Will someone remind me again why Islam is entitled to the smallest amount of respect by civilized people? How do we respect those who do stuff like this?

Three Christian teenage girls were beheaded on Saturday in the latest attack against non-Muslims in the troubled Indonesian province of Central Sulawesi, police said.

The three high school students were found with their heads severed early on Saturday in the sectarian-divided town of Poso, said provincial police spokesperson Rais Adam.

The girls were believed to have been murdered while they were walking to school, Adam said.

He said two of the victims' heads were found near a police post while the third was discovered outside a local Christian church in Poso.

"We are still waiting for results from investigation in the field. We are still trying to determine whether this case is religiously-motivated or not," he told AFP.

A policewoman on duty in Poso confirmed to AFP that the triple murder had taken place and that the killings were being investigated.

A fourth girl was seriously wounded in the attack.

Still investigating? Fine -- but it seems clear that the murder of girls headed to school using the method common among Islamist terrorists tells us who is responsible -- especially given that Indonesia is a hotbed of Islamist terror. And that one of the heads was placed outside a church -- a warning to Christians who dare to step out of dhimmitude and demand to be treated as full citizens and human beings -- would serve as further confirmation that the "Religion of Peace" is behind the murder of these young martyrs for Christ.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

They tried to kill John Leonard for preaching the Gospel in Brazil.

They failed.

And even though he is still paralyzed, he is still on fire for Christ.

Back in June, WHO-TV 13 told you about John Leonard. The local missionary was clinging to life at Methodist Medical Center after assassins tried to kill him in Brazil. Leonard is still virtually paralyzed from the neck down, but Wednesday night he was able to attend his church's missions conference.

"I was supposed to be in the hospital for six months. I got out in less than three," said Leonard. It was a shorter than expected hospital stay, which is just one of hundreds of miracles John Leonard has witnessed in the past few months. He wasn't supposed to be here with his family and his church family Wednesday night. If the assassins who shot him had accomplished what they set out to do, John wouldn't be alive.

"God closed one door. He opens another," said Leonard. Leonard built five churches in Brazil and carried the message of salvation to the masses. He took two bullets and is too humble to retire. "I didn't wanna just lay around the rest of my life. I wanted somethin' to do," Leonard says.

John inspires people and he has some advice for anyone who's ever risked their life for a career they felt called to do. "Put it on the scale and weigh it, but if your heart is into it, follow your heart," he says.

Remember -- men and women have died for the Gospel of 2000 years -- and are still facing martyrdom for the faith today. Pray for those sent by Christ into the Father's vinyard.

Hat Tip -- PersecutionBlog

Posted by: Greg at 11:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 296 words, total size 2 kb.

We keep hearing about how Christians are trying to impose "their view" on everyone else in the current discussion/controversey over including discussion of Intelligent Design in the classroom.

Interestingly enough, the Dalai Lama -- no right-wing Christian -- has some words on the subject that the open-minded might find enlightening.

In his new book, The Universe in a Single Atom, the Dalai Lama warns readers about the consequences of seeing people as “the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes.” This materialistic account is “an invitation to nihilism and spiritual poverty.” Correct.

He writes that “the view that all aspects of reality can be reduced to matter and its various particles is . . . as much a metaphysical position as the view that an organizing intelligence created and controls reality.” What’s more, he insists that both “are legitimate interpretations of science.”

So, my dear evolutionist friends, look whose words clearly support the presentation of Intelligent Design -- the most respected Buddhist leader and champion of human rights alive today.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

The LA Times provides a lot of details in its breakdown of information about priests accused of sexual abuse in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

been alleged at roughly 100 parishes. But because the accused priests moved around the archdiocese on average every 4.5 years, the total number of parishes in which alleged abusers served is far larger — more than three-fourths of the 288 parishes, according to the study, which examined records back to 1950.

The affected parishes were in neighborhoods of Los Angeles, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties both rich and poor, suburban and urban, some predominantly white and others with African American or Latino majorities. The study does not support the contention made by some critics of the church that problem priests were dumped into poor, Latino and African American communities.

Based on the allegations, the number of abusive priests peaked in 1983. More than 11% of the diocesan priests — those who worked directly for the archdiocese, rather than for religious orders — who were in ministry that year eventually were accused of abuse.

Now one issue I have with this survey is that it appears to presume that every accusation was a valid accusation. Some weren’t – and one of my mentors during my seminary years was the victim of a false accusation, so I am quite sensitive to that reality. Another is the implicit assumption that those who relied on the advice of psychologists giving the best current clinical advice decades ago were somehow insensitive and immoral in their actions of sending accused abusers to counseling and then reassigning them after treatment. They were following the best practices of the day – practices we know are wrong.

But one thing we did not get from the times is this little tidbit of information that was noted by the Catholic League’s William Donahue – information that strikes me as rather significant in discussing the abuse scandal.

“We know from the files that have been released that in 79 percent of the cases, the alleged victim was male; this comports with the figure of 81 percent cited by the John Jay study of priests nationwide. And we know from the latter study that almost 8 in 10 of the alleged male victims were postpubescent, meaning that the problem is homosexual priests. Yet many in the media continue to lie—they say the problem is pedophilia when the data directly say otherwise. No, homosexuality does not cause molestation, and there are many good gay priests, but the fact remains that most of the problem priests are gay.

Yeah, you read that right – the problem was not pedophilia. It was homosexuality. Pedophilia, properly defined by the psychological sciences, is sexual desire and contact with prepubescent males. A man having sex with 15-18 year olds is not a pedophile, but is instead likely a homosexual acting out a homosexual orientation. The behavior is still wrong and still unacceptable, but let’s at least name it as what it is. So let’s tell the truth and state that about 60% of all priest sexual misconduct was homosexual activity with teenagers – that would go a long way towards making it clear what happened and why.

That is not to blame all homosexual priests for the abuse, or to label them as abusers. They are not. But it does explain why there might be a desire on the part of senior members of the Catholic hierarchy to discourage the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood.

Posted by: Greg at 12:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.

It looks like a pragmatic realism is going to be the basis of the Vatican's policy on the ordination of homosexual candidates to the priesthood. This was my hope and my expectation. A quick examination of the policy shows why it makes sense.

A forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuals in seminaries will not demand an absolute ban, a senior Vatican official told NCR Oct. 7, but will insist that seminary officials exercise "prudential judgment" that gay candidates should not be admitted in three cases.

Those three cases are:

* If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
* If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
* If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.

In any case, the Vatican official said, whether or not these criteria exclude a particular candidate is a judgment that must be made in the context of individual spiritual direction, rather than by applying a rigid litmus test.

I spent four years in the Catholic seminary before leaving and, little more than a year latter, marrying.

Now let's look at those three points very closely. What are the conditions unde which someone should not be admitted to the seminary as a candidate for the priesthood?

* If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;

May I say "DUH!" These men are entering a process of formation for lifelong celibacy. Is it an unreasonable expectation that they should show the capacity for celibacy by having lived it for a period of time? Speaking from experience, I believe that a three year period of celibacy prior to entering the major seminary should be a minimum requirement for everybody. Being celibate for such a period is not an easy thing to do in today's society if you do not have such a calling. To live a life of celibacy with integrity is hard work -- and I've known many deeply spiritual men who would have made great priests who have recognized that they could not continue with their studies because of their inability to live a celibate life with integrity. The issue played no small part in my decision not to complete my preparation for priesthood.

* If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);

The teachings of the Church on homosexuality are unequivocal. If a man is taking a public stand against the teachings of the Church on the matter, is the priesthood really an appropriate place for him? It is all well and good to seek to be an agent of change in a democratic society, but the unchanging truths of the Christian faith are not open to debate.

* If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk.

Some folks, both heterosexual and homosexual, are led around by their sex drives. We all know such folks. In the case of a homosexual male who is very sexualized, being thrust into the all-male world of seminary life and priesthood could be an occassion of sin. I recall one young man who quit the seminary when his older partner broke off their relationship a few weeks prior to diaconate ordination -- while the older man was willing to be celibate (though not until the 11th hour), the younger thought of the priesthood as a much more exclusive gay bar. At least one of them (and probably both) should never have been permitted to enter the seminary to begin with -- for the same reason a heterosexual man who expressed a desire to remain sexually active should not be admitted to the seminary.

I encourage people to notice something about the position taken in this document. Homosexuals are not deemed to be more sinful than other people. They are not deemed "unworthy" of ordination. Rather, special guidance is being offered on which individuals should and should not be admitted to the seminary based upon their ability to live out the priesthood as models of Christ's love and as teachers of the truths found in Scripture and Tradition. Far from being based upon hatred and bigotry, they are based upon love and pastoral concern.

Posted by: Greg at 05:11 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess this pathetic excuse for a warrior and his weak-kneed sons want there to be freedom from religion -- at least freedom from Christianity -- rather than freedom of religion as guaranteed by the US Constitution. His ultimate goal is clearly to striip believers in the military of their rights under the US Constitution.

A Jewish father of two Air Force Academy cadets sued the Air Force on Thursday, claiming senior officers and cadets illegally imposed Christianity on others at the school.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court by Mikey Weinstein, an academy graduate and outspoken critic of the school's handling of religion.

Over the past decade or more, the lawsuit claims, academy leaders have fostered an environment of religious intolerance at the Colorado school, in violation of the First Amendment.

Weinstein has one son who graduated from the academy last year and another who is a junior there. Both were subjected to anti-Semitic slurs from evangelical Christian cadets, he said.

While I'll concede there are some things that needed to be addressed at the Academy, let's look at what Weinstein REALLY wants.

The lawsuit, which names the Air Force and its acting secretary, Pete Geren, as defendants, asks the Air Force to prohibit its members — including chaplains — from evangelizing and proselytizing or in any related way attempting "to involuntarily convert, pressure, exhort or persuade a fellow member of the USAF to accept their own religious beliefs while on duty."

In other words, what this man wants is complete censorship of all religious speech -- including the religious speech of chaplains.

Time to slap down this anti-religious bigot, and to remind him that the Air Force is committed to protecting the Constitution, not gutting it. It is "freeddom of", not "freedom from" religion.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Now they want to ban the historic symbol of England – the Cross of St. George.

British prison officers who wore a St. George's Cross tie-pin have been ticked off by the jails watchdog over concerns about the symbol's racist connotations.

The pins showing the English flag -- which has often raised hackles due to its connection with the Crusades of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries -- could be "misconstrued," Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers said in a section on race in a report on a jail in the northern English city of Wakefield.

The banner of St. George, the red cross of a martyr on a white background, was adopted for the uniform of English soldiers during the military expeditions by European powers to recapture the Holy Land from Muslims, and later became the national flag of England.

Oops – might offend the Muslims, so it has to go. After all, we can’t have (nominally) Christian Englishmen and women celebrating their heritage in their own country when it might alienate the immigrant Muslim horde.

What is most amazing is this extreme statement of the demand for dhimmitude by representatives of the Muslim community.

Chris Doyle, director of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, said Tuesday the red cross was an insensitive reminder of the Crusades.

"A lot of Muslims and Arabs view the Crusades as a bloody episode in our history," he told CNN. "They see those campaigns as Christendom launching a brutal holy war against Islam.

"Muslim or Arab prisoners could take umbrage if staff wore a red cross badge. It's also got associations with the far-right. Prison officers should be seen to be neutral."

Doyle added that it was now time for England to find a new flag and a patron saint who is "not associated with our bloody past and one we can all identify with."

I’ve got a better idea – perhaps it is time to tell the Muslims to shut up or get out. The British people are entitled to celebrate their Christian heritage, and not be made to apologize for their heritage in their own country.

Posted by: Greg at 03:26 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 367 words, total size 2 kb.