Smokey Mary's

"We're the longest running show on Broadway!" quips the rector of Saint Mary the Virgin Episcopal Church about their worship services. The church was founded in 1868 and had its first building where Longacre Theater now stands. In 1895, it opened the doors of its current incarnation along West 46th Street in Manhattan. In 1904, the area was baptized Times Square.

While Saint Mary's might be at the center of the Great White Way, its performances are nothing like the musicals and other productions available in the vicinity. Rather, the drama and music are from another time and place - when church was theater and worship time was grand and mysterious, designed to inspire awe and point to the divine.

Saint Mary's Times Square was created to be the Anglo-Catholic cathedral in the United States. During the mid-19th century, the Oxford Movement formed within the Church of England to reclaim Anglicanism's catholic roots. It brought back liturgical practices, ornaments, vestments and other accoutrements more Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox than Protestant. The movement readily found its way and followers in America.

Since then, Saint Mary's has kept its sublimeness. Walk through its doors and you are transported away from the din and bustle to peace and expansiveness. You are left speechless by the space before you, a French Gothic edifice, a city block deep and 80 feet high, hidden in midtown Manhattan. Statues and images of Mary, Jesus, saints and angels inspire reverence or at least respectful silence.

Walk into a service and the East facing liturgy replete with stunning vestments, towering candlesticks, exploding floral arrangements, and solemn ministers leaves you thunderstruck. Strains of Tomas Luis de Victoria, Giovanni Pierluigi de Palestrina, William Byrd and Maurice Durufle struck by a massive pipe organ and sung by a professional choir render you speechless. Thick, thick incense smoke takes your breath away. It is this that earned the church its moniker Smokey Mary's. In a humid August day, the smoke hangs like a veil above all. It floats and lingers throughout. On other days, the smoke takes its time languidly undulating to a ceiling painted royal blue and speckled with gold stars.

In what appears anachronistic is a real church very much present and urgently needed in our day. Amidst all this splendor is down to earth Christianity and community.

While still new and unwelcome, especially among Anglo-Catholic parishes, women priests were invited to celebrate mass at Saint Mary's. This cost the favor of many Anglo-Catholics to put it mildly. In 2003, the rector hired an openly gay and partnered priest as curate and without much thought announced the appointment in a newsletter read all over the world. This brought tears to the eyes of many gay men and women who continue to seek recognition and acceptance within the church.

On any given day, rank and file employees that inhabit the skyscrapers retreat to Saint Mary's for a moment's peace and solace. They are joined by the cleaning ladies and doormen of nearby boutique hotels along with dumbstruck tourists who chanced upon the place, make the sign of the cross then reach for their cameras. Resting undisturbed are a handful of homeless men catching much needed sleep and rest.

Saint Mary's Times Square might at first glance be from another time and place, perhaps even out of touch, but look closely. At the altar and in the pews are men and women, white, black, Asian, Latino, young, old, gay, straight, rich and poor. Everyone is welcome. Everyone has a place at the table.

Bravo! May the longest running show in Broadway live on.

A Better America

The first presidential debate, in my opinion, did not have a clear winner. There were no "defining moments" and neither candidate knocked the other one out. However, seeing them next to each other articulate their policies and philosophies made me realize that each offers a very different vision of and future for America. McCain will perpetuate the past 8 years while Obama will usher in real change.

Under McCain, the yawning gap between the affluent and the rest of us will widen. Even though his persona du jour is populist, he will continue catering to corporations and to his set - the rich and powerful. Under Obama, the country's gini coefficient will go down as income and wealth distribution is improved. The middle class will recover and more will join its ranks. He will accomplish this by providing tax relief to 95% of Americans; by insisting on fair trade with other countries; by investing in the manufacturing sector and its workers; by rebuilding national infrastructure; by championing science and technology; by uplifting small business and labor; and by securing home ownership.

Under McCain, the 36.5 million poor men, women and children will be ignored and many more will join them. Under Obama, poverty will no longer be dismissed. He will address the dire situation faced by 1 in 8 Americans by expanding access to jobs; increasing the minimum wage to a realistic level; by strengthening families; and by providing affordable housing.

Under McCain, racial and gender minorities will remain marginalized. Women will continue to make less than men. Lesbians, gays and transgendered people will not move towards parity. African Americans and Latinos will not see any justice under the criminal and judicial systems. Under Obama, women will finally earn their due. Gay and trans women and men will find themselves in a more favorable and open atmosphere. People of color will see justice. He will achieve this by combating employment discrimination; by expanding hate crimes statutes and strengthening civil rights; and by ending racial profiling, reducing recidivism, and eliminating sentencing disparities.

There is no doubt that John McCain and Barack Obama are both ready to be president. The question is, what kind of America do we want?

Related posts:
Democratic Impressions
Little Brown Americans

Comments on Previous Posts

On Buddhiscopalianism, a gentleman emailed:

Subject: Dogma

Zen Buddhism and Christianity are irreconcileable. I visited the link and read it, and the authors understanding of Buddhism is seriously lacking.

For starters, Buddhism acknowledges no God as the creator of the universe. Nor is there a "soul." There is no such thing as sin (as Christianity would define such) or eternal damanation. Jesus as the son of God? Impossible. Prayer is useless. Getting to heaven is a waste of time.

I will refain from continuing, I am sure I have said enough. What you are doing is toy zazen, not real zazen.

I wish you the best in finding your answers.

He is correct in that Buddhism does not believe in a god, soul or an afterlife. In fact, the historic Buddha was reported to have refrained from commenting, much less pronouncing, on such matters, since he believed that ultimate truth and enlightenment comes from within. Buddhism in its purest form does not espouse any dogma.

I thank him for his insight and would like to clarify that I adhere to Buddhism as a philosophy or way of life, precisely because I do not believe that I or any other human can know the absolute with certainty and confidence due to our limited nature.

From the ardor and certitude of his words, he is undoubtedly a practicing and learned Zen Buddhist. I can thus see how he judges my way as mere play - much as hardcore fundamentalist evangelicals do not consider other Christians as true believers and followers.

I wish him peace and happiness.

On Little Brown Americans, a friend wrote:

You are right even though a change is really what we need, a lot of people not just little brown americans are not ready to vote for Obama.

Like you I was a Hilary supporter and would have voted for her in a heartbeat. It is not so much the color of his skin (Obama) but rather certain issues that still has me undecided. We have been having these discussions too with family around dinner time and we have agreed to disagree and understand each others point of view.(amid a lot of shouting) I will be watching the debates closely...I have not decided on who to vote yet, but I am leaning towards Obama. The choice of Palin for vp for McCain tips the scales towards Obama, I cannot see her as our president, not in a million years.

I would have loved to vote for a woman, but not Sarah Palin.

Enlightenment is attainable, at least in politics!

Relative Misery

After a particularly exhausting week working at think tanks, I decided to skip the gym, go home and crash. As I entered the Metro still dealing with residual guilt over not having worked out in quite a while but nonetheless inching closer to forgiveness, my musing was interrupted."Do you have any change?"

It was a smiling middle-aged* white woman by the ticket machine. I assumed her homeless, based on her dishevelment and unabashed request. "Sorry, I have no change," I managed to mutter. "That's okay, thanks for talking to me! Nice sweater!" "Thanks it's Polo and I got it discounted at." I caught and squelched that thought just in time.

As I sat waiting for the Shady Grove train, I wondered how many people will be rendered homeless by the current financial meltdown. Statistics indicate that there are more than 14,000 homeless men, women and children in the Washington, DC metropolitan area, part of the 3.5 million people living in America's streets in a given year. How many more will join their ranks? Moreover, how will social service agencies, food pantries, homeless shelters and other nonprofits keep up with growing demand for their services? Government will tighten its budget while foundations and philanthropists will give less as their own endowments and investments shrink. Ordinary citizens will have less to spare as they struggle to meet their own needs.

These are tough times, most likely nothing new to the woman who asked for help. But for many in the United States and worldwide, it will be unfamiliar and unsettling at best, traumatic and life altering at worst.

My brother called to let me know that a schoolmate of ours has been indicted in the Philippines for being one of the "local dummies of bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers." He forwarded another friend's email which asks "First in AHS Batch 1981 to go to jail?" AHS stands for Ateneo de Manila High School, a private boy's school we had attended. A place where we were made to believe we were cream of the crop, could do anything we set our minds to, and were chosen to lead. Where we imbibed Jesuit idealism, were taught Marian devotion, and trained to be "men for others."

It makes me wonder who has it worse. The homeless lady or our high school chum? A middle class American family that worries about its mortgage or a wealthy family in a class-bound Asian society that has lost face?

I sympathize with all that are adversely affected by unfettered market greed - I am one of the millions. I empathize with the families and friends of those accused - I know them well.

Related posts
Local Food, Local Hunger
Homeless Asians

Image: The Problem of Anxiety, T. Shortell, 2001.

*The concept of "middle age" was discussed over beer the other night. I was encouraged to learn that someone else in their forties believes that she is middle-aged. After all, if the National Center for Health Statistics has average life expectancy at 77.8, then we make good sense. We think that what most consider middle-aged is really three-quarters-aged.

More on Little Brown Americans

A college friend in California emailed:

My most immediate experience with someone black is my son's friend (they are in middle school, both 12 years old). As an Asian mom (stereotype) I tend to be quite overprotective, so when I question the influence that each of his friends brings, I have to question my own reasons, i.e. am I concerned about someone because they are black or because my concerns are legitimate? I can toot my horn and tell the world my beliefs, but it is only when it hits close to home that I find myself confronting my own biases. Having said all that, I WILL vote for Obama...more chat on this, but for now...have to go to work...

Buddhiscopalianism

What's your religious views about? The person was referring to my Facebook profile which has my religious views as "informed by Christianity and Buddhism." If I had to go sectarian, it would be "informed by the Episcopal Church and Zen Buddhism." Call me a Buddhiscopalian.

How does my being gay square with both? Snugly I'd say. There is no conflict within me, and neither the Episcopal Church nor Buddhism has a singular doctrine or overarching dogma about homosexuality. This is not to say that either gives wholehearted blessing to what is still considered an aberration and abomination by many people. The Anglican Communion to which the Episcopal Church belongs has been riven by greater acceptance of gay people within the Western churches. The Dalai Lama had to soften his official homophobic stance after realizing how this alienated his greatest fans and allies, North American and European Buddhists.

However, the Episcopal Church is courageous enough to challenge a prejudice born of another time and culture, and ossified by tradition. It has been honest enough to acknowledge lesbians and gays among its ranks. Most of all, it has been Christian enough to welcome everyone to its table.

Buddhism to a lesser degree has its own version of Northern and Southern hemispheral conflict. ReligiousTolerance.org notes: "In the West, there appears to be a growing acceptance of same-sex sexual activity as moral; in Asia, cultural influences result in same-sex behavior being considered sexual misconduct." The tension is less than that of Anglicans partly because there is no "communion" of Buddhists or an equivalent of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Moreover, as with many issues, Siddharta Gautama was not explicit about homosexuality (or the afterlife for that matter). Rather, the historic Buddha extolled gaining enlightenment through one's self, by examining ideas critically and by meditating regularly. As such the saying, "If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him." Stop looking outside for salvation, look for the buddha within. His dying words to his followers were "be a lamp onto yourself."

The Buddhist Channel explains the primacy of intention in Buddhist morality.

With its emphasis on psychology and cause and effect, Buddhism judges acts, including sexual acts, primarily by the intention (cetana) behind them and the effect they have.

A sexual act motivated by love, mutuality and the desire to give and share would be judged positive no matter what the gender of the two persons involved. Therefore, homosexuality as such is not considered immoral in Buddhism or against the third precept*, although this is not always understood in traditional Buddhist countries.

If a homosexual avoids the sensuality and licence of the so-called 'gay scene' and enters into a loving relationship with another person, there is no reason why he or she cannot be a sincere practising Buddhist and enjoy all the blessings of the Buddhist life.

Thus I embrace Buddha and Christ.

*The third precept encourages Buddhists to refrain from sexual misconduct

Related Articles:
Homosexual Killers
What would Buddha Do?

On Little Brown Americans

Three responses to Little Brown Americans stood out for me. All are from expatriate Filipinos.

George G., an associate Biology professor at a Jesuit University wrote:

I can understand how people seek the familiar. The essence of the phrase "birds of a feather flock together" lies deep in our biological roots as social animals: we tend to seek the familiar because it offers us a safe and comfortable environment amenable to survival. And as visual creatures, humans do tend to favor visual features as a primary determinant of familiarity (Humans are not the only creatures in the world to do this). So in situations such as elections, people who do not think carefully about the issues (or who are not educated about them) tend to make decisions based on this familiarity.

The trick to getting past this whole issue of race and gender is to educate onesself, and/or to think about the issues very carefully. We have two primary job applicants that represent not only themselves as individuals, but two large political organizations that have different agendas and approaches to doing the job of running the country. I think it is important for people to think carefully about the job description of "President of the United States", what it entails, etc., and then see who is best suited for the job.

(On an unrelated note, I find it ironic that, due to the requirements of citizenship, most naturalized citizens know more about American government than many natural-born Americans do!)

While campaigning strategies and voting often becomes a practice in "gut feelings", familiarity with moral stances (abortion, gay marriage, etc.), or generation of negative feelings about the opposing candidate (see: all the TV ads now...), this cannot be the way we make a decision that has so much impact on our daily lives as a country. I think we have to look as this process as we would when we hire job candidates. Do we pick people who are nice, friendly, and of the same skin color as us (but who could potentially screw up your business), or do we select someone who can do the job? We have to take the same amount of care and consideration as we would if we were selecting someone to manage a multimillion dollar property (because in many ways, we are!).

That's my two cents...

Inge D., a doctoral candidate, shared the following thoughts:

Your post was provocative. A couple of thoughts came to mind:

1. We have never been formed as a people to think along the lines of party politics. I wonder how many Filipino immigrants have been able to attune to the distinctions. Our own brand of Filipino politics has been about personalities, about the attractiveness (and I do not just mean, but include, physical characteristics) of the politician running for office. Ours has also been about voting for status quo and whoever opposes status quo (even in word, not necessarily in structural action or change). I do not know if we as a people have had the opportunity to learn about democratic and republican philosophies, economics and values and how these will affect political decisions.

2. Because of our learning around such distinctions being in the possibly nascent stage, I wonder if we might make choices based on single issues or on what most affects us, or even on stereotypical labels, e.g. "pro-choice" means pro-abortion so I must vote Republican. I read a very emotional egroups post by someone campaigning for McCain because he is pro-life. Only later was that post responded to with a more nuanced argument that being pro-life extends also to other issues, such as opposition to the war, support for the needy via provision of greater social services (e.g. medicaid, public school education, health care for greater number of people), all of which are democratic issues and also signify that they are pro-life.

3. It takes much courage to say what you did -- but yes, I wonder about why folks shifted from Hillary Clinton to McCain. And I don't think this is something limited to Filipinos, although our culture might have its own dynamic around it. Like it or not, this is more a visceral and affect-bound factor than it is a purely intellectual choice and we need to acknowledge unconscious (yeah, okay, I had to put that in) motivations around preferring white over black, or even around gut-level feeling safer with white than with black.

Just some thoughts. And to validate and affirm your courage, I will dare sign my name!

And an individual who wishes to remain anonymous wrote:

... this might be a bit much for some folks, but ... there is also a piece around unverbalized associations to white and black, to purity and impurity, to cleanliness (translated: honesty) and to the unclean (sin), to light and dark, to resurrection (white) and to death and underworld. This is not an intellectual distinction but an unconscious one, one formed by symbolism and metaphor. I remember a theology lecture on creation, sin, eschatology, and the professor was, if I recall correctly, speaking from the perspective of hermeneutics and Paul Ricouer. But how also to explain the spontaneous anxiety and irrational fear we have when there is a black man on the street with us at night and we are alone, versus a, for example, white man walking his dog? Who feels less dangerous, less threatening?

The individual made it very clear that this is not a pejorative comment against people of color. He does not want anyone to misread this and think that he "just labeled black folks all the negative stuff attributed to the color and the metaphor."