Because after all, we can't have a cute children's toy named after the false prophet. That name must be reserved for suicide bombers and other terrorists!

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear "Muhammad."

In response to the demonstration, teacher Gillian Gibbons was moved from the women's prison near Khartoum to a secret location for her safety, her lawyer said.

In Britain, Gibbons' son, John, told The Associated Press that her mother was "holding up well" and she made an appeal for tolerance.

"One of the things my mum said today was that 'I don't want any resentment towards Muslim people,'" John Gibbons said, relaying part of a telephone conversation with her.

Too bad, Gillian -- resentment is the minimum that folks like the ones who have you in prison and who want to take your life deserve.

And how far gone are these murderous followers of the Religion of Barbarism?

The protesters streamed out of mosques after Friday sermons, as pickup trucks with loudspeakers blared messages against Gibbons, who was sentenced Thursday to 15 days in prison and deportation. She avoided the more serious punishment of 40 lashes.

They massed in central Martyrs Square outside the presidential palace, where hundreds of riot police were deployed. They did not try to stop the rally, which lasted about an hour.

"Shame, shame on the U.K.," protesters chanted.

They called for Gibbons' execution, saying, "No tolerance: Execution," and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad."

* * *

Several hundred protesters, not openly carrying weapons, marched from the square to Unity High School, about a mile away, where Gibbons worked. They chanted slogans outside the school, which is closed and under heavy security, then headed toward the nearby British Embassy. They were stopped by security forces two blocks away from the embassy.

The protest arose despite vows by Sudanese security officials the day before, during Gibbons' trial, that threatened demonstrations after Friday prayers would not take place. Some of the protesters carried green banners with the name of the Society for Support of the Prophet Muhammad, a previously unknown group.

Many protesters carried clubs, knives and axes — but not automatic weapons, which some have brandished at past government-condoned demonstrations. That suggested Friday's rally was not organized by the government.

A Muslim cleric at Khartoum's main Martyrs Mosque denounced Gibbons during one sermon, saying she intentionally insulted Islam. He did not call for protests, however.

"Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion," the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

"This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad," he said.

No, you are doing quite a good job of teaching civilized people to despise your false prophet without any help from Gibbons. After all, the demand for death over the naming of a children's toy is a sign of the collective psychosis that infects Islamist hard-liners like you. Such things clearly prove that you do not follow the God of love and compassion embraced by Jews and Christians.

Of course, a teddy bear that offers Islam's most sacred prayers is just fine.

Besides, there is a more fitting use for the name Muhammad.

MORE AT Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Blogs of War, Bloodthirsty Liberal, A Blog For All, The Spade, People Covered In Fish, Gina Cobb, BUUUUURRRRNING HOT, Sugiero, Blue Crab Blvd., Public Secrets, Contentions

Posted by: Greg at 11:03 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 6 kb.

Islamo-censors win a round.

Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen, who was hounded into hiding by hardline Islamists, said on Friday she will remove a passage from an autobiography which some Indian Muslims found offensive.

Nasreen, who had been living in Kolkata since 2004, said she hoped the move would enable her to live in peace in India.

"I am withdrawing the controversial lines from my book Dikhandito," she told NDTV news channel.

"The book was written in 2002 based on my memories of Bangladesh in the 1980s during which time secularism was removed from the Bangladesh constitution," she said.

She was accused of hurting religious feelings and the book was banned in Bangladesh and India's neighbouring West Bengal state.

"Because I value secularism I wanted secularism to remain in the Bangladesh constitution," Nasreen said.

"I didn't write the book to hurt anybody's sentiments," the 45-year-old said without giving details of exactly what the passage mentions.

"Some people claim that sentiments have been hurt. It was not intended. I hope there will be no controversy anymore and I will be able to live peacefully in India," she said.

Giving in to the murderous mobs that seek to suppress anything that paints the Religion of Barbarism as barbaric and backwards won’t help. You may as well put on a gasoline-soaked burqa and wait in the middle of the street for the mob to set you ablaze. You will not be forgiven – and you deed here has served only to endanger every other free man and women who dares to speak truthfully about Islam.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Big Dog's Weblog, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Nuke's, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 350 words, total size 5 kb.

They canÂ’t be troubled to stop slavery and the murder of non-Muslims in their country, but the backwards Muslims in the Sudan sure can punish someone for giving the wrong name to a teddy bear.

British teacher Gillian Gibbons has been convicted of inciting religious hatred for letting her pupils name a teddy bear Muhammad and sentenced to 15 days in prison and deportation from Sudan, one of her defense lawyers said Thursday.

"The judge found Gillian Gibbons guilty and sentenced her to 15 days jail and deportation," said Ali Mohammed Hajab, a member of her defense team.

And to prove how dhimmified the folks who run the school are, get this quote.

The director of the school employing Gibbons, however, noted that since she had already spent five days in prison, she would serve only 10 days.

"It's a very fair verdict, she could have had six months and lashes and a fine, and she only got 15 days and deportation," said Robert Boulos of the Unity High School, adding they would not appeal the decision.

This ignores, of course, that Gibbons had done nothing wrong – and that the “offense certainly does not merit any judicial notice.

But at least these Islamist swine didnÂ’t get their way.

A powerful Sudanese newspaper urged authorities to call a hardline Islamist leader linked to Osama bin Laden to give evidence at her trial, to stress how offensive the case was to Muslims.

Extreme Islamic groups said Mrs Gibbons "must die" and urged Muslims to hold street protests after prayers tomorrow.

Yep, that sort of stuff is what they mean when they talk about the glorious, peaceful nature of Islam – kill someone over an inoffensive action. All in the name of defending the honor of their false prophet.

H/T Michelle Malkin, WinderKraut, A Blog For All, Liberty Papers

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Dumb Ox Daily News, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 12:43 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 362 words, total size 5 kb.

I guess its OK to call a terrorist Muhammad, but not a teddy bear.

Sudan on Wednesday charged a British teacher with insulting religion and inciting hatred, a crime punishable by up to 40 lashes, six months in prison or a fine, after she named a class teddy bear "Muhammad."

The charges come a day after a 7-year-old Sudanese boy said Gilliam Gibbons, 54, asked him as part of a school assignment what he wanted to call the stuffed animal and he said, 'Muhammad,' after his name.

It was harmless. It was innocent. Heck, it was even a little bit cute. But given the congenital state of offendedness in which these folks seem to operate, I guess we should not be surprised by the barbarous overreaction to the naming of a childÂ’s toy.

Oh, and I love the reaction of American feminists.

A spokeswoman for the National Organization for Women said the situation "is definintely on the radar, and N.O.W. is not ignoring it.
But she added that the U.S.-based organization is "not putting out a statement or taking a position."

In other words, they donÂ’t have the guts to issue the sort of condemnation these charges deserve. After all, it might present Muslims in an unflattering light, and make the West look reasonable and enlightened.

Over in England, though, someone sees the matter clearly and isnÂ’t afraid to say it.

Once again, secular people around the world are left reeling at the capacity of Islam to discern "insult" in the most innocuous behaviour. At one level, this sequence of events is preposterous; I'm sure there are plenty of genuine crimes to worry about in Sudan without wasting time pursuing a woman whose good intentions are manifest.

But the significance of the case goes beyond the individuals concerned, highlighting aspects of Islam as it is currently practised in countries such as Sudan and Saudi Arabia – and promoted in some European mosques – which are incompatible with the modern world. One is the role of honour, which has repeatedly been used to legitimise furious over-reactions to everything from the naming of a toy to instances of women and gay people demanding autonomy over their bodies.

Ever since the outcry over The Satanic Verses nearly two decades ago, I have watched Muslim men (they almost always are men) use the claim that their honour has been insulted as an excuse for disgraceful and frequently criminal behaviour. Salman Rushdie "insults" the Prophet: burn his books. Danish cartoonists display a lack of respect for Islam: attack Danish embassies. A British Muslim girl wants to marry the "wrong" man: kill her for shaming the family. A Saudi rape victim complains that her attackers got off too lightly: increase her sentence (for being in a car with a man who wasn't her husband) to 200 lashes.

* * *

The damage that is being inflicted daily on the image of Islam doesn't come from people like me, who are constantly accused of Islamophobia, but practices such as forced marriage, honour killings and heated denunciations of "Western" values. I can't think of any secular country where a rape victim or a well-meaning British teacher would find themselves threatened with flogging.

When will the world recognize that much of what passes for Islam today is nothing less than a crime against humanity, and that it needs to be treated as such by all civilized nations?

Posted by: Greg at 11:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 580 words, total size 4 kb.

Of all the absurdity! Of all the barbarity!

A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.
Gillian Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was arrested at at Khartoum's Unity High School yesterday, and accused of insulting the Prophet of Islam.

* * *

Robert Boulos, the Unity director, said Gibbons was following a British National Curriculum course designed to teach young pupils about animals and their habitats. This yearÂ’s animal was the bear.
In September, she asked a girl to bring in her teddy bear to help the class focus and then asked the children to name the toy.
“They came up with eight names including Abdullah, Hassan and Muhammad. Then she explained what it meant to vote and asked them to choose the name,” Boulos said.
Twenty out of the 23 children chose Muhammad. Each child was allowed to take the bear home for weekends and asked to keep a diary about what they did with the toy. Each entry was collected in a book with a picture of the bear on the cover, next to the message "My name is Muhammad."
Boulos said that the bear itself was not marked or labeled with the name in any way, adding that Sudanese police had now seized the book and asked to interview the 7-year-old girl who brought in the bear.

Of course, I would never name a teddy bear Muhammad, given my reluctance to give insult – to the cute stuffed animal.

But I would like to introduce you to our new mascot for posts on Islamic Outrage.

H/T Michelle Malkin, Shimshon 9, JammieWearingFool

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:32 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 4 kb.

Christopher Hitchens is a wonderful writer and a clear thinker on matters not related to religion – but when it comes to Mitt Romney’s religion, he is positively unhinged. That Slate would even consider publishing what can only be considered a hate piece on Mitt and Mormonism.

It ought to be borne in mind that Romney is not a mere rank-and-file Mormon. His family is, and has been for generations, part of the dynastic leadership of the mad cult invented by the convicted fraud Joseph Smith. It is not just legitimate that he be asked about the beliefs that he has not just held, but has caused to be spread and caused to be inculcated into children. It is essential. Here is the most salient reason: Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

Upon what basis does this would-be Torquemada argue that Romney should be subject to increased scrutiny for his beliefs? Why, his family tree and his missionary work (as well as raising his children in the faith, apparently). What next? Dose Hitchens intend to insist that all Catholic candidates take a public stand upon the issue of ordaining women? What of Orthodox Jews like Joe Lieberman – would he ask such questions, or even dare to do so for fear of being rightly labeled as an anti-Semite?

And then there is this resurrection of the bigotry of 1960 – appropriate, as it was first raised in 1994 by none other than Teddy Kennedy’s campaign – about whether he would be a puppet of the leaders of his church in Salt Lake.

There is also the question—this one more nearly resembles the one that John F. Kennedy agreed to answer so straightforwardly in 1960—of authority. The Mormons claim that their leadership is prophetic and inspired and that its rulings take precedence over any human law. The constitutional implications of this are too obvious to need spelling out, but it would be good to see Romney spell them out all the same.

The evidence is pretty clear on this one -- that Mormons with such distinct political philosophies and behaviors as Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid should be proof of that.

And then there is this flip comment.

If candidates can be asked to declare their preference as between briefs and boxers, then we already have a precedent, and Romney can be asked whether, as a true believer should, he wears Mormon underwear. What's un-American about that?

Other than that the original question to Bill Clinton was inappropriate, and his decision to answer gave clear evidence of his basic unfitness for office, there is no reason to discuss what may have been the nadir of American politics during the last 20 years. What next- asking Joe Lieberman if he is circumcised?

I’m not a Mormon, and I have repeatedly rejected their doctrine as being nonsensical to me .Those who want to make Mormonism an issue in the 2008 presidential race fall into one category with two horns – they are all bigots, and the only question is if they are motivated by a hatred of Mormonism in particular or religion in general. In Hitchens’ case, we know the answer.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, Pursuing Holiness, DragonLady's World, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, CommonSenseAmerica, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 629 words, total size 5 kb.

I find the discussion of the Catholic confrontation with Pentacostalism to be significantly less interesting than this movement on the ecumenical dialogue between East and West -- and the potential for bringing an end to the millennium-old scandal that is the Great Schism.

Kasper opened his remarks by updating the cardinals and cardinal-designates on an important new document approved by a Vatican-Orthodox theological commission that has been working to heal the 1,000-year schism between the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

In the document, Catholic and Orthodox representatives both agreed that the pope has primacy over all bishops _ although they disagreed over just what authority that primacy gives him.

The development is significant since the Great Schism of 1054 _ which split the Catholic and Orthodox churches _ was precipitated largely by disagreements over the primacy of the pope.

Kasper told the cardinals that the document was an "important turning point," since it marked the first time that Orthodox churches had agreed there is a universal level of the church, that it has a primate, and that according to ancient church practice, that primate is the bishop of Rome _ the pope.

This hardly means that we are going to wake up some morning and find that the Orthodox and Catholics have suddenly united. What it does mean, however, is that the two sides are making progress on one of the two or three biggest issues that divide these two ancient streams of Christianity. There is still a long way to go before full communion can be reestablished -- but I'd argue that we are closer to that than at any time since 1054, and that is a sign of hope for all Christians. After all the divisions within the body of Christ are a disgrace based upon human weakness and pride, not the will of God.

Posted by: Greg at 03:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 310 words, total size 2 kb.

"Sticks and stone
Will break your bones
If you write words
That offend us."
-- Traditional Muslim Nursery Rhyme

For more than a decade, the writer Taslima Nasrin has been fighting; fighting against the courts, fighting to be heard and fighting for her life. Last night, the Bangladeshi-born author was struggling again as violent protests in one city – and the purported threat of further violent protests in another – saw her shuttling across India to avoid angry Muslims who have accused her of insulting Islam.

"I have no place to go. India is my home and I would like to keep living in this country until I die," the Sakharov Prize winner told The Hindu newspaper. "Here in this country, I have got the love and sympathy of the people for which I am grateful."

On Thursday, Nasrin was forced to flee from the city of Kolkata where she has been living for the past two years, a day after Muslim activists led protests against her which resulted 50 people being injured and the imposition of a curfew. The All India Minorities Forum, a Muslim group, has demanded she be deported not just from Kolkata, formerly known as Calcutta, but from India.

But after one night in Jaipur, Rajasthan, the authorities there decided that Nasrin should also leave to avoid the risk of a repetition of violence. "She didn't inform the government of Rajasthan before coming here and as she requires high security we asked her to leave," the Home Minister, Gulab Chand Kataria, told reporters. As a result Nasrin was last night headed to Delhi, and presumably further controversy.

On a daily basis, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and members of many other religious groups see writings that in some way offend their religious beliefs. Somehow, such offense rarely breaks out into violence, and the authors of such writings don't have to flee their homes on a regular basis because of mobs of believers bent on murder rioting in the streets. Heck, not even a cult like Scientology tries to kill its critics anymore -- though they do try to sue them into silence. But Big Mo's Cult of Hate and Violence regularly turns out loads of blood-thirsty true-believers when their religious sensibilities are touched upon by those who reject the false teachings of the Quran.

When will world leaders begin to speak out forcefully against the continual violations of human rights perpetrated in the name of Islam? And I don't mean bland condemnations like those heard after the Rushdie fatwa 20 years ago, but forceful statements containing clear and unambiguous consequences for those who seek to impose the chains of sharia upon those who reject them.

Posted by: Greg at 03:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 462 words, total size 3 kb.

I've tried saying something like this in a dozen different ways. But I think that Peggy Noonan hits the nail on the head with this comment about the religious beliefs of this year's crop of presidential candidates.

There are some people who believe faith doesn't belong in politics. But it does, and it is there inextricably. The antislavery movement, the temperance movement, the civil rights movement, the antiabortion movement, all were political movements animated in large part by religious feeling. It's not that it doesn't matter. You bring your whole self into the polling booth, including your faith and your sense of right and wrong, good and bad, just as presidents bring their whole selves into the Oval Office. I can't imagine how a president could do his job without faith.

But faith is also personal. You can be touched by a candidate's faith, or interested in his apparent lack of it. It's never wholly unimportant, but you should never see a politician as a leader of faith, and we should not ask a man whose made his rise in the grubby world of politics to act as if he is an exemplar of his faith, or an explainer or defender of it

For better of for worse, the moral beliefs of Americans have (and, I believe, always will) animate the political direction of this nation. And for the overwhelming majority of Americans, that moral sense is drawn from religion. That includes our political leader.

When we vote, I believe that most Americans want to elect someone who they believe has such a moral center, and a firm anchor upon which their morality is based. To the degree to which that means we want our candidates to be, at some level, "religious", I don't think it is inappropriate to inquire into whether or not that moral center exists.

But at the same time, presidential elections (and other elections, for that matter), are not and should not be referenda upon the religious faith of candidates. Does Joe Lieberman's Judaism make him more or less fit for office than Romney's Mormonism? The question is absurd -- all we need to know (as demonstrated by their lives and policies) is that each of these men hold fast to some sense of right and wrong that is in vague congruence with ours. Indeed, the notion that I would vote for Hillary Clinton over Mitt Romney because I find the teachings of the Methodist Church more authentically within the realm of Christian orthodoxy than those of the LDS Church strikes me as bizarre.

In 2008, America will elect a President, not a Pope, Patriarch, or Primate. We will elect someone to be commander-in-chief, not theologian-in-chief or pastor-in-chief. And while we will certainly expect an element of moral leadership from that individual, we cannot and should not expect moral perfection. of men and women who are candidates for the presidency rather than candidates for sainthood. What we must do is choose the individual we believe who will be best guided by their religious and moral beliefs (whatever they may be) to act in a manner that our religious and moral beliefs (whatever they may be) tell us is right for the country.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, Stuck On Stupid, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao's Blog, Big Dog's Weblog, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Woman Honor Thyself, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 5 kb.

After all, they have disbarred a human rights lawyer for engaging in a series of actions that qualify as internationally recognized human rights.

Saudi officials have revoked the license of human rights lawyer Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem, who has handled the country's most controversial cases and defended a gang-rape victim sentenced to jail time and lashes.

Lahem, 36, faces a disciplinary hearing Dec. 5 to determine the length of his suspension.

Lahem is accused by the prosecutor general of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image," according to an official letter he received Monday.

Since he started practicing law almost five years ago, Lahem has defended clients whom other lawyers refused, including a school administrator suspended for criticizing the religious establishment, a man convicted of promoting homosexuality for saying it was genetic, three political reformists seeking a constitutional monarchy, and the first Saudis suing the country's powerful religious police.

Lahem said that losing his license would be a blow to the country's budding human rights movement.

"If I am banned from practicing law, nobody will dare go up against the judiciary again," said Lahem, a slight man with a limp from a childhood accident. "If I win, it will open a new chapter for human rights in Saudi Arabia."

But the reality is that Lahem will not win, given the repeated insistence of the forces of Islam upon placing sharia dictates ahead of human rights. Time and again we have seen Islamic law trump such things as religious freedom and freedom of speech, both of which are recognized as basic human rights under international law. For that matter, this action by the Saudis grows out of a case in which a rape victim was sentenced to be whipped because of the attack -- and had her sentence more than doubled for publicly speaking out against such barbarism.

Such actions in the name of Islam do nothing to contribute to the image that its followers and apologists seek to present -- that of an enlightened, peaceful faith. Instead, it shows quite clearly that Islam has no respect for human rights, and that sharia law is nothing less than a crime against humanity.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Nuke's, Three Forces Of Evil, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Pirate's Cove, Global American Discourse, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Dumb Ox Daily News, Conservative Cat, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 422 words, total size 5 kb.

I wonder – would a Christian official be able to get away with a comment disrespectful of Jewish (or other) religious beliefs in a manner similar to this?

The Ohio Christian Alliance and state Republican Party have demanded an apology from the state attorney general for telling his communications director that some of the bad press the spokesman got was worse than Christ's crucifixion.

The Dayton Daily News obtained reams of e-mails sent and received by Democratic Attorney General Marc Dann at his office. The e-mails were released after a lengthy battle over public records access.

On April 6, Dann wrote to his director of communications, Leo A. Jennings III, about an editorial in the Youngstown, Ohio, newspaper that yielded a series of unflattering online postings about Jennings.

"Jesus had it better on good [sic] Friday," Dann wrote in the e-mail — which was written on the Christian holiday commemorating Christ's crucifixion and death.
Following the Daily News' publication of the exchanges, Ohio Christian Alliance President Chris Long drafted a letter demanding that Dann apologize.

"I think it would benefit all if he was to make a public apology," Long said in an interview. "That a public official would make a bigoted comment about the crucifixion on Good Friday has people outraged and in disbelief."

The GOP has joined in calling for an apology from Dann, who mocked the crucifixion on the Christian holy day marking it. But Dann refuses to apologize.

He said that he and Dann have been friends for more than 20 years and that the attorney general, who is Jewish, doesn't discriminate against people of any religion.

"Marc cherishes his own faith and is deeply respectful, considerate and tolerant of the religious beliefs held by others," wrote Jennings.

"He is absolutely committed to upholding the religious freedoms guaranteed by both the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions and he would zealously oppose any attempt made by anyone to impinge upon those freedoms."

So it appears that DannÂ’s defense is that he is a nice Jewish boy who would never say anything offensive, so all of the folks who are offended can go pound sand. Such insensitivity from the stateÂ’s attorney general is unacceptable, and he should certainly offer an immediate apology -- and seriously consider resigning.

After all, I'm sure that is what Jewish leaders would expect of a Christian official who made such insensitive comments about Jewish practices.

Posted by: Greg at 10:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 408 words, total size 3 kb.

I may be reading between the lines here, but that may just be what this article is hinting at.

Last month, the bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion, a network of 400,000 breakaway Anglo-Catholics based mainly in America and the Commonwealth, wrote to Rome asking for "full, corporate, sacramental union".

Their letter was drafted with the help of the Vatican. Benedict is overseeing the negotiations. Unlike John Paul II, he admires the Anglo-Catholic tradition. He is thinking of making special pastoral arrangements for Anglican converts walking away from the car wreck of the Anglican Communion.

This would mean that they could worship together, free from bullying by local bishops who dislike the newcomers' conservatism and would rather "dialogue" with Anglicans than receive them into the Church.

The customary way of creating such "special pastoral arrangements" in the past is that seen among the various Eastern-rite jurisdictions (the historical term "uniate" is seen by many as derogatory, but still sometimes used), with a completely separate hierarchy. This could, of course, have interesting implications regarding the practice of priestly celibacy in the West.

Of course, I could be reading more into this than is really there.

Posted by: Greg at 08:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 2 kb.

I mean, antiquated notions like "right" and "wrong" just seem so dated to some folks when they get in the way of their sex lives.

Some gay Catholics said they were frustrated by a local archbishopÂ’s homily last month that railed against gay marriage.

The homily, delivered Oct. 25 by Baltimore Archbishop Edwin O’Brien during a special Mass for judges and attorneys, asserted that straight marriage is “radically threatened” by courts and lawmakers intent on legalizing gay marriage.

According to the Catholic Review, O’Brien called on congregants to make the defense of heterosexual marriage “an urgent necessity to ensure the flourishing of persons, the well-being of children and the common good of society.”

The homily did not sit well with gay Catholics like Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministries, a Maryland organization that advocates for the inclusion of gays in the Catholic Church.

“It’s frustrating that someone like him, in a position of power and authority in the church, has such a misinformed view about sexuality, relationships and marriage,” he said. “The church really would do better if he would enter into a dialogue with gay and lesbian people and their families and those who are ministering with them.”

It is frustrating that someone like DeBernardo, who runs what is supposed to be a Catholic organization, is so poorly catechized that he thinks his position has any theological merit whatsoever. DeBernardo and his ilk would do better if they would enter into a dialogue with God the Father, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to help him understand what is wrong with his position in support of sin. Who knows, they might even come in contact with a little bit of God's transforming grace, and attempt to conform themselves to His will rather than insisting that the Church conform to theirs.

But if they cannot find their way clear to accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, might I suggest that there are other religious bodies they could choose that much more neatly fit their theological proclivities. Perhaps they could consider one of those instead.

Posted by: Greg at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 360 words, total size 2 kb.

Benedict XVI will be visiting New York City – with a stop at Ground Zero – this spring. He will also visit Washington, DC.

Pope Benedict XVI will make his first visit to the United States as pontiff in April. He plans to visit ground zero, address the United Nations and celebrate two public Masses during the six days of his visit, The Associated Press reported this morning, citing a Vatican official.

The popeÂ’s visit would be only the fourth in New York CityÂ’s history. Pope Paul VI visited in October 1965, during the first papal visit to the United States. Pope John Paul II visited New York in October 1979 and October 1995.

I canÂ’t help but regret that the Holy Father will not be visiting other parts of the US as well.

Posted by: Greg at 12:16 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 142 words, total size 1 kb.

Imagine the uproar if the Archdiocese of St. Louis were to host a Seder featuring ham sandwiches and pork rinds and an introductory reading fromMein Kampf. There would be, rightly, outrage and accusations of anti-Semitism. Jewish organizations would certainly choose to break ties with the Catholic organizations, and it would rightly be seen as a setback in the relationship between the two religious groups.

So where is the condemnation of the synagogue hosting this grave insult to Catholicism?

To the Roman Catholic Church, the ceremony was not an ordination. In fact, it wasn't even Roman Catholic. But to two women and the approximately 600 people who came to cheer them on, history was made Sunday in St. Louis as the two became the first women ever in the city to be ordained as Catholic priests.

And the first ever, perhaps in the world, to be ordained in a synagogue.

Rose Marie Hudson, 67, of Festus, and Elsie Hainz McGrath, 69, of St. Louis, were ordained as priests by an organization called Roman Catholic Womenpriests, which defines itself "as an international initiative within the Roman Catholic Church."

Not only is the Archdiocese of St. Louis upset about the women participating in an ordination ceremony, but the church and others in the interfaith community were upset that the Central Reform Congregation, in the Central West End, hosted the event.

"The event of today is really very sad because the name Roman Catholic has been misused and misapplied," said Dr. Lawrence J. Welch, a Kenrick-Glennon Seminary theology professor. "There's been no ordination of Roman Catholic priests. In fact, there has been a profaning of something Roman Catholics believe is very sacred."

To members of the diverse crowd — the dozen ministers in robes and stoles of different colors, those wearing yarmulke, and some wearing buttons saying "God loves us, just ask her" — the ceremony showed unity and understanding.

"What a day, what an occasion, what a case, what a rabbi," said Patricia Fresen, the ordaining bishop with Roman Catholic Womenpriests, referring to the synagogue's rabbi, Susan Talve. The room boomed with applause.

Shame on Rabbi Talve and her congregation for hosting this event. Shame on those who assisted in this profaning of a Catholic sacrament. And shame on Fresen, Hudson, and McGrath for not having the honesty and the courage to proclaim themselves what they truly are – Protestants who have broken with Rome and placed themselves outside of the Catholic Church.

Posted by: Greg at 12:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 416 words, total size 3 kb.

What it really comes down to is this -- is Scripture the Word of God, intended for all times and places? Or has God changed his mind about the things written in the Bible?

The dispute has played out across the country as those who hold to traditional Christian theological views struggle with those who want to supplant the historical Christian faith with modern social science and liberal political agendas.

This week, it has played out in Pittsburgh.

By more than a two-to-one vote, members of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh voted Friday in favor of separating from the national church because of a theological rift that began with the consecration of an openly gay bishop in 2003.

The vote sets the stage for what could become a protracted legal battle between the diocese and the Episcopal Church U.S.A., which had warned PittsburghÂ’s bishop not to go forward with the vote.

After passionate appeals from both sides of the debate, clergy members and lay people voted 227 to 82 to “realign” the conservative diocese.

If FridayÂ’s vote is approved again in a year, the diocese will begin steps to remove itself from the American church and join with another province in the worldwide Anglican Communion.

After the vote, Bishop Robert W. Duncan of Pittsburgh, who is also moderator of the Anglican Communion Network, an alliance of conservative dioceses and parishes, defended the decision.

“What we’re trying to do is state clearly in the United States for the authority of Scripture,” Bishop Duncan said after the vote, taken during the diocese’s annual convention in this city about 50 miles east of Pittsburgh.

The vote was necessary, he said, because the more liberal bishops now in the majority in the national church “have hijacked my church, and that’s how most of the people here feel.”

Interestingly enough, the leadership of the national Episcopal Church, which rejects the authority of the Worldwide Anglican Communion, insists upon its own authority being respected by the Diocese of Pittsburgh and other dissidents. So much so that they have indicated a plan to take the dispute into the civil courts.

I guess that stuff in the New Testament about not suing fellow Christians over religious issues in government courts is so first-century. As with what was written about homosexuality, it doesn't apply today -- what God meant was "hire a good corporate lawyer and sue your enemies". After all, God is so much smarter today than he was back then, so anything written in the Bible has to be taken with a grain of salt. He'd agree with the liberals on this one -- just ask them.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 446 words, total size 3 kb.