America Lights Up in a Rainbow of Colors After Gay Marriage Ruling

People hold balloon letters reading "Love wins" in front of the White House lightened in the rainbow colors

in Washington on June 26, 2015. The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay marriage is a nationwide

right, a landmark decision in one of the most keenly awaited announcements in decades and sparking

scenes of jubilation.(Photo: MLADEN ANTONOV, AFP/Getty Images)

Here is a powerful statement both to ourselves in America as well as to the world. I

am in hopes the oppression, the sufferings, the vilification of the LGBT community

might  be reduced by this concerted action between the Supreme Court of the United

States and the Presidential branch. - R.E. Slater, 6.26.2015

The White House is blanketed in rainbow colors symbolizing LGBT pride in Washington on June 26, 2015.

The US Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay marriage is a nationwide right, a landmark decision in one of

the most keenly awaited announcements in decades and sparking scenes of jubilation. 

(Photo: MOLLY RILEY, AFP/Getty Images)

White House turns to rainbow

after gay marriage ruling

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2015/06/26/white-house-rainbow-gay-marriage/29374471/

THE OVAL

 Gregory Korte, USA TODAY11:15 p.m. EDT June 26, 2015

The White House was lit up in rainbow colors Friday night to celebrate the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage.

In a statement, the president's office said the White House took on the symbolic colors of gay pride "to demonstrate our unwavering commitment to progress and equality, here in America and around the world."

Shortly after 7 p.m.. the north front of the White House was lit up in red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet as about a hundred people — both gay pride activists and tourists — looked on.

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Friday that states cannot prohibit marriages between two people of the same sex.

President Obama hailed the ruling earlier in the day, calling it "a big step in our march toward equality."

* * * * * * * * * *

Doing the right thing may take some time but eventually a country founded on

"civil liberties for all" gets it right. For churches feeling the pressure to conform

or not this will also be a matter of civil rights... "a civil right which they are afforded
the right to." For some churches they have the right not to conform. For others, they

have the right to be released unto deeper ministries submitted in love and equality

to a segment of society having lived in the abject squalor of abandonment and

derision for many years.

Whether being gay is a sin or not is something we each will need to work out. For

some it may be sin while for others, if based in relational love, it is not. Our

Christian  standards do not give us a right to judge one another. But they do

give us the right to love one another equally and with wisdom. And should we

judge,  may it be rightly, and not by the old man seeking self-rightness over

God's righteous, perfecting, love.  - R.E. Slater, 6.26.2015

* * * * * * * * * *

Same-sex marriage supporters rejoice outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Friday after

the U.S Supreme Court handed down a ruling regarding same-sex marriage. The high court ruled that

same-sex couples have the right to marry in all 50 states. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Supreme Court Declares Same-Sex Marriage Legal
In All 50 States

source link

by Bill Chappell

June 26, 2015

States cannot keep same-sex couples from marrying and must recognize their unions, the Supreme Court says in a ruling that for months has been the focus of speculation. The decision was 5-4.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal swing vote in the case, wrote the majority opinion. All four justices who voted against the ruling wrote their own dissenting opinions: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law," Kennedy wrote of same-sex couples in the case. "The Constitution grants them that right."

Comparing the ruling to other landmark decisions, NPR's Nina Totenberg says, "This is probably right up there with Brown v. Board of Education, and Roe v. Wade — if you like it or hate it — and today, Obergefell v. Hodges. This was a historic moment."

The opinion includes more than 100 pages; we've embedded it near the bottom of this post.

Update at 11:30 a.m. ET: 'Our Love Is Equal,' Obergefell Says

Friday's ruling "affirms what millions across this country already know to be true in their hearts: our love is equal," says lead plaintiff Jim Obergefell, who challenged Ohio's ban on same-sex marriage.

Obergefell continued, "the four words etched onto the front of the Supreme Court — 'equal justice under law' — apply to us, too."

He filed suit because he wasn't allowed to put his name on his late husband John Arthur's death certificate after Arthur died from ALS. Holding a photograph of Arthur as he spoke Friday, Obergefell said, "No American should have to suffer that indignity."

Obergefell has been traveling from Cincinnati to Washington every week, to be sure he would be in the court when a decision was announced in his case.

Update at 11:15 a.m. ET: 'Like A Thunderbolt,' Obama Says

Speaking at the White House, President Obama praised the Supreme Court's ruling, saying it arrived "like a thunderbolt" after a series of back-and-forth battles over same-sex marriage.

Obama says the ruling "will strengthen all of our communities" by offering dignity and equal status to all same-sex couples and their families.

The president calls the ruling "a victory for America."

Update at 10:37 a.m. ET: More On The Ruling, And Obama's Reaction

"The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society," Kennedy wrote. His opinion sketches a history of how ideas of marriage have evolved along with the changing roles and legal status of women.

Comparing that evolution to society's views of gays and lesbians, Kennedy noted that for years, "a truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken."

"The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times," Kennedy wrote after recounting the legal struggles faced by same-sex partners.

103 page .pdf of the Justice's Decision

The Supreme Court said that the right to marry is fundamental — and Kennedy wrote that under the 14th Amendment's protections, "couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty."

In his dissent, Roberts wrote that the court had taken an "extraordinary step" in deciding not to allow states to decide the issue for themselves, saying that the Constitution does not define marriage.

Calling the ruling "deeply disheartening," Roberts said that those on the winning side of the issue should celebrate a victory — "But do not celebrate the Constitution," he wrote. "It had nothing to do with it."

Justice Scalia said the Supreme Court's "highly unrepresentative panel of nine" had violated "a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation."

We've covered those dissents in a separate post.

Welcoming the news on Twitter, President Obama wrote, "Today is a big step in our march toward equality. Gay and lesbian couples now have the right to marry, just like anyone else. #LoveWins."

Our original post continues:

The justices ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, which is linked to three other same-sex marriage cases that rose up through the court system. Together, they involve a dozen couples who challenged same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee — the only states with bans on marriage between gay and lesbian couples that had been sustained by a federal appeals court.

Friday's ruling overturned that decision by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Supreme Court's summary states, "The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change."

The justices had been asked to decide whether the 14th Amendment requires states to a) license same-sex marriages and b) recognize such unions that were made in other states.

The 14th Amendment, we'll remind you, was ratified shortly after the Civil War. It has to do with U.S. citizenship — and with providing equal protection for all citizens.

Before Friday's ruling, gay marriage had already been made legal in 37 states and the District of Columbia — by either legislative or voter action or by federal courts that overturned state' bans.

As NPR's Nina Totenberg reported when the Supreme Court heard the current case back in April, conservative justices had pointed questions for the attorneys:

"Justice Scalia asked whether ministers would be able to refuse to marry two gay men. The answer was that it has to be worked out under state laws. He said, but that could happen — it could happen that a minister would be forced to marry two gay men, in violation of his beliefs.

"Justice Alito asked, well then why not marry four gay men together? Why just two?"

The ruling announced Friday adds new definition to an issue that has remained controversial even as an increasing number of Americans say they support equal marriage rights for same-sex couples. A recent Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Americans — an all-time high — support extending the same rights and privileges to same-sex marriages as traditional ones.

That figure included "37 percent of Republicans, 64 percent of independents, and 76 percent of Democrats," as we reported last month. And it included all age groups except for one: those 65 and over.

The court noted the change in thinking, stating:

"Well into the 20th century, many States condemned same-sex intimacy as immoral, and homosexuality was treated as an illness. Later in the century, cultural and political developments allowed same-sex couples to lead more open and public lives. Extensive public and private dialogue followed, along with shifts in public attitudes. Questions about the legal treatment of gays and lesbians soon reached the courts, where they could be discussed in the formal discourse of the law."

For supporters of same-sex marriage, Friday's ruling comes as a long-awaited bookend to the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and required the U.S. government to provide the same benefits to both gay and heterosexual couples.

* * * * * * * * * *

This Is How Fast America Changes Its Mind

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-pace-of-social-change/

By Alex Tribou and Keith Collins

Updated: June 26, 2015

Eleven years after Massachusetts became the first state to allow same-sex couples to marry, the Supreme Court has now extended that right nationwide. The decision came after a wave of gay marriage legalization: 28 states from 2013 to 2015, with 36 overall prior to the Court's ruling. Such widespread acceptance in a short amount of time isn't a phenomenon unique to gay marriage. Social change in the U.S. appears to follow a pattern: A few pioneer states get out front before the others, and then a key event—often a court decision or a grassroots campaign reaching maturity—triggers a rush of state activity that ultimately leads to a change in federal law.

We looked at six big issues—interracial marriage, prohibition, women’s suffrage, abortion, same-sex marriage, and recreational marijuana — to show how this has happened in the past, and may again in the very near future.

source link here

source link here

source link here

source link here

Peter Rollins Belfast Series on Radical Theology, Part 1 - John Caputo on Event

From Peter Rollin: John Caputo on Event

Over the next few weeks I'm going to offer you (my email subscribers) some advance access to videos from my yearly festival in Belfast. The actual event involves a blend of music, art, workshops and whiskey tastings as well as talks from some of the sharpest minds in the world of Radical Theology.

The videos I'll be linking to are in an unlisted area of Youtube and will include short talks from myself, Barry Taylor, Gladys Ganiel and Kester Brewin.

The one I'm offering you today is from the world renowned philosopher John Caputo. Dr. Caputo is a hybrid philosopher/theologian intent on producing impure thoughts which deny fixed and rigorous boundaries between philosophy and theology. Caputo treats "sacred" texts as a poetics of the human condition, or as a "theo-poetics." [That is,] as a poetics of the event harbored in the name of God.

In this talk Caputo explores the Event housed in Religion, asking if Radical Theology can preach.

or, click here to view

- Pete

Over the last twenty years I’ve been developing a project that has been described as “Pyrotheology.” Born and bred in Belfast, Pyrotheology has now grown into a vibrant movement with a world-wide impact.

In this intimate event, I’ll be presenting a clear and compressive introduction to the theory and technology of pyrotheology in the city where it all began.

This event will involve a mix of talks and discussions, and should be of interest to students of religion, academics, religious leaders and laypeople alike. We’re going to limit the tickets to 60. To register click on the Ticket link.

Cost £50

Price includes light refreshments, lunch provided by Flour Power, beer from Boundary Brewery and a free copy of “The Divine Magician” (or other book)

To secure your ticket, click here

* * * * * * * * * *

Who is John Caputo?

Reference #1 - Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Caputo

Reference #2 - Syracuse University (below)

John D. Caputo
Thomas J. Watson Professor, Religion and Humanities

Research and Teaching Interests

John D. Caputo is a hybrid philosopher/theologian intent on producing impure thoughts, thoughts which circulate between philosophy and theology, short-circuits which deny fixed and rigorous boundaries between philosophy and theology. Caputo treats "sacred" texts as a poetics of the human condition, or as a "theo-poetics," a poetics of the event harbored in the name of God. His past books have attempted to persuade us that hermeneutics goes all the way down (Radical Hermeneutics), that Derrida is a thinker to be reckoned with by theology (The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida), and that theology is best served by getting over its love affair with power and authority and embracing what Caputo calls, following St. Paul, The Weakness of God. He has also addressed wider-than-academic audiences in On Religion and What Would Jesus Deconstruct? and has an interest in interacting with the working church groups like ikon and the “Emergent” Church. He is currently working in a book on our frail and mortal flesh, probably to be entitled The Fate of All Flesh: A Theology of the Event, II.

Professor Caputo specializes in continental philosophy of religion, working on approaches to religion and theology in the light of contemporary phenomenology, hermeneutics and deconstruction, and also the presence in continental philosophy of radical religious and theological motifs. He has special interests in the "religion without religion" of Jacques Derrida; the "theological turn" taken in recent French phenomenology (Jean-Luc Marion and others); the critique of onto-theology; the question of post-modernism as "post-secularism;" the dialogue of contemporary philosophy with St. Augustine; the recent interest shown by philosophers in St. Paul; the link between Kierkegaard and deconstruction; Heidegger's early theological writings on Paul and Augustine; "secular" and "death of God" theology (Altizer, Vattimo, Zizek); medieval metaphysics and mysticism.

He conducts a series of biennial conferences on these themes: April, 2005, "St. Paul Among the Philosophers" (now available from Indiana University Press); April, 2007: "Feminism, Sexuality, and the Return of Religion" (in press with Indiana University Press); April, 2009: "The Politics of Love" (in preparation. This year’s conference, “The Future of Continental Philosophy of Religion,” will be held April 7-9, 2011. For details visit: http://pcr.syr.edu.

Recently, three books have appeared about his work: Cross and Khora: Deconstruction and Christianity in the Work of John D. Caputo, Eds. Neal Deroo and Marko Zlomsic (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010); A Passion for the Impossible: John D. Caputo in Focus, ed. Mark Dooley (SUNY Press, 2002) and Religion With/Out Religion: The Prayers and Tears of John D. Caputo, ed. Ed. James Olthius (Routledge, 2002). Prof. Caputo joined the department in Fall, 2004 after retiring from Villanova University where he taught from 1968 to 2004.

Professor Caputo's The Weakness of God: A Theology of the Event (Indiana, 2006) received the 2007 AAR Book Award for "Constructive-Reflective Studies in Religion." What would Jesus Deconstruct? was the winner of the ForeWord Magazine Best Philosophy Book of 2007 award.

Prof. Caputo will retire at the end of the 2010-11 academic year.

* * * * * * * * * *

In Defense of Total Depravity

by R.E. Slater

June 24, 2015

As an introduction to the article below, I would like to note that the more classical Christian view of total depravity is one that recognizes the imprint, or image, of God upon man as one that has been marred or subjugated in every way possible by that metaphysical reality of sin. Now a philosopher may decry total depravity as a "lack" of something missing (or affecting) the human spirit, but for the Christian we would acknowledge that what God hath made good-and-holy has now been marred in some way (and in every way) by sin.

And so, the way back is through a healing provided by God by way of a relationship with Himself rather than to be left isolated within ourselves to find that healing to our identity in relationship with all things. Ultimately, the answer to sin is in relationship with God who reforms our identity. And it is not in the denial of our sin (or sinfulness) but in the acceptance of this condition "of lackness" (as Pete terms it) that brings us to the Lord both before and after our renewed relationship to Him through Christ Jesus. 

For myself, sin is the other side (or perhaps, the opposite end) to the freedom granted humanity by God. To say we are free (or, free-willed) creatures must at the same time allow for its opposite declaration of bondage from freedom, from holiness, from goodness, which in Christian terminology is known as "sin". And thus, some will argue that we are really not free at all because of sin's affect upon us (Tony Jones tends towards this viewpoint of conditionalism), though for myself, I would argue we do have freedom given to us through God's image and by His Holy Spirit working in our lives either directly or indirectly (most usually through people, but also by circumstance, event, and even nature itself). Even so, it is always-and-ever the sovereign God who brings us to Himself, and not we ourselves to Him by our own means. For if we are left to ourselves this would never happen (according to the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans). But this holy work does only occur in-and-through the work of God's own (Holy) Spirit who bring us to Himself in some way, manner, means, or method. To which we humbly give thanks with bowed knees and hearts.

For a philosopher/theologian like Peter, he rather comes to the ideas of God, freedom, and sin as from the study of the human spirit through social/psychological contexts in what may be described as our "humanness." But, on the other hand, though he is interested in the religious aspect of our humanness - a subject he deals with constantly as you can tell by his writings - he feels much more comfortable examining our humanity in psychoanalytic terms rather than in classical theological terms. Especially as from within a philosophical context to the church's religious contexts.

Hence, the following article may feel foreign to the more conservative Christian. However, in pyschoanalytic terms, Pete's explanation is the more commonly accepted "starting point" amongst academics. He does not pretend to interpret Scripture so much as to interpret the human spirit from practical discussions that are being held within the field of scientific endeavor while leaving his discoveries to the Christian theologian to expand into whatever insight might be discovered as helpful and good and missional.

And so, rather than feel threatened by this approach it may be an approach than might lend some help to the contemporary theologian struggling to contextualize the Scripture's teachings of redemption, God, sin, and worship, in ways that might more readily appeal to the work-a-day world we live within. While clinging to past traditional church doctrines and dogmas today's theologians may wish to examine these newer insights to discover some value in these presentations if only to understand the mindset of the non-Christian world. One of which is how do we utilize the newer insights of psychoanalytics, philosophy, and even radical theology, in manners that might be helpful in explaining Christian theology's very own difficult subjects.... Perhaps no longer in classical terms of yesteryear built upon Greek and medieval philosophies and pseudo-sciences but in postmodern terms acknowledged by this 21st century generation. If so, we must then continue forward into these newer areas of thought if only to be better witnesses to the gospel of Christ as modern day apostles and prophets of the Lord speaking the oracles of God.

- R.E. Slater

* * * * * * * * * *

In Defense of Total Depravity

http://peterrollins.net/2015/06/in-defense-of-total-depravity/

by Peter Rollins

June 6, 2015

As some of you will know, every year I run a small festival in my home town of Belfast. This year one of our guests was the ever brilliant philosopher John “Jack” Caputo. During a discussion in the talks part of the festival someone asked him what the main difference was between the two of us. The question was asked partly because we share so much in common and I’ve been so influenced by his writing. Yet, there still seems a slight difference in our approaches. 

In response Jack said, “I think in listening to Pete this week I’ve finally worked it out, he’s a philosophical Calvinist!” For Jack, the Lacanian influence in my work manifests itself in the proclamation of a lack that touches every part of our being. Something he felt is a philosophical version of Total Depravity. The difference between us then lies in the way that Jack (as a heretical catholic) is much more positive about human subjectivity than myself.

Far from wanting to reject this claim, I think that he put his finger on something very important. The only thing I’d want to push back on is the idea that my position is depressing.

To understand the claim it will be good to briefly reflect on what Total Depravity actually means. To begin with, it shouldn’t be thought of as the idea that humans are utterly and completely sinful, but rather that every part of the human subject is touched by sin. If we take sin as an ontological category rather than an ethical one (something that is actually a conservative theological move, even if it is not one reflected in the contemporary church) then we can define Total Depravity as describing a lack that is infused into being itself.

Theologically speaking this means that Total Depravity defines the idea that human subjectivity is something other than a form of “pure life.” It is rather a form of impure life. It is a life infused with death. In philosophical terms this can be said in the following way: a human being is constituted by a lack at the heart of its subjectivity.

This recognition can actually be seen as the fundamental insight of religion. Namely, the religious impulse is born out of the sense of a lack experienced in the very heart of subjectivity. Rather than explaining religion as the result of some need for tribal identity, as the means by which we come to see the human essence, as a will to power, or as the result of postulating agency in a hostile world, Lacan saw the religious impulse as arising fundamentally from a recognition of the incompleteness hard-baked into the very nature of human subjectivity (a lack formed in and by language). The religious individual experiences this lack and then attempts to stop it up via some signifier such as “God,” “Historical Necessity,” “The scientific method,” or “Evolution.”

By directly affirming the ground out of which religion is born (in its sacred and secular forms), Pyrotheology affirms a form of Total Depravity in that it recognizes the constitutive lack at the core of being, and the various ways this lack is made manifest (the Real). The point however is not to offer up a way of closing down this lack (which is ontological in nature and thus cannot be filled). This strategy of corking up the lack is the way of fundamentalism, and secular philosophies such as positivism. Rather the theory and technology of Pyrotheology is concerned with directly assuming the lack and enjoying the desire that it creates, rather than seeking our pleasure in the closure of the gap.

It is this religion of the gap that I explore in my most recent trilogy of books: Insurrection, Idolatry of God and The Divine Magician.

---

One Response to In Defense of Total Depravity

joe calandrino says:

June 22, 2015 at 9:15 am

Well here it is, Pete, in 7 paragraphs, the nexus of some of most stunning ideas about religion, all poised for some kind of synthesis (the elusive project of my own blogging efforts). Lack, desire, the Real, subjectivity, being. And, far from being depressing, it’s all good news.

I am coming to see this important contribution of yours this way: “lack” is constitutive of the subject/being(ens&esse) as the subject confronts the “loss” of immediacy: the loss of experiencing itself (as itself) and the world without mediation. Such is inherent in the growth of consciousness, and therefore constitutive of it. In the play of the Real and the Symbolic, all metaphysics enacts, in the Symbolic order, something actually going on in the ineffable Real.

If we take as axiomatic that the locus of the divine is the Real (Lacan), then all movements in the Symbolic (and Imaginary) order are analogical enactments that substitute for “lack” as they engage moments in the Real. These enactments in the Symbolic order of something occurring in the Real is “the ground…of…religion.”

It is this idea of “manifest[ing]” that fascinates me. Far from foreclosing on lack, pyrotheology opens onto the very givenness of the Real itself, In this sense, Jean-Luc Marion’s 3rd phenomenological reduction to ‘givenness’ brushes up against your pyrotheological opening, and instead of foreclosing on lack, discloses the formation of the subjectivity of self (a relation of metonymy, not identity).

Depravity, then, can be understood as a ‘deprivation’ of immediacy, that, unexpectedly, opens upon the horizon that situates givenness, presenting it to the intuition. When the intuition is ‘saturated,’ the ‘religious impulse’ becomes the response to Caputo’s ‘unheard call’, which commands the aim of intentionality. The religious subject is thereby called into itself, “constituted” as you say, by “lack” which is the _distance_ between the Real, and, well, everything else.

If we suspend Caputo’s notion that his ‘call’ is reduced to one’s “mommy” in psychoanalysis, then it’s really not Calvinism vs Catholicism that separates your pyrotheology from Caputo’s theopoetics/insistence theology, but rather entangles them in the play in his ‘chiasm’ where Marion’s new phenomenology holds “lack” in tension between givenness and the emerging self. For Marion’s system, the relation between what is given and subjectivity precedes the individuation of the self. Hence, lack, givenness, the Real are all anterior to the self coming into being.

The pyrotheological, phenomenological and theopoetical gestures share in the notion that relationality precedes being, and constitutes it as that which is anterior to it.

- John Calandrino

Pope Francis' Encyclical on the Environment

encyclical

Pope Says Climate Change Is Largely Man Made

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-encyclical-quotes/index.html?sr=fb061815popequotes1130aVOdtoplink

by Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor

June 18, 2015

(CNN) Here are some of the most powerful quotes from Pope Francis' encyclical on the environment released Thursday:

"The Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth. In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish."

"Never have we so hurt and mistreated our common home as we have in the last 200 years."

"We are not God. The Earth was here before us and was given to us."

"The idea of infinite or unlimited growth, which proves so attractive to economists, financiers and experts in technology ... is based on the lie that there is an infinite supply of the earth's goods, and this leads to the planet being squeezed dry at every limit."

"Yet all is not lost. Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start."

And here are some other significant points the Pope made:

"A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. ... A number of scientific studies indicate that most global warming in recent decades is due to the great concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen oxides and others) released mainly as a result of human activity."

"The exploitation of the planet has already exceeded acceptable limits and we still have not solved the problem of poverty."

"Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

"The climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all."

"We need to strengthen the conviction that we are one single human family."

"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."

"We are not faced with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social, but rather one complex crisis which is both social and environmental."

"There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself."

"What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up? The question not only concerns the environment in isolation; the issue cannot be approached piecemeal."

"It has become countercultural to chose a lifestyle whose goals are even partly independent of technology."

"Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age, but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way."

"When media and the digital world become omnipresent, their influence can stop people from learning how to live wisely, to think deeply and to love generously. In this context, the great sages of the past run the risk of going unheard amid the noise and distractions of an information overload."

"We need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that the problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals."

"What would induce anyone, at this stage, to hold on to power only to be remembered for their inability to take action when it was urgent and necessary to do so?"

CNN's Richard Greene contributed to this report.

Christian Transgender Acceptance and Equality

Lately I've been watching argument and confusion arise from Olympian Decathlete Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's transgender change (who is famously associated with the Kardashian's). To help towards a positive construction of this discussion I'd like to make the following observations:

First, to understand "transgender identity" let's start with a medical diagnosis of what "gender dysphoria" may mean... is it governed by a miswiring of the brain or by genetic encoding? Or, does it stem from the pressure to fit inside society's boxes?

Since it may be a struggle with personal identity should we omit from our street vocabulary the discriminatory label of queer which too easily reflects popular ignorance and discriminatory labeling based on personal feelings of fear or of religious/cultural standards of what should be norming according to the "book of us?"

From dictionary.com comes the following observations:

gender dysphoria

—noun

"A psychological condition marked by significant emotional distress and impairment in life functioning, caused by a lack of congruence between gender identity and biological sex assigned at birth."

Also called gender identity disorder.

—Usage note

"Some transgender individuals and their advocates object to the use of the word "disorder" to describe this condition and therefore reject use of the variant term gender identity disorder. However, others feel that classifying it as a disorder may facilitate access to medical care related to the condition."

Secondly, very few of us understand the confusion a child or young teenager may have who struggles with this crisis. I would like to suggest we put away labels and finger-pointing and consider how to help in ways that are constructive to the well-being of these individuals.

All the worse is the child who now becomes an adult having not resolved his or her's gender identity crisis. For the church, as for society, we must always remember our shortcomings and grave ignorance of individuals who harbor deep feelings of non-acceptance along with the fears of being personally harmed or shunned should they speak of their personal crisis to others. Obviously this is not helpful and the greater harm has been committed by ourselves who are short on empathy and prone to castigate others different from ourselves rather than to redeem those who would normally become outcasts from society.

Thirdly, let's make this personal. Rather than attempting any diagnosis at all (including anything medical) let's simply try to see a transgender individual as a person. As an individual. One who has the same needs as you and I to be loved and accepted, befriended and ushered into a cocoon of people who will protect them for who they are. This goes way beyond any labels and psychologies and simply let's someone be who they wish to be. Who must be what they are regardless of whether it is norming to society or not. Jesus did the same in the New Testament to the outcasts of society and I believe the church should also be on the frontlines of love and acceptance to those who are condemned and unloved.

Finally, I have linked a related article of a young girl's experiences who has gone through her own transgender identity crisis. The link provided will take you to her story. Just like a gay or lesbian individual who must deal with societal exclusion so too does the transgender person find similar discomfort by friends and neighbors. Perhaps, by reading of their personal struggles, we might better appreciate what many of us fail to understand.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

June 18, 2015

The New Girl in School: Transgender Surgery at 18

Rebirth of a Transgender Teenager:

Katherine Boone's story

Kat Boone, "Before, I was unable to look in a mirror"

For further reference -
Wikipedia - Transgender

Pope Francis - 'Revolution' Needed to Combat Climate Change

Pope Says Climate Change Is Largely Man Made

Pope Francis: 'Revolution' needed to combat climate change

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/18/world/pope-francis-climate-technology-encyclical/index.html?sr=cnnifb

By Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor

June 18, 2015

(CNN)Pope Francis warned Thursday that a variety of human activities -- from a blind worship of technology to a reliance on fossil fuels -- risks irreparably ruining the planet and stealing its stunning beauty and rich diversity from future generations.

"Doomsday predictions," the Pope said in a sweeping and sharply worded manifesto, "can no longer be met with irony or disdain."

Citing scientific consensus that we are witnessing a "disturbing warming" of the Earth's climate, Francis called for a "bold cultural revolution" to halt humanity's spiral into self-destruction.

"There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself" the Pope said.

Francis' statement came Thursday in the form of an encyclical, a letter traditionally addressed from St. Peter's Square to the more than 1 billion Catholics across the globe. Derived from the Greek word for "circle," an encyclical is among the church's most authoritative teaching documents.

But Francis has set his sights beyond the circle of his church. With an eye toward several key climate change summits scheduled for later this year, the Pope said his letter is addressed to "every person living on this planet."

"I would like to enter a dialogue with all people about our common home," Francis said.

Critique of modern life

The humble invitation belies the damning analysis of modern life contained in the 184-page encyclical, entitled "Laudato Si." The archaic Italian phrase, which means "Praised Be To You," appears in the "Canticle of the Sun," a song penned by St. Francis, the patron saint of ecology.

Read the full encyclical

Subtitled, "On Care for Our Common Home," the encyclical was published Thursday in at least five languages during a news conference at the Vatican. The document was more than a year in the making, church officials say, and draws on the work of dozens of scientists, theologians, scholars from various fields and previous popes.

"We have a situation here," said Janos Pasztor, the U.N.'s assistant secretary-general for climate change, who was part of a team that convened with Vatican this April, "in which science and religion are totally aligned."

Pope Francis, 2015

The Pope's eagerly awaited encyclical recycles some of the now-familiar themes of Francis' papacy: an abiding concern for the poor, a scorching critique of the idolatry of money and a facility for using evocative and earthy language to describe complex conundrums.

As the first Pope from the developing world, Francis brings a moral vision shaped not in the seminaries of Europe but the slums of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

With language ranging from the majestic (lyrical poetry in praise of nature) to the mundane (take the bus!), the Pope put his signature stamp on a controversial topic and moral clout on the line.

"Laudato si" is long on laments and short on specific solutions, though the Pope repeatedly urges deep thinking and dialogue to address the complex symptoms now plaguing the earth. In broad strokes, Francis calls for a drastic change in "lifestyle, production and consumption" from superficial and unsustainable habits to more mature means of caring for "our common home."

"What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?" Francis asks. "The question not only concerns the environment in isolation; the issue cannot be approached piecemeal."

And while the Pope calls for practical steps like recycling and improving public transportation, he said structural injustices require more political will and sacrifices than most societies seem willing to bear.

In short, our care for the environment is intimately connected to our care for each other, he argues, and we are failing miserably at both.

"We are not faced with two separate crises, one environmental and the other social," Francis writes, "but rather one complex crisis which is both social and environmental."

The rich and powerful shut themselves up within self-enclosed enclaves, Francis argues, compulsively consuming the latest goods to feed the emptiness within their hearts, while ignoring the plight of the poor.

The poor, meanwhile, find themselves on the run from natural disasters and degraded habitats, shunted to the bottom of the world's pile of problems with decreasing access to its natural resources.

The Pope denounces big businesses, energy companies, short-sighted politicians, scurrilous scientists, laissez faire economists, callous Christians and myopic media professionals. Scarcely any area of society escapes his probing pen.

But Francis saves his most challenging questions for modern consumers, arguing that humanity has become enamored of another apple -- and this time no Eve or serpent are around to take the fall. The temptation may have shifted from a forbidden fruit to cutting edge technology, but the sin remains the same: hubris.

"We are not God," the Pope warns, "The Earth was here before us and has been given to us."

'An immense pile of filth'

Though Popes since Paul VI in 1971 have addressed environmental degradation, "Laudato Si" is the first encyclical to focus primarily on creation care, the Christian idea that God gave humans the earth to cultivate, not conquer.

Even months before its publication, the encyclical drew criticism from conservatives and climate change skeptics, who urged the Pope not to put his moral weight behind the controversial issue of global warming.

Many Catholics and environmentalists, meanwhile, eagerly awaited the encyclical. The Washington-based Catholic Climate Covenant, for example, plans to send homily hints to the 17,000 Catholic parishes in the United States for priests to use during sermons this summer. The group is also planning media events with bishops in Iowa, California, New Mexico and elsewhere.

In the weeks before the encyclical's release, Protestant pastors and at least 300 rabbis in the United States also said they were willing and eager to embrace Pope's call for environmental justice.

In a sign of the anticipation awaiting the encyclical, the news that an Italian magazine had published a leaked draft online on Monday made the front pages of several American newspapers.

From the first days of his papacy, Francis has preached about the importance of the environment, not only as a scientific concern but also a moral one. In his first homily as pontiff, Francis called six times during the short sermon for humans to protect creation.

The encyclical published on Thursday goes well beyond any sermons, delving into fields familiar to any Catholic, such as Scripture and theology, but also wandering into sociology, politics, urban planning, economics, globalization, biology and other areas of scientific research.

The pope has said he hopes his encyclical on the environment will reach a wide audience.

Broken into six chapters, "Laudato Si" begins by cataloguing a host of ills wracking the planet: dirty air, polluted water, industrial fumes, toxic waste, rising sea levels and extreme weather.

"The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth," Francis writes. "In many parts of the planet, the elderly lament that once beautiful landscapes are now covered with rubbish."

The problem is "aggravated," the Pope says, "by a model of development based on the intensive use of fossil fuels."

If present trends continue, Francis argues, the changing climate will have grave implications for poor communities who lack the resources to adapt or protect themselves from natural disasters.

Many will be forced to leave their homes, while the economically and politically powerful "mask" the problems or respond with indifference, the Pope says.

The poor may get a passing mention at global economic conferences, Francis says, but their problems seem to be merely added to agendas as an afterthought.

"Indeed, when all is said and done," the Pope says of the poor, "they frequently remain on the bottom of the pile."

Technology takes over

Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh called Francis a Marxist after he released a similar doctrine in 2013 that called trickle-down economics "crude" and "naive."

Apparently undeterred, the Pope doubles down on his critique of modern capitalism -- especially aspects of the free market -- in "Laudato Si."

"We need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that the problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals," he writes.

What's more, the Pope calls the idea that the "invisible forces of the market" can adequately regulate the economy the "same kind of thinking" that leads to the "exploitation of children and abandonment of the elderly who no longer serve our interests."

In one particularly searing section, Francis compares laissez faire economists to mobsters, drug lords, illegal organ harvesters and human traffickers. All are part of a "throwaway culture," the Pope argues, that treats human beings as just another commodity to exploit.

The Pope's attack on the "myth of progress" is more surprising. But he connects his critique to a "worshipping of earthly powers," where humans have usurped the role of God, imposing our own laws and interests on reality with little thought to the long-term consequences.

In particular, he argues that our "cult of human power" and blind adoption of technology has been a Faustian bargain, offering a wealth of benefits, but at the risk of losing our souls.

"Life gradually becomes a surrender to situations conditioned by technology," he says, "itself viewed as the principle key to the meaning of existence."

"It has become countercultural," Francis continues, "to choose a lifestyle whose goals are even partly independent of technology."

The omnipresent digital media feeds our "information overload" and "mental pollution," the Pope says. Those, in turn, lead to an excessive self-centeredness that tends to "shield us from direct contact with the pain, the fears and the joys of others and the complexity of their personal experience."

"Nobody is suggesting a return to the Stone Age," he continues, "but we do need to slow down and look at reality in a different way."

Despite his bleak view of our present situation, the Pope offered glimmers of hope near the end of his "joyful and troubling" reflection.

"Yet all is not lost," Francis writes. "Human beings, while capable of the worst, are also capable of rising above themselves, choosing again what is good, and making a new start, despite their mental and social conditioning."

Getting business 'on board'

Opposition to the Pope's encyclical began several months before it was released.

In April, the Heartland Institute, a conservative group skeptical of climate change, mounted a campaign to convince Pope Francis that global warming "is not a crisis."

"The Pope is putting his moral authority behind the radical environmental agenda of the United Nations -- and he's doing it after being told only part of the climate story," Jim Lakely, a Heartland spokesman, said in an email interview on Tuesday.

Lakely said Heartland will contact "hundreds of thousands of Catholics" in the United States through mail and email countering the Pope's message and "giving them the truth about climate change."

That may be a difficult task.

More Americans trust him than almost any other world or U.S. leader as a source of information on global warming, according to a survey conducted by Yale University and George Mason University. Still, the same poll showed that less than 10% of Americans view climate change as a moral issue.

5 key questions about the Pope and climate change

According to a Pew Research Center study released on Tuesday, Catholics are divided along partisan lines over climate change. More than 7 in 10 American Catholics believe the planet is getting warmer, and nearly half attribute global warming to human causes. A similar share (48%) view it as a very serious problem, according to Pew.

But while more than 80% of Catholic Democrats say there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming, just half of Catholic Republicans agree. And less than a quarter of Catholic Republicans believe global warming is a man-made phenomenon and that it poses a very serious problem.

On the 2016 campaign trail, news of the Pope's upcoming encyclical has put several Catholic GOP candidates on the defensive. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, for example, said the Pope should "leave science to the scientists."

At a town hall in New Hampshire this week, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who converted to Catholicism, said, "I don't get economic policies from my bishops or my cardinals or my Pope. I think religion ought to be about making us better as people and less about things that end up getting into the political realm."

Pope, GOP collide on climate change

Other Catholics, though, were eagerly awaiting the Pope's encyclical.

In addition to Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana, the Vatican panel presenting "Laudato Si" included Metropolitan John of Pergamon, an Eastern Orthodox priest; John Schellenuber, founding Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; Carolyn Wo, the Chinese-American director of Catholic Relief Services; and Valeria Martano, an Italian historian and member of the Rome-based lay Catholic Community of Sant'Egidio.

Woo said her assignment is to connect the encyclical's concerns to the business world.

Over the past 20 years, said Woo, former dean of the University of Notre Dame's Mendoza College of Business, some corporations have adopted more ethical approaches, and she expects a wave of letters from business leaders this week praising the Pope's initiative.

"The bottom line is that we need business, not just some, but all, to do more," Woo said. "They are the ones on the front lines. We need them on board."

The Pope will also need world leaders to buy into his moral message, which will be key before a U.N.-sponsored climate summit in December, said Pasztor of the U.N.

At the meeting, nations are expected to submit their plans for reducing greenhouse gases, and the Pope will likely repeat the encyclical's entreaties when he speaks at the U.N. General Assembly this September.

"Having such an important person as the Pope talking about this issue will reach a lot of people," Pazstor said, "and at a crucial time."

Index - EarthCare and Ecology

27 Images That Prove That We Are In Danger. I’m Speechless

Denuding British Columbia Forests

Parenting Strong Willed Children

Parenting Your Strong-Willed Child

http://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/positive-discipline/Parenting-Strong-Willed-Child

Have a strong-willed child? You're lucky! Strong willed children can be a challenge when they’re young, but if sensitively parented, they become terrific teens and young adults. Self-motivated and inner-directed, they go after what they want and are almost impervious to peer pressure. As long as parents resist the impulse to "break their will," strong-willed kids often become leaders.

What exactly is a strong-willed child? Some parents call them "difficult" or “stubborn,” but we could also see strong-willed kids as people of integrity who aren’t easily swayed from their own viewpoints. Strong-willed kids are spirited and courageous. They want to learn things for themselves rather than accepting what others say, so they test the limits over and over. They want desperately to be "in charge" of themselves, and will sometimes put their desire to "be right" above everything else. When their heart is set on something, their brains seem to have a hard time switching gears. Strong-willed kids have big, passionate feelings and live at full throttle.

Often, strong-willed kids are prone to power-struggles with their parents. However, it takes two to have a power struggle. You don't have to attend every argument to which you're invited! If you can take a deep breath when your buttons get pushed, and remind yourself that you can let your child save face and still get what you want, you can learn to sidestep those power struggles. (Don't let your four year old make you act like a four year old yourself!)

No one likes being told what to do, but strong-willed kids find it unbearable. Parents can avoid power struggles by helping the child feel understood even as the parent sets limits. Try empathizing, giving choices, and understanding that respect goes both ways. Looking for win/win solutions rather than just laying down the law keeps strong-willed children from becoming explosive and teaches them essential skills of negotiation and compromise.

Strong-willed kids aren't just being difficult. They feel their integrity is compromised if they're forced to submit to another person's will. If they're allowed to choose, they love to cooperate. If this bothers you because you think obedience is an important quality, I'd ask you to reconsider. Of course you want to raise a responsible, considerate, cooperative child who does the right thing, even when it's hard. But that doesn't imply obedience. That implies doing the right thing because you want to. Morality is doing what's right, no matter what you're told. Obedience is doing what you're told, no matter what's right.

So of course you want your child to do what you say. But not because he's obedient, meaning that he always does what someone bigger tells him to do. No, you want him to do what you say because he trusts YOU, because he's learned that even though you can't always say yes to what he wants, you have his best interests at heart. You want to raise a child who has self-discipline, takes responsibility, and is considerate -- and most important, has the discernment to figure out who to trust and when to be influenced by someone else.

Breaking a child's will leaves him open to the influence of others who often will not serve his highest interests. What's more, it's a betrayal of the spiritual contract we make as parents.

That said, strong-willed kids can be a handful -- high energy, challenging, persistent. How do we protect those fabulous qualities and encourage their cooperation?

Ten Tips for Positive Parenting

Your Strong-Willed, Spirited Child

1. Avoid power struggles by using routines and rules.

That way, you aren't the bad guy bossing them around, it’s just that:

"The rule is we use the potty after every meal and snack," or "The schedule is that lights-out is

at 8pm. If you hurry, we’ll have time for two books," or "In our house, we finish homework

before screen time."

2. Remember that strong-willed kids are experiential learners.

That means they have to see for themselves if the stove is hot. So unless you're worried about serious injury, it's more effective to let them learn through experience, instead of trying to control them. And you can expect your strong-willed child to test your limits repeatedly--that's how he learns. Once you know that, it's easier to stay calm, which avoids wear and tear on your relationship--and your nerves.

3. Your strong-willed child wants mastery more than anything.

Let her take charge of as many of her own activities as possible. Don’t nag at her to brush her teeth; ask “What else do you need to do before we leave?” If she looks blank, tick off the short list: “Every morning we eat, brush teeth, use the toilet, and pack the backpack. I saw you pack your backpack, that's terrific! Now, what do you still need to do before we leave?” Kids who feel more independent and in charge of themselves will have less need to be oppositional. Not to mention, they take responsibility early.

4. Give your strong-willed child choices.

If you give orders, he will almost certainly bristle. If you offer a choice, he feels like the master of his own destiny. Of course, only offer choices you can live with and don’t let yourself get resentful by handing away your power. If going to the store is non-negotiable and he wants to keep playing, an appropriate choice is:

"Do you want to leave now or in ten minutes? Okay, ten minutes with no fuss? Let's shake on it....And since it could be hard to stop playing in ten minutes, how can I help you then?"

5. Give her authority over her own body.

“I hear that you don’t want to wear your jacket today. I think it's cold and I am definitely

wearing a jacket. Of course, you are in charge of your own body, as long as you stay safe

and healthy, so you get to decide whether to wear a jacket. But I’m afraid that you will be

cold once we are outside, and I won’t want to come back to the house. How about I put your

jacket in the backpack, and then we’ll have it if you change your mind?”

She’s not going to get pneumonia, unless you push her into it by acting like you’ve won if she asks for the jacket. And once she won’t lose face by wearing her jacket, she’ll be begging for it once she gets cold. It’s just hard for her to imagine feeling cold when she’s so warm right now in the house, and a jacket seems like such a hassle. She's sure she's right -- her own body is telling her so -- so naturally she resists you. You don't want to undermine that self-confidence, just teach her that there's no shame in letting new information change her mind.

6. Don't push him into opposing you.

Force always creates "push-back" -- with humans of all ages. If you take a hard and fast position, you can easily push your child into defying you, just to prove a point. You'll know when it's a power struggle and you're invested in winning. Just stop, take a breath, and remind yourself that winning a battle with your child always sets you up to lose what’s most important: the relationship. When in doubt say "Ok, you can decide this for yourself." If he can't, then say what part of it he can decide, or find another way for him to meet his need for autonomy without compromising his health or safety.

7. Side-step power struggles by letting your child save face.

You don’t have to prove you’re right. You can, and should, set reasonable expectations and enforce them. But under no circumstances should you try to break your child’s will or force him to acquiesce to your views. He has to do what you want, but he's allowed to have his own opinions and feelings about it.

8. Listen to her.

You, as the adult, might reasonably presume you know best. But your strong-willed child has a strong will partly as a result of her integrity. She has a viewpoint that is making her hold fast to her position, and she is trying to protect something that seems important to her. Only by listening calmly to her and reflecting her words will you come to understand what’s making her oppose you. A non-judgmental “I hear that you don’t want to take a bath. Can you tell me more about why?” might just elicit the information that she’s afraid she’ll go down the drain, like Alice in the song. It may not seem like a good reason to you, but she has a reason. And you won’t find it out if you get into a clash and order her into the tub.

9. See it from his point of view.

For instance, he may be angry because you promised to wash his superman cape and then forgot. To you, he is being stubborn. To him, he is justifiably upset, and you are being hypocritical, because he is not allowed to break his promises to you, but you broke yours to him. How do you clear this up and move on? You apologize profusely for breaking your promise, you reassure him that you try very hard to keep your promises, and you go, together, to wash the cape. You might even teach him how to wash his own clothes so you're not in this position in the future and he's empowered. Just consider how would you want to be treated, and treat him accordingly.

10. Discipline through the relationship, never through punishment.

Kids don’t learn when they’re in the middle of a fight. Like all of us, that’s when adrenaline is pumping and learning shuts off. Kids behave because they want to please us. The more you fight with and punish your child, the more you undermine her desire to please you. If she's upset, help her express her hurt, fear or disappointment, so they evaporate. Then she'll be ready to listen to you when you remind her that in your house, everyone speaks kindly to each other. (Of course, you have to model that. Your child won't always do what you say, but she will always, eventually, do what you do.)

11. Offer him respect and empathy.

Most strong-willed children are fighting for respect. If you offer it to them, they don’t need to fight to protect their position. And, like the rest of us, it helps a lot if they feel understood. If you see his point of view and think he's wrong -- for instance, he wants to wear the superman cape to church and you think that's inappropriate -- you can still offer him empathy and meet him part way while you set the limit.

"You love this cape and wish you could wear it, don't you? But when we go to services we

dress up to sow respect, so we can't wear the cape. I know you'll miss wearing it. How

about we take it with us so you can wear it on our way home?"

Does this sound like Permissive Parenting? It isn't. You set limits. There's just never any reason to be mean about it!

Here's why Permissive Parenting sabotages your child.

Need more ideas about

How to put Positive Parenting to work with your Strong-Willed Child?