Her voice was an accompaniment to the black-and-white images of the freedom marchers who walked the roads of Alabama and Mississippi and the boulevards of Washington in quest of an end to racial discrimination.
Rosa Parks, the woman who started the boycott of segregated buses in Montgomery, Ala., was once asked which songs meant the most to her. She replied, “All of the songs Odetta sings.”
Good for the people of Silverton, Oregon. This election cycle they voted into office Stu Rasmussen, a transgender person. Silverton is no hotbed of liberalism. Sarah Palin would have even called this community part of her "real America" - though I suspect she would have resended the remark. But the people of Silverton saw a good and decent public servant and voted to make Stu Rasmussen their mayor. Now he can be judged on his effectiveness in office instead of anything else.
I knew gay people and their allies were up to something but even I could have never thought them possible of this. It turns out they're looking for - wait for it - acceptance (according to a breath-taking e-mail sent out by the Religious Right's own James Dobson-run political group). What's next? Love? Tolerance? It sure is a radical agenda they've embraced.
This weekend the Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ took action by putting our conference on record opposing to two anti-immigrant ballots measures Oregon voters will consider this fall. Any sacred conversation on race needs to include our national response to the struggles of Hispanic people.
RESOLUTION for Central Pacific Conference Annual Assembly
—Spring 2008
OPPOSE OREGON ANTI-IMMIGRANT BALLOT INITIATIVES.
Signed by: Catherine Rolling, Ainsworth; Rev. Susan Leo, Bridgeport; Rev. Chuck Currie, Parkrose
Our immigration system is broken and needs comprehensive reform. We, as people of faith, want an opportunity to support proposals that include legalization with a path to citizenship and family unification. However, legislative proposals making their way to the November 2008 ballot in Oregon will further divide our communities and increase hate, fear, and racism, thus contributing to anti-immigrant sentiment, by attacking an already vulnerable people, known by people of faith as children of the Creator.
Whereas: Oregon ballot initiative petition (IP) #19 proposes to add a section to the Oregon Revised Statutes requiring English immersion in public schools as proposed by Bill Sizemore and Alan Grosso and filed in the Secretary of State’s office on April 18, 2006:
- prohibits teaching public school students in languages other than English for more than two years.
- would have a severe impact on immigrant children's opportunities for quality education.
- would take away local control and classroom decisions about individual learning levels and special needs of students, thereby punishing immigrant and refugee children, regardless of their legal status, and
Whereas: Oregon ballot initiative petition (IP) #112 named “Respect for Law Act” proposed by Mehran Smith and Shahriyar Smith of Oregonians for Immigration Reform and filed in the Secretary of State’s office on July 10, 2007:
- effectively forces undocumented immigrants further into the shadows.
- diverts local government resources away from community safety, health and education needs.
- moves police, fire fighters, teachers, social workers, and health care workers to act as immigration officers.
- encourages racial profiling, unreported crime, school dropouts, and public health and safety calamities.
- imperils public safety by restricting driver’s licenses forcing immigrants who must drive to maintain their employment and care for their households to continue driving as unlicensed motorists.
- offers new voter registration restrictions which are unnecessary since there is no evidence that non-citizens are voting—and discourages registration by other marginalized populations, such as low-income, elderly and people of color, and
Whereas: These measures are an affront to the dignity, safety, livelihoods, and opportunities of our immigrant neighbors, and
Whereas: Jesus instructs us to welcome strangers - not mistreat them, and
Whereas: As Christians, our actions should reflect Jesus’ teachings, and
Whereas: As a nation of immigrants, our laws should reflect compassionate action toward those who come into our country for safety and opportunity;
Be it resolved: that the Central Pacific Conference of the United Church of Christ declares its opposition to Oregon ballot initiative petitions #19 and #112 and calls on local UCC affiliates and other faith communities to do the same.
I was proud to be a co-sponsor of the resolution and look forward to working with churches all across Oregon in defeating these measures.
I want to applaud U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman’s decision validating the Oregon Legislature’s courageous decision to allow domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples. As a minister in the United Church of Christ, a mainline Christian denomination that supports marriage equality, I look forward to providing the full range of pastoral services – including weddings – that should be available by all. Domestic partnerships are a step in the right direction. Gay and lesbian couples should have the same civil rights that my wife and I enjoy as a heterosexual couple.
Good news to mention: opponents of two new state civil rights laws here in Oregon – one banning discrimination in the work place against gays and lesbians and the other extending civil union benefits to same sex couples – have failed in their effort to collect enough signatures to force a vote on recalling the measures.
Over the last two decades the Religious Right has placed ballot measure after ballot measure before the voters attempting to curtail civil rights for the GLBT community.
The fights have always been ugly and cost millions. It is a relief that this time we won’t have to spend energy here in Oregon debating once again the merits of providing basic civil rights for all people.
On the other hand, I have to give credit where credit is due. Without these ballot measures Oregonians would have never have been forced to confront the issue of civil rights for gays and lesbians so directly. Our churches, for example, might never had to wrestle with the theological implications of saying to another “your life is not deserving of equal protection under the law.”
Most people know that these anti-gay campaigns have been waged by Christians. Fewer know that these campaigns have also been opposed by Christians – Christians who have come to an understanding that God’s justice, love, mercy, and grace is available to all. Without these anti-gay campaigns over the years fewer congregations in the Christian community would have ever declared themselves to be “Open and Affirming” or “Welcoming” or “Reconciling.”
No one knows the full extent of the damage done to people over the years as the initiatives have been debated. The stress has to be enormous on people who know their rights are actually going be voted on. That takes a toll, no question.
But the Religious Right never anticipated that one result of their efforts would be to extend the openness of many churches. The anti-gay movement in Oregon has helped many to reject the more narrow impulses of Christian tradition and to shine a light of hope where before for many there was only darkness and emptiness in our sanctuaries.
Members of the Community of Welcoming Congregations
Our Member Congregations
Press release from the National Council of Churches
New York City, August 9, 2007--"Immigrants have become the contemporary scapegoat," writes the Rev. Bob Edgar. "It's time we call it for what it is -- racism."
The General Secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC), writing in a guest commentary carried by the Religion News Service (RNS) yesterday, contends the "fearmongers among us are devilishly clever. They have used nearly every scare tactic they can think of to reduce us to a highly suspicious lot all too willing to not love the alien as ourselves and to evict them from their homes, get them fired, separate them from their families, in an all out rampage of oppression and prejudice."
In the commentary, which RNS entitled, "White Immigrants Get a Pass; Brown Ones Do Not," the Rev. Edgar points to conservative blogs and certain radio and television talk show hosts who are "trying to scare us."
The RNS commentary points to the numerous verses in the Bible about how to treat immigrants.
"When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God," Edgar writes, quoting Leviticus 19:33-34. Similar verses appear in the books of Exodus, Numbers and the Prophet Jeremiah.
"Demagogues keep preying on post-9/11 fear to whip up hatred and suspicion of people who have come here in search of the same thing my northern European ancestors were seeking," writes Edgar. "They want a better life for their families, more opportunities for their children and to learn English. They already pay millions in taxes and contribute to their communities."
Edgar concludes his RNS commentary incorporating words of the Prophet Jeremiah who warned against oppressing the resident alien: "It seems before God will dwell with us in this land we had better change our ways and 'truly act justly one with another' regardless of where we were born or the color of our skin."
The RNS commentary is available to more than 100 major daily and weekly newspapers including The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times and USA Today. In addition, hundreds of magazines, television stations, religious publications and websites subscribe to RNS.
The National Council of Churches USA is the ecumenical voice of 35 of America's Orthodox, Protestant, Anglican, historic African American and traditional peace churches. These NCC denominations have 45 million faithful members in 100,000 congregations in all 50 states.
Related Post: Deep Ties Between The Minutemen Project And White Supremacists
Related Link: The Bible as the Ultimate Immigration Handbook: Written By, For, and About Migrants, Immigrants, Refugees, and Asylum Seekers
Parkrose Community United Church of Christ (www.parkroseucc.org) in Northeast Portland received a letter today from Mr. David Crowe with Concerned Oregonians asking that I, as the church’s pastor, distribute petitions to church members calling for HB 2007 and SB 2 to be over turned.
HB 2007 and SB 2, both of which had wide support from religious leaders in Oregon, provide domestic partner benefits and outlaw discrimination against gays and lesbians in areas such as employment.
I e-mailed Concerned Oregonians immediately after receiving their letter:
Your letter states that that 'marriage and morality are under attack.' Mr. Crowe, it is your actions in support of legal discrimination that damage the moral fabric of our state. Jesus calls on us to be a people of justice and reconciliation. Discrimination is incompatible with Christianity.
As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I was proud to stand with religious leaders from across Oregon in support of HB 2007 and SB 2. While Parkrose Community United Church of Christ has not taken a stand on these issues as of yet we are an "Open and Affirming" church that celebrates the gift of human diversity given to us by God. Furthermore, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ has called for full legal equality for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
I will work and pray for the defeat of your efforts.
Copies of the letter from Concerned Oregonians and my full response are available here .
After a sometimes heated and protracted debate the Portland City Council voted 3-2 to delay enforcement of the sit-lie ordinance. The ordinance would have given police the authority to arrest people (mostly homeless) for sitting on sidewalks. For years the business community has pushed for such an ordinance but Portland Mayor Tom Potter, a former police chief, would only go along with the proposal if extra services were provided for those on the street (including a new day center) and if 45 extra benches were put up in the downtown core area where homeless people or others could rest without fear of being cited by the police and fined.
Enforcement of the ordinance began this week but the promised services, including the new benches, have not yet all been delivered despite some important progress being made. Portland City Commissioner Randy Leonard proposed holding off on enforcement until all the services were online and after much debate (including a vigorous defense of the process that enabled the "more services for more enforcement" compromise) commissioners Sam Adams and Erik Sten joined Leonard in voting to postpone enforcement.
I appreciated that despite the council agenda running long (and none of the members getting lunch) most of them gave their full attention to the debate. My sense is that all the members of this council are committed at varying levels to fighting the root causes of homelessness in Portland and for that we can be thankful.
However, Commissioner Dan Saltzman, in voting against the delay and for immediate enforcement, suggested that advocates for the homeless were never willing to compromise on issues and were themselves obstacles to progress. As one of the only advocates to testify in favor of the delay, and as one who argued for a compromise proposal where the city simply delay enforcement until mid-August but allow police to issue warnings, I was frustrated with his comments. The commissioner seemed to be detached from the debate going on around him. His vote and comments were a personal disappointment to me.
Update: I've made it to City Council and chambers are packed - but not to talk about homelessness. Instead, folks are lined up to discuss a local controversy over whether or not people can use tape to save places for families and friends along the Rose Festival Parade route. Yes, the really important stuff brings out the crowds. Even the media is here. The room will empty out when it comes times to discuss the sit-lie ordinance. What's more important? Homelessness and poverty or where you sit when the parade comes by? The answer seems clear.
Letter To Portland City Council On Sit-Lie
Mr. Mayor and City Commissioners:
I hope to be at council today to support Commissioner Randy Leonard's proposal to delay implementation of the sit-lie ordinance. However, if I am unable to make it on time I wanted to have my concerns on record with you.
Under the leadership of Mayor Potter there has been much progress to bring compromise and compassion to the long controversy over how best to treat people living on our streets. I appreciate very much the approach taken by the mayor and, of course, I applaud the long-time and steadfast commitment to these issues made by Commissioner Sten.
However, I cannot find the logic or – with all due respect – the moral justification for moving forward with the sit-lie ordinance, which allows our police the authority to arrest or cite people sitting on the street, until such time as other alternatives are permanently in place that provide people with opportunities to be off sidewalks.
Commissioner Leonard has brought forth a common sense plan that simply asks for a delay in the enforcement of the ordinance. Delay can sometimes seem like a step back but in this case it would help afford some of Portland's most vulnerable citizens with their basic civil rights. Delay in this instance is the best moral choice.
After decades of moving in the wrong direction on this issue our Mayor has shown leadership that brings us in the right direction. Commissioner Leonard's approach does not take the city off course but rather corrects an unfortunate detour.
Finally, I appreciate that all of your offices have been directly in contact with me on this issue over the last week. I know that all the members of the council want solutions that help end homelessness in our city.
Sincerely,
Rev. Chuck Currie
Another step forward for civil rights:
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives today voted to pass the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R. 1592, in a vote of 237 to 180. The proposed legislation, which has the endorsement of 230 law enforcement, civil rights, civic and religious organizations and the support of 73 percent of the American people, was introduced in March by Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., along with more than 100 other members of Congress. The Senate will soon consider an identical companion bill called the Matthew Shepard Act.
“This is a historic day that moves all Americans closer to safety from the scourge of hate violence,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese. “Today, legislators sided with the 73 percent of the American people who support the expansion of hate crimes laws to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Take a look at the huge list of supporters of this legislation – including the United Church of Christ and other religious bodies. The Religious Right did every thing in their power to stop the House from voting on this bill – and I mean everything. Take a look at this list put together by the Human Rights Campaign:
- Concerned Women for America Embraces White-Supremacist Filmmaker
Last week, Stephen Bennett, a spokesman for the Concerned Women for America, used his action network to promote the anti-gay videos of John Smith, a white-supremacist filmmaker with numerous videos posted on YouTube.com. The filmmaker’s hateful online video collection includes such titles as “Keep America White,” “Black Intelligence” (a video about how blacks are mentally inferior to whites) and “Hitler” (an homage to Hitler on the occasion of his birthday).
When YouTube pulled the videos for violating its terms of service, another former employee of both Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council, Peter LaBarbera, continued to promote the white supremacist’s anti-gay videos, now posted on a religious right website in Massachusetts.
- Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council, and Matthew Barber, Spokesman for the Concerned Women for America, Invoke Virginia Tech Massacre
In an action alert to members nationwide, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, incredibly used the memory of the Virginia Tech massacre to argue against H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
Perkins wrote:
“Under this legislation, the crimes at Virginia Tech, which some are calling one of the deadliest rampages in U.S. history, would not be punishable to the level of these so-called ‘hate crimes.’ If the House approves H.R. 1592 and the Senate follows, a homosexual would have more federal protection under the law than the 32 victims of last week’s massacre.”
Barber wrote:
“The FBI’s latest statistics show that there were zero ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against homosexuals or those perceived to be homosexual in 2005; yet we already know of 32 so-called ‘hate crimes’ murders committed against perceived ‘rich kids’ in a single day. But under H.R. 1592, those ‘rich kids’ would shamefully be denied the same protections and justice as homosexuals. The whole ‘hate crimes’ concept really places logic and reason on its head.”
- Traditional Values Coalition Manufactures False Judiciary Committee Record
The Traditional Values Coalition created and disseminated a fake transcript of last week’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on the hate crimes bill to “prove” that the legislation would punish anti-gay thoughts. The falsified transcript doesn’t even remotely resemble the official transcript of the proceeding.
A full accounting, complete with the Traditional Values Coalition’s forged transcript alongside the real transcript of the hearing, can be viewed at: http://tinyurl.com/yvncxp
- Jesus Christ ‘Wanted Poster’
The Traditional Values Coalition produced a “wanted poster” in which Jesus Christ, wearing a crown of thorns, is wanted for violating the proposed hate crimes bill. The poster states that Christ is “wanted for revealing the truth about homosexuality in ‘The Bible’ and encouraging his followers not to offend God by committing such behavior.”
A former lawyer for the American Family Association, Joe Murray, explained:
“How could a group purporting Christian values denigrate the image of their, and my, savior, by placing Him in the same category as Willie Horton? When did it become acceptable to turn a man who preached ‘love thy neighbor’ into a biblical billy club? Christ is a source of salvation, not spin.
“This is how far separated Christian activists, possessed by a deep-seeded hatred of homosexuals, have become from Christian principles.”
link: http://tinyurl.com/3dj7r7To view the poster go to: http://traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/tvc_jesus_wanted_poster.pdf
- James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Concerned Women for America, Etc. Falsely Claim Hate Crimes Bill Would Make Anti-Gay ‘Thoughts’ Illegal
One of the most frequently promoted lies by the opposition is that the hate crimes law will make anti-gay bigots criminally liable for their hate speech. While it is certainly un-American and un-Christian to embrace the message of white supremacists and hate groups, the religious right has nothing to fear from the hate crimes bill as it applies only to acts of violence. Nothing in this act would prohibit the lawful expression of one’s deeply held religious beliefs. As hurtful as these comments can be, people will remain free to say things like: “Homosexuality is sinful,” “Homosexuality is an abomination” or “Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.”
The truth is that neither the current hate crimes law nor the expanded measures criminalize thoughts or speech; they only criminalize violentacts. The hate crimes statute is only invoked to allow a federal investigation and the prosecution of bias-motivated violence if — and only if — it is necessary to achieve an effective and just result. That only happens after a violent crime is committed, which debunks their “thought crimes” talking point.
James Dobson:
“There’s a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs,” he said on his radio broadcast yesterday. “That means that as a Christian — if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality — you may be guilty of committing a ‘thought crime.’”
Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition:
“Most Christians might as well rip the pages which condemn homosexuality right out of their Bibles, because this bill will make it illegal to publicly express the dictates of their religious beliefs.”
The ultimate proof: The federal hate crimes law has been on the books for 40 years and not a single person has ever been charged with having “illegal thoughts.” The claim is absurd.
Today we can be proud that the House took action that will protect the lives of gay and lesbian Americans. This was a defeat for the Religious Right and a victory for progressive religious voices and all those concerned about civil rights. But now the Senate and the President have to decide where they stand on this issue. The president has so far threatened to follow the orders of the Religious Right and veto the bill.
Next time you want to shop at Wal-Mart consider this from Human Rights Watch:
Wal-Mart’s relentless exploitation of weak US labor laws thwarts union formation and violates the rights of its US workers, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today.
In the 210-page report, “Discounting Rights: Wal-Mart’s Violation of US Workers’ Right to Freedom of Association,” Human Rights Watch found that while many American companies use weak US laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus. Many of its anti-union tactics are lawful in the United States, though they combine to undermine workers’ rights. Others run afoul of soft US laws.
“Wal-Mart workers have virtually no chance to organize because they’re up against unfair US labor laws and a giant company that will do just about anything to keep unions out,” said Carol Pier, senior researcher on labor rights and trade for Human Rights Watch. “That one-two punch devastates workers’ right to form and join unions.”
As the world’s largest company, Wal-Mart’s conduct is especially troubling. Wal-Mart had $351.14 billion in revenue and $11.3 billion in profits in the fiscal year ending January 2007. It is the largest private US employer, with more than 1.3 million US workers and close to 4,000 stores nationwide. None of those workers is represented by a union. Human Rights Watch found that this is no accident.
Human Rights Watch’s investigation revealed that, in most cases, Wal-Mart begins to indoctrinate workers and managers to oppose unions from the moment they are hired. Managers receive explicit instructions on keeping out unions, many of which are found in the company’s “Manager’s Toolbox,” a self-described guide to managers on “how to remain union free in the event union organizers choose your facility as their next target.”
If workers try to organize, store managers must report it to Wal-Mart’s Union Hotline at headquarters. The company responds by sending out its Labor Relations Team almost immediately to squash the organizing effort.
Most of the Labor Relations Team’s tactics comport with weak US law. Team members hold small- and large-group “captive audience” meetings, which workers are strongly urged to attend. Workers hear of the terrible consequences of union formation and see videos dramatizing the message. Wal-Mart envelops workers with its anti-union mantra and allows little space for union supporters and organizers to respond – under US law, it does not have to.
“Employers can make their anti-union case loud and clear in the workplace, while banning union reps from company property,” said Pier. “That’s hardly a free and democratic election climate, and it would be unfair in any political contest.”
Wal-Mart’s relentless anti-union drumbeat creates a climate of fear at its US stores. Many workers are convinced that they will suffer dire consequences if they form a union, in part because they do not hear pro-union views. Many are also afraid that if they defy their powerful employer by organizing, they could face retaliation, even firing.
Human Rights Watch found that Wal-Mart heightens this fear with its arsenal of unlawful anti-union tactics. Wal-Mart has sent managers to eavesdrop on employees. According to former workers and managers at one store, it has even ordered the repositioning of surveillance cameras to monitor union supporters. It has told workers they will lose benefits if they organize. The company has discriminatorily banned talk about unions and prohibited union flyer distribution, while allowing discussion of other issues and circulation of non-union materials. It has disciplined union supporters for policy violations that it has let slide for union opponents. And it has illegally fired workers for their union activity.
Penalties under US labor law are so minimal that they have little deterrent effect, and Wal-Mart only receives a slap on the wrist when found guilty of illegal conduct. In most cases, offending employers must simply post in-store notices promising to abide by the law in the future and must restore the status quo before the illegal acts, for example by rehiring wrongfully fired workers and paying them lost earnings. They face no fines or punitive sanctions.
Denied the right to form unions, Wal-Mart workers have been unable to join forces to raise their concerns that the company may be forcing out long-term employees, address their struggles to make ends meet on Wal-Mart wages, or call for an end to high healthcare costs.
A key way to improve protections for worker organizing would be for the US Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) and the Bush administration to sign it into law. The EFCA, which passed the US House of Representatives in March and is now under consideration in the Senate, would increase penalties for labor law violations. And it would help restore a democratic union selection process by requiring employers to recognize a union if a majority of workers signs cards showing their support. Currently, employers can force union elections and then intimidate workers with their aggressive anti-union message during the campaign period.
Human Rights Watch also urged the National Labor Relations Board, charged with enforcing US labo
