Living in Boston when news of the Catholic abuse scandals was on every day, one wonders how news of Ireland’s Murphy Commission Report could make it sound worse.
Here’s how: Not only did the Archdiocese of Dublin continually cover up reports of abuse, but Irish police and prosecutors were also complicit in those actions.
Fortunately, Ireland's government and national police force are already responding to these reports, promising swift action. And from the news reports I'm hearing and reading, it sounds like Irish voters will not soon forget those promises by the time elections roll around again.
Unfortunately, I’m sure we’ll also see so-called “Catholic loyalists” complaining that media reports of this are signs of “anti-Catholic bigotry” by the secular media. Yes, they will say, sexual abuse of children is horrible, but why single out the Catholic church?
First: Yes, other groups have sexual predators in their midst. Even my own Unitarian Universalist Association has seen such cases. But the question is how such institutions respond to reports and evidence of such abuse. Do you cover it up, or find the truth? Do you shuffle the abusers around, or remove them permanently? Do you try to silence the victims, or help them to heal? And, most important, do you merely hope that it doesn’t happen again, or take respond with proactive measures to protect those under your care?
Second: Yes, other groups have done atrocious jobs of handling sexual abuse allegations. Two which I can think of are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Boy Scouts. But when this happens with an institution as large and influential as the Roman Catholic Church, how can you expect the media to cover it any differently? It’s like having two companies going under due to fraudulent practices – a local business worth a hundred thousand dollars, and an international powerhouse with political connections worth a hundred billion – and the bigger company complains that the media is paying too much attention to them.
This brings me to my final point, directed at those within the church who complain about the media: If you are truly loyal to the church – to all of its people, not just those at the top, and to its essential core values as expressed in the Gospels – then why don’t you hold your leaders accountable, just as Jesus did to the religious leaders of his day? Yes, they have called conferences and put forward documents outlining changes. But it would help if you joined those who keep at the bishops to make sure they follow through. So, instead of complaining about the media for holding the church hierarchy accountable, I suggest that you focus your energies on taking on that job yourself.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Moralistic Extremes: The Rock, the Hard Place, and What Lies In Between
Sometimes I wonder which is more exasperating - responding to the moralistic ravings of the Religious Right, or trying to engage in conversation with extremists in the "sexual freedom" camp.
I've often labeled the former as legalists for their penchant of creating rules to regulate people's sexuality. It's easy to do that, to post a ready-made list and convince people that everything will be all right if they just do what they're told and don't question why. Until reality happens.
Well, there's also an opposite extreme. The theological term is antinomianism - the belief that moral rules do not apply to you, so long as you have reached some sufficient level of salvation or enlightenment. And I've grown weary of those who seem to respond to the sexual legalists with the very caricature which those legalists use to describe all of us.
How ironic that my brand of radicalism is now caught in the middle between these two extremes - one which seeks to constrain people to a spiritual death, and the others which could toss too many to the wolves.
Freedom to me does not mean amoralism. It means making choices. With freedom comes responsibility, and responsibility requires knowledge and discernment.
So I'm all for comprehensive sex education ... as long as its accurate and helps young people to think critically and set limits for themselves.
I'm all for abortion ... in consort with other measures to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
I'm all for decriminalizing and destigmatizing prostitution ... as a starting point for empowering sex workers to create better lives for themselves and their families.
I'm all for openly discussing polyamory and BDSM with monogamous and vanilla folks ... so that they can see how seriously we take responsibility, and so we can all learn to share one another's gifts with joy and meaning.
Mother Theresa is famous for saying that she would never join an anti-war rally, but would join a rally for peace. In a sense I find both extremes of legalism and antinomianism to be reactive and negative - and moralistic, in that each reduces morality and ethics to a highly simplistic formula. For the legalists, that formula is purity. For the antinomians, it is defiance. And both seem tinged with a sense of self-righteousness towards those with whom they disagree - including, and especially, those of us caught in the crossfire.
Above all else, both of these extremes seem devoid of communication. Each side comes across more as a lecture than a discourse. When we act on our sexuality, we are involving another, and that essential reality means we need to connect and communicate in the fullest sense - to listen as well as talk, to be open to learning and sharing, and to do so with beauty and joy.
I've often labeled the former as legalists for their penchant of creating rules to regulate people's sexuality. It's easy to do that, to post a ready-made list and convince people that everything will be all right if they just do what they're told and don't question why. Until reality happens.
Well, there's also an opposite extreme. The theological term is antinomianism - the belief that moral rules do not apply to you, so long as you have reached some sufficient level of salvation or enlightenment. And I've grown weary of those who seem to respond to the sexual legalists with the very caricature which those legalists use to describe all of us.
How ironic that my brand of radicalism is now caught in the middle between these two extremes - one which seeks to constrain people to a spiritual death, and the others which could toss too many to the wolves.
Freedom to me does not mean amoralism. It means making choices. With freedom comes responsibility, and responsibility requires knowledge and discernment.
So I'm all for comprehensive sex education ... as long as its accurate and helps young people to think critically and set limits for themselves.
I'm all for abortion ... in consort with other measures to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
I'm all for decriminalizing and destigmatizing prostitution ... as a starting point for empowering sex workers to create better lives for themselves and their families.
I'm all for openly discussing polyamory and BDSM with monogamous and vanilla folks ... so that they can see how seriously we take responsibility, and so we can all learn to share one another's gifts with joy and meaning.
Mother Theresa is famous for saying that she would never join an anti-war rally, but would join a rally for peace. In a sense I find both extremes of legalism and antinomianism to be reactive and negative - and moralistic, in that each reduces morality and ethics to a highly simplistic formula. For the legalists, that formula is purity. For the antinomians, it is defiance. And both seem tinged with a sense of self-righteousness towards those with whom they disagree - including, and especially, those of us caught in the crossfire.
Above all else, both of these extremes seem devoid of communication. Each side comes across more as a lecture than a discourse. When we act on our sexuality, we are involving another, and that essential reality means we need to connect and communicate in the fullest sense - to listen as well as talk, to be open to learning and sharing, and to do so with beauty and joy.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Not Every Battle Has a Headline
Bad enough to wake up this morning, hearing that 53 percent of Maine voters decided their gay and lesbian neighbors don't deserve equal marriage rights. But then...
A friend of mine was having surgery, so I went to visit him at the hospital. In the lounge, I saw a young couple, the mother holding an infant. I couldn't help but smile and say: "Beautiful baby."
They looked up at me, the father giving a soft thank you. Then, the mother exploded into tears, and he turned his attention to comforting her. After a few minutes, he went over to me and explained.
One of the first things every new parent wants to know is: boy or girl? For a small percentage of births, the answer isn't always that clear. And the debate about assigning gender to intersex babies -- up to and including surgery -- still goes on. After discussing their case with the doctors, these parents decided the best course was a "wait and see" approach. Give the child a gender-neutral name, and patiently watch and listen. A brave decision, especially since it might take years. But, as deeply spiritual people, these loving parents believed that it was best to leave this in God's hands.
Unfortunately, the minister of their church disagreed. After telling him about their child and their decision, he replied that he could not "in good conscience" agreed to perform a christening. In his mind, God would never create a child who was not clearly male or female. Either the doctors were all wrong, or this was the Devil's work -- and the parents were letting themselves be deceived.
He was mad. "Royally pissed" would be a better term. And he was conflicted -- tied by deep faith and family roots to his church community, yet enraged by this arrogant and inhumane minister.
So I listened. I affirmed his right to be angry, to want what was best for the beautiful child in his wife's arms. And I did what I could to help, writing down his email address so I could look for another minister to perform the christening.
They thanked me, both for understanding and for the offer. I've just finished calling and emailing, finding some ministers who would be willing to help, emailing the info to the young couple. Such battles for justice rarely make the headlines, but that doesn't make them any less worth the fight.
Before I left them, there were a few more tears. Only now, they came with smiles.
A friend of mine was having surgery, so I went to visit him at the hospital. In the lounge, I saw a young couple, the mother holding an infant. I couldn't help but smile and say: "Beautiful baby."
They looked up at me, the father giving a soft thank you. Then, the mother exploded into tears, and he turned his attention to comforting her. After a few minutes, he went over to me and explained.
One of the first things every new parent wants to know is: boy or girl? For a small percentage of births, the answer isn't always that clear. And the debate about assigning gender to intersex babies -- up to and including surgery -- still goes on. After discussing their case with the doctors, these parents decided the best course was a "wait and see" approach. Give the child a gender-neutral name, and patiently watch and listen. A brave decision, especially since it might take years. But, as deeply spiritual people, these loving parents believed that it was best to leave this in God's hands.
Unfortunately, the minister of their church disagreed. After telling him about their child and their decision, he replied that he could not "in good conscience" agreed to perform a christening. In his mind, God would never create a child who was not clearly male or female. Either the doctors were all wrong, or this was the Devil's work -- and the parents were letting themselves be deceived.
He was mad. "Royally pissed" would be a better term. And he was conflicted -- tied by deep faith and family roots to his church community, yet enraged by this arrogant and inhumane minister.
So I listened. I affirmed his right to be angry, to want what was best for the beautiful child in his wife's arms. And I did what I could to help, writing down his email address so I could look for another minister to perform the christening.
They thanked me, both for understanding and for the offer. I've just finished calling and emailing, finding some ministers who would be willing to help, emailing the info to the young couple. Such battles for justice rarely make the headlines, but that doesn't make them any less worth the fight.
Before I left them, there were a few more tears. Only now, they came with smiles.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Justice for Strippers!
Recently, performers at the Golden Banana gentlemen's club in Peabody, Massachusetts have filed a class-action lawsuit against the club's owners, over wages and benefits.
Now, before you snicker and make snide remarks, let me set the record on how these ladies are treated -- not just at this establishment, but across the country.
If you're an exotic dancer, the club doesn't consider you an employee. You're categorized as an "independent contractor", which means the club doesn't need to pay payroll taxes, Social Security contributions, healthcare or other benefits.
Now this makes sense if you're a comedy club hiring new talent every night, with the comics touring from one club to another. But the Golden Banana and many other clubs make the performers sign a contract enjoining them from performing at any other establishment. Not to mention dictating what music they can dance to, what wardrobe they can wear ... some independence!
And that's just for starters. Performers are required to pay a fee to get on stage. Their pay is in customer tips -- no salary, no commission for getting customers to buy overpriced drinks -- and they are required to share their tips with salaried employees. If you're sick, or have a kid or elderly parent to take care of, that's one more day you don't make any money.
I've also heard from women who work in these clubs that the owners encourage a "pecking order" among performers, with favorites getting choice money-making slots above others. That means that, while a few will make good money, many just make a living, sometimes just breaking even or losing money on bad nights.
It's about time the so-called "gentlemen" who own these clubs treat their ladies with the respect and dignity they deserve. They are the reason people come in and spend money. They deserve fair payment for their work.
If they're going to be "independent contractors" then let them be independent. Let them perform at any club, not just yours. Drop the performance fees, and take a twenty percent commission of their tips. Let them choose their music and wardrobe, and encourage creativity in their performances. Perhaps the club owners and the performers could get together to set up plans for group health insurance, disability insurance, and 401K's. And if a club wants to retain a performer exclusively, then sit down and negotiate a fair contract for their talent.
Compensation is just one part of the equation. There is also the fundamental issue of respect. Exotic dancers work for their money, and deserve to be treated with the same dignity as any other working artist. And not just from the club's owners, but their clients as well. If they're willing to take it all off for us, then it's high time we take a stand for them.
Now, before you snicker and make snide remarks, let me set the record on how these ladies are treated -- not just at this establishment, but across the country.
If you're an exotic dancer, the club doesn't consider you an employee. You're categorized as an "independent contractor", which means the club doesn't need to pay payroll taxes, Social Security contributions, healthcare or other benefits.
Now this makes sense if you're a comedy club hiring new talent every night, with the comics touring from one club to another. But the Golden Banana and many other clubs make the performers sign a contract enjoining them from performing at any other establishment. Not to mention dictating what music they can dance to, what wardrobe they can wear ... some independence!
And that's just for starters. Performers are required to pay a fee to get on stage. Their pay is in customer tips -- no salary, no commission for getting customers to buy overpriced drinks -- and they are required to share their tips with salaried employees. If you're sick, or have a kid or elderly parent to take care of, that's one more day you don't make any money.
I've also heard from women who work in these clubs that the owners encourage a "pecking order" among performers, with favorites getting choice money-making slots above others. That means that, while a few will make good money, many just make a living, sometimes just breaking even or losing money on bad nights.
It's about time the so-called "gentlemen" who own these clubs treat their ladies with the respect and dignity they deserve. They are the reason people come in and spend money. They deserve fair payment for their work.
If they're going to be "independent contractors" then let them be independent. Let them perform at any club, not just yours. Drop the performance fees, and take a twenty percent commission of their tips. Let them choose their music and wardrobe, and encourage creativity in their performances. Perhaps the club owners and the performers could get together to set up plans for group health insurance, disability insurance, and 401K's. And if a club wants to retain a performer exclusively, then sit down and negotiate a fair contract for their talent.
Compensation is just one part of the equation. There is also the fundamental issue of respect. Exotic dancers work for their money, and deserve to be treated with the same dignity as any other working artist. And not just from the club's owners, but their clients as well. If they're willing to take it all off for us, then it's high time we take a stand for them.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Whatever Happened to Oberlin's BDSM Club?
There were no Safer Sex parties when I was a student at Oberlin College. Nor did the student-run Sexual Information Center have any reading material on BDSM or kink.
Fast forward to the late 1990's and early 2000's. Students try to set up a BDSM educational group on campus. Folks on the supposedly liberal campus are up in arms. The group's charter application goes to the General Faculty, which debates it to death and blocks approval. Yet, apparently, the group somehow continues to survive - at least for a while.
There's scant information on this, but what I read bothers me. Set aside the questions of free speech and tolerance. The major reason we kinksters organize groups like this is to be safe - to share much-needed information, to look out for one another, and to educate outsiders about who we really are and what we're relly about. Just like every other community out there.
So strange, then, that a respected educational institution like Oberlin College does not get that. Even stranger, considering that, in 2006, they sanctioned a gun club for students. College students can learn gun safety, but they can't learn safe bondage? Does not compute.
But, as I said before, there's little online info out there. So, if you are a fellow alum, or otherwise connected to this, please let me know.
And if you're a student at Oberlin, looking to resurrect the group, let me know if I can help!
Fast forward to the late 1990's and early 2000's. Students try to set up a BDSM educational group on campus. Folks on the supposedly liberal campus are up in arms. The group's charter application goes to the General Faculty, which debates it to death and blocks approval. Yet, apparently, the group somehow continues to survive - at least for a while.
There's scant information on this, but what I read bothers me. Set aside the questions of free speech and tolerance. The major reason we kinksters organize groups like this is to be safe - to share much-needed information, to look out for one another, and to educate outsiders about who we really are and what we're relly about. Just like every other community out there.
So strange, then, that a respected educational institution like Oberlin College does not get that. Even stranger, considering that, in 2006, they sanctioned a gun club for students. College students can learn gun safety, but they can't learn safe bondage? Does not compute.
But, as I said before, there's little online info out there. So, if you are a fellow alum, or otherwise connected to this, please let me know.
And if you're a student at Oberlin, looking to resurrect the group, let me know if I can help!
Friday, October 2, 2009
Yes, I'm Still Here...
The reason I haven't been posting recently is, among other things, serious computer problems. (Not to be confused with silly computer problems!)
I hope to be up at full capacity again next week. Stay tuned...
I hope to be up at full capacity again next week. Stay tuned...
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Farewell, Jack McGeorge
It was today that I heard that Jack McGeorge, a leader and educator in the BDSM community, had passed away due to complications from heart surgery.
I never met Jack, but it was hard to ignore him. I had become involved in the kink community a short time after he had been "outed" by the Washington Post as the notorious UN weapons inspector by day and pervert by night.
Except for one thing. Jack never hid his sexuality. He used his legal name instead of a Scene name, and was open about his involvement with Black Rose, the Leather Leadership Conference and other groups to those with whom he worked. When the story went to print, he offered his resignation to Hans Blix, head of the Iraq weapons inspection team -- and Blix refused, saying that his sex life had no bearing on his competence as an inspector and consultant.
Jack was proof positive that being sexually different was no barrier to being respected as a professional and as a human being. His passion for education in the BDSM community was contagious, and will hopefully continue as his legacy.
I never knew Jack McGeorge, but in many ways I feel a similar sense of loss which many other kinksters now feel. May his spirit live on in each of us.
I never met Jack, but it was hard to ignore him. I had become involved in the kink community a short time after he had been "outed" by the Washington Post as the notorious UN weapons inspector by day and pervert by night.
Except for one thing. Jack never hid his sexuality. He used his legal name instead of a Scene name, and was open about his involvement with Black Rose, the Leather Leadership Conference and other groups to those with whom he worked. When the story went to print, he offered his resignation to Hans Blix, head of the Iraq weapons inspection team -- and Blix refused, saying that his sex life had no bearing on his competence as an inspector and consultant.
Jack was proof positive that being sexually different was no barrier to being respected as a professional and as a human being. His passion for education in the BDSM community was contagious, and will hopefully continue as his legacy.
I never knew Jack McGeorge, but in many ways I feel a similar sense of loss which many other kinksters now feel. May his spirit live on in each of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)