexuality.
I agree completely. I wish I could spend more of my time working with clergy and congregations on how to be sexually healthy, how to help people integrate their sexuality and their spirituality, how to help people live sexual lives with holiness and integrity -- and less time responding to the religious rights attacks on people's most personal and private decisions. But, as long as the religious right makes abortion and gay rights central issues in their agenda for America, progressive and mainstream religious leaders must engage these issues as well.
Monday, September 25, 2006
No Compromise on Women's Moral Agency and GLBT Rights
Jerry Falwell told the participants at the right wing summit this weekend that if Hillary Clinton runs for President it would motivate "his" voters more than the devil running himself. He also told them that their primary objection to Senator Clinton was her pro-choice position, in his words, "the cutting edge for social conservatives".
Read the report of his comments yourself at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400335.html
Whether we like it or not, the religious right continues to make sexual justice issues the core of their public policy agenda. Last week, Sojourners launched a new campaign they call the "Red Letter Christians." In their press release they wrote,
The goal of the group is to advance the message that our faith cannot be reduced to only two hot button social issues - abortion and homosexuality. Fighting poverty, caring for the environment, advancing peace, promoting strong families, and supporting a consistent ethic of life are all critical moral and biblical values.
And indeed they are. But the Sojourner's campaign is not just about trying to focus moral attention on these pressing human needs. Rev. Jim Wallis, Sojourners' President, has said publicly that he is against abortion and marriage equality. He is not alone in the progressive religious movement in trying to distance himself from sexual justice issues.
I don't often agree with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, but I did when he told Rev. Wallis on CBS "People are going to have to stand on one side or the other. These are decisions that can't stand in the middle."
Poll after poll tell us that the majority of Americans support the right to privacy in our most intimate decisions, and so I'd like to believe that sexual justice is a mainstream, middle of the road value. But, I for one, along with the more than 2600 religious leaders that are part of the network of the Religious Institute, believe in a faith based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights and full inclusion of women and sexual minorities. I'm not willing to compromise the rights of women or GLBT people to appear more middle of the road; I wonder what it will take for some of my religious leader colleagues to understand that the leaders on the religious right are not going to allow sexual justice issues to fade into the background. As a result, we reaffirm our call to faith leaders and faith communities to be a prophetic voice for sexual and spiritual justice and wholeness.
Read the report of his comments yourself at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400335.html
Whether we like it or not, the religious right continues to make sexual justice issues the core of their public policy agenda. Last week, Sojourners launched a new campaign they call the "Red Letter Christians." In their press release they wrote,
The goal of the group is to advance the message that our faith cannot be reduced to only two hot button social issues - abortion and homosexuality. Fighting poverty, caring for the environment, advancing peace, promoting strong families, and supporting a consistent ethic of life are all critical moral and biblical values.
And indeed they are. But the Sojourner's campaign is not just about trying to focus moral attention on these pressing human needs. Rev. Jim Wallis, Sojourners' President, has said publicly that he is against abortion and marriage equality. He is not alone in the progressive religious movement in trying to distance himself from sexual justice issues.
I don't often agree with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, but I did when he told Rev. Wallis on CBS "People are going to have to stand on one side or the other. These are decisions that can't stand in the middle."
Poll after poll tell us that the majority of Americans support the right to privacy in our most intimate decisions, and so I'd like to believe that sexual justice is a mainstream, middle of the road value. But, I for one, along with the more than 2600 religious leaders that are part of the network of the Religious Institute, believe in a faith based commitment to sexual and reproductive rights and full inclusion of women and sexual minorities. I'm not willing to compromise the rights of women or GLBT people to appear more middle of the road; I wonder what it will take for some of my religious leader colleagues to understand that the leaders on the religious right are not going to allow sexual justice issues to fade into the background. As a result, we reaffirm our call to faith leaders and faith communities to be a prophetic voice for sexual and spiritual justice and wholeness.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Listen to Me on the Radio - Monday, September 25 @ 10:20 a.m.
I am appearing on the Lisa Birnback Show on Greenstone Radio on Monday, September 25, 2006 at 10:20 am. We will be talking about multifaith perspectives on values, morals, and sexuality. You can listen on your computer at http://greenstoneradio.com/listenertest/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=49 or go to Greenstone to see if they are live on a radio station in your area. Let me know what you think!
Friday, September 22, 2006
My prayer for Rosh Hashana
The Days of Awe begin with us tonight. May the next ten days be days of reflection, introspection, and peace.
May we prepare ourselves for the changes in the year to come.
May it be a good year.
May it be a healthy year.
May it be a year of peace for all of us, all around the globe.
May it be a year of peace within ourselves.
May we live our lives with integrity, service, and love.
May we be blessed with the strength of this community, of our families, of our friends.
May we remember what it truly important in life and may we remember to be grateful every day.
May we all be inscribed another year in the Book of Life.
La Shanah Tovah!
Rev. Debra
May we prepare ourselves for the changes in the year to come.
May it be a good year.
May it be a healthy year.
May it be a year of peace for all of us, all around the globe.
May it be a year of peace within ourselves.
May we live our lives with integrity, service, and love.
May we be blessed with the strength of this community, of our families, of our friends.
May we remember what it truly important in life and may we remember to be grateful every day.
May we all be inscribed another year in the Book of Life.
La Shanah Tovah!
Rev. Debra
La Shana Tova -- 5767
There are some days where I have to search for topics for my blog. There are other days like today where there are many things deserving comment or reporting. I could, for example, write this morning about the new CDC guidelines that encourage HIV testing for everyone beginning at age 13. (Is this the same government that wants to deny young people information about condoms and birth control?) I could also share with you how delighted I was to attend my first meeting of the Religious Roundtable of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force yesterday and how honored I was to be elected to their steering committee.
But, tonight is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and my thoughts are turned towards its celebration. I resonate with the new year beginning in September rather than the middle of winter. I like the call tonight to reflection, to forgiveness, to charity, to opening a new chapter in one's life. I will attend services today at my dad's congregation; on Sunday, we will observe the New Year in our Unitarian way at my home congregation, the Unitarian Church in Westport. I will take time tomorrow to reflect on my blessings, my shortcomings, and my hopes and prayers for the people I love.
La Shana Tova! Happy New Year. May you be blessed with a healthy and sweet new year. May this be a year of peace.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Values Voters
The Family Research Council is bringing 1400 conservative activists to Washington, D.C. for a Value Voter's Summit. Now, I wasn't invited to participate, and I haven't seen the agenda, but I'm guessing that there will be plenty of attention to sexuality issues.
But a poll released on Wednesday by the Center for American Values, a program of People for the American Way, found that issues such as abortion and marriage equality rank LAST in importance to the vast majority of Americans when deciding how to vote. Indeed, although this poll of more than 2500 randomly sampled U.S. citizens found that a majority of Americans support stem cell research, and marriage or civil unions for gay couples, 85% believe that issues like poverty and affordable health care are more imortant than issues like abortion and same sex marriage. Indeed, in thinking about voting, abortion and marriage equality come in dead last on how a person would decide to vote for a member of Congress. When people say that they "vote their values" more "people think of the honesty, integrity, and responsibility of the candidate than any other values."
Despite what the Family Research Council would have you believe this weekend, this poll shows that we are ALL values voters -- and a majority of us think that loving our neighbors and caring for the poor are the values that are most important -- not just for individuals but for government and religious leaders as well. Congratulations to People For the American Way for taking back the term "values voters."
Why Are You Reading This?
I have been blogging since March, and based on what I learn through Statcounter, on most days I have been 75 and 200 readers. I also know that in the course of a week, I have about 200 returning visitors.
But, I mostly hear comments from people who oppose what I have to say and I think it's fair to say even what my ministry stands for. Over the weekend, one "anonymous" poster sent very negative comments to seven different posts including a few with obscenities (and several with random Bible quotes that were taken out of the context of the text to disparage my thoughts.)
I don't make it my business to read blogs of those on the religious right, unless someone writes and tells me that they are about me or the Religious Institute. I write this blog for people who are genuinely interested in the connection of religion and sexuality, for people who have been alienated from their faith because of sexuality issues, to bring a progressive religious voice on sexual morality, justice, and healing to those who welcome it.
I respect that the issues I address are often difficult for people and that people of good faith can differ on these issues. I even like being in dialog (not debate) with people to see if we can seek common ground. But, really, if you hate what I'm writing, why are you spending your time reading this?
I'm guessing that my sister's knitting blog doesn't have people who hate knitting.
But, I mostly hear comments from people who oppose what I have to say and I think it's fair to say even what my ministry stands for. Over the weekend, one "anonymous" poster sent very negative comments to seven different posts including a few with obscenities (and several with random Bible quotes that were taken out of the context of the text to disparage my thoughts.)
I don't make it my business to read blogs of those on the religious right, unless someone writes and tells me that they are about me or the Religious Institute. I write this blog for people who are genuinely interested in the connection of religion and sexuality, for people who have been alienated from their faith because of sexuality issues, to bring a progressive religious voice on sexual morality, justice, and healing to those who welcome it.
I respect that the issues I address are often difficult for people and that people of good faith can differ on these issues. I even like being in dialog (not debate) with people to see if we can seek common ground. But, really, if you hate what I'm writing, why are you spending your time reading this?
I'm guessing that my sister's knitting blog doesn't have people who hate knitting.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Join the MS petition
More than 35 million American women have had abortions in the past three decades, yet few have talked about it publicly. Too often, abortion has been a woman's private experience, and the silence has hurt the public's understanding that millions of women have faced unplanned pregancies. Even more, the public debate often forgets that 61% of women who have had abortions have also had children.
I feel lucky to have never faced this decision in my own personal life. But, I have many friends and congregants who have -- women who were too young, women who didn't have the financial resources, women whose contraceptive failed, women who were forced to have sex, women whose wanted pregnancies could not be continued because of their dire health problems or the medical problems of the fetus.
MS is asking those of us who have had abortion to sign a petition that they will make public of women who have had an abortion in their lifetime. You can sign the petition at https://msmagazine.com/donations/ms/womenspetition_c3_091906.asp
Public dialog about AIDS changed when people with the disease came forward. Public dialog about gay and lesbian people changed when people who were gay and lesbian came forward. The MS foundation hopes that by sharing the stories of real women who had abortions the public dialog can change too. I hope you'll consider it and pass it on.
More on the Pope and Apologies
See E.J. Dionne's excellent column in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800993.html
Based on the news reports, it seems that the Vatican needs to do more than issue press statement apologies...one wonders and shudders to think how this will all end.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800993.html
Based on the news reports, it seems that the Vatican needs to do more than issue press statement apologies...one wonders and shudders to think how this will all end.
Monday, September 18, 2006
The Pope's Apology
It is not unusual for someone to come up to me after one of my talks at a progressive organization and say something like, "I can't believe you became a minister. I have no regard for religion. Religion has only been used to hurt people in the world." It happened again after my talk last week at the Center for American Progress.
I'm thinking about that comment again after just finishing reading about the Pope's extraordinary apology for comments he made about Islam last week and the ensuing violence that has resulted in churches being burned in the middle east and the slaying of a nun in Somalia. My first thought was to quote Shakespeare, "a pox on both their houses."
The Pope was wrong in quoting an anti-Islamic medieval text and has apologized for using the quote. (Don't they have someone who vets his speeches before he gives them??) The violence in response is wrong. It is just the latest chapter in religious intolerance and hatred springing from religous beliefs.
What I usually tell the person who tells me that they detest what religion has done to the world is that I agree with them. And then I tell them that that faith and religion have also brought hope and healing to the world through history to the world as well. But, right now, the image of the dead nun shown on the Today Show is hurting my heart. I am reminded of Meister Eckhardt's quote, "When will people stop believing in a god that makes them sad?"
I'm thinking about that comment again after just finishing reading about the Pope's extraordinary apology for comments he made about Islam last week and the ensuing violence that has resulted in churches being burned in the middle east and the slaying of a nun in Somalia. My first thought was to quote Shakespeare, "a pox on both their houses."
The Pope was wrong in quoting an anti-Islamic medieval text and has apologized for using the quote. (Don't they have someone who vets his speeches before he gives them??) The violence in response is wrong. It is just the latest chapter in religious intolerance and hatred springing from religous beliefs.
What I usually tell the person who tells me that they detest what religion has done to the world is that I agree with them. And then I tell them that that faith and religion have also brought hope and healing to the world through history to the world as well. But, right now, the image of the dead nun shown on the Today Show is hurting my heart. I am reminded of Meister Eckhardt's quote, "When will people stop believing in a god that makes them sad?"
Friday, September 15, 2006
Creating Common Ground
Yesterday, a pro-life Congressional Representative from Ohio and a pro-choice Congressional Representative from my home state of Connecticut introduced a new bill titled "Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act."
It calls for increased funding for prenatal care, Title X family planning services, teenage pregnancy prevention services, and sexuality education programs that include abstinence and prevention information.
It makes sense. It talks about reducing the need for abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies. Its proposals are based on good science and good ethics. It shows that people from differing points of view can seek common ground and work together.
And if funded, there is no question that it would reduce the need -- and therefore the numbers -- of abortions in the United States.
Why is it then that I'm guessing the Religious Right isn't going to get behind this?
***
Thought for reflection over the weekend: I just read this quote by Kahil Gibran:
"Your daily life is your temple and your religion."
How well are you doing? I'm cutting it out and putting it on our refrigerator as a reminder.
It calls for increased funding for prenatal care, Title X family planning services, teenage pregnancy prevention services, and sexuality education programs that include abstinence and prevention information.
It makes sense. It talks about reducing the need for abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies. Its proposals are based on good science and good ethics. It shows that people from differing points of view can seek common ground and work together.
And if funded, there is no question that it would reduce the need -- and therefore the numbers -- of abortions in the United States.
Why is it then that I'm guessing the Religious Right isn't going to get behind this?
***
Thought for reflection over the weekend: I just read this quote by Kahil Gibran:
"Your daily life is your temple and your religion."
How well are you doing? I'm cutting it out and putting it on our refrigerator as a reminder.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights
This lovely picture is from the cover of a new report by the Center for American Progress called "More Than A Choice: A Progressive Vision for Reproductive Health and Rights."On Wednesday, I was one of the panelists at the launch of this new publication in Washington, D.C. About one hundred people from diverse organizations in D.C. attended the presentations. I joined Jessica Arons, the author of the report, Shira Saperstein from the Moriah Fund, Dr. Pablo Rodriquez, Planned Parenthood of RI, Malika Saaada Saar, Rebecca Project for Human Rights, and Rhonda Waller, from Adura to discuss various aspects of the report.
The Four Cornerstones of the report are:
The ability to become a parent and to parent with dignity.
The ability to determine whether or when to have children.
The ability to have a healthy pregnancy.
The ability to have healthy and safe families and relationships.
In this report, CAP affirms its commitment to reproductive health and justice, and although the language is perhaps not as clear as I might have liked, to sexual health and rights as well. As part of a broad policy agenda that stresses reproductive health and healthy pregnancies, they support accessible abortion services, comprehensive sexuality education, marriage equality, and the right of gays and lesbians to adopt children.
They also remind the reader that 60% of women who seek abortions are already parents, and that the same women need both prenatal care and parenting support and safe and legal abortion, just at different times of their lives. They also remind us that the average woman in the U.S. spends five years trying to become pregnant or being pregnant, but more than 30 years trying to avoid pregnancy.
In my comments, I suggested that our culture confusion about reproductive health and rights was really a proxy for our cultural confusion about sexuality, and that both must be addressed. I challenged the audience:
We need to articulate our own values, and we need to confront the moral values of those who seek to deny these rights to men, women and teenagers. We need to ask, Is it ever moral to coerce a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Is it ever moral to deny young people life saving information? Is it ever moral to deny a loving committed couple the right to a union protected by laws available to heterosexual couples. Is it moral in a pluralistic society to privilege one religious point of view over another?
You can read the report or its executive summary at
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=2060837
I am honored and grateful that the Center for American Progress included me today. More, I am deeply appreciative of their commitment to reproductive health and rights. I hope you'll read it. Pass it on.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Introducing Greenstone Media
Last night I attended the launch of a new women owned, women run radio network, Greenstone Media, at the Museum of Radio and Television in New York City.
It was a very exciting and heady evening. Several hundred people filled the room to salute the launch of this new network, and listen to speeches by Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda among others. In the small world department, the President and CEO of Greenstone is Susan Ness, who I served with on the Montgomery County Commission on Women in the early 1980's.
Here's how Greenstone describes its history:
"Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, and a high powered group of women decided to offer an alternative by founding GreenStone Media. It's the only national radio network owned by women, and it's designed to offer what is missing in talk today -- radio that is thought-provoking, emotionally involving, believable and trustworthy. Radio that talks with you, not at you. " Their slogan is "Less heat. More light."
In my favorite line of the evening, Ms. Steinem said that they will work to be just edgy enough that you can still have your children listening with you in the car. Right now, they have programs from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. that you can listen to on some AM and FM stations but also on your computer (and soon to be podcast). I'm even moved to have my son reconnect the speakers on my desk computer.
I am excited to share with you that I will be taping some programs with Jane Fonda for the Lisa Birnback show in October, and will let you know here when you can expect them to air. When they move to weekend programming, I hope to be able to do more.
Victor Hugo said "There is no greater power on earth than an idea whose time has come." Greenstone is such an idea.
It was a very exciting and heady evening. Several hundred people filled the room to salute the launch of this new network, and listen to speeches by Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda among others. In the small world department, the President and CEO of Greenstone is Susan Ness, who I served with on the Montgomery County Commission on Women in the early 1980's.
Here's how Greenstone describes its history:
"Gloria Steinem, Jane Fonda, and a high powered group of women decided to offer an alternative by founding GreenStone Media. It's the only national radio network owned by women, and it's designed to offer what is missing in talk today -- radio that is thought-provoking, emotionally involving, believable and trustworthy. Radio that talks with you, not at you. " Their slogan is "Less heat. More light."
In my favorite line of the evening, Ms. Steinem said that they will work to be just edgy enough that you can still have your children listening with you in the car. Right now, they have programs from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. that you can listen to on some AM and FM stations but also on your computer (and soon to be podcast). I'm even moved to have my son reconnect the speakers on my desk computer.
I am excited to share with you that I will be taping some programs with Jane Fonda for the Lisa Birnback show in October, and will let you know here when you can expect them to air. When they move to weekend programming, I hope to be able to do more.
Victor Hugo said "There is no greater power on earth than an idea whose time has come." Greenstone is such an idea.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Telling Teens Not to French Kiss
I've just read a new article titled "Legislating Against Arousal" in the latest copy of the Guttmacher Institute's journal.
Cythnia Dailard reports that the federal government, nearly ten years since the start of the abstinence-only-until-marriage program has finally defined what they mean by abstinence. The new guidelines say that abstinence is "voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage." They define sexual activity as "any type of genital activity or sexual stimulation between two persons."
Sexual stimulation? Let's see, that could include flirting, hand holding, kissing, french kissing...watching someone in tight jeans bend over and pick up a fork on the floor of the middle school cafeteria. Come on...were these people ever teenagers?
And any type of genital activity until marriage? Let's remember that the average age of marriage is now 26 in the United States. Could the people who wrote these regulations really think it is realistic to ask in love teens and twenty somethings prior to marriage not to share any type of stimulating behaviors? And what about gay and lesbians who are denied the right to marriage? I guess they better avoid stimulation throughout their lives.
This would be laughable if we weren't pouring millions of dollars into these programs each year. They offer bad public health advice to young people, and I think they fail to offer moral advice to young people as well. Frankly, as a minister, I would refuse to marry a couple who told me that they had shared no sexual behaviors at all; sexuality is too important in a marriage, and the decision to be married is too sacred, to have NO information about each other's sexuality prior to the wedding day. It's hard to believe that it is federal policy to encourage such ignorance.
Instead, we should be helping young people celebrate their developing sexuality, one of God's most life affirming gifts, in developmentally appropriate ways. In October, the Religious Institute will be convening a group of theologians to develop a new Open Letter on Adolescent Sexuality. I look forward to sharing it with you.
To read Ms. Dailard's full article for yourself, go to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090312.html
Cythnia Dailard reports that the federal government, nearly ten years since the start of the abstinence-only-until-marriage program has finally defined what they mean by abstinence. The new guidelines say that abstinence is "voluntarily choosing not to engage in sexual activity until marriage." They define sexual activity as "any type of genital activity or sexual stimulation between two persons."
Sexual stimulation? Let's see, that could include flirting, hand holding, kissing, french kissing...watching someone in tight jeans bend over and pick up a fork on the floor of the middle school cafeteria. Come on...were these people ever teenagers?
And any type of genital activity until marriage? Let's remember that the average age of marriage is now 26 in the United States. Could the people who wrote these regulations really think it is realistic to ask in love teens and twenty somethings prior to marriage not to share any type of stimulating behaviors? And what about gay and lesbians who are denied the right to marriage? I guess they better avoid stimulation throughout their lives.
This would be laughable if we weren't pouring millions of dollars into these programs each year. They offer bad public health advice to young people, and I think they fail to offer moral advice to young people as well. Frankly, as a minister, I would refuse to marry a couple who told me that they had shared no sexual behaviors at all; sexuality is too important in a marriage, and the decision to be married is too sacred, to have NO information about each other's sexuality prior to the wedding day. It's hard to believe that it is federal policy to encourage such ignorance.
Instead, we should be helping young people celebrate their developing sexuality, one of God's most life affirming gifts, in developmentally appropriate ways. In October, the Religious Institute will be convening a group of theologians to develop a new Open Letter on Adolescent Sexuality. I look forward to sharing it with you.
To read Ms. Dailard's full article for yourself, go to http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090312.html
Monday, September 11, 2006
Homecoming and 9/11
Yesterday was the homecoming service at my church, the Unitarian Church in Westport. I am the endorsed community minister there -- that means that although I am not on the staff of the church, I am affiliated with them and they are the body that holds me accountable to the Unitarian Universalist Association. I try to tithe my time to the church, offering the community worship assistance and pastoral care as requested by the parish ministers and periodic adult and youth education, sermons, and leadership of the Safe Congregations committee.
I love the Homecoming Service. Hundreds of people fill the lawn and we rededicate each of the important symbols of our church. We read a necrology of people who have been members and died since the church was founded.
There were many 9/11 reminders. Two sons of our church were killed in the towers; the flowers were dedicated to them yesterday. The day, crisp and sunny with a blue sky that went on forever, was just like that September day.
It was good to be back home in community. September 11, 2001, my sister in ministry Barbara Fast and I kept the church open past midnight and held a prayer service while Frank Hall, our senior minister, met with the families most immediately affected. It was good to be in community that night too.
I know that too many people have been alienated from their faith communities because of their sexuality. I meet people all the time who have given up on religion because of the way it addressed sexuality. One of the key messages of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing is that there are faith leaders (over 2600 of them!) and faith communities that welcome all people and that are committed to being sexual healthy faith communities. We are in every state and we represent more than 40 faith traditions. If you have given up, I hope you will try again.
Today, let us pause to honor the memories of those who died...let us remind ourselves that all we ever really know we have is the present day, the present moment. Let us recommit to justice for all.
I love the Homecoming Service. Hundreds of people fill the lawn and we rededicate each of the important symbols of our church. We read a necrology of people who have been members and died since the church was founded.
There were many 9/11 reminders. Two sons of our church were killed in the towers; the flowers were dedicated to them yesterday. The day, crisp and sunny with a blue sky that went on forever, was just like that September day.
It was good to be back home in community. September 11, 2001, my sister in ministry Barbara Fast and I kept the church open past midnight and held a prayer service while Frank Hall, our senior minister, met with the families most immediately affected. It was good to be in community that night too.
I know that too many people have been alienated from their faith communities because of their sexuality. I meet people all the time who have given up on religion because of the way it addressed sexuality. One of the key messages of the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing is that there are faith leaders (over 2600 of them!) and faith communities that welcome all people and that are committed to being sexual healthy faith communities. We are in every state and we represent more than 40 faith traditions. If you have given up, I hope you will try again.
Today, let us pause to honor the memories of those who died...let us remind ourselves that all we ever really know we have is the present day, the present moment. Let us recommit to justice for all.
Friday, September 08, 2006
That's Why There Is An On and Off Button
Our home phone rang last night, and the caller asked to speak to the "lady of the house." I guess that's me. She then said she was doing a poll, and could I answer one question for her. Curious, I said "yes." Her question was something like, "Do you think that the television rating system isn't doing a good enough job and that television shows have gotten too edgy and have too much sexual content?"
Well, my public health background told me that this wasn't any scientific poll, so I said, "No." She said, "NO?? Should I repeat the question so you understand it better?" I said, "I think I understand the question. No." She sputtered, and I continued, "Parents can monitor and decide what shows their children watch. They can watch television with their children. They can turn it off. We don't need to police popular entertainment." She said, "I'm from the Dove Foundation and we are going to clean up television."
And then get this...she hung up on me.
I googled the Dove Foundation this morning. It turns out that up until now they have concentrated on identifying what they call "family friendly" movies. To give you a clue about who they are, they think that the Harry Potter movies push the occult. Now, I guess, they are turning to television.
Like any parent, I'm concerned about what my children see in the media. I regularly consult my friend Nell Minow's site; she's the Movie Mom and does excellent reviews so that my family can decide if we want to see a particular movie. If a television show has a 14 rating and my son wants to watch it, we watch it together and then we talk. It's called using the media as a teachable moment.
But, so called polling with predetermined outcomes about the content of media -- I think I'll pass. Dove Foundation, take me off your call list.
Well, my public health background told me that this wasn't any scientific poll, so I said, "No." She said, "NO?? Should I repeat the question so you understand it better?" I said, "I think I understand the question. No." She sputtered, and I continued, "Parents can monitor and decide what shows their children watch. They can watch television with their children. They can turn it off. We don't need to police popular entertainment." She said, "I'm from the Dove Foundation and we are going to clean up television."
And then get this...she hung up on me.
I googled the Dove Foundation this morning. It turns out that up until now they have concentrated on identifying what they call "family friendly" movies. To give you a clue about who they are, they think that the Harry Potter movies push the occult. Now, I guess, they are turning to television.
Like any parent, I'm concerned about what my children see in the media. I regularly consult my friend Nell Minow's site; she's the Movie Mom and does excellent reviews so that my family can decide if we want to see a particular movie. If a television show has a 14 rating and my son wants to watch it, we watch it together and then we talk. It's called using the media as a teachable moment.
But, so called polling with predetermined outcomes about the content of media -- I think I'll pass. Dove Foundation, take me off your call list.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Still on Retreat...But...
I'm at a library in Acadia in Maine, checking email for the first time in a week. I could actually do a whole blog entry on the spiritual benefits of periodic withdrawal from email, but I'll spare you.
Mostly, I want to encourage you to read the comments on the entry I did last Friday on doctors denying women contraception. They are a fascinating blend of opinions, including many strong natural family planning advocates. Other people who join my concern about these clinics have also posted. I have not approved the four hateful messages (this is after all my space!), but I have posted all of the others.
It's a fascinating dialog and I invite you to join the discussion!
"See you" Friday.
Rev. Debra
Mostly, I want to encourage you to read the comments on the entry I did last Friday on doctors denying women contraception. They are a fascinating blend of opinions, including many strong natural family planning advocates. Other people who join my concern about these clinics have also posted. I have not approved the four hateful messages (this is after all my space!), but I have posted all of the others.
It's a fascinating dialog and I invite you to join the discussion!
"See you" Friday.
Rev. Debra
Friday, September 01, 2006
Doctors Why Deny Women Birth Control
The Washington Post ran an article yesterday entitled "Medical Practices Blend Health and Faith." You can read it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083003290.html?nav=hcmodule
It described a trend that frankly had escaped me until I read the article -- obstetrician/gynecologist offices that "pray for and with" patients, refuse to offer or even refer for birth control, sterilizations, or abortions, and promote only natural family planning.
There are according to the article more than 500 such medical practices in the United States. They quote one doctor who says, "We're trying to get doctors to see that contraception is not good medical practice" and that natural family planning "builds a marriage."
Unfortunately, the article doesn't quote one religious leader who thinks this is a bad idea.
It is. What happened to informed consent in medicine? Natural family planning is the least effective method of contraception, and effective contraceptive use is not only "good medical practice" but a moral choice. What happens when a woman goes to one of these doctors who has a different religious point of view? What happens in a rural area where this might be the only obstetrician/gynecology offices? Although not addressed in the article, one shudders to think how a woman with a sexually transmitted disease is seen in one of these practices. Do they treat her or send her out with a lecture? Do these doctors refuse women vaccines against Hepatitis and HPV because they protect against such diseases? What is the end of their limiting their services to sexually active women?
To my mind, these medical practices neither support women's health or their faith. They're dangerous and they are immoral in their goal of limiting women's moral agency. What do you think?
***
I'll be on spiritual retreat in Maine next week. I'll be "back" next Friday. Have a good Labor Day weekend!
Rev. Debra W. Haffner
It described a trend that frankly had escaped me until I read the article -- obstetrician/gynecologist offices that "pray for and with" patients, refuse to offer or even refer for birth control, sterilizations, or abortions, and promote only natural family planning.
There are according to the article more than 500 such medical practices in the United States. They quote one doctor who says, "We're trying to get doctors to see that contraception is not good medical practice" and that natural family planning "builds a marriage."
Unfortunately, the article doesn't quote one religious leader who thinks this is a bad idea.
It is. What happened to informed consent in medicine? Natural family planning is the least effective method of contraception, and effective contraceptive use is not only "good medical practice" but a moral choice. What happens when a woman goes to one of these doctors who has a different religious point of view? What happens in a rural area where this might be the only obstetrician/gynecology offices? Although not addressed in the article, one shudders to think how a woman with a sexually transmitted disease is seen in one of these practices. Do they treat her or send her out with a lecture? Do these doctors refuse women vaccines against Hepatitis and HPV because they protect against such diseases? What is the end of their limiting their services to sexually active women?
To my mind, these medical practices neither support women's health or their faith. They're dangerous and they are immoral in their goal of limiting women's moral agency. What do you think?
***
I'll be on spiritual retreat in Maine next week. I'll be "back" next Friday. Have a good Labor Day weekend!
Rev. Debra W. Haffner
Thursday, August 31, 2006
TV Fall Preview
I met yesterday with Neil Guiliano, the relatively new Executive Director of GLAAD, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. GLAAD has a long program of working with the media on the portrayal of sexual minorities, and I'm excited that they will be started initiatives this year on youth and on reaching out to faith communities. I am looking forward to collaborating with them.
They have just published a new study of the upcoming 2006 - 2007 TV season. Now my regular readers know I watch way too much television, and ever since I was small, I have looked forward to reading about new series in the fall preview issue of TV Guide. With the loss of Will & Grace, this upcoming season there only have 9 gay characters on broadcast entertainment shows, although nearly three times that many on cable networks. Day time talk though is another matter -- there's Ellen and I can't wait to see what Rosie does on The View.
The number of ministers on entertainment television though has now gone to zero, with the final season of Seventh Heaven and the very short lived show with the Episcopal minister from last season. I don't think I've ever seen a woman minister on an entertainment series -- have you? Maybe Grey's Anatomy could use a woman hospital chaplain.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Stained Glass Ceiling
That's actually a picture from the worship service before the March for Women's Lives in 2004. That's me on the right at the microphone; Rabbi Sally Priesland, the first woman ordained as a Rabbi in the U.S., is at the microphone on the left.
It seems like a fitting picture to go with a post about a recent New York Times article on how few women serve large congregations in the United States. The article shares that there is still tremendous discrimination against women ministers and rabbis; they are much more likely to be associate clergy or directors of religious education than they are to hold the senior position.
They quote men as saying they are distracted by women in the pulpit, including one man who says he has to shut his eyes when a woman is preaching. It reminded me of that one liner, "There are three sexes. Men, Women, and Clergy." It is a challenge to own one's sexuality and be a woman minister. It's a topic that we address openly in my seminary classes, but one that I'm guessing isn't usually discussed at most seminaries.
The stained glass ceiling is real -- even in those denominations that have been ordaining women for more than thirty years. It's time for real full inclusion.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Remembering Katrina
Before I became a minister and before I became a sexologist, I was studying for a job in public service. I majored in government in college and I was a Capitol Hill intern. My advocacy work for the past thirty years grew out of my belief that government can and does make a difference. I naively believed that in the time of a national crisis that the federal government would be there to protect us.
For me, that's the enduring legacy of Katrina. The federal government failed the people of Louisiana and Mississippi, and continues to fail too many of them today. My heart and prayers go out to those who were most directly affected, but this year's anniversary is a sobering reminder for all of us. It's also a reminder that the work there, the need there continues. I'm going to send another donation to our partner church in New Orleans today; I hope that if you are able you will send an additional donation to an organization helping rebuild after Katrina.
For me, that's the enduring legacy of Katrina. The federal government failed the people of Louisiana and Mississippi, and continues to fail too many of them today. My heart and prayers go out to those who were most directly affected, but this year's anniversary is a sobering reminder for all of us. It's also a reminder that the work there, the need there continues. I'm going to send another donation to our partner church in New Orleans today; I hope that if you are able you will send an additional donation to an organization helping rebuild after Katrina.
Monday, August 28, 2006
When Over the Counter Isn't
So, last week, the Food and Drug Administration finally released it's hostage -- the three year old pending application for Plan B, also known as emergency contraception. Headlines blared "Plan B now available as OTC medication."
Now, OTC stands for Over the Counter. But, in a clarification released today, it turns out that the medication will only be available BEHIND the counter. And people will need to show their identification to prove that they are over 18. And perhaps be subjected to a lecture by a pharmacist or store clerk who doesn't believe in emergency contraception. Somehow, all those requirements don't sound over the counter to me.
My 21 year old daughter supports the decision to require 16 year olds to get a prescription. She believes that a 16 year old who has had unprotected sex needs to be talking to a doctor or nurse practioner about getting on an ongoing method of birth control -- or even the decision to have sex at all. In theory, I support that position, but I've just worked with too many teen women to want to put up barriers to pregnancy prevention. I'd rather see the FDA require that every woman who gets Plan B is also handed the number of a local family planning clinic.
The irony of course is that our 16 year old sons can walk into almost any drug store in America and purchase a condom...from the shelf, not behind the counter, without an ID, or the possibility of a lecture. That's a good thing if it means he is protecting himself against STDs and pregnancy -- why would we want our daughters to have less?
Technorati Tags:
Emergency Contraception
Technorati Tags:
Plan B
Now, OTC stands for Over the Counter. But, in a clarification released today, it turns out that the medication will only be available BEHIND the counter. And people will need to show their identification to prove that they are over 18. And perhaps be subjected to a lecture by a pharmacist or store clerk who doesn't believe in emergency contraception. Somehow, all those requirements don't sound over the counter to me.
My 21 year old daughter supports the decision to require 16 year olds to get a prescription. She believes that a 16 year old who has had unprotected sex needs to be talking to a doctor or nurse practioner about getting on an ongoing method of birth control -- or even the decision to have sex at all. In theory, I support that position, but I've just worked with too many teen women to want to put up barriers to pregnancy prevention. I'd rather see the FDA require that every woman who gets Plan B is also handed the number of a local family planning clinic.
The irony of course is that our 16 year old sons can walk into almost any drug store in America and purchase a condom...from the shelf, not behind the counter, without an ID, or the possibility of a lecture. That's a good thing if it means he is protecting himself against STDs and pregnancy -- why would we want our daughters to have less?
Technorati Tags:
Emergency Contraception
Technorati Tags:
Plan B
Just friends
I preached yesterday at my home congregation, the Unitarian Church in Westport. The sermon title was "Friendship -- With Benefits."
You can read the whole sermon at the section called "Debra's Sermons" on the UCW web site in a few days. I talked about how I hate the term "just friends" because it implies that friendship is less important than other relationships.
I shared though that we can take back the term "just friends" if we understand that “just” comes from “justice”, right relations. “Just friends” love and nurture each other. “Just friends” listen to each other, sit with each other, and offer each other unconditional regard. “Just friends” show up. “Just friends” tell you the truth when no one else will, but always with kindness and compassion.
May you be blessed with just friends.
You can read the whole sermon at the section called "Debra's Sermons" on the UCW web site in a few days. I talked about how I hate the term "just friends" because it implies that friendship is less important than other relationships.
I shared though that we can take back the term "just friends" if we understand that “just” comes from “justice”, right relations. “Just friends” love and nurture each other. “Just friends” listen to each other, sit with each other, and offer each other unconditional regard. “Just friends” show up. “Just friends” tell you the truth when no one else will, but always with kindness and compassion.
May you be blessed with just friends.
Friday, August 25, 2006
A Gender Sensitive Torah
I grew up in a very secular Jewish home, and I asked to go to synagogue after I started attending my friends' bar and bat mitzvahs. When I did go, I always felt let out -- partially because I hadn't studied Hebrew and I didn't know the songs like my friends did, but I also have a strong memory of my reaction to the texts that only seemed to talk about men. How could we only be praying to the "God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" -- over and over again? Why were the heroes of the stories all men? Why did God create man first? Where could I find 13 year old me in these texts?
Now, I don't mean to imply that I had a fully developed feminist consciousness at 13, just that I knew they weren't talking to me. I was delighted this morning then to learn in a post in a newsletter from The Shalom Center of a brand new translation of the Torah that calls itself "A Gender Sensitive Adaptation of the JPS Translation." It's available on amazon.com for $18.48. I plan to order it.
Language matters. It matters to women that they can find themselves in sacred texts. It matters to gay people when ministers talk about "partners" instead of husbands and wives or even spouses. It matters when we speak about different types of families instead of privileging one over others. It matters that we seek to include everyone. I'm grateful to the translators of this new volume for making it a little easier to do so.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
It's About Time -- and Morality
Victory at last! Three years after its own advisory committee said that emergency contraception should be available over the counter, the FDA announced this morning that pharmacies could now sell Plan B without a prescription to women 18 and over. As I blogged earlier this summer, the decision to still require adolescent women to obtain a prescription within 72 hours of unprotected sex is a political decision not one based on medicine or science. Still, today's decision is a victory for those who have worked so hard to bring this medicine to American women, long after women around the world have had easy access to it.
I'll leave it to my secular sister organizations to tell you more about why this decision is medically important. It's morally important though because it is one more way that women can avoid an unintended or unwanted pregnancy. I heard some anti-choice person on the radio say that today is a tragic date for women and their children. But, it is precisely because life is sacred and parenthood is so precious that new life should never be created carelessly or because a condom broke or because intercourse was forced or because people got swept away. It's hard to understand how every person who opposes abortion isn't working with us to assure that every sexually active woman has easy access to contraception, including Plan B.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Family Values
If you've seen the movie, this picture has to make you smile. If you haven't, it's from "Little Miss Sunshine" and it is a totally delightful bittersweet comedy about a dysfunctional family on a road trip in a VW bus without a clutch. The last ten minutes of the movie (not to be revealed, of course) are worth the price of the ticket, but there are multiple sermons that could be written from this movie on the value of family and love in our lives. This is a family that loves each other in spite of themselves....like most of our families do.
It was the perfect start for our annual family vacation to the beach in Rhode Island. We're going to ride the waves, take long bike rides, go to the water park, play miniature golf, and eat steamers and freshly picked corn. It's been our family's annual vacation for more than twenty years. I'll be "back here" on Thursday.
Take a moment this week to be thankful for your family.
Friday, August 18, 2006
JonBenet and Mikey
I'm guessing you have no idea who this child is. His name is Mikey Vallejo-Seiber, and he was three years old when he was murdered by his mother's boyfriend. His mother and the boyfriend began trial this week.
As pictures of JonBenet Ramsey once again fill newspapers and TV shows, one has to wonder what makes one murdered child a national news story and another murdered child a footnote.
My heart broke when I read this story on Gender Pac.
The wrote, "Mendoza, who was openly critical of Mikey's upbringing, attempted to "toughen up" the toddler by calling him a "sissy" who needed to be toughened up, slapping him, and urging him to beat up his Elmo doll, according to the toddler's mother. The three-year-old died in the hospital after suffering massive internal injuries from being kicked, punched, and dropped on the head while in Mendoza's care."
According to Gender Pac, he's not the only boy child who has been killed because of gender variant behavior. How many children will die -- or live agonized lives -- because they don't fit into our cultural stereotypes of how boys and girls, and men and women, should behave? Children's Medical Center in Washington, D.C. has an excellent program for parents with gender variant children; Genderpac is starting a new program called "Children As They Are." The 2004 update of my book "From Diapers to Dating: A Parent's Guide to Raising Sexually Healthy Children" has a section for parents on gender variant children.
Isaiah 56:5, talking about the known sexual minority of the time, wrote, "To the eunuchs who keep my sabbaths, who choose the things that please me and hold fast my covenant, I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name, better than sons and daughters. I will give them an everlasting name." May Mickey Vallejo-Seiber become such a name.
Technorati Tags:
Gender Variant Children
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Search for Common Ground
Two stories showed up in my inbox yesterday about the abortion debate. NARAL Pro-Choice America released a new poll on abortion that found that 77% of likely voters say that "government and politicians should stay out of a woman's personal and private decisions whether or not to have an abortion."
Eight in ten agreed that American's are tired of the divisive abortion debate.
Me too.
And that leads to the second story. Thirty clergy met earlier this week in Rapid City, South Dakota to discuss how to help their congregants address the abortion debate. One participant, the Rev. Jeri Behringer, who retired in May from the Spearfish UCC, said the seminar was helpful in providing a model for congregational discussion. She told the paper,
"Something has happened in the last few years that seems to have divided us in ways that I've never seen before in 36 years of ministry. There's an inability to hear each other and respect each other and respect that we are all Christians together, regardless of whether we agree on every issue."
It's been said for more than thirty years, but it bears repeating -- pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. Pro-choice is common ground. Only an individual woman can make this decision. The moral agency of women must be respected and affirmed, and as religious leaders, we must work to assure that abortion remain legal, safe, and accessible. We must also do all we know to prevent the need for abortion -- as our "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision" says, "it is precisely because life is so precious that it never be created carelessly."
Eight in ten agreed that American's are tired of the divisive abortion debate.
Me too.
And that leads to the second story. Thirty clergy met earlier this week in Rapid City, South Dakota to discuss how to help their congregants address the abortion debate. One participant, the Rev. Jeri Behringer, who retired in May from the Spearfish UCC, said the seminar was helpful in providing a model for congregational discussion. She told the paper,
"Something has happened in the last few years that seems to have divided us in ways that I've never seen before in 36 years of ministry. There's an inability to hear each other and respect each other and respect that we are all Christians together, regardless of whether we agree on every issue."
It's been said for more than thirty years, but it bears repeating -- pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. Pro-choice is common ground. Only an individual woman can make this decision. The moral agency of women must be respected and affirmed, and as religious leaders, we must work to assure that abortion remain legal, safe, and accessible. We must also do all we know to prevent the need for abortion -- as our "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision" says, "it is precisely because life is so precious that it never be created carelessly."
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Strange Bedfellows
The Kaiser Family Foundation announced yesterday that it has entered into a partnership with the Fox Networks Group to air a series of public service announcements for teenagers on health issues. Called the PAUSE campaign, it is designed in the words of the press release, "to help teens understand the power they have to make difficult decisions on a range of issues including teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases; alcohol and substance abuse; and online safety, among other topics."
Now, I'm all for helping young people make good decisions and encouraging young people to think before they act makes sense. But Fox? Fox news shows have a long history of bashing sex education, abortion, gays, and most other issues I care about. I've had some pretty awful experiences on Fox news shows, and generally say no when I'm asked to appear.
Now, I know that entertainment and news divisions are different -- and my son and I are devoted American Idol and House fans. But I can't help but wonder how editorial may affect the information provided. The list of organizations that will be linked to DOES NOT include Planned Parenthood, Advocates for Youth, Sex Etc, or any gay and lesbian youth organization. What could Kaiser have been thinking?
Technorati Tags:
Fox/Kaiser Partnership
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Gays in the Military -- Discharge "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network released a report yesterday that the number of gay and lesbians servicepeople discharged because of being gay increased 10 percent last year; one base in Kentucky actually discharged 49 people in one year.
Wait -- aren't we in the middle of a war? And the Armed Services is increasing the number of people it dismisses based on sexual orientation?
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was bankrupt public policy when it was signed by Bill Clinton in 1993. It says that the military can't ask service members about their sexual orientation, but can dismiss people if they volunteer the information or if there is "evidence of homosexual conduct." There isn't a shred of evidence that gay and lesbian people can't be good service members; Israel, Australia, and the U.K. all have openly gay service members.
It's time that the policy is discharged. The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network has an online petition you can sign that they will send to your member of Congress and the President. It will only take you a minute, and it can be your action for sexual justice today.
Technorati Tags:
Gays in the Military
Monday, August 14, 2006
More on AIDS
Blessings to Bill and Melinda Gates for putting prevention squarely on the agenda of the 16th International AIDS Conference last night.In his opening address, Bill Gates said, "Treatment without prevention is simply unsustainable." Melinda Gates talked about "proven effective approaches -- condoms, clean needles, education, and testing" and urged participants to make sex workers "critical allies in the fight to end AIDS."
That's called speaking truth to power.
It's not the message that the U.S. government is giving to the world. I'm glad that someone from the U.S. did and could.
Treatment without prevention is also immoral.
Technorati Tags:
AIDS
Friday, August 11, 2006
International AIDS Conference -- Traveling Mercies
The 16th International AIDS Conference begins tomorrow in Toronto. I won't be there this year, but I have attended some of the previous conferences. More than 20,000 researchers and clinicians from around the world are expected.
At previous conferences major breakthroughs have been announced. It would be wonderful if that would happen again. The numbers are staggering -- 38.3 million people around the world living with HIV, 3 million people dying of it each year.
I just read the U.S. government has sharply limited the number of CDC and NIH scientists who are being allowed to go to the conference. For those who are there, it may be hard to explain why it is that the U.S. continues to promote abstinence-only-education programs as a central component of our global strategy and why US monies cannot go to programs that reach out to sex workers. It seems immoral that so much of the U.S. AIDS work allows politics and ideology to trump science and prevention.
I have to admit I'm glad I'm not off to an international airport this morning. The lines look staggering and the new regulations mean giving up one's lipstick, water bottle, iced latte, and carry on cosmetics. I thank God but more importantly Scotland Yard for foiling this attempt. I cringe though how people like Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman are using it to attack those who are against the war in Iraq. I will continue to pray for peace...and for the safety of all of those traveling to Toronto today.
Have a blessed weekend.
Technorati Tags:
AIDS
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Josh Blue -- a note of hope
I watched far more reality tv than you might imagine. Our rule for TV watching for our 13 year old son is that he can watch adult programs if he watches them with a parent and allows us "teachable moments" during the commercials to talk about our values about what we've seen.He likes "Last Comic Standing", a show replete with teachable moments. Many of the comedian contestants did very adult, racy humor that frankly shocked even me at times. But one comedian never did, and last night he won.
His name is Josh Blue for those of you who aren't TV watchers. He is 27 and has cerebral palsy. He is wickedly funny and original, and incorporates his disability into his act. My son and I thought he would win the competion from the beginning of the season. I don't think he once told what he himself called a "genital joke."
I found his winning a hopeful sign about America growing up...growing up about people with disabilities and growing up that humor doesn't need to be about sex or body parts. Yes, we had a few teachable moments last night -- but we also laughed together.
PS This seemed like a good time to promote my sister's very funny blog about knitting. She can be read at http://knitandplenty.typepad.com If you knit or love a knitter, I think you'll enjoy it.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Get Involved
I'm proud to be from Connecticut this morning. We sent a message well beyond our borders yesterday to politicans who support the war in Iraq. It felt good to vote. Apparently it was the highest turnout ever in a primary.
There are very definite rules about clergy advocating one candidate over another. And I won't do that. The message I want to get out though is that our votes can make a difference. When it comes to sexual justice issues like abortion, contraception, marriage equality, sex education, and so on, who is in office on the federal, state, and local difference makes a difference.
The elections are less than three months away. I hope you will get involved in working for pro-choice, pro-equality candidates at every level.
There are very definite rules about clergy advocating one candidate over another. And I won't do that. The message I want to get out though is that our votes can make a difference. When it comes to sexual justice issues like abortion, contraception, marriage equality, sex education, and so on, who is in office on the federal, state, and local difference makes a difference.
The elections are less than three months away. I hope you will get involved in working for pro-choice, pro-equality candidates at every level.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Maybe if my mother had raised me differently
I want you to imagine for a minute a poll that asked the American public this after left handedness: Do you think it is something people are born with, linked to upbringing, or just how some prefer to write?
Surely we would think such questions absurd, despite the fact that for many centuries people thought left handed people were immoral, stupid, or even evil. (In the interest of full disclosure, I am left handed.)
Well, that's the basic question the Pew Research Center asked in July about homosexuality. They found that 36% of Americans think that homosexuality is innate (up 6% since 2003), 13% think it is linked to upbringing, and 38% say it's "just how some prefer to live." Now, the good news is that there have been significant increases in the view that homosexuality is innate among college graduates, liberals, mainline Protestants, and those who seldom or never attend church.
But, am I the only one who finds it offensive that questions of science are being put to public polls? There is a great deal of science about what causes each of us to have a particular sexual orientation, and although some of the prenatal and genetic factors are still being understood, surely we know that it's not upbringing nor is it a choice. I always ask people who advance the choice argument "When did you first know that you were heterosexual? Was it a choice you made?"
There is a lot of education to be done. I'm pleased to tell you that we have received a grant from the Carpenter Foundation to begin the development of a Study Note on sexual difference, which will help congregations and clergy address both the science of sexual orientation and a theological framework on sexual difference. We hope it will be available by late spring 2007.
Technorati Tags:
sexual orientation
Causes of homosexuality
Morality of Abortion
Yesterday, I wrote about a new Pew study on public opinions on abortion, homosexuality, and stem cell research, and I recommended reading it to you.
But, I remain troubled by the way certain items were worded in their study and the report. They talk for example about "gay marriage" and "gay adoption" rather than marriage equality and adoption by same sex parents. I don't believe that sexual orientation should be used as an adjective -- I an not in a "straight marriage" and I don't believe that there is such a thing as "straight adoption." How we talk about an issue helps define it...one wonders if answers would be different if instead of asking "do you oppose or favor gay marriage" Pew had asked "do you favor or oppose allowing same sex couples equal rights to marriage?"
But, it is their question on the morality of abortion that really concerns me. Pew asked: "Is abortion morally wrong? In nearly all circumstances? In some circumstances? Not a moral issue? Don't know." Huh? How is that a neutral way of posing this question? How would I a pro-choice faith leader have answered that question?
Of course abortion is a moral issue. And yes, in some circumstances (like sex selection of the fetus or after viability) I would believe that it was morally wrong. 49% of people chose that option when presented with the four possible responses. But, I also believe that most women make moral decisions about abortions when deciding that they can't carry a pregnancy to term in their own individual circumstances. Had I been polled, the researchers would have concluded that I belonged in the group that thinks abortion is morally wrong. They would have been wrong.
Next time, maybe Pew can ask "Is Abortion A Moral Decision?" without biasing the answers.
But, I remain troubled by the way certain items were worded in their study and the report. They talk for example about "gay marriage" and "gay adoption" rather than marriage equality and adoption by same sex parents. I don't believe that sexual orientation should be used as an adjective -- I an not in a "straight marriage" and I don't believe that there is such a thing as "straight adoption." How we talk about an issue helps define it...one wonders if answers would be different if instead of asking "do you oppose or favor gay marriage" Pew had asked "do you favor or oppose allowing same sex couples equal rights to marriage?"
But, it is their question on the morality of abortion that really concerns me. Pew asked: "Is abortion morally wrong? In nearly all circumstances? In some circumstances? Not a moral issue? Don't know." Huh? How is that a neutral way of posing this question? How would I a pro-choice faith leader have answered that question?
Of course abortion is a moral issue. And yes, in some circumstances (like sex selection of the fetus or after viability) I would believe that it was morally wrong. 49% of people chose that option when presented with the four possible responses. But, I also believe that most women make moral decisions about abortions when deciding that they can't carry a pregnancy to term in their own individual circumstances. Had I been polled, the researchers would have concluded that I belonged in the group that thinks abortion is morally wrong. They would have been wrong.
Next time, maybe Pew can ask "Is Abortion A Moral Decision?" without biasing the answers.
Monday, August 07, 2006
Public Attitudes on Abortion, Same Sex Marriage, Stem Cell Research
I read a new report by The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press this weekend on abortion, same sex marriage, and stem cell research that concluded that "despite talk of culture wars...there has been no polarization of the public into liberal and conservative camps."
They found:
56% oppose marriage for gays and lesbians, but 54% now support civil unions.
51% people that abortion should be generally available or allowed with more limits.
56% support stem cell research using embryos.
These aren't exactly a public mandate for sexual and reproductive rights. On the positive side, Americans are becoming more supportive of civil unions, with more than half of people aged 18 - 29 favoring same sex marriage. Conversely, baby boomers are more supportive of legal abortion than younger ones, with only 25% of people 18 - 29 saying that abortion should be generally available. It makes me worried about the future of reproductive rights.
Not surprisingly religious background makes a difference. A majority of mainline Protestants are more liberal on these issues than white evangelicals and black Protestants. For example, 71% of mainline Protestants are supportive of abortion in at least some circumstances compared to only 23% of evangelicals, 36% of black Protestants, and 44% of Catholics.
My take away message? We're not there yet. The need to talk not only about the public health and civil liberties issues is acute; more importantly though religious leaders need to talk about the moral framework for these issues. If you're not familiar with our "Open Letters to Religious Leaders" on marriage equality and abortion, visit our web site.
I'll blog about two specific questions in this poll that that particularly trouble me later on this week.
They found:
56% oppose marriage for gays and lesbians, but 54% now support civil unions.
51% people that abortion should be generally available or allowed with more limits.
56% support stem cell research using embryos.
These aren't exactly a public mandate for sexual and reproductive rights. On the positive side, Americans are becoming more supportive of civil unions, with more than half of people aged 18 - 29 favoring same sex marriage. Conversely, baby boomers are more supportive of legal abortion than younger ones, with only 25% of people 18 - 29 saying that abortion should be generally available. It makes me worried about the future of reproductive rights.
Not surprisingly religious background makes a difference. A majority of mainline Protestants are more liberal on these issues than white evangelicals and black Protestants. For example, 71% of mainline Protestants are supportive of abortion in at least some circumstances compared to only 23% of evangelicals, 36% of black Protestants, and 44% of Catholics.
My take away message? We're not there yet. The need to talk not only about the public health and civil liberties issues is acute; more importantly though religious leaders need to talk about the moral framework for these issues. If you're not familiar with our "Open Letters to Religious Leaders" on marriage equality and abortion, visit our web site.
I'll blog about two specific questions in this poll that that particularly trouble me later on this week.
Friday, August 04, 2006
My Hundredth Blog Post
I was going to write this morning about the new report from the Guttmacher Institute that the decades long decine in the U.S. abortion rate was coming to an end and the moral imperative of assuring that all women have access to contraception, sexuality information and education, and abortion services.
But, when I opened my blog this morning, I saw that this is my 100th blog post! In the blogsphere, isn't that a cause for a celebration or a party?
I love writing my blog, except on those days where I can't think about what to write about. I love that it offers me a virtual pulpit to comment about what's going on in the world about sexuality and religion without needing to find a media outlet who might be interested. I love that more than 250 of you have become regular readers, and that the blog has generated speaking engagements, media requests, and even two donations to the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing. I love hearing from readers about what they find useful --more importantly, hopeful.
So, on this blog milestone, may I offer you my prayers and wishes that in your own life you celebrate the connection between your sexuality and your spirituality with joy, holiness, and integrity.
Stay cool this summer weekend.
Rev. Debra
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
NPR, Adolescents and the Media
NPR has been running a program all week on the media's influence on children and teenagers. I'm particularly interested in it because as I've told you before I'm writing my third parenting book this summer.
Children today have access to more media than ever before, although the actual number of hours they consume it hasn't increased dramatically. Many of today's parents grew up with one television in the family room that showed three to six channels; today's child and teen is likely to be in a home with more than three televisions, including one in their bedroom, which have dozens of channels, as well as computers, cell phones, video consoles, MP 3 players, video and dvd players, and so on.
I've learned in my talks to parents around the country that parents often feel out of control, and so I was delighted to be asked by NPR's Mark Silver to do an online Q&A about parents, their children, and the media. He did a great job -- it includes such topics as R rated movies, violent video games, and viewing sexual IM exchanges, including how to use my three part process to talk to your teen about oral sex. You can't get a much better pulpit that National Public Radio; I'm grateful for the opportunity.
The Dixie Chicks
We saw the Dixie Chicks last night at Madison Square Garden. They are terrific performers and put on a great concert.
The Garden was nearly filled. The audience was multicultural and intergenerational. I had thought we might be the oldest people there, but the audience ranged from seven to eighty. I talked with a seven-year-old girl in line who were there with her father. I asked her who's idea the concert was; she smiled and said, "My dad's. He rocks." Several people held signs that said, "I'm Gay, but I love chicks."
Their new single "I'm not ready to be nice", a response to the response about their comments about the Iraq War resonated with the audience. During "Mad as Hell", people held up signs that said "Thank You." My personal new favorite is "Lullaby"; it's a song to their seven children, but to this minister's ears, it would be a wonderful song for weddings.
For a few hours last night, my world felt hopeful and unified. If only the real world was.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Teens and the FDA
Today is my birthday. It's also the anniversary of my 31st year working in the sexual and reproductive health field. You can do the math.
I love my life and feel very grateful for my family, my friends, and my ministry. But, it's hard not to be a little discomforted by the number today.
But, I'm also thinking about age this morning as I read that the Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that it is ready to reconsider its long delayed action on over-the-counter emergency contraception. Long overdue, it's hard not to be cynical that this was announced the day before hearings on a new FDA commissioner.
But, what most struck me is that the FDA told the manufacturer that the drug can't be available over the counter to young women 18 and younger. Coming on the heels of last week's Senate vote on transporting teens for abortions , it's another blow to the ability of sexually active young women to protect themselves. It's a bow to conservative groups who incorrectly continue to assert that availability of contraception causes young women to have sex. That's a little like saying that because I have an umbrella in my car, I'm going to drive some place where it's raining. I can honestly say that I've never met a teenager who is having sex in order to use a contraceptive.
I'm glad I'm not a teenager today -- or even in need of contraception anymore -- but I am a parent, an aunt, a friend, and a minister to many young people. I know that teenagers need help in learning how to make healthy, ethical, moral decisons about their sexuality, but I also know that many young people aged 18 and younger are sexually active. According to recent studies, 6 in 10 teenagers have had sexual intercourse by senior year. It is immoral to me to withold contraception from young people because it makes us uncomfortable that they are having sex.
That's why I am so glad that the Religious Institute has recently received funding from the Moriah Foundation to develop a new "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Adolescent Sexuality." It will join our series of theological frameworks on abortion, sexuality education and marriage equality. Stay tuned.
I love my life and feel very grateful for my family, my friends, and my ministry. But, it's hard not to be a little discomforted by the number today.
But, I'm also thinking about age this morning as I read that the Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that it is ready to reconsider its long delayed action on over-the-counter emergency contraception. Long overdue, it's hard not to be cynical that this was announced the day before hearings on a new FDA commissioner.
But, what most struck me is that the FDA told the manufacturer that the drug can't be available over the counter to young women 18 and younger. Coming on the heels of last week's Senate vote on transporting teens for abortions , it's another blow to the ability of sexually active young women to protect themselves. It's a bow to conservative groups who incorrectly continue to assert that availability of contraception causes young women to have sex. That's a little like saying that because I have an umbrella in my car, I'm going to drive some place where it's raining. I can honestly say that I've never met a teenager who is having sex in order to use a contraceptive.
I'm glad I'm not a teenager today -- or even in need of contraception anymore -- but I am a parent, an aunt, a friend, and a minister to many young people. I know that teenagers need help in learning how to make healthy, ethical, moral decisons about their sexuality, but I also know that many young people aged 18 and younger are sexually active. According to recent studies, 6 in 10 teenagers have had sexual intercourse by senior year. It is immoral to me to withold contraception from young people because it makes us uncomfortable that they are having sex.
That's why I am so glad that the Religious Institute has recently received funding from the Moriah Foundation to develop a new "Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Adolescent Sexuality." It will join our series of theological frameworks on abortion, sexuality education and marriage equality. Stay tuned.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Blessings on Your Ordination, Catholic Women Priests Part 2
My ordination in May 2003 was literally one of the best nights of my life. Surrounded by almost 300 of my family, friends, colleagues, and congregants, I felt a sense of joy, completion, blessing, and God's grace at the moment of ordination that was quite unlike any other experience in my life. When I left the sanctuary that evening for the first time as "the Reverend Debra Haffner", I quite unexpectedly began to sob deeply, filled with both joy and trembling about where this path would take me.
I can't help but wonder what the twelve women in Pittsburgh must be feeling this morning. At 3 p.m. today they will be board a boat in Pittsburgh for a floating ordination ceremony by Roman Catholic Women Priests. Five such ordination ceremonies have previously taken place in Europe and Canada; some of these women priests have been excommunicated. The Pittsburgh diocese has decried the ordination, saying that they "undermine the unity of the church."
I wonder whether the Pittsburgh diocese had anything to say about how the sex abuse scandal among male Roman Catholic priests undermined the unity of the church.
The fact is that a majority of American's Roman Catholics support the ordination of women, just like a majority support contraception and abortion. And the Roman Catholic church is desperate for clergy; the number of priests has been declining for the past forty years. Ironically the online story from the Washington Post that I read about today's ordinations, featured an ad for Vocations Placement, asking people to take a vocational test to see if they are "called to be a Catholic monk, nun, or priest."
My thoughts and prayers will be with these women at 3 p.m. today. They are fulfilling their calling and they are challenging the very church that they love to include them and their gifts fully. I hope today will be one of the best days of their lives.
Technorati Tags:
women priests
Roman Catholics and Women
I can't help but wonder what the twelve women in Pittsburgh must be feeling this morning. At 3 p.m. today they will be board a boat in Pittsburgh for a floating ordination ceremony by Roman Catholic Women Priests. Five such ordination ceremonies have previously taken place in Europe and Canada; some of these women priests have been excommunicated. The Pittsburgh diocese has decried the ordination, saying that they "undermine the unity of the church."
I wonder whether the Pittsburgh diocese had anything to say about how the sex abuse scandal among male Roman Catholic priests undermined the unity of the church.
The fact is that a majority of American's Roman Catholics support the ordination of women, just like a majority support contraception and abortion. And the Roman Catholic church is desperate for clergy; the number of priests has been declining for the past forty years. Ironically the online story from the Washington Post that I read about today's ordinations, featured an ad for Vocations Placement, asking people to take a vocational test to see if they are "called to be a Catholic monk, nun, or priest."
My thoughts and prayers will be with these women at 3 p.m. today. They are fulfilling their calling and they are challenging the very church that they love to include them and their gifts fully. I hope today will be one of the best days of their lives.
Technorati Tags:
women priests
Roman Catholics and Women
Friday, July 28, 2006
Roman Catholic Women Priests?
To most of us, this picture hardly looks like a radical act. Women priests bestowing blessings. But these are Roman Catholic women who have been ordained without the sanction of Rome.
I've been in Boston for the past few days, visiting my daughter who is interning for the Boston Women's Health Collective. The front page of the metro section of the Boston Globe this morning features the story of Jean Marie Marchant, who resigned from her position in the Archdiocese of Boston, "because she had secretly participated in a ceremony last year in which she says she was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest." This coming Monday, in Pittsburgh, another 12 women are set to be ordained by Roman Catholic Womenpriests.
My heart and prayers go out to these women -- called to the ministry in the denomination they love that refuses to recognize their gifts or authority. It makes me proud to be part of a movement calling for full inclusion of women in all aspects of religious life, and part of a denomination where more than half of the ordained clergy are women. Today's article reminded me not to take that for granted.
Have a blessed weekend.
Rev. Debra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
