July 30, 2005
More Christians Than Commies In Red China
For all the attempts by the Communist dictators in Beijing to domesticate Christianity, it appears that
faith in Christ is growing by leaps and bounds in that oppressed nation.
The precise figures cannot be known, in a country in which Christians are still persecuted. But the evidence suggests that there may be as many as 80 million or even 100 million members of underground Christian churches in China, unapproved by the state.
The Chinese Communist Party, meanwhile, has only 70 million members. If those figures for worshippers are even roughly accurate, then we are looking at a very remarkable development in the history not only of Asia but of all mankind.
While the Communists have the weapons, they seem to be losing the hearts of the people. Will we find that, like in Poland, the yearning for Christ will be sufficient to undermine the atheistic system of Marx, Lenin, and Mao?
I particularly love this observation by the author of this editorial.
ommunism and its blood-brother, fascism, have been responsible - in Asia, Europe, Africa and South America - for more human misery over the past century than any other systems of belief thought up by man. By denying human beings their individuality, all totalitarian systems brutalise the human condition, reducing everyone in their sway to the status of ants, or cogs in a machine. Christianity teaches that each of us is a moral being, responsible for our actions to our Maker, and individually bound to love our neighbours as ourselves.
A century from now, Communism will be a distant memory, supported only by college professors and others lacking contact with reality. May our descendants, by the grace of God, see a similar comparison between the evil force that is Islamist jihadism and Christianity.
The paper also has an excellent article by Richard Spencer about Christians in China. I encourage you to look at it, as well. |
Posted by: Greg at
05:34 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 331 words, total size 2 kb.
July 26, 2005
Will This Be Counted As A Hate Crime?
Really.
I mean, a Catholic parish has set up a monument to those slain by abortion. It is on church grounds, and is a reflection of the teachings of the church. On the last three months, the monument has been desecrated seven times -- vandalized and knocked off its pedastal. Do you think we have a prima facie case for treating this as a hate crime?
"When it's the seventh time, I question whether this is some sort of desecration or hate crime," said the church pastor, Father Henry Zinno. "When it's constant, obviously someone is making an effort to knock it down. By the seventh time there is a clear message."
The pastor has called the police. He's asked the church's 1,600 families to pay close attention as they drive by. And he had metal bars installed on the front and back of the stone memorial.
And still, the 4-foot monument that has been blessed by the bishop keeps being knocked to the ground.
"We keep putting it back up and calling the police," Zinno said, adding that it takes three or four men to lift it each time. "There's not much we can do."
But when Zinno found the stone rectangle lying on its side this weekend, he knew something more had to be done.
"Every time something like this happens, we announce it to parishioners," he said. "People got pretty upset about it."
The church has decided to put up motion detector lights. And a parishioner agreed to put iron rods into the monument to make it impossible to move.
One does not "accidently" knock over a piece of stone that takes three or four people to re-seat.
The wind does not simply start blowing it over.
This is a deliberate malicious attempt to silence a religious message.
It is an intentional act of hate against those who believe the truth that the monument proclaims.
It is a planned assault on rights explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution by those who seek to coerce acceptance of one which is not there at all..
Posted by: Greg at
01:47 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 361 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Didn't you know - you can't be a bigot against the dominant paradigm!
The only reason I hesitate to call this a hate crime is because I loathe the concept of them. Punishing why someone does something is ridiculous.
Bartleby
Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jul 27 02:01:26 2005 (lkCzp)
2
I'm not a fan of hate crimes laws, but since they exist...
Besides -- we do punish people differently based upon the motive for their crime. It is all part of the state of mind that is an element of the crime in so many instances. Why shouldn't a criminal act calculated to prevent someone from exercising a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution be treated differently than a criminal act committed because someone was drunk?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jul 27 03:00:18 2005 (pm0NC)
3
I think behavior should be criminalized, not why the behavior was committed. Now - if someone lacks intent, that's one thing, but if someone does something on purpose (say, I beat someone with a baseball bat), does it somehow make it worse that I did it because he has red hair than if I'd done it because he yelled too loudly outside of my house?
Bartleby
Posted by: Bartleby at Thu Jul 28 08:58:36 2005 (lkCzp)
4
But let's use your example and take it a bit further. Doesn't an unprovoked attack deserve a more severw punishment than one which is provoked? And what about an attack intended to intimidate a witness in a court case -- does it merit a more severw punishment?
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jul 28 10:12:17 2005 (RbE9h)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 10, 2005
Before Anyone Asks -- Yes, I Condemn This
While I disagree with
the UCC repudiation of Scripture and traditional Christian teaching on sexual morality at last week's General Synod, I cannot and will not support
this sort of barbarism.
A small fire and anti-gay graffiti were found Saturday at a church belonging to the United Church of Christ, a denomination that endorsed same-sex marriage last week.
The exterior of St. John's Reformed United Church of Christ also included a message that United Church of Christ members were sinners.
A member of the congregation discovered the graffiti when he stopped by to mow the grass. He found a small fire within the sanctuary. The fire was put out in a few minutes, Lt. Tim McCray said.
And yes, I think hate crime charges are appropriate.
Posted by: Greg at
05:50 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.
July 08, 2005
What? No Hate Crime Charges?
I guess you have to be a member of one of the "protected classes" to get equal protection under the law. COuld you imagine if this had been a mosque, or a black church, or one of the churches of the Metropolitan Community Church (founded as a gay denomination)?
These idiots would be tossed in a hole so deep they would be looking at Hell from below.
But hey, this was only a Catholic church, so I guess it really doesn't matter. Right?
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - Four teens have been charged with vandalizing a church in Chili. Monroe County Sheriff's deputies say the boys allegedly urinated in the holy water, smashed wine bottles against the walls, left bicycle skid marks on the carpet, emptied the fire extinguishers and burnt cigarette holes in the Saint Pius the X Church in Chili. The damage is estimated at $17,000.00.
Charged are 18-year-old Dan Seklar, 17-year-old Richard DeCarolis, 16-year-old Michael Street and a 15-year-old who is being charged as a juvenile. All are charged with burglary and criminal mischief, both felonies. The boys have been released to their parents.
Nah -- nothing hateful here. Everybody just move along.
Posted by: Greg at
02:31 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Mischief? Hmm, next the mosques. But surely without a doubt the person who violates mosques will certainly get charged with a hate crime. Christian/Catholic churches? Nah...just a mischief charge.
Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jul 9 14:07:23 2005 (OlkFp)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 06, 2005
Will They Be Condemned As Theocrats?
As a former UCC member, I won't get into the recent
United Church of Christ (Denominational Motto: "God Keeps Changing His Mind") resolution endorsing homosexual marriage. Suffice it to say that I consider the resolution to be flawed from a Biblical perspective, and one more symptom of the problem that causes the denomination to continue to shrink. Besides, I suspect that a large number of congregations will simply ignore the resolution, and continue to permit only traditional marriages to be performed in their churches and officiated by their pastors.
But there are a couple of things in the resolution that I find striking. Let me highlight them for you.
The marriage equality resolution (1) affirms equal marriage rights for couples regardless of gender and declares that the government should not interfere with couples regardless of gender who choose to marry and share fully in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of legally recognized marriage;... and (7) urges congregations and individuals of the UCC to prayerfully consider and support local, state and national legislation to grant equal marriage rights to couples regardless of gender, and to work against legislation, including constitutional amendments, which denies rights to couples based on gender.
So you see those statements?
"Declares that government should not interfere...."
"Urges congregations and individuals to... support local, state and national legislation... and to work against legislation...."
I don't know about you, but that sounds like the UCC is not merely taking a doctrinal position, but is also making a call for the laws of the United States to be changed to reflect the teachings and beliefs of the UCC. It gives marching orders to church members regarding what sort of legislation they should support and oppose, and by implication what candidates they should support and oppose.
Now given my understanding of the First Amendment as it was originally written and intended by the Founding Fathers, I have no problem with the UCC taking such a position. But given the understanding of the First Amendment by the Left, I would have expected a loucd public outcry denouncing the UCC for "theocratic" behavior. After all, that has been the strategy of the Left every time religious conservatives have sought to see policies enacted which reflect their religious beliefs, policies on matters like school vouchers, abortion, and homosexual marriage. But so far there has been nothing but silnce from the Left -- when they have not actively applauded the "progressive" action of the UCC General Synod.
And we won't even get into the Left's silence about the synodal resolution urging President Bush to appoint a "moderate" justice to the Supreme Court (does anyone need additional evidence that "moderate" means "liberal"?). If one subscribes to the liberal definition of theocracy, one would have to condemn this as well. Again, the silence is deafening.
Could it be that the Left in this country does not believe in separation of church and state at all. Rather, they believe in the separation of conservative churches and state -- but are more than willing to see extreem and out of the mainstream religious beliefs of liberal churches imposed on the majority of Americans who reject them?
Posted by: Greg at
12:59 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.
1
I wonder if that call to political action doesn't endanger their tax-exempt status...
Posted by: Doc Rampage at Wed Jul 6 13:52:13 2005 (6IZFG)
2
Though I'm of course not an official spokesperson of 'the Left', I think the dynamic you miss is that between greater freedom and greater control. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land, no church will be compelled to perform them, nor any person compelled to enter into them. Under the current situation, people who would otherwise do so willingly are forbidden from it.
There were, after all, church groups involved with the abolition of slavery. I can't think of a single person who would regard that as a move towards theocracy. It was instead, imo, a stand for the greater freedom of individuals who had previously been compelled against their will to serve the whims of others from birth to death. People who perceived a benefit for themselves objected to it, but they weren't the people whose lives were directly restricted by legal slavery.
Jesus advocated tolerance and compassion for people who hated him. You can't even extend that to people whom you've never met, and who pose no conceivable personal threat to you. Unbelievable.
Posted by: natasha at Thu Jul 7 04:15:56 2005 (Lrw6I)
3
Strangely enough, we are already seeing in Canada that religious groups and individuals are being pushed into being part of such things under color of law.
While St. Miscellameous Catholic Church might not be forced to perform a homosexual wedding ceremony, the parish Knights of Columbus chapter is required to rent their hall to the "happy couple" for the wedding reception. The local Christian bookstore is required to order the announcements and print the programs for the ceremony. And Christians who oppose homosexual marriage have already been told they must perform them or resign their government jobs. So much for freedom of conscience and freedom to act on one's religious beliefs.
And your attempt to bring slavery into the issue makes it clear you missed my point. You folks on the religious left have repeatedly claimed that conservative Christians and Jews seeking policies in line with their beliefs constitutes a move towards theocracy. Why is it not a move towards theocracy when you seek to impose your MINORITY religious views on the rest of us in the form of laws that support your beliefs?
As for your ad hominem attack at the end, you are quite wrong about me. I have great compassion and tolerance for homosexuals. I love those in my life who are gay and lesbian -- but it does not keep me from saying that sin is sin, which is the ultimate compassion. After all, loving the sinner even as one hates the sin is a long-standing teaching of Christianity.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jul 7 05:20:12 2005 (MNHDd)
4
Dear Rhymes with Right,
I'm really happy that you're a "former UCC" member, because the silly suppositions that you make about forcing churches to do this and that and Knights of Columbus being forced to do what they don't want to do isn't worthy of the United Church of Christ, where we value careful, prayerful, and thoughtful decision-making.
If the federal government ever approves marriage equality for same-sex couples, it won't be able to force anybody to do anything. Does the federal government now force the K of C to rent their space to couples who they don't want to rent to? NO. Does the federal government now force the local Christian bookstore to order announcements for people who they don't approve of? NO. In fact, Christian bookstores are now free to discriminate against anyone they want to - including Christians they don't approve of. So, why would you conclude that all of a sudden the feds would force Christian bookstores to order and print announcements for gay couples? As I said, it's silly supposition.
The United Church of Christ General Synod's decision was entirely consistent with its long-standing support of equal rights for women, racial minorities, gay/lesbian people, and so on and so on. We've been champions of social justice for hundreds of years and it would have been inconceivable for the GS to make a different decision. Back in the 1700's when our predecessor denomination, the Congregational Church, was the first Protestant church to ordain a black man, we also were working against slavery. Yes, that was at least 100 years before slavery was finally ended in the U.S. And, there were plenty of Christians who accused us then of getting involved in politics and they quoted the Bible chapter and verse about why it was ordained of God to enslave other people - just as they are now doing over this issue. And they were absolutely correct, at least if one imposes a literal interpretation on the Bible. Thanks be to God, though, for the Congregationalists who saw through such hogwash and detected a God of love and mercy and figured out that it wasn't possible to serve a God like that and still call oneself Christian. About 4 or 5 years ago, the Southern Baptists finally figured that out and apologized for their role in advocating for slavery - 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and well over 250 years after the Congregationalists decided that slavery violated God's will.
So, NO, the United Church of Christ isn't doing anything new - we're just being true to our heritage and our understanding of the will of a God of justice, love, and mercy.
BTW, as a former UCCer, you know that I can't speak for the entire United Church of Christ - and you also know that the the General Synod doesn't speak for the entire United Church of Christ. It can't tell congregations what to do; it can only do what it did - encourage congregations to consider what the GS has discerned is right for the national setting of the church.
Posted by: murphyd at Tue Jul 12 08:35:39 2005 (n8CwB)
5
Thanks for deciding that I am unworthy of church membership. Sounds rather judgemental for someone who claims to support diversity. I guess only those who agree with you are worthy.
And please note -- I am using precedents that already exist in Canada under Canadian human rights laws. I have no doubt that American Leftists will point to our northern neighbor once again as a leader on the issue of homosexual rights and homosexual marriage and attempt to put such matters into non-discrimination law in this country.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jul 12 11:17:11 2005 (pxO48)
6
Oh, and if you do not believe me on the Canadian examples -- search my sight for Canada.
Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jul 12 11:18:25 2005 (pxO48)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 04, 2005
China Again Imprisons Bishop
Once again, the Red Chinese regime has chosen to
deny the human rights of Chinese Catholics following a brief period of goodwill towards the Vatican. The tyrants of Beijing have arrested Bishop Jia Zhiguo, a Catholic bishop who remains loyal to the Pope.
China, which does not recognize the Vatican, has arrested an underground Roman Catholic bishop, a U.S.-based religious rights group said, quashing hopes of any sudden rapprochement between Beijing and the Holy See.
China has not had diplomatic relations with the Vatican since 1951 and believers must attend state-sanctioned churches led by bishops who pledge loyalty to Beijing. But a parallel church loyal to the Pope practises in secret.
"Bishop Jia Zhiguo, the underground Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Zheng Ding in Hebei province, was arrested again by two government officials at his house ... and driven away to an unknown location," the Cardinal Kung Foundation said.
It said Jia, 70, was arrested on Monday but did not specify on what charge.
The Vatican has regularly accused China of violating human rights and criticized the government for what it sees as the repression of religion, a charge the government denies.
Jia had previously spent 20 years in jail and had been arrested six times since January 2004, the foundation, whose mission is to promote the Roman Catholic Church in China, said.
Where is the public outcry? Where is the international condemnation? When will the head of Amnesty International and the International Red Cross travel to China to call out the dictators like they have done towards George W. Bush (whose policies conform with international law)? I think we all know the answers to those questions.
Posted by: Greg at
06:32 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 287 words, total size 2 kb.
74kb generated in CPU 0.0177, elapsed 0.1959 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.1847 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.