The Black Church, Hip-Hop and Weaves

It’s been a bad month for pastors.  Instead of headlines about tackling black on black crime, a growing academic achievement gap and members facing less cash in their wallets, the talk about the church has been minimized to hip-hop and weaves.

Really. Come on, it can’t be true.  You would think people of faith would have more important business than to get caught up in such foolish dialogue.

The most recent move to madness involves Pastor A.J. Aamir of Resurrecting Faith in Waco, Texas.  Aamir informed a group that he has instructed members of his female staff to chop off the weave.  He has banned them from wearing them.

 “Our black women are getting weaves trying to be something and someone they are not. Be real with yourself is all I’m saying,” Aamir said on AmericanPreacher.com. “Long hair don’t care. What kind of mess is that? I don’t want my members so focused on what’s on their heads and not in their heads. I lead a church where our members are struggling financially. I mean really struggling. “Yet, a 26 year old mother in my church has a $300 weave on her head. No. I will not be quiet about this.”

Aamir went on to say that he told his congregation that weaves is unacceptable in the eyes of God.  I wonder how that will play out on Sunday morning.

Next up in the lets make the Church look bad game is the firing of Rodney Willis.  Willis got the boot by the deacons at the Mt. Salem Baptist Church in Winston-Salem, North Carolina after serving as their pastor for four years.

Willis committed the unpardonable sin.  He went to a Rick Ross concert.  Scandalous I say. 

The vote wasn’t even close.  The deacons gathered on Saturday evening after Pastor was spotted at the concert. It wasn’t the first time.  Pastor Hip-Hop was spotted nine months earlier at a Little Wayne concert and was given a tongue lashing.

As the guru of hip-hop ministry (if you don’t know, ask somebody) I understand Willis’ desire to hang out with his peeps.  Did I mention he’s only 26 years-old? There are a couple of things that come to mind upon pondering his situation.

First, he deserved to be fired.  I say that as a fan of hip-hop who would attend one of those concerts.  The problem isn’t that it was wrong for Willis to attend.  The issue is that Willis failed to engage in dialogue with his church to pave the way for him to attend after he got caught the first time.

Second, I have issues with the person who saw him at the concert.  Not because that person is a low down dirty snitch.  I believe in snitching within reason.  But shouldn’t the snitch be held accountable for being in a place that he or she considered out of bounds for the pastor.

I’m just saying.  Isn’t that hypocrisy? I’m reminded of a message about big logs in a person’s eye while looking at the speck in their pastor’s eye.  Well, I embellish a bit, but you know the story.

Third, isn’t there a Biblical precedent for Pastor’s hanging with the heathens?  Jesus spent most of his time with drug dealers, pimps, bookies, prostitutes and crack addicts.  Well, he didn’t, but I’m sure he would have given the types of pariah’s that kept him in trouble with the deacons of his day.

There’s more on that, but first, let’s go back to Pastor can’t stand the weave.

The truth is Aamir makes a valid point. Churches are packed with people attempting to portray something they’re not.  The biggest obstacle related to the development of an authentic spirituality is the bags of stuff used to cover all of that low self-esteem and misplaced identity.

The problem with Aamir’s contention is that it is rooted in the type of patriarchy that continues to subjugate women who attend church.  If that was too deep for you, let me put it another way.  The brother has no right in telling women what to do with their hair while refusing to call the brothers out for doing the same thing.

All of it is an illusion.  The fancy cars, the big homes they can’t afford, the wardrobes used to set them apart from “those people”, the overemphasis on bull to the stank that has nothing to do with who they are in relationship with God.  All of it covers the truth.  All of it does the same thing he claims the weaves do – create an impression that isn’t real.

So, what do these stories have in common?  They both expose the root of what ails the Church.  Both reflect power struggles aimed at forcing others to dance to their type of music.  Be it hip-hop versus Gospel, or natural hair versus relaxed hair and weaves, what does any of that have to do with what is glaring us in the face?

Black folks have too much to contend with to be locked in battles over hair and hip-hop.  Something tells me there were countless young people at the Rick Ross concert looking for a place to worship on Sunday.  Who knows, maybe the pastor’s presence at the concert would have led them there.  There is no way of knowing, but one thing is clear – it’s a bunch of talk about matters that keep us from finding the more excellent way.

Rick Ross says it best in his song Pray for Us.

Dear Lord,

 Please forgive us for all the sins we have brought upon us

 And look down upon us with forgiveness for all the sins we will have in the future

 I know you understand that niggas ain't perfect

 But we try, Lord

 We try to keep our heads up in bad times

 This is a bad time

 Show us the way

 And if you can't show us the way

 Then forgive us for being lost

Sounds like a brother in need of prayer.  The pastor hears the prayer and gets fired for showing up at the hip-hop alter.

I wonder, what would Jesus really do?

Does the life of Gandhi change our views regarding his contribution to world peace?

Folks will soon begin preparation for the trip to Washington DC to remember the march led by Martin Luther King, Jr. 50 years ago. It will be a great day filled with messages about hope and overcoming.  Lost in the mix is the story that alters my perception of the movement.

There is little controversy headed into Saturday’s gathering.  There was the news of gospel singer Donnie McClurkin being uninvited due the “potential controversy” his presence might have.  McClurkin believes God has delivered him from the “curse” of homosexuality.  He was set to perform during Saturday’s Reflection on Peace: From Gandhi to King, a concert to commemorate the 50^th anniversary of the march.

Mayor Vincent C. Gray requested that McClurkin stay home to avoid protestors not so happy with his claim of having his feelings for men removed by God.  A big problem was avoided by requesting McClurkin not to perform.  That doesn’t address the big fat elephant hanging in the middle of the Capitol Mall.

Reflection of Peace: From Gandhi to King is mired by the mention of the man known for crafting nonviolent protest.  My views of Gandhi have radically shifted since the release of Joseph Lelyveld’s book Great Soul: Mahatma Gandhi and His Struggle with India. There are a few points that force us to rethink the life and work of Gandhi.

Gandhi is herald as an icon to the American civil-rights movement.  Despite his appeal to the work of Dr. King, Lelyveld’s book reveals Gandhi’s racism toward blacks of South Africa.

"We were then marched off to a prison intended for Kaffirs," Gandhi complained during one of his campaigns for the rights of ­Indians settled South Africa. "We could understand not being classed with whites, but to be placed on the same level as the ­Natives seemed too much to put up with. Kaffirs are as a rule uncivilized—the convicts even more so. They are troublesome, very dirty and live like animals."

Regarding Afrikaaners and Indians, he wrote: "We believe as much in the purity of races as we think they do." That was possibly why he refused to allow his son Manilal to marry ­Fatima Gool, a Muslim, despite publicly promoting Muslim-Hindu unity.

Then there’s the matter of Gandhi’s relation with Manu, his 17-year-old great niece.  When he was in his 70s, he encouraged Manu to be naked during her nightly cuddles with him.  Gandhi began sleeping naked with Manu and other young women. He told a woman on one occasion: "Despite my best efforts, the organ remained aroused. It was an altogether strange and shameful experience."

On one occasion, Gandhi forced Manu to walk through a thick jungle were sexual assaults had occurred to retrieve a pumice stone he used on his feet.  When she returned hysterical, Gandhi laughed at her and said: "If some ruffian had carried you off and you had met your death courageously, my heart would have danced with joy."

Jad Adam’s book Gandhi: Naked Ambition claims Gandhi enslaved his followers with such bizarre sexual demands that it became difficult for many people to take him seriously, even during his own lifetime.

In his own autobiography, Gandhi was candid about abusing his wife.  He shared the story of beating her for failing to clean a toilet.

Lelyveld claims the real love of Gandhi’s life was a German-Jewish architect and bodybuilder, Hermann Kallenbach. Gandhi left his wife in 1908 to be with him.

"How completely you have taken ­possession of my body. This is slavery with a vengeance." Gandhi wrote to Kallenbach. 

Gandhi nicknamed himself "Upper House" and Kallenbach "Lower House," and he made Lower House promise not to "look lustfully upon any woman." The two then pledged "more love, and yet more love . . . such love as they hope the world has not yet seen."

‘I cannot imagine a thing as ugly as the intercourse of men and women,’ Gandhi told Kallenbach.

If alive today, and living in America, Gandhi would be charged with spousal abuse, sexual misconduct with minors and torture.  Does any of that negate the work Gandhi did to promote world peace?  He did write a letter to Hitler asking him not to start a world war.

As cruel as it is to bring to the surface Gandhi’s dirty laundry, isn’t it important that the rest be told when we use his name to raise the banner for all types of human rights?

Can we realistically talk about women’s rights when using Gandhi’s name? Can we talk about protecting our youth given Gandhi’s relationship with his great-niece?

We can summons the memory of Gandhi to discuss gay rights.  He has that in common with McClurkin.

Like most people, I love the Gandhi of the movie.  Sadly, there is more to that story.  It’s a past I hate mentioning, but, as always, it’s important to tell the rest of the story.

Reflection of Peace: From Gandhi to King.  What does that mean given the rest of the story?

You decide.

Ken Cuccinelli's battle against sex

I get a little tetchy when I hear of efforts to limit sex.  My views related to human sexuality are rooted in a theology that contends sex is created to be enjoyed and serves the purpose of more than just making babies.  There are days when I feel like pimp slapping Augustine for writing The Confessions.  He started this mess.

I also believe in individual freedoms.  What happens between two people in the bedroom should not be limited by law.  Besides, we have a Constitution that protects the freedoms of all citizens.

Don’t we?

Not according to the lemon suckers hell bent on redefining the Constitution.  Ken Cuccinelli is captain of the lemon sucker party and Attorney General in Virginia.  Cuccinelli, a Republican candidate for governor, went to battle against a court’s decision that struck down a Virginia law involving sodomy and oral sex.

The case involved William MacDonald, a 47-year-old man who solicited oral sex from a 17-year-old woman.  Given 15 is the legal age of consent in Virginia, MacDonald couldn’t be charged for statutory rape.  Officials charged him with soliciting a minor by inducing her to commit sodomy.  He served a year in prison and was forced to register as a sex offender.

In March, the Virginia sodomy law was struck down by the federal court.  MacDonald’s conviction was thrown out based on Lawrence v. Texas, the 2003 Supreme Court decision that ruled anti-sodomy statues can’t be used by states to regulate private consensual sex among adults.

Lemon suckers rarely take no as an answer.  Cuccinelli decided to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, arguing the court should interpret the sodomy law to apply only to sex involving 16-17-year-olds.  Cuccinelli wanted the court to ignore the meaning and intent of the law to advance his goals.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite the lemon.  It didn’t help Cuccinelli’s cause that the Virginia sodomy statute fails to mention age.  Proof is in the pudding, they say.  In this case “they” are right. The Virginia legislature attempted to rewrite the law to include the age limits.  Cuccinelli killed the bill proving he had other plans with the law.

Cuccinelli’s trick would have carried a boat load of hypocrisy.  In asking a federal court to convert a state anti-sodomy law into an anti-statutory rape law, MacDonald could have intercourse with a 17-year-old girl without facing a felony conviction, but would be charged as a felon and forced to register as a sex offender for merely asking for oral sex.

Young people between the age of 16 and 17 would face felony charges for choosing oral or anal sex over vagina sex. That prospect should alarm all parents in Virginia with gay teens.  Old lemon sucker says the law was intended to protect youth, but its real intent is to punish kids who are gay.

I’m certain that Cuccinelli’s fellow lemon suckers affirm the Attorney General’s position with a resounding amen and thank ya Jesus.  But hold on before the Holy Ghost sends you to dancing.  What is asserted in this attack against sodomy?

Virginia’s law describes sodomy as "crimes against nature," which include all oral as well as anal sex, even between consenting adults.  That dude running to become the Governor of the state wanted to make it a felony.  He wanted to criminalize activity that is considered normal between consenting adults.  That includes married couples.

You have to be careful when you start playing with laws.  A few changed words could be the difference between getting the old freak on and being sent to prison.  If interpreted a certain way, a sodomy law could lead to married couples being sent to prison for having oral sex.

Gulp.  Did that one hurt?  Did I just hear someone cry, “Arrest me officer?”

Of course that’s a farfetched possibility, but shouldn’t we ponder the consequences of all presuppositions?  Shouldn’t we be apprehensive of laws that view anal and oral sex as illegitimate activity deserving punishment even when performed by married couples?  Shouldn’t we be careful in pressing laws that call into question the way heterosexual couples choose to celebrate their bond of love?

Based on the Virginia law, aren’t most of us guilty of sodomy? Given it’s defined as "crimes against nature," and includes all oral as well as anal sex, even between consenting adults, shouldn’t most of us be concerned?

Are you a criminal? 

If not, pick up a copy of Alex Comfort’s book The Joy of Sex. There’s much more to life than the missionary position.  God forbid if everything else is made unlawful.

Open Letter from Political Prisoner Robert ‘Seth’ Hayes Legal Fund

The Rev-elution welcomes Crystal M. Hayes as a guest blogger.  Hayes is the Associate Executive Director at NC Peace Action and Clinical Assistant Professor at NC State University. I met her years ago over a cup of coffee, and soon learned that she has a passion for justice rooted in a bond with her father. In today’s blog, Hayes introduces her Father. This post first appeared on Kulture Kritic on July 9, 2013.  Please note the plea for support and spread the word about Seth and Crystal's journey.

My father, Robert Seth Hayes, is a former Black Panther Party Member and Political Prisoner. He has been incarcerated for 40 years, but this isn’t a message about the politics of mass-incarceration. This is a message about a father who deserves to be home.

My father is one of the most gentle, caring, loving individuals you’ll ever know. Prison hasn’t hardened his heart or his resolve for freedom.  He remains committed to social justice and building safe communities.  If you’ve ever loved someone in prison, you know that prison is a place where love goes to die. It’s designed to destroy families and to turn people into monsters.  My father fought to make sure that didn’t happen to us, and even when I didn’t have the courage or strength to hold on with him and wanted to give up, he held on for all of us. He continues to do so today.

Below is an open letter, written by my father, regarding his most recent legal battles and struggle for freedom. Please share his story far and wide and help his legal team in whatever way that you can.

Thanks for your support.

Crystal M. Hayes (Twitter: @motherjustice)

Greetings Gentle Folk, Supporters, Workers, Interested Individuals, Elders, Young Ones, and All People Struggling.

This is my 40th Year of incarceration and it even gives me pause when I think about it because it turns towards the obvious question, WHY?

By law and legal application, there is no answer for why. But if we pondered about hidden motivations or descent into the mire that distinguishes itself as human value and concerns, then the answer is quite clear. But in any case, ours is the desire to educate and be educated through enlightenment. A means, a way, to seize the time and force real consideration towards my release.

The law in the beginning, said, “you will serve a minimum of 25 years of incarceration with the maximum term of life if it is so deemed that criminal activities remain an aspect of your incarceration.”

Well, I have records dating from 1998, the first time I came up for parole. These documents stated that “you have an exemplary incarceration record of work and program completions. As well as a strong, complimentary discipline history. However. Due to the serious nature of your crime, release is not recommended at this time.”

Thereafter, from the year 2000 to 2012 I have been remanded, denied release, each and every time I appeared in spite of my continued accomplishments of program and outside accredited achievements. The statement of “exemplary and distinguished good discipline” resounds throughout each and every one of my parole appearances.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

It is for us to distinguish when and where officials deviate from guidelines and implement their own personal agendas. The authority they are claiming in keeping me incarcerated was never granted to them, but belongs to the Courts, Judges and Legislators. It is not the Parole Board’s to appropriate.

Next we should ask ourselves. If it were so blatantly obvious that they are doing this to you Seth, what are the chances it might occur to someone close to me? A loved one, a friend, or a friend of a friend. Shouldn’t we all come under the dictates of the law as equal representatives of society?

If you are in agreement, lend a hand. Donate a small portion of your earnings that we might take the fight to the courts loud and clear. We are a society of workers, parents, students, and teachers. Members of communities in need of honest laborers and socially conscious members. Let us say NO to those who would usurp and take possession without legal claim or authority of your God-given rights.

Stand up, stand firm and lets correct a continued case of criminal activities within the state. We do not surrender our rights to be heard, seen and understood. We must come together and struggle for what is right. Prisoners who have done their time should be released so that they can go home to their families and contribute to making this world a better place.

RESPECTS!

Love and Support in yours and my endeavors.

Robert Seth Hayes

Please send contributions for the Legal Defense Fund for Robert Seth Hayes to Nate Buckley, 438 Massachusetts avenue, Buffalo, NY 14213. Please send an e-mail confirmation to buckleynate1@gmail.com to make sure that it was received.

If you wish to send a letter to the parole commissioners requesting my release and asking them to bring closure to our communities as a whole, send your letters c/o Cheryl L. Kates, P.C., Attorney At Law, PO Box 734, Victor NY 14564.

Your efforts are honored and appreciated. Stay Strong.

Know that your love and support provides support and strengthens Seth’s and others determined to prevail.

 

 

Clash within the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People exposes need for unity

“You printed lies Carl Kenney,” Victoria Peterson blurted with a rage that forced everyone to take notice.  “I didn’t say what you wrote, and you used my picture.”

I wasn’t surprised by the emotions that led Peterson to that moment of fury.

“I have him Jackie. Carl Kenney is here,” she continued while placing Jackie Wagstaff on the speaker phone.

Wagstaff remained silent as Peterson lashed out for the blog that exposed a recorded conversation she had with an informant.  She named a person believed to be behind the recording.  I never mentioned the person’s name.

I offered her space to rebuttal.  She shouted.  She barked loudly as customers at the Market Street Coffeehouse attempted to focus on work.  I asked her to discuss the matter outside.  She refused to listen.

Anger ruled the moment.

Then I walked away.

Before departing, I attempted to share why I decided to post the blog. I told her the conversation was taped. I told her there is no disputing it’s her voice. I told her I had an obligation to report the story.

Then came the storm. 

It began with a few dark clouds and intermittent rain.  The drops of rain became heavier as the day passed until the madness of it all felt like a hurricane blended with the shaking of the earth.

The hardest part is determining the place to start.  There is no perfect place. One simply has to dive in and fight to get back to the shore after the sharks in the water come to gobble your soul.  The lessons learned after sharing Peterson’s recorded conversation are deep and painful.  The aftermath of it all exposes internal wars within the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People.  It’s harrowing to watch it all unfold.

It’s out of control. It’s hard to move forward when so many people are throwing stones.

The Rev-elution comment from that blog reflects a culture that justifies ceaseless stone throwing.  It’s hard to imagine that progress can be made when so much energy goes into launching big rocks at the integrity of those fighting the same battle.  How can you fight the enemies that hinder progress while invested in fighting those in the same camp?

“How can someone who has no car, no home, owns no property and has NO JOB be the freaking POLITICAL CHAIR of an organization with the National Clout as The Durham Committee? I blame the idiots that voted Wagstaff in for this nonsense,” an anonymous reader posted.

“Ask Jackie Wagstaff for her resume. She has not had a pay check from an employer since leaving the school board. As for the post regarding no home, she lives with Donald who supports both his mother and brother since they are both unemployed and did not finish their degrees at Central. The Durham Committee needs membership dues!!!!,” another anonymous reader posted.

The attacks intensified as time passed.

“Ask Danita Johnson about Jackie's wheeling and dealing. The poor lady tried to give Jackie a work opportunity with her nonprofit (feeding homeless ppl over off of Main St) and got stabbed in the back. Or ask Stella Adams about Jackie's loyalty. Jackie calls Danielle her daughter, but was out pushing Republican Kelly Smoke over Danielle Adams. Why does Jackie always meet new friends for about a year and then they always become enemies? Is everyone wrong except Jackie Wagstaff. Flee this woman like a plague!” an anonymous reader posted.

Things then shifted to an attack on the person or persons posting as anonymous.

“Mr. Anonymous commenter (we all know who you are) -- let's get some things straight: The Durham Committee is a nonpartisan organization. For years the organization has had Republican members and has endorsed Republicans at all levels. Your attempt to make this a Democratic vs. Republican partisan issue shows how limited your view and history of the organization is and, furthermore, is indicative of the type of divisive political posturing that our community no longer needs,” the anonymous reader attacking the comments of an anonymous readers post responds. “You should go focus on your numerous legal issues (fraud, illegal practice of law, identity theft and more) instead of focusing your energies on the business of the Durham Committee.”

Are members of the Durham Committee using the Rev-elution to bicker among themselves?

“I was going to stay out of this until the last poster attempted to bring my fellow church member and his past into this discussion (a young man that I have witnessed doing more good than a lot of self-proclaimed leaders in Durham). I could personally care less about anyone's old charges (that even includes Ms. Wagstaff, who has committed multiple felonies and fraud while in elected office, as a seasoned adult, not as a college student),” an anonymous reader writes in response to an anonymous reader’s attack of an anonymous reader.

"My fellow church member"...give it up...we know you're talking about yourself. The real issue is that you have a felon, convicted of obtaining property by false pretenses and 8 larceny (theft) and worthless check convictions, in charge of the Durham Committee's biggest fundraiser,” an anonymous reader claims that Mr. Anonymous is Darius Little, The Durham Committee’s Vice-Chair of the Civic Committee.  “I'd be concerned for all the folks giving checks to someone who has a record spanning more than 10 years of stealing and other crimes related to money and fraud.”

There’s more, but I’ll leave it up to you to decide if it’s worth reading.

So, what’s the point behind the mudslinging and ditch digging with anonymous as a signature to hide the rest?  Is this the type of antics that illustrates the work of the Durham Committee?  Are we to assume that those making comments are Durham Committee members and that this type of bombast is normative among those gathering to uplift Durham’s black community?

If so, we are in serious trouble.

If so, all players should be disciplined for behaving like children.

There are a few strong leaders in the room that can call a truce.  Send the children to the corner and let’s get back to the business at hand.

Stated another way, go back to kindergarten and learn what you should have been taught before going to the first grade.

Gafney:Savaging Women (and Men)

The Rev-elution welcomes Wil Gafney, Ph.D., as a quest blogger.  I met Gafney while she was completing her dissertation at Duke University.  She offers a unique perspective to the role of faith in public space. Gafney is Associate Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at The Lutheran Theological Seminary at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, and is an Episcopal Priest canonically resident in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. She is also a member of the Dorshei Derekh Reconstructionist Minyan of the Germantown Jewish Center in Philadelphia, PA. She has co-taught courses with and for the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Seminary in Wyncote, PA. Follow her work at: Wilgafney.com

The festering scab of our rape epidemic has been ripped off (again), revealing the festering flesh underneath. Women and girls snatched off the street and held in chains for years as sex slaves; predators talking their way into the homes of struggling single mothers for access to their children; male soldiers and defense contractors raping their female and male fellow soldiers habitually and for sport with impunity; women, men, boys and girls trafficked around the world because they are cheaper and more profitable than drugs with lower overhead and fewer turf wars – and the demand is inexhaustible.

We are horrified by and seemingly inured to violence: sexual violence; domestic violence; gun violence. The sleeping behemoth of righteous indignation is shaking off its slumber as the  parents of murdered children find allies in their fellow citizens and in some of their representatives to address one factor in the sea of madness, nearly unfettered access to guns including military grade weapons and high capacity magazines that can turn any shooting into a slaughter.

The consumption of women’s and girl’s bodies for the sex-power-rage gratification of men is prehistoric and perennial. It is biblical. But it is not godly. No longer “just” a tool of  warring armies – although still very much so – the daily reduction of women of women and girls to  tubes of flesh to which and for which some men will do anything is a horror that must be decried and ended.

We cannot legislate our way out of rape culture any more than we can out of gun culture, although legislation has an irreplaceable part to play in transforming our society that must not be abandoned or surrendered.

We are broken at the basic human level, but not not past the hope of repair. That is the irrepressible hope that dogs me, hounds me, stalks me. We have it within our capacity to change, ourselves and our world. We begin with what we tell ourselves about ourselves and each other. We continue by rejecting and correcting messages objectify and commodify people, women, girls, boys and men. We shine the light of day and the light of God on sexual violence in our homes, churches, temples, mosques, schools, military, and streets. We teach men and boys not to rape, that they have no right to the flesh of women and girls or boys and men. We stop blaming the victims of sexual violence for the crimes against others against them. We stop accepting rape and torture as the price of doing business or consequence of living in certain neighborhoods, countries or anywhere else in this world.

It is not enough for good men not to rape. It is not enough for people of faith to condemn atrocities after the fact. We must nurture human dignity in each child, each adult; teach and model manhood that is not based on conquest or dominion. The savages among us are savaging the illusion of civilization. No amount of digital technology can prevent the deployment of a weaponized penis yet technological advances and innovations further rape and trafficking. It is far past time to target men and boys  and our rape-normative culture with messages of transformation. You are not savages. We will not be savaged.

The time has come for rape-culture to be buried in a grave from which it will never rise again.

Pregnancy as Punishment, or, When the Pro-Life Movement is Evil

The Rev-elution welcomes Amy Laura Hall as a contributor to the blog. Hall writes a blog called Profligate Grace: Notes from an Irreverent Reverend (and Friends). She is Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at Duke University, the Divinity School. Hall is the author of Kierkegaard and the Treachery of Love, Conceiving Parenthood: The Protestant Spirit of Biotechnological Reproduction, and numerous scholarly articles in theological and biomedical ethics. Her current book projects are Erecting the Pulpit: Muscular Christianity from Victoria to Viagra and Good Housekeeping with Lady Julian.

Some religious and political leaders have cynically tapped into fear of sexual anarchy in order to promote the pro-life movement.  I contend this is not only not pro-life, but that it pisses God off.

 There is a subterranean and sometimes right-smack-in-your face anxiety that some Christian men and women have about sex without consequence.  There is a current running within Christianity that sexuality is dangerous unless channeled toward a clear and discernible purpose beyond the two people beloved by one another.  Different writers in the Christian tradition have emphasized varying purposes for sexual desire, but some Christians seem to focus in almost exclusively on one – pregnancy.  Sexual desire is God’s way of making babies, so the implicit argument sometimes goes, and if I experience desire apart from that purpose, I have failed to give God God’s due.  But the form of the question distorts the answer.  If one begins with the root anxiety that sexuality is anarchic unless purposed, then the answer of “child” becomes punitive.  Parenthood becomes the price that women and men must pay for desiring their beloved.

 This is a gnarled-up twist of a significant strand in Christian body politics, and it distorts the witness that children are a gift.  When this strand starts by being twisted with fear of sexuality, children are a due punishment for desire – an act of justice that, if circumvented, supposedly can turn God’s creation into a ghastly mess of wanton abandon.

 I have to give credit where credit is due.  My oldest daughter named this years ago at a pro-life event where I had been invited to speak.  She was about 12 at the time, and sorting through her own sense of sexuality.  I had done a fairly good job, I pray, in conveying that her body is not dangerously ridden with desire, but beautifully created by a God who wants her to know joy.  In conversation with the men at the event (and men significantly outnumbered women at this particular event) she picked up on the sense that, for too many of them, pregnancy is retribution for sexuality itself.  She picked up on the fact that too many of the men there had a kind of loathing about sexuality, and a sense that sexuality without due consequence is the root of many other evils.  She used the term “creepy” to summarize the event.  She was right.  It was creepy.

 This way of thinking may be particularly attractive during times of generalized fear over matters that don’t have a fig to do with whether or not a woman wants to have non-procreative sex with her beloved.  When people can’t find work, when elders have a sense that things are changing too fast, when more and more of my neighbors speak a different language than mine, when we fight two brutal wars that seem to have resolved nothing, well, maybe at least we can make women who have sex pay their due.  I’m not saying this is a conscious, front-of-my-brain sort of impulse.  It is often buried deep down in the moral gut of a Christian imagination – restore societal order by making this one core fact of life “simple” again.  Sex = Baby.

 And in the visceral logic of this thinking, cutting social programs for women and children may, for some pro-life people, make perfect sense.  Why should others be forced to pay for your individual inability to control your sexual desire, or for your community’s inability properly to discipline your people’s desire?  Children are the consequence of your urges, and you should pay for their food/education/care yourself.  And/Or, your community/neighborhood/culture has become wanton with sexual anarchy, and the right way to correct this is for you people to have to bear more babies and begin to deal with the due consequences of your sexual anarchy.  This is the pro-life version of the “your child, your choice, your responsibility” economics that I named in my second book as a constant danger of pro-choice liberalism.

 This is also why being anti-abortion and pro-death penalty makes perfect sense to some people.  Both children and the death penalty are about justice – about what people should be forced to pay for their actions.  People who have sex should pay with birth.  People who commit particular crimes should pay with their lives.

 I call poop on this mess.  Whatever a Christian theology of the body was meant to be, it can’t be this.

What will it take to restore Riley Cooper after racial slur?

“I’ll fight every Nigger here,” that’s what Riley Cooper was recorded saying on a video at a Kenny Chesney concert. He was yelling at a black security guard.

What is the proper response to Cooper’s threat?

Bring it on? Or, no he didn’t.  Or, nodding in disbelief?

Cooper, a receiver for the Philadelphia Eagles, has profusely apologized for spewing a racial slur that could cost his career.  How can he return to a game where 85% of the players are black after boasting to fight all of them?

It was stupid.  Those who know him best say the comments are out of character. Betty, his grandmother, called him to task for threating to fight a crowd of black men. Gramps isn’t backing Cooper. 

“[Riley] brought it upon himself, she told a reporter with TMZ. “And he has to deal with the consequences.”

Officials for the team say Riley has been sent threats after the video went viral.  The team fined Cooper before he left to seek counseling.

"Riley Cooper made us aware of the tweets when the video became public," the team said in a statement. "He told us that he did not know about the video. He informed us he blocked the tweets because he did not know the person nor understand the context of what that person was threatening.”

No one should be surprised by the threats. He offered to fight all of the Niggers. Not one, not two, but all of them.

The brothers are lining up to take their shots.  The problem that Cooper faces is a bunch of big dudes willing to take hard shots.  The game they play allows them the right to take their vengeance out on the field.  Expect hard hits aimed to make a point.

Cooper is facing not only if he will play again, but what to expect if he plays.

“Hey I'm putting a bounty on Riley's head. 1k to the first Free Safety or Strong safety that light his [profanity] up! Wake him up please.....,” Marcus Vick, the brother of Eagles quarterback Michal Vick, wrote on his Twitter page.

Big brother Michal was quick to lash out against his brother for his tweets and stated that he doesn’t agree with, and that they don’t represent how he feels.  That may be true, but how will the league protect Cooper from being the recipient of some old fashioned street justice?

"Riley is still my teammate and he just stood in front of us and apologized for what he said,” big brother Mike said.  “Somewhere deep down you’ve got to find some level of respect for that. To people in the outside world who don’t know how we’re dealing with it, they’re going to forge their own opinions, but my brother has to not show a certain level of ignorance himself.”

Having Michael Vick on your team may be the saving grace for Cooper.  He’s respected in the Eagles locker room.  He’s also respected among NFL players who rallied behind him after he spent time in prison for cruelty to animals. 

No one understands forgiveness and second chances like big brother Vick. He’s the best person to, no pun intended, call the dogs off of Cooper.  As leader of the Eagles, he’s the best person to bring Cooper back into the fold.  He’s also the best person to protect Cooper from the huge men chomping to take a hit.

Vick is the one person who can lead the black community in forgiving Cooper.

If that happens, there should be a standing ovation for Vick.

All of us deserve a second chance - even after a request to fight all of the Niggers.

Independent investigation reveals a different version in the police shooting of Adan Cruz Ocampo

He didn’t speak English.

None of the police officers on the scene speak Spanish.

Durham police have identified the man fatally shot by an officer as Jose Adan Cruz Ocampo, 33.

He didn’t have to die.

Scott Holmes, director of the Civil Litigation Clinic, is representing the Ocampo family.  Holmes asked for an independent investigation of the shooting by private investigator Steve Hale, former head of the Wake County Sheriff’s Homicide Department. Holmes said that the findings of the investigation, based on three independent eyewitness accounts, differ from the version released by Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez.

Witnesses say Ocampo was carrying a small pocket knife, but wasn’t threatening anyone when police arrived.  Police were called to the 800 block of Park Avenue because of an altercation between Ocampo and another resident.

He did not speak English and the Police did not speak to him in Spanish.

Witnesses say he was holding the blade of the knife with the handle facing the police.  They say four officers were at the scene with their guns drawn when Ocampo extended his arms outward to give the knife to a police officer who was standing about five feet away.

Ocampo was waiting for police to discuss the altercation that took place before they arrived.

Multiple witnesses say a police officer fired between three to five shots directly at Ocampo.  Two bullets entered his chest and one landed in his head.

Witnesses say ambulance attended first gave attention to a person whose face had been cut with a bottle instead of Ocampo. One witness said they waited for Ocampo to die before bringing the ambulance over to help him.

Why did police  shoot Ocampo instead of using a taser? Why wasn’t an officer on hand who speaks Spanis?  Why wasn’t immediate care given to Ocampo?

Holmes said it is his opinion, based upon the facts found by the private investigator, that the Durham officer was not justified in using lethal force.

“It is unreasonable to believe that a person presenting the handle of a knife posed a threat of death or imminent bodily harm,” Holmes wrote in a press release. “Based upon the eyewitness statements of the three non-officers on the scene, the Durham officer did not accurately assess the threat or properly interpret the behavior of Mr. Ocampo.”

Holmes noted that Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez’s public statement of July 30 did not include the information from the eyewitnesses at the scene.

“In his statement, Chief Lopez apparently relied only upon the statements provided by the officers involved in the shooting. It is disappointing that Chief Lopez would release an incomplete version of events before the finalization of the investigation being conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) and the internal affairs investigation that he said was being conducted by his own department.”

Jose Adan Cruz Ocampo was the youngest of three brothers. His wife and young son live in a small town in Honduras. He was working in the United States to send money to support them.

“He was an honest and loving man,” Holmes said.

If witness accounts are correct, Ocampo was killed without just cause.  The Durham community should be outraged by his death.

A member of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People says Jackie Wagstaff remains censured: The war continues

A member of the Executive Committee of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People says Jackie Wagstaff, despite the opinion of many at last night’s meeting, remains censured as head of the groups Political Committee.

The Executive Committee members says the General Body of the Durham Committee voted to suspend indefinitely conversations regarding Wagstaff’s status as Chair of the Political Committee.

The Legal Redress Committee contends a lack of a vote failed to remove the censure of Wagstaff.  An official statement will be released regarding the Executive Committee’s position within the next week.

A document written by the Legal Redress Committee, claims that Wagstaff executed a state document to reserve the name of “The Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People.

”At no point over more than a month did she notify any other officer of this action or seek professional guidance from those in the organization professionally qualified to do such work,” the documents states

Wagstaff addressed the accusation during a July 25, 2013 meeting. 

At that meeting, Wagstaff  “a) admitted to having filed said document; b)made negative characterizations about the professional capabilities of the current chair of the Legal Redress Committee and alleged that for 75 years this organization has not ‘taken care of business’ as a justification for her unilateral action; c) disrupted the July 25, 2013 meeting by raising her voice and using inappropriate language for the setting within which the meeting was being held; d) immediately after the meeting had to be restrained from initiating a physical encounter with the General Body Chair,” the document reads.

The Executive Committee has concerns regarding Wagstaff taking unilateral actions and in making statements to the “press without consultation with the General Body Chair.”  The document holds Wagstaff to task for refusing to allow the Chair of the General Body to review questions to be submitted to candidates to the fall election before being issued.

In addition, “Ms. Wagstaff has engaged in roles on behalf of the Committee that fall outside the mandate of the Political Committee or that of the Chair of the Political Committee and has done so without gaining permission prior to doing so or even as a matter of courtesy informing the General Body Chair after the fact,” the document states.

“Examples of this include playing the role of a condolence committee of the Committee by attending funerals and providing correspondence again without notice to the General Body Chair either before or after such events.”

The Legal Redress Committee’s document stressed an attitude of divisiveness that defines Wagstaff’s involvement as a member of the Executive Committee.

“In nearly every presentation that Ms. Wagstaff has made she attempts to create a straw man that she describes as “Ya’ll.” Typically she uses the straw man as an example of inaction by the organization. For example, when questioned about filing the document with the secretary of state she stated in an open meeting that “ya’ll haven’t been taking care of business” Further, she has typically sought to divide the organization instead of attempting to unify the organization.”

Wagstaff is accused of slamming books on tables, raising her voice, using unacceptable language and behaving in a threatening and uncontrollable way during Executive Committee meetings.

Divisiveness may have escalated after last night’s ambiguous vote.  Supporters of Wagstaff believe she’s still in charge of the Political Committee, while members of the Executive Committee maintain the vote forces a change in leadership.

This isn’t over yet.

General Body of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People votes to allow Wagstaff to remain Chair of Political Committee

It’s fitting that the meeting was held at the St. Joseph AME Church.  It was a battle for the soul of the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People.

Some called it a clash between the old Durham Committee and emerging leadership.  The new school feels foiled by the perceived lack of willingness of old heads to share the reigns of control.  They claim the powerful organization is held back by a class divide that makes it hard for some to participate.

Jackie Waagstaff was the reason for the meeting. The Durham Committee’s Executive Committee censured her as Chair of the Political Committee.  On last night, the troops showed up to cast votes to determine the fate of the controversial former member of the City Council and School Board.

Wagstaff won the battle.

The vote was taken after heated conversation and name calling. It was the type of battle that has long been the trademark of the Durham Committee.  After years of battling to unseat Lavonia Allison, the former Chair, last night was back to usual for a group hard pressed to define its role within a community in need of its guidance.

After years of hearing the echo – the Durham Committee is dead – all seemed headed in the right direction when Randal Rogers pushed for the removal of Wagstaff.  Many present last night raised serious questions related to the integrity of the Executive Committee’s decision.  Many wondered why.  Others asked why now.

The decision to allow Wagstaff to remain as Chair of Political Committee sends a clear message regarding the state of Durham’s black leadership.  It’s a message that has been lingering near the backdrop of the internal affairs of the Durham Committee for decades.  The quarreling has been construed within the context of personality differences and leadership style.  There’s much more going on than many are willing to concede.

Complaints about Wagstaff’s leadership style and personality have been understood from a vantage point that assumes the merit of black privilege.  It’s a point that Wagstaff and her supporters have raised.   The mistake that members of the Executive Committee made was to dismiss the validity of that contention.

The attempt to remove Wagstaff unleashed a nemesis that has fought for the soul of Durham’s black community.  That enemy can be found in virtually every black community that strives to press for the greater good of all black citizens.  At issue is more than the competency of Wagstaff.  At issue is the way we measure and support black leadership that comes from a place outside the norm.

This battle is about class and sub-culture.  It’s an issue that Wagstaff has raised.  In doing so, the Executive Committee moved for her censure, which left many believing she was being removed for the reasons she exposed.  A lack of substance, beyond the personal, left space for a challenge to the Executive Committee’s recommendation.

The result of last night’s vote provides an opportunity for the Durham Committee to have a real conversation related to the unspoken truth on the table.  How can the Durham Committee effectively represent all of Durham when it grapples to affirm and respect the voice of those shaped in the grammar and ways of the streets?

That’s not to suggest that the Executive Committee moved based on a disconnection with Durham’s marginalized sector.  What is implied is the need for significant dialogue regarding ways to overcome the assumption that the Durham Committee is an organization designed to affirm the black elite.  Failure to do that will further alienate the Durham Committee from the people Wagstaff represents.

I recommend that Randal Rogers call a meeting to discuss the state of Durham’s black community.  Invite the larger community to participate.  Allow Jackie Wagstaff to share in the planning of the summit.  Build a bridge beyond what happened last night.

It’s the best way to mend that which has been broken.  If you take time to listen, the voice of reason can be heard.

End the war.