....Throwback..."All day long I think on these things..."

I've been having a throwback kind of week. This is from one of my favorite gospel albums and I think one of Fred's best. This album was dear to me at such a vulnerable time in my life and faith as a child. I was reminded today:

Gay Marriage Another Blow to the African American Family « Freedoms Journal

Check out Shelby Steele's comment towards the end...#pow.

Gay Marriage Another Blow to the African American Family « Freedoms Journal

DOMA Hearing & Bending the Arc of the Moral Universe toward Compromise

July 24, 2011, New York was the 6th state to approve same-sex marriage. Wednesday, July 20th I attended the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) repeal hearing. The DOMA Act was passed into law in September, 1996. This act sought to preserve and protect the institution of marriage. Section 3 of the act defines marriage as meaning “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” Section 2 is just as important as defining marriage as it imparts the law, defining the rights of the states in which our constitution was formed to protect, ensuring that “no state, territory, or possession of the US, or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any public act, record or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”

The DOMA hearing’s opening remarks by Chairman Leahy, described DOMA (which he voted for in 1996) as going against family dignity and applauded Obama’s endorsement of the Respect of Marriage Act. Senator Feinstein who introduced the Respect of Marriage Act defined the hearing as a “historic day.” The Respect of Marriage act repeals section 2 of DOMA and amends the definition of marriage and signifies “for the purposes of any federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual's marriage is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any state, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a state.” It would also take out the definition of spouse as defined by DOMA.

The hearing consisted of emotional stirring stories about same-sex couples who had partners preceding them in death causing them to be in financial turmoil. Actually, most of the stories were about financial decline and less about actually reclaiming the “value” of marriage. According to same-sex marriage supporters this “value” of marriage should be afforded to all those that choose to marry because of, as Chairman Leahy says, it is “fundamental to people’s lives…the affect of DOMA goes well beyond the harm of family’s dignity.” That is what I thought the “big deal” was about? I think this also gives room to deconstruct same-sex marriage supporter’s primary argument. I will address this later on.

Although I will not exhaust the list of arguments for and against DOMA I will just touch on a few:

Those in support of DOMA repeal:

1. That it does not provide same-sex couples with financial benefits afforded to them by the federal government. This would include benefits like spousal benefits for federal employees, health insurance benefits, FMLA benefits, veteran benefits, tax benefits etc. In addition to these benefits, according to The Williams Institute same-sex couples “are treated as legal strangers” when it comes to inheritance tax.

2. Same-Sex Marriage should be socially accepted because it is a family value. According to The Williams Institute, “marriage is the social institution that largely governs intimate relations in the United States. As a result, they feel DOMA is perpetuating a stigma towards the LGBT community that further causes an emotional burden on couples and families. Finally, it has the likelihood to destroy families; those same sex couples who have children. It would send mixed messages to their children and would also create fear of financial tensions that would cause inability to raise their children well.

Those in defense of DOMA:

1. As one of the DOMA panelist asked, “why is government in the marriage business?” could best be a guiding question toward establishing those that are in support of DOMA. The repeal would not be representative of the American people’s values. Austin Nimmocks, Attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, cited a National Research Survey conducted in May that stated 62% of American people agree that a union should between one man and one woman. “It’s not a just a law or creature of statute but a social institution that has universally crossed all political, religious, sociological, geographical and historical lines” said Nimmocks. Repealing DOMA would mean that the states whose voters have defined marriage as a union between a man and woman would have to accept other definitions and benefits based on these definitions on other states. This seems unfair to the other states that have defined marriage as such and would be unconscionable.

2. The interest that Government has on marriage is because it has a return, an economic gain. More importantly, the outcome of opposite-married couples is procreation which same-sex couples cannot do. This is not an attack on same-sex couples, but is just as much a promotion of healthy, whole marriages. Studies have shown that those that have children in healthy married homes have the highest net worth, combat child poverty and promote emotionally stable children.

Senator Franken tried to break down the Christian ministry: “ Focus and the Family” Tom Minnery’s justification for the beneficial outcomes of children living in an opposite-sex, married couple’s home as opposed to a same-sex, married couple’s home, because of Minnery's use and interpretation of the concept “nuclear” in the research that he was using. Franken, claimed that the report did not define the family as having, one man and one woman and in fact the report could be in favor of same-sex couples. Those in opposition of DOMA use the very same argument as conservatives regarding children growing in a healthy, loving home. However, there is only small amount of same-sex couples who have children and not enough data to demonstrate any correlation to support their arguments. This was extremely debilitating for conservatives, but ADF attorney Nimmocks was there to get the ball back in the conservative court.

Reflection:

I think it is extremely counterintuitive to repeal DOMA on the grounds that it is against family values or strengthening the “value” of marriage. When all of the arguments in support of repeal are mostly about federal benefits? How far is really too far? What does having recognition of marriage between same-sex couples on state and federal levels have anything to do with “value?” It is because it has everything to do with agenda. I want to ask why this word is being loosely thrown around and where does this value come from? And once this is established where does this value leave marriage? Well, Susan Murray answered this question. Susan Murray was on the panel for the repeal of DOMA. What was interesting was her very testimony, could have in my opinion been used against the repeal. She talked about how she grew up in a “normal” home (implicating that her current lifestyle is not normal) where she had a mother and a father who were devoted to their children. Her parent’s marriage was deemed as a model of success and she desired to have that. Murray asserted that marriage is universal and the model of her parents caused her to believe in it more. Murray a family lawyer then used stories to show how DOMA could affect same-sex couples. Murray referred to a couple who had a child, Jane stayed at home while Cheryl worked. Cheryl was killed in a car accident. Following the death of her partner she was in financial devastation because she couldn’t receive parent social security benefits. Although this story is very touching and provides us with much sympathy, there is no distinction on what it means toward the “value” of marriage. Going back to her original story about the value placed between her parents. Now if we said “value” of marriage as money, then that is the case. However, we know it is not. Murray said it herself , “normal” for purposes of defining marriage, was between a father and mother who loved each other and stayed with one another, devoted to their children.

The value of marriage is not just accessing federal benefits and it should not be defined by government. That is what is missing from this debate. Additionally, all people face the same financial threats. If that were the case we should sign every bill that would potentially be a financial disadvantage to American people. If you do not want to tread on the religious waters of defining marriage you can tread on its social conception, I think. It has been defined by the sociological origin of humanity…to procreate, joining one man and one woman together creating families to contribute to a thriving society. Although religious liberty is said to not be threatened if the repeal of DOMA goes through, religious institutions do not have to formalize or perform same sex marriages in violations of its faith. And although religion does not command civil law, it does shape what I personally endorse and believe in.

Senator Coons exclaimed that he is married and a Christian and that his faith should not inform his politics or “empower him to have a monopoly on the interpretation of the will of God.” He further went on to say that when New York passed same-sex marriage bill, ‘his wedding ring and marriage did not magically dissolve or disappear…the bill is about restoring rights not taking away.”

Well Senator Coons, I am a Christian and I believe wholeheartedly in what the Bible says as it brings form to the Christian faith. One pivotal point in the Bible, the story of God’s redemptive plan, starts with God fashioning one man and one woman in his image for his unique and divine purposes. Creating a sacred relationship that emulates God being Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. Although, I do not want to get in a theological conundrum it is important and I think is principal that our faith does inform our political and social worldviews. Just like Jesus was a great example and offered a unadulterated, moral witness, Christians are also called.

 Senator Schumer, (who is in support of the repeal) closed with this quote from Martin Luther King Jr., which was quoted wrongly and used for evocative purposes: “The ark of history is long it bends in the direction of justice.” Martin Luther King’s actual quote which was taken from Theodore Parker, was “ let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.” Let’s put this quote in context Senator Schumer and for all those that try to say that the gay agenda is akin to the civil rights movement. That is mockery and as a black person I cannot tolerate it.

What Martin Luther King also said in the speech that contained the aforementioned quote to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) was this:

“If you will let me be a preacher just a little bit - One night, a juror came to Jesus and he wanted to know what he could do to be saved. Jesus didn't get bogged down in the kind of isolated approach of what he shouldn't do. Jesus didn't say, "Now Nicodemus, you must stop lying." HE didn't say, "Nicodemus, you must stop cheating if you are doing that." He didn't say, "Nicodemus, you must not commit adultery." He didn't say, "Nicodemus, now you must stop drinking liquor if you are doing that excessively." He said something altogether different, because Jesus realized something basic - that if a man will lie, he will steal. And if a man will steal, he will kill. So instead of just getting bogged down in one thing, Jesus looked at him and said, "Nicodemus, you must be born again."

He said, in other words, "Your whole structure must be changed." A nation that will keep people in slavery for 244 years will "thingify" them - make them things. Therefore they will exploit them, and poor people generally, economically. And a nation that will exploit economically will have to have foreign investments and everything else, and will have to use its military might to protect them. All of these problems are tied together. What I am saying today is that we must go from this convention and say, "America, you must be born again!"

Finally, and I will not expound on this too much because it tells of itself about how this quote was used in context, shows that Martin Luther King Jr. would not agree with what a lot of gay rights leaders are using to provoke their movement:

Let us realize that William Cullen Bryant is right: "Truth crushed to earth will rise again." Let us go out realizing that the Bible is right: "Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." This is our hope for the future, and with this faith we will be able to sing in some not too distant tomorrow with a cosmic past tense, "We have overcome, we have overcome, deep in my heart, I did believe we would overcome."

Justice: Having God suffer humanity, die on the cross for a sin-sick people so that we may be forgiven of our sins and not suffer the wrath that we imminently deserved. Loving us by sending his son Jesus as the atoning sacrifice and that through him we may be reconciled and receive eternal life. Now we remain hopeful and are strengthened by His Holy-Spirit while we await his return. That is justice and that is justice I seek to proclaim. I love my homosexual brothers and sisters but I would not be an advocate of justice if I didn’t stand for Jesus and that is in truth and LOVE.

DOMA, Black Folk and the Obama Administration

Posts Coming Soon...

It's been a busy week on the Hill and personally. Grateful and Growing.

~Wiley

Islam in the Age of New Media

I wrote this in an Op-Ed article (assignment) in March:

“About a month ago, I was out to dinner with a friend and she asks, ‘Have you heard of the protests in Egypt? The people there are irate! The country is in disarray and the people are not going down without a fight until the government and social issues are resolved!’ In the next breath, she asks, “and what is this going on about Charlie Sheen? Apparently, he’s all wacked out and in desperate need of rehab.’  One may think that she’s gotten this information from the local newspaper or television broadcast. Maybe if this was more than ten years ago, she would have received this up-to-date, fresh, news or gossip off these outlets or even in the tabloids. No, she’s gotten this information off the social networking site, Twitter. Pivotal news or the latest entertainment, sports, political, and social scoop are available in “real-time,” “play-by-play” on the popular social networking sites: Twitter, Facebook or Flickr to name a few. Information is shaped by the very audience that public relation’s clients are trying to reach. Prevalent news networks such as CNN, BBC, and NPR are even joining social media sites like Twitter and FaceBook to get information across to their audiences.”

Not only has this “new” digital age of media transformed how people communicate and connect but it has also been adapted as a communication tool for religion as well. The social science of this is also relevant in the realm of religion and socio-religious discourse.

Freedom House supports and seeks to expand political and religious rights of people globally. They work towards their goal through advocacy efforts, research and international programs. Freedom House is a non-profit, non-partisan organization. Their website description describes them as “a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world.”  Today, Freedom House held a panel titled “Islam in the Age of New Media.” Panelist included Amir Ahmad Nasr, whose efforts help to prompt the scope of the panel. Nasr is a digital media and marketing consultant and popular blogger and curator of the online audio seminar: “The Future of Islam in the Age of New Media.” http://www.islamintheageofnewmedia.com/. Along with Nasr were Journalist Endy M. Bayuni and Courtney Radsch, Senior Program Officer of the Global Freedom of Expression Campaign.

The panelist spoke on the dynamics of social media in the Muslim world. This is especially significant because Islam extends to every part of a Muslim’s life.  Bayuni started out and was clear in stating that just because Indonesia has a large population does not make Indonesia a Muslim nation. People there are free to convert to any religion they choose. His point of reference was in context with Indonesia holding the 2^nd largest market for Facebook and the 3^rd for Twitter. The panelist emphasized that social media is how Muslims especially young Muslims are receiving information about religion, whereas they may not get to explore or establish and expand upon their worldview the traditional way. Bayuni quoted a verse from the Qur’an, where the Prophet Muhammad admonished the reader to simply: “read.” This he said means that Muslims should always seek to gain more knowledge and learn more. Engaging in social media is a practical application of that scripture.  Nasr mentioned that Islam in the age of new media best demonstrates that Islam is not just one monolithic religion. The real dilemma that social media addresses is the “crisis of authority,” Nasr said. Nasr said, “In the Islamic world Imams consider themselves authoritative but they’re really authoritarian.” The new media allows this new form of authority in essence to create a more “democratic” way of evolving one’s religious identity. Nasr called for more people that are authoritative to engage young people.

Radsch drew all these parallels together and broke down three ways Islamic practices are being redefined as a result of new media. These concepts could have also been described in other religion’s “practices,” along with corporate and organizational use of social media. These were:

Itjihad--independent judgment, critical thought;

Ijma--Consensus building;

Ishad—and witnessing.

Something that stuck out to me that Nasr was sure to point out, is that new media creates virtual spaces that help to change stereotypes of Muslims and differentiate them from radical Islam beliefs. Bayuni was even bold enough to say that social media is replacing parents and Imam’s.  

Below is popular social media personality (has received almost a half a million hits on some of his videos). This guys talks on cultural issues, religion, faith and distinguish between Islam and Radical Islam. This was funny to me:

I asked the question to the panel that was more directed to Nasr and Radsch because they seemed so optimistic about new media’s impact even though there was not much scientific, economic or empirical research that they referred to on how social media has really engaged Islam culture. Like most cultural trends there are always an element that may threaten part of that culture, there are also threats of misuse.  This would result in the trend becoming not so “favorable.” I asked what were some present and potential threats or challenges new media may pose for Islam. He responded, “I think Islam will become more diverse, eclectic due to new media. For the most part, this is good thing.”

Now as an evangelical, Christian I feel that because this discussion has taken place both in Islamic and Christian groups. What a great way to use new media to engage in a dialogue with my fellow Muslim brother or sister and share the Gospel to them. This would mean still using the same method of approach, when shaping a Muslim’s view about God, with truth and love. 

Religious Persecution and a Picture of Human Dignity

Just left the Washington Time's: " Stop Religious Persecution Now!: Interactive Discussion for People of All Faiths" co-sponsored with the Universal Peace Federation USA and The Washington Times Foundation.  The program was set up in 4 major sections: Religious Freedom and U.S. Foreign Policy, Persecuted Faith Groups, Public Policy Affecting the Current Session of Congress  and a Media Workshop. These sections integrated key people from various religious, advocacy, professional and political backgrounds. Keynote address was from In Jin Moon whose family has financial ties to the Washington Times, ironically before she stepped up to speak, her band called "Sonic Cult" (things that make you go hmmm), performed a Bob Dylan song and some other song that carried the same like sentiment and obviously connected with Moons "church," philosophy: " humans determine their destiny, we are our own Messiah's, obtaining happiness...etc." (sounds like a lot of preaching from Christian pulpits today) I digress...because this was not the point of this post....lol!

To see the picture of various religious groups, faith groups, and racial and ethnic groups coalescing to bring attention and to stop religious persecution was a beautiful sight to see. At this event I was one that represented a Christian worldview, I also saw fit that this beautiful sight posed a great opportunity to show how this picture of human dignity points to Christ. Dr. Barrett Duke demonstrated this point-of-view well in his talk. I don't just say that because of my connection with the ERLC but because he did. He was very intentional with telling the gospel story, he was not offensive but bold. He also converged our worldview in a clear way with the importance of engaging public policy for the human rights of those that are religiously persecuted for their faith, whatever faith they choose or choose not to believe. 

Honestly, religious persecution was not far up there on my list in regards to bringing attention to its social injustice, until recently. It was largely due to my small,  naive conception of this world around me...I've taken advantage of my liberty to worship, read the bible, and practice my faith. Although a Christian nation--that does not necessarily mean this nation advocates for true, biblical, Christ-centered principles--it is far unlikely that I will ever face persecution for my faith. I probably will face more opposition for my gender or skin-color than anything. To imagine the courage, strength and radical faith it would take my international brother or sister to actually proclaim their faith even in light of harm and death is inspiring and shows how much I am a coward! Real talk, sometimes I talk myself OUT OF sharing the gospel often to people. On the other hand, to think that humans would (and often times its other social and religious extremist that persecute other religious groups) is depraved, sad and outright stupid! This is a major issue, especially since Christians are the majority group that are religiously persecuted. 

It wasn't until I visited other countries for missions that I understood the necessity of expanding my scope and interpretation on life outside of little ole Durham, Raleigh or Greensboro---to a larger context North Carolina and an even larger context--other nations. However, this emphasis on human dignity must play out domestically too of course. My friend tweeted today "before you go to the uttermost parts of the earth...say Hi to your neighbor." God knew what he was doing when he commanded us "to not kill, steal, bear false witness against our neighbor, commit adultery, covet...to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves." It provides us with several moral implications and responsibilities. This is one reason why we advocate for the rights of others! 

I take for granted so many liberties, one my religious and two my autonomy because African-Americans are not far removed from its long history of oppression and violence. A lot of its baggage and residue still plays out in our communities today. I digress again. 

This all put me in mind of the following video, it brought me to tears when I first saw it. How precious, sweet and marvelous is your word God!