There's a discussion in this news roundup following an item I linked about how 124 Catholic parishes in the Diocese of Camden will be whittled down to just 70 by year's end. Here's the newspaper story.
The question I asked, given all that whittling down, was why then do politicians bow so low to Catholic concerns? I got some answers which are worth reading. But none of them satisfy me.
During the last few months I was part of a large lobbying team that talked with legislators about marriage equality. It was fun, and they asked great questions. In two meetings - one of them with Steve Sweeney - organized pressure from the Catholic church and of course its local members was a factor for them.
I get it. I understand and respect a religiously observant person's view of things, and understand why that would lead to, example, personal choices that would exclude say, same-sex marriage, or abortion. This extends far less to elected persons, since they're in office for reasons other than furthering their own religion's viewpoint.
What I do not understand is why religiously observant people would say to themselves that because they don't believe in something, they should determine what somebody else is entitled to do with their life. The chutzpah of that boggles my mind.
I practice no religion. I'm atheist on my mother's side and on my father's side Albanian Orthodox, but that was because all the Albanians gathered in the church and my Dad wanted me to know them - good call. And I find that as much as religious people expect the rest of us to respect and give considerable room to their traditions and beliefs, that largesse is never returned.
So yes, it matters to me that the Diocese is shrinking. As it matters, as Thurman says, that so many people counted as Catholic adhere less than the Church would want. The broad support from clergy in many faiths, including Catholic, for marriage equality, also matters.
When the Catholic Church's reach is deeper into the legislature than it is into the community, there's something wrong.
Despite opposition from the Catholic Church, New Jersey Catholics generally support legalizing gay marriage, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton Poll released today. Among Catholics, 48 percent support gay marriage, while 40 percent oppose and 12 percent are undecided. Protestants hold the opposite view, with only 34 percent supporting and 55 percent opposing gay marriage, and 11 percent undecided. Jewish respondents support gay marriage, 56 percent to 40 percent and 4 percent undecided, while those with no preference are the most supportive, at 85 percent to only 10 percent opposed with 5 percent undecided.
It turns out "non-evangelical protestants support gay marriage, 47% - 37%" but evangelical protestants are the group that oppose it strongly, 67% - 24%. The important of evangelical opposition is well known--for example, Nate Silver's model of voting on gay marriage bans is based on the percentage of white evangelical protestants. But I am always interested to see that Roman Catholics are far more socially liberal than the reactionary leadership that has cemented its hold on the church in the last two papacies.
There was a little bit of nutty happening over there in the hearing room yesterday. No worries, babies. Go for marriage equality. Because on that other thing? that free speech thing? I'm here to tell ya, ACLU-NJ's got your back. - - promoted by Rosi
The vast majority of those testifying at last nights Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on marriage equality told moving stories of love, family and justice. We heard from families who had overcome harrowing obstacles and given back to society in humbling ways, children holding out hope that their parents would be allowed to marry each other like their friends' families, and some 50 clergy who wanted to marry their congregants.
In testimony from the other side, although the topic was marriage equality, free speech seemed to play the part of star witness.
One Hasidic rabbi - of whom there were many - voiced particular concern that he would be legally barred from condemning same-sex marriage in his synagogue.
Huh? As an authority on the First Amendment, be assured that you can still slam same-sex marriage all you want at temple.
After the rabbis took the stage, John Tomicki of the New Jersey Coalition to Preserve and Protect Marriage (which represents, as far as I can tell, no one) somehow wound his argument to say that allowing marriage equality infringed upon his religious freedom rights and therefore his right to religious expression. He then asked the senators if they would represent him if he preached his beliefs on the street corner.
Hey, over here, in the overflow room, the ACLU will represent you. Free speech in public places is one of our specialties. Just give us a call (no need to meet in person).
And finally, I spoke with a guy from Knights of Columbus (to his wife's terror) who was dead sure that marriage equality would result in dramatic free speech infringements. "Just look at what happened in Canada," he told me five or six times.
What happened in Canada? Nothing as far as I know. But anyway, we don't live in Canada.
And we have a really strong First Amendment; Canada doesn't.
The spirit of Rick Santorum hovered in the room as opponents let loose their far-fetched fears that marriage between gay couples would lead to polygamy, underage marriage and, if I heard right, bestiality.
Our country has seen steady progress over the past few decades in wiping out homophobia. We've learned that marriage in Massachusetts hasn't brought society to a halt. Our culture has become familiar with images of gay couples raising families and living ordinary lives. Our opponents have but one thing to cling to: scare tactics. It makes you realize how scared they must be, when they're swinging desperately in the committee hearing room. (Unfortunately, confronting those irrational fears will be an ongoing project for our side).
The absurdity of the opposition's arguments in yesterday's committee room made me realize that even though this fight is far from over, it's fundamentally over. We win. It's only a matter of time before we have marriage equality in this country, in every state.
How soon it happens depends on how smart and strategic we can be. It's a question of whether we can put aside our differences to have honest conversations about our beliefs and our lives. How patient will we be in bringing people along? How impatient will we be to get equal rights? How committed are we to working together and keeping the flame alive? The country, as we've seen in a handful of different states this year, still hasn't figured out what the right answers to those questions are.
I recently heard the folk singer Ferron say something like, "Society can only move forward as fast as the slowest person, so you might as well get to the back of the line and try to help push it along."
Based on yesterday's testimony, which was delivered by overwhelmingly by smart, inspiring, amazing human beings standing for their rights, and which included some eloquent truths from Senators Weinberg, Gill and Baroni, the good news is that most people are up here with us. The bad news is too many others are straggling behind.
In my column over at the Star-Ledger today, I looked at the case of two adherents of Santeria who have gotten themselves into some legal problems for conducting animal sacrifices. I don't know where this case will go, but it seems unlikely to me that the Supreme Court would uphold a conviction for someone killing an animal for religious purposes using the exact same methods used by the food industry. Public health could be an issue, but that isn't even broached in the charges (animal cruelty) or in the very short, very biased Star-Ledger article.
But it relates directly to a short discussion I had with a friend recently over the cartoon run by a particular NJ political-news website that showed Sen. Lautenberg and Congressman Rothman performing a bris on Joe Ferriero. Some of the Jewish people I've spoken to about the cartoon thought it offensive and some thought it was funny - and some thought both. But the offensiveness of the cartoon is an issue concerning freedom of the press - and they obviously have as much right to be offensive in full color as I do with stick figures in black-and-white. Where my friend went with the discussion is over the practice of circumcision and whether it is, in his words, "barbaric" or not.
A New Jersey rabbi has filed a civil rights lawsuit against the township where he lives, saying local officials in Freehold Township are conducting an illegal surveillance of his house and restricting his right to pray at his home.
So what serious violation is the Rabbi committing that is warranting any surveillance in the first place...
At issue is whether Bernstein, a rabbi with the ultraorthodox Lubavitch Chabad, is allowed to host a minyon, the necessary 10 men to pray under orthodox Jewish law, at his home on Shabbat, Friday night to Saturday night. The Monmouth County township says he is violating local zoning ordinances because he is using his home as a house of worship, according to the lawsuit.
He wants to have 10 people over for a prayer because his religion says he can't drive from Friday night to Saturday night and this requires fines and surveillance...
Bernstein received a zoning violation in February 2007 and a summons in April; in May he filed a lawsuit in New Jersey Superior Court. The township retaliated by "secretly setting up a video camera," aimed at the Bersteins' home, which is operated on Friday afternoon before Shabbat until its conclusion on Saturday, the lawsuit alleges.
I wish this was a joke. I have to listen to the President tell me to be afraid while they raise a color coded chart and have me give up my toothpaste when I fly and instead of focusing on the real threats, Freehold is doing surveillance on the home of a Rabbi wanting to worship in retaliation for being taken to court? And now how much money will they have to spend defending themselves from this lawsuit? Couldn't they have just given the Rabbi a variance so he wouldn't be in violation? Wouldn't that have been easier, less expensive and possibly a responsible resolution? There has to be more to this story.
*Update- In the thread, Rob Usdin posted an additional story providing more information. While the frame that I gave is incorrect, I think the issue is one that deserves discussion. I shouldn't have closed w/ the homeland security end. I was looking at the resources that were being spent. I hope people will look past my reactionary initial post and look deeper to the issue. I feel like it's gonna come up again regardless of the religion.
If you've paid attention, you know that there's a internecine war brewing over in Kearny. If you haven't been paying attention, check out some excellent writing by my non-relative Steve Hart (there are others, too, but a Hart has to support a Hart or the blogosphere will implode).
Now we have some news that Newark is miffed that it can't be known as the center of small-minded bigotry. My friend Chuck Currie, over at Street Prophets, tells us of the West Side High saga.
It's in a quicktime format and runs around 15 minutes. If it loads slow for you and stops/sputters; just pause it and leave that window alone for a spell. Then come back after it's loaded and it should play smoothly.
I'm trying to load a second, longer excerpt. If you appreciate this one; the second will be better.
Unfortunately my battery crapped out so the end of the event was not recorded by me. However, I dare say, there'll be more than enough to get the flavor of what our Constitution is up against.
Last week, the Kearny School Board finally decided what to do in the case of a history teacher who was caught on tape foretelling his students' certain damnation. It was, essentially, 'Students can only tape with the teacher's permission, and they will attempt to educate teachers on their legal responsibilities preventing them from telling a student "you belong in hell."
But that wasn't it. Up until a few days ago, the history teacher, David Paszkiewicz, was still teaching the class with the student who taped him in it -- even after Paszkiewicz insinuated that the student was part of "an effort afoot to undermine the very underpinnings of our freedoms." Perhaps Paszkiewicz thought the school board's deliberations were taking so long because they were unfolding this dastardly plot? Or maybe he thought the school board would say, 'Tell whoever you want that they're going straight to hell,' and he'd have the same captive audience to judge?
So, you can imagine his disappointment when the school board informed him that, legally, he was way out of line (even with the consolation that his students can now be punished for taping without his permission). As a result, Paszkiewicz has requested and been granted a classroom change. School officials have declined to comment.
And so, after nearly five months, the controversy in Kearny comes to a close -- at least until Paszkiewicz opens his mouth again.
Once again, we revisit the story of a Kearny high school teacher, David Paszkiewicz, who told his students that 'that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark,' and "you belong in hell" if you "reject" Christianity. He also singled out a Muslim student to tell her that she is definitely going to hell.
Kearny school officials have certainly taken their time in handling the incident, which occurred at the start of the school year and became public in November.
In December, the Kearny school board continued to obfuscate who was at fault, silently implicating the young student who had secretly taped Paszkiewicz's classroom sermons for fear officials wouldn't believe him. In January, the teacher published a rambling letter in the local paper, explaining why the Constitution allows him to tell his students they are going to hell. He even insinuated the student who taped him was a part of a broader conspiracy:
It is my firm conviction that there is an effort afoot to undermine the very underpinnings of our freedoms.
This morning, the New York Times tells of Kearny's official reaction:
After a public school teacher was recorded telling students they belonged in hell if they did not accept Jesus as their savior, the school board has banned taping in class without an instructor's permission, and has added training for teachers on the legal requirements for separating church and state.
In response, the student's father said it the best, "Adoption of this rule at this time sends all the wrong messages."
And while the school board says they've taken some undefined "corrective action" against the teacher, Paszkiewicz still seems intent on berating anyone who disagrees with him.
Meanwhile, [the student] said that Mr. Paszkiewicz recently told the class that scientists who spoke about the danger of global warming were using tactics like those Hitler used, by repeating a lie often enough that people come to believe it.
In an op-ed in support of the death penalty in the Record this weekend, Assembly Republican Leader Alex DeCroce explains that the religious beliefs of those opposing capital punishment does not justify abolishing the death penalty.
Many have religious and philosophical objections to capital punishment. That is their right, and I respect their opinion. But the majority of New Jerseyans have a different view, otherwise they would not have approved the death penalty amendment to the state constitution.
Less than three months ago DeCroce issued a statement in response to the State Supreme Court's ruling on marriage equality. His only justification for opposing equal rights for all couples was a religious one:
I support the idea that marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred institution that should be preserved.
If a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman is put up for a vote in the General Assembly, I will personally support that measure.
You can't have it both ways, assemblyman. You can't on the one hand discredit others' religious arguments and on the other use religion as justification for your own positions.
Last month, we discussed the matter of a Kearny high school teacher David Paszkiewicz telling his students "you belong in hell" if you "reject" Christianity. This morning, the New York Timesfollows up on the story.
To recap, the student, Matt LeClair, "felt uncomfortable with Mr. Paszkiewicz's statements in the first week, and taped eight classes starting Sept. 13 out of fear that officials would not believe the teacher had made the comments."
The class started on Sept. 11, and Matthew quickly grew concerned. "The first couple of days I had him, he had already begun discussing his religious point of view.... It wasn't even just his point of view, it went beyond that to say this is the right way, this is the only way. The way he said it, I wasn't sure how far he was going to go."
The recordings captured statements like these.
"If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong," Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. "He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he's saying, `Please, accept me, believe.' If you reject that, you belong in hell."
Paszkiewicz also claimed "that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven." He also singled out a Muslim student to tell her that she is definitely going to hell.
As of now, Matthew's request "for an apology and for the teacher to correct any false statements he had made in class, particularly those related to science," have been ignored. A lawyer for the Kearny school board told the Times,
The teacher is monitored, and his or her evaluation could be noted ... adding that if these steps did not work, the teacher could be reprimanded, suspended or, eventually, fired.
As for the request that Mr. Paszkiewicz correct his statements that conflict with the district's science curriculum, "Sometimes, the more you dwell on the issue, the more you continue the issue.... Sometimes, it's better to stop any inappropriate behavior and move on."
Okay, but Matthew has recieved a death threat and been accused of violating the teacher's right to free speech and religion.
Paszkiewicz was a history teacher. Telling minors -- students he was capable of disciplining and whose grades he controlled -- that they were going to hell if they didn't think the way he did.
Clearly, Paszkiewicz was in the wrong, and Matthew was in the right. The school's notion that things will sort themselves out puts them in the wrong as well. The school board should affirm that Matthew did the right thing, rather than let their silence paint him as an agitator.
Maybe you thought New Jersey was free of the problems other states have with creationists trying to turn public schools into platforms for proselytizing?
Among his remarks in open class were statements that a being must have created the universe, that the Christian Bible is the word of God, and that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark. If you do not accept Jesus, he flatly proclaimed to his class, “you belong in hell.” Referring to a Muslim student who had been mentioned by name, he lamented what he saw as her inevitable fate should she not convert. In an attempt to promote biblical creationism, he also dismissed evolution and the Big Bang as non-scientific, arguing by contrast that the Bible is supported by what he calls confirmed biblical prophecies.
For much of the history of Christianity, the faithful did not believe that the Bible was literal truth but took it as allegory. I am a Christian, but I do not believe in the Bible as literal truth.
So this little piece from the Rasmussen poll that put Menendez up 44-38 over Kean Jr. piqued my interest:
Just 30% of New Jersey voters say the Bible is literally true. That’s the lowest level we’ve found in any state.
Whatever link you think there might be between religion and political affiliation probably doesn't hold true in New Jersey. While according to an Eagleton poll, Senator Menendez has a 5% lead over Tom Kean Jr among registered voters in general, evangelical Christians in the state prefer Menendez over Kean Jr by a 48% to 29% margin.
