Now as I've said in the past, I have very little use for most of the high profile televangelists. I disagree with the theology put forth by most of them, which I believe borders on heretical. And yet I'm even more opposed by this effort by Senator Charles Grassley to dig around into the budgetary practices of their "ministries" in a public fashion -- and even more so by the threat to jail them if they do not cooperate with his kangaroo court.

"I've sent them some letters because I want some information. If they want to cooperate that's good, I expect they will. If they don't, they'll be the first people since a fellow named Abramoff, and he's in a jail cell."

So let's make this really clear -- Grassley is explicitly threatening to see ministers jailed for refusing to share the inner workings of their ministries with the US government. What's more, he is planning on holding hearings on their budgetary priorities, placing a US Senate committee in the position of passing judgment over whether or not their spending is in keeping with the beliefs and purposes of the ministry. That sounds pretty invasive of an area that is covered by the First Amendment to me.

Funny, isn't it, that the Left isn't at all interested in invoking the doctrine of the separation of church and state to condemn this witch hunt? And interesting, isn't it, that this liberal senator is only targeting ministries that are generally seen as conservative theologically and (because of that stance) politically?

I wonder -- when will Senator Grassley conduct the public investigation of the terrorist ties of Islamic non-profits, including mosques that preach extreme theology that is supportive of jihadi terror? Want to bet that the answer is NEVER -- because unlike the Christians he seeks to persecute now, Grassley knows that disgruntled Muslims may attempt to kill him.

This does, however, raise an interesting questions as to the constitutionality of requiring that churches and other religious groups apply to the government for tax-exempt status and the government's role in regulating them. There is a legitimate argument that religious groups, by their nature, should be exempt from taxes under the First Amendment. After all, as stated in the decision of the Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." It is undeniable that the First Amendment implicitly denies the government the power to destroy a religious organization, just as it explicitly denies the government the power to establish one. Senator Grassley's statement serves as a pointed reminder of why the free exercise and establishment clauses exist.

Posted by: Greg at 12:26 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

I'll agree that it is important that anyone publicly endorsed as a saint by the Catholic Church ought to have a true reputation for holiness and that alleged miracles need to be thoroughly investigated -- but I've got concerns about this development.

The Vatican is making it tougher to become a saint.

New procedures were announced Monday calling for more "rigor" and "sobriety" by bishops when deciding to begin the process of beatification and in determining the required miracles.

Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, head of the Vatican's sainthood office, recently suggested that the Vatican was overwhelmed by causes following the pontificate of the late Pope John Paul II, who elevated more people to sainthood than all his predecessors combined.

Saraiva Martins said there are more than 2,200 beatification and sainthood causes pending.

The cardinal, speaking at a news conference Monday, stressed the need for a "true reputation for holiness" among candidates before a process begins.

He said "rigorous historical research is obviously intrinsic" to the investigation.

The troubling aspect of this case is that it almost seems to be a slap at Pope John Paul the Great, the predecessor of the current pontiff. He canonized and beatified more people than any prior pope -- partially out of a philosophy that the Church can and should recognize the sanctity of Christians in all parts of the world and all walks of life. I'm concerned that this change may challenge that view.

And I remain disturbed that the institutionalized process leaves out an older practice of the Church -- canonization via the acclamation of the people. Just as St. Thomas a Becket was recognized as a saint a mere three years after his martyrdom because the faithful of England had nearly universally proclaimed him as such, there needs to be a similar process today. Do the faithful (and the rest of humanity, for that matter) really need the curial bureaucracy to complete the paperwork to tell them what they already know in the cases of John Paul the Great and Mother Teresa?

Posted by: Greg at 11:17 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Seems like the government of Mahmoud the Mad is demanding censorship of anti-Islamic speech here in the West.

The Iranian government has called on the Dutch government to stop the screening of a film in the Netherlands blaspheming holy Quran.

The film, by the Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders, is regarded by the Muslims as blasphemous.

The Iranian justice minister, Gholam Hussein Elham, wrote to his Dutch counterpart, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, calling for a ban.

Gholamhossein Elham said freedom of speech should not be used as a cover for attacking moral and religious values.

Well, then, Minister Gholam Hussein Elham, I can only presume that you will ban this film and punish those who made or funded it.

A new movie in Iran depicts the life of Jesus from an Islamic perspective. "The Messiah," which some consider as Iran's answer to Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ," won an award at Rome's Religion Today Film Festival, for generating interfaith dialogue. The movie will be adapted into a television series, shown on Iranian TV later this year.

Of course, the film itself is an act of blasphemy from the Christian perspective -- it denies Jesus was the Son of God, denies the Crucifixion, and denies the Resurrection, and relegates the Messiah to the mere status of "the last Jewish prophet" rather than rightly honoring him as the Savior of all humanity. And given that this satanic, blasphemous work was funded by the Iranian government and is to be shown on Iranian state television, I'd have to argue that what we have got here is a massive display of hypocritical chutzpah by the Iranians.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Faultline USA, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, , The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, Celebrity Smack, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D'ITALIA, Dumb Ox Daily News, A NEWT ONE-Special Thursday guest!, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 353 words, total size 4 kb.

They have refused to kow-tow to those Muslims who demand that the most stringent interpretation of Islamic law regarding depictions of Muhammad be followed.

An article about the Prophet Muhammad in the English-language Wikipedia has become the subject of an online protest in the last few weeks because of its representations of Muhammad, taken from medieval manuscripts.
In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people.

The petition has more than 80,000 “signatures,” though many who submitted them to ThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.

“We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January,” said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages.

A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site’s polite but firm refusal to remove the images: “Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group.”

The notes left on the petition site come from all over the world. “It’s totally unacceptable to print the Prophet’s picture,” Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. “It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately.”

First let me offer a couple words back to Saadia Bukhari and other Muslims demanding that non-Muslims follow their rules -- لدغة لي.

Second, to I offer offer possible a compromise – instead of using a picture of a veiled Muhammad from a Muslim source, they should use an unveiled picture of Muhammad from other Islamic sources. But if that is unacceptable to those insisting upon dhimmitude by Wikipedia and the rest of us, II hereby grant permission for Wikipedia to freely make use of this picture I photoshopped last year.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Right Pundits, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Newt One- Shared News!, Right Truth, Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Celebrity Smack, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 01:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 4 kb.