- Advanced search
- Maximize
The Vatican said it condemned
all forms of violence against homosexuals, but did not support a recently-proposed
U.N. Declaration on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,
recognizing "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"
as new categories that need human rights
protections. The Vatican called the U.N. proposal as ill-defined and overly broad.
The Declaration
on Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, is a French-initiated statement
presented to the United National General Assembly on December 18, 2008. The declaration condemns violence,
harassment, discrimination, exclusion, stigmatization, and prejudice
based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also condemns killings
and executions, torture, arbitrary arrest, and deprivation of economic,
social, and cultural rights on those grounds. It is calling for an end
to the laws criminalizing gay sex between consenting adults in private.
It wants all States to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity
may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular
executions, arrests or detention. Sources
say that "homosexuality"
and gay sex between consenting adults in private is punishable by law
in 77 countries and gay people can be executed in seven Islamic countries:
Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Sudan, Mauritania and parts of Nigeria and
Pakistan. On the other hand it is legal in 47 countries, while 57 other
countries passed legislation to protect same-sex orientation. The declaration
also urges States to ensure that human rights violations based on sexual
orientation or gender identity are investigated and perpetrators held
accountable and brought to justice and to ensure adequate protection
of human rights defenders, and remove obstacles to them carrying out
their work on issues of human rights and sexual orientation and gender
identity. The declaration has been recognized as an important step on
the way to fulfill human rights' objectives, finally breaking the
taboo against speaking about LGBT rights in the United Nations.
Sixty-six of the United Nations' 192
member countries signed the declaration, including every member of the
European Union and every major Western nation except the United States.
Among the first to voice opposition
for the declaration was Vatican. "Despite the declaration's rightful
condemnation of and protection from all forms of violence against homosexual
persons, the document, when considered in its entirety, goes beyond
this goal and instead gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges
existing human rights norms," a Vatican
statement said.
In early December, 2008, the apostolic nuncio leading the Holy See's
permanent observer mission to the United Nations, Celestino Migliore,
claimed: "If adopted, it would create new and implacable discriminations.
A declaration might be used to put pressure on or discriminate against
countries that do not recognize same sex marriage." In a statement Archbishop
Migliore noted: "In particular, the categories 'sexual orientation'
and 'gender identity,' used in the text, find no recognition or clear
and agreed definition in international law. If they had to be taken
into consideration in the proclaiming and implementing of fundamental
rights, these would create serious uncertainty in the law as well as
undermine the ability of States to enter into and enforce new and existing
human rights conventions and standards." The statement was widely criticized, for example by France, as well as
by Amnesty International and gay rights groups and Italian press.
Fifty-seven of U.N. member states supported an opposing statement. The statement rejected the idea that
sexual orientation is a matter of genetic coding and claimed that the
two notions of sexual orientation and gender identity should not be
linked to existing human rights instruments, adding that the statement
"fell into matters that were in the domestic jurisdiction of states"
and could possibly "legitimize many deplorable acts, such as pedophilia."
However, Archbishop Migliore
also made clear the Vatican's opposition to legal discrimination against
homosexuals, which is clearly stated in the Catechism
of the Catholic Church. "The Holy See appreciates the attempts made in the Declaration on human
rights, sexual orientation and gender identity. The Holy See continues
to advocate that every sign of unjust discrimination towards homosexual
persons should be avoided and urges States to do away with criminal
penalties against them," said Archbishop while speaking to a session
of the UN General Assembly.
Following the Vatican's controversial
opposition to a UN declaration calling for an end to discrimination
against homosexuals, Archbishop Celestino Migliore confirmed that the Holy See
also refused to sign
a U.N.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in May 2008 because it did not condemn
abortion or assert the rights of fetuses with birth defects. The Vatican
made its position clear on the United Nations International Day of Disabled
People. Father Federico Lombardi, the Pope's spokesman, said the Holy
See's position was "already widely known." Archbishop Migliore said
the Vatican supported the rights of the disabled, but could not accept
a clause in the UN declaration affirming a right to "sexual health
and reproduction" because "in some countries such rights include
the right to abortion." The Holy See's position was criticized
by the Italian Federation for the Handicapped.
By François Blumenfeld-Kouchner
It seems that the lure of the dramatized version of reality presented by televised shows still works on politicians
unfamiliar with actual facts on torture. Leon Panetta, the nominee about to be
confirmed to head the C.I.A., a politician without experience in intelligence
work, despite his statements condemning torture, has already stated
that:
“If we had a ticking bomb
situation, and obviously, whatever was being used I felt was not sufficient, I
would not hesitate to go to the ...
Unlike wannabes from Wall Street to Hollywood, aspiring reporters don't lust for fame or fortune. Their goals are lofty: Speak truth to power; comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Most journalists are true believers and they want to make a difference. At least, that's how they start out.
But where do they end up? And the follow-up: Where might they rather be?
The two stories most likely to dominate the news for the foreseeable future are the recession and the Middle East. In the past, key aspects of these stories have been blurred, marginalized and missed. No need to recount the coverage of WMD, Dubya's "mission accomplished" or the mortgage boom, when we can just as easily consider reporting on the bank collapse or the fate of Afghanistan. Are you reading stories that speak truth to Wall Street's power? I am not talking about the lifestyle changes that a $500,000 salary cap might require. (Can schaudenfraude alone explain why this is the New York Times' most emailed story?) Nor is Bernie Madoff the only villain. I'd like to know more about men like John Thain, Robert Rubin, Richard Fuld and the culture of greed, entitlement and soullessness that they helped to create. (Okay, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, it's a culture that these captains of industry did not create but did nothing to change.)And what about Afghanistan? According to Richard Holbrooke, head of the administration's Pakistan and Afghanistan clean-up crew. "I've never seen anything like the mess we've inherited." But while the New York Times reports that Obama and company are disenchanted with President Karzai, the paper says he "has successfully presided over the transition of the Afghan state from the devastated, pre-modern institution it was under the Taliban to the deeply troubled but largely democratic one it is today." So who and what to believe?Would that journalists would reclaim the idealism that motivated them in the first place and tell stories that more accurately reflect our world. That won't be easy because the same corporate interests that strangled the economy also hold sway at our nation's pre-eminent news organizations. In some newsrooms, these interests are experienced as limits to what, which and how stories are told. An editor doesn't have to say "No," because reporters understand what will or won't make the cut.How to get past those restrictions is a challenge. Speaking truth to power is hard to do at home, but it is the most important religion story—that is, if you count social ethics as a spiritual good—today.Diane Winston
This is not the first time the Vatican is blaming feminism for what it
considers terrible things happening in the world today. While visiting
Manila-Philippines, Vatican official Paul Josef Cordes declared
yesterday that "feminism" is not only eroding manhood but causing "a
crisis in fatherhood."
According to Cordes, "gender mainstreaming" and "radical feminism"
attack biological manhood by insisting that gender roles are learned.
He claims that men are demeaned by the ideal of a "sweeter man" who is
both emasculated and feminized.
Cordes lays the blame for delinquency and suicides among
"fatherless children," on women. This prompted a local feminist (who
considers "sweeter men" as a cause for celebration) to ask the obvious:
"How is it that when men abandon their families, women get blamed?"
Cordes' lament comes in the wake of deliberations in the Philippine
Senate, which is likely to result in the passage of pro-women's rights
legislation called the Magna Carta for Women. The bill seeks to adopt
the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) into local
legislation.
While there is reason to hope that a law furthering women's rights
will be passed soon, it was recently noted in the local media that the influential wife of a former Senator was "lobbying" in the Senate by threatening senators with no less than the
"opprobrium of the Catholic bishops." Even as I write this post, advocates are hard at work to defend
the provisions of the bill, which are being targeted for deletion by
the self-appointed Catholic lobbyists.
One Senator who was approached to introduce the amendments claims
that the Catholic Bishop's Conference (CBCP) denied that the so-called
amendments (accompanied by a letter from the Archbishop of San
Fernando Pampanga, on the official stationery of the CBCP) are the
"official" position of the CBCP.
I received a copy of the proposed amendments and apart from a
handful of useful grammatical suggestions the proposal, which seeks to
delete virtually all references to gender and human rights, defies both
logic and fairness.
Gender is a widely used term in international human rights law. As
a "social category" which is commonly used as a basis for
discrimination and/or subordinate treatment, gender is specified
alongside race, sex, religion, language, and ethnicity in relation to
the principle of non-discrimination. One UN document reflecting such
usage is General Recommendation No. 19 of the CEDAW on Violence Against
Women (VAW), which defines "gender-based" violence.
As an analytical or evaluative standard for inclusion on the other
side of discriminatory practice and exclusion, mandating the
integration of a "gender perspective" in General Recommendation No. 14
by the Committee on the International Convention on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) relates to the manner of compliance by
states of their obligation under the treaty to promote and protect the
"right to health." As an evaluative standard, "gender" helps to
highlight erstwhile "neutral" policies and programs, which usually end
up adopting male biased standards.
Health has proven to be especially problematic for gender-blind
policy because of the differing reproductive health needs of the sexes,
as well as the varying impact of health interventions on marginalized
groups which includes women and sexual minorities.
The Catholic lobbyists' proposed amendments do not really provide a full discussion of their position but it attacks the CEDAW:
The
above language is bad. CEDAW opens the door for several policies that
can violate constitutional rights such as marriage, life, the right of
parents to educate their children, etc. Additionally, it extends to
other international instruments, which includes CEDAW's protocol and
other later conventions such the one (sic) on the elderly (includes
euthanasia), children, etc. which could allow the authors to claim that
the right to life is not a universally recognized international human
right.
The Philippines has ratified all International Human Rights
Instruments to date (save for the Rome Statute establishing the
International Criminal Court) while the International Convention on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other instruments affirm the right to
life, though there is no "International Convention on Euthanasia." Given
its rejection of human rights, patent absurdity, and disregard for fair
play (grassroots women have been lobbying and working with Congress
through the legislative cycle over the last six years while the new
amendments came long after the period for deliberations and
interpellation) surely the proposed amendments will be impossible to
peddle in the august halls of the Philippine Senate?
I still don't understand how making women better off and in a
position to exercise their rights is an affront to men. I do, however,
in this case understand how politicians desperate for the Catholic
hierarchy's backing in the 2010 Philippine elections can dash women's
hopes.
When Israel was dropping its newly acquired American made bombs into Gaza it was not my house that was in the crosshairs. When the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was allegedly using white phosphorous in densely populated areas of Gaza, my children were not at any risk. When Israel used the Dense Inert Metal Explosives in Gaza, I did not feel the pain from these deadly killers that expel charged tungsten dust, which causes minor abdominal injuries at first but later degenerate into multi-organ failures. On Nov 4, 2008 I was not present in Gaza when Israel broke the truce by killing six Hamas gunmen. I was not in Sderot, when Hamas fired back rockets terrorizing Israelis and eventually killing innocent bystanders. I am not the one who suffered as Gaza deteriorated into a cauldron of human misery.
When Israel was dropping its newly acquired American made bombs into Gaza it was not my house that was in the crosshairs. When the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) was allegedly using white phosphorous in densely populated areas of Gaza, my children were not at any risk. When Israel used the Dense Inert Metal Explosives in Gaza, I did not feel the pain from these deadly killers that expel charged tungsten dust, which causes minor abdominal injuries at first but later degenerate into multi-organ failures. On Nov 4, 2008 I was not present in Gaza when Israel broke the truce by killing six Hamas gunmen. I was not in Sderot, when Hamas fired back rockets terrorizing Israelis and eventually killing innocent bystanders. I am not the one who suffered as Gaza deteriorated into a cauldron of human misery.
SarahPAC.com, the website of Palin's new political action committee, is notable chiefly for what's missing from it -- any mention of God, religion, or "values." Political journalists will speculate that this absence is the result of calculation -- with the religious right already neatly tucked away, Palin can afford to direct her pitch exclusively to the economic right. But it's more likely that SarahPAC is simply the real deal, a statement of the governor's priorities. That doesn't mean that her religion was a sideshow, but rather that it's woven into her beliefs about money. "Sex, death, and taxes," goes the old saying. For a biblical capitalist like Sarah Palin, each leg of that stool is a matter of ultimate concern.
Editor's Note: I'm delighted to post a contribution from my former student Sue Ann Marasco, who has recently completed her PhD at Vanderbilt and been a Visiting Scholar at Northwestern University. Sue was one a group, including some of our own contributing editors here, who participated in a Roundtable On Religions Along the Mississippi River: Region and Space in American Religious History, which we blogged about below; Sue's paper there was entitled "Mapping the Gods and Monsters of the River: Sovereignty, Cosmology, and Contact along the Mississippi, 1680-1743." Sue also contributed the article "Cosmology" to the textbook that Phil Goff and I put together, Themes in Religion and American Culture (University of North Carolina Press, 2004). Here, Sue describes and analyzes some eighteenth-century body art that she encountered in doing her research. I expect ya'll to demand further contributions from Sue in the future.____________________________________________________Tattoo YouSue MarascoI had the opportunity to research a project that brought the religious aspects of tattooing to my attention. In this case, it was French descriptions of tattooing practices of Native Americans along the lower Mississippi River c1700. In particular, I was intrigued by the description of the Akansa (also know as Arkansas or Quapaw) people tattooing a French soldier Jean-Bernard Bossu in the 1750s.He wrote:The Akanza have adopted me; they have acknowledged me as a warrior and a chief, and have given me the mark of it, which is the figure of a roebuck imprinted on my thigh. I have willingly undergone this painful operation, which was performed in the following manner: I was seated on a tyger’s skin; an Indian burnt some straw, the ashes of which he diluted with water; he made use of this simple mixture to draw the roe-buck; he then followed the drawing with great needles, pricking them deep into the flesh, till the blood comes out; this blood mixing with the ashes of the straw, forms a figure which can never be effaced. I smoked the calumet after that…they danced before me crying out for joy; they told me afterwards, that I could go to all the people who were their allies, present the calumet and show my mark, and I would be well received; that I was their brother and that if any one killed me, they would kill him; now I am a noble Akanza. (M. Bossu, Travels through the part of North America… 1 vol of 2 vols, [London: T. Davies 1771], 107-108.)I read this process as very carnal and visceral. It is a painful ceremony that results in Bossu’s irrevocable and very public connection to the Acansa. It was a ceremony literally, “of the flesh.” Yet, there is a less tangible aspect of this ceremony that suggests a religious dimension to this tattooing. The smoking of the calumet can be read as a signaling of the Frenchmen’s adoption to the Acansa’s deities. There is arguably an aspect of the associated pain and mingling of ash that suggests a mortification of the flesh that is seeking for a transcendent state of being or consciousness.There is also the permanent marker of belonging to a specific group. In his recent article, “Tattooing and Its Role in French-Native American Relations,” Arnaud Balvay describes a tattoo given to French officer Dumont de Montigny’s tattoo as a cross of St. Louis. An essentially French symbol delivered by Native American technique that tied de Montigny to the French monarchy rather than any North American tribe. Like Bossu, de Montigny’s tattoo is a marker of group identity, but I wondered if the experience of the tattoo created a bond with the group that marked him. Is it the experience or the symbol that makes the tattoo significant? (French Colonial History, Vol. 9, (2008)).These descriptions of tattooing along the early Mississippi necessarily evoke a larger question about tattoos and religion. In her article on contemporary tattooing practices among Native Americans, Maureen Trudelle Schwarz interviewed Native Americans and non-natives about their tattoos and found that both groups, “ Find their tattoos a suitable medium for marking and expressing spirituality. It is worth noting, however, that the spirituality of non-Natives tends to be more individualistic and self-defined than that of Native American consultants, which tended to be firmly grounded in the established religious cosmology of the Native Nation from which they descend.” (Visual Anthropology, 19, 2006)I am not arguing that all tattoos have a religious connotation, but when they are religious in nature, are tattoos earthly practices, marking the body to an earthly community? Or, are tattoos a signposting to some larger cosmology? Is a cross tattoo a commitment to the community of a church on earth or an individual relationship with God in heaven? Do they link the corporeal with the supernatural or the eternal? Are they infusing the body with some other power through the experience of pain, and the mixing of ink with skin? I continue to seek a means of interrogating tattooing in my present work because tattoos were an important marker of identity along the Mississippi River. However, their persistence throughout history and their prominence in popular American culture makes me pause and wonder if I am not missing a larger narrative about their significance to the person and the world(s) around them.
You see, the interview on Al Arabiya confirms that the politics of fear can safely endure, barely disguised as the politics of love. It's (Christian) politics as usual, in other words. The extended hand of love and friendship---for the enemy---continues to veil the indisputable fact that there is only one iron fist in "the region as a whole."
By Jennifer Loven (AP/"The New York Times", January 29, 2009)
Washington, USA - President Barack Obama has chosen Joshua DuBois to lead his White House-based effort to steer federal social service dollars to religious charities and get them more involved in government anti-poverty efforts.
("Sun Times", January 30, 2009)
Hollywood, USA - The producers of "The Simpsons" are having a cow over one of its actors promoting Scientology in the voice of Bart Simpson.
During the eight year presidency of George W. Bush - and particularly after September 11, 2001 - a new emphasis was made on selling America to the Muslim world. Bush first enlisted advertising executive Charlotte Beers before settling on his trusted friend and advistor Karen Hughes. Both made attempts to emphasize the positive aspects of American society through traditional media - while glossing over the foreign policy elephants in the room. New magazines and television stations were created to sell pop culture and good news stories featuring American Muslims. Though sincere, there was little to show for their efforts by the end of Bush's second term. Now, barely one week into his new presidency, Barack Hussein Obama has rendered these positions obsolete. Obama chose, as his first formal interview, the Al Arabiya network and, though not revealing substantive policy differences with his predecessor, hinted a number of changes that could lay the foundation for more pragmatic, if not dramatic, initiatives in the near future.
Like the busy critters in a whack-a-mole game, Rick Warren bobs up faster than his critics can bop him down again.
Just since this summer, Warren popped up with his church-based candidates' forum, pre-election support for Proposition 8 capped by a comparison between gay marriage and incest, a keynote address at the Martin Luther King Day Commemorative Service at Atlanta's Ebenezer Baptist Church and the invocation at the Obama inauguration.
And that's not counting all the stories about Warren's work in Africa (or for another take on it), his mega-best seller and his global ambitions.
For both bloggers and reporters, Warren is, well, a godsend. Some people hate him, others love him—and neither side is shy about expressing its opinion. Not surprisingly, Pastor Rick is catnip to the media. After Obama selected him to speak at the inauguration, endless news cycles examined, analyzed and opined on why Obama did it, who'd benefit, what Warren would say, where the GLBT community would go, when Warren would don Billy Graham's mantle, and how the country would react if he used the "J" word. Dismissing all the palaver, regular folks didn't much care. A Gallup poll on the eve of the inauguration found a majority of Americans didn't have an opinion about Obama's choice of Warren, 39 percent approved of it and only 9 percent were unhappy. The bottom line: "News media accounts . . . reflect more of the vocal positions of interest groups than an opinion that is shared by the majority of the American public." Now Warren has a new plan to directly reach that majority. This week, Purpose Driven Connection (PDC), a quarterly magazine debuts. Published by Readers Digest Association, it arrives on a multimedia platform that includes a magazine, DVDs, workbooks, and access to a new social networking site, marketed as a Christian Facebook. Hoping for a broad market, the package has a $29.99 yearly fee that is discounted to $19.99 for congregations. Retail outlets will offer the magazine alone for $9.99.PDC's initial run is about 500,000, and the publisher hopes to hit one million by year's end. Despite the weak economy, backers hope that Warren's popularity will make the magazine a must-have for evangelical homes. Unlike most glossies that focus on getting and spending, PDC's content is faith-driven. Articles in the first issue explore what the Bible promises for hard times, reaching the hip hop generation, tattooed bikers, and an "exclusive" interview with President Obama.Warren's fertile field may be Readers Digest's next big market: the target audience looks like Millennials and Gen X, and if it's youth-oriented, Boomers won't be far behind. Most obvious: will it work, for whom, what's the next step and whither the social networking piece? The 10-pages available on the Website featured almost all-white faces. They were young, tattooed and half-naked—but I only counted one Asian (and no other non-Anglos) among them. The lay-outs were bold and image-driven with very little copy. If this succeeds what are the ramifications for the publishing industry: New delivery systems? Alternate content? More celebrity projects? And what does it bode for the continuing interpenetration of religion and public life? Warren isn't launching Guideposts or Christianity Today, he has a mainstream market in mind that crosses, or even erases formerly sacrosanct boundaries of denomination, theology and praxis.So, today's question: Can we get beyond the Good Rick/Bad Rick narrative? Warren's popped up again with a new idea that could turn around the publishing industry as well as the religion world. I know mallets are poised to strike, but maybe it's time for a different game. Anyone ready to grab the brass ring? Diane Winston
The Israel Defense Forces began a partial withdrawal of ground troops from the Gaza Strip on Sunday evening, hours after ending a three-week offensive on the Hamas-ruled coastal territory. The move also came shortly after Gaza’s Hamas rulers announced a one-week cease-fire, despite continuing rocket fire on southern Israel.