To quote cranky commentator Andy Rooney, “Is there something here I don’t understand?”

On June 9 the city of Toronto started issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. Earlier this year, an Ontario court redefined marriage as “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others.”

An appeal is expected, but it may be illegal. That's right, illegal!

On June 11 the Canadian Parliament considered bill C-250 which would add “sexual orientation” to color, race, religion, and ethnic origin in its categories of “hate propaganda.” If this bill passes, opponents of marriage between homosexual couples fear that they could face criminal charges for simply voicing their beliefs. The fear is not unfounded.

Chris Kempling was found guilty of “conduct unbecoming a teacher” and suspended for one month by the British Columbia Collage of Teachers. His unbecoming conduct? Writing letters to the editor opposing the promotion of “gay friendly” curriculum.

Scott Brockie, a Christian who owns a print shop in Ontario, was fined $5,000 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for refusing to print letterhead for a homosexual rights organization.

Saskatchewan resident Hugh Owens was fined $5,000 by his provincial human rights commission for placing an ad in a local paper that included references to Bible passages that forbid homosexual behavior.

Many religious groups in Canada fear that simply quoting scripture could result in fines.

For instance Islam’s Koran warns that it is an “abomination” to “approach men with lust rather than women” (Sura VII78-84). Judeo-Christian Scripture also refers to homosexual behavior as an “abomination” (Leviticus 2013).

Canada’s Catholic Civil Rights League writes that “promoting hatred towards a person or group is wrong” but warns “Unlike the morally neutral characteristics of race and ethnicity, sexual behavior is fraught with moral and religious significance because it refers primarily to what a person does, not who they are. The League is very concerned that as the current draft of the bill fails to make this distinction, one could be accused of promoting hatred for publicly expressing moral views on homosexual activity.”

So, here’s what I don’t understand

Are homosexual activists afraid of honest debate on these important issues? And if not, why their vigorous attempts to criminalize any opposition to their agenda?

Does “sexual orientation” include pedophilia and incest? Aren’t those also “orientations”?

In defining marriage as “the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others” wouldn’t that sanction marriage between fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, etc.?

What constitutes “hate language”? If I simply voice my disagreement with a group’s ideas and behaviors, is that “hate”? (The Supreme Court of Canada is struggling to even define hate.) Where would this end if followed to its logical conclusion?

How does this affect the whole premise of democracy? Can one small group (homosexuals make up from 1-10 percent of society) force the majority (90-99 percent) to adopt their agenda?

And, if hate crime legislation is designed to protect all those of “color, race, religion, and ethnic origin,” isn’t it “hateful” to make it illegal to express one’s religious convictions?

It seems these are important questions that need to be vigorously debated . . . without fear of prosecution.

(c) 2003 James N. Watkins

Reactions

To the editor:

I was disappointed to read Jim Watkins’ column on Monday, “Is it healthy debate or ‘hate propaganda?’” for several reasons.

First, I was dismayed with Mr. Watkins’ use of the tired anti-homosexual propaganda “Christians” spout off all the time. I put “Christians” in quotations because many of these Bible-toting folks who call homosexuality an “abomination” because “it says so in the Bible” conveniently forget every other no-no in the Good Book. But when it suits their purpose, or their poorly articulated argument, they’ll pipe up with an “It says so in the Bible.”

Thanks for taking the time to write.

If I came across as “anti-homosexual,” my sincere apologies. I certainly don't intend to be. A few years ago I wrote a critical column on so-called “Christian’s” heartless behavior at murdered homosexual Matthew Shepherd’s funeral and their www.godhatesfags.com Web site. I spoke at the graveside service of a gay man who died of AIDS. And, I hope I am sympathetic in describing some of the causes of homosexual orientation in my book The Why Files

My point in last week’s column was that spirited debate is not “hate propaganda.” Because I disagree with someone’s beliefs or behaviors doesn’t make me anti- that person. For instance, I recently wrote a column critical of The New York Times journalistic shortcomings, but I’m certainly not anti-newspapers.

Please remember that not only do many Christians oppose homosexual relations, but Jews and Moslems do as well. Don’t just pick on Christians!

But you're absolutely right. There are three or four scripture passages in Scripture that condemn homosexual behavior, but hundreds more against hatred, gossip, disrespect, and not loving our neighbor as ourself.

Second, Mr. Watkins makes the completely illogical point that “in defining marriage as ‘the voluntary union for life of two persons to the exclusion of all others,’ wouldn’t that sanction marriage between fathers and daughters, brothers and sisters, etc.?”

As it currently reads, that’s exactly what it would do. There are no exclusions in that particular definition.

First, by suggesting that the gay marriage law would allow other sick sexual behavior, like incest, he is propagating the idea that homosexuality is a sexual sickness, rather than a sexual preference.

Just thirty years ago, homosexuality was listed as a psychological illness and listed under “abnormal sexuality” by the medical community. Many people, including me, fear that what now may be viewed as “sick” (to use your term) may eventually be normalized. When relativism rules (“one person’s truth is just as valid as another’s truth”) anything is possible in the future. What is “sick” to you, may be perfectly “normal” for someone else in that worldview.

Second, after reading this frail argument, I instantly wondered what the wording of the original definition of marriage was in Ontario. If it was something like “the voluntary union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others,” wouldn’t the wording still allow for marriages between fathers and daughters, sisters and brothers, etc.?

Good point! I spent an hour “googling” and found that in 1999 the House of Commons passed the following motion by a vote of 216-55:

That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary, in light of public debate around recent court decisions, to state that marriage is and should remain the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, and that Parliament will take all necessary steps within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to preserve this definition of marriage in Canada.

Prior to that, in 1990, the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees) Act prohibited “marriage between related persons” including adopted children.

So, you’re right. Currently incestuous marriages are prohibited. However, what’s to stop that prohibition to also be repealed at some later date like the ruling against homosexual marriages just four short years ago?

Last, I found it hard to believe that Mr. Watkins is simply concerned with a “healthy debate” concerning this issue. The diction and tone of the article was fraught with anti-homosexual sentiment. Through his endless questions at the conclusion of his article, he equated homosexuality with pedophilia and incest, suggested that the individuals mentioned at the beginning of the article who committed the anti-homosexual prejudices were “simply voic(ing) … disagreement with a group’s ideas and behaviors,” and suggested that gay marriage is a homosexual activist’s “agenda.”

So does that make me, a heterosexual who wants to someday marry a man and live a happy, fulfilling life, a heterosexual activist with an agenda? I mean, what’s wrong with these homosexual activists and their “agendas” that consist of wanting to live a happy, fulfilling life with a significant other?!

Good question. I’ve tried to address this in another article asking “Why are some people so bent out of shape about homosexuality?!” (Too lengthy to go into in this reply.)

I am sorry for the sarcastic tone, Mr. Watkins, but I just don’t see the debate. If we are going to bring the Bible into this, I would like to remind you that it also instructs us to leave judgment of others up to God.

Yes, in Matthew 7:1-2 Jesus commanded, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”

But have you read the verses before and after that particular command? (The Bible needs to be read in context and not simply “proof-texted.”)

In Matthew 5, Jesus implies that marriage is only between a man and woman. Later in chapter 7, He warns His followers to be discerning. So, while He warns not to “judge,” he also warns his followers to be discerning member of the jury (a jury cannot hand down a sentence--that’s God’s job and His alone--but a juror must carefully weigh the evidence).

We must not relinquish our responsibility to be discerning (and engage in debate) under the pretext of “not judging.”

Again, thanks for writing and continuing this important debate.

Nicole Steward, July 2003

I read on your web site recently some concern that Biblical teachings, such as criticism of homosexuality, may become a legal liability as "hate speech." Although there are no doubt some who will try their best to bring that about, I submit that the federal Constitution and quite recent judicial application of the First Amendment leaves little possibility this will succeed. (A Constitutional right, of course, trumps legislation by either Congress or a state legislature -- should definitions of hate speech broad enough to include language from the Bible be adopted by either one. I attach below some lengthy excerpts from a year-old 10th Circuit federal appeals court case, as well as the link to get the full case if you find that useful. Its very encouraging reasoning.

Siarlys Jenkins, July 2003

Thanks for writing. I do hope you--and 10th Circuit Federal Appeals Court--is right. (Sometimes I love being wrong.) But here is what Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia read from his dissenting opinion that made unconstitutional any laws regulating sexuak behavior between consenting adults in their own homes:

The Court "has taken sides in the culture war" and "has signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct." He added, "Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means." But he warned that the decision "effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation," including "[s]tate laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity," and would therefore create "a massive disruption of the current social order". He continued, "Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned," and so "leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples," thereby paving the way for a "judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada."

It appears that by the time this column goes to press (or ends up at the bottom of a bird cage), America will be going to war. Shouts of "Stop the presses" will be heard as thousands of newsrooms scramble to put out special editions. When that happens, I'd also like to hear a thousand voices shouting "Stop the protests."

Both sides of the Iraq war debate have attempted to make their case as persuasively as possible. (Okay, the nudists who proclaimed, "You can't fight a war naked," only proved that most people look better with their clothes ON.)

Protesters have made their point with marches, political ads, and proclamations by such political experts such as actress Kim Bassinger, M*A*S*H veteran Mike Farrell, and "The Dixie Chicks". Even "The West Wing's" left-wing TV president made a paid, political speech to the nation. More credibly, the Pope sent a representative to Washington to plead for peace. I've even devoted a couple columns to the controversy ("Top Ten Ways to Avoid War with Iraq").

Meanwhile, the President, Secretary of State, and many conservative commentators have argued, just as passionately, that war is the only option when dealing with a psychopathic dictator who has no regard for human life -- even of his own people. Some restaurants, to protest France's refusal to support the war effort, have replaced french fries on the menu with "Freedom Fries." And the www.francestinks.com Web site patriotically promotes its "France Stinks" thongs. (The same Webmaster also hosts www.germanystinks.com.)

According to a recent poll (and that's the way red-blooded, Americans make decisions), nearly three-fourths of Americans believe that war is now the only answer. So, the score: Hawks 71, Doves 29.

But some groups are refusing to accept the fact that they've lost the battle on the war issue.

Activists from Direct Action, a San Francisco anti-war group, have been planning their own campaign in the event of war in Iraq. Representatives say they will shut down 70 targets in San Francisco alone, including power plants, water systems, the Federal Reserve, oil companies and the Pacific Exchange and TransAmerica building. This immediately brings up several questions: Who are these people? How do they think attacking our own country's resources will contribute to the peace movement? What are they smoking?

Perhaps Al Gore, who won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in 2000, spoke most eloquently about issues that divide our country. Here are a few sound bites from his December 13 concession speech:

Just as we fight hard when the stakes are high, we close ranks and come together when the contest is done.

And while there will be time enough to debate our continuing differences, now is the time to recognize that that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.

Now the political struggle is over and we turn again to the unending struggle for the common good of all Americans and for those multitudes around the world who look to us for leadership in the cause of freedom."

I love that attitude, and I didn't even vote for Gore, which I guess makes me a conservative. But, I strongly disagree with the current plan for war with Iraq, which probably makes me a liberal. Then again, I like to think of myself as a middle of the road moderate, which some would argue puts me right on the center line with all the other stinking road kill.

Wherever I am politically, I'm thankful that I live in a country where I can voice my disagreement with the government without spending the rest of my life being tortured in an Iraqi prison.

Yet, I believe there comes a time when the ranting and raving on both sides (and in the middle, too), is no longer constructive to the country as a whole. (Even the late-night comics honored a self-imposed moratorium on jokes about the President following the 9/11 attacks.)

Now is not the time to raise our voices in protest, but to raise our voices in prayer that this seemingly inevitable war is short, successful, and sacrifices the fewest lives as possible on both sides.

"Thank you and good night, and God bless America."

(c) 2003 James N. Watkins

Related article from Terry Mattingly



Saddam Hussein September 2002

Sometimes writing this column is just too easy.

In February 1998 then-president Clinton threatened to bomb Baghdad to bits if weapons inspectors weren't allowed to search out Saddam Hussein's alleged "weapons of mass destruction." Not a lot has changed, so I've simply updated my four-year-old column to bring you today's Top Ten List:

Top Ten Ways to Avoid War with Iraq

10. Have United Nations weapons inspectors pull up to the presidential palace in "The Prize Patrol" van or perhaps disguised as a Kirby vacuum rep. "Hi, I'm here to shampoo up to three missile silos absolutely free!"

9. Have Spiderman drop in on Saddam's evil web. (Why do Batman, Superman, and all other super heroes fight characters like "The Penguin" and "The Joker"? Come on, guys, let's use those super powers on some drug lords and dictators!

8. Send Saddam Hussein a life-time supply of fast-food gift certificates. Quicker than he can say, "I want to super-size that order," he'll be in a deep-fat-fried cholesterol coma.

7. Mellow out the wacky Iraqi by spiking Baghdad's water supply with Valium, Prozac, and an ample supply of Ritalin. (And cut off his Viagra supply that ABC's Primetime reports he requires for his international affairs.)

6. Have President Bush and Dictator Hussein talk out their differences on a very special "Jerry Springer Show." (And how 'bout a talk show "make-over"? Really, Saddam, the only people sporting the military look are 90-year-old Communists and Michael Jackson!)

5. Send all those tabloid TV reporters with their hidden cameras to Baghdad. Please!

4. Jam Iraq's television broadcasts with twenty-four-hour coverage of "American Idol," "Fear Factor," and "Big Brother." (However, we would need to check with the Geneva Convention on War to make sure that isn't considered torture.)

3. Two terrifying words: Simon Cowell. "Saddam, you are a no-talent, second-rate dictator who has no future on the world stage."

2. Secretly replace Iraq's regular enriched uranium with new, healthier artificial radiation. "Nu-Tron: Same great glow with but none of the harmful side effects."

And, the number 1 way to avoid war with Iraq . . .

1. Pray

Okay, some of my suggestions may not be completely workable (Simon has diappeared into the Judges Protection Program). . However, my list does point out there are probably other solutions to deal with Iraq's non-compliance to the 1991 truce (and a dozen United Nations resolutions) than risking the lives of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

On September 11, 2001, President Bush was quick to urge Americans to pray for the safety and security of America. St. Paul, who lived under Roman occupation, wrote, "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone--for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness."

So, let's show some good old American creativity, Mr. President. If a humor columnist from Indiana can come up with ten ideas to avoid war, surely you and your cabinet can come up with a few yourself. And calling for a time of national prayer would be a great start.

(c) 2002 James N. Watkins

Return to top of page



Best business on the block August 2002

Radley Balko of FoxNews.com writes

There's another financial scandal you may not have heard about. It's been going on for years, and makes Enron, GlobalCrossing and WorldCom look like kiddies pilfering nickels from the lemonade stand.

Over the past five years, this colossal firm spent $142 billion more than it took in - 12 times the cooked figures of Enron, Xerox and WorldCom combined, according to one watchdog group. In 2001 alone, inept accountants completely lost track of $17.1 billion in investor capital.

The firm routinely borrows from the pension fund it requires all its shareholders and investors to contribute to - a violation of most state laws. It borrows from some departments to pay off the debts of others. It rewards the failures of its subsidiaries with more funding and more staffing. It rarely if ever disbands or dissolves failed endeavors. Instead, it often spins off new offices to address problems current offices are failing to solve, giving rise to jurisdictional and bureaucratic nightmares.

As you've probably guessed, this "firm" isn't Microsoft or Wal-Mart or General Electric. In fact, it isn't a firm at all. It's the United States government, your government.

You're absolutely right, Radley. But, no matter how thin you slice it, there are always two sides to bologna.

First, it's a government "of the people, for the people and by the people," so I guess I don't have too high of expectations considering who's minding the store.

For instance, while CEOs may be lying about corporate finances, six out of ten citizens lied at least once during a ten-minute conversation in a study for the "Journal of Basic and Applied Psychology." Plus, the "Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth" found that 92 percent of the 8,600 students surveyed lied to their parents in the past year. Seventy-eight percent said they had lied to a teacher, and more than one in four said they would lie to get a job.

Offended that the government spends more than it takes in? Keep in mind the average citizen has a credit card debt of $5,800 and pays an average of 18.3 percent interest, according to RAM Research. That's a "national debt" of $50 billion or enough money to sign a 2,000-year contract with Michael Jordan.

Corrupt constituents and consumers far out-number crooked legislators and CEOs. The IRS estimates that as many as 2 million Americans are hiding income in overseas accounts. In 1999 13 percent of taxpayers didn't see anything wrong with cheating on taxes. A 2002 study shows that number has jumped to 24 percent.

Even more people cheat on their spouses. Over one half (55 percent) of all married men and close to this percentage of married women (45 percent) had at least one extramarital affair before the age of 40. Younger women tend to cheat more than younger men.

Second, a government of the people, for the people, and by the people willingly votes into office politicians who lie and cheat on their spouses - and then re-elects them.

Case in point: Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) was recently expelled from the House for ethics violations following an April conviction on charges of bribery, tax evasion and racketeering. The nine-term representative is planning to run again as an independent - from his Federal prison cell. And here's the scariest part. An online poll July 24, gave the felon a 21 percent lead over three other candidates. "Beam me up!"

And third, as incompetently as the United States government is run, it's still open for business after 225 years of mismanagement.

For instance, in Mozambique, the inflation rate is so staggering that 18,000 meticais equal one American dollar! Its roadways are littered with burned-out cars and bombed-out homes after 17 years of civil war. Americans often forget how smoothly (and peacefully) power is transferred to the next elected leader-even without receiving a majority of the votes.

So, despite elected crooks, cooked books, sex scandals, massive debt, and general incompetence, the employee-owned and operated United States of America is still the best business on the block!

And, if you disagree, may I recommend Mozambique.

(c) 2002 James N. Watkins



Pledge of Allegiance July 2002

Osama bin Laden temporarily lost his title of “Most Hated Man in America” when Federal judge Alfred Goodwin ruled that “The Pledge of Allegiance” was unconstitutional because of the phrase “under God.”

However, this isn’t the first time the daily recitation in most U.S. schools has been viewed as controversial. The original version, written in 1892 by the Rev. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and professor at Bethany Seminary, didn’t include “under God.”

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Bellamy believed that, and I quote, “American children should attend the same schools, recite the same pledge and unite under the sacred flag." He was particularly concerned that Catholic parochial schools, appealing to immigrants from Eastern Europe, were destroying what he viewed as “American education.” He wrote, "Our fathers in their wisdom knew that the foundations of liberty, fraternity, and equality must be universal education.”

The pledge was soon endorsed by the National Education Association and the American Legion fought to have it made mandatory.

John W. Baer, author of "The Pledge of Allegiance: A Centennial History, 1892-1992," notes that "my flag" was changed to "the flag of the United States of America" because officials feared immigrants might think the pledge referred to the flags of their homelands. “Under God” was added in 1954 after the Knights of Columbus argued that the phrase would allow it to be used in both public and private schools.

However, this “one nation under God” has never believed in the kind of uniformity that the pledge’s author envisioned!

The Founding Fathers couldn’t even agree on the fundamental concept of God. Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were “deists” who believed in a personal creator of universe, but didn’t believe that God ever did--or ever will--perform miracles including the resurrection of Christ. Jefferson removed all the miracles from his version of the Bible and left Christ in the tomb. At one point Paine wrote that Christianity is "too absurd for belief."

As a result, freedom of religion - even the freedom to sacrifice chickens, handle snakes, or smoke peyote - has been a cherished, yet controversial and dangerous, freedom. (For every Billy Graham, there’s a David Koresh. For every Mahatma Gandhi, there’s an Osama bin Laden.)

In 1943 the Supreme Court ruled that compelling students to recite the pledge was a violation of their freedom of expression and free exercise of religion. (Amish, Jehovah Witnesses, and some Quakers or Friends, refuse to salute the flag or recite the pledge on grounds that their allegiance is to God alone.) The Court declared, the state cannot “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion. . . . “

With that in mind, I’m afraid creating a national pledge to which every American could give whole-hearted allegiance would end up sounding like this:

“I pledge allegiance to my own personal values and beliefs, and to the relative nature to which one can individually experience reality, a pluralistic society under a higher power of one’s own choice, tolerant with personal freedom checked and balanced with concern for the public welfare.”

Okay, maybe it’s a bit wordy. May I suggest a better pledge, directly from God:

“Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.”

It’s short, it’s non-controversial, and it would solve most of society’s problems if we all pledged our allegiance to it.

I don’t want to be assaulted, blown up, conned, discriminated against, enslaved, framed, gassed, hated, interrogated without legal counsel, jailed unjustly, killed, lynched, manipulated, name-called, oppressed, persecuted, quoted incorrectly, ransacked, shunned, tortured, used, violated, wronged, xanthipped (a great Scrabble word for “nagged at”), yelled at, or zoned-out! So, I shouldn’t xanthippe anyone else either.

I think “Do onto others as you would have them do unto you” would make a great pledge. But of course, as an American, you’re free to disagree with me.

(c) 2002 James N. Watkins

Reaction in reference to June 2004 ruling

I haven't read the full text of this opinion yet, but I couldn't be happier with the result that is summarized here:

CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. v. NEWDOW, No. 02-1624 (U.S.S.C. June 14, 2004)
A father did not have standing to challenge the "under God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance as violating the Establishment Clause on behalf of his daughter, because he lacked "next friend" status under California Law. To read the full text of this opinion, go to: laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/021624.html

The Supreme Court did not say that the words "under God" are appropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court did not say that the words "under God" are inappropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance. The Supreme Court did say "get this nonsense out of our face" by the only legal process available: saying that the father had no standing to bring his suit to court in the first place.

I continue to believe that it was a mistake for Congress to adopt ANY "official" version of the Pledge in 1942, much less add words to it in 1954 -- but there is not much the courts can do about that. I also believe that putting the words "under God" into a second-rate piece of secular verse defiles the Holy Name of God. But most of all, I believe that reciting a pledge to a flag is a violation of the Second Commandment. That is between me and God, not binding on anyone else, and also no business of the Supreme Court's.

The court did the right thing, the common sense thing, and acted with appropriate humility. jsiarlys@juno.com (June 2004)



Not a good thing July 2002

Just in case you've been in a coma the last few weeks, Martha Stewart, the omnipresent domestic goddess, is accused of "insider trading" as a member of the New York Stock Exchange.

It's not "a good thing" and she could find herself editing "Martha Stewart Living" from a tastefully decorated jail cell.

I can't wait to read:

how to fashion a toothbrush into a "shank" to carve bar soap into a glue gun;

make festive wreaths from the prison salad bar's endive and cherry tomatoes;

create wind chimes in metal shop;

host a home-made wine-tasting party for the entire cell block ("The Minute-Maid merlot has a fruity and spicy bouquet, while the Zippo zinfandel tickles the palette with a playful after-taste");

how to make decorative doilies by shredding your cell-mate's sheets;

suggestions for spicing up the bread and water diet with grilled bread brushed with olive oil and topped with a white bean purée and soft goat cheese; and of course,

how to remove blood stains from clothing.

But I digress. Martha is innocent until proven guilty. And whether she uses her creative skills to make-over her jail cell or redeem her career, Stewart could afford to learn from others who are accused of unstylish - and illegal - activities.

1. Don't hold back information.

Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, John and Patsy Ramsey, Gary Condit, Cardinal Law, and the suits at Enron and WorldCom got into even more trouble by withholding information from the public.

When TV evangelist Jimmy Swaggart was exposed for his sexual antics with prostitutes, at least he got on his then-popular show and admitted "I have sinned."

Bill Clinton, however, became infamous for his denial that "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time - never. These allegations are false."

So, Martha, it would be a good thing to tell the press and the public whatever you know - on handmade parchment press releases written with festive calligraphy, of course.

2. Cooperate with the authorities.

John and Patsy Ramsey are still viewed with suspicion since they initially refused to be interviewed by police following the brutal murder of their daughter, Jon Bonet.

The Roman Catholic Church may have avoided the public outcry over sexual abuse by priests, if it had turned offenders over to authorities after the first incident twenty years ago. Instead, some bishops knowingly sent the sexual offenders to other parishes. NOT a good thing.

Here's an opportunity to use your immaculate hosting skills. (Whatever you do, though, don't send members of the Security Exchange those recalled Everyday Brand Potpourri Simmering Pots from Kmart.)

3. Step down until the issue is resolved.

While running for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1974, Bill Clinton responded to then President Richard Nixon's lies by saying, ""If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign."

Cardinal Bernard Law would have sped the healing process in the Catholic sexual abuse scandal by resigning or at least stepping down temporarily until the investigation was completed.

So, it might be a good thing to keep a low profile, Martha, until the issue is resolved. (You and your public both need a break.)

4. Admit it if you're wrong.

The impeached President Clinton could possibly redeem his "legacy" by admitting that he lied (and whatever else he did) rather than torturing the English language with, "It depends on what the meaning of the word is is. If the...if he...if is means is and never has been, that is not - that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement"

On the other hand, Charles Colson, Richard Nixon's "hatchet man" admitted his wrongdoing in the Watergate scandal, served his time in Federal prison, and now has gained international stature as a best-selling author and advocate for prison reform and prisoner "restitution."

5. Take immediate steps to assure it never happens again.

The Catholic Bishops - finally - after months of lengthy debate, agreed to a "zero tolerance" policy for sexual offenders in the priesthood. But not before their public approval rating went straight to Purgatory.

Meanwhile, WorldCom Chief Executive John Sidgmore publicly apologized for the former leadership hiding nearly four billion dollars in losses from investors and government regulators. Sidgmore promised to do whatever is necessary to regain the public's trust. "While the deeds we uncovered were part of a past administration, I want to apologize on behalf of everyone at WorldCom." Now that's a good thing!

So, Martha, if you're innocent, here's a wonderful opportunity to exhibit real style in dealing with this awkward social situation.

And if you're guilty, I do hope you'll admit it, take responsibility for your actions, and find just the right linens to go with the orange jumpsuit.

(c) 2002 James N. Watkins

Comment

[Your column on Martha Stewart] could not have been more timely. The age of don't-ask-don't-tell has now officially gone the way of the Atari, although it remains to be seen whether the burgeoning interest in truth and accountability is because America is coming to her moral senses, or just needs a stronger fix for her voyeurism habit than "The Osbournes" can provide. Either way, it's sounding a wake-up call to every CEO of an ISP, every MVP in the NBA, and every M.Div. in the SBC across the country: "... there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open (Luke 8:17)." Warmest regards, Kelly Nygren

P.S. If you should happen to hear from Martha, you might warn her that the mandarin jumpsuits (summer) clash dreadfully with the matching silver bracelets (winter) that come with the ensemble, and that there are no alternate accessories, so she might as well brace for the shock.



Protecting kids and 401(k)s May 2002

Following an emergency meeting of its governing board, Thirteenth National Bank announced that it will fire only employees who are "notorious, serial embezzlers." News reports of widespread financial misconduct by top bank executives had brought a call from investors for "zero tolerance" for those found guilty of financial misconduct.

But according to bank's chief financial officer, Mel E. Ficence, embezzling employees will be simply transferred to other of its branches. In defending the bank's actions, Ficense noted a university study revealing, "The evidence has been clear for some time that financial misappropriation does not always do harm in the long run."

Meanwhile, Thirteenth National Bank's chief executive officer, Ms. Appropriation, rejected calls for her resignation. "Although these problems occurred with my full knowledge and under my personal supervision, I am the most capable to solve this problem in our banks."

In an unrelated Supreme Court ruling, the justices ruled that online bank robbery is protected by The Constitution.

+ + +

If wide-scale corruption was actually occurring in the banking industry, the passbook holders of America would be throwing a financial fit. Offending officials would be taken from their offices in handcuffs and held without bond until a jury of their peers could sentence them to life in prison. And their supervisors, if they knew of their financial felonies, would be sharing a cell with them.

But what if, instead of embezzlement in the banking industry, it was child sex abuse in the Catholic Church? And instead of the Supremes ruling on online larceny, they were ruling in favor of virtual child pornography?

The recent pow wow with the Pope and U. S. Cardinals announced a policy that "notorious" and "serial" child abusers would be defrocked. Calls for "zero tolerance" were rejected in the Vatican meeting. When it comes to violating children's innocence and destroying their trust in spiritual leadership, it seems that just one time would be grounds for a lifetime in priestly Purgatory. And Cardinal Law of Boston could do more to restore confidence in Catholic leadership by serving penance and resigning for simply moving abusing priests from parish to another. (How many former executives of Enron are still minding the store?)

But, according to David Finkelhor of the University of New Hampshire, sex with minors is not necessarily a mortal sin. "I think the evidence has been clear for some time that child and adolescent sexual abuse does not always do harm in the long run." At the same time Finkelhor admits that sexual abuse often includes, and I quote, "depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse . . . and greater tendency to be sexually victimized later in life." Huh?

Meanwhile the University of Minnesota is defending its publishing of a book which critics argue advocates sex between adults and minors. Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex" applauds a Dutch "age-of-consent" law that permits adults to have sex with children as young as 12, providing the child consents. (Child psychologists argue that there is no real “consent” between children and adults, especially those in authority positions such as teachers, coaches, and clergy.) The University's Christine Maziar, vice president who oversees publishing, defends the books by saying, "It takes a lot of courage for an individual or an institution to give voice to opinion and ideas where this is some disagreement."

And just last week the Supreme Court struck down a 1996 federal ban on computer-generated "virtual" child pornography which was designed to protect children from pedophiles. In his dissent, Chief Justice William Rehnquist warned that "computer-generated images are virtually indistinguishable from real children engaged in sexually explicit conduct."

Attorney General John Ashcroft said the ruling would make it "immeasurably more difficult" to prosecute child sexual abusers. The Justice Department had warned that "fake images that show children in sexual situations can help pedophiles recruit kids for real pornography."

So, let me get this straight. Enron and Arthur Anderson are evil, immoral, unethical scum of the earth scoundrels because they have mismanaged money and then concealed it from stockholders (and made huge profits for themselves). But adults who sexually abuse children or cover it up and pornographers who exploit images of children are defended by university presses and the Supreme Court?

Perhaps it's time we become as concerned about our children's safety as we do our financial security. And treat sexual abusers as the courts would treat embezzlers. By doing so, I'd feel a whole lot better about today's kids and my 401(k).

(c) 2002 James N. Watkins

pro pro-life january 2002

“Critics are the unpaid guardians of our souls,” claimed Plato, a Greek philosopher not to be confused with that colorful modeling clay. (And I’m not sure he still believed that when critics sentenced his friend and fellow philosopher, Socrates, to death!)

Critics were also waiting for the thousands of “Right to Life” advocates gathered in Washington D.C. to mark the 29th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling that declared abortion legal. The day started off well when the President of the United States addressed the group.

”Every life is valuable,” the President said. “Our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak, the imperfect and even the unwanted.” (Applause) A generous society values all human life. A merciful society seeks to expand legal protection to every life . . . not just the healthy or the strong or the powerful. “ (More applause.)

But Ann Retman, an abortion advocate from Boston, Mass., followed the “pro-life” marchers from the mall to the Supreme Court building. “If they're so proud of living in a free nation, then there needs to be freedom," she said. "I'm sick of them pulling out their religion when it's convenient for them and then when they want to oppress people, the Bible doesn't come in anywhere."

So, would Plato consider Retman a “guardian” of the anti-abortionist’s souls? I think so. As one who considers himself “pro-life” (or “a “right-wing religious radical” if you prefer), I’m concerned that many in the “Right To Life” movement may not be as “pro” as they would like to think when it comes to “life.”

The President noted, “a generous society values all human life.” Capitalize, bold-face, and underline that word ALL.

It is tragic that 3,600 unborn babies are aborted every day in this land of freedom. That’s a million each year.

But did you know that 24,000 people worldwide die every day from starvation and malnutrition? That’s over 8 million each year. Three of four who die are younger than five years old.

Did you also know, that hunger relief groups estimate that it would take 13 billion dollars a year to end hunger for the Earth's poorest citizens? Wow, that is a lot of money, but did you know North Americans and Europeans spend 18 billion dollars a year on pet food?

Retman would probably have a fit, as well, to realize that many “pro-lifers” are pro-death penalty. I haven’t figured that one out, yet, either (see my column on capital punishment). It’s particularly disturbing when 381 death-row prisoners in the United States were declared “wrongly convicted” and had their sentences thrown out. In a scathing series of articles in the January 1999 issues of the Chicago Tribune, reporters found “With impunity, prosecutors across the country have violated their oaths and the law, committing the worst kinds of deception in the most serious of cases.”

And I’m not sure about the company we keep. In 2000, 88 percent of all known executions were carried out in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the USA. According to Amnesty International, during that year 3,058 people were sentenced to death in 65 countries.

I do applaud the Justice Department and military for it’s “pro-life” treatment of terrorist “detainees.” It seems to me that moving suicidal maniacs who have lived in dark, dank caves with no sanitary facilities for the last several months to a sunny tropical climate with modern plumbing is actually a major improvement in their standard of living. (And I should remind Ms. Retman -- and the prolifers -- that Jesus commands his followers to love their enemies and to treat prisoners as they would treat him.)

And, speaking of Christ’s disciples, “More than 160,000 Christians were martyred in the last five years in a monumental escalation of religious persecution . . .” according to Dan Hodel, president of the Christian Coalition. “More Christians have been killed for their faith in the 20th Century than the first nineteen centuries combined!)

I’m probably being a bit self-serving in this “pro-life” stance since four journalists covering Afghanistan were captured and executed on the spot by Taliban soldiers. Twenty-four journalists were killed in 2000 and 34 in 1999. “Truth is the first casualty of war” and ten reporters covering the civil war in Sierra Leone were hunted down and murdered by rebel forces angry at the reporting of their human rights abuses.

And this doesn’t include those whose lives are in imminent danger.

Over 800,000,000 people in our world are seriously under-nourished with physical and cognitive consequences.

The United Nations estimates there are 20,000,000 “bonded laborers” worldwide.

Over 700,000 to 2,000,000 women and children are “trafficked” each year for forced labor and prostitution. Women and children sold or kidnapped into prostitution number up to 800,000 in Thailand, 200,000 in India, and 50,000 right here in the United States (Asian women “sell” for $16,000 each in North America).

So, what’s the solution?

How ‘bout for every bag of pet food we buy, we send a check for the same amount to World Hope, or other groups fighting hunger throughout the world? (No pets? Donate what you spend on snack foods.)

How ‘bout every time we’re waited on by a minimum wage server at a Chinese or Mexican restaurant, we send a comparable donation to organizations fighting forced labor in those countries such as the Salvation Army’s “Initiative Against Sexual Trafficking”?

How ‘bout every time we sing praises in our comfortable churches, we pray for our brothers and sisters who are imprisoned, tortured, and killed for their faith?

And how ‘bout being “pro” for all “life”?

(c) 2002 James N. Watkins

Comment

Yeah, you are right and you wrote that well. The concern I have is Evangelicals—and more so the conservative right—pick and choose things to be against and are not consistent. And, thus, I don't believe their (our) views are really rooted in anything other than opinion. Opinions don't last!

I really do not think our pro-life anti-abortion position will last the next 30 years even—it is a temporary position like anti-divorce was. We will cave in on it not just in the world but in the church as well. Why? Because we don’t really believe our position "life begins at conception." We are not willing to pay the price of that belief—we only want to scold the world.

I believe Evangelicals believe just about what the rest of America believes: "the fetus is sacred in some sense" and not merely a "bolt is a Buick" but it is not "fully" life. It is potential life, and thus more than a fingernail, but it is not to be treated as if it is equivilent life as a born person. Does that match your perception of the church's "real" position (assuming that our behaviors are the only true indicators of our real positions). Keith Drury (November 2004)

Celibacy Boxing April 2002

If you thought the Paula Jones and Tanya Harding boxing match on Fox TV was exciting, wait until the media brings you “Celibacy Boxing.” (Actually, it already has!)

“In this corner, the Papal pugilist in the white robe, Pope John II, takes on his challenger in the red robe U.S. Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in a no-gloves debate on whether priests should remain unmarried.”

Fight promoters have argued that the recent revelations of sexual abuse by celibate priests proves that the thousand-year-old ban on marriage needs to be reexamined.

But let’s step out of the ring for a moment and see if the media and promoters may be hitting below the belt.

Low blow one: Celibacy has contributed to these highly publicized sexual abuse cases.

That’s probably an unfair attack when one goes to a neutral corner. For instance, according a recent study, 42 percent of child sexual abusers are the natural parent. So fathers, in the paternal sense, are far more dangerous than Fathers in the pastoral sense!

Other biological relatives accounted for 23 percent of sexual abuse, with adoptive and foster parents, as well as step-parents rounding out the numbers with 35 percent. Another study reveals that 96 percent of sexual abuse occurs in the categories above with only 4 percent of abusers being outside the marriage or family. (During the 1997-98 study, this 4 percent included 58 police officers, 25 religious teachers, and 13 schoolteachers.)

Low blow two: Sexual abuse is all about sex.

Again, studies indicate that sexual abuse is more about power and dominance than the actual sex act. The perpetrator gets his or her satisfaction by having power over the victim. Notice that the 4 percent of non-family abusers above are all authority figures.

Low blow three: Priests have always been male and celibate

According to tradition, all of Christ’s disciples, with the exception of St. John, were married men with families. St. Peter, who Catholics view as the very first Pope, is referenced in three passages as being married with a family.

In fact, for the first twelve hundred years of the Church’s existence, priests, bishops and 39 popes were married!

When the Roman leader Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of Rome in 325, the Church adopted the Roman practice of men alone holding institutional authority. Up until that time, history documents that women served as priests and pastors in the early Church. In 494 Pope Gelasius decreed that women could no longer be ordained to the priesthood.

In 1095, Pope Urban II, declared that married priests must remain sexually abstinent and if not, “be imprisoned for the good of their souls.” Laws demanding celibacy of priests were not officially adopted until 1139 at the Second Latern Council.

So, an all-male, all-celibate priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church has been in effect for only the last half of Christianity’s history. (The Eastern Catholic Church allows for married priests.)

Cardinal Mahony isn’t the only member of the Catholic clergy who doesn’t see eye to eye with the Holy See. Recently the official newspaper of the Boston archdiocese, headed by Cardinal Bernard Law, called celibacy an issue that ''simply will not disappear.'' The newspaper reported that the majority of the United State’s 62 million Catholics disagree with that decree that all priests must be unmarried.

So, ‘Celibacy Boxing’ should have a much longer run in the media than the Fox TV bouts. And should be a lot more interesting.

Reporting from ringside, I’m Jim Watkins

(c) 2002 James N. Watkins

Return to top of page

For information on reprinting this article, click here.

and now a word from our sponsor . . . I trust these articles, book excerpts, and music will truly help you to live, love, and laugh. Email me at jim@jameswatkins.com and let me know what you thought of this site. And, if you enjoyed your visit, please save it as

bookmark or favorites and come back for new material each week. Link it from your site. Then tell all your family, friends, and email pals know about it! Thanks!

"Dear friend, I pray that you may enjoy good health and that all may go well with you, even as your soul is getting along well" (3 John 2).




SPAM of the Month Club

Join the SPAM of the Month Club for my best (?) newspaper column for that month, plus free of charge, access to the exclusive SPAM of the Month site featuring my favorite (and obscure) reference sites.

To subscribe simply send an email without subject line or message to SPAM-subscribe@jameswatkins.com.

affordable websites
Need a clean, uncluttered Web site at an affordable price? Do I have a deal for you!


be a Pal and help Pay expenses

If you'd like to help with the expenses of this site you can contribute securely using any major credit card with PayPal:

fine print

© James Watkins. All text and graphics on my sites, unless otherwise noted, are copyrighted © in my name, James N. Watkins, and are protected by United States copyright law and international copyright law under the Berne Convention. Please visit the press room for information on reprinting any text or graphics. Thanks!

WARNING: Reader assumes full responsibility for the proper and prescribed use of this site. For external use only. Discontinue if rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops. If swallowed, do not induce vomiting. Side-effects may include drowsiness or mild to severe agitation. Do not read while operating heavy machinery. Keep away from open flame. Do not store above 475 degrees. Do not use near or place in water. Views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of XarisCom.com, GospelCom.net, any other person using the name James Watkins, or any other person real or fictitious, living or dead. Void where prohibited.

This site is brought to you by XarisCom.com and hosted by . . .