*
Published in the Star-Ledger, Saturday, March 31, 2007
Police arrest Plainfield councilman in DWI case
Plainfield Councilman Don Davis was arrested Wednesday night at the wheel of his car for driving while intoxicated, police said.
Officers arrested Davis at 7:35 p.m. in front of the 100 block of West Front Street. Police did not release details surrounding the incident, although officers at the scene said Davis was cooperative, according to Police Chief Edward Santiago.
Reached by phone yesterday, Davis said he will contest the charge, but had no further comment. Assemblyman Jerry Green (D-Plainfield) said, "We shouldn't say anything negative because the councilman, like everyone else, deserves his day in court."
Davis has represented the city's 3rd Ward since his election in 2004. His colleagues recently selected him as chairman of the [committee of] the whole, to lead the council's agenda-setting sessions.
No link to online story, this item appeared in the print edition only.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Friday, March 23, 2007
Execcutive Privilege - Editor & Publisher - Tony Snow's 1998 OpEd
Published in Editor & Publisher, Wednesday, March 21, 2007
UPDATE:
Tony Snow Backs 'Executive Privilege' Now
-- But Hit It Back in Clinton Era
By E&P Staff
Published: March 21, 2007 10:55 AM ET udpated 3:30 PM ET
NEW YORK -- With the crisis over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys mounting, President Bush and his spokesman Tony Snow have roundly embraced the concept of "executive privilege" to deny Congress and testimony and documents from key White House insiders. But Snow was singing a different tune during the Clinton era, when a president claimed the same during the Lewinsky scandal.
Glenn Greenwald, who now blogs for Salon, has located a Snow column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch from March 29, 1998, back in his days as a newspaper pundit. Snow wrote then:
Find this article online.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
UPDATE:
Tony Snow Backs 'Executive Privilege' Now
-- But Hit It Back in Clinton Era
By E&P Staff
Published: March 21, 2007 10:55 AM ET udpated 3:30 PM ET
NEW YORK -- With the crisis over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys mounting, President Bush and his spokesman Tony Snow have roundly embraced the concept of "executive privilege" to deny Congress and testimony and documents from key White House insiders. But Snow was singing a different tune during the Clinton era, when a president claimed the same during the Lewinsky scandal.
Glenn Greenwald, who now blogs for Salon, has located a Snow column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch from March 29, 1998, back in his days as a newspaper pundit. Snow wrote then:
"Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.At his press briefing today, Snow was asked about all this. The exchange follows.
"Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
"One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public's faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold -- the rule of law."
Questioner: So Tony, back when President Clinton was citing executive privilege to keep internal deliberations in that White House from being talked about in Congress, you wrote now famously that --
MR. SNOW: I'm glad it was famous. I didn't get that kind of coverage at the time. (Laughter.)
Questioner: It's become more famous --
MR. SNOW: Oh, is it making its way through the left-wing blog?
Questioner: It is.
(Laughter.)
Questioner: No, no. But you spoke -- you wrote quite eloquently about this. You said, "Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold the chief executive accountable."
MR. SNOW: Right.
Questioner: "We would have a constitutional right to a cover-up."
MR. SNOW: Right. Now let me --
Questioner: So why were you wrong then and right now?
MR. SNOW: Because you're -- this is a not entirely analogous situation. I just told you what we have in fact offered to make available to members of Congress. What we are doing is we are holding apart confidential communications between advisers and the president, and that is pretty standard practice in White Houses. But again --
Questioner: It wasn't with the Clinton administration.
MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not so sure. And I'll let others do the legal arguing on that.
Find this article online.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Execcutive Privilege - ThinkProgress - Tony Snow's 1998 OpEd
Published in ThinkProgress.org, Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Tony Snow Flip-Flops On Executive Privilege
President Bush said yesterday he would “absolutely” fight to prevent Karl Rove and other senior officials from testifying under oath about the U.S. Attorney purge. Tony Snow explained the position to National Review’s Byron York:
I asked whether the president was perhaps overly confrontational at this stage of the game. “I don’t think it’s confrontational,” Snow said. “We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument.” …
The White House, Snow said, is determined to avoid “hearings or the trappings of hearings” when White House officials talk to Congress. “They’re looking for hands up, cameras on,” Snow said of Democrats. “They’re talking about a show trial.”
How times have changed. As Glenn Greenwald first noted, Snow had a much different view of executive privilege in 1998, when President Clinton was using it to resist having his aides testify in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky saga. On 3/29/98, Snow published an op-ed titled, “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”:
Filed under: Administration, Ethics
Posted by Nico March 21, 2007 10:06 am
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Tony Snow Flip-Flops On Executive Privilege
President Bush said yesterday he would “absolutely” fight to prevent Karl Rove and other senior officials from testifying under oath about the U.S. Attorney purge. Tony Snow explained the position to National Review’s Byron York:
I asked whether the president was perhaps overly confrontational at this stage of the game. “I don’t think it’s confrontational,” Snow said. “We feel pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument.” …
The White House, Snow said, is determined to avoid “hearings or the trappings of hearings” when White House officials talk to Congress. “They’re looking for hands up, cameras on,” Snow said of Democrats. “They’re talking about a show trial.”
How times have changed. As Glenn Greenwald first noted, Snow had a much different view of executive privilege in 1998, when President Clinton was using it to resist having his aides testify in the midst of the Monica Lewinsky saga. On 3/29/98, Snow published an op-ed titled, “Executive Privilege is a Dodge”:
Evidently, Mr. Clinton wants to shield virtually any communications that take place within the White House compound on the theory that all such talk contributes in some way, shape or form to the continuing success and harmony of an administration. Taken to its logical extreme, that position would make it impossible for citizens to hold a chief executive accountable for anything. He would have a constitutional right to cover up.Snow shouldn’t feel “pretty comfortable with the constitutional argument” because it’s pretty clear there isn’t one. The leading case on executive privilege is United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court found that executive privilege is sharply limited:
Chances are that the courts will hurl such a claim out, but it will take time.
One gets the impression that Team Clinton values its survival more than most people want justice and thus will delay without qualm. But as the clock ticks, the public’s faith in Mr. Clinton will ebb away for a simple reason: Most of us want no part of a president who is cynical enough to use the majesty of his office to evade the one thing he is sworn to uphold — the rule of law.
The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide.
Filed under: Administration, Ethics
Posted by Nico March 21, 2007 10:06 am
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Crime - Ledger - Farmer: Rise in violent crime predictable
Published in the Star-Ledger, Sunday, January 14, 2007
OpEd
Rise in violent crime was predictable
BY JOHN FARMER JR.
More than 100 people were murdered in Newark last year. Many more were shot at, mugged or robbed. Nor was Newark's record-setting violent crime wave an isolated event. In large cities all over the country, violent crime rose last year for the second straight year, reversing a long-standing trend toward safer streets.
If 2006 was the year in which, abroad, the failure of our Iraq strategy became clear, it was also the year in which, at home, the failure of our law enforcement strategy be came painfully obvious.
More disturbing than the news that violent crime is increasing, however, was government's reaction to it. The Department of Justice expressed its concern about the sharp rise in homicides and robberies nationwide, and reassured the public that its ongoing study of crime trends in 18 cities will help determine "what is causing this increase" and "which crime-fighting efforts are most effective." Gov. Jon Corzine, in his State of the State address, decried the "scourge" of "guns and gang violence," and called for a "comprehensive approach for prevention, enforcement and prisoner re- entry."
News reports have ascribed the increase in urban violence to various causes: a spike in the number of men between the ages of 20 and 24; an increased use of firearms in urban settings to settle disputes; the growing prevalence of gangs; the diversion of law enforcement resources to the prevention of terrorist activity. In a fit of misplaced nostalgia, even New Jersey's success in curbing the practice of racial profiling is now cited by some as leading to the increase in urban violence by allowing guns into Newark. (How this accounts for the rise in violence in cities like Washington, Norfolk, Atlanta, Miami and others is an unanswerable mystery to these folks.)
What has gone unreported, however, is the extent to which the increase in violent crime was not only predictable but actually predicted, a direct if unintended consequence of our anti-crime policies of recent years.
When Justice Department bureaucrats are finished "studying" the problem -- as though the more than 100 murder victims in Newark last year were the subjects of some laboratory experiment -- I think they'll conclude that the problem may -- just may -- be related directly to two government policies of the past 15 years: the subjection of violent offenders to mandatory minimum terms of incarceration with no programs in place to as sure that they will be rehabilitated; and the practice of housing gang members together in our prisons to avoid prison violence.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, as a consequence in part of the crack epidemic and in part of the adverse publicity surrounding certain judges' decisions in criminal cases that were deemed to be too lenient, legislatures across the country, including Congress, began to pass so-called mandatory minimum statutes. These statutes removed discretion from judges by requiring defendants who were convicted under their provisions to serve a prescribed amount of time in prison.
By the mid- to late 1990s, as increasing numbers of violent offenders were convicted and sentenced in accordance with these tougher laws, a remarkable thing began to occur: The crime rate began to plummet. The suspicion long held by those of us in law enforcement -- that the vast majority of serious crime is committed by relatively few people -- seemed confirmed. Violent crime reached historic lows every year I served as attorney general; the streets of New Jersey had not been so free of violent crime since the riots of 1967.
There were, however, clouds on the horizon. First, the influx of violent offenders in prisons from rival gangs caused a potential security problem within the prisons. As gang members intermingled behind bars, there weren't many choruses of "Kumbaya" being sung. So corrections officials decided that, to maintain peace in our prisons, they would house gang members together, and separate the gang populations from each other. The fact that this practice could actually strengthen the social structure of gangs in the community was deemed less important than maintaining riot-free prisons.
The other cloud on the horizon was the fact that the vast majority of offenders sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprison ment would some day be returned to the community. Unless a violent offender was convicted of a crime requiring life in prison, at some point -- usually 10 to 15 years after incarceration -- he or she would be released. Given when most of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws were passed, that meant that beginning in 2005 or so, tens of thousands of violent offenders would be released, and would re- enter society.
Four years ago, with crime rates remaining at historic lows, former Public Advocate Stanley Van Ness and I co-chaired a series of roundtable discussions designed to build awareness among law enforcement policymakers of the impending problem. New Jersey, we warned, would be releasing more than 70,000 people from state prison alone over the next five years, with virtually nothing in place to assure that they would commit no further crimes upon their release. The re sult, given that the only social structure available to many urban inmates was the gang structure, could be a catastrophic increase in violent crime.
Our efforts were mirrored around the country in states like Michigan, Florida and Kansas; the problem of re-entry was truly a national problem.
We were encouraged, at first, by the government's reaction. We had active participation from both state and federal law enforcement, from the criminal defense bar and from social scientists. All professed to see the problem coming. A succession of governors and their staffs, like Corzine last week, have all "said the right things" about re-entry.
It is fair to ask, however, in light of the grim homicide statistics in Newark from 2005 and 2006: What has anyone in the government actually done over the past four years?
In a word, nothing.
The Legislature created a Sentencing Commission to study mandatory minimum statutes. A draft executive order making re-entry a priority has languished now through three years and as many governors. The virtues of various pilot programs have been debated; none has been implemented. Typical government glad-handing and lip service. Nothing.
With the hundred-plus homicides last year in Newark, and violent crime now rising all over the country, the long-dreaded day is upon us, and the Justice Department is going to study it. They'll get back to us, we're told, when they've figured out the cause.
Great. But do we really have to study this problem in order to address it? What do you think will happen if you take a violent offender, lock him up for 10 or 15 years, give him no social structure but a gang, and then turn him loose into society with nothing in place to discourage a return to violent behavior? Do you really need a "study" to figure out that the gang problem is in many respects a re- entry problem, or that -- quite apart from gangs -- anyone leaving prison after an extended term faces an enormous adjustment?
There are probably no less-sym pathetic claimants to the state's budget dollars than incarcerated felons. But the social cost of allowing violent offenders to drift through our prisons with no strategy to improve their conduct when they are released may well be incalculable.
Corzine's call for a comprehensive strategy to address the re- entry issue is encouraging. I hope his staff develops one, and I hope it involves actual contact with actual inmates. I hope he highlights it in his budget address and proposes funding it generously. Even more, I hope he goes beyond symbolism and process to the realization that he must act decisively and immediately. The government -- both state and federal -- must actually do something, and do it now.
In the meantime, Newark Mayor Cory Booker is right not to wait for the state and the feds. He's right to launch his own re-entry effort, with particular focus on juvenile offenders. He knows all too well that the problem is no longer about what will happen in four or five years when tens of thousands of inmates are released. They are coming out now. They are here.
Tragically, for people in cities across the country, and for more than 100 people in Newark last year, the time to act was yesterday.
John Farmer Jr., a former New Jersey attorney general and special counsel to the 9/11 commission, teaches national security law at Rutgers University Law School.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
*
OpEd
Rise in violent crime was predictable
BY JOHN FARMER JR.
More than 100 people were murdered in Newark last year. Many more were shot at, mugged or robbed. Nor was Newark's record-setting violent crime wave an isolated event. In large cities all over the country, violent crime rose last year for the second straight year, reversing a long-standing trend toward safer streets.
If 2006 was the year in which, abroad, the failure of our Iraq strategy became clear, it was also the year in which, at home, the failure of our law enforcement strategy be came painfully obvious.
More disturbing than the news that violent crime is increasing, however, was government's reaction to it. The Department of Justice expressed its concern about the sharp rise in homicides and robberies nationwide, and reassured the public that its ongoing study of crime trends in 18 cities will help determine "what is causing this increase" and "which crime-fighting efforts are most effective." Gov. Jon Corzine, in his State of the State address, decried the "scourge" of "guns and gang violence," and called for a "comprehensive approach for prevention, enforcement and prisoner re- entry."
News reports have ascribed the increase in urban violence to various causes: a spike in the number of men between the ages of 20 and 24; an increased use of firearms in urban settings to settle disputes; the growing prevalence of gangs; the diversion of law enforcement resources to the prevention of terrorist activity. In a fit of misplaced nostalgia, even New Jersey's success in curbing the practice of racial profiling is now cited by some as leading to the increase in urban violence by allowing guns into Newark. (How this accounts for the rise in violence in cities like Washington, Norfolk, Atlanta, Miami and others is an unanswerable mystery to these folks.)
What has gone unreported, however, is the extent to which the increase in violent crime was not only predictable but actually predicted, a direct if unintended consequence of our anti-crime policies of recent years.
When Justice Department bureaucrats are finished "studying" the problem -- as though the more than 100 murder victims in Newark last year were the subjects of some laboratory experiment -- I think they'll conclude that the problem may -- just may -- be related directly to two government policies of the past 15 years: the subjection of violent offenders to mandatory minimum terms of incarceration with no programs in place to as sure that they will be rehabilitated; and the practice of housing gang members together in our prisons to avoid prison violence.
Beginning in the mid-1980s, as a consequence in part of the crack epidemic and in part of the adverse publicity surrounding certain judges' decisions in criminal cases that were deemed to be too lenient, legislatures across the country, including Congress, began to pass so-called mandatory minimum statutes. These statutes removed discretion from judges by requiring defendants who were convicted under their provisions to serve a prescribed amount of time in prison.
By the mid- to late 1990s, as increasing numbers of violent offenders were convicted and sentenced in accordance with these tougher laws, a remarkable thing began to occur: The crime rate began to plummet. The suspicion long held by those of us in law enforcement -- that the vast majority of serious crime is committed by relatively few people -- seemed confirmed. Violent crime reached historic lows every year I served as attorney general; the streets of New Jersey had not been so free of violent crime since the riots of 1967.
There were, however, clouds on the horizon. First, the influx of violent offenders in prisons from rival gangs caused a potential security problem within the prisons. As gang members intermingled behind bars, there weren't many choruses of "Kumbaya" being sung. So corrections officials decided that, to maintain peace in our prisons, they would house gang members together, and separate the gang populations from each other. The fact that this practice could actually strengthen the social structure of gangs in the community was deemed less important than maintaining riot-free prisons.
The other cloud on the horizon was the fact that the vast majority of offenders sentenced to mandatory minimum terms of imprison ment would some day be returned to the community. Unless a violent offender was convicted of a crime requiring life in prison, at some point -- usually 10 to 15 years after incarceration -- he or she would be released. Given when most of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws were passed, that meant that beginning in 2005 or so, tens of thousands of violent offenders would be released, and would re- enter society.
Four years ago, with crime rates remaining at historic lows, former Public Advocate Stanley Van Ness and I co-chaired a series of roundtable discussions designed to build awareness among law enforcement policymakers of the impending problem. New Jersey, we warned, would be releasing more than 70,000 people from state prison alone over the next five years, with virtually nothing in place to assure that they would commit no further crimes upon their release. The re sult, given that the only social structure available to many urban inmates was the gang structure, could be a catastrophic increase in violent crime.
Our efforts were mirrored around the country in states like Michigan, Florida and Kansas; the problem of re-entry was truly a national problem.
We were encouraged, at first, by the government's reaction. We had active participation from both state and federal law enforcement, from the criminal defense bar and from social scientists. All professed to see the problem coming. A succession of governors and their staffs, like Corzine last week, have all "said the right things" about re-entry.
It is fair to ask, however, in light of the grim homicide statistics in Newark from 2005 and 2006: What has anyone in the government actually done over the past four years?
In a word, nothing.
The Legislature created a Sentencing Commission to study mandatory minimum statutes. A draft executive order making re-entry a priority has languished now through three years and as many governors. The virtues of various pilot programs have been debated; none has been implemented. Typical government glad-handing and lip service. Nothing.
With the hundred-plus homicides last year in Newark, and violent crime now rising all over the country, the long-dreaded day is upon us, and the Justice Department is going to study it. They'll get back to us, we're told, when they've figured out the cause.
Great. But do we really have to study this problem in order to address it? What do you think will happen if you take a violent offender, lock him up for 10 or 15 years, give him no social structure but a gang, and then turn him loose into society with nothing in place to discourage a return to violent behavior? Do you really need a "study" to figure out that the gang problem is in many respects a re- entry problem, or that -- quite apart from gangs -- anyone leaving prison after an extended term faces an enormous adjustment?
There are probably no less-sym pathetic claimants to the state's budget dollars than incarcerated felons. But the social cost of allowing violent offenders to drift through our prisons with no strategy to improve their conduct when they are released may well be incalculable.
Corzine's call for a comprehensive strategy to address the re- entry issue is encouraging. I hope his staff develops one, and I hope it involves actual contact with actual inmates. I hope he highlights it in his budget address and proposes funding it generously. Even more, I hope he goes beyond symbolism and process to the realization that he must act decisively and immediately. The government -- both state and federal -- must actually do something, and do it now.
In the meantime, Newark Mayor Cory Booker is right not to wait for the state and the feds. He's right to launch his own re-entry effort, with particular focus on juvenile offenders. He knows all too well that the problem is no longer about what will happen in four or five years when tens of thousands of inmates are released. They are coming out now. They are here.
Tragically, for people in cities across the country, and for more than 100 people in Newark last year, the time to act was yesterday.
John Farmer Jr., a former New Jersey attorney general and special counsel to the 9/11 commission, teaches national security law at Rutgers University Law School.
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
*
Thursday, March 08, 2007
A sermon by Plainfielder John Hartman - On the Anglican Communion and gays in the Church
Some of you know that Dan is an Episcopalian and that the worldwide Anglican Communion is in great turmoil over participation by gays in the ministry of the church and in whether the church should bless same-sex unions.
What follows is a sermon preached by Plainfielder John Hartman, an old friend, whom many of you may know as a founder of FOSH (Friends of Sleepy Hollow). In the early 1980s, John and I were among the founders of RSVP, Plainfield's first organization of gays and lesbians.
John is in his second year of seminary and looks forward to ordination to the priesthood at the end of 2008. The sermon was preached yesterday in the Chapel of St. John the Divine at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, the home of Northwestern University. The PRIMATES referred to in the sermon are the archbishops who lead the Church in each country or Province of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion has approximately 77 million adherents worldwide, next in size among Christian bodies to the Roman Catholic Church.
+ Grace, mercy, and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
Good morning sisters and brothers in Christ.
But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking."
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Jesus said this because a mother asked him to place her one son on his left and her other son on his right. Jesus responds however, saying that it was not his to do. As I read this Gospel reading from Matthew the one thing that resonated with me was this line, this short sentence.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
I felt drawn to this line, these eight words, because many years ago I was asked to join Christ at his side and where I thought the only answer I could give him was:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
"Being part of the Anglican Communion is very important to me," said The Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk, Bishop of New York and former Dean of Seabury, "but if the price of that is I have to turn my back on the gay and lesbian people who are part of this church and part of me I won't do that."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
"In recent times, we have spent too much of our time, talent and treasure," said Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies**, debating if we ought to deny some people a place at the table to which Jesus calls us all.
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
"The Gospel summons us to a unified effort against the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, hunger, poverty, human rights violations, and the degradation of women and children," said The Rt. Rev. John Chane, Bishop of Washington, and yet he continued, "the Primates behave as though quashing dissent on issues of human sexuality were the central calling of the Christian faith.
"Under no circumstances will I support a moratorium on the consecration of individuals living in same-sex relationships to the episcopacy and under no circumstances will I enforce a ban on the blessing of same sex unions."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
More than 42 years ago I began asking -- discerning -- what I believed was a call to ordained ministry. I was a senior in high school, quite active in my church, St. Paul's United Church of Christ in Schaefferstown, Pennsylvania. My pastor, the Rev. Alfred Sandrock, who just died a few weeks ago, asked if I might be interested in becoming a pastor. He made me quite a proposition, saying that he knew there was scholarship money available to cover most of my undergraduate and seminary work. He even hinted that he could get me into Franklin and Marshall College -- F&M -- in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Following F&M he said, it would be easy to enroll in the Lancaster Theological Seminary. Both F&M and the Seminary were and still are affiliated with the United Church of Christ.
Needless to say his encouragement gave me reason for serious pause. But, at the time I knew something that Pastor Sandrock didn't. I knew that I was queer. I use that word intentionally because in the mid-60s the word gay was not part of our vocabulary, and the word queer was used in its most derogatory sense. And, in the mid-late 60s, a queer man from a conservative small town in Pennsylvania Dutch Country was not encouraged at all to aspire to any ministry of any church that I knew.
At this time the United Church of Christ was less than 10 years old, resulting from a merger of the Congregational Christian Church and the much more conservative branch, of which I was a member, the Evangelical & Reformed. Then, the United Church of Christ was not the inclusive and liberal church it is today.
So although Rev. Sandrock encouraged and pursued me, I found myself incapable of saying to him:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
I walked away from any further conversations about becoming a minister. I walked away because I was scared about being found out that I was queer. I was 17 years old and scared to death about my future. Scared about how my family and community would react to learning of my sexual orientation.
"It has always seemed to me that if we accept gay and lesbian people as full partners in our church we have to be consistent on matters of marriage and clergy," said The Rt. Rev. William Smith, Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut. "We can't advocate two classes of church citizenship: one for heterosexuals, one for homosexuals. Church unity is important but you can't compromise on basic principles of conscience. I'm not willing to do that."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
Nothing sums up my own feelings about the Primates communiqué more than what was said by The Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, Dean and President of the Episcopal Divinity School, who said … "Enough is enough. If the Anglican Communion must separate over this fundamental issue of human rights, then so be it."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
For me the issue boils down to inclusiveness … human rights … social justice … sexual equality, and my sheer inability to compromise on those issues.
I am 59 years old, I had built up a good career over the last 35 years before coming to Seabury, and I had a comfortable lifestyle. But Christ called. Christ calling me said, John, you've been ignoring me too long, you've pushed me aside just too many times.
The first time Christ called, some 42 years ago, I walked away from him. I walked away in shame for who I was. I walked away scared of how I might be treated. I walked away from Christ and my own cross. I said:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Now Christ, who stayed with me and always stays with us; Christ, who never gives up on us; Christ, who only sees us in love; has again asked me to stand with him at the cross. And this time I will not walk away.
I wonder now, What are you going to do? Are you going to stand with Christ in this season of Lent getting ready to follow him to the cross? Are you going to say, like so many in our church are saying, "Enough is enough, I will not compromise on the vital issues of human rights, social justice, and sexual equality."
Allow me to be bold and probably presumptuous and ask you to join Christ and me at the cross and say to the primates.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
By the Grace of God. Amen.
**The House of Deputies, composed of lay and clerical (non-bishop) members, is part of the governing structure of the Episcopal Church, along with the House of Bishops (to which all bishops belong). They meet every three years in General Convention to conduct the business of the church in the United States.
-----
Dan's experience with the Church is somewhat similar. My formative years were in the fellowship of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, a body of German ethnic background but closely allied to the Methodist Church, with which it eventually united to form the United Methodist Church. (I had the added twist of being catechized in the Roman Catholic Church -- the Baltimore Catechism, mind you!, pre-Vatican II -- thanks to my father's second wife being a Catholic.)
I, too, was drawn to the ministry -- at an even earlier age -- and warmly supported by my pastor and congregation. From the earliest moment, I had known ministers in the church who were gay, so simply being gay did not appear to be an impediment, although in those days (the 1950s), absolutely no one discussed these matters openly.
I left the church in the 1960s, not over being gay, but because I felt the church in which I found myself was not meeting the challenges of the era and to which I was committed -- civil rights, the Vietnam War and the fight against poverty and hopelessness in America.
When I came back to the church in 1985, I was drawn to Anglicanism because it combined the warm fellowship of my evangelical childhood, an embrace of reasoned discourse in all things, and classical worship which ties it with the Church in all places and times.
Though I spent several years discerning whether I was indeed called -- again -- to the ministry of the Church, the realization finally dawned on me that it was Plainfield to which I had been called. No more, no less.
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
What follows is a sermon preached by Plainfielder John Hartman, an old friend, whom many of you may know as a founder of FOSH (Friends of Sleepy Hollow). In the early 1980s, John and I were among the founders of RSVP, Plainfield's first organization of gays and lesbians.
John is in his second year of seminary and looks forward to ordination to the priesthood at the end of 2008. The sermon was preached yesterday in the Chapel of St. John the Divine at Seabury-Western Theological Seminary in Evanston, Illinois, the home of Northwestern University. The PRIMATES referred to in the sermon are the archbishops who lead the Church in each country or Province of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion has approximately 77 million adherents worldwide, next in size among Christian bodies to the Roman Catholic Church.
While Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and said to them on the way, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on the third day he will be raised.”
Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” But Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”
When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”
-- Matthew 20:17-28 (New Revised Standard Version)
+ Grace, mercy, and peace to you in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
Good morning sisters and brothers in Christ.
But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking."
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Jesus said this because a mother asked him to place her one son on his left and her other son on his right. Jesus responds however, saying that it was not his to do. As I read this Gospel reading from Matthew the one thing that resonated with me was this line, this short sentence.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
I felt drawn to this line, these eight words, because many years ago I was asked to join Christ at his side and where I thought the only answer I could give him was:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
"Being part of the Anglican Communion is very important to me," said The Rt. Rev. Mark Sisk, Bishop of New York and former Dean of Seabury, "but if the price of that is I have to turn my back on the gay and lesbian people who are part of this church and part of me I won't do that."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
"In recent times, we have spent too much of our time, talent and treasure," said Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies**, debating if we ought to deny some people a place at the table to which Jesus calls us all.
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
"The Gospel summons us to a unified effort against the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, hunger, poverty, human rights violations, and the degradation of women and children," said The Rt. Rev. John Chane, Bishop of Washington, and yet he continued, "the Primates behave as though quashing dissent on issues of human sexuality were the central calling of the Christian faith.
"Under no circumstances will I support a moratorium on the consecration of individuals living in same-sex relationships to the episcopacy and under no circumstances will I enforce a ban on the blessing of same sex unions."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
More than 42 years ago I began asking -- discerning -- what I believed was a call to ordained ministry. I was a senior in high school, quite active in my church, St. Paul's United Church of Christ in Schaefferstown, Pennsylvania. My pastor, the Rev. Alfred Sandrock, who just died a few weeks ago, asked if I might be interested in becoming a pastor. He made me quite a proposition, saying that he knew there was scholarship money available to cover most of my undergraduate and seminary work. He even hinted that he could get me into Franklin and Marshall College -- F&M -- in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Following F&M he said, it would be easy to enroll in the Lancaster Theological Seminary. Both F&M and the Seminary were and still are affiliated with the United Church of Christ.
Needless to say his encouragement gave me reason for serious pause. But, at the time I knew something that Pastor Sandrock didn't. I knew that I was queer. I use that word intentionally because in the mid-60s the word gay was not part of our vocabulary, and the word queer was used in its most derogatory sense. And, in the mid-late 60s, a queer man from a conservative small town in Pennsylvania Dutch Country was not encouraged at all to aspire to any ministry of any church that I knew.
At this time the United Church of Christ was less than 10 years old, resulting from a merger of the Congregational Christian Church and the much more conservative branch, of which I was a member, the Evangelical & Reformed. Then, the United Church of Christ was not the inclusive and liberal church it is today.
So although Rev. Sandrock encouraged and pursued me, I found myself incapable of saying to him:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
I walked away from any further conversations about becoming a minister. I walked away because I was scared about being found out that I was queer. I was 17 years old and scared to death about my future. Scared about how my family and community would react to learning of my sexual orientation.
"It has always seemed to me that if we accept gay and lesbian people as full partners in our church we have to be consistent on matters of marriage and clergy," said The Rt. Rev. William Smith, Bishop of the Diocese of Connecticut. "We can't advocate two classes of church citizenship: one for heterosexuals, one for homosexuals. Church unity is important but you can't compromise on basic principles of conscience. I'm not willing to do that."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
Nothing sums up my own feelings about the Primates communiqué more than what was said by The Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, Dean and President of the Episcopal Divinity School, who said … "Enough is enough. If the Anglican Communion must separate over this fundamental issue of human rights, then so be it."
THE PRIMATES DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ASKING.
For me the issue boils down to inclusiveness … human rights … social justice … sexual equality, and my sheer inability to compromise on those issues.
I am 59 years old, I had built up a good career over the last 35 years before coming to Seabury, and I had a comfortable lifestyle. But Christ called. Christ calling me said, John, you've been ignoring me too long, you've pushed me aside just too many times.
The first time Christ called, some 42 years ago, I walked away from him. I walked away in shame for who I was. I walked away scared of how I might be treated. I walked away from Christ and my own cross. I said:
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
Now Christ, who stayed with me and always stays with us; Christ, who never gives up on us; Christ, who only sees us in love; has again asked me to stand with him at the cross. And this time I will not walk away.
I wonder now, What are you going to do? Are you going to stand with Christ in this season of Lent getting ready to follow him to the cross? Are you going to say, like so many in our church are saying, "Enough is enough, I will not compromise on the vital issues of human rights, social justice, and sexual equality."
Allow me to be bold and probably presumptuous and ask you to join Christ and me at the cross and say to the primates.
YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ASKING.
By the Grace of God. Amen.
**The House of Deputies, composed of lay and clerical (non-bishop) members, is part of the governing structure of the Episcopal Church, along with the House of Bishops (to which all bishops belong). They meet every three years in General Convention to conduct the business of the church in the United States.
-----
Dan's experience with the Church is somewhat similar. My formative years were in the fellowship of the Evangelical United Brethren Church, a body of German ethnic background but closely allied to the Methodist Church, with which it eventually united to form the United Methodist Church. (I had the added twist of being catechized in the Roman Catholic Church -- the Baltimore Catechism, mind you!, pre-Vatican II -- thanks to my father's second wife being a Catholic.)
I, too, was drawn to the ministry -- at an even earlier age -- and warmly supported by my pastor and congregation. From the earliest moment, I had known ministers in the church who were gay, so simply being gay did not appear to be an impediment, although in those days (the 1950s), absolutely no one discussed these matters openly.
I left the church in the 1960s, not over being gay, but because I felt the church in which I found myself was not meeting the challenges of the era and to which I was committed -- civil rights, the Vietnam War and the fight against poverty and hopelessness in America.
When I came back to the church in 1985, I was drawn to Anglicanism because it combined the warm fellowship of my evangelical childhood, an embrace of reasoned discourse in all things, and classical worship which ties it with the Church in all places and times.
Though I spent several years discerning whether I was indeed called -- again -- to the ministry of the Church, the realization finally dawned on me that it was Plainfield to which I had been called. No more, no less.
-- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
ARCHIVED POSTS OF PLAINFIELD TODAY FROM 11/03/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2006 ARE AT
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Letter to Editor - Courier- Plainfield mayor deserves no praise
*
Published in the Courier News, Monday, March 5, 2007
[Letter to editor]
Plainfield mayor deserves no praise
I thought I had to take 24 hours to digest the content of the letter to the editor that Alex Toliver had printed in a recent issue of the Courier News.
But then I realized, much like a huge pile of cotton candy, there wasn't much substance to digest regarding the supposed accomplishments of our mayor here in Plainfield.
The entire letter listed all these "great" things about Plainfield and some things we are going to be seeing in the future, supposedly. No real actual accomplishment was listed, such as, say, "She got a traffic light installed at that terrible intersection." No, in fact the entire letter was a glossed over press release minus any real filler.
The writer mentioned some "dark clouds and many obstacles placed in her path." Would this be what the bodyguards are for? To help move these "obstacles"? Or are the body guards a knee-jerk response to someone mentioning a rumor that might have been heard.
Give me a list; that's all I ask. I want a list of tangible accomplishments that had nothing to do with the previous administration before I would waste the effort of turning one, much less two, thumbs up for a figurehead for the county Democratic Party.
The only unity I see that is present in Plainfield -- yes still the Queen City -- is the absolute shame half this city had walking in like sheep and pulling the lever that Jerry Green told them to pull.
You want a thumb up -- impress me. Start acting like a mayor. Make some decisions like enforcing zoning issues downtown, coming up with real ideas to improve the looks of the business district, getting some grants to increase green spaces inside the city, improving some of the parks, fixing a couple of the pothole-ridden streets (say, like Eighth Street right in front of the library), moving on making rental properties inspected and safer and maybe getting rid of some of the trash downtown (litter and people). This is just a list -- now, pick one, two or a few and start making a difference.
I think it would be great if the Courier News penned an article asking all the citizens of Plainfield for their ideas on improving Plainfield. Then, hand that list to the mayor and City Council.
Trust me, I have nothing personal against the mayor. But she most definitely does not deserve overwhelming praise for merely keeping the boat from sinking while docked at port. When walking through Plainfield as a whole, there is very little to be impressed about. Can someone explain the broken window theory to our mayor? Maybe Al McWilliams wasn't the best mayor, but he actually got things done.
Now, like I said, get a couple of the above things done and tell the paper to report it. We will all at least praise you for that. Remember, less fluff, more filler.
ROB MCCONNELL
Plainfield
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Published in the Courier News, Monday, March 5, 2007
[Letter to editor]
Plainfield mayor deserves no praise
I thought I had to take 24 hours to digest the content of the letter to the editor that Alex Toliver had printed in a recent issue of the Courier News.
But then I realized, much like a huge pile of cotton candy, there wasn't much substance to digest regarding the supposed accomplishments of our mayor here in Plainfield.
The entire letter listed all these "great" things about Plainfield and some things we are going to be seeing in the future, supposedly. No real actual accomplishment was listed, such as, say, "She got a traffic light installed at that terrible intersection." No, in fact the entire letter was a glossed over press release minus any real filler.
The writer mentioned some "dark clouds and many obstacles placed in her path." Would this be what the bodyguards are for? To help move these "obstacles"? Or are the body guards a knee-jerk response to someone mentioning a rumor that might have been heard.
Give me a list; that's all I ask. I want a list of tangible accomplishments that had nothing to do with the previous administration before I would waste the effort of turning one, much less two, thumbs up for a figurehead for the county Democratic Party.
The only unity I see that is present in Plainfield -- yes still the Queen City -- is the absolute shame half this city had walking in like sheep and pulling the lever that Jerry Green told them to pull.
You want a thumb up -- impress me. Start acting like a mayor. Make some decisions like enforcing zoning issues downtown, coming up with real ideas to improve the looks of the business district, getting some grants to increase green spaces inside the city, improving some of the parks, fixing a couple of the pothole-ridden streets (say, like Eighth Street right in front of the library), moving on making rental properties inspected and safer and maybe getting rid of some of the trash downtown (litter and people). This is just a list -- now, pick one, two or a few and start making a difference.
I think it would be great if the Courier News penned an article asking all the citizens of Plainfield for their ideas on improving Plainfield. Then, hand that list to the mayor and City Council.
Trust me, I have nothing personal against the mayor. But she most definitely does not deserve overwhelming praise for merely keeping the boat from sinking while docked at port. When walking through Plainfield as a whole, there is very little to be impressed about. Can someone explain the broken window theory to our mayor? Maybe Al McWilliams wasn't the best mayor, but he actually got things done.
Now, like I said, get a couple of the above things done and tell the paper to report it. We will all at least praise you for that. Remember, less fluff, more filler.
ROB MCCONNELL
Plainfield
Link to online story.
(Note: Online stories may be taken down by their publisher after a period of time or made available for a fee. Links posted here is from the original online publication of this piece.)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff and Clippings have no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these articles nor are Plainfield Today, Plainfield Stuff or Clippings endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)