GILES FRASER - FAREWELL TO CHURCH TIMES

I HAVE written this column for nine years. It is time for me to hang up my hat. It has been a huge privilege to write in these pages, and I want publicly to thank the work of the editorial team, who have been so supportive of my column.

Partly, this decision has to do with the arrival of a new Archbishop. Justin Welby is a good man, and will, I expect, make a fine leader of the Church. But his moral opposition to homosexuality remains a massive problem for me - as was that of his predecessor. I do not want to spend my time getting angry with him, or continually being ashamed at the Church of which I am, and will always try to remain, a part.

But the C of E is travelling in a different direction now. And there is something spiritually deadening about being in a state of permanent opposition to all of this. In my sermon on Sunday, I preached about the loyalty of Simeon and Anna, arguing that it is more important to say what you are for than what you are against. I need to take my own advice, and find a different space where I feel more comfortable saying what I am for.

I expect we'll continue to hear from Giles in other forums, and for that I'm grateful.  The words in the column that struck me are:

"In my sermon on Sunday, I preached about the loyalty of Simeon and Anna, arguing that it is more important to say what you are for than what you are against.  I need to take my own advice, and find a different space where I feel more comfortable saying what I am for."  

As I think about what I write here on my blog, it seems to me that I write or link to more stories about what I am against than what I'm for, and, like Giles, I don't see  it's a particularly good thing.  What would I write about that I am for, that is positive?  I'm thinking...

In the meantime, I could not resist publishing once again the wonderful cartoon by Susan Russell, which is surely worthy of more than one use.

 

Click on the cartoon for the larger view.

WALKING TO NEW ORLEANS - FATS DOMINO

Friday night with Fats Domino.

IRRESISTIBLE

 

THREE RESTAURANTS

There were three restaurants on the same block. One day one of them put up a large sign that said "The Best Restaurant in the City."

The next day, the largest restaurant on the block put up an even larger sign that said "The Best Restaurant in the World."

On the third day, the smallest restaurant put up a small sign that said "The Best Restaurant on this Block."


Cheers,

Paul (A.)

NOT JUST AN ISSUE, ARCHBISHOP JUSTIN

There you have it. Same-sex marriage is not a particularly controversial issue for the vast majority of the members of the Anglican Communion; their minds are on other things.  Thus the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Church of England must speak against the passage of the bill making its way through Parliament which legalizes same-sex civil marriage in Britain.  I guess there's a kind of logic there, but I can't quite make it out.  Of course, the Church of England is the established church, which complicates the matter in ways I don't fully understand, but I don't see why the opinions of all the members of the churches in the Anglican Communion should affect legislation on civil marriage in Britain.

What about LGTB persons in England?  What does the Primate of All England offer in the way of pastoral care to same-sex couples who are members of the church and would like to be joined in a civil marriage ceremony?  Little in the way of empathy or compassion thus far.  An awareness that marriage equality is not simply an issue, but that the lives of real people will be affected by the legislation seems to be missing from the archbishop's commentary.  Let's hope the path is uphill from here.

Note: The interview took place before the vote in favor of the equal marriage bill in the House of Commons.  

THE ARC OF THE UNIVERSE BENDS TOWARD JUSTICE

As I've followed the struggle for marriage equality for LGTB persons, I see many similarities with the Civil Rights movement for equality for African-Americans here in the United States, which is not at all surprising as the fight for justice for any oppressed group will have parallels with the struggles of other groups.  Here in the US, the movement toward same-sex marriage equality is now state by state.  Gay marriage is legal in nine states: Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont,  Washington, and the District of Columbia, with Illinois likely to follow soon.

Thanks to Colin Coward's real-time Facebook reports, I followed the debate in Britain's House of Commons on the bill to allow same-sex civil marriage in Britain preceding the overwhelming vote in favor.  The established Church of England's opposition to the bill, including a statement by the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, is a puzzlement, but I've addressed the matter briefly elsewhere.

Thanks to Kelvin Holdsworth for the link to quotes and a video of one of the most eloquent speeches in favor of the bill by MP David Lammy from Tottenham.

Separate is not equal. 

But there are still those that say that this is all unnecessary.

“Why do we need Gay Marriage when we already have Civil Partnerships”, they say.

“They are the same - separate but equal”, they claim.
Let me speak frankly.

“Separate but equal” is a fraud.

 “Separate but equal” is the language that tried to push Rosa Parks to the back of the bus.

“Separate but equal” is the motif that determined that black and white could not possibly drink from the same water fountain, eat at the same table or use the same toilets.

 “Separate but equal” are the words that justified sending black children to different schools from their white peers – schools that would fail them and condemn them to a life of poverty.

It is an excerpt from the phrasebook of the segregationists and the racists.

It is the same statement, the same ideas and the same delusion that we borrowed in this country to say that women could vote – but not until they were 30.

It is the same naivety that gave made my dad a citizen in 1956 but refused to condemn the landlords that proclaimed “no blacks, no Irish, no dogs”.

It entrenched who we were, who our friends could be and what our lives could become.

This was not “Separate but equal” but “Separate AND discriminated”,

 “Separate AND oppressed”.

 “Separate AND browbeaten”.

 “Separate AND subjugated”.

Separate is NOT equal, so let us be rid of it.

Because as long as there is one rule for us and another for them, we allow the barriers to acceptance to stand unchallenged.

Brilliant, heartfelt, and quite moving. 

Here is the link to the entire original speech that David Lammy intended to give but for the four-minute limit on backbench speeches.

UPDATE: France seems to have crossed a major hurdle in its progress toward the approval same-sex marriages. 

FROM A FRIEND IN THE NORTHEAST

 

Spotted on Middle Street in the Historic and Trendy Old Port Section of Portland! 

Why isn't your name FIRST? 

 --Wade

Because "B" comes before "M"? 

What it's all about.

TAKE THE MEDICAID EXPANSION FUNDS, GOVERNOR

From the Baton Rouge Advocate:

A varied group of organizations and individuals on Tuesday urged Gov. Bobby Jindal to agree to the Medicaid expansion included in the federal health care overhaul.

“Medicaid expansion could provide health coverage to 400,000 Louisianians, most of whom are currently uninsured, and bring in billions of new federal dollars. It will benefit Louisiana’s families, businesses, health care providers and the economy — all at little cost to the state budget,” the open letter to Jindal said.

Jindal — like other Republican governors — has consistently declined to embrace the key part of the Affordable Care Act, referred to as Obamacare. He claims it would be too costly for the state in the long run and there is not enough flexibility to design a program that meets state needs.

Jindal did not agree to be interviewed Tuesday, but his press office released a statement saying his position has not changed.

“Medicaid relies on an outdated model that costs taxpayers billions of dollars and produces poor outcomes,” Jindal said in the prepared statement. He said the expansion could cost Louisiana more than $1 billion in 10 years.

Other Republican governors are taking the Medicaid expansion funds because they realize that the money will benefit their people and their states, but Jindal is an idealogue, and the people of Louisiana be damned, Jindal must adhere to his philosophy.

As usual, Jindal is too timid to face the local media, because they might ask him hard questions about "the outdated model" and the "$1 billion in 10 years" cost of expanding Medicaid.  I'm not knowledgeable enough about budget math and charts, but I'd  like to see an independent source investigate whether the $1 billion over 10 years cost claimed by Jindal is accurate.

Last year, the conclusion to a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reads as follows:

Conclusion

Contrary to claims made by some of the Medicaid expansion’s critics, the expansion does not impose substantial financial burdens on states. The additional state Medicaid spending that CBO expects to result from the expansion equals 2.8 percent of what states would have spent on Medicaid in the absence of health reform; this estimate includes the cost of covering individuals who are currently eligible but not enrolled. Estimates from other respected independent sources are similar or even lower — and both those estimates and CBO’s reflect state costs before factoring in state savings in areas such as uncompensated care costs and mental health services.

CBO expects that the expansion will result in 17 million more people being covered, which will significantly reduce state costs for uncompensated care and related programs and offset some or potentially all of the increase in state Medicaid costs.

In short, the federal government will pick up the overwhelming share of the costs of the Medicaid expansion, making it an extremely favorable deal both for states, as well as for their low-income uninsured residents.

The Medicaid expansion would come at a modest cost to the state with the federal government initially paying 100 percent for the first three years and then a small portion after that — never more than 10 percent, proponents wrote.

What I'd like to see is a breakdown by an independent source on why Medicaid expansion would be such a bad deal for Louisiana, when it appears to be advantageous to other states in ways that even Republican governors who don't like Obamacare can understand.

Among the groups and individuals who sent the letter to Jindal are the following:

AARP, the Advocacy Center, the Greater New Orleans American Association of University Women, Louisiana AIDS Advocacy Network, the Louisiana Budget Project, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (Mid South Division), and the National Association of Social Workers, Louisiana Chapter.

THE LONGEST PASSWORD EVER...

We laugh - but her I.D. is safe.

 

During a recent password audit by a company, it was found that an employee was using the following password:

"MickeyMinniePlutoHueyLouieDeweyDonaldGoofySacramento"

When asked why she had such a long password, she rolled her eyes and said: "Hello!  It has to be at least 8 characters and include at least one capital."

Thanks to Ann.

LITTLE BO-PEEP HAS LOST HER SHEEP