It seems that a Canadian university is conducting a Star Chamber proceeding against one of its professors -- because of what he has posted on his personal website hosted on a non-university server. Why? Because a homosexual activist does not like it.

A Cape Breton University (CBU) professor is the target of a human rights complaint by a homosexual student. Comments posted by the professor at his private web site critical of the Anglican Church of Canada for its permissive and condoning stand in relation to same-sex "marriage" are the cause of the complaint.

History Professor David Mullan wrote to his local Anglican bishop in 2004, criticizing the trend: "When Anglicanism in some manner recognizes homosexuality as a legitimate 'lifestyle' for Christians, it will become a church in schism," he charged.

On February 20, homosexual CBU student Shane Wallis, who also co-ordinates the campus' Sexual Diversity Office, lodged a formal human rights complaint with the University. In an e-mail response to Wallis' charge of a human rights offence, Wallis stated in his complaint that Mullan responded that "homosexuality is a repudiation of nature and the apotheosis of unbridled desire."

Please note that in this instance, "sexual diversity" means "anything except monogamous heterosexuality" -- and that while Shane Wallis may believe in "sexual diversity", he does not believe in intellectual diversity. After all, his complaint is based upon the expression of views and beliefs that contradict his own.

What is more, the university has adopted a procedure that repudiates basic human and civil rights.

From Professor Mullan's web site it can be seen that, because the University has acknowledged that the proceedings of a CBU human rights tribunal may be used against him in a court of law, he has declined to participate in complaint hearings. He has, however, challenged both Wallis and the University to acknowledge his free speech rights as a Canadian.

"I have a Human Rights complaint against me, as a result of two letters to my former Anglican bishop placed on my private website and a reply I sent Shane Wallis in response to an unsolicited email," Professor Mullan explains on his web site.

"I met yesterday morning (in April) with the Human Rights Officer. At that time I asked her whether anything I said in the process might be used against me in court. Today, after legal consultation, she replied that yes, it could be. I immediately told her that I would not participate in the process. I told her also in our meeting that I find that the requirement that I give evidence, effectively incriminating myself (rather like the Tudor Court of Star Chamber and the ex officio oath) when asked for it is in my judgement a violation of the common law, and of my rights as a free-born Englishman. The procedure is a farce, and if pushed I will sue the institution for violating my civil rights."

"The process can never be fair until these conditions are altered, and until the complainant stands under potential judgement for entering a frivolous complaint," he adds. "No one in his right mind would participate in this without incurring the fees of a solicitor, and when found innocent, someone needs to re-imburse the defendant."

What is more, Wallis filed a second complaint because Mullan had the integrity to go public with this attempt to suppress his fundamental human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It would appear that the recently discovered right to not be offended, right to not be challenged in one's beliefs, and right to screw anything you want are being used to trump those rights. The complaint about breaking confidentiality is apparantly based upon the newly discovered "right to do secretly what no one would stand for publicly" -- for the proceeding has no right to remain silent, and any and all involuntarily coerced statements made in the proceedings may be used against the speaker in a court of law. Again, basic human rights are not a consideration at Cape Breton University.

When i was young, Canada was a free country -- or so it appeared when I visited there. When did that change?

Oh, and by the way, I wrote Shane Wallis the following email. I hope he is man enough to respond.

Shane--

How is it that you have come to the conclusion that your own personal weaknesses and inadequacies are a legitimate basis for suppressing the human rights of individuals to hold religious beliefs and to express them publicly?

Did your university teach you the fascist view that only government-approved thoughts, beliefs, and opinions may be expressed in public, or was did you learn that elsewhere?

Why do you fear views which differ from your own? Is it a fear of diversity, or a recognition of the weakness and inadequacies of your own beliefs?

By the way, my questions have nothing to do with your sexual practices or personal relationships -- they have to do with fundamental questions of human rights enshrined in the founding charters of free societies. I hope you'll take a moment and respond.

Regards
Greg
AKA Rhymes With Right
www.rhymeswithright.mu.nu

To Dr. Mullan, I offer my prayers and best wishes as he fights the good fight for freedom in Canada. And I remind him that America is still free -- though the sodomy lobby is would certainly like to make it less so.

Posted by: Greg at 01:22 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 913 words, total size 6 kb.

Howard Dean has intimated that Christians and Jews who believe actually believe what Scripture says about homosexuality are bigots.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean claims to be reaching out to red-state voters, but yesterday, he suggested that opponents of homosexual "marriage" are bigots.

Mr. Dean was responding to news that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, plans to bring to a vote a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban homosexual "marriage."

"At a time when the Republican Party is in trouble with their conservative base, Bill Frist is taking a page straight out of the Karl Rove playbook to distract from the Republican Party's failed leadership and misplaced priorities by scapegoating LGBT families for political gain, using marriage as a wedge issue," said Mr. Dean, using the abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.

"It is not only morally wrong, it is shameful and reprehensible," Mr. Dean said.

Excuse me, sir, but who is the bigot here -- those who sincerely hold to moral and religious beliefs that date back thousands of years, or those seek to cow those believers into silence? Who is the hatemonger -- a majority that believes that marriage is and should be limited to one man and one woman and seeks to enact those beliefs democratically, or members of the minority who seek to impose alternate beliefs through the courts?

The answer should be obvious.

Posted by: Greg at 12:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 242 words, total size 2 kb.

Even as the Terrorstinians demand money from the United States to fund their Hamas government, their media insults our nation and our most important symbols.

This American has a response -- a firm rejection of the Terrorstinian assault upon my nation's symbol and the insult to our people. I've worked up a little response for you, camel-boy -- and it does not involve censoring you, rioting, or threatening your life.

Let the fatwas fly, my friend, for I fear you not -- nor do I respect you and your malignant beliefs.

We will not give into terrorist demands for submission. We will not give into jihadi demands for dhimmitude. America will pursue them until the last jihadi terrorist lies dead in a pool of his own blood and awakes in the bowels of Hell.

(H/T Tel-Chai Nation)

OPEN TRACKBACKS: Third World County, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Blue Star Chronicles, Adam's Blog, Sed Vitae, Cigar intelligence Agency

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 2 kb.

As most folks who read here know, I studied for the priesthood when I was younger. While problems with certain aspects of Catholic theology have led me to leave the Church, I still hold a great love and respect for Catholicism and find great spiritual inspiration and comfort in the teachings of the Catholic Church. That is why I find pastoral failures like this one to be so shocking and saddening.

The situation also calls to mind the observation of one of my seminary professors made the observation (pre-9/11 by nearly a decade) that the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist is that you can negotiate with the terrorist.

At a small Catholic church in Huntington Beach, the pressing moral question comes to this: Does kneeling at the wrong time during worship make you a sinner?

Kneeling "is clearly rebellion, grave disobedience and mortal sin," Father Martin Tran, pastor at St. Mary's by the Sea, told his flock in a recent church bulletin. The Diocese of Orange backs Tran's anti-kneeling edict.

Though told by the pastor and the archdiocese to stand during certain parts of the liturgy, a third of the congregation still gets on its knees every Sunday.

"Kneeling is an act of adoration," said Judith M. Clark, 68, one of at least 55 parishioners who have received letters from church leaders urging them to get off their knees or quit St. Mary's and the Diocese of Orange. "You almost automatically kneel because you're so used to it. Now the priest says we should stand, but we all just ignore him."

The debate is being played out in at least a dozen parishes nationwide.

Since at least the 7th century, Catholics have been kneeling after the Agnus Dei, the point during Mass when the priest holds up the chalice and consecrated bread and says, "Behold the lamb of God." But four years ago, the Vatican revised its instructions, allowing bishops to decide at some points in the Mass whether their flocks should get on their knees. "The faithful kneel Â… unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise," says Rome's book of instructions. Since then, some churches have been built without kneelers.

In other words, either kneeling or standing is an appropriate posture during worship according to no less than the Vatican. Unfortunately, liberal liturgists insist otherwise, and have been tinkering away with this and other parts of the liturgy. Looks like they got to Bishop Tod D. Brown. And unfortunately, there is no negoiation.

Angered by the anti-kneeling edict, a group calling itself Save Saint Mary's began distributing leaflets calling for its return outside church each Sunday.

Tran responded in the church bulletin with a series of strident weekly statements condemning what he called "despising the authority of the local bishop" by refusing his orders to stand, and calling the disobedience a mortal sin, considered the worst kind of offense, usually reserved for acts such as murder.

Tran sent letters to 55 kneeling parishioners "inviting" them to leave the parish and the diocese for, among other things, "creating misleading confusion, division and chaos in the parish by intentional disobedience and opposition to the current liturgical norms."

Father Joe Fenton, spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, said the diocese supports Tran's view that disobeying the anti-kneeling edict is a mortal sin. "That's Father Tran's interpretation, and he's the pastor," he said. "We stand behind Father Tran."

Now when I was in the seminary, I was often told that there was a need to be "pastoral". That meant letting the local politician who was adamantly pro-abortion receive communion despite his support for exterminating unborn life, because we couldn't really judge what was in his heart. It meant accepting the active homosexuals at the altar and permitting them to receive communion, because we could not judge their relationship with God. In short, it meant accepting all manner of buffet-line Christianity. It even meant reassigning Fr. Bob to a new parish after he got caught buggering the altar boys, and not supervising him or telling his new parishioners about his proclivities.

But somehow, following 14 centuries of liturgical tradition has been decreed "mortal sin" by a pastor and is supported by a bishop. Those who wish to follow that tradition are just one step shy of excommunication, and have already been told they are bound for hell for daring to cross the pastor and bishop. Where, exactly, is the "pastoral" practice in that?

I have to tell you -- there is nothing pastoral about it. And I must state that Father Tran and Bishop Brown are nothing short of little Phariseess (Luke 11:39-54) and anti-Christs (though neither is THE Anti-Christ -- note the capitalization) driving the faithful away from the Church with petty legalisms (note the word "petty") that have nothing to do with the essentials of the Christian faith.

Shame! Shame! Shame!

Let them be anathema.

OPEN TRACKBACKING TO: Sed Vitae, Conservative Cat, Liberal Wrong Wing, Bacon Bits, Adam's Blog, Stop The ACLU, Stuck on Stupid

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 850 words, total size 6 kb.

A gullible subset of the world's population has embraced Dan Brown's fictional work, The DaVinci Code, and the underlying conspiracy theory most notably expounded in the pseudo-historical work, Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The idea is that there are secret descendants of jesus living among us, and that the Catholic Church has been hiding this from the followers of Christ for centuries. It is all a load of bullcrap, of course, but thre exist enough fools to believe such tripe.

Well, here is another flaw with the hypothesis -- there would not be some small group of descendants of Jesus and Mary Magdalene hidden away. Instead, most of us would have the Son of God popping up on our family tree. Not because we are particularly special, but because of the geometric progression that goes along with geneaology.

This absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the workings of ancestry. People may have just a few descendants in the two or three generations after they lived, but, after that, the number of descendants explodes. For a population to remain the same size, every adult has to have an average of two children who grow to adulthood and have children. So the number of descendants for the average person grows exponentially — two children, four grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren, and so on. In just 10 generations — roughly 250 years — an average person can have more than 1,000 descendants.

Of course, no one is average. Some people have lots of children; some have none. But over time the fecund and the barren balance each other out. Also, a person's descendants eventually start having children with each other. That slows the rate of growth of a person's descendants, but usually not much, at least in the short term.

It's virtually impossible to "manage" a genealogical lineage so that a person has a limited number of descendants. The lineage would quickly go extinct in the occasional generation in which all of a person's descendants do not have children (or their children die). And a managed lineage inevitably would "leak" — someone would begin having children at a normal pace, and the usual process of growth would commence.

In real genealogies, a person's descendants either peter out within a few generations or begin to grow exponentially. That's why people who came to America on the Mayflower now have thousands of descendants. People who lived just a few centuries earlier have many millions of descendants.

So what about the possibility that Jesus and mary Magdalene had kids, as per Dan Brown?

The same observations would apply to Jesus, although we'll never know if he really had children.

But let's assume that he did, and that he also had a lower than average number of descendants — say 500 in the year AD 250. Where would they have lived?

Those centuries were a time of great ferment in the Roman Empire. Although most of Jesus' descendants probably would have lived in the Middle East, at least a few would have moved as far away as modern-day Italy and central Asia (whether as soldiers, traders or slaves).

Many of these individuals also would have had 500 to 1,000 descendants 250 years later. And these tens of thousands of descendants of Jesus likely would have been scattered along trade routes from western Europe to southern Africa to eastern Asia. After another 250 years, Jesus would have had millions of descendants. Repeat that cycle five more times and the whole world begins to fill up with descendants of Jesus.

Essentially, whether you have descendants is an all-or-nothing proposition in the long run, as two co-authors and I showed in an article in the scientific journal Nature a couple of years ago. If a person has four or five grandchildren, that person will almost certainly be an ancestor of the entire world population two or three millenniums from now. And if a person lived longer than two or three millenniums ago, that person is either an ancestor of everyone living today or of no one living today.

The idea that we all could be descended from Jesus takes some getting used to. After all, if we're all descended from Jesus, and Jesus is the son of God, that's a pretty illustrious bloodline.

But don't let it go to your head. You're also descended from Pontius Pilate and Judas, as long as they produced the requisite four or five grandchildren.

Every time we elect a new president, we learn that he is the descendant of some British monarch's bastard child. The genes of Ghengis Khan are said to have been passed on to much of today's population through his multitude of offspring (to paraphrase Mel Brooks, "It's good to be the khan."). So if you aren't descended from Christ, and I'm not descended from Christ, nobody is descended from Christ.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 842 words, total size 6 kb.

If you ain’t a Muslim in Iran, you will have to wear specially marked clothing to make you stand out. Think “Yellow Stars” in Nazi-occupied Europe.

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

Not that such badges of dhimmitude are really of Nazi origin – Hitler took the idea from an old Muslim practice.

Posted by: Greg at 04:53 PM | Comments (39) | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

If these events do not happen, IÂ’d have to argue that Pat Robertson qualifies as a false prophet.

In another in a series of notable pronouncements, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year.

Robertson has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded.

Robertson said the revelations about this year's weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

IÂ’ll be the fat guy with the granite concession outside the Robertson residence on January 1, 2007.

Posted by: Greg at 11:49 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

At least according to Muslims.

Dozens of academics, policy-makers and others are meeting in Malaysia this week to discuss "human rights in Islam" at a time when Muslims' tolerance levels have come under scrutiny as a result of the Mohammed cartoon ruckus.

Many Muslim scholars promote an "Islamic view" of human rights, even though their countries -- as U.N. member states -- are expected to support the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

In 1990, the world's Islamic countries signed a document called the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which asserts that all rights and freedoms must be subject to Islamic law (shari'a).

Since the furor over the satirical Mohammed cartoons erupted, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a grouping of more than 50 Muslim states, has led calls for defamation of religion and "prophets" to be outlawed.

The row has highlighted different perceptions of free speech, and human rights in general, in the Islamic and Western worlds.

Participants at the meeting in Kuala Lumpur have been discussing these issues, and some suggested that it was time Muslims were more open about the inconsistencies between the two worldviews on rights.

If [human rights] are contradictory with Islamic law, we have to say 'no,' " said Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, a minister in the department of the Malaysian prime minister.

These are not my words, they are the words of Muslim leaders – human rights that conflict with Islamic law must be rejected.

Is there a place for such an ideology in the civilized world?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 264 words, total size 2 kb.

At least according to Muslims.

Dozens of academics, policy-makers and others are meeting in Malaysia this week to discuss "human rights in Islam" at a time when Muslims' tolerance levels have come under scrutiny as a result of the Mohammed cartoon ruckus.

Many Muslim scholars promote an "Islamic view" of human rights, even though their countries -- as U.N. member states -- are expected to support the objectives of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

In 1990, the world's Islamic countries signed a document called the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, which asserts that all rights and freedoms must be subject to Islamic law (shari'a).

Since the furor over the satirical Mohammed cartoons erupted, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a grouping of more than 50 Muslim states, has led calls for defamation of religion and "prophets" to be outlawed.

The row has highlighted different perceptions of free speech, and human rights in general, in the Islamic and Western worlds.

Participants at the meeting in Kuala Lumpur have been discussing these issues, and some suggested that it was time Muslims were more open about the inconsistencies between the two worldviews on rights.

If [human rights] are contradictory with Islamic law, we have to say 'no,' " said Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz, a minister in the department of the Malaysian prime minister.

These are not my words, they are the words of Muslim leaders – human rights that conflict with Islamic law must be rejected.

Is there a place for such an ideology in the civilized world?

Posted by: Greg at 11:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

What happens when you take a non-observant Jew writing for a liberal media outlet and you add a sudden insight that he doesn't know the holy book of his childhood nearly as well as he thought he did? You get a potentially interesting series of articles.

Like many lax but well-educated Jews (and Christians), I have long assumed I knew what was in the Bible—more or less. I read parts of the Torah as a child in Hebrew school, then attended a rigorous Christian high school where I had to study the Old and New Testaments. Many of the highlights stuck in my head—Adam and Eve, Cain vs., Abel, Jacob vs. Esau, Jonah vs. whale, 40 days and nights, 10 plagues and Commandments, 12 tribes and apostles, Red Sea walked under, Galilee Sea walked on, bush into fire, rock into water, water into wine. And, of course, I absorbed other bits of Bible everywhere—from stories I heard in churches and synagogues, movies and TV shows, tidbits my parents and teachers told me. All this left me with a general sense that I knew the Good Book well enough, and that it was a font of crackling stories, Jewish heroes, and moral lessons.

So, the tale of Dinah unsettled me, to say the least. If this story was strutting cheerfully through the back half of Genesis, what else had I forgotten or never learned? I decided I would, for the first time as an adult, read the Bible. And I would blog about it as I went along. For the millions of Jews and Christians who know the Bible intimately, this may seem obscene: Why should an ignoramus write about the stories and lessons that you know by heart and understand well? I don't intend any kind of insult. My goal is not to find contradictions, mock impossible events, or scoff at hypocrisy. Nor am I quite stupid enough to pretend that Judaism (or Christianity) is just the Bible. Jews are not only the People of the Book but the People of Many Books. There is the rest of the Hebrew Bible—the Prophets and Writings, the vast commentary of the Talmud, the stories of the midrashim, and thousands and thousands of years of other law and story and commentary. This 4,000years' worth of delving and discussion is totally unfamiliar to me—I can't hope to compete with its wisdom. Nor is there any shortage of modern advice on how to read the Bible. (Just look up "How to read the Bible" on Amazon.) There are experts to tell you why the Bible is literally true, others to advise you how to analyze it as history, and still others to help you read it as literature. You can learn how to approach it as a Jew, a Catholic, an evangelical Protestant, a feminist, a lawyer, a teenager.

So, what can I possibly do? My goal is pretty simple. I want to find out what happens when an ignorant person actually reads the book on which his religion is based. I think I'm in the same position as many other lazy but faithful people (Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus). I love Judaism; I love (most of) the lessons it has taught me about how to live in the world; and yet I realized I am fundamentally ignorant about its foundation, its essential document. So, what will happen if I approach my Bible empty, unmediated by teachers or rabbis or parents? What will delight and horrify me? How will the Bible relate to the religion I practice, and the lessons I thought I learned in synagogue and Hebrew School?

I'll spend the next few weeks (or months) finding out. I'll begin with "in the beginning" and see how far I get. My wife, struck by my new biblical obsession, gave me a wonderful Torah translation and commentary for Hannukah, the Etz Hayim, which was prepared by conservative Jewish scholars. I'll read that and dip into the King James and other translations on occasion. (But I'll avoid most commentary, since the whole point is to read the Bible fresh.) I'm sure I'll repeat obvious points made by thousands of biblical commentators before; I'll misunderstand some passages and distort others—hey, that'll be part of the fun. I hope you'll tell me how I've screwed up by e-mailing me at plotzd@slate.com.

I have to wish David Plotz good luck -- and point out to him that there are those who spend a lifetime studying scripture yet continue to find new aspects to it. It is sort of like any relationship -- if it does not remain fresh, the relationship dies. So it is with the most important of texts.

Plotz makes a good start with an examination of the Creation narratives.

Posted by: Greg at 10:21 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 800 words, total size 5 kb.

I had the privilege of attending a lecture given by Jaroslav Pelikan on the early fathers of the Church many years ago, while I was a student in the seminary. I was fascinated by the breadth of his knowledge and the depth of his insight.

And then I got to fix drinks for him and the rest of the audience in my capacity as a bartender at the conference center at the seminary. Professor Pelikan was a delightful, friendly old man who made a point of asking the two of us tending bar how we had enjoyed the lecture – and tipped generously.

Yale professor Jaroslav Pelikan, one of the world's foremost scholars of the history of Christianity, has died of lung cancer, his son said Monday. He was 82.

Pelikan wrote more than 30 books, using sources in nine languages and dealing with literary and musical as well as doctrinal aspects of religion.

"For a man as talented and accomplished as he was, he was also exceptionally kind and genuinely humble," said his son, Michael. "The more he learned, the more amazed he was by how much he did not know."

Pelikan died Saturday at his home in Hamden, his son said.

A Lutheran convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, Pelikan was a former president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and was appointed by President Clinton to serve on the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities.

His works include the acclaimed five-volume text, "The Christian Tradition," which followed the story of Christianity from its origins to modern times.

Pelikan's "Whose Bible Is It?", published in 2005, explored how people of different faiths interpret the Bible. He said language and cultural differences led to varying interpretations of the Scripture.

His conclusion, he said in an interview with National Public Radio last year, was that, "Christians and Jews need each other in an effort to understand the sacred text they share."

It is sad to see such a great intellectual light has gone out – but I rejoice in the certainty that Pelikan stands in the presence of the God who he contemplated so deeply during his earthly life.

Posted by: Greg at 09:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 2 kb.

Now I am no advocate of censorship, but I do wonder what Australian censors would consider to be inciting violence if these books do not meet the criteria of that nation's anti-terrorism laws.

One of the books, Defence of the Muslim Lands, carried an endorsement from Osama bin Laden on its back cover and promoted "wiring up one's body" with explosives for "martyrdom or self-sacrifice operations".

The Criminal West, written by Australian Muslim Omar Hassan, claimed to be called Australian was something to be ashamed of and Western culture is the culture of wolves, injustice and racism.

It also claims Australian police are rapists who bash young boys and spoke of a conspiracy involving politicians to turn young Muslims into drug addicts.

The Ideological Attack claims there was a barbaric onslaught against Muslims by Jews, Christians and atheists.

Again, these are all books that the Australian government has said are just hunky-dory under its anti-terrorism law and other statutes which ban books promoting hatred and violence.

On the other hand, it is illegal in Australia to quote the Koran to prove that Islam is a religion which promotes hatred of Christians and Jews, and which is promotes violence against non-Muslims -- and Christians have been convicted for doing so.

Posted by: Greg at 05:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 215 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, the atheist Red Chinese choose confrontation over reconciliation with the legitimate authorities of the Catholic Church.

China's state-approved Catholic Church welcomed the installation Sunday of another bishop who was not approved by the pope, exacerbating the strain in Beijing's relations with the Vatican.

Bishop Zhan Silu, also known as Vincent Zhan, celebrated Mass for 500 Catholics and officials in a church in the southern city of Ningde to mark his formal appointment as head of the Mindong diocese. Hong Kong Cable TV showed Zhan holding a gold staff and wearing the pointed hat, or miter, used by bishops.

The welcoming ceremony compounded tensions in Vatican-China relations. Just a few months ago, Catholics had expressed hope that back-channel communications and concessions by the Vatican would end a rift between Rome and a separate Chinese church set up by the Communist government a half-century ago.

In recent weeks, China's state-approved Catholic hierarchy ordained two other bishops without papal assent, drawing a threat of excommunication from the Vatican and aggravating the split.

"They had to know that this would cause a serious reaction, a breakdown in the efforts to normalization," Richard Madsen, an expert on China-Vatican ties at the University of California at San Diego, said of the ordinations. "This shows at some level, they just didn't want relations to go forward."

In the fallout, the Vatican put on hold a review of Zhan's appointment that could have led to his approval by Pope Benedict XVI, a church official in Hong Kong said on condition of anonymity because of his involvement in the Rome-China dialogue.

Seems to me that the butchers in Beijing don't want to be seen as allowing too much religious freedom to the ever growing Christian population of China, so they are intentionally weakening relations with the Vatican -- relations that had been leading to Vatican acceptance of many officially sponsored episopal candidates.

For more on the status of Chinese Catholics loyal to the Vatican, click here.

UPDATE: More on this story here.

Posted by: Greg at 04:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 3 kb.

Four Chinese bishops have been excommunicated for their role in the non-canonical consecration of bishops for the state-controlled counterfeit “Catholic” organization operated by the Beijing regime.

However, as is often the case, the headline assigned to the article does not accurately reflect the reality of the situation.

The Vatican on Thursday excommunicated two bishops ordained by China's state-controlled church without the pope's consent, escalating tensions as the two sides explored preliminary moves toward improving ties.
The Vatican also excommunicated the two bishops who ordained them, citing church law.

Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls cited Article 1382 of the Roman Catholic Church's canon law. That article states that "both the bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a 'latae sententiae excommunication,'" which means they are automatically excommunicated.

As was often pointed out in my canon law classes, such excommunications are automatic and not a matter of official discretion. Technically, the person committing the offense excommunicates themselves by engaging in certain serious offenses. The act of unauthorized consecration of a bishop (an offense against the unity of the Church), like the act of procuring an abortion (an offense against innocent human life), is one of such gravity that knowingly committing the prohibited act results in the penalty. As such, it is incorrect to say that “the Vatican excommunicated” these men.

Earlier, Navarro-Valls said Pope Benedict XVI was deeply saddened by news of the ordinations, which have occurred in recent weeks.
"It is a great wound to the unity of the church," Navarro-Valls said in a statement.

Chinese Foreign Ministry officials were not available to comment on the excommunications. But earlier, a duty officer referred to an April 30 statement issued after the Vatican criticized the first ordination.

"The criticism toward the Chinese side by the Vatican is groundless," that statement said. "We hope the Vatican can respect the will of Chinese church and the vast numbers of priests as well as its church members so as to create good atmosphere for the improvement of Sino-Vatican ties."

On Wednesday, the official church, known as the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, ordained Liu Xinhong as bishop at the city of Wuhu's St. Joseph's Church in the eastern province of Anhui.

It was the second ordination in three days without the consent of the Vatican, which traditionally appoints its own bishops. On Sunday, China's official church ordained Ma Yinglin as a bishop in the southwestern province of Yunnan.

The Red Chinese stand ready to ordain another twenty men as bishops over the objections of the Vatican. It therefore seems clear that the recent moves by the Communist regime in Beijing may have been a subterfuge designed to undermine papal authority over Chinese Catholics. In consecrating these bishops, the Chinese government is acting to set up a rival episcopal hierarchy which will perpetuate the Communist-instigated schism in Red China that has endured for over half a century.

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 499 words, total size 3 kb.

Perhaps there is hope for a more moderate Islam in parts of the Muslim world. Certainly, this bodes well for the status of women in that kingdom, given the terrible treatment of women in many Islamist communities.

Fifty women have graduated as Muslim preachers, part of a concerted effort by authorities in Morocco to promote moderate Islam in a country grappling with extremism.

Another 150 men graduated Wednesday as imams, or prayer leaders. The 50 female religious guides, or morchidat, won't lead prayers in mosques, which is reserved for men, but will be sent around the country to teach women -- and, occasionally, men -- about Islam.

While Moroccan officials said the appointment of female state preachers was a rare experiment in the Muslim world, others said it was unprecedented in Morocco and the majority of other Arab countries.

"Your duty ... is to prevent intrusion by foreign agents trying to violate our values and traditions," Ahmed Taoufiq, minister of Islamic Affairs, told the graduates Wednesday.

"You must be committed to the faith and politics of the state which the people have chosen. This choice includes the policies of the Amir al Moumenin (Commander of the Faithful) who runs deep in our veins," said Taoufiq, referring to the religious title of King Mohammed VI.

The training of the preachers is part of a campaign launched by the young king, a descendant of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, to strengthen state-controlled mosques while undermining radical clerics who preach Islamic extremism. He has vowed that no foreign religious doctrine would be tolerated in the North African kingdom, which is a close ally of the United States and a partner in its war against terrorism.

I applaud King Mohammed VI for his efforts to bring Islam into the modern world, and to place greater emphasis on its positive aspects rather than the more blood-thirsty side highlighted by bin Laden and his ilk.

Posted by: Greg at 12:19 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

Looks like the hope of religious freedom in Red China is fading, as the puppet "Catholic" organization set up by the government continued to consecrate bishops in defiance of papal authority on the matter.

For the second time in four days, China's government-sponsored Catholic church consecrated a new bishop without the pope's approval Wednesday, casting a deeper chill on what had been promising efforts to end half a century of hostility between China and the Vatican.

The new bishop, Liu Xinhong, was installed as Anhui province's top prelate in a morning ceremony at St. Joseph's Church in Wuhu, in eastern China, according to a church official who declined to be identified. His ascension followed the consecration Sunday of Ma Yinglin as bishop of Kunming, in southwestern China's Yunnan province, in spite of a request from the Vatican for more time to consider whether he could meet the pope's approval.

Elevation of the two bishops without Vatican approval was organized by the official Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association, which oversees about a third of China's more than 10 million Catholics under the authority of the Communist Party and the government's Religious Affairs Bureau. The other 6 million or 7 million Chinese Catholics, who recognize the Vatican's leadership in matters of faith, worship in churches not approved by the government, sometimes called underground or home churches, and do not fall under the association's purview.

The entire problem could have been avoided by waiting for Vatican approval, which was likely forthcoming. This is therefore best seen as a deliberate slap at the Vatican, and an unnecessary provocation.

Expect to see talks between the Vatican and Red China end as a aresult of this perfidious interference with religious matters.

Posted by: Greg at 01:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

While I’ve condemned Viacom/MTV for running this series, I emphatically reject any attempt to ban the series through coercive means.

German Catholic leaders launched legal steps on Tuesday to prevent youth music channel MTV from broadcasting a controversial cartoon series which depicts the Pope as a pogo-stick-riding maniac.

Outraged bishops from Pope Benedict XVI's home state of Bavaria filed a legal injunction against the broadcaster, which plans to show the first episode of the satirical series "Popetown" on Wednesday evening.

The injunction says "Popetown" -- which was dropped in Britain after a wave of protest -- is insulting to Catholics since it shows the Pope bouncing through St. Peter's in Rome on a cross-like pogo stick and satirizes religious ceremonies.

"In this way the Catholic faith and the Catholic church are exposed to ridicule, which is justified neither by the freedom of opinion, of art, of the press nor of broadcasting," the archdiocese of Munich and Freising said in a statement.

The youth music channel said it plans to show one episode and will then gauge viewers' appetite for more.

"We will initially broadcast this first episode and then will make a decision based on the feedback of the viewers," said Mats Wappmann, a spokesman for MTV in Berlin.

The bishops also attacked the television channel for an advertising campaign which showed Jesus apparently getting down from the cross to sit in an armchair and watch the program.

The advert's tagline read: Have a laugh instead of hanging around.

Christianity has survived much worse hits than this and survived quite nicely. Given that it is based on divine truth and not Satanic falsehood, the Church will not be harmed by this trash. Allow free will to be exercised by the German people, and allow the free market to take its toll on the despicable folks who decided to run the series.

Oh, and by the way – quit acting like a bunch of Muslims.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 328 words, total size 2 kb.

While IÂ’ve condemned Viacom/MTV for running this series, I emphatically reject any attempt to ban the series through coercive means.

German Catholic leaders launched legal steps on Tuesday to prevent youth music channel MTV from broadcasting a controversial cartoon series which depicts the Pope as a pogo-stick-riding maniac.

Outraged bishops from Pope Benedict XVI's home state of Bavaria filed a legal injunction against the broadcaster, which plans to show the first episode of the satirical series "Popetown" on Wednesday evening.

The injunction says "Popetown" -- which was dropped in Britain after a wave of protest -- is insulting to Catholics since it shows the Pope bouncing through St. Peter's in Rome on a cross-like pogo stick and satirizes religious ceremonies.

"In this way the Catholic faith and the Catholic church are exposed to ridicule, which is justified neither by the freedom of opinion, of art, of the press nor of broadcasting," the archdiocese of Munich and Freising said in a statement.

The youth music channel said it plans to show one episode and will then gauge viewers' appetite for more.

"We will initially broadcast this first episode and then will make a decision based on the feedback of the viewers," said Mats Wappmann, a spokesman for MTV in Berlin.

The bishops also attacked the television channel for an advertising campaign which showed Jesus apparently getting down from the cross to sit in an armchair and watch the program.

The advert's tagline read: Have a laugh instead of hanging around.

Christianity has survived much worse hits than this and survived quite nicely. Given that it is based on divine truth and not Satanic falsehood, the Church will not be harmed by this trash. Allow free will to be exercised by the German people, and allow the free market to take its toll on the despicable folks who decided to run the series.

Oh, and by the way – quit acting like a bunch of Muslims.

Posted by: Greg at 11:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 332 words, total size 2 kb.

Once again, we see that Islam and freedom are incompatible.

A bloc representing the world's Islamic nations is marking World Press Freedom Day Wednesday by calling for urgent action to establish international law or a code of conduct aimed at preventing media from defaming religion.

The Saudi-based secretariat of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) said in a statement it was committed to press freedom, but that journalists should be deterred from premeditatedly vilifying, defaming and violating the rights of others."

Citing the controversy earlier this year over the printing of cartoons depicting Mohammed, the OIC said the publication of the sketches and its ramifications provided "absolute evidence of the consequences of non-abidance with these regulations."

It said the caricatures had insulted "a faith embraced and revered by over one-fifth of the world population, and a religion that advocates peace, tolerance and moral virtues."

I’d like to remind them that their faith is rejected and reviled by at least three-fifths of the world population. But they think Islam is special, and entitled to more respect than any other faith. As if to emphasize that fact, consider some events “coincidentally” scheduled on the day which is designated to celebrate press freedom.

In Yemen, the editor of the Yemen Observer will mark World Press Freedom Day Wednesday by appearing in court, where prosecutors earlier called for the death sentence for insulting Islam.

Muhammad al-Asadi was arrested last February after his English-language weekly published the cartoons -- in thumbnail size and obscured with a thick, black cross -- to illustrate its news reports on the controversy.

Editors of two Arabic-language papers in Yemen are also on trial, and are due to appear in court later in May. Print editions of all three papers have been frozen for the past three months, although the government this week agreed to allow printing to resume.

Such an example shows quite clearly why we in the West must actively resist the imposition of Muslim values upon our civilization – and why kid-glove treatment of Islam and Islamic cultures must be rejected as an obstacle to freedom around the world.

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 370 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, if global warming is truly a ‘religious issue’.

The left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP) Tuesday enlisted the help of clergy members to argue that "global warming" is not just an environmental issue. "At its core, it's an ethical, moral and religious issue," said John Podesta, president of CAP and a former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton.

Podesta added that it is our duty to "protect the environment, to protect God's earth, and to protect the poorest people."

CAP plans to try to raise public awareness to the allegedly drastic climate change. It will attempt to place liberal climatologists on popular television programs and sponsor public service announcements. Partnering in that effort are religious leaders.

John Carr, secretary of social development and world peace for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that as a result of climate change, the world's poorest people are suffering from famine and drought.

"John Paul II said it was a moral and ethical challenge. When the pope says something is a priority, you do something about it," said Carr.

Who do they think they are, trying to impose their religious values on me?

After all, liberals have been telling us for years that legislating morality is un-American and a violation of the rights of those whose faith and values tell them something different. Could it be that such rhetoric – usually trotted out to oppose conservative Christians who seek to protect unborn human life or oppose sexual immorality

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

After all, if global warming is truly a ‘religious issue’.

The left-wing Center for American Progress (CAP) Tuesday enlisted the help of clergy members to argue that "global warming" is not just an environmental issue. "At its core, it's an ethical, moral and religious issue," said John Podesta, president of CAP and a former White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton.

Podesta added that it is our duty to "protect the environment, to protect God's earth, and to protect the poorest people."

CAP plans to try to raise public awareness to the allegedly drastic climate change. It will attempt to place liberal climatologists on popular television programs and sponsor public service announcements. Partnering in that effort are religious leaders.

John Carr, secretary of social development and world peace for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that as a result of climate change, the world's poorest people are suffering from famine and drought.

"John Paul II said it was a moral and ethical challenge. When the pope says something is a priority, you do something about it," said Carr.

Who do they think they are, trying to impose their religious values on me?

After all, liberals have been telling us for years that legislating morality is un-American and a violation of the rights of those whose faith and values tell them something different. Could it be that such rhetoric – usually trotted out to oppose conservative Christians who seek to protect unborn human life or oppose sexual immorality

Posted by: Greg at 11:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 270 words, total size 2 kb.

Look what has been done to preserve the basilica at Assisi – using videogame technology.

A trip to Italy to see the famous frescoes of the 13th-century Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi could cost a person a couple of thousand dollars. This summer, St. Louis University's Institute of Digital Theology can give you the same experience on a $50 compact disc.

Well, almost the same experience. Of course you won't get the smell of the Umbrian countryside, the sound of St. Francis' beloved birds or - most important - the taste of olive oil-soaked bread and prosciutto crudo with a glass of Orvieto. But if it's architectural and artistic detail you're after, two young professors from SLU's Theological Studies department will get you as close as you can get without visiting the real thing.

The duo is using the same technology that video game creators use "to get things to explode" to better illuminate the detail in the basilica's stained glass or ceiling crevices. "It's the minor details that make this a real experience," said Jay M. Hammond.

Hammond and James R. Ginther, the other half of the team, have used 5,000 digital images to map the basilica's upper church. Just as in any modern video game, users will be able to explore the space by controlling their own three-dimensional point of view. Hammond and Ginther also have added a feature that will allow a user to "fly" around the basilica to see details higher up in the church that wouldn't be visible to an actual visitor.

Money raised from the CD sales will allow the duo to do the same for the lower church, crypt and the entire outside of the basilica. "This is version 1.0.," said Ginther. Version 2.0 will allow users to travel between levels and through the actual hallways and byways of the basilica. The St. Francis project is a pilot program and is being used to launch the Institute of Digital Theology.

I stand amazed and awed at the use of the profane to preserve the sacred.

Posted by: Greg at 12:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.