Quote of the Day: Kevin Rudd

Former Prime Minister of Australia evolves, and now supports marriage equality.  And places this firmly in the context of religious freedom.  (My emphasis)

[U]nder no circumstances should marriage equality legislation place any legal requirement on the church or other religious institutions to conduct same sex marriages. The churches should be explicitly exempt. If we truly believe in a separation of church and state, then the church must be absolutely free to conduct marriage ceremonies between a man and a woman only, given the nature of their current established theological and doctrinal positions on the matter. This should be exclusively a matter for the church, the mosque and the synagogue. It is, however, a different matter for a secular state. The Church must be free to perform marriages for Christian heterosexual couples without any threat of interference from the state. Just as the state should be free to perform marriage services for both heterosexual and same sex couples, and whether these couples are of a religious faith or no religious faith.

Bombing in Oslo

BP and I have traveled several times to Oslo, where we have several friends and colleagues.  It's a lovely city, and we are very fond of Norway and the Norwegians.   Sensible people, family oriented, beautiful country.  How awful to hear that the peaceful streets of Oslo were shattered by violence, which spilled over into a youth camp.  The dead are still being counted.  BP and I have not yet heard from our friends, but hope and pray that they were at work, and  had no reason to be near the government buildings.

I mean, NORWAY?  Who attacks Norway?

Photo by IT, from the Vigeland sculpture park in Oslo

The "Christian" link to the tragedy in Ivory Coast

You may not have paid much attention to what's going on in Ivory Coast. Last year, there was a presidential election, and Alassane Ouattara defeated Laurent Gbagbo.

But Gbagbo refused to concede, using the security forces to fight. The international community, including the US and the UN, has called for him to step down, and he has been accused of war crimes.

The crisis has escalated since the end of February 2011, with clashes between armed forces loyal to Gbagbo and Ouattara in the western and central regions of the country, as well as in Abidjan, the financial capital. Armed combatants have committed war crimes, including executions of detainees and targeted killings of civilians and destruction of their property, Human Rights Watch said.

But despite that, it seems that the Republican right disagrees.Think Progress tells us:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) took to the Senate floor yesterday to give a lengthy speech in defense of incumbent Gbagbo and his powerful wife, whom Inhofe called “good friends.” Inhofe painted a picture of the conflict in polar opposition to the facts on the ground….

Why would Inhofe defend a war criminal tyrant in contradiction to every international human rights organization and his own government?

Well, because Gbagbo is a Christian, and Ouattara is a Muslim, and even the most bloodthirsty Christian is better than a Muslim. And because Inhofe is a member of the Fellowship. You remember the Fellowship, don't you? They were exposed in a book by Jeff Sharlett as a theocratic threat to American democracy. They run the infamous C street house in Washington DC where conservative CHristian lawmakers including Inhofe often reside. And they are very, very active in exporting conservative Christian culture wars to Africa, including the infamous Uganda "kill the gays" bill. (More in this report from Public Eye (PDF)).

Now, can you imagine the outrage if a Democratic Senator directly contravened his government's overseas policy to support a dictator who ignores democratic rule? And the real insult is, you're paying for it! According to Salon,, Inhofe and Gbagbo are both linked to The Fellowship, and moreover,

Inhofe has been traveling to Africa regularly since the late 1990s and, while the trips are paid for by the taxpayer and typically involve some official business, the senator also engages in missionary work.

And it's not just Inhofe.

"Everybody says this man is an evil thug who needs to go," said [Pat] Robertson introducing one segment in January. "That's not true. He's a Christian, he’s a nice person, and he's run a fairly clean operation in the Ivory Coast." Robertson later pointedly noted that the U.N. is "controlled so much by Muslim countries."

Think Progress tells us how the far right media is supporting this culture war:

…Last night, Fox News Host Glenn Beck defended “the current Christian president” Gbagbo, downplaying the atrocities he has committed, and excusing his refusal to leave office by saying that “he fears that [Ouattara] is going to round up all of [his] supporters and kill them all.” Beck also attacked President Obama for supporting Ouattara, noting the challenger is “a Muslim.”

And today, Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, who has repeatedly defended the dictator, said that Gbagbo’s impending departure is a “great tragedy” because the country is now “going to be into the hands of Muslims.”

While it seems clear now that both sides in the Ivory Coast have some blood on their hands, according to human rights monitors, Gbagbo has much much more, and is clearly violating the will of his people. But to Inhofe, Beck, and Robertson, it seems this doesn’t really matter, as long as he’s not Muslim.

Although it was reported that Gbagbo was getting ready to leave, now it appears he has hunkered down. The Christianist crusade against Islam is being fought in the blood of Ivoirians. And I find it very difficult to find anything "Christian" about it.

Update 4/11/11Mr Gbagbo has been captured.

UN votes to condemn gay executions

From UN Ambassador Susan Rice (my emphases)

Today, the United Nations General Assembly has sent a clear and resounding message that justice and human rights apply to all individuals regardless of their sexual orientation.

Several weeks ago, on November 16, the General Assembly’s Third Committee voted by a narrow margin to eliminate any mention of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals from a resolution condemning extrajudicial killing of vulnerable people around the world. The United States fought hard for that reference when it came to a Committee vote, and we lost. As I have said before, I was incensed by that vote.

In the weeks following that setback, the United States was proud to introduce an amendment to restore this critical language to the biennial resolution on Extrajudicial, Summary, and Arbitrary Execution before it came for a final vote of the full UN General Assembly. On December 10, at an event marking Human Rights Day, I announced our effort and said, “We’re going to stand firm on this basic principle, and we intend to win.”

The U.S built a broad coalition of partners and together we galvanized member states to support this effort – and to win.

Today, the General Assembly voted by a significant margin, 93 to 55, to approve the U.S.-led amendment and condemn the extrajudicial killing of people around the world due to their sexual orientation.

The voices of civil society and human rights defenders around the world have been heard today, and for that my delegation is especially proud. Less than two weeks after we celebrated the 62nd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, today’s vote ensures that the principles enshrined in that Declaration are put into practice – and indeed live on – in the 21st Century.

That's good news. But let's not forget that being gay is a capital crime in many countries around the world, particularly in the third world. A sobering list of punishments can be found at the website Foreign Policy. And this report from NPR talks about how the violence against LGBT people in Uganda is traceable directly to American evangelicals.

The party of "No" and the politics of nuclear destruction

By now you are no doubt well aware that the Republicans have decided that their most important goal is to destroy the Obama presidency. They have a scorched earth policy that doesn't care about any collateral damage.

They oppose tax cuts for the middle class unless these include tax cuts for the wealthy.

They oppose the extension of benefits to jobless people, which would stimulate economic activity, in favor of tax cuts to the wealthy, which does not.

They lie, with success, about their own economic history of driving the country into debt to serve their corporate masters.

When it comes to foreign policy, they actively undermine the president (of course when a Democrat did it, they called it treason)

And in a final nihilist gesture, they have decided that they will sabotage the nuclear treaty with Russia, called New Start. Despite the fact that the military , diplomatic, and intelligence services are all UNIFORMLY in favor of this treaty, the Republicans in the Senate, particularly Sen Jon Kyl (R, AZ) will kill it.

if it fails, the consequences will be severe. U.S.-Russian relations will deteriorate dramatically; inspection of Russian long-range nuclear bases will be suspended indefinitely; and American credibility on the global stage will take a painful hit -- all because one right-wing Arizonan hates the president a little too much.

We are, by the way, talking about a treaty endorsed by six former secretaries of state and five former secretaries of defense from both parties; the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; seven former Strategic Command chiefs; national security advisers from both parties, and nearly all former commanders of U.S. nuclear forces.

I find it unfathomable how the Republicans can do this. They have no pretense about governing, no care for the country. They aren't Americans. They are Republicans first and foremost.

As Steve Benen writes,

There should be risks, but they don't really exist. Let me put this plainly: They. Don't. Care. They disregard the pleas of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and listen to the confused misjudgments of a buffoon from Arizona. They assume the public isn't paying attention, so there won't be political consequences. They expect this to hurt the foreign policy power of the United States, but they're fine with that since there's a Democratic president.

….countries around the globe will see this as a reminder that negotiating with the United States is pointless, since the country is burdened with a Republican Party that puts partisan hatred above the country's interests. It hurts American credibility in ways that are hard to even gauge.

That's the Republican party that now rules in Washington. I would like to hope that this is the nadir but I fear it is just the beginning of a disastrous and potentially irreversible collapse of our political system.

American Family Values: missing in action

In the US, the term "family values" is a code for anti-gay, anti-women conservative politics. Europeans, on the other hand, take the term at face value. And what's apparent, talking to them, is that as far as family values go, as a society pretty much We Ain't Got Any.

I spent a few days with an old friend, B., and her family in Oslo, Norway. She and her husband are both technical professionals a few years younger than I am. They live in a pleasant neighborhood of the city, which to me was unusual for the number of children's voices I heard, compared to my similar neighborhood back in the US. Like many working parents in the US, B. and her husband trade off who takes and who collects their two children to and from school, and coordinate with other parents for delivery to after school activities.

What's notable however is the difference in the workplace expectations. They aren't racing frazzled back to work, or panicking that they are late in the morning, despite the relatively short hours of elementary school education. B can take the time to walk or cycle to and from work, rather than have to drive.

B's lab is pretty quiet in the afternoon. In contrast to American PhD students and postdocs, who are majority childless, the Norwegians are able to have families at that age, and aren't expected to work to all hours. So many of them leave early to collect their children. Generous, guaranteed maternity leave of a year, shared between the mother and father, means they aren't trying to find expensive day care for an infant. And of course, a national health care system makes sure that there is good pre-natal, maternity and child health care.

Oh, they are still getting plenty done, but they aren't killing themselves while doing it. Their society actually believes there is some value in raising a child, not just in making a buck--or a kroner, as the case may be.

Notably, there is also a less stressed out, over-scheduled childhood. Parents are attentive, of course, but kids are able to walk to neighborhood schools from a fairly young age. Judging by B's neighborhood, the kids all played outside till around 5 or so, then went in for an early dinner with the family--I'm not seeing this as a fast-food nation. The Norwegians are also fanatically fitness oriented; they look forward to the winter snow and ski season, and you don't see obese Norwegians either adult or child.

Yup, those are some dangerous family values all right! Healthy kids, lots of family time, social policies that encourage child-bearing.... all that and gender-neutral marriage equality as well.

Oh, of course they pay high taxes for this--much higher than the US would tolerate. But at another level, they are putting their money where their mouth is. And they have weathered the recession far better than we have, especially with regards to jobs. Meanwhile, I read that in the US, people are working even longer hours, and are afraid to take even earned vacation time, for fear of job security, or of the amount of work that will await them upon their return given that employers are demanding more and more of their employees. B. was horrified when I told her about maternity leave and child care in the US.

"Family values" advocates in the US rail on abortion and gay marriage, yet seem completely unperturbed by the absence of decent maternity leave or child care, or the numbers of children living in poverty or with hunger, the disaster that is our educational system, and the increasing incompatibility of family time and jobs. But really, they've shown they don't give a damn about children--or families.

Picture from here

The same love, the same rights, with the same names

From Glenn Greenwald:

The contrast with the U.S. is quite instructive and depressing. Not only is the U.S. not close to nationally recognizing same-sex marriage, but we have a law -- the Defense of Marriage Act -- that explicitly bars the granting of any and all federal spousal rights whatsoever (including immigration rights) to same-sex couples. Despite the election of a President who campaigned on a pledge to overturn that law, and overwhelming Democratic control of Congress, repeal of that law isn't even on the table. ....

It's worthwhile now and then to take stock of the vast disparity between how we like to think of ourselves and reality. When a country with Argentina's history and background becomes but the latest country to legally recognize same-sex marriage -- largely as the result of a population which demanded it -- that disparity becomes quite clear.

UK to allow Civil Partnerships in Church.

The United Kingdom provides "civil partnerships" to same sex couples that provide most of the rights of marriage, save the name. And one other thing: they are not allowed to be held in churches.

In part, this reflects the fact that the Church of England (CoE, cousin of our Episcopal Church) is an established church: that is, a state religion. And the CofE hasn't really grappled with the gay issue, preferring to keep its numerous homos deep in the closet. (The problem with the Americans isn't that they ordained a gay bishop. It's that they ordained an HONEST gay bishop. But I digress....)

Because it is Established, the CofE has voting rights in the House of Lords, where the Bishops have been vigorously voting against bills that block anti-gay discriminatory hiring. And it is thanks to those bishops that Civil Partnerships cannot by law be conducted in a church.

The latest is a spirited argument (conducted as so many good British arguments are, in the letters to the Times) pointing out that several faith groups have no problem with effectively marrying gay people, and the current prohibition inhibits THEIR religious freedom.This was signed by members of many different faiths, including a number of CoE bishops.

And Writing in the Guardian, the retired Bp of Oxford says,

Some Church of England bishops, who were hardly enthusiastic about civil partnerships in the first place, fear that if this is allowed it would blur the distinction them and marriage. But this is a fundamental issue of religious freedom. On what grounds can any body claim religious freedom for itself but deny it to others? The bishops may or may not approve of what Quakers, Liberal Jews and Unitarians want, but that is beside the point. What these bodies want would harm no one, and it accords with their deepest religious convictions. Religious freedom is indivisible.

Would that the CofE, the Roman Catholics, or the Mormons understand this: their freedom does not, and cannot, depend on denying freedom to someone else.

And the wide provision of legal protections is having an effect in the UK:

Fewer than a third of the population believe homosexuality is wrong, compared with two thirds in 1980s, according to the latest survey of British Social Attitudes.....

Almost two thirds (61 per cent) want gay couples to be able to marry, just like the rest of the population, not just have civil partnerships, while 68 per cent of the public back “full equal rights” for gay men and lesbians, suggesting that the Church, which opposes the ordination of gay priests, is out of touch with public opinion.

Now, the House of Lords has passed the bill allowing civil partnerships to be held in churches. Reported in the London Times:

The move will result in an amendment to the Equalities Bill which would allow, though not compel, religious organisations to host civil partnerships. Religious language would also be permitted within the ceremonies.

So, rather than the government explicitly excluding religion from gay couples, they will be allowed, if their church agrees, to invite God to the wedding.

Portugal to legalize same sex marriage

From the AFP:

LISBON (AFP) – Catholic Portugal, traditionally one of Europe's most socially conservative countries, is expected to approve the legalisation of gay marriage on Friday with a minimum of fuss.

With the governing Socialists and other left-wing parties enjoying a strong majority, the new law is likely to sail through the first reading debate and gain final approval before a visit by Pope Benedict XVI, due in Portugal in May.
....

If the gay marriage proposals do pass through parliament, they will the have to go through a parliamentary commission before coming back for the final approval.

According to media reports, both the government and the Catholic Church wants the gay marriage issue to be resolved before the visit of the pope, scheduled for May 11-14.

Thanks to Ann for reminding me of this. I guess this map needs to be updated! (click for a closer view)


From Worldfocus

The Anglican Communion, East

BP and I are on the road again, and thanks to the wonders of Google, were able to find a parish for her to visit. The church is called (I kid you not) St Alban's-by-St-Andrew's, as it resides right next door to the small Cathedral of St Andrew. It's a smallish building, very strikingly built with a traditional wooden interior and cross beams. Also quite a diverse community; the ushers were a middle-aged Japanese lady and a young African man. A good turn out on a rainy Sunday.

The congregation sang robustly and were very friendly at coffee, willing to tell the visitors sites to see and places to go. The members are truly far flung in origin, with a variety of accents delighting the ear, including Australian, British, American, and Japanese-inflected English. You see, St Alban's is the English speaking Anglican congregation in Tokyo, a member of the Nippon Sei Ko Kai (Anglican Episcopal Church in Japan), where your fearless correspondent is spending a week at a conference, and the members are a range of expats and locals. Lots of kids running about too.

As you would expect, the liturgy was pretty familiar, although some of the words differ. You'd have to ask an expert to detail the differences. A nice touch was at the end, when Fr Randall asked the visitors to introduce themselves and their home parish. I nudged BP who stood up and claimed St Paul's Cathedral, San Diego. There were visitors from Florida and England as well. We took along some friends from the conference who also appeared to enjoy this cross-cultural slice, before we spent the afternoon wandering rainy Tokyo and exploring her shrines and side streets.

That was yesterday for me, though still today for you. It's Monday here and I'm off on the day's activities. I've left a couple of posts in the queue and will be back to regularly blogging next week.