Let’s set aside the offensive title of the show -- “Merry F#%$in’ Christmas”.

Can you believe that the Comedy Channel is airing and promoting Denis Leary's blasphemous garbage during one of the two most sacred times of the year for Christians?

“Merry Christmas. Tonight we celebrate the birth of the baby Jesus, whose mom, Mary, just happens to be a virgin—even after she apparently gave birth to Jesus. At least that is what the Catholic Church would have you believe.

“Tom Cruise is taking a lot of s--- for belonging to a religion, Scientology, that believes aliens came to this planet 75 million years ago. That is nothing. I was raised Catholic. We believe Mary was a virgin and Jesus ended up walking on water, creating a bottomless jug of wine and rising from the dead. Oh, yeah, and Tom Cruise is crazy.

“Listen, Christmas is built on a line of bulls---. Do I believe there was a baby Jesus? You bet your ass I do. But I believe that nine months before he was born someone sure as s--- banged the hell out of his mom.”

Ask yourself a simple question – would any media outlet air such vile crap about Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism and the core beliefs of any of those faiths at any time of the year – much less during a period that is particularly sacred to the faith in question? I think we all know the answer, hence the absence of Jerry Seinfeld’s “Happy F#%$in’ Passover” or similar “holiday” specials.

Do I believe this idiot has the legal right to say such things? Yes, I do -- just like the Klan and the Nazis have every right to spread their preferred brand of hatred, so do Leary and the Comedy Channel. I do not support government action to punish this speech which I despise.

Do I believe there should be consequences for such rabid anti-Christian blasphemy? Yes, I do – in the form of the destruction of Denis Leary’s career and of the Comedy Channel's economic viability. We believers can make both happen if we are prepared to stand up and flex our economic muscles to support our faith.

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 2 kb.

From Jeff Jacoby’s latest column.

''We're trying to be inclusive," says the Boston parks commissioner, explaining why the white spruce that was sent from Nova Scotia under a giant banner reading ''Merry Christmas, Boston" became a ''holiday tree" on her department's website. But suppressing the language, symbols, or customs of Christians in a predominantly Christian society is not inclusive. It's insulting.

It's discriminatory, too. Hanukkah menorahs are never referred to as ''holiday lamps" -- not even the giant menorahs erected in Boston Common and many other public venues each year by Chabad, the Hasidic Jewish outreach movement. No one worries that calling the Muslim holy month of Ramadan by its name -- or even celebrating it officially, as the White House does with an annual ''iftaar" dinner -- might be insensitive to non-Muslims. In this tolerant and open-hearted nation, religious minorities are not expected to keep their beliefs out of sight or to squelch their traditions lest someone, somewhere, take offense. Surely the religious majority shouldn't be expected to either.

As a practicing Jew, I don't celebrate Christmas. There is no Christmas tree in my home, my kids don't write letters to Santa Claus, and I don't attend church on Dec. 25 (or any other date). Does the knowledge that scores of millions of my fellow Americans do all those things make me feel excluded or offended? On the contrary: It makes me feel grateful -- to live in a land where freedom of religion shelters the Hanukkah menorah in my window no less than the Christmas tree in my neighbor's. That freedom is a reflection of America's Judeo-Christian culture, and a principal reason why, in this overwhelmingly Christian country, it isn't only Christians for whom Christmas is a season of joy. And why it isn't only Christians who should make a point of saying so.

Quite correct – the public marking of the Christmas holiday is not discriminatory. Rather, it is demands to mask its celebration in euphemisms that threaten to ultimately destroy religious freedom in America. After all, if the beliefs of the majority must yield to the voices of a few hyper-sensitive individuals demanding "inclusion", how much longer until thoe same restrictions fall upon the practitioners of minority faiths?

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 2 kb.

From Jeff JacobyÂ’s latest column.

''We're trying to be inclusive," says the Boston parks commissioner, explaining why the white spruce that was sent from Nova Scotia under a giant banner reading ''Merry Christmas, Boston" became a ''holiday tree" on her department's website. But suppressing the language, symbols, or customs of Christians in a predominantly Christian society is not inclusive. It's insulting.

It's discriminatory, too. Hanukkah menorahs are never referred to as ''holiday lamps" -- not even the giant menorahs erected in Boston Common and many other public venues each year by Chabad, the Hasidic Jewish outreach movement. No one worries that calling the Muslim holy month of Ramadan by its name -- or even celebrating it officially, as the White House does with an annual ''iftaar" dinner -- might be insensitive to non-Muslims. In this tolerant and open-hearted nation, religious minorities are not expected to keep their beliefs out of sight or to squelch their traditions lest someone, somewhere, take offense. Surely the religious majority shouldn't be expected to either.

As a practicing Jew, I don't celebrate Christmas. There is no Christmas tree in my home, my kids don't write letters to Santa Claus, and I don't attend church on Dec. 25 (or any other date). Does the knowledge that scores of millions of my fellow Americans do all those things make me feel excluded or offended? On the contrary: It makes me feel grateful -- to live in a land where freedom of religion shelters the Hanukkah menorah in my window no less than the Christmas tree in my neighbor's. That freedom is a reflection of America's Judeo-Christian culture, and a principal reason why, in this overwhelmingly Christian country, it isn't only Christians for whom Christmas is a season of joy. And why it isn't only Christians who should make a point of saying so.

Quite correct – the public marking of the Christmas holiday is not discriminatory. Rather, it is demands to mask its celebration in euphemisms that threaten to ultimately destroy religious freedom in America. After all, if the beliefs of the majority must yield to the voices of a few hyper-sensitive individuals demanding "inclusion", how much longer until thoe same restrictions fall upon the practitioners of minority faiths?

Posted by: Greg at 10:38 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 3 kb.

Once upon a time, Great Britain was a Christian country.

Today it seems that it has become simply one more province of Eurabia.

After all, why else would a case like this ever come to pass?

An eye specialist has accepted undisclosed damages after claiming that he was forced out of his job by Muslim colleagues.

Joseph Erian took the United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust to an employment tribunal, stating that he was made to resign from the ophthalmology department of Pilgrim Hospital, Boston, after staff there discovered that he was a Christian. The tribunal, which started earlier this month, ended when the trust offered an out-of-court settlement and admitted that the problems surrounding Dr Erian’s case “were not his fault”.

And lest you think this was not really a case of the hospital conceding guilt, consider this.

United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust initially denied all the allegations. But the tribunal was halted when the TrustÂ’s lawyers agreed to pay undisclosed damages.

In other words, they saw that they were losing.

You might ask how he was forced to resign. It turned out that a short time after Dr. Erian's colleagues discovered that he was a Coptic Christian from Egypt, his job was suddenly and without warning advertised as being available. What's more, at least two other physicians from the same hospital are pursuing cases against it.

Dr. Erian's case is only the sixth successful one brought in the UK under the religious discrimination statute.

MORE AT: Western Resistance

Posted by: Greg at 09:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Liberals used to support the right of people to say that which is unpopular. Now they try to shut down speech with which they disagree. So it comes as a real surprise that Ake Green was found not guilty of violating hate speech laws in Sweden for preaching a very traditional sermon about homosexuality.

Sweden's highest court on Tuesday acquitted a Pentecostal pastor accused of hate speech for having denounced homosexuality as a "cancerous tumor" in a sermon.

Ake Green's contentious sermon in 2003 was protected by freedom of speech and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court said in a 16-page ruling.

Green, 64, became the first clergyman convicted under Sweden's hate crimes legislation, when a lower court found him guilty of inciting hatred against homosexuals. An appeals court overturned the ruling earlier this year, but Sweden's chief prosecutor appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court.

Green said the Supreme Court ruling was a relief both for him other preachers.
Sweden's highest court on Tuesday acquitted a Pentecostal pastor accused of hate speech for having denounced homosexuality as a "cancerous tumor" in a sermon.

Ake Green's contentious sermon in 2003 was protected by freedom of speech and religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, the Supreme Court said in a 16-page ruling.

Green, 64, became the first clergyman convicted under Sweden's hate crimes legislation, when a lower court found him guilty of inciting hatred against homosexuals. An appeals court overturned the ruling earlier this year, but Sweden's chief prosecutor appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court.

Green said the Supreme Court ruling was a relief both for him other preachers.
The trial ended earlier this month, but the verdict was not issued until Tuesday.

The decision cited European human rights laws to uphold the right to preach the Gospel unmolested by government interference.

Posted by: Greg at 01:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 321 words, total size 2 kb.

Absolutely unbelievable! Cultural sensitivity for the foreigners among us -- but none for the majority of Americans!

Look at this sign in Lowes in Austin, Texas (the official loony liberal reservation here in the Lone Star State)

As the battle over Christmas continues across America this year, consumers are taking notice for themselves.

In Austin, Texas, for instance, a banner was displayed this weekend at a new Lowe's home-improvement store.

In English, the sign reads: "Now Here! Fresh Cut Holiday Trees."

But in Spanish, the sign reads: "Now Here! Fresh Cut Christmas Trees."

"It's OK to offend all the English-speaking Christians, but no, not the Spanish speakers. They may be just visiting," a WorldNetDaily reader in Austin said.

"By the way," the reader noted, "they only had 'Christmas' tree stands for their fresh cut 'Holiday' trees. P.S. Merry Christmas."

But even up in the Dallas area, there are still those out to suppress any possible hint of what the major December holiday celebration is in this country.

"Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund and Liberty Legal Institute filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today against the Plano Independent School District for a discriminatory policy that censors the Christmas religious expression of students and their parents."

With that, all believers cheer forth a holy AMEN.

"Christmas colors, school officials have prohibited students from exchanging candy canes and pencils with religious messages on them, using reindeer symbols, or writing ‘Merry Christmas’ on greeting cards to U.S. soldiers because the phrase might ‘offend someone.’ The district has even applied its policy to parents involved in school activities, barring them from exchanging ‘religious’ Christmas items with other parents."

This surely will bring much protest from the Bible belt Texans. Particularly the Baptists should rise up en masse, sending those school "educators" a truck load of Merry, Blessed Christmas cards, all pictured with baby Jesus and prayers for repentance on the part of those who are into devilment decision making.

"’The district’s policy is what is offensive. It is offensive to the 96 percent of Americans who celebrate Christmas,’ McCaleb said. ‘If the district truly wants to avoid offending someone, then they will change their incredibly restrictive and unconstitutional policy.

"’The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled that public schools must prohibit the distribution of candy canes or Christmas cards. They have never ruled that you can’t say ‘Merry Christmas’ in the public schools. These attempts to stifle all religious expression and sanitize Christmas of all religious content are tiring to the overwhelming majority of Texans and all Americans.’"

That we have to resort to litigation to recognize the cultural traditions of the majority is an absurdity and an obscenity. I'm all for protecting the rights of the minority -- but when will the rights of the overwhelming majority be given anything akin to equal respect?

UPDATE: Christmas wins!

Posted by: Greg at 01:59 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 484 words, total size 4 kb.

1 It's fun to see the right get all shook up about how persecuted they are. Happy Holidays, and Season's Greetings!

Posted by: Dan at Mon Nov 28 16:57:14 2005 (aSKj6)

2 About the Spanish sign: There is NO other way in Spanish to name a Christmas tree but one: Christmas tree, árbol de Navidad. So, if there's no other way to name such thing in Spanish, that means we're vaccinated against anti-Christian trash from start, I guess. Down here in Mexico everybody in society, the media etc., are talking about Christmas, Navidad, not holidays or what-have-you, mainly, because there is no other form of naming the Celebration of the Birth of Our Lord. I think we are lucky ¡Feliz Navidad! Merry Christmas to you all!

Posted by: Miguel at Mon Nov 28 22:10:24 2005 (gJztD)

3 Dan -- the only thing that is even liberal/conservative about this issue is the fact that one side is trying to engage in cultural cleansing in the name of protecting the tender feelings of a small minority of Americans.

Would anyone consider banning blue and silver (or blue and white) during the month of december to ensure that no non-Jew was offended by a reference to Haunukah? How quickly would such a ban be challenged as a sign of an anti-Semitic agenda?

And wanna bet that no one is trying to keep black kids from emtnioning Kwanza?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Nov 28 23:03:00 2005 (1TCsY)

4 To be more balanced, I agree that the Plano School Board has gone overboard, if the reporting is accurate (never a strong point for anything involving the Alliance Defense Fund, whose motto is "Christianity except for that nonsense about bearing false witness"). But two mistakes, (one not involving any state action) coming from one of the most screwed-up state in the union, doesn't justify the persecution complex being fanned by people like O'Reilly and rest of the "War on Christmas" whiners.

Posted by: Dan at Tue Nov 29 00:22:16 2005 (aSKj6)

5 Most screwed up state in the union?

You'll need to go back and re-red my examples -- neither o one involves California or Massachusetts (the two states that pridefully vie for that title, with Massachusetts currently in the lead). These are Texas cases.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Nov 29 12:43:04 2005 (4PJN4)

6 You might have a point with California . . .

Posted by: Dan at Wed Nov 30 04:27:14 2005 (D+DIf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The spiritual leader of Ohio's largest mosque has been detained pending deportation for his ties to Islamist terrorist organizations, including raising funds for the groups.

Imam Fawaz Damra, the spiritual leader of Ohio's largest mosque, was convicted in June 2004 of concealing ties to three groups that the U.S. government classifies as terrorist organizations when he applied for U.S. citizenship in 1994.

That conviction was upheld in March, clearing the way for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to begin deportation proceedings.

Damra, 44, was arrested early Friday without incident, the immigration office said.

"It is clear that this person, Mr. Damra, believed in terrorism, supported terrorism," said Brian Moskowitz, an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement's office in Detroit. "This is not a man of peace or a man of God."

Unfortunately, while I agree with the characterization of Imam Damra set forth above, it appears that he is a typical man of Islam, given the fact that his mosque continues to support him.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Proving once again that he worships his sexual orientation more than he worships God, New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson spoke out today against the new Vatican document regarding homosexuals and the priesthood. But what he doesn't realize is that his words support the Vatican position more than they refute it.

Robinson said there were probably many Roman Catholics like himself.

"There are plenty of gay men who have faithfully served the Roman Catholic Church, who know themselves to be gay and who are faithful to their vow of celibacy. To exclude them from the ordained ministry is a real mistake," he said.

"It appears that being celibate is not good enough."

Well, Gene, let's unpack that statement.

You cheated on your wife, dumped her and the kids, and took up with your lover, with whom you live in a relationship that you concede is not celibate. You are willing to disregard the Word of God and fracture the Anglican communion for the greater glory of Gene Robinson. That seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what a good priest should be.

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

I've been interested in the current hub-bub about the Vatican's position on admitting homosexuals to the presthood. It isn't just because it is an interesting theological or cultural phenomenon. Rather, I am intrigued because of my own experience of having spent four years in a major seminary (graduate school), departing one year short of ordination and eventually marrying a woman I adore. As such, I am familiar with many of the questions involved.

The Vatican is ordering seminaries to bar candidates for the priesthood who "practice homosexuality," have "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or support "gay culture," according to a document published Tuesday by Adista, a Catholic news agency in Rome.

The long-awaited instruction to seminary directors was scheduled for official release next week. It has been the subject of numerous leaks that have sparked intense debate and led some Catholic leaders, including the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, to defend the place of celibate gay priests in the church. But until Tuesday, a full text had not been published.

"The church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice homosexuality, present deeply rooted homosexual tendencies or support so-called gay culture," said the five-page document, which a Vatican official said appeared to be the authentic, final version.

***

The document does not call for the removal of gay men who are already serving as priests, and it does not flatly bar the ordination of anyone who has ever acknowledged a same-sex attraction. It says men whose homosexuality is "a transitory problem" may be ordained as deacons -- a key step toward the priesthood -- if they have lived in celibacy for at least three years.

Now let's break this down.

1) There is no place in the semnary or priesthood for those sexually active homosexuals.

2) There is no place in the seminary or priesthood for those with a strong homosexual orientation.

3) There is no place in the seminary or priesthood for those who adopt lifestyle and cultural choices that seek to normalize homosexuality.

4) Those with a homosexual tendency who demnostrate the ability to live a celibate life with integrity may be ordained.

Frankly, I think the document gets it just about right. Two of the points are so basic that I don't think they can even be argued.

The first point is basic common sense. The sexually active have no place in the celibate priesthood.

The third point is equally obvious. Those attached to a philosophy or lifestyle antithetical to the teachings of the Church are not fit candidates to be pastors and teachers. Afte all, they will not be able to uphold Church teachings with integrity.

Point two, regarding theose with a strong orientation, takes a little more thought to understand. It strikes me as being something along the lines of minimizing the possibility of lapses in celibacy. Given that a seminary is an all male community and that a priest often finds himself living in a house with another priest, there are intimate non-sexual relationships that develop between these men. I'll be honest -- such bonds are necessary to preserve one's mental well-being and prevent isolation. But if there is a sexual attraction -- either solitary or mutual -- in such reliolation of celibacy OR will splinter due to the strsses the attraction causes. I have seen both happen, and the results can be tragic for those involved.

The fourth point, though, seems to be teh most important one. If a man can live the celibate life with integrity for an extended period of time, then it that man is acceptable as a candidate for priesthood. In the context of this document, we are talking about homosexual asexual activity, but I think that the rule will be applied to all candidates, regardless of orientation. After all, a priest is committing to live a celibate life for the next 30-50 years -- shouldn't he be expected to demnonstrate that he can do so for a short period before making the permananet commitment?

Now there ae some comments regarding pedophilia that i would like to take up.

"There are people on the right wing who from the beginning saw this document as a kind of magic wand that would remove the taint of the sex abuse scandal," said the Rev. John A. Coleman, a Jesuit sociologist at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles. "I think that's wishful thinking -- and pretty stupid."

Actually, Father Coleman, it is you who are stupid. You are intentionally ignoring what the data show about the scandal -- that most of the cases did not involve pedophilia, which would have required that the victims be prepubescent. That data shows that many of the victims were adolescent males, which is a sign that the perpetrator was not acting upon an attraction to children but upon a sexual attraction to young men -- precisely the sort of glorification of young men as sexual objects that is found in the homosexual community (not dissimilar to the objectification of young women among heterosexual males). I realize that this is an inconvenient fact in the examination of the abuse scandal, but it is a fact.

Ultimately, I don't see this document as making a great difference. Most of the homosexual seminarians I knew (about 25% of my classmates, and a higher percentage of those who were ordained) would be acceptable under these guidelines. And the shrinking priesthood will continue to shrink as long as celibacy is retained as a Church-imposed (not divinely mandated) rule.Until the celibacy issue is thoroughly reexamined, there will continue to be a shortage of men to fill the role of priest within the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Greg at 04:05 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 969 words, total size 6 kb.

Just to remind folks about the "high value" placed upon women by Islam under sharia law, I link you to this story. Women are nothing more than a commodity, to be turned over unwilling to satisfy family feuds, and to be raped or murdered if they refuse to cooperate.

A village council in Pakistan has decreed that five young women should be abducted, raped or killed for refusing to honour childhood "marriages".

The women, who are cousins, were married in absentia by a mullah in their Punjabi village to illiterate sons of their family's enemies in 1996, when they were aged from six to 13.

The marriages were part of a compensation agreement ordered by the village council and reached at gunpoint after the father of one of the girls shot dead a family rival.

The rival families have now called in their "debt", demanding the marriages to the village men are fulfilled.

The case is becoming a cause célèbre in Pakistan, pitting tribal mores against a group of modern-minded, educated women. Amna Niazi, the eldest of the five at 22, is taking a degree in English literature, while both her sisters want to attend university.

Their fathers are supporting them and have refused to hand them over, leading to a resumption of the blood feud, with two relatives shot recently and 20 people arrested, while promises of further retribution and murder abound.

In addition to the sentence on the women, the village council has sentenced to death Jehan Khan Niazi, the father of three of the women, and the fathers of the other two for failing to honour the supposed bond with men whose identities they are not even certain of.

The women have said they will commit suicide if their fathers obey the council.

That such abuse of fundamental human dignity is countenanced under Islamic law is disgusting. That the Pakistani government still fails to take strong action to end such attrocities is even worse.

Is it necessary for the civilized nations of the world to forcibly suppress Islam and its barbarous customs in order to ensure basic human rights for half of the human race?

Posted by: Greg at 02:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

This is fascinating.

Thousands of pilgrims are pouring into the dense jungle of southern Nepal to worship a 15-year-old boy who has been hailed as a new Buddha.

Devotees claim that Ram Bomjon, who is silently meditating beneath a tree, has not eaten or drunk anything since he sat down at his chosen spot six months ago.

Witnesses say they have seen light emanating from the teenager's forehead.

"It looks a bit like when you shine a torch through your hand," said Tek Bahadur Lama, a member of the committee responsible for dealing with the growing number of visitors from India and elsewhere in Nepal.

He has not moved from his spot in six months, has taken no nourishment, and has survived a snakebite.

He sks, though, that he not be called a Buddha.

After five days it was opened and he spoke. "Tell the people not to call me a Buddha. I don't have the Buddha's energy. I am at the level of rinpoche [lesser divinity].

"A snake bit me but I do not need treatment. I need six years of deep meditation."

Yes, fascinating indeed.

Posted by: Greg at 02:41 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 190 words, total size 1 kb.

I guess I don't see how this can be anything other than a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution -- and of the relevant sections of the New York Constitution as well.

A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a Staten Island clergyman who claimed his civil rights were violated when two billboards he ordered denouncing homosexuality were ordered covered up.

It was the second time that the Rev. Kristopher Okwedy has had his case dismissed. After Judge Nina Gershon originally threw out the case in 2003, Okwedy went to a state Appeals Court which ordered the case revisited.

This week Gershon again dismissed the case.

Okwedy was attempting to sue former Borough President Guy V. Molinari and PNE Media of violating his First Amendment rights when Molinair ordered the removal of two billboards.

Okwedy had paid PNE $2,500 for two signs that quoted biblical passages condemning homosexuality.

Molinari said at the time that the billboards violated the city's human rights ordinance protecting gays from discrimination and that he feared the billboards would inspire anti-gay violence. PNE complied.

Judge Gershon ruled that Okwedy had failed to prove that the human rights law was unconstitutional as applied to him because it collided with his religious and free speech rights.

Hold on.

A government official, acting under color of law, ordered that the religiously based speech of an American citizen be suppressed on the basis of a local ordinance and vague, unsubstantiated fears of possible violence?

Have freedom of speech and freedom of religion been eviscerated in this country because of the hyper-sensitivity and political clout of the sodomy lobby?

And if so-called "human rights ordinances" require the suppression of those freedoms, is it not entirely appropriate to refer to such measures as conferring "special rights" upon homosexuals while conferring second class citizenship upon those who fail to accept the "gay is OK" mantra of the Left?

Oh, and for those who have always said that such measures are no threat to freedom of religion, and that quoting Scripture could never be deemed to be a violation of any law in this country, think again. This is the billboard in question.

The suppressed material was almost exclusively a quote from the Book of Leviticus -- sacred to both Christians and Jews. Have religious believers really been stripped of their civil liberties in America?

LINKED TO OPEN TRACKBACKS: Samantha Burns, Stuck On Stupid, Uncooperative Blogger, MacStansbury, Don Surber, Point Five, Bacon Bits, Cao's Blog, Stop the ACLU, Euphoric Reality, California Conservative, Florida Masochist, Wizbang, The Political Teen, Blue State Conservatives, bRight & Early, Conservative Cat, NIF, Adam's Blog, Jo's Cafe, Something & Half of Something, MVRWC.

Posted by: Greg at 02:03 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 5 kb.

In the run-up to the visit of President Bush, the Red Chinese have arrested and imprisoned more of those who minister to GodÂ’s people.

Chinese authorities have arrested a priest and 10 seminarians from that nation's underground Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican-affiliated news agency said Friday.

President Bush, who is due to visit China as part of an eight-day trip to Asia, called on China's leadership this week to give the public more religious freedom and other liberties.

The Rev. Yang Jianwei and the seminarians were detained Nov. 12 in Xushui City in Hebei province, a traditional stronghold of Catholic sentiment in northern China, AsiaNews reported.

Six of the seminarians were released later, but Yang and the four others remain in police custody, it said.

Calls to local police seeking confirmation of the report went unanswered late Friday.

What will it take to get the world to speak out against the continued violation of human rights by the atheistic Communist regime in Beijing?

Posted by: Greg at 11:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

Remaining faithful to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to the writings of Pope John Paul the Great, American bishops have taken a stand against the use of the death penalty.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday overwhelmingly approved a new statement of opposition to capital punishment, asserting that it contributes to a culture of death and violence in the United States.

It was the bishops' first comprehensive statement on the death penalty in 25 years, and coincided with the debate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on a proposal to reinstate capital punishment in the Bay State. Massachusetts is one of 12 states in which the death penalty is prohibited.
The bishops, who are holding their annual meeting in Washington, said their longtime opposition to capital punishment is being renewed and strengthened by new teachings and new support for abolition of the death penalty growing out of the Gospel of Life encyclical issued by the late Pope John Paul II.

Citing John Paul's teachings, the bishops declared that ''the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as is the taking of human life through abortion or euthanasia," but ''in contemporary society, where the state has other, nonlethal means to protect its citizens, the state should not use the death penalty."

Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who has strongly opposed the restoration of capital punishment in Massachusetts since Governor Mitt Romney proposed reinstating it last year, said in an interview that a ''sea change" is occurring among Catholics, who in the past have shown strong support for the death penalty.

''I think the abortion issue raised this up," O'Malley said. ''As people began realizing that the dignity of human life was being diminished by abortion, it caused them to consider other ways in which the dignity of human life was being diminished."

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of the Diocese of Brooklyn, who led the effort to formulate the new bishops' statement on the death penalty, told the assembly in Washington that the statement ''is a call to reject the tragic illusion that we can demonstrate respect for life by taking life, that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others."

He and other bishops argued that polling results, recent declines in executions, and parallel decreases in death sentences are evidence that public and political sentiments are turning against capital punishment. He said the exoneration of more than 100 people who have been proven innocent after being condemned to die was bringing home to the public the flawed and biased nature of capital punishment.

The bishops drew a strong distinction between the church's stance on capital punishment and its absolute opposition to abortion and euthanasia, stating that the death penalty was an issue on which ''people of good will can disagree."

Now notice what is being said here – support for the death penalty is consistent with Catholic teaching. There is room for disagreement by those who remain in union with Rome, for the death penalty for the guilty is recognized as being permissible though discouraged. This stands in opposition to the teaching on abortion, as the intentional taking of innocent life is never permissible. Bear that in mind when pro-abortionists insist that support for abortion and support for the death penalty are equally in opposition to Catholic teaching – for they are explicitly lying when they make that statement.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 571 words, total size 4 kb.

Remaining faithful to the Catechism of the Catholic Church and to the writings of Pope John Paul the Great, American bishops have taken a stand against the use of the death penalty.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops yesterday overwhelmingly approved a new statement of opposition to capital punishment, asserting that it contributes to a culture of death and violence in the United States.

It was the bishops' first comprehensive statement on the death penalty in 25 years, and coincided with the debate in the Massachusetts House of Representatives on a proposal to reinstate capital punishment in the Bay State. Massachusetts is one of 12 states in which the death penalty is prohibited.
The bishops, who are holding their annual meeting in Washington, said their longtime opposition to capital punishment is being renewed and strengthened by new teachings and new support for abolition of the death penalty growing out of the Gospel of Life encyclical issued by the late Pope John Paul II.

Citing John Paul's teachings, the bishops declared that ''the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, as is the taking of human life through abortion or euthanasia," but ''in contemporary society, where the state has other, nonlethal means to protect its citizens, the state should not use the death penalty."

Archbishop Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, who has strongly opposed the restoration of capital punishment in Massachusetts since Governor Mitt Romney proposed reinstating it last year, said in an interview that a ''sea change" is occurring among Catholics, who in the past have shown strong support for the death penalty.

''I think the abortion issue raised this up," O'Malley said. ''As people began realizing that the dignity of human life was being diminished by abortion, it caused them to consider other ways in which the dignity of human life was being diminished."

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of the Diocese of Brooklyn, who led the effort to formulate the new bishops' statement on the death penalty, told the assembly in Washington that the statement ''is a call to reject the tragic illusion that we can demonstrate respect for life by taking life, that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill others."

He and other bishops argued that polling results, recent declines in executions, and parallel decreases in death sentences are evidence that public and political sentiments are turning against capital punishment. He said the exoneration of more than 100 people who have been proven innocent after being condemned to die was bringing home to the public the flawed and biased nature of capital punishment.

The bishops drew a strong distinction between the church's stance on capital punishment and its absolute opposition to abortion and euthanasia, stating that the death penalty was an issue on which ''people of good will can disagree."

Now notice what is being said here – support for the death penalty is consistent with Catholic teaching. There is room for disagreement by those who remain in union with Rome, for the death penalty for the guilty is recognized as being permissible though discouraged. This stands in opposition to the teaching on abortion, as the intentional taking of innocent life is never permissible. Bear that in mind when pro-abortionists insist that support for abortion and support for the death penalty are equally in opposition to Catholic teaching – for they are explicitly lying when they make that statement.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 577 words, total size 4 kb.

I rarely agree with the ACLU on cases involving religion, but I have to support them on this one.

A retired Atlanta librarian and a Sandy Springs bookshop owner are challenging a state law that grants a sales tax exemption for purchases of the Bible and other books pertaining to "Holy Scripture."

Their lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, said if such works are exempt from sales and use taxes, other philosophical, religious and spiritual works should be as well.

"The law is written in such a way that minority religions don't get the same tax exemption as better-known religions such as Christianity and Judaism," said Maggie Garrett, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, which represents the two plaintiffs.

State law exempts from sales tax all "Holy Bibles, testaments and similar books commonly recognized as being Holy Scripture." The decades-old law also exempts "any religious paper ... when the paper is owned and operated by religious institutions and denominations," but it does not define religious paper.

Frankly, the argument is a reasonable one – though I might be willing to take it a bit further and raise the issue of why books and periodicals are taxed at all, given that the tax can be seen as inhibiting the communication of ideas and favoring religious speech over non-religious speech.

Posted by: Greg at 01:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

HeÂ’s at it again. IsnÂ’t there a judicial rule about the filing of frivolous lawsuits?

A Sacramento County man says he will file a federal lawsuit in the coming week demanding the U.S. Treasury remove the words "In God We Trust" from American currency.

Michael Newdow is the same man who led a legal effort to ban the recitation of the pledge of allegiance in public schools because of the phrase "under God."

Newdow says the words "In Good We Trust" on currency is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. He adds it, "excludes people who don't believe in God."

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Newdow's challenge of the pledge of allegiance because he's not the custodial parent of a student forced to say the prayer. The activist has since recruited other families who also oppose the pledge to re file the suit. It is now pending in the federal appeals courts.

Newdow says he has little patience for those who say the references to God are appropriate because of the country's history.

"It's not the history that counts. It's not the patriotism. What it is, is these people want to get their religious views in our government," he said.

And you want yours there, Michael – whether or not the rest of America agrees.

Oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court just let stand the dismissal of a suit exactly like yours.

A U.S. appeals court ruled that the lawsuit failed to show that the display had no legitimate secular purpose, that it has the effect of endorsing religion or that it has resulted in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

The appeals court said Congress first authorized the phrase "In God We Trust" on coins in 1865, and Congress made it the national motto in 1956. It is inscribed above the speaker's chair in the U.S. House of Representatives and above the main door of the U.S. Senate chamber.

Attorneys for the two lawyers asked the justices to set aside the appeals court's ruling and send the case back for reconsideration in view of the Supreme Court's decision in June that Kentucky courthouses violated church-state separation by putting copies of the Ten Commandments on display.

The high court rejected the appeal without any comment or recorded dissent.

So I guess that you will just have to deal with being oppressed by all of the majority who find that phrase inoffensive. Head out to North Korea, Cuba, or Red China if you want official atheism.

Posted by: Greg at 12:41 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 437 words, total size 3 kb.

It must be hard to be Abe Foxman. After all, it must be difficult to live with such a high level of paranoia untreated by medication.

"Today we face a better financed, more sophisticated, coordinated, unified, energized and organized coalition of groups in opposition to our policy positions on church-state separation than ever before. Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!"

As Hillel Halkin points out, his paranoid rambling is filled with rank hypocrisy, since the ADL and other Jewish groups have done the same thing for years. What is Foxman really afraid of – the imposition of religious values through legislation, or simply the imposition of someone else’s values?

Posted by: Greg at 12:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

Once again, Bishop Julius Jia has been imprisoned for his faith. It is the eighth time in two years that the spiritual leaders of Catholics loyal to the Pope in the Diocese of Zheng Ding has been arrested.

The Chinese authorities have arrested a bishop belonging the underground Roman Catholic Church, a US group says.

The Cardinal Kung Foundation said Julius Jia Zhiguo was taken from his home in the northern city of Zhengding.

Two priests from his diocese - Li Suchuan and Yang Ermeng - were arrested on Monday.

In China, there is a state-sanctioned church for Roman Catholics, but there is also a bigger, unofficial church that is loyal to the Pope.

The foundation said the bishop had refused to cut links with the Vatican and affiliate himself with the state-controlled church.

Sanctions are a must in this instance. I urge the US government to end most favored nation trading status with the Red Chinese government. Furthermore, I join with the Cardinal Kung Foundation in urging that the International Olympic Committee move to cancel the 2008 Beijing Olympics, and to relocate the games to a free nation not under the thumb of a repressive dictatorship. The Communist regime in Beijing must be forced to respect the human right to freedom of religion.

Please offer your prayers for Bishop Jia, and also for Father Li Suchuan and Father Yang Ermeng, priests of Bishop JiaÂ’s diocese, who were arrested the previous day and are believed imprisoned with their bishop.

May God strengthen them in this time of persecution, and may He hasten the day when all Chinese people may worship freely and without coercion from their atheistic overlords.

Posted by: Greg at 12:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

The exercise of severals human right has resulted in the imprisonment of a Chinese pastor.

A prominent pastor in Beijing's underground Protestant church was sentenced Tuesday to three years in prison for illegally printing and distributing Bibles and other religious books, in a case that has attracted attention from Christian groups in the United States and elsewhere.

The Beijing People's Intermediate Court handed down the sentence immediately after it convicted Cai Zhuohua, 34, of conducting "illegal business practices," said his attorney, Zhang Xingshui. Two co-defendants were also convicted and sentenced to prison, he said.

Why such outrageous conduct by the Chinese government?

"Objectively speaking, religion is a breakthrough point for Western anti-China forces to Westernize and split China," said Ye Xiaowen, director of the State Bureau of Religious Affairs. But he said that did not mean all religious problems should be considered "infiltration," adding "there is no so-called persecution of religious people" in China.

The silence of the Left is deafening. I guess they are too busy wailing and gnashing teeth over Gitmo Islamists to be troubled by the persecution of Christians for engaging in crimes that would generally be recognized as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion in civilized countries.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 2 kb.

The exercise of severals human right has resulted in the imprisonment of a Chinese pastor.

A prominent pastor in Beijing's underground Protestant church was sentenced Tuesday to three years in prison for illegally printing and distributing Bibles and other religious books, in a case that has attracted attention from Christian groups in the United States and elsewhere.

The Beijing People's Intermediate Court handed down the sentence immediately after it convicted Cai Zhuohua, 34, of conducting "illegal business practices," said his attorney, Zhang Xingshui. Two co-defendants were also convicted and sentenced to prison, he said.

Why such outrageous conduct by the Chinese government?

"Objectively speaking, religion is a breakthrough point for Western anti-China forces to Westernize and split China," said Ye Xiaowen, director of the State Bureau of Religious Affairs. But he said that did not mean all religious problems should be considered "infiltration," adding "there is no so-called persecution of religious people" in China.

The silence of the Left is deafening. I guess they are too busy wailing and gnashing teeth over Gitmo Islamists to be troubled by the persecution of Christians for engaging in crimes that would generally be recognized as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion in civilized countries.

Posted by: Greg at 02:08 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

As you know, Christians around the world are facing serious persecution on a daily basis. Those of us in America are comparatively well-off, given the nature of the persecution elsewhere.

The most important thing you can do for these persecuted brothers and siters around the world is pray.

Stacy over at Voice of the Martyrs' PersecutionBlog points out these three reasons for participating in the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church, which takes place on November 13.

Out of obedience?

Yes: Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering. Hebrews 13:3 (NIV)
See also Galatians 6:2; 1 Timothy 2:1-4; Ephesians 6:18

Out of compassion?

Yes: Dear brothers and sisters, I urge you in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to join me in my struggle by praying to God for me. Do this because of your love for me, given to you by the Holy Spirit. Romans 15:30 (NLT)
See also 2 Corinthians 1:8-11; Matthew 22:39

Out of zeal for the kingdom and glory of God?

Absolutely! Pray then like this: 'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' Matthew 6:9-10. (ESV)
See also Psalm 22:27; Psalm 110:1; Isaiah 42:1-4 & 55:10-13; 1 Corinthians 15:25; Hebrews 10:13

I encourage all my readers to become involved in the ministry of prayer for the persecuted church -- and to urge other Christians you know to do the same.

Posted by: Greg at 05:26 PM | Comments (22) | Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.