My Summer Vacation So Far

At the end of my 25-year career at a Fortune 100 manufacturing company, I was entitled to 5 weeks of vacation each year.  A year into my retirement, I am wondering how much vacation I am now entitled to, and when will I be able to take it?  Of course I know the retiree clichés about being busier now than I ever was when I was working, and will admit there’s a lot to that.  Otherwise, what excuse would I have for not posting anything to my blog in over a month?  But let’s at least pretend I've been on vacation since the middle of June – the kind of summer vacation we remember as school children.  What have I done in that time to make the world a better place?  I decided to go back over my calendar and came up with 10 things that I did so far this summer that might fit that description.

1. Blog Posts:  Counting this one, I've written 2 blog posts.  One was about the explosion in fracking or hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas, and its potential impact on the environment.  This one is about using one’s time to have a positive impact on the world, albeit positive from one’s own perspective.
2. Getting Published:  While I am pleased as punch to have many visitors to my blog (nearly 1,200 since it started), it is gratifying to reach a larger audience once in a while.  I was able to do just that when the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published my global warming post (“And Jesus, He Wants to Go to Venus”) largely intact on June 23.  It appeared on page 1 of the Forum section ABOVE THE FOLD!  I also wrote several articles for my church’s newsletter.  Please send the Pulitzer to my home address.  
3. Volunteering for Habitat for Humanity:  Look out Jimmy Carter!  I organized a group of volunteers from my church and on Saturday, June 15^th we spent the day measuring, cutting and hanging drywall at a Habitat home to be purchased by a refugee family from Burundi.  Fortunately, some members of our group actually had some construction experience and helped the rest of us avoid any major mistakes. 
4. Rally in Support of Public Education:  My wife is the teachers’ union representative at her school.  I tell her she is the shop steward, though some think that sounds too radical for a professional union.  Anyway, she told me that union members, parents and community organizers were getting on buses on June 25 to travel to Harrisburg to protest cuts in funding for public education by the Governor and Republican-controlled Legislature.  I had never before participated in a bona fide protest.  After a bit of hesitation, caused by my years as a corporate lawyer, I agreed to go.  We listened to fiery speeches, circled the state capitol chanting slogans and holding signs, and marched in front of the Governor’s Mansion.  Hopefully, we got our message across, and fortunately nobody got arrested.
5. Participated in Diocesan Dialogues:  The Episcopal Church in the United States has been undergoing a significant amount of conflict and division over the issue of same-sex blessings and the ordination of gays and lesbians in committed same-sex relationships.  The new Bishop in Pittsburgh, though known to be theologically conservative, has called for a dialogue on these issues.  I participated in a structured dialogue on June 29.  As might be expected from my blogpost, “Everybody wants to Be. . .”, I was a voice for full acceptance of LGBT persons in the Christian community.
6. My Daughter’s Wedding:  On July 5^th my one and only daughter got married.  I thanked God several times – for a beautiful day, for everything going pretty close to perfectly, and for having the money to pay for it.  My daughter made nearly all the arrangements and stuck to the budget we had agreed upon.  It was a wonderful day! She picked out a pretty darn good guy as well - sort of reminds me of myself, only nicer.
7. Gasland 2 Screening:  On June 20^th I attended a screening of the new film, Gasland Part 2.  I have yet to see Part 1, but just added it to my Netflix Instant Queue.  In these films the director, Josh Fox, tells of the environmental damage that can result from fracking.  As a corporate lawyer, I had bought the notion that fracking had risks like any type of mining, but those risks were manageable with appropriate regulations.  The film raised questions in my mind about whether it is possible to extract natural gas by fracking in a safe manner that doesn't adversely impact the area’s environment.  I promised myself that I would learn more on this subject.
8. Donated Blood:  Who can debate this one?  I donated 4-5 times per year throughout my work life.  After all, it’s an hour break from work, which is never a bad thing. And you don’t have to feel guilty eating a bag of chips or other snacks that are made available for donors.  Now that I am retired, I am trying to continue to donate at the same pace as when I was working.  I look for places with free parking and special bonuses for donors.  My recent donation was at a mobile unit in a Bruster’s Ice Cream parking lot.  Bruster’s gave a pint of ice cream as a thank you to everyone donating a pint of blood.  The ice cream tasted great!  I treated myself to a cone and took the pint home to share with my wife.
9. Vacation Bible School Volunteer:  My wife, who is the ultimate volunteer, ran Vacation Bible School at our church during the week of July 15.  Of course, I was expected to volunteer as well.  After all, I’m retired, right?  So volunteer I did.  Our VBS had a western theme, so I put on a western shirt and cowboy hat and was Cowboy Joe to the kids.  We learned to draw a picture of an armadillo, held a mini rodeo, made butter and learned why prairie dogs don’t have police.  (They practice what we Christians mostly just preach – they love one another as shown by the fact that they look out for and take care of each other.)  The experience gave me a renewed appreciation for what teachers do every day of the school year.  I taught only three 20-minute segments with breaks in between but still felt exhausted at the end of each day.
10. Recycled Hard to Recycle Materials:  Every two weeks I carry bags of cans and bottles, newspapers and cardboard to the curb.  The City picks it up and recycles them.  However, the City will not pick up electronic waste or Freon products for recycling or as trash for the landfill.  So on a day that my wife agreed to babysit the 4-year old son of a young couple we know, I decided to take a load of our e-waste and an old air conditioner to Construction Junction in Pittsburgh.  I took our 4-year old charge along for the ride.  He enjoyed the trip and had fun exploring the warehouse which contained all sorts of interesting things:  tables, chairs, sinks, cabinets, bricks and even roof tile.  I got rid of my e-waste for free and happily paid the $10 fee for recycling the Freon-containing appliance.  And my trip with the 4-year old to and from Construction Junction gave my wife a much needed break since she was the primary babysitter.  (Can I count that as number 11?)

So that’s what I've been doing for the past several weeks when I haven’t been able to find much time to write.  I would encourage everyone to think about 10 things that they might do during the summer of 2013 to help improve the world in some small way.  Then write and tell me about it.  My email address is joseph.karas@hotmail.com. x

WTF!?

What the frack!?  As a former environmental attorney, I try to stay abreast of current environmental issues.  A friend recently asked me if I was interested in using my skills as a lawyer to get involved with the fracking controversy.   Aside from the fact that I hadn’t done any lawyering in over a year, I had to admit to her that I know very little about fracking and the environmental dangers that it poses.  She sent me a pile of links and invited me to see a movie, Gasland Part II, which is being shown on June 20 at Soldiers and Sailors Hall in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh.  I haven’t had time to look at the links, so maybe the movie will be a good place to begin my education about fracking and to find out why many people are opposed to it. 

So what is fracking?  I do know a little about it.  They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so keep your distance.  This could get ugly or stupid or both.  To start, I know that fracking involves drilling for natural gas.  Without even checking Wikipedia I know that fracking is shorthand terminology for hydraulic fracturing.  Most of the natural gas produced in the past was found in pockets of relatively porous sedimentary rock, such as sandstone.  Gas producers would drill down into the earth, hit a pocket of gas and pump it out.  Most of this “easy gas” has been discovered and extracted.  Relatively recently, natural gas has been discovered in shale formations that are far less porous than sandstone.  In order to release the gas from these tight formations, the shale needs to be broken up or fractured.  Then the gas can move through the fractured rock to the extractive piping from which it can be pumped out of the ground.

Unlike crude oil which needs a complex refining process to clean it up and break it down into useable components like gasoline, kerosene and fuel oil, natural gas is relatively clean and ready to use.  Also, burning natural gas for fuel produces fewer greenhouse gases than oil or coal, which means its use should contribute less to global climate change than those other fossil fuels.  In that respect, you might expect that environmentalists would be lining up to support fracking to increase our use of natural gas.

So where is the problem?  Again, without doing much research I believe it mostly relates to groundwater contamination.  In order to fracture these tight formations of shale, hydraulic fluids are pumped deep into the earth under intense pressure.  These fluids consist principally of water and sand, but typically contain other proprietary chemicals which may be hazardous.  Examples of such chemicals include acids and organic compounds, such as ethylene glycol, i.e., anti-freeze.  The formations being fractured are usually well below stratigraphic layers that produce drinking water.  However, if the well is poorly constructed it is possible for fluids to escape and to potentially impact useable groundwater.  At the same time, there is a possibility that fracturing deep formations will, in turn, lead to the fracturing of upper stratigraphic layers including those containing useable groundwater, which could lead to a loss of the groundwater resource.

I’ve attended a few seminars where energy companies have explained the fracking process and why they believe it is environmentally safe.  As a former industry environmental lawyer, I would like to believe that fracking can be done safely, because it promises to provide an abundant source of energy.  Safe recovery of natural gas could reduce global warming and make the United States an energy exporter – two very laudable objectives. 

But in my experience I have seen that things don’t always go as the engineers say they will.  Witness the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill disaster despite the involvement of a big company (BP) that should have had good environmental programs.  Additionally, drilling often is done by small, thinly capitalized companies that are in the business for a quick buck.  These kinds of companies tend to cut corners which worries me from the standpoint of environmental impact. 

So I will try to keep an open mind as I educate myself about fracking.  I recognize that Gasland Part II (I haven’t yet seen Part I) was made by people that strongly oppose fracking.  I recognize that there are also resources put out there by industry and will try like a good jurist to discern the truth by paying attention to what both sides are saying in this debate. 

The stakes are high – the promise of cheap, abundant fuel versus the high cost of resources damaged for all time.  WTF – I just might learn something!

A Juggler's Life for Me?!

I just spent a few days with my son in New York City.  I wanted to get a taste of his life as a professional juggler.  As it turned out, he had a gig one of the nights I was there, and I decided it would be fun to accompany him.  He had been hired to juggle at an Orthodox Jewish wedding in suburban New Jersey.  That seemed to me to be a bit out of the ordinary, but who am I to say what’s ordinary in the life of a juggler?  It took us several hours to get to the wedding venue, first by subway and then by bus.  We walked the last 2 ½ miles from the bus station to the hall where the wedding was held.  The walk was excruciating to me, but not because of its length.  Tons of pollen were in the air and it kept getting under my contact lenses.  My eyes were in pain and watering so badly I could barely see as we hiked through suburban housing developments and observed the green dusting of pollen on cars and sidewalks. 

Our plan had been to arrive early and to grab some supper at a fast food place.  The early part worked out OK.  We arrived a little after 7:00pm for an 8:30 gig.  The supper part?  Not so well.  There wasn’t a restaurant, grocery store or any type of place to buy food anywhere in the vicinity of the wedding hall.  Maybe, I thought, they would offer us a few appetizers or even send us a plate of food from the kitchen.  No such luck.  Fortunately, we had a couple of apples and two snack-sized bags of chocolate chip cookies in our backpacks.  As the smell of food wafted past our noses, we noshed on our apples and cookies and hoped there would be a McDonald’s nearby when we got back to the bus station. 

They say the devil is in the details and the guy who had hired my son to juggle for this wedding provided very few of them.  We had no idea when he was supposed to juggle, how he was supposed to juggle or where he was supposed to juggle.  We didn’t know whether the hall had a sound system he could use, whether he could use the band’s sound system or whether he was supposed to use his own.  (He had brought a portable sound system just in case.)  It turned out that it was the groom who hired him, and the groom clearly had other things on his mind.  The only thing we knew for sure is that my son needed to perform while wearing a yarmulke, which was graciously supplied by the groom.  So we cooled our heels in a hallway, feeling horribly out of place and trying to make sure we weren’t doing anything that might offend the Orthodox Jewish wedding guests.

Suddenly, a bearded guy in a dark suit (looking a lot like a hundred other male guests at the wedding) appeared to tell my son the time had come for him to juggle.  Fortunately, a fellow that worked at the hall invited me to accompany him through the kitchen and into the hall so I could see my son’s performance.  It looked like the band was going to take a break, and it still hadn’t been made clear what sound system was going to be used for my son’s juggling music.  However, the band decided to play on.  They lit into a series of fast and furious Klezmer-style songs, and my son juggled to match the tunes.  Rings were flying, clubs were sailing, balls were cascading and then rings were in the air again.  Then, what’s that?  A muppet made an appearance, and suddenly he was flying high into the air.  I almost expected to see a kitchen sink being juggled as my son pulled out all stops in this Jugglemania of a show.  The Jewish men formed a circle around him as he juggled, and the Jewish women peered around the edge of the partition that separated the men from the women to get a better look. 

Then, in the middle of my son’s performance, I saw flaming torches being tossed into the air.  A Jewish teen had run into the middle of the circle juggling fire.  Not to be outdone, my son pulled out knives and started to juggle them.  Then the Jewish juggler lit his hat on fire as he ran around juggling the lit torches!  At this point I was glad my son didn’t decide to continue this game of one-upmanship by slicing and dicing his yarmulke with the knives.  A short time later, the band finished playing and the guy with the flaming hat beat it against a table cloth to put out the flames.  That seemed to indicate that the show was over. 

The bearded guy in the dark suit and hat appeared again and told my son to come back and do some more juggling once everyone had settled down to dinner.  I didn’t get to see that part, but it was shortened when the groom stood up to give a speech.  That was the end of the gig. 

We called a cab and got back to the bus station around 11:00pm.  Of course, there was no McDonald’s or anything else within walking distance of the station.  We finally grabbed a slice of pizza when we got back to the city around 1:30am – a real bargain at $1/slice.  We hopped a subway and arrived at his apartment around 2:30.  Thank God there was a cold beer in the fridge!  We talked for a bit to decompress from our adventure and went to bed around 3:00am.

A juggler’s life is certainly different from the work I knew as a corporate lawyer for over 30 years.  For my son, there is no such thing as a typical day at the office.  Every gig is a new adventure.  I am glad that I was able to accompany him on this one. 

x

Gladdening the Heart

A friend at the goat races

A few weeks ago I attended the goat races sponsored by Sly Fox Beer in Phoenixville, PA.  http://www.slyfoxbeer.com/.  Simon, a three-legged goat, was the winner and was honored by having his name appended to the brewery’s 2013 Mai Bock.  The prior year’s winner, Peggy, was also a three-legged goat, making one wonder that if three legs are better than four, perhaps two are better than three.  I may just have to come back next year to see if that theory has any merit. 

While I certainly enjoyed seeing the various varieties of goats and the racing techniques used by their trainers, the main draw for me and the thousands that attended was the beer.  Is that OK to say?  Or does enjoying a good, craft beer or three automatically label me as a lush?

 

The truth is that we have a love-hate relationship with alcohol in America.  Around two-thirds of Americans say they consume alcohol at least occasionally according to a recent Gallup survey.  However, we mostly feel guilty doing it.  Perhaps it’s the result of how tightly religion is woven into the fabric of American society.  According to a 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey conducted by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, close to 85% of Americans claim a religious affiliation.  Some religions, like Islam, prohibit alcohol consumption outright.  America’s majority religion, Christianity, is ambivalent about drinking alcohol. 

If you take a detailed tour of the Christian Bible, you will find much to justify arguments on both sides of the issue.  But the parts that speak most strongly against consuming alcohol principally deal with its abuse.  Perhaps we can all agree that it’s not a good idea to get stinking drunk.  That’s when bad things are most likely to happen.  Certainly, driving a car is about the stupidest thing one can do while under the influence of alcohol.  Also, people with an addiction problem shouldn't drink regardless of what it says in the Bible.  Addiction issues and other problems associated with overindulgence are the reasons that many Christians believe drinking alcohol should be equated with sinning, and that good Christians should be teetotalers.  It’s thinking like that, of course, that brought us the 18^th Amendment and Prohibition.  Fortunately, the Prohibition experiment in this country was short-lived.

Personally, I take my guidance from David in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New.  Psalm 104, which is usually attributed to David, thanks God for “wine that gladdens the heart of man.”  Jesus, who was a descendant of David, made wine from water at Cana to gladden the hearts of those attending the wedding.  If that’s not enough to inform us that he approved of wine, Jesus tells us that according to the religious authorities of his day:

John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and [they said], “He has a demon.” The Son of Man came eating and drinking and [they said] “Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.”  (Luke 7: 33-34) 

That is one of my favorite quotes from Jesus, because it provides so much insight into his character and, perhaps, his appearance.  While the Pharisees, who opposed what Jesus was teaching no doubt went too far in describing him as a glutton and a drunkard, there are ample passages that provide evidence that Jesus liked to eat and drink.  Jesus knew that many barriers tend to break down when you dine with people.  He knew that there is virtually no better way of reaching people and gaining their trust than to share a meal and a few drinks with them.  Consequently, if I were a casting director making a movie about Jesus and his ministry, I would find someone who looks like they enjoy eating and drinking.  I would forego the Viggo Mortensen-types for someone more like Jack Black.  In fact, the fellow pictured at the top of this post would be perfect for my version of the story of Jesus. 

So fellow Christians, feel free to do as Jesus did and have a drink or two with friends and acquaintances.  It will gladden your heart whether you are watching the goat races or your favorite hockey team compete for the Stanley Cup.  And it’s the Christian thing to do, so there’s no reason to feel guilty about it.

And Jesus, He Wants to Go to Venus

What does Elton John’s song, Levon, have to do with climate change? Not much, really, but the line about Levon’s son, Jesus, going to Venus made me think about Earth’s sister planet. At one time scientists speculated that its thick clouds hid a watery planet where rain fell constantly. Actually, based on space probes that have explored Venus over the past 50 years, we have learned that the dense clouds on the second planet from the sun hide one of the most inhospitable places in our solar system. The average surface temperature on Venus is nearly 900 degrees Fahrenheit. The reason? Venus is blanketed by a dense atmosphere consisting primarily of carbon dioxide (CO2). Because it traps heat radiation from the sun like glass in a greenhouse, CO2 is known as a greenhouse gas. With CO2 comprising over 95% of its atmosphere, Venus has a major greenhouse effect resulting in global warming run amok. 
Like Venus, the Earth has CO2 in its atmosphere. Unlike Venus, CO2 comprises only a very small portion of it. In October 2012 the CO2 concentration in earth’s atmosphere was measured at 0.0391% or 391 parts per million (ppm). What concerns many scientists is that this concentration has increased significantly since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in the late 18th century when it was around 280 ppm.

The steam engine, perfected by James Watt in 1778 derived its power by burning coal which also became a key fuel for generating electricity. In 1859, the first commercial oil well was drilled in the U.S. at Titusville, PA. At first there wasn’t much of a market for this black liquid, but it became pure gold after Henry Ford showed us how to burn gasoline by introducing us to his Model T in 1908. These and other developments led to the rapid industrialization of the western world and resulted in the burning of massive amounts of coal, oil and natural gas over the past 200 years. Today, most scientists believe that the CO2 released from the combustion of these fossil fuels is largely responsible for the observed increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere over this period of time.

According to U.S. EPA’s website, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in the earth’s average temperature. This, in turn, will cause a decrease in snow cover, ice and permafrost which will lead to a rise in sea levels putting many coastal cities at risk. It will also contribute to the acidification of the oceans and will have a significant effect on weather and precipitation patterns. (See, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html.) In other words, things will be different and probably not in a good way.

So what can be done to prevent these consequences? Reducing CO2 emissions is not as easy as slapping pollution control devices on our cars and power plants. Theoretically, CO2 can be broken down into carbon and oxygen with the addition of energy – the reversal of the combustion process. The only genius who has been able to invent a pollution control device that does that is someone called “God.” His invention is called “plants.” Using energy from the sun and a chemical called chlorophyll, these so-called plants use energy from the sun to convert CO2 into carbohydrates and oxygen through a process called “photosynthesis.”

Over thousands of years, God’s pollution control devices “treated” carbon dioxide generated by natural processes (like when animals exhale) creating a rough balance that kept the CO2 concentration fairly stable. The problem is that God’s pollution control devices haven’t been able to keep up with all the extra CO2 currently being produced by mankind. Consequently, the excess CO2 is causing a buildup of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere.

The only man-made alternative to reduce CO2 emissions is to burn less fossil fuel. Short of massive changes to our lifestyles in the developed world, there are presently only two ways to accomplish this: 1) improve energy efficiency so we need less fuel to meet our energy needs, or 2) develop alternative sources of energy that don’t release greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. There are a number of ways to make this happen, such as voluntary conservation efforts and making greater use of solar, wind and, yes, even nuclear power to meet our electrical needs. Alternatively, we can adopt laws and regulations designed to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions such as by increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, by imposing taxes on carbon or by adopting pollution reduction schemes like cap and trade.

Such measures are opposed by climate change skeptics who deny the existence of global warming or at least deny that mankind’s activities have anything to do with it. These skeptics claim that observed warming trends such as the melting of the Arctic ice cap are simply part of the natural cycle and will not be influenced by how much or how little fossil fuels we burn.

These views, of course, run counter to the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists (97% according to NASA) that global warming is the result of human activities. (See, http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus.) But even assuming for the sake of argument that the skeptics are right, think about what would happen if we took steps anyhow to reduce the burning of fossil fuels through conservation measures and using alternative sources of energy. We would have more coal, oil and natural gas to pass on to future generations of mankind. While most of these materials are burned for fuel today, some are used to manufacture products such as lubricants, plastics, pharmaceuticals, dyes and solvents. Conserving these resources now will allow more to be available in the future for these and other uses that have not yet been discovered. Why rush to burn them now, unless our concern is that the energy companies are not making enough profits?

Isn’t conserving what that great inventor, God, asked us to do in the Book of Genesis – to be good stewards of his creation? And Jesus teaches us, “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Lk 12: 15, 34.)

My wife says that for Christians, the global warming problem is a little like believing in Jesus. If believing in Jesus will get you to heaven, but you’re not sure there is a heaven, then you should still believe. If it turns out there is no heaven, then believing did you no harm and may have done you some good. But if there is a heaven, then believing could save you. Likewise, if we reduce our consumption of fossil fuels to avoid global warming and it turns out that the skeptics are right, at least we will have conserved resources for future generations to use. But if it turns out that the overwhelming opinion of today’s climate scientist is correct, then reducing greenhouse gas emissions could save the planet. 

And when Jesus one day makes plans to return to Earth, he won’t decide to go to Venus because it’s cooler there.

Come Together

Several weeks ago I was able to get one of my blog postings published by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  On the one hand, it felt great to get something published.  On the other hand, it made me feel that each and every posting now had to be brilliant enough to be in a newspaper or magazine.  While striving for perfection may be commendable, it should not be at the expense of creating a high hurdle for each new posting to leap.  My objective for this blog is to write.  The Pulitzer is not something I need to worry about for some time to come. 

So what should be the focus of this post?  I have so far written about guns, gay marriage and income inequality.  Americans are incredibly divided over these issues, with some fiercely advocating change and others just as fiercely arguing for maintenance of the status quo.  So rather than address another issue that divides, I thought I would seek to write about a program that all people of good will can support.

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh recently teamed up with Habitat for Humanity of Greater Pittsburgh to renovate a home in the Borough of Sharpsburg, which is located about 5 miles northeast of the city.  When the renovations are complete, the home will be sold to a family that is currently living in substandard housing conditions in the Northview Heights Projects on Pittsburgh’s North Side. 

Many people have only a vague idea of what Habitat for Humanity does, recalling, perhaps some connection between the organization and former President Jimmy Carter – he and Rosalynn have been frequent volunteers.  Habitat for Humanity’s global mission is to provide decent, affordable housing for people in need.  It fulfills this mission by either building modest new homes or renovating existing homes.  Work on the home is performed by volunteers, often from churches or the faith community. 

Importantly, the program bills itself as “a hand up, not a hand out.”  Eligible families purchase the Habitat homes.  Their down payment consists of performing at least 500 hours of “sweat equity” on the home or other homes in the program.  In addition to instilling a sense of ownership and pride in the families, the work teaches valuable skills that will benefit them in maintaining the home they purchase.  The balance of the cost of the home is paid by the family through an interest-free mortgage.  For example, the family purchasing the Sharpsburg house will make a monthly mortgage payment of between $450 and $550.  Proceeds from mortgage payments are re-invested by Habitat to provide other homes for families in need. 

My church, St. Peter’s in the borough of Brentwood, will participate in a workday at the Habitat house in June.  About a dozen of our parishioners participated in a similar project in Sharpsburg in 2010 and found it to be a rewarding experience.  Significantly, our parishioners represent a wide range of political views from the far right to the far left and many points in between.  Yet this project received wide support, both financial and hands-on, from throughout this broad spectrum of political views. 

So while trying to change the world relative to many issues can create conflict and animosity, perhaps there is at least one area where people of goodwill of all political stripes can come together and accomplish something significant.  I’m not suggesting that anyone give up trying to accomplish change in other areas.  Rather, I’m suggesting that you consider taking a short break from whatever other issues you are passionate about and come together with your local chapter of Habitat for Humanity to create a habitable home for a family striving to improve their lives.  I think that’s change we can all believe in.

Everybody Wants to Be . . ..

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in two cases challenging the constitutionality of laws restricting same-sex couples from marrying. While recent polls show increasing support by Americans for granting same-sex couples the right to marry, there is still a significant percentage of the population that is opposed to the idea. Why are so many Americans opposed to same-sex marriage?  Based on reader’s comments to various news articles on the subject, I think it boils down to two main reasons.  Many are opposed on the basis of their religion.  The other reason seems to be that allowing same-sex unions would negatively impact our society by undercutting “traditional family values.”  What does this mean?  I think some people are concerned that if our society condones same-sex marriage it will send a message to young people that it is completely acceptable to be gay.  If that happens, they fear that everybody will want to be LGBT.  Just imagine people parading through the streets like that scene from Disney’s Aristocats.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI7cIYcnTRU.  But instead of singing, “Everybody wants to be a cat,” they’d be singing, “Everybody wants to be L-G B-T!” 

Regarding the religious basis for opposition, Orthodox Jews and conservative Christians will point first to the Biblical book of Leviticus. However, Leviticus prohibits many things modern society doesn't consider sinful, such as planting your fields with two kinds of seed, wearing clothing woven from two types of material, getting a tattoo, and ordering your steak medium rare. So perhaps the Levitical prohibitions should be examined in the context of Jewish society around 3,000 years ago. These were hard times when war and famine could wipe out thousands of people. In such times it was imperative to produce lots of healthy offspring. Even then, the dangers of inbreeding would have been empirically observed making the Levitical prohibitions against marriage between close relatives understandable. At the same time, any union that planted a man's seed where it could not grow would have been viewed as an offense against a community that placed a high value on having children. This would explain the prohibitions in Leviticus against relations with animals and heterosexual relations during a woman's monthly period when she is infertile. It also would explain why Onan's apparent act of birth control in Genesis, Chapter 38 was "wicked in the Lord's sight" resulting in his being struck down by God. Assuming that men were viewed as the source of life because they provided the seed that merely required fertile ground to produce a child also might explain why Leviticus prohibited relations between men, but did not contain a parallel prohibition for women.  

In the Christian New Testament, Paul's Letter to the Romans and his First Letter to the Corinthians contain passages that echo the Levitical prohibitions against same-sex unions. However, Jesus was entirely silent on the matter through the four New Testament gospels. In contrast, Jesus was extremely critical of divorce. So why is it that Americans willingly accept the prevalence of divorce, yet are reluctant to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry?  

I think it all comes down to the idea of choice. The Baltimore Catechism teaches that sinning requires a person’s choice to do something that is wrong in the eyes of the church.  So classification of same-sex relations as sinful relies on the premise that being LGBT is a choice. In other words, we are all born to be heterosexuals, but some individuals for various reasons choose to desire members of their own sex.  This is the view that has prevailed for thousands of years.  If being LGBT is truly a choice, I wonder why people have continued to make this choice despite being publicly ostracized and in many cases prosecuted as criminals? If it were a choice, such measures should have long ago eliminated LGBTs from the world.  So why are they still here and demanding equal rights no less? 

I believe it is because they have no choice.  Though researchers have not yet discovered a "gay gene," it is beginning to look like sexual orientation is a matter of how some individuals are wired and not a matter of a "lifestyle choice." I am not a scientist but have observed a number of cases where young children appeared to be gay long before they had any notion of what sex was about. Not surprisingly, they came out as gay men many years later.   

So would our society fall apart if same-sex couples had the right to marry?  Would Everybody want to be L-G B-T?  Despite the fact that same-sex marriage is still prohibited in 34 states, most people would agree that the negative consequences associated with being openly LGBT have decreased significantly in American society in the past 25 years.  Nevertheless, in exit polling taken during the last two Presidential elections, the number of respondents that self-identified as LGBT remained very low – less than 5 percent.  That says to me you’re either a cat or you’re not, and your rights should not depend on how God made you.