Both of these guys have been pissing me off lately. Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) have taken positions in the health care reform debate that I have found troubling.
Bart Stupak is my representative in Congress. He leads the Pro-Life Caucus and essentially held up the vote on health care reform legislation unless he could obtain a vote on an amendment prohibiting the funding of abortions by any federal money. His amendment passed.
Sen. Lieberman is very much against a "public option" in the health care reform debate and has suggested he may actually filibuster against the party he caucuses with in the Senate - some are saying he would do that against his own party and thereby make history, though technically he is an Independent, having lost the Democratic primary in his state to a more liberal candidate and then winning re-election as an Indie.
I passed on the AlterNet linked article: "Joe Must Go." I sent scathing e-mails to Bart Stupak's office, threatening to work for any challenger he may face in the coming year. My dander was/is up and I feel stymied to act on my anger.
I've also allowed myself to be sucked back into the cyber debate over the failed selection of the candidate for bishop here in the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan. The diocese held it's annual convention last weekend and finally made some public statements concerning moving forward. Unfortunately, the chair of the Standing Committee couldn't pass up the opportunity to whine about the "trial by internet" that she feels the candidate received.
One of my Facebook friends linked to a blog post at Father Jake Stops the World which I couldn't help investigating. Of course, I also couldn't help commenting either. At one point a response (which is now deleted) challenged my integrity and accused me of simply not liking the candidate. This triggered other responses from other individuals, leading to the deletion and apology. E-mail was sent. Facebook messages were sent. The pot has once again been stirred.
Today one of the local diocesan voices popped up in the comments section of the post and challenged my "characterization of the diocesan election process." It seems, though, that she was confusing my comments with some of the other comments. Most of my comments stem from not liking the candidate. I stand guilty of the accusation made by Fr. Jake.
What is not readily apparent throughout all the blogs and all the commenting and all my contributions to the dialogue is that I did not always feel this way about this individual, but came to feel this way over time while working with this individual. What has been brought into question subsequently seems to be whether I have gone about this appropriately or not.
Who was it that said, "If you are not with us, you are against us!" As I sat here tonight, feeling the return of the nervous knot in my stomach, drafting my response to post at Fr. Jake's blog, my neurotic character began to get the upper hand. I once again began to doubt what I had done and said. My ego stepped up the plate to defend myself - I was only standing up for what I believed - I gave voice to my concerns and for that I was castigated. That's when my super ego leapt up and hit me with the accusation of hypocrisy..."Yes, you were only standing up for what you believed in, just like Joe Lieberman and Bart Stupak, eh? How dare you defend yourself in that manner after condemning them!"
If only it were all that simple, eh? I have been pondering it all ever since and this blog post is the result. Angry democrats are accusing Joe Lieberman of biting the hand that has fed him. They are calling for President Obama to strip him of his committee chairmanship. Constituents and Pro-Choice voters are similarly calling for the political head of Bart Stupak. It would be easy to accuse them both of simple politicking. They are "traitors" to the party, not ethical men.
I then begin to think about how many folks in this diocese must think about me. I can only assume that my name has come up in some circles as one of the notorious bloggers who kept the "trial by internet" going. Clearly in their minds I am a "traitor" to the cause. I lack integrity. I am simply being mean spirited. In their eyes I have not been acting ethically.
What does it take to stand up against the organization and say "no?" I have been praised for my actions. I have been prayed for by those who were fearful for my safety (a bit much, I think, but appreciated none the less). I received enough "attaboys" to not be completely paranoid about what I have said on the internet on blogs and comments and in e-mails. I stand by what I have said though I am certain it has angered and probably hurt some individuals up here.
That damned super ego won't leave well enough alone though. Some critics have stated that there was ample opportunity to speak up and in their minds I did not - choosing to undermine things surreptitiously after the fact via the internet. Like my own personal Glenn Beck, the super ego has latched onto that one for the moment and is beating me with it mercilessly.
The truth of the matter is that (1) for reasons involved with his administrative behavior in the congregation I do not care for the man anymore, (2) he was a prime mover & shaker behind the process and the main author of the process, (3) I know from his own words that he left his previous diocese and came here because the man elected to be bishop did not support mutual ministry in the manner in which they were lead to believe - I believe that he was determined to never see that happen again (hence the special process), (4) we were repeatedly told that we had to be careful that we chose a bishop candidate who would be true to mutual ministry, (5) and then look who ended up selected.
I worked the process as best as I could. I asked pointed questions during the feedback session early on in my congregation. I shared my personal concerns with members of the discernment team in private conversations. At the time of the convention in 2008, I refrained from participating because I believed, as did others, that the choice was essentially a "done deal" - at least one member of the discernment team who I cannot name also felt this way - she believed that there were members of the team who wanted the candidate to be chosen and did all they could to maneuver things in that direction.
My intention was to wait and learn the results in February and if the scuttlebutt turned out to be correct, I would not be making an exit on the heels of the announcement. It came to pass and I was resolved to leave the church. Imagine my surprise then when folks out in the greater church began to pick up on some of the very issues I raised in private.
Those with whom I spoke in real time still didn't believe he wouldn't receive the required number of consents. However, his sermons and liturgies that he proudly kept posted on the churches web site began to be circulated. In the end, he did not receive the consents he needed and here we all are.
Ellie stated in her comment at Fr. Jake's blog post that I am "glad that he didn't get elected." Ellie, glad isn't the right word - I am relieved - but that's different than glad. I would have much rather preferred he recused himself from consideration as a candidate from the beginning. That simple act would have solved many, many problems.
Bart Stupak is my representative in Congress. He leads the Pro-Life Caucus and essentially held up the vote on health care reform legislation unless he could obtain a vote on an amendment prohibiting the funding of abortions by any federal money. His amendment passed.
Sen. Lieberman is very much against a "public option" in the health care reform debate and has suggested he may actually filibuster against the party he caucuses with in the Senate - some are saying he would do that against his own party and thereby make history, though technically he is an Independent, having lost the Democratic primary in his state to a more liberal candidate and then winning re-election as an Indie.
I passed on the AlterNet linked article: "Joe Must Go." I sent scathing e-mails to Bart Stupak's office, threatening to work for any challenger he may face in the coming year. My dander was/is up and I feel stymied to act on my anger.
I've also allowed myself to be sucked back into the cyber debate over the failed selection of the candidate for bishop here in the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan. The diocese held it's annual convention last weekend and finally made some public statements concerning moving forward. Unfortunately, the chair of the Standing Committee couldn't pass up the opportunity to whine about the "trial by internet" that she feels the candidate received.
One of my Facebook friends linked to a blog post at Father Jake Stops the World which I couldn't help investigating. Of course, I also couldn't help commenting either. At one point a response (which is now deleted) challenged my integrity and accused me of simply not liking the candidate. This triggered other responses from other individuals, leading to the deletion and apology. E-mail was sent. Facebook messages were sent. The pot has once again been stirred.
Today one of the local diocesan voices popped up in the comments section of the post and challenged my "characterization of the diocesan election process." It seems, though, that she was confusing my comments with some of the other comments. Most of my comments stem from not liking the candidate. I stand guilty of the accusation made by Fr. Jake.
What is not readily apparent throughout all the blogs and all the commenting and all my contributions to the dialogue is that I did not always feel this way about this individual, but came to feel this way over time while working with this individual. What has been brought into question subsequently seems to be whether I have gone about this appropriately or not.
Who was it that said, "If you are not with us, you are against us!" As I sat here tonight, feeling the return of the nervous knot in my stomach, drafting my response to post at Fr. Jake's blog, my neurotic character began to get the upper hand. I once again began to doubt what I had done and said. My ego stepped up the plate to defend myself - I was only standing up for what I believed - I gave voice to my concerns and for that I was castigated. That's when my super ego leapt up and hit me with the accusation of hypocrisy..."Yes, you were only standing up for what you believed in, just like Joe Lieberman and Bart Stupak, eh? How dare you defend yourself in that manner after condemning them!"
If only it were all that simple, eh? I have been pondering it all ever since and this blog post is the result. Angry democrats are accusing Joe Lieberman of biting the hand that has fed him. They are calling for President Obama to strip him of his committee chairmanship. Constituents and Pro-Choice voters are similarly calling for the political head of Bart Stupak. It would be easy to accuse them both of simple politicking. They are "traitors" to the party, not ethical men.
I then begin to think about how many folks in this diocese must think about me. I can only assume that my name has come up in some circles as one of the notorious bloggers who kept the "trial by internet" going. Clearly in their minds I am a "traitor" to the cause. I lack integrity. I am simply being mean spirited. In their eyes I have not been acting ethically.
What does it take to stand up against the organization and say "no?" I have been praised for my actions. I have been prayed for by those who were fearful for my safety (a bit much, I think, but appreciated none the less). I received enough "attaboys" to not be completely paranoid about what I have said on the internet on blogs and comments and in e-mails. I stand by what I have said though I am certain it has angered and probably hurt some individuals up here.
That damned super ego won't leave well enough alone though. Some critics have stated that there was ample opportunity to speak up and in their minds I did not - choosing to undermine things surreptitiously after the fact via the internet. Like my own personal Glenn Beck, the super ego has latched onto that one for the moment and is beating me with it mercilessly.
The truth of the matter is that (1) for reasons involved with his administrative behavior in the congregation I do not care for the man anymore, (2) he was a prime mover & shaker behind the process and the main author of the process, (3) I know from his own words that he left his previous diocese and came here because the man elected to be bishop did not support mutual ministry in the manner in which they were lead to believe - I believe that he was determined to never see that happen again (hence the special process), (4) we were repeatedly told that we had to be careful that we chose a bishop candidate who would be true to mutual ministry, (5) and then look who ended up selected.
I worked the process as best as I could. I asked pointed questions during the feedback session early on in my congregation. I shared my personal concerns with members of the discernment team in private conversations. At the time of the convention in 2008, I refrained from participating because I believed, as did others, that the choice was essentially a "done deal" - at least one member of the discernment team who I cannot name also felt this way - she believed that there were members of the team who wanted the candidate to be chosen and did all they could to maneuver things in that direction.
My intention was to wait and learn the results in February and if the scuttlebutt turned out to be correct, I would not be making an exit on the heels of the announcement. It came to pass and I was resolved to leave the church. Imagine my surprise then when folks out in the greater church began to pick up on some of the very issues I raised in private.
Those with whom I spoke in real time still didn't believe he wouldn't receive the required number of consents. However, his sermons and liturgies that he proudly kept posted on the churches web site began to be circulated. In the end, he did not receive the consents he needed and here we all are.
Ellie stated in her comment at Fr. Jake's blog post that I am "glad that he didn't get elected." Ellie, glad isn't the right word - I am relieved - but that's different than glad. I would have much rather preferred he recused himself from consideration as a candidate from the beginning. That simple act would have solved many, many problems.
3 comments:
Somehow, Larry, it is oddly comforting to me to realize that other faith groups have the same political issues that I see in the UU Association. It is not uncommon to have folks leave churches when the minister chosen is not liked - but in the case of UU's usually folks leave because the church decides to build a new building or go to double Sunday services. The one thing I do love about my church is that the president is elected at by the UUA assembly - where every member church has a vote - our members have polled their congregations and have yet to be disappointed with the person elected. Good luck with your diocesan politics.
I would like to ditto for the most part but I am episcopalian so there is that ♥☼♥♫♥♫♥' ☼ ♥ ♥ ♥ ☼ ♥♫♥♫♥ Love
Now go for a long walk and then have a beer and a good sleep.
Post a Comment