From McKlatchy:
WASHINGTON — The Army general who led the investigation into prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison accused the Bush administration Wednesday of committing "war crimes" and called for those responsible to be held to account.
The remarks by Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, who's now retired, came in a new report that found that U.S. personnel tortured and abused detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, using beatings, electrical shocks, sexual humiliation and other cruel practices.
"After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes," Taguba wrote. "The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Are you listening, Democrats? I want trials for the members of the Bush maladministration. I want them to have the trials that they've refused to give the detainees. I want them to be held accountable.
The group Physicians for Human Rights, which compiled the new report, described it as the most in-depth medical and psychological examination of former detainees to date.
Doctors and mental health experts examined 11 detainees held for long periods in the prison system that President Bush established after the 9-11 terrorist attacks. All of them eventually were released without charges.
The doctors and experts determined that the men had been subject to cruelties that ranged from isolation, sleep deprivation and hooding to electric shocks, beating and, in one case, being forced to drink urine.
Bush has said repeatedly that the United States doesn't condone torture.
(My emphasis in the quotes)
This is sickening. Evidence that the decision to use "enhanced interrogation" methods was authorized at the highest levels grows ever stronger with new investigations and revelations. Those who were released must have been innocent, right? The maladministration would not let terrorists go free, would they? Is this the kind of country we want to be?
"The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."
Yes, Gen. Taguba, and thank you.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Bishop of London Responds
From The Lead at the Episcopal Cafè.
Below is the text of the letter from Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, to Dudley Martin in response to his blessing of the civil partnership of Peter Cowell and David Lord:
18th June 2008
The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley,
St Bartholomew the Great Parish Office,
6 Kinghorn Street,
London,
EC1A 7HW.
Dear Martin,
You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.
I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.
You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.
At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.
The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.
The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.
Yours faithfully.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
Below is the text of the letter from Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, to Dudley Martin in response to his blessing of the civil partnership of Peter Cowell and David Lord:
18th June 2008
The Reverend Dr Martin Dudley,
St Bartholomew the Great Parish Office,
6 Kinghorn Street,
London,
EC1A 7HW.
Dear Martin,
You have sought to justify your actions to the BBC and in various newspapers but have failed more than two weeks after the service to communicate with me.
I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your Bishop.
You describe the result as “familiar words reordered and reconfigured carrying new meanings.” I note that the order of service, which I have now received, includes the phrase “With this ring I thee bind, with my body I thee worship”.
At first sight this seems to break the House of Bishops Guidelines which as I explained in my letter of December 6th 2005 apply the traditional teaching of the Church of England to the new circumstances created by the enactment of Civil Partnerships.
The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.
The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.
Yours faithfully.
The Rt Revd & Rt Hon Richard Chartres DD FSA
Thought For The Day - From Giles Fraser
In the beginning of his talk on BBC Radio 4, Fraser lists the purposes of marriage in the liturgy from the 17th century Book of Common Prayer.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
The second and third purposes seem to present no barrier to same-sex marriages. Fraser follows with commentary on the first purpose of marriage - procreation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rightly recognised that celibacy is a vocation to which many gay people are simply not called. Which is why, it strikes me, the church ought to be offering gay people a basis for monogamous relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable. So that leaves the whole question of procreation. And clearly a gay couple cannot make babies biologically. But then neither can those who marry much later in life. Many couples, for a whole range of reasons, find they cannot conceive children - or, simply, don't choose to. Is marriage to be denied them? Of course not. For these reasons - and also after contraception became fully accepted in the Church of England - the modern marriage service shifted the emphasis away from procreation. The weight in today's wedding liturgy is on the creation of loving and stable relationships. For me, this is something in which gay Christians have a perfect right to participate. I know many people of good will are bound to disagree with me on this. But gay marriage isn't about culture wars or church politics; it's fundamentally about one person loving another. The fact that two gay men have proclaimed this love in the presence of God, before friends and family and in the context of prayerful reflection is something I believe the church should welcome. It's not as if there's so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find. Which is why my view is we ought to celebrate real love however and wherever we find it.
In the event that you wonder about my extensive posting on actions and opinions in the Church of England, it is because I have been stung by Archbishop Rowan Williams critical statements about the Episcopal Church going its own way in consecrating Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire. He has singled out the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada for particular criticism. Now that he must deal with similar departures from traditional practices in his home church, I hope that he may cast a more kindly gaze upon the actions of his brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada.
Episcopalians in New Hampshire are left without representation at the Lambeth gathering of the bishops of the Anglican Communion this summer by the non-invitation of Bishop Robinson. Diocesan leaders in New Hampshire sent a letter to Archbishop Williams in protest that Bishop Robinson is barred from the conference. I'd like to have signed the letter in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in New Hampshire, because, as a member of the Episcopal Church, I take his non-invitation somewhat personally.
From BBC Radio 4 via The Lead at the Episcopal Café.
First, It was ordained for the procreation of children
Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication
Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity.
The second and third purposes seem to present no barrier to same-sex marriages. Fraser follows with commentary on the first purpose of marriage - procreation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury himself has rightly recognised that celibacy is a vocation to which many gay people are simply not called. Which is why, it strikes me, the church ought to be offering gay people a basis for monogamous relationships that are permanent, faithful and stable. So that leaves the whole question of procreation. And clearly a gay couple cannot make babies biologically. But then neither can those who marry much later in life. Many couples, for a whole range of reasons, find they cannot conceive children - or, simply, don't choose to. Is marriage to be denied them? Of course not. For these reasons - and also after contraception became fully accepted in the Church of England - the modern marriage service shifted the emphasis away from procreation. The weight in today's wedding liturgy is on the creation of loving and stable relationships. For me, this is something in which gay Christians have a perfect right to participate. I know many people of good will are bound to disagree with me on this. But gay marriage isn't about culture wars or church politics; it's fundamentally about one person loving another. The fact that two gay men have proclaimed this love in the presence of God, before friends and family and in the context of prayerful reflection is something I believe the church should welcome. It's not as if there's so much real love in the world that we can afford to be dismissive of what little we do find. Which is why my view is we ought to celebrate real love however and wherever we find it.
In the event that you wonder about my extensive posting on actions and opinions in the Church of England, it is because I have been stung by Archbishop Rowan Williams critical statements about the Episcopal Church going its own way in consecrating Gene Robinson, a partnered gay man, as Bishop of New Hampshire. He has singled out the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada for particular criticism. Now that he must deal with similar departures from traditional practices in his home church, I hope that he may cast a more kindly gaze upon the actions of his brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada.
Episcopalians in New Hampshire are left without representation at the Lambeth gathering of the bishops of the Anglican Communion this summer by the non-invitation of Bishop Robinson. Diocesan leaders in New Hampshire sent a letter to Archbishop Williams in protest that Bishop Robinson is barred from the conference. I'd like to have signed the letter in solidarity with my brothers and sisters in New Hampshire, because, as a member of the Episcopal Church, I take his non-invitation somewhat personally.
From BBC Radio 4 via The Lead at the Episcopal Café.
I Ask Myself...
From LapinBizarre, who insists, "No subliminal meaning in my sending it to you."
I believe him.
Martin Dudley Explains Why
From the New Statesman:
Robustly heterosexual since early adolescence, unable to see that any love surpasses the love of women, and once branded by the odious Daily Mail as 'Dud the Stud', I may seem miscast in the role into which I have now been thrust, that of the turbulent rebellious priest who defies bishop and archbishop to bless two gay men, also priests, in their civil partnership.
Dudley speaks of the influence on him of the turmoil of the 1970s and of his studies in theology at King's College in London:
The study of theology at King’s College, London, was rigorous, critical, comprehensive, and above all engaged with a rapidly changing world. As Dean Sydney Evans posed the existential “Who am I?” he taught us not to accept the “I” as a fixed point but a point in motion, always becoming.
Of the Church of England now, Dudley says that it's as though that time never happened. The questioning, exploring, testing the boundaries of the period, all that seems forgotten.
There has been a return to uncritical fundamentalist use of biblical “proof texts”, ripping verses from their theological and literary contexts. There has been a flight to the safety of rigid law and inflexible dogma and a consequent desire to unchurch those who will not conform.
So on a day late in 2007 when my friend and colleague Peter Cowell asked me to bless the civil partnership that he was to contract with David Lord in May this year I was ready to answer “yes”. I did so not to provoke the so-called traditionalists and to deliberately disregard the guidelines published by the English House of Bishops, not to defy the Bishop of London, whose sagacity I respect, or Archbishop Rowan, who I have known and admired for 25 years, but because to respond in any other way would have been a negation of everything I believe, of everything that makes me who I am, as a man and as a priest.
....
On 31 May, my birthday and the feast of the Visitation, when Mary said “My soul doth magnify the Lord”, 300 people gathered in St Bartholomew the Great to celebrate the Eucharist, to witness Peter and David commit themselves to each other in an exclusive loving relationship.
....
I did not seek the role, the interviews, the publicity, but more than thirty years ago I began a journey, a process of becoming, that focuses on Jesus the Christ, not as lawgiver and judge but as the one who loves us and holds us and will not let us go until we know ourselves as loved by him despite our foolishness and imperfections, and because of that, when Peter Cowell asked me, I did not hesitate, not even for a moment to answer “Yes, I will.”
Robustly heterosexual since early adolescence, unable to see that any love surpasses the love of women, and once branded by the odious Daily Mail as 'Dud the Stud', I may seem miscast in the role into which I have now been thrust, that of the turbulent rebellious priest who defies bishop and archbishop to bless two gay men, also priests, in their civil partnership.
Dudley speaks of the influence on him of the turmoil of the 1970s and of his studies in theology at King's College in London:
The study of theology at King’s College, London, was rigorous, critical, comprehensive, and above all engaged with a rapidly changing world. As Dean Sydney Evans posed the existential “Who am I?” he taught us not to accept the “I” as a fixed point but a point in motion, always becoming.
Of the Church of England now, Dudley says that it's as though that time never happened. The questioning, exploring, testing the boundaries of the period, all that seems forgotten.
There has been a return to uncritical fundamentalist use of biblical “proof texts”, ripping verses from their theological and literary contexts. There has been a flight to the safety of rigid law and inflexible dogma and a consequent desire to unchurch those who will not conform.
So on a day late in 2007 when my friend and colleague Peter Cowell asked me to bless the civil partnership that he was to contract with David Lord in May this year I was ready to answer “yes”. I did so not to provoke the so-called traditionalists and to deliberately disregard the guidelines published by the English House of Bishops, not to defy the Bishop of London, whose sagacity I respect, or Archbishop Rowan, who I have known and admired for 25 years, but because to respond in any other way would have been a negation of everything I believe, of everything that makes me who I am, as a man and as a priest.
....
On 31 May, my birthday and the feast of the Visitation, when Mary said “My soul doth magnify the Lord”, 300 people gathered in St Bartholomew the Great to celebrate the Eucharist, to witness Peter and David commit themselves to each other in an exclusive loving relationship.
....
I did not seek the role, the interviews, the publicity, but more than thirty years ago I began a journey, a process of becoming, that focuses on Jesus the Christ, not as lawgiver and judge but as the one who loves us and holds us and will not let us go until we know ourselves as loved by him despite our foolishness and imperfections, and because of that, when Peter Cowell asked me, I did not hesitate, not even for a moment to answer “Yes, I will.”
Japanese Water-Fueled Car
Thanks to Doug, who says we should all buy stock in Dasani. He adds:
Figures -- the Japanese would do this first!
Runs on something the Saudis don't have a whole lot of. Interesting.
Yes, it is.
From Reuters:
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Button Sold At Texas GOP Convention
From Talking Points Memo.
When TPM contacted spokespersons at the GOP, they said that they did not know about the buttons and, had they known, they would not have permitted them to be sold.
Congratulations To Del And Phyllis!
From the New York Times:
In San Francisco, Del Martin, 87, and Phyllis Lyon, 84, longtime gay rights activists, were the first and only couple to be wed here, saying their vows in the office of Mayor Gavin Newsom, before emerging to a throng of reporters and screaming well-wishers.
Ms. Martin and Ms. Lyon, who have been together for more than 50 years, seemed touched, if a little amazed by all the attention.
“When we first got together we weren’t thinking about getting married,” Ms. Lyon said before cutting a wedding cake. “I think it’s a wonderful day.”
Oh, my! Isn't this lovely? It is a wonderful day.
Picture from the San Francisco Chronicle.
UPDATE: Elizabeth Kaeton at Telling Secrets has a wonderful post on Del and Phyllis.
Do You Have What It Takes To Be A Citizen?
Do you have what it takes to become a citizen?
When immigrants want to become Americans, they must take a civics test as part of their naturalization interview before a Citizenship and Immigration Services (INS) officer. The questions are usually selected from a list of 100 sample questions that prospective citizens can look at ahead of the interview (though the examiner is not limited to those questions). Some are easy, some are not. We have picked some of the more difficult ones
NOTES: The INS plans to revise its list of questions in 2008 (a pilot program is using these new questions at selected INS sites). Also, the questions in the test below are as asked on the official United States Immigration and Naturalization Services Web site. Candidates are not given multiple choices in the naturalization interview, which is conducted orally.
Take the test.
I'm not an immigrant, but I took the test anyway. My score - 90%.
85-100%: Welcome to the United States! (And, truth be told, you know more about this great land than most Americans.)
I'm already here, but thanks for the welcome.
Blame or thank Doug.
Monday, June 16, 2008
May I Have A Blessing, Please?
From the Guardian:
A gay priest who angered conservative Christians by exchanging rings and vows with his partner in a church ceremony for his civil partnership in London last month has resigned, it emerged last night.
The Rev Dr David Lord, a New Zealander who tied the knot with English clergyman Peter Cowell on May 31, "felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license", according to a statement released through the Anglican church in New Zealand.
How sad. All the uproar because two men love one another, and made a commitment to each other, and wanted God's blessing on their union.
Much of the anger toward the couple came after details of the service were revealed. Traditionalists were angry that the men were able to enjoy a ceremony almost identical to a traditional church wedding, with readings, hymns, a Eucharist and a version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer's Solemnization of Marriage.
It's mine, mine, mine! You can't have it!
But the Rev Martin Dudley, who led the service, downplayed the event's political significance.
"I am surprised and disappointed by the fuss. It was a joyful, godly occasion. Why turn it into a controversy? It was not a rally or a demonstration," he said.
Exactly. I gather the ceremony took place last month. Why the fuss now? Did the word just get out? This is not the first ceremony of the sort to take place in England. Surely the Archbishop of Canterbury knew that, but now we all know that he faces similar situations in his own country to those in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Next time he feels called to chastise the North American churches, perhaps he will think twice and decide against it. Once again, hypocrisy is brought into the light.
Liberals reacted with disappointment to the news of Lord's resignation. The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, a campaign group working for equal rights for gay Christians, said: "This is disgraceful. It's amazing this church cannot celebrate what little love there is in this world. It was supposed to be the happiest day of their lives and they have been turned into outcasts."
Amazing, indeed! The outcome of this battle for the right to celebrate a loving commitment between two people, no matter their sexual orientation, is already known. It remains to be played out, and unfortunately others will be hurt along the way, but there's no turning back.
Thanks to Ann at Of Course I could Be On Vacation for the link to the Guardian story.
UPDATE: From the Dominion Post via Press.Co. NZ News
A Hamilton priest whose gay wedding ceremony has sparked a row between liberal and conservative wings of the Anglican Church has returned to New Zealand without his partner.
But the couple look set to enjoy a proper honeymoon soon amid speculation that they will be reunited in New Zealand within weeks.
The Rev David Lord was yesterday tending patients at Waikato Hospital, where he works as a doctor.
I hope that they were not driven out of England.
Read the rest. Thanks to Mike in Texas for the tip.
A gay priest who angered conservative Christians by exchanging rings and vows with his partner in a church ceremony for his civil partnership in London last month has resigned, it emerged last night.
The Rev Dr David Lord, a New Zealander who tied the knot with English clergyman Peter Cowell on May 31, "felt it appropriate to lay down his clergy license", according to a statement released through the Anglican church in New Zealand.
How sad. All the uproar because two men love one another, and made a commitment to each other, and wanted God's blessing on their union.
Much of the anger toward the couple came after details of the service were revealed. Traditionalists were angry that the men were able to enjoy a ceremony almost identical to a traditional church wedding, with readings, hymns, a Eucharist and a version of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer's Solemnization of Marriage.
It's mine, mine, mine! You can't have it!
But the Rev Martin Dudley, who led the service, downplayed the event's political significance.
"I am surprised and disappointed by the fuss. It was a joyful, godly occasion. Why turn it into a controversy? It was not a rally or a demonstration," he said.
Exactly. I gather the ceremony took place last month. Why the fuss now? Did the word just get out? This is not the first ceremony of the sort to take place in England. Surely the Archbishop of Canterbury knew that, but now we all know that he faces similar situations in his own country to those in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Next time he feels called to chastise the North American churches, perhaps he will think twice and decide against it. Once again, hypocrisy is brought into the light.
Liberals reacted with disappointment to the news of Lord's resignation. The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, vicar of Putney and president of Inclusive Church, a campaign group working for equal rights for gay Christians, said: "This is disgraceful. It's amazing this church cannot celebrate what little love there is in this world. It was supposed to be the happiest day of their lives and they have been turned into outcasts."
Amazing, indeed! The outcome of this battle for the right to celebrate a loving commitment between two people, no matter their sexual orientation, is already known. It remains to be played out, and unfortunately others will be hurt along the way, but there's no turning back.
Thanks to Ann at Of Course I could Be On Vacation for the link to the Guardian story.
UPDATE: From the Dominion Post via Press.Co. NZ News
A Hamilton priest whose gay wedding ceremony has sparked a row between liberal and conservative wings of the Anglican Church has returned to New Zealand without his partner.
But the couple look set to enjoy a proper honeymoon soon amid speculation that they will be reunited in New Zealand within weeks.
The Rev David Lord was yesterday tending patients at Waikato Hospital, where he works as a doctor.
I hope that they were not driven out of England.
Read the rest. Thanks to Mike in Texas for the tip.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)