Rhymes With Right

August 29, 2006

How Can Muslims Play Football?

After all, they use a pigskin in the game. But if it gets them a chance to claim to be persecuted and victimized -- or make lots of money in the NFL after getting a free-ride to college courtesy of infidel taxpayers, they are willing to overlook it, I guess

Three former New Mexico State University football players Â– all Muslims Â– on Monday sued the university and coach Hal Mumme, alleging they were dismissed from the team because of their religious beliefs.
The federal lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Mu'Ammar Ali and brothers Anthony and Vincent Thompson. The lawsuit alleges religious discrimination and violations of the athletes' right to freely exercise their religion.
* * *
In response to the allegations, New Mexico State hired an Albuquerque law firm to investigate and the law firm concluded the football program had not engaged in religious discrimination against the three Muslim athletes.
The investigation by Albuquerque law firm Miller Stratvery found that the players were released from the team based on their performance and attitudes, not because of religion. The probe included interviews with the football coaching staff, athletics department personnel and student-athletes.
Simonson at the time questioned the fairness of the investigation.
Â“I think it's very troubling that the university could not find any basis for these allegations whatsoever when three very sincere individuals came forward with such serious allegations,Â” he said. Â“It really raises questions in my mind about the university's commitment to diversity and racial equality and issues of equality.Â”

In other words, the only good investigation is one that finds what the ACLU and its fellow-travelers claim to be true. Any other finding, no matter how supported by the facts, is troubling and indicative of a lack of commitment to diversity and equality. I guess a commitment to truth simply pales beside those two.

But I have to wonder Â– given the status of pigs in the eyes of Muslims, how can they play football at all? After all, it isnÂ’t called a pigskin for nothing.

Maybe the coach was just looking out for their spiritual best interest Â– both by putting them off the team, and by encouraging Christian brotherhood (which unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, wonÂ’t kidnap you, kill you, or force you to convert at gunpoint).

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

Islamo-Paki SOB Kidnaps Pre-Teen Daughter For Pedophile Muslim Marriage

Sorry Â– no respect for ethnicity or religion with this scumbag, who violates court orders and common decency to bring about the forced marriage of his 12-year-old daughter to a man over twice her age.

AN INTERNATIONAL hunt has been launched for a 12-year-old girl after she was allegedly abducted from her home in Stornoway and taken to Pakistan, amid reports she is to be married to a man of 25.
Molly Campbell went missing from school on Friday. It is believed she was taken by her father and elder sister and flew with them to Lahore.
Police say they want to reunite the girl with her mother, Louise Campbell, her legal guardian.
Last night reports quoted Molly's grandmother as saying she feared the schoolgirl had been taken to become a child bride.
Violet Robertson, 67, said: "It's just terrible. Molly is only a little girl. It's an arranged marriage.
"She doesn't know the man. He's 25. Molly doesn't want to go to Pakistan. She wants to stay with her mum."
Molly, also known as Misbah Iram Ahmed Rana, was last seen at 10:50am on Friday in the grounds of her school, the Nicolson Institute in Stornoway.
Northern Constabulary believe she was met there by her sister, Tahmina, 18, and the pair took a taxi to Stornoway Airport before flying to Glasgow.
They then met their father, Sajad Ahmed Rana, and all three boarded the 2:55pm Emirates flight to Lahore.

Just following the example of Muhammad, I guess. I recall that he liked sex with little girls, too.

Would somebody please remind me Â– what is there in Islam that is good and noble?

Posted by: Greg at 10:47 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 292 words, total size 2 kb.

August 23, 2006

More On Lina Joy

Human rights in Malaysia have always been something of a farce -- but this case deserves international condemnation.

From the scant personal details that can be pieced together about Lina Joy, she converted from Islam to Christianity eight years ago and since then has endured extraordinary hurdles in her desire to marry the man in her life.
Her name is a household word in this majority Muslim country. But she is now in hiding after death threats from Islamic extremists, who accuse her of being an apostate.
Five years ago she started proceedings in the civil courts to seek the right to marry her Christian fiancÃƒÂ© and have children. Because she had renounced her Muslim faith, Ms. Joy, 42, argued, MalaysiaÂ’s Islamic Shariah courts, which control such matters as marriage, property and divorce, did not have jurisdiction over her.
In a series of decisions, the civil courts ruled against her. Then, last month, her lawyer, Benjamin Dawson, appeared before MalaysiaÂ’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, to argue that Ms. JoyÂ’s conversion be considered a right protected under the Constitution, not a religious matter for the Shariah courts.
Â“SheÂ’s trying to live her life with someone she loves,Â” Mr. Dawson said in an interview.
Threats against Ms. Joy had become so insistent, and the passions over her conversion so inflamed, he had concluded there was no room for her and her fiancÃƒÂ© in Malaysia. The most likely solution, he said, was for her to emigrate.

The truly obscene part of the case is that the civil courts left her with only one remedy other than leaving her homeland forever -- taking the case into the Sharia court system, which would have clerics of a faith Lina Joy rejects as false ruling upon her ability to exercise an international recognized human right. The problem is that the backwards and barbaric Muslim legal system considers attempted conversion to be a crime -- and it is therefore most likely that Lina Joy's attempt to vindicate her human rights would be met with a decision that she is a criminal for doing so. She would therefore be sent to a prison controlled by Muslim clerics in order to "rehabilitate" her -- in other words, to force her to renounce Christ in order to regain her freedom.

I urge prayers for Lina Joy.

And I ask where the international outcry is over this fundamental violation of human rights.

UPDATE -- 8/25/06: Michelle Malkin provides excellent coverage, noting that Malaysian police are investigating the Catholic Church where Lina Joy was baptized and the government is considering strengthening laws against preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to Muslims. And she includes this quote from an Islamic scholar on the subject of conversions.

"If Islam were to grant permission for Muslims to change religion at will, it would imply it has no dignity, no self-esteem," said Wan Azhar Wan Ahmad, senior fellow at Malaysia's Institute of Islamic Understanding.
"And people may then question its completeness, truthfulness and perfection."

In other words, fundamental human rights are anathema to Islam. You can have freedom of religion or ROPMA, but not both. has the time come for the civilized nations of the world to decide between religious liberty and Islam?

COVERAGE FROM MALAYSIA by Maobi -- with many links to bloggers from Malaysia and around the world. Also good stuff from Guambat Stew

PREVIOUSLY:
Religious Freedom -- Islamic Style
Malaysian Muslims Steal Hindu Hero's Body From Family
Dhimmitude In Malaysia
Human Rights And Islam Â– Incompatible

Posted by: Greg at 10:24 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 593 words, total size 5 kb.

August 21, 2006

A Bit More Hypocrisy On Homosexual Marriage

Ultimately, Steve McCarthy is guilty of arguing his position based upon the same basis that he declares illegitimate when it is used by his opponents -- theology.

I see marriage as a civil right, and no group's religious beliefs should be allowed to deny the rights of others. And because blacks have suffered from bigotry and injustice that were cloaked by religion and morality, we should avoid doing the same thing to others.

In other words, policy positions based upon religious belief are anathema -- unless they are policy positions that Mr. McCarthy supports. And this is an argument we hear again and again from the allegedly-religious Left, which declares their liberal position infalible based upon their own religious beliefs, while declaring heretical any divergent views.

Posted by: Greg at 10:17 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

August 15, 2006

Neon Lights Convert Secular Monument To Religious One

No word on whether using incandescent lighting instead of neon would have maintained the monument's secular status -- honoring the founder of Houston's Star of hope programs for the poor

A Bible must be removed from a 50-year-old monument in front of the Harris County civil courthouse because a district judge changed it from a secular to a religious use in violation of the Constitution, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
"Its recent history would force an objective observer to conclude that it is a religious symbol of a particular faith located on public grounds," a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 decision.

Except, of course, that its history is clearly secular, according to the opinion in question.

Although secular in purpose when it was erected in front of the old civil courthouse in 1956, former state District Judge John Devine and his court reporter, Karen Friend, changed the character of the monument when they refurbished it in 1995, the majority said in a 24-page opinion.
* * *
Jolly, writing for the majority, said that the original purpose of honoring Mosher was secular, but that purpose was changed in 1995 when Devine and Friend placed a neon light inside the monument to outline the Bible.
Devine had campaigned on a platform of putting Christianity back into government and had Christian ministers lead prayers at the rededication ceremony for the monument, the opinion said.

Oh, and for those concerned about this rather unobtrusive display and its annual cost to the taxpayyer, evidence presented in the cas showed that the cost to the county is a whopping $93.16 per year.

Posted by: Greg at 10:30 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 293 words, total size 2 kb.

August 09, 2006

Hitler's Biblical Re-Write

This sounds like a project that only my troll Ken could love -- eliminating the Jews entirely from the Bible.

Adolf Hitler's deranged racist hatred against the Jews had no boundaries. In his war against the Jews Hitler instructed a group of German theologians to rewrite the Bible and the New Testament, in a bid to remove all mention of the Jews.
The German newspaper, Bilt Zeitung has revealed that in 1939 a group of Protestant theologians, loyal to the Nazi regime, established an institution for the "cleansing of Judaism from Christianity."

The institution's official purpose was to cleanse the Protestant Church of all ceremonies with non-Aryan influences, and to compile alternative scriptures derived from the Nazi ideology and spirit of the Church.

Church staff worked incessantly, conducting comprehensive surveys and publishing a large number of documents that imbued Christianity with Nazi commentary.
One of these publications, the German Book of Faith, included the rewriting of the 10 commandments in the spirit of Nazi ethics, and also added two more commandments:
Respect God and depend on him entirely; maintain silence before God; refrain from any form of hypocrisy; hold sacred thy body and life;
hold sacred goodness and respect; hold sacred truth and loyalty; honor thy mother and thy father; help thy children and become a role model; maintain purity of blood and sanctity of marriage; much wisdom; always be prepared to help and forgive; respect thy Fuhrer; serve in joy thy people through labor and sacrifice Â– this is what God demands of us."

Sick, disgusting, repulsive stuff -- but right up the alley of most of the anti-Semitic "Christians" who support Hamas, Hezbollah, and other genocidal jihadi out to erase israel from the map. Their beliefs don't really differ from those of the "Christians" who cooperated with Hitler in combatting "eternal Jewish enemy".

Posted by: Greg at 11:28 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 311 words, total size 2 kb.

July 28, 2006

Houston For Israel Family Rally

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

July 26, 2006

Prayers For A Cardinal

Francis Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, has been diagnosed with bladder cancer and will undergo surgery tomorrow.

Cardinal Francis George, spiritual leader of the nation's third largest diocese, has been diagnosed with bladder cancer and was scheduled to have his bladder removed Thursday, church officials said.
George, 69, is expected to remain hospitalized at least eight days after surgery, then recuperate at his Chicago residence for six to eight weeks, archdiocese spokeswoman Colleen Dolan said.

A full recovery is expected. Asked about the possibility of losing this battle with cancer and meeting God face-to-face, the Cardinal responded with an optimistic faith.

"The idea of meeting him is, while disquieting, is not something that I've become afraid of," he said. "I'm more afraid of the operation and the complications of life without a bladder than I am of death itself."

Indeed, the meeting of our Lord should come as a source of joy to a Christian. it is our sojourn here, as teh cardinal indicates, that is our source off worry and concern.

During Cardinal George's convalesence, the Archdiocese will be in good hand -- or perhaps I should say under the protective wings of a dbird of a different feather. The Archdiocesan Vicar general, Father John Canary, will administer the Archdiocese. Father Canary was the vice-rector of the seminary I attended, and is a good man. I wish him well.

Caring Father, send forth your healing Spirit upon your servant Francis, and speed him towards a full recovery. Grant that his doctors may do al in their power to remove the cancer and in the subsequent treatment. And strengthen Father John as he guides your church in the Chicago area during this time, that he may act with wisdom and prudence in accord with your will. And we ask this through Jesus Christ, your son. Amen.

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 314 words, total size 2 kb.

July 25, 2006

Will The Left Call Them "Theocrats"?

Probably not, because they are a part of the Letist coalition. Therefore, whatever these religious leftists do is fine.

With a faith-based agenda of their own, liberal and progressive clergy from various denominations are lobbying lawmakers, holding rallies and publicizing their positions. They want to end the Iraq war, ease global warming, combat poverty, raise the minimum wage, revamp immigration laws, and prevent "immoral" cuts in federal social programs.
Some, like the Rev. Robin Meyers of the United Church of Christ in Oklahoma, marry gay couples and seek to reduce abortions while rejecting calls by the right to outlaw them.
"I join the ranks of those who are angry because I have watched as the faith I love has been taken over by fundamentalists who claim to speak for Jesus but whose actions are anything but Christian," declared Meyers, who has written a new book, "Why the Christian Right is Wrong.
According to scholars, the religious left has become its most active since the 1960s when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and other clergy -- black and white -- were key figures in the civil-rights and anti-Vietnam war movements.

Yeah, that's right -- the Left has always welcomed religious support. It's only when people of faith oppose tehm that the liberals insist that their involvement in the policy-making process is illegitimate. So much for the intellectual honesty on their part.

So the next time you hear a Leftist attacking "theo-cons" for violating "separation of Church and State", find out if he is willing to denounce Rev. Robin Meyers or Rev. Jim Wallis.

Or better yet, perhaps you can ask him about repealing a certain federal holiday that honors a certain Baptist minister-- in the name of separation of Church and State, of course.

Posted by: Greg at 04:38 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 306 words, total size 2 kb.

July 21, 2006

Lennon's "Imagine" Banned By Church School

Parents, students, and some outside commentators are outraged that the song -- one which is well-known and well-loved -- would be prohibitted at the school concert.

A CHURCH school has barred children from singing John Lennon's Imagine - because the lyrics are "anti-religious".
Primary pupils were rehearsing the 1971 peace anthem, which asks people to imagine a world without religion, when head Geoff Williams vetoed the song following a teacher's complaint.
Mr Williams, who was backed by his governors, said: "We believe God is the foundation of all we do. It's not an appropriate song for our concert."
Advertisement
Falk AdSolution
Yesterday parents of disappointed children said the ban was "ridiculous". They were backed by secular organisations which accused the school of "fun-hating orthodoxy".
Pupils at St Leonard's C of E School, in Exeter, Devon, rehearsed Imagine for their annual concert, which is themed Songs for a Green Earth.
The song's lyrics include: "Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try/ No hell below us, above us only sky...no thing to kill and die for and no religion too." It was replaced by a traditional ditty, The Building Song.

And frankly, I think it is the correct choice. Let me explain by analogy.

When I was in teh seminary, one of my professors dealt with liturgical music. He argued that while some secular music might be approrpiate during a service, some sends the wrong message and should not be permitted. He mentioned th old 1970s hit, "The First Time (Ever I Saw Your Face)" as an example of th latter. Couples want to use it at their weddings, because of the beautiful melody and the passionate lyrics of teh first verse. Unfortunately, the second verse is all about "Tthe first time ever I laid with you". Stop the presses! A song about the glorious feeling that accompanied the couple's first pre-marital intercourse doesn't belong in a church service. Don't do it.

And that leads us to "Imagine". I love the song. If I had an i-Pod, it would be one of the songs on it. But in a religious setting, it just does not belong, because it includes an explicit rejection of religion and religious faith. And after all, that is what sets religious education apart from non-religious education.

Posted by: Greg at 03:08 PM | Comments (113) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 3 kb.

July 20, 2006

Fatwa Agains Hezbollah

When Muslim religious authorities turn against a jihadi group, it shows that perhaps the Islamic world is beginning to turn against terrorism.

One of Saudi Arabia's leading Wahhabi sheiks, Abdullah bin Jabreen has issued a strongly worded religious edict, or fatwa, declaring it unlawful to support, join or pray for Hezbollah, the Shiite militias lobbing missiles into northern Israel.
The day after Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers on July 12, Sheik Hamid al-Ali issued an informal statement titled "The Sharia position on what is going on." In it, the Kuwaiti based cleric condemned the imperial ambitions of Iran regarding Hezbollah's cross border raid.
The surprising move demonstrates that Sunni Muslim fundamentalists in the Middle East are deeply divided over whether Moslems should support Hezbollah, Iran's Shiite proxies in the war raging in Lebanon.

Unfortunately, this position is not held unanimously.

While the Gulf's ascetic Wahhabi sects, who are closer to the ethnic fighting between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq, have opposed Hezbollah in its stand against Israel's forces, other Sunni fundamentalist groups, such as the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, have pledged their solidarity. On Friday, the brothers will host a rally in support of Hezbollah at Cairo's most influential mosque, Al-Azhar.

So while some Muslim nations and religious leaders have condemned Hezbollah, there is still a sizeable group that supports the terrorists.

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

July 18, 2006

The Problem Of The â€œReligious Leftâ€

Chuck Colson shares this anecdote about the Spiritual Activism Conference which was held recently in Washington, DC. It illustrates the problem that the political Left in this country will always have trying to speak the language of faith â€“ because there is a dearth of faith among the Religious Left.

This conflict is not about political or social divisions. Itâ€™s about authorityâ€”specifically, whether or not Christians are willing to acknowledge that the Bible is our authority.
Tony Campolo certainly recognized this. Though Tony and I disagree on lots of things, I really like Tony. Heâ€™s honest, and he loves the Bible. He tried to explain at this conference the necessity of following Scripture. But one participant retorted, â€œI thought this was a spiritual progressivesâ€™ conference. I donâ€™t want to play the game of â€˜the Bible says this or that,â€™ or that we get validation from something other than ourselves.â€

And therein lies the problem. Rather than talk about God and the spiritual imperatives of his divinely revealed word, the quoted participant effectively stated (in the words of Toby Keith) â€œI want to talk about ME.â€ Dare I suggest that such a theological stance is not religious faith, but is instead spiritual narcissism.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 1 kb.

The Problem Of The Â“Religious LeftÂ”

Chuck Colson shares this anecdote about the Spiritual Activism Conference which was held recently in Washington, DC. It illustrates the problem that the political Left in this country will always have trying to speak the language of faith Â– because there is a dearth of faith among the Religious Left.

This conflict is not about political or social divisions. ItÂ’s about authorityÂ—specifically, whether or not Christians are willing to acknowledge that the Bible is our authority.
Tony Campolo certainly recognized this. Though Tony and I disagree on lots of things, I really like Tony. HeÂ’s honest, and he loves the Bible. He tried to explain at this conference the necessity of following Scripture. But one participant retorted, Â“I thought this was a spiritual progressivesÂ’ conference. I donÂ’t want to play the game of Â‘the Bible says this or that,Â’ or that we get validation from something other than ourselves.Â”

And therein lies the problem. Rather than talk about God and the spiritual imperatives of his divinely revealed word, the quoted participant effectively stated (in the words of Toby Keith) Â“I want to talk about ME.Â” Dare I suggest that such a theological stance is not religious faith, but is instead spiritual narcissism.

Posted by: Greg at 02:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

July 17, 2006

Jew-Hatred In Islam -- The Basis For Jihadi Terrorism

Let there be no mistake -- Islam is a religion built upon Jew-hatred. Israel must therefore act to protect herself from the jihadis who seek to destroy her.

And this Jew-hatred is implicit in the teachings of Islam. After all, the Islamic equivalent of the anti-Christ is held to be a Jew -- and the great apocalyptic battle in Islam is between Muslims and Jews.

Georges Vajda Â—in a seminal 1937 essay [1] (long before the establishment of the State of Israel)Â—provides an overall assessment of the portrayal of the Jews in the hadith collections (the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as recorded by pious transmitters), complemented by Koranic verses, and observations from the earliest Muslim biographies [or Â“siraÂ”] of Muhammad.
VajdaÂ’s research demonstrates how Muslim eschatology emphasizes the JewsÂ’ supreme hostility to Islam. Jews are described as adherents of the DajjālÂ—the Muslim equivalent of the Anti-ChristÂ—and as per another tradition, the Dajjāl is in fact Jewish. At his appearance, other traditions state that the Dajjāl will be accompanied by 70,000 Jews from Isfahan wrapped in their robes, and armed with polished sabers, their heads covered with a sort of veil. When the Dajjāl is defeated, his Jewish companions will be slaughteredÂ— everything will deliver them up except for the so-called gharkad tree. Thus, according to a canonical hadith (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985), if a Jew seeks refuge under a tree or a stone, these objects will be able to speak to tell a Muslim: Â“There is a Jew behind me; come and kill him!Â”
As Vajda observes,

Not only are the Jews vanquished in the eschatological war, but they will serve as ransom for the Muslims in the fires of hell. The sins of certain Muslims will weigh on them like mountains, but on the day of resurrection, these sins will be lifted and laid upon the Jews.

And let's not forget that the name of Hezbollah comes straight from the Koran -- and is applied to those who kill Jews in the name of Allah.

Let us consider the relationship of these Koranic teachings to the two dominant terrorist groups among the Palestinians -- those Israel is fighting today -- Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hizbollah and Hamas have constructed core ideologies based upon this Islamic theology of Jew hatred, which one can glean readily from their foundational documents, and subsequent pronouncements, made ad nauseum. Hamas further demonstrates openly its adherence to a central motif of Jew-hatred in Muslim eschatologyÂ—Article 7 of the Hamas Charter concludes with a verbatim reiteration of the apocalyptic hadith alluded to earlier:

Â“The Last Hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: `Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill himÂ’; but the tree Gharkad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.Â” (Sahih Muslim, Book 40, Number 6985).
Both jihadist terror organizations believe they can now take advantage of their political gains in Lebanon (Hizbollah), and the Palestinian controlled areas of Gaza and the West Bank (Hamas), and succeed in their goal to destroy IsraelÂ—motivated by a primordial hatred of Jews, sanctioned in Muslim theology and eschatology.
HizbollahÂ’s name, Â“The Party of AllahÂ” derives from Koran 5:56:

Â“And whoever takes Allah and His messenger and those who believe for a guardian, then surely the party of Allah are they that shall be triumphant.Â”
In a public statement issued February 15, 1986, Hizbollah conceived of itself as a Â“nationÂ” linked to Muslims worldwide by Â“Â…a strong ideological and political bond, namely Islam.Â” Expressed in the political language of the Koran, HizbollahÂ’s ideology encompasses, triumphally (as per the slogan adorning the party emblem, Â“The Party of Allah is Sure to TriumphÂ”) at least three major objectives: transforming Lebanon into a ShariÂ’a state; destroying Israel; establishing regional, followed by international Islamic hegemony, i.e., bringing the region, then the world under ShariÂ’a law.

In other words, this conflict is not about land -- it is about the extermination of Jews and the imposition of the barbaric ShariÂ’a law on an unwilling world. The destruction of the Jewish people therefore lies at the heart of the motivation of the terrorists, and virtually any move made against them is a valid defensive action on behalf of the state of Israel and the Jewish people. To oppose such defensive activity is therefore to actively cooperate in this attempted genocide, morlly no different than coopertion with the Nazi Final Solution.

Posted by: Greg at 08:53 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 789 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Jeez, it's odd how the Ottoman Empire did not attempt to extirminate the Jews, but in fact is often compared favorably by Jews to the Christian West in its treatment of them.

Maybe Greg is also a dispensationalist who believes the Tim La Haye/Hal Lindsay interpretation of Revelation constitutes
orthodox Christian eschatology. Or do his Islamophobic attitudes extend to the belief that Islam is so primitive it could not possibly
have varied strains of eschatological beliefs that does Christianity? Or that because of Israel's oppression of Palestinians, those
Moslems most proximate might have adopted the strains reflecting most negatively on the oppressor?

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Mon Jul 17 11:36:02 2006 (DZbll)

2 Yeah -- the Jews lived in blessed dhimmitude, oppressed but not extirminated.

Instead the Ottomans went after the Armenians.

And lest you deny that truth, in my youth I knew relatives who survived that genocidal campaign -- just as I knew those who survived Hitler's death camps.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jul 17 12:23:04 2006 (979VY)

3 Well, Ken, I'm sorry to tell you that you have misidentified my eschatological beliefs. Sorry if they don't meet with your approval.

Your beliefs as a part of the Christian Identity movement don't meet with mine -- or any real Christian.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jul 17 12:34:53 2006 (979VY)

4 You're grasping at charred embers. I share Martin Luther's theology.Course he did advocate removal of the Talmud from the body politic of his day.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Tue Jul 18 10:26:40 2006 (DZbll)

5 And given that one of Luther's legacies to the Germans was his vitriolic anti-Semitism, I'd say you fit right in.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jul 18 11:24:50 2006 (qus8s)

6 whatever has been said in the artical is partly true.The Jews also do not love the Muslims either.The feeling of hatered is mutual.The Jews left no stone unturned to destroy Islam and the Muslims and the process is still going on.The American Government which is clearly under the influence of the Jews, in the reacent past has destroyed Afghanistan and Iraq and is now in the process of causing destruction in the entire middle east. Its silence/approval of what is happening in Paleatine and Labanon is an undeniable evidence of its hatered of Islam and Muslims at the instigation of the powerful Jewish loby which infact is ruling the United States.

Posted by: Dr Nooruddin Khan at Sun Jul 23 01:20:41 2006 (9dE+V)

7 Given teh relative merits and level of civilized behaviors of the two religions, I would rather live subject to the Jews than the Muslims any day.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jul 24 05:09:17 2006 (nKtKJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 07, 2006

Cardinal Joseph Zen Zi-kiun -- Hong Kong Cleric Stands Up To Red Chinese

The special status of Hong Kong gives a platform to Cardinal Joseph Zen Zi-kiun, the archbishop of that city. Able to operate openly and with relatively little fear of arrest, he serves as teh visible leader of Chinese Catholics loyal to the Vatican in a nation where such Catholics are subject to serious persecution at th hands of the Red Chinese government and its puppet church.

MASS had scarcely ended on June 4 when a gaggle of young women flocked to the front of the cathedral. Groups of them took turns having their photos taken with the thin, silver-haired 74-year-old who so captured their fancy: Cardinal Joseph Zen Zi-kiun.
He smiled gently for the photos, then walked across an alley to an indoor basketball court with a concrete floor and rusty fans on the walls that barely stirred the warm, humid air. After a youth group had sung religious songs, and after a slide show depicting the Chinese military crackdown in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989, he read a strongly worded message calling for residents of Hong Kong to remember their countrymen elsewhere in China.
"The young people who fought and died for democracy in Tiananmen Square were their brothers and sisters," he said in the speech. "After June 4, we can no longer fight selfishly just to win the most rights for Hong Kong."
With his charisma, erudition and dedication to human rights, Cardinal Zen has become a celebrity here, a man wielding considerable political influence as well as religious power. But his high profile and growing influence have antagonized senior officials in mainland China, particularly those who oversee the state-controlled church.

A man of learning in a non-Christian land with a culture of respect for scholars, Cardinal Zen is the sort of man who dictators fear -- a man of faith whose loyalty is to God and not Caesar. Prepare to be inspired by this profile.

Posted by: Greg at 10:33 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

From The Ashes Of Evil Shines A Ray Of Hope

God can make use of the most evil of things.

Croatia's defense ministry has donated a World War II Nazi ship to a local Roman Catholic monastery, which will turn it into a sailing church, the Jutarnji List daily newspaper reported Tuesday.
The landing ship DTM-219 was used by Nazi Germany to transport tanks and infantry. It was given to communist Yugoslavia after 1945 as part of war compensation, it said.
The ship, currently anchored at a Croatian navy port, will be towed to the city of Sibenik, in the central Adriatic, where it will be adapted at a local shipyard.
It will be used as sailing church for the young, who will be able to sail the Adriatic, pray and meditate as part of church-sponsored religious cruises, the daily said.
Some 90 percent of Croatia's 4.4 million people are Roman Catholics. The country, which gained independence from Yugoslavia in 1991, hopes to join the European Union by the end of this decade.

May God bring people to him by this work, converting a weapon of war into a vessel of grace.

Posted by: Greg at 07:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 202 words, total size 1 kb.

A Literary -- And Spiritual -- Giant

Every year, I give my students a homework assignment on the first day of school. I tell them it cannot be tested or collected, but that it will benefit them immensely when they reach college and continue n into adulthood. It isn't, strictly speaking, even a part of my purview -- I teach history -- but it is one I believe will benefit my students in many different ways.

It is a simple reading assignment -- "Between today and graduation in three school years, read the complete King James Bible and the complete works of Shakespeare."

Before the strict separationsits get their panties in a knot, let me make it clear that my pointing them to the KJV is for the sake of cultural literacy, not religious conversion. Along with Shakespeare, the KJV is one of the great well-springs of Anglo-American culture, and has great influence on the development of English as spoken today. Perhaps the most worthwhile class I took in college was "The Bible as English Literature", for it opened new horizons to me in literature, art, music and historical studies.

The KJV even shapes American history, as is pointed out in this article.

In 1911 the English-speaking world paused to mark the 300th anniversary of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, with American political leaders foremost in the chorus of exaltation. To former president Theodore Roosevelt, this Bible translation was "the Magna Carta of the poor and the oppressed . . . the most democratic book in the world." Soon-to-be president Woodrow Wilson said much the same thing: "The Bible (with its individual value of the human soul) is undoubtedly the book that has made democracy and been the source of all progress."
Americans at the time mostly agreed with these sentiments, because the impact of the KJV was everywhere so obvious. It was obvious for business, with major firms like Harper & Brothers having risen to prominence on the back of its Bible publishing. It was obvious in the physical landscape and in many households because of the widespread use of Bible names for American places (95 variations on Salem) and the nation's children (John, James, Sarah, Rebecca). It was obvious in literature, as with the memorable opening of Herman Melville's Moby Dick: "Call me Ishmael." And it was obvious in politics, with no occasion more memorable than March 4, 1865, when four quotations from the KJV framed Abraham Lincoln's incomparable Second Inaugural Address: Genesis 3:19 ("wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces"); Matthew 18:7 ("woe unto the world because of offences!"); Matthew 7:1 ("judge not that we be not judged"); and Psalm 19:9 ("the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether").

I commend the article -- and the Book that it praises -- to your attention and encourage their study.

Posted by: Greg at 03:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 486 words, total size 3 kb.

July 05, 2006

Pastor And Daughter Murdered In Philippines -- Muslim Terrorists Suspected

The Church has always grown when watered by the blood of those martyred for the faith. Two more Christians gave their lives in the service of Christ in the Philippines last month.

While officiating at a wedding on June 3, Pastor Mocsin L. Hasim received a text message: Â“Pastor, you will die today.Â” The 47-year old pastor had been receiving death threats for months. He brushed it off. After the wedding, he and his 22-year-old daughter, Mercilyn, headed home by motorcycle.

Their bodies were later found near their motorcycle in an isolated area of Zamboanga Del Norte province in western Mindanao of the Philippines.

Pastor Hasim had been shot 19 times, mostly in the back. Mercilyn was shot five times.

There were no known witnesses to the gruesome killings, but police suspect that there were three gunmen, possibly new members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), a Muslim rebel group with a long history of armed conflict against the national government. One of the pastorÂ’s nieces noted, Â“Also, some Muslim extremists in the area were inviting him to embrace Islam once again, but he refused.Â”

Pastor Hasim had received death threats in the months leading up to the murder. During a gift-giving activity in one community, a Muslim approached him and told him to stop what he was doing, lest he be killed. Despite these threats, he remained unmoved and continued his activities, even starting a radio ministry. Mercilyn accompanied him during most of his work.

Please offer prayers for Pastor Hasim's widow, Evelyn, and for Mercilyn's brothers and sister. This family has sacrificed much in the last 10 years, and now they have given two of their number in the service of Christ. They continue to receive threats from the unGodly murderers of their family members.

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

July 03, 2006

More Anti-Christian Violence In Turkey

For the second time this year, a Catholic priest has been stabbed in Turkey. This time the victim survived, but the incident is still troubling.

A French missionary priest survived a knife attack on July 1, but Church leaders in Turkey are worried by a rising tide of anti-Christian violence in the months leading up to a visit by Pope Benedict XVI
Father Pierre Brunissen was badly wounded when he was stabbed twice by a man who was prompted taken into police custody. Authorities said that the priest's assailant appeared mentally unbalanced.
The AsiaNews service reports, however, that Father Brunissen had received a number of threats in recent weeks, and the parish church he served in the town of Samsun had been vandalized. The violence and intimidation had increased, AsiaNews said, after the murder of an Italian missionary, Father Andrea Santoro, in the Turkish town of Trabzon, in February. The young man charged with killing Father Santoro, who was also described as unbalanced, shouted an Islamic slogan after shooting the priest.

Given the threats made against the priest in recent weeks, I doubt the official explanation.

Posted by: Greg at 02:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

June 29, 2006

Crime Against Humanity?

The arrogance of some Muslims is galling, as they seek special protection for their false religion.

The incitement to hatred of Islam should be considered a crime against humanity, TurkeyÂ’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said in a speech before the Council of Europe in Strasbourg yesterday.
Â“Just as anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity, so should Islamophobia be regarded,Â” Erdogan said. Erdogan warned against the growing phobia against Islam and foreigners in the world in which Â“we Muslims feel increasingly under siege.Â”

Excuse me! Muslims feel under siege? Seems to me it is the rest of us, who are being shot at, blown up, beheaded, or having planes crashed into our buildings who ought to be feeling under siege by Islam, not the other way around. And I will point out to you that anti-Semitism is not treated as a crime against humanity Â– indeed, if the Caliphate were ever re-established we would see mullahs declaring anti-Semitism to be the national sport, if the current level of active anti-Semitism among Muslims is any indication.

But beyond that we are back to the Mohammad Cartoon flap again.

Referring to the row over blasphemous cartoons that were originally printed in a Danish newspaper, he said freedom of expression should not be confused with the freedom to insult.
The row showed not only a Â“lack of respect for religious convictions,Â” but was also a sign of a Â“growing and dangerous polarization between the Western and Islamic world.Â” The Turkish prime minister called on Western countries to integrate the Muslims living among them to a much greater degree.
Â“With a (Muslim) population of between 10 and 25 percent in EuropeÂ’s largest cities, it is important to follow a policy of social integration to ensure a peaceful coexistence,Â” Erdogan said. This was a Â“great challengeÂ” that could, however, be overcome Â“with the joint efforts of the host countries and Muslim communities.Â”

So what you are saying is that the presence of Muslims in Christian countries requires submission of those countries to dhimmi status. Not a chance. Indeed, the path of social integration that must be taken here in the West ought to be to mandate that Muslims in the West conform to Western values of liberty of speech, press, and religion Â– and that Muslims elsewhere recognize the human rights of the non-Muslims in their midst.

And the rights of religious minorities in Turkey (the most Â“liberalÂ” and Â“secularÂ” of Muslim countries) was a topic Prime Minister Erdogan sought to avoid at all costs.

Erdogan did not deal with questions from members of the European Parliament about the protection of human rights and religious minorities within Turkey. The parliamentary session of the Council of Europe was debating a decision on freedom of expression and religious tolerance in connection with ErdoganÂ’s visit.

Yeah, that would have meant admitting that Â“secularÂ” Turkey still enforces many of the practices of dhimmitude against its non-Muslim minority.

Indeed, perhaps we need to deal with the issue of whether or not Islam, as it currently exists, is a crime against humanity.

Posted by: Greg at 09:30 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You were being beheaded before you invaded Iraq were you asshole? You're no dhimmi or any sort of oppressed minority anywhere but imperialists bastards who invaded a country on a pack of lies. Fucking hypocrites.

Posted by: RightWingCryBaby at Thu Jun 29 23:51:32 2006 (1c+P2)

2 Interesting attempt at misdirection, LeftWingMoron.

You pull one word out of my post and use it to build a case that the US is in the wrong here.

You neatly ignore the WTC in 1993, the Khobar Towers attack, the USS Cole attack, 9/11 and every other act of Muslim terrorism perpetrated against Western targets over the last 40 years, all of which predate the war in Iraq.

Care to try again, or are you too intellectually bankrupt to come up with a reasonable effort.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 01:06:49 2006 (1zEfi)

3 I'll help "crybaby",-- as an America First Righty.
The WTC attack in 1993, the Khobar Towers attack, the Cole attack, and the 9/11 attack....
all FOLLOWED FIFTY YEARS OF US INTERVENTION, REPLETE WITH A MYRIAD BASES AND OVERTHROWING
DULY ELECTED GOVERNMENTS in the Moslem world

Now,if America were geopolitically situated in or near Russia's domain, the record would be
problematic enough, all things being equal. But America is located on the opposite side of the globe with founders who believed in the
Monroe Doctrine of staying in our hemisphere.

RHYMES WITH RIGHT'S Pavlovian disdain of "crybaby" comes from an a priori sense of
American entitlement to police the world and if any on the far side of the globe object to the manner we police it and give us a little
blowback, they're the baddies.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Jun 30 05:22:13 2006 (+6sav)

4 Overthrowing duly elected governments in the Muslim world? Good grief, Ken, other than Iran in the 1950s, you won't find an example of that

Hell, you also won't find many elected governments in the Muslim world during this time, most of them being either petty kingdoms ruled by absolute monarchs or dictators like Saddam and Assad. We generally even left those alone -- even going so far to protect Nasser from the Brits, French and Israelis when our best interests would have been served by supporting them.

And i'm shocked, Ken that you leave out your usual refrain "Blame it on the Jooooooooos!" You've lost your usual anti-Semitic touch, dude.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 06:06:03 2006 (J7UgM)

5 And Ken, I suggest you get a globe and examine it -- you'll find that Russia is not half a world away, but a matter of tens of miles.

And to take the Monroe Doctrine and apply it to the post-WWII world is absurd. But then again, maybe your position is that we should not have interfered withHitler following the german declaration of war after pearl harbor, there wouldn't be any problem -- and you, Ken could happily live in a world without any Jooooooooos!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 06:12:17 2006 (J7UgM)

6 Guess we didn't overthrow Saddam....it was like
the dream sequence on "Dallas."

And one of those "monarchies" was the Shah whom
we replaced the democratically elected Mossadeh with.

But then you don't always need to overthrow when the CIA finances puppets under the table.

Finally, you're no student of National Socialist Germany, but then join the American crowd who
believes everything the mainstream media says about it. The historical record shows, Nazi
dignitaries made methodical attempts throughout the 1930s to deport their Jews-not exactly
a strategy for killing them . And as JEWISH Professor of History (Princeton) Arno Mayer argues in "Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?", the bulk of Jews perished at the end of the war due to the collapse of the regime the Nazis never expected (and owing to FDRs unconditional surrender demands). A collapse resulting in widespread starvation,dysentery,typhus,etc.for the entire population, whether detained, (like our Japanese) or free.

Yes, a Monroe Doctrine application as advocated for example by Charles Lindbergh and many GOP
politicians form the Midwest, would have saved Jewish lives. Hitler's alliance made it difficult,as did the FDR-goaded Japanese attack, which cryptographers had broken the code and warned about (see "Day of Deceit"/Stinnett.)

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Jun 30 07:14:15 2006 (+6sav)

7 I'm not going to let off your poor, misunderstood hero Adolf and fellow-travellers like Lindbergh nearly as easily as you want us to.

That the result of WWII was something other than your perfect world -- National Socialists controlling Europe and International Socialists controlling Asia -- is the only reason you have to put up with that group you so hate, those infernal Joooooooooos!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 07:36:38 2006 (J7UgM)

8 And by the way, Ken, could you tell me the last conflict in which you believed the US was right and its enemies wrong? It is prety clear that you support every US enemy since 1941 -- how much earlier in history must we reach for you to concede that America was in the right.

Or has it ever been?

And if it has, do you believe it was due to the lack of a critical mass of evil Jooooooooooooooooos undermining American principles?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 07:40:04 2006 (J7UgM)

9 By tossing around terms like "hate" and exagerrated caraicatures via distorted spellings,you only reveal your inability to argue effectively-- and manipulation by alien lobbies who,for example, counselled similar tactics to bring traditional American values into disrepute.
I prove Hitler did NOT militate for genocide by citing fact-- and you throw the word "hate" out, a fine German like Jung might posit YOUR hatred for truth in this sequence. Nevertheless, my internet postings contain several degrees less vitriol than is found in the anti-Islamic and Arabophobic ragings that are normative in the morally bankrupt neocon Right sites.

Pat Buchanan's book covering the war period makes the case that sans US participation Germany and Russia would have exhausted themseelves in a stand-still and relaxed their systems as a result-( although critics had a much larger berth in critiquing Hitler and the regime in the 1930s than is generally believed.)

German dominance of Europe would have been about as "harsh" as England's centuries-long dominance, which I find no criticism thereof from you.

Teddy Roosevelt was the last president to rise above the mediocre but we are currently losing the second stage of the last just Mexican-American war,and we deserve to, if we insist on Empire.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Fri Jun 30 10:06:41 2006 (+6sav)

10 I just don't buy your historical revisionism from the Holocaust denial perspective.

I guess you consider yourself to be a part of the Master Race, mein Herr.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Fri Jun 30 11:28:24 2006 (HttEp)

11 Isn't it telling (and the Iranian Prez has "told it") that in Europe it's legal to assert the Crucifixion story is a hoax but jailworthy to
say, for example,5 million instead of 6 million died in the "Holocaust?"
Pray tell what are the European powers-that-be afraid of, in banning any discussion of what they seek to enshrine as a religious doctrine?

Prof. Arno Mayer is a functionalist rather than an exterminationist--but I suppose even that is heretical revisionism to the uninformed.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sat Jul 1 05:58:41 2006 (j1Lns)

12 Sorry you can't go to Europe to lie about the evil Joooooooooos, Ken. Guess you'll just have to stay in the US to do so.

And functionalist is just another word for Holocaust denier.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Sat Jul 1 07:58:22 2006 (UDwbB)

13 Keep your political version of Linus' security blanket lest you mega-paradigm tumbles down.

Posted by: Ken Hoop at Sat Jul 1 09:05:35 2006 (j1Lns)

14 I prove Hitler did NOT militate for genocide by citing fact...

Oh. My. God.

Greg, this a**hole isn't worth the time AT ALL, m'man. Six million dead isn't proof enough for him ... he's way too far gone.

repost by site owner -- original inadvertantly lost in despamming due to my error

Posted by: Hube at Sun Jul 2 03:20:37 2006 (U2Dlj)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 21, 2006

New Episcopal Head Gives Jesus A Sex Change

If this is representative of mainstream Episcopal theology, I'd have to say that the Episcopal Church USA is a post-Christian denomination.

While addressing a morning Eucharist at the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop-elect Katherine Jefferts Schori declared, "Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation. And you and I are His children."
With Jefferts Schori as the leader-to-be of the Episcopal Chuch, it seems that the church will move beyond gender-inclusive language to transgender-inclusive language.
Yesterday however, the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops refused to even consider a resolution that would affirm the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ as "the only name by which any person may be saved." The Rev. Canon Eugene McDowell of the Diocese of North Carolina explained, "This type of language was used in 1920s and 1930s to alienate the type of people who were executed. It was called the Holocaust."
Perhaps Episcopalians would be more receptive of a resolution affirming the supreme transexuality of Jesus.

So let me see if I have this straight (forgive the exclusive language) -- the ECUSA will not affirm a fundamental point of the historic Christian faith contained in Scripture, but it will fiddle around with Jesus' genitals. How can a Christian actually stay a member?

UPDATE: More in The Times of London.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

June 19, 2006

Why Not "Rock, Paper, Scissors"?

I've got no problem with inclusive language translations of Scripture where they are appropriate. I understand the desire for inclusive language liturgies, provided that the sense of the sacred is not lost.

But when the scriptural is simply jettisoned our of a desire to be sensitive and inclusive, folks enter into an area that approaches heresy -- if it does not cross the line.

Take this Presbyterian proposal.

The divine Trinity -- "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" -- could also be known as "Mother, Child and Womb" or "Rock, Redeemer, Friend" at some Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) services under an action Monday by the church's national assembly.
Delegates to the meeting voted to "receive" a policy paper on gender-inclusive language for the Trinity, a step short of approving it. That means church officials can propose experimental liturgies with alternative phrasings for the Trinity, but congregations won't be required to use them.
"This does not alter the church's theological position, but provides an educational resource to enhance the spiritual life of our membership," legislative committee chair Nancy Olthoff, an Iowa laywoman, said during Monday's debate on the Trinity.
The assembly narrowly defeated a conservative bid to refer the paper back for further study.
A panel that worked on the issue since 2000 said the classical language for the Trinity should still be used, but added that Presbyterians also should seek "fresh ways to speak of the mystery of the triune God" to "expand the church's vocabulary of praise and wonder."

The problem is that one of the proposals -- "Mother, Child, Womb" -- ignores the relational aspect that already exists. Jesus had a mother -- the Virgin Mary -- and it was her womb -- as in "blessed is the fruit of thy womb" -- from which Jesus was born. The new construction gives us a strange "Jesus Has Two Mommies" theology that ought to be avoided at all costs.

A number of those in attendance saw other problems with the recommendations.

Youth delegate Dorothy Hill, a student at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, was uncomfortable with changing the Trinity wording. She said the paper "suggests viewpoints that seem to be in tension with what our church has always held to be true about our Trinitarian God."
Hill reminded delegates that the Ten Commandments say "the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name."
The Rev. Deborah Funke of Montana warned that the paper would be "theologically confusing and divisive" at a time when the denomination of 2.3 million members faces other troublesome issues.

So what we see at this time is another denomination struggling with the question of fidelity to the traditional faith of Christianity. Sadly, infidelity may win in the Presbyterian Church, as it did in the Episcopal Church over the weekend (and in the United Church of Christ years ago).

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO Stop The ACLU, Conservative Cat, Mark My Words, Third World County, Blue Star Chronicle, Dumb Ox

Posted by: Greg at 12:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 502 words, total size 4 kb.

June 18, 2006

Schism Imminent?

The ordination of women and homosexuals -- especially to the episcopacy -- have been of concern to the worldwide Anglican Communion for years. This weekend's selection of a pro-homosexual female bishop to head the Episcopal Church in the United States can only serve to exacerbate the divisions.

The Episcopal Church chose Nevada Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as its leader yesterday, making her the first woman to head any denomination in the Anglican Communion worldwide.
The decision by delegates to the Episcopal General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, to choose a female presiding bishop for the 2.3 million-member denomination, 30 years after the church first allowed women to become priests, may exacerbate tensions between Episcopalians and other branches of the Anglican church. Three years ago, Episcopalians angered many conservatives in the United States and abroad by electing an openly gay man from New Hampshire, V. Gene Robinson, as a bishop.
Jefferts Schori, 52, a former oceanographer, backed Robinson's election. The runner-up in the race for presiding bishop, Alabama Bishop Henry Parsley, opposed consecrating Robinson.
Before Robinson's consecration in 2003, no openly gay priest had become a bishop in the Anglican church's history, which extends back more than 450 years. Only the United States, Canada and New Zealand have female bishops, although some other provinces allow women to qualify for the position. The Church of England does not allow female bishops.
With outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold by her side, Jefferts Schori told the delegates yesterday that she was "awed and honored and deeply privileged to be elected." She was chosen on the fifth ballot, getting 95 votes to 93 for six male candidates.
The historic vote shocked many delegates who had gathered at the convention, where they were also debating whether to temporarily halt the appointment of gay bishops to make amends with other Anglican leaders. Gasps escaped from some members when Jefferts Schori's name was announced, according to the Associated Press.

While the American branch of Anglicanism is among the most liberal, the worldwide Anglican community is relatively conservative -- and thatose conservative areas are where it is growing. In the United States, there has already been a series of efforts to place more traditionalist congregations under the control of foreign bishops who are more faithful to the teachings of Scripture and tradition.

This move will continue -- and will likely see the expulsion of the Episcopal Church USA from the Anglican Communion, and with the traditionalist remnant remaining a part of worldwide Anglicanism.

Posted by: Greg at 10:54 PM | Comments (77) | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

June 17, 2006

Where Is The Muslim Outrage?

Muslims go insane when they believe there has been disrespect shown to those things that they hold sacred.

A couple of guys post pictures on the internet of Koran's used for target practice, and they receive death threats around the internet. Someone reports a Koran in a toilet, and there are riots around the world. Newspapers publis pictures of the false prophet Mohammad and there is international chaos.

But somehow, this elicits no outrage from the Muslim world.

I guess it is acceptable to desecrate a Koran by blowing up a mosque and killing worshipers -- resulting in the Muslim holy book being burned and spattered with innocent blood.

So I guess that the next time jihadis hole up in a mosque and attack American troops, it will be just fine to send an a couple of al-Zarqawi specials crashing down on the place, regardless of the number of Koran's inside.

After all, such things don't offend Muslim sensibilities at all.

(Hat Tip: Tammy Bruce)

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

June 16, 2006

That Should Be "AntiChrist Church of PC"

The latest attempt to intimidate those who support letting the people speak on homosexual marriage is coming from a faux-church in Florida.

A Florida church launched a campaign this week to identify supporters of a proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage by publishing the names and addresses of 400,000 Florida residents in 60 counties.
The Internet campaign by Christ Church of Peace, a nondenominational church in Jacksonville, has been denounced by groups that support a state ballot initiative that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Gary Debusk, pastor of Christ Church of Peace, said the church began the ''Know Thy Neighbor'' effort Monday to encourage dialogue and prevent voter-signature fraud. As the head of a congregation that supports same-sex marriage, Debusk said he also wanted to add a new perspective to a debate that he said has been dominated largely by religious conservatives. ''It's time for another voice that is Christian to be heard,'' he said.

The problem is that their voice is not a Christian one -- it speaks in a manner that is antithetical to the clear message of the bible.

And I do like this point, made by supporters of traditional marriage.

Christian groups such as the Fort Lauderdale-based Center for Reclaiming America and the Florida Family Policy Council have denounced the Web site as a misguided effort to intimidate activists.
''It's a gross invasion of people's privacy,'' said John Stemberger, president and general counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council, an offshoot of James Dobson's national Christian conservative group Focus on the Family.
Stemberger argued that, if Christian conservatives published the names and addresses of gay-rights activists, they would likely be condemned as hatemongers.
''A lot of people would be outraged and say it's a hateful, un-Christian gesture,'' he said.

I'd have to agree -- and would like to remind folks that the Klan and other groups sought public records back in teh 1950s and 1960s so that folks could "Know Thy Neighbor" if they were supporters of the civil rights movement. Such methods are not designed to foster dialogue -- they are designed to intimidate, harrass, and target those with whom the sponsors disagree.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 380 words, total size 2 kb.

June 12, 2006

Newdow Suit Shot Down

Michael Newdow, the militant atheist, has lost a round in court regarding the use of the motto "In God We Trust" on our coinage.

A federal judge on Monday rejected a lawsuit from an atheist who said having the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and dollar bills violated his First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. said the minted words amounted to a secular national slogan that did not trample on Michael Newdow's avowed religious views.
Newdow, a Sacramento doctor and lawyer, also is engaged in an ongoing effort to have the Pledge of Allegiance banned from public schools because it contains the words "under God."
* * *
Newdow's "In God We Trust" lawsuit targeted Congress and several federal officials, claiming that by making money with the phrase on it the government was establishing a religion in violation of the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state.
The phrase "excludes people who don't believe in God," he claimed.
Damrell disagreed, citing a 9th Circuit decision from 1970 that concluded the four words were a national motto that had "nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion."
Newdow said Monday he would appeal.

Now this should be interesting -- the Ninth Circuit will have to overturn its own precedent to decide in his favor. Not that such an outcome is inconceivable, given the overturning of long-standing precedents by other courts to reach decisions favorable to consensual sodomy, homosexual marriage, and other pet notions of the Left. This will end up in the Supreme Court -- and if previous precedents hold, Newdow and his suit wil get rejecected.

MORE AT Right on the Left Coast, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 10:55 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.

June 11, 2006

Fox News Host Takes Down Phelps-Cult Hatemonger!

I've despised Fred Phelps and his pseudo-Christian cult for many years -- long before his anti-war protest brought him to the attention of most Americans. So I was pleased to see information on this WorldNetDaily article over at Stop the ACLU, about an exchange between FoxNews host Julie banderas, who said what most decent Americans really think about the hatemongers from Westboro Baptist Church (which is made up almost entirely of Phelps family members),

Banderas: Â“The Bible says Â‘the fear of the Lord is hatred of evil,Â’ [from the Book of] Proverbs. Â‘Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate.Â’ Perverted speech like yours: Â‘God hates fags.Â’ You are preaching absolute B.-., and you know the final letter.Â”
Phelps-Roper: Â“If you donÂ’t tell them that this nation is full of idolatry, full of adulteries Â…
Banderas: Â“Full of insane people like yourself, maÂ’am.Â”
Phelps-Roper: Â“YouÂ’re proud. YouÂ’re proud of your sins. You canÂ’t do enough sinning. You think Â‘gayÂ’ pride, bimbo. You have sinned away your day of grace.Â”
Banderas: Â“OK, you are an abomination.Â”
Phelps-Roper: Â“America is doomed. America is doomed. Â… Before your eyes, missy, youÂ’re gonna see the destruction of America.Â”
Banderas: Â“If America is doomed, then why donÂ’t you get out? Why are you in this country? Why are you an American? Are you an American?Â”
Phelps-Roper: Â“I am exactly where my God put me to tell you plainly, that you are going to hell, and thereÂ’s nothing you can do about it.Â”
Banderas: Â“Why donÂ’t you take your church to another country, then, maÂ’am? Thank you so much. You should not be proud to be an American, and thank you. Good-bye.Â”

Go Julie -- it is time that the media quit treating these low-lifes like just one more group expressing a valid opinion that merits hearing and equal consideration.

Posted by: Greg at 10:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 319 words, total size 2 kb.

June 08, 2006

Lawsuit To Enforce Religious Freedom For Business Owner

You may remember my post about Tim Bono, an Alexandria, VA businessman who refused to accept a job reproducing pro-homosexual videos for a lesbian activist at his video reporduction business.

Hving been found guilty of discrimination for abiding by his Christian moral principles in his day-to-day business activities, Bono decided to take legal action to vindicate his First Amendment rights. The suit was filed by the Liberty Counsel, a conservative civil liberties group, yesterday.

The lawsuit filed today challenges the authority of the Commission to enter the order. The so-called Â“DillonÂ’s Rule,Â” under Virginia law, prohibits local government from passing or enforcing nondiscrimination laws that are not authorized by the state. The state does not list Â“sexual orientationÂ” as a protected civil right or class. The suit would take away all authority from the Commission to enforce Â“sexual orientationÂ” nondiscrimination laws. The lawsuit will also affect several other Virginia counties that have illegally passed Â“sexual orientationÂ” antidiscrimination laws. The suit also alleges violations of Mr. BonoÂ’s freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, and sections 12 and 16 of the Virginia Constitution.
Erik Stanley, Chief Counsel of Liberty Counsel, stated: Â“As a newspaper is not required to run every proposed ad, so a duplicator or printer is not obligated to reproduce every proposed copy. Mr. Bono does not have to reproduce a customerÂ’s hate speech, obscenity or pornography, nor may a customer hijack Mr. BonoÂ’s business and force him to promote a homosexual agenda. Since the state of Virginia does not recognize Â‘sexual orientationÂ’ as a civil right, neither Arlington County nor any other county may enforce such laws. This lawsuit will rein in renegade counties that have intentionally violated state law. Neither Arlington County nor any other local government entity is above the law.Â”
Several years ago, the Virginia Attorney General issued an opinion concluding that local Â“sexual orientationÂ” laws violated state law.

May justice be done, and religious freedom be indicated.

Posted by: Greg at 12:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

June 05, 2006

Senator Kennedy â€“ Is The Catholic Church Bigoted?

This incredible quote comes from Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Theological Cafeteria).

â€œA vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple.â€ Thus spoke Sen. Ted Kennedy in reference to the Marriage Protection Amendment being debated in the Senate today.

Senator â€“ does this mean that your own Archbishop is a bigot for supporting this amendment? Does this mean the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Catholic Church â€“ both in the US and in the Vatican â€“ are bigots for insisting that the traditional definition of marriage should be enshrined in law worldwide and that homosexual marriage should be rejected wherever it rears its head?

And what of this quote, Senator?

Americans believe in tearing down the walls of discrimination and inequality, not creating new barriers for civil rights

Is it your belief that the Catholic Church is an un-American, anti-civil rights church? If so, do you now repudiate the supposed lessons of the 1960 presidential election, which supposedly dispelled for all time the notion that one cannot be a good Catholic and a good American at the same time? In short, do you repudiate the position taken by your late brother, President John F. Kennedy, and instead take the position held by the KKK and other religious bigots of that day?

If no, how can you make such brazen statements attacking your own Church?

If yes, do you now declare that you are taking a formal act to separate yourself from the Catholic Church â€“ an institution which your words appear to brand as bigoted and opposed to American values?

After all â€“ you cannot have it both ways. Either you believe in and embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church, or you reject both them and the Church.

Decide â€“ and speak out as clearly and forcefully as you did in the quotes above.

Oh, and by the way, Senator â€“ in every state -- 19 in all, most likely 20 after a vote in Alabama tomorrow -- in which the people have been given a chance to speak directly on the matter, they have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual marriage and embraced the traditional definition of marriage this amendment would promulgate. In several cases, judges have thwarted the clear will of the people. In all, 45 states have acted to prevent homosexual marriage from being imposed upon them by renegade courts or the actions of other states. No state has ever voluntarily adopted homosexual marriage â€“ and Massachusetts was forced to do so by a court which ruled that for over 200 years the people of Massachusetts, including the generation that adopted it, misunderstood their own constitution when they repeatedly adopted the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Given the evidentiary weight of such facts, how can you possibly make the claim that those who support efforts to protect the definition of marriage from judicial reinvention are un-American?

And Senator -- is your own governor, Mitt Romney, an un-American bigot? If so, do you have the political courage to state so publicly. Would you argue that the mormon Church is a bigotted organization for its opposition to homosexual marriage -- especially given your history of attacking Romney for his religious beliefs.

UPDATE -- 6/7/2006: Senator Kennedy -- Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage by a 4-1 margin. Is over 80% of labama un-American?

Posted by: Greg at 06:07 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 570 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Umm, yeah, the Catholic church will eventually come around and realize that its position on this issue is, in fact, borne of prejudice and bigotry. The Church's right to be anti-homosexual within its own theology is, of course, beyond question. But for the Church to seek to support state bigotry is something they will regret as surely as they came to regret their persecution of Galileo.

Just one Catholic's opinion, of course.

Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 5 08:48:58 2006 (aSKj6)

2 As soon as we get ride of all the Liberal Roman Catholics,(including Kennedy's and their kind) the Church will right itself and be back on track. Perhaps it will start all over on it's own new path. The Liberals have destroyed what was the Roman Catholic Rite and made it a liberal Protestant party place. Try to find a {real}Latin Mass- pre Vatican II style, anywhere. Altar railings are gone, the Tabernacle is moved, the words of the mass have been changed, the crusifix cross is replaced by a 'risen christ' or a modern picasso painting of some sort, we now have altar girls, and it seems like any Jane, Dick or Harry can distribute communion, we now have Holiday shows - in church- at Christmas time, all of the Saints Statues are missing. It's all to similar to cooking a frog: cold water and turn up the heat- you'll get use to it!

The B/S has to stop. Where are the real Roman Catholics?

Posted by: JimBD at Mon Jun 5 09:59:33 2006 (GoE0N)

3 So it's impossible to be a member of an organization and disagree (strongly) with something it's doing?

Posted by: John at Mon Jun 5 12:40:47 2006 (Fzf0K)

4 If one rejects the teaching authority of a Church which claims to be teaching unambiguous moral truth, one really cannot remain a member -- if one has any integrity.

This isn't your local chamber of commerce, after all.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 5 22:50:34 2006 (PEFrQ)

5 Also, is there not a difference between remaining part of a group with which one disagres and remaining part of a group that one considers to be both bigoted and un-American?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 5 22:52:46 2006 (PEFrQ)

6 Well, the church also at one point persecuted people who said that the earth revolves around the sun; I'm sure the argument that "they teach unambiguous truth and if you don't like it, get out" (or at that time, be executed) was used then.

The Church has a history of changing its teachings.

Posted by: John at Mon Jun 5 23:12:01 2006 (Q3hKh)

7 RWR -

You ask whether there is a problem in remaining part of a group that one considers to be both bigoted and un-American. There you go again, putting words in people's mouths. I would not call the Church bigoted and un-American, and Ted Kennedy didn't do that, either. We are saying that one of its positions is bigoted and un-American, but there is a difference.

To put the shoe on the other foot, if you wrote that this artificial debate on an amendment which is going nowhere is nothing but moronic pandering to cultural conservatives who ought to be waking up to the fact that the corporate conservatives are using them and laughing at their stupidity - that would be an enlightened and informed position for you to take. But it wouldn't necessarily mean that you are always enlightened and informed! ;-)

Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 5 23:46:29 2006 (aSKj6)

8 I actually read an excellent article on the difference between believing that being gay is "sin" and being bigotted against gay people.

Is an Orthodox Jew who very strongly believes that people should remain Kosher biggoted against those of any religion who do not follow a Kosher diet? However can you imagine how absurd it would seem in our society if we amended public policy to FORCE everyone into a Kosher diet (which is only so outlandish if you consider many Muslim theocracies do have such laws)? In today's American society I think it's reasonable to suggest that strongly held religious beliefs on homosexuality can be respected as privately held convictions while the holder is not particularly bigotted. However when one seeks to actively hurt people they disagree with by writing those private religious convictions into public policy it becomes a very different thing.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 6 07:06:54 2006 (dvSGO)

9 Hmmmmmm....

So you believe that holding positions that are "bigoted" and "un-American" does not make a person or an organization bigoted or un-American. Is that sort of semantic gamesmanship sort of like arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is?

Would you accept the argument that someone who holds racist positions is not a racist? Under your argument, would membership in the Klan in no way be indicative of racism on the part of a member? Is that how you guys justify keeping Robert Byrd around?

And dolphin -- under your argument, I'm more than willing to accept your privately held beliefs that homosexuals should be permitted to marry each other, but is it not bigorty to force everyone to accept that position by writing it into law -- especially over the objection of a clear majority of Americans? After all, you will be actively hurting those who are forced to recognize such marriages by forcing them to actively participate in and cooperate with what they believe to be immoral activity -- thus imperilling their imoprtal souls!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 09:44:42 2006 (ZktbQ)

10 Also, i've never met anyone who held that a homosexual orientation is a sin -- and that certainly is not Catholic teaching.

On the other hand, I know many who argue that same-sex sexual relations -- and heterrosexual relations outside of marriage -- is immoral. And that would, in fact, be Catholic teaching.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 09:47:28 2006 (ZktbQ)

11 John Dan and Fish have adopted Moral Relativism -THAT is not promoted by the real church.

Keep blurring the lines of right and wrong, good and evil, proper and improper, respect and disrepect, self respect and ..... the list goes on.... The rules have evolved over time. What the heck does 2000+ years of development have that 50-60 years of 'know it alls' can replace in a snap

Posted by: .JimBD at Tue Jun 6 14:03:34 2006 (GoE0N)

12 Jim -- Dolphins are mamals. :-)

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 14:27:06 2006 (qqHbr)

13 Jim -

You make me laugh. Have you ever read anything about moral relativism, or is it just a phrase you overheard and decided to work into a conversation?

Please don't use phrases you don't understand.

Your knowledge of philosophy rivals your knowledge of zoology.

Posted by: Dan at Tue Jun 6 15:01:07 2006 (aSKj6)

14 Dan wrote: ".. the Catholic church will eventually come around and realize that its position on this issue is, in fact, borne of prejudice and bigotry."

The Church's position on this issue is based on common sense and natural law as well as theological truth. Not prejudice. There is no "pre-judgment" on homosexuality. It's been very thoroughly thought through and condemned. This is not a new issue. The first letter to the Romans deals with it plainly enough.

Dan wrote.."The Church's right to be anti-homosexual within its own theology is, of course, beyond question."

The Church is not "anti-homosexual" any more than it is "anti-heterosexual". The Church looks at a person as more than their sexual identity. Homosexuals are sinners like the everyone and need to renounce their sin and seek a relationship with God that will enable them to get to Heaven, not Hell. Homosexual behavior like adultery or fornication are all mortal sins and will all suffice for damnation. Chastity employed by all is the solution.

Dan wrote: "But for the Church to seek to support state bigotry is something they will regret as surely as they came to regret their persecution of Galileo."

The Church puts God's law above the state and demands that they have the right to influence society. Separation of Church and State is a liberal anti-religiously bigoted fiction and an error that religion should have no impact in the public square. But men and women who are religious and live according to those tenents cause family units to spring up of high moral fiber and consequently communities and larger societies will develop better with a religious foundation than without.

There was no persecution of Galileo by the way. The Church never condemned the Copernican system. It was Galileo's insistence on "the facts" (that have since been proven wrong such as tidal effects being proof of planetary rotation) regarding his hypothesis that "proved the Bible wrong" that was censured. Galileo was prideful and arrogant in his attitude and he'd promised to continue his research as a "hypothesis" until better proof could be determined. Had he done this, he would have continued prudently and enjoyed the patronage and support of the scientific ecclesiastical authorities such as Cardinal Schaumberg and Bishop Tiedemann Giese who had supported him previously. Galileo broke this promise in his later fictional publications and provoked a confrontation.

The Catholic Church was actually the greatest and at times the only advocate of the sciences and acted prudently in the Galileo affair.

Galileo's total punishment consisted in his recitation of seven psalms once a week for three years, he spent a total of 21 days in the apartments of the Holy Office which were very comfortable and his confinement was spent in the homes of friends and family. He died with a papal blessing being given at his funeral.

Posted by: Gerard at Wed Jun 7 02:50:07 2006 (rkwwV)

15 Also, i've never met anyone who held that a homosexual orientation is a sin -- and that certainly is not Catholic teaching.

I've met you and way to many others who believe just that, and you know it. Secondly, the argument is just as strong if you limit it to behavior (I always find it funny when the hate brigade claims that marriage is about absollutely nothing except for sexual behavior, but then wants to "protect it").

And dolphin -- under your argument, I'm more than willing to accept your privately held beliefs that homosexuals should be permitted to marry each other, but is it not bigorty to force everyone to accept that position by writing it into law

And the point goes over your head again. You don't understand the difference between religious beliefs and public policy. Either that or you are saying you WOULD support legislation to enforce a Kosher diet on the populace.

fter all, you will be actively hurting those who are forced to recognize such marriages by forcing them to actively participate in and cooperate with what they believe to be immoral activity -- thus imperilling their imoprtal souls!

Again, the line that marriage equality will hurt straight people. This line is always brought out, but never backed... I can guess why.

Oh, and I will stand right there with you if the state ever forces someone to "actively participate in and cooperate with what the believe to be immoral activity." We're simply asking for the government of which we are a part to treat us like every other citizen. We don't really care if you approve of our existence. You can hate whomever you wish and I defend your right to do so.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 7 04:06:06 2006 (dvSGO)

16 Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. The etymology of "marriage" presupposes a complementarity.

Just as their are no homosexual "couples" they are "pairs" if anything.

The problem today is most advocates of calling homosexual pairings "marriage" don't understand the words they are using.

Posted by: Gerard at Wed Jun 7 07:16:18 2006 (rkwwV)

17 Dolphin -- You will not call me a liar again. Consider it a case of me imposing your own rules on you. Ancd certainly do not ever -- AND I MEAN EVER -- contradict me as to what my religious beliefs are, you asshole.

Now dolphin, you miss a point in your "religious belief/public policy" argument. Most folks attempt to enact public policies that are in keeping with their moral codes -- moral codes which are often directly tied to religious beliefs. Your argument effectively (though I do not believe you mean it to) excludes from participation in the public policy process any sincere religious believer. After all, they do not -- indeed cannot -- separate their "personal beliefs" regarding right and wrong from what their public policy preferences.

But let's take your Kosher food argument. Such a thing would not happen in the US for many reasons -- not the least of which being that those who keep kosher are such a miniscule part of the populace. Israel, on the other hand, might legitimately respond to the will of the majority of its citizenry by requiring that non-kosher food be labeled as such, be separated from non-kosher food, or even forbid kosher and non-kosher food being sold or served in the sam establishments. I know that it might offend your sensibilities, but the majority does have rights that merit respect -- including the right to order society in a manner that conforms with their beliefs, so long as it be just, whether or not such decisions are always "rational".

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 11:32:12 2006 (YMOL3)

18 First of all, if you tell untruths, I will point them out. Don't like it, ban me.

Secondly when your so-called religious "beliefs" contradict statments you have made directly in the past (or even in the actual post), I will also point that out. Again, don't like it, ban me. Actually, don't like it, just ask me to leave. I'm respectful enough of others to honor their wishes on their own property.

Finally, you have finally made yourself consistent in your last paragraph by acknowleging that you would not be opposed to a theocracy if it was what "the majority" wanted. I have a hunch you only feel that way because in your mind you believe "the majority" follows the same twisted version of Christianity. You would be wrong on that, but at least by admiting you've no problem with turning the United States into a theocratic government you have brought your views into consistency.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 7 12:48:10 2006 (R1q+a)

19 Dolphin -- Your untruths and misrepresentations of my religious beliefs will stop NOW. I do not believe homosexual orientation is immoral, and I challenge you to find any statement of mine to that effect. If you cannot, you WILL retract your libelous falsehood. You have 24 hours.

Also, what I suggest would be reasonable and appropriate is NOT theocracy -- it is democracy. I realize you do not believe in such a thing when religious individuals are permitted to participate and win, but that simply is evidence of your failure to grasp and embrace the fundamental nature of a democratic system. But if you really believe that it is inappropriate for me to support and work for laws consistent with my religious beliefs and values, then I suppose you won't be upset if I have to call for the repeal of laws against murder, sexual assault, theft, perjury, etc.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 13:06:44 2006 (9RvvR)

20 Isn't RWR cute when he's mad?? Especially when he starts issuing ultimatums and bossing the rest of us around.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Jun 7 14:45:24 2006 (aSKj6)

21 Fish, you passed biology almost- you shouldn't screw with the fish -or other men. If your pull your head out of your arse and pretend to be human and Christian, you're suppose to "love" your wife, not get your rocks off with a 'special friend' or other animal.

STOP changing the definitions of words to fit your micro world, that the rest of the world has to- all of the sudden- accept because YOU don't like the meaning & we have to accept it, and I won't change the meaning of dolphin to Tuna or Chicken of the Sea or Crabs!

Your kind of action and belief is EXACTLY what the radical muslims label the rest of the country as - AND DESPISE US FOR LETTING YOU EXIST - they therefore would like to KILL US.
Thanks!

Posted by: JimBD at Wed Jun 7 15:07:04 2006 (GoE0N)

22 Dan -- as you well know, I am pretty tolerant of things folks say around here. Dolphin is a special case with a long history of misrepresentions, false accusations, and hysterical hissy-fits -- and that is just the stuff on my site.

If he is going to make claims that i have said X, then he can damn-well put up or shut up.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 15:10:14 2006 (9RvvR)

23 Jim -- pretty reprehensible stuff. Could you dial it back a bit?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 15:15:27 2006 (9RvvR)

24 Strong, yes. Reprehensible? I think it means un - forgivable. What I said was the truth. I guess Ann Coulter misted my day and I was under in influence. But I'll dial it back and be more PC - a little.

As for Dan, he better look up Moral Relativism himself. There are rules of right and wrong, even if you disagree. They are time tested. You can't define the rules as different for each instance. Try applying different rules to each child! Sounds like a typical liberal who let's it blow in the wind, Whatever, Who cares, Free Love, therefore probably anti-war, anti- administration, anti-pro life, a Liberal Catholic ( which I could never really comes to terms with, another oxymoron) which, if you trace back, has trashed the real Roman Catholic Church into the mess it is today.

Posted by: JimBD at Thu Jun 8 13:48:26 2006 (GoE0N)

25 JimBD - where did I deny that there are rules of right and wrong?

And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling my Church a mess. And even if you think it is, don't blame the liberals - they're certainly not in charge of the Church these days . . .

Posted by: Dan at Fri Jun 9 00:21:19 2006 (aSKj6)

26 Dan wrote: ,

"And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling my Church a mess. And even if you think it is, don't blame the liberals - they're certainly not in charge of the Church these days . . ."

The current Holy Father believes the Church is a mess. Just read his Stations of the Cross meditations from Easter 2005 when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. He described the Church as "full of so much filth" and "like a boat that is sinking".

What makes you think that the current heirarchy is not liberal by Catholic standards?

Posted by: Gerard at Fri Jun 9 02:09:13 2006 (rkwwV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Senator Kennedy Â– Is The Catholic Church Bigoted?

This incredible quote comes from Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Theological Cafeteria).

Â“A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple.Â” Thus spoke Sen. Ted Kennedy in reference to the Marriage Protection Amendment being debated in the Senate today.

Senator Â– does this mean that your own Archbishop is a bigot for supporting this amendment? Does this mean the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Catholic Church Â– both in the US and in the Vatican Â– are bigots for insisting that the traditional definition of marriage should be enshrined in law worldwide and that homosexual marriage should be rejected wherever it rears its head?

And what of this quote, Senator?

Americans believe in tearing down the walls of discrimination and inequality, not creating new barriers for civil rights

If no, how can you make such brazen statements attacking your own Church?

If yes, do you now declare that you are taking a formal act to separate yourself from the Catholic Church Â– an institution which your words appear to brand as bigoted and opposed to American values?

After all Â– you cannot have it both ways. Either you believe in and embrace the teachings of the Catholic Church, or you reject both them and the Church.

Decide Â– and speak out as clearly and forcefully as you did in the quotes above.

Oh, and by the way, Senator Â– in every state -- 19 in all, most likely 20 after a vote in Alabama tomorrow -- in which the people have been given a chance to speak directly on the matter, they have overwhelmingly rejected homosexual marriage and embraced the traditional definition of marriage this amendment would promulgate. In several cases, judges have thwarted the clear will of the people. In all, 45 states have acted to prevent homosexual marriage from being imposed upon them by renegade courts or the actions of other states. No state has ever voluntarily adopted homosexual marriage Â– and Massachusetts was forced to do so by a court which ruled that for over 200 years the people of Massachusetts, including the generation that adopted it, misunderstood their own constitution when they repeatedly adopted the traditional definition of marriage as one man and one woman. Given the evidentiary weight of such facts, how can you possibly make the claim that those who support efforts to protect the definition of marriage from judicial reinvention are un-American?

UPDATE -- 6/7/2006: Senator Kennedy -- Alabama passed a state constitutional amendment to ban homosexual marriage by a 4-1 margin. Is over 80% of labama un-American?

Posted by: Greg at 06:07 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.

Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 5 08:48:58 2006 (aSKj6)

2 As soon as we get ride of all the Liberal Roman Catholics,(including Kennedy's and their kind) the Church will right itself and be back on track. Perhaps it will start all over on it's own new path. The Liberals have destroyed what was the Roman Catholic Rite and made it a liberal Protestant party place. Try to find a {real}Latin Mass- pre Vatican II style, anywhere. Altar railings are gone, the Tabernacle is moved, the words of the mass have been changed, the crusifix cross is replaced by a 'risen christ' or a modern picasso painting of some sort, we now have altar girls, and it seems like any Jane, Dick or Harry can distribute communion, we now have Holiday shows - in church- at Christmas time, all of the Saints Statues are missing. It's all to similar to cooking a frog: cold water and turn up the heat- you'll get use to it! The B/S has to stop. Where are the real Roman Catholics?

Posted by: JimBD at Mon Jun 5 09:59:33 2006 (GoE0N)

3 So it's impossible to be a member of an organization and disagree (strongly) with something it's doing?

Posted by: John at Mon Jun 5 12:40:47 2006 (Fzf0K)

4 If one rejects the teaching authority of a Church which claims to be teaching unambiguous moral truth, one really cannot remain a member -- if one has any integrity. This isn't your local chamber of commerce, after all.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 5 22:50:34 2006 (PEFrQ)

5 Also, is there not a difference between remaining part of a group with which one disagres and remaining part of a group that one considers to be both bigoted and un-American?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Jun 5 22:52:46 2006 (PEFrQ)

6 Well, the church also at one point persecuted people who said that the earth revolves around the sun; I'm sure the argument that "they teach unambiguous truth and if you don't like it, get out" (or at that time, be executed) was used then. The Church has a history of changing its teachings.

Posted by: John at Mon Jun 5 23:12:01 2006 (Q3hKh)

7 RWR - You ask whether there is a problem in remaining part of a group that one considers to be both bigoted and un-American. There you go again, putting words in people's mouths. I would not call the Church bigoted and un-American, and Ted Kennedy didn't do that, either. We are saying that one of its positions is bigoted and un-American, but there is a difference. To put the shoe on the other foot, if you wrote that this artificial debate on an amendment which is going nowhere is nothing but moronic pandering to cultural conservatives who ought to be waking up to the fact that the corporate conservatives are using them and laughing at their stupidity - that would be an enlightened and informed position for you to take. But it wouldn't necessarily mean that you are always enlightened and informed! ;-)

Posted by: Dan at Mon Jun 5 23:46:29 2006 (aSKj6)

8 I actually read an excellent article on the difference between believing that being gay is "sin" and being bigotted against gay people. Is an Orthodox Jew who very strongly believes that people should remain Kosher biggoted against those of any religion who do not follow a Kosher diet? However can you imagine how absurd it would seem in our society if we amended public policy to FORCE everyone into a Kosher diet (which is only so outlandish if you consider many Muslim theocracies do have such laws)? In today's American society I think it's reasonable to suggest that strongly held religious beliefs on homosexuality can be respected as privately held convictions while the holder is not particularly bigotted. However when one seeks to actively hurt people they disagree with by writing those private religious convictions into public policy it becomes a very different thing.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 6 07:06:54 2006 (dvSGO)

9 Hmmmmmm.... So you believe that holding positions that are "bigoted" and "un-American" does not make a person or an organization bigoted or un-American. Is that sort of semantic gamesmanship sort of like arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is? Would you accept the argument that someone who holds racist positions is not a racist? Under your argument, would membership in the Klan in no way be indicative of racism on the part of a member? Is that how you guys justify keeping Robert Byrd around? And dolphin -- under your argument, I'm more than willing to accept your privately held beliefs that homosexuals should be permitted to marry each other, but is it not bigorty to force everyone to accept that position by writing it into law -- especially over the objection of a clear majority of Americans? After all, you will be actively hurting those who are forced to recognize such marriages by forcing them to actively participate in and cooperate with what they believe to be immoral activity -- thus imperilling their imoprtal souls!

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 09:44:42 2006 (ZktbQ)

10 Also, i've never met anyone who held that a homosexual orientation is a sin -- and that certainly is not Catholic teaching. On the other hand, I know many who argue that same-sex sexual relations -- and heterrosexual relations outside of marriage -- is immoral. And that would, in fact, be Catholic teaching.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 09:47:28 2006 (ZktbQ)

11 John Dan and Fish have adopted Moral Relativism -THAT is not promoted by the real church. Keep blurring the lines of right and wrong, good and evil, proper and improper, respect and disrepect, self respect and ..... the list goes on.... The rules have evolved over time. What the heck does 2000+ years of development have that 50-60 years of 'know it alls' can replace in a snap

Posted by: .JimBD at Tue Jun 6 14:03:34 2006 (GoE0N)

12 Jim -- Dolphins are mamals. :-)

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 6 14:27:06 2006 (qqHbr)

13 Jim - You make me laugh. Have you ever read anything about moral relativism, or is it just a phrase you overheard and decided to work into a conversation? Please don't use phrases you don't understand. Your knowledge of philosophy rivals your knowledge of zoology.

Posted by: Dan at Tue Jun 6 15:01:07 2006 (aSKj6)

14 Dan wrote: ".. the Catholic church will eventually come around and realize that its position on this issue is, in fact, borne of prejudice and bigotry." The Church's position on this issue is based on common sense and natural law as well as theological truth. Not prejudice. There is no "pre-judgment" on homosexuality. It's been very thoroughly thought through and condemned. This is not a new issue. The first letter to the Romans deals with it plainly enough. Dan wrote.."The Church's right to be anti-homosexual within its own theology is, of course, beyond question." The Church is not "anti-homosexual" any more than it is "anti-heterosexual". The Church looks at a person as more than their sexual identity. Homosexuals are sinners like the everyone and need to renounce their sin and seek a relationship with God that will enable them to get to Heaven, not Hell. Homosexual behavior like adultery or fornication are all mortal sins and will all suffice for damnation. Chastity employed by all is the solution. Dan wrote: "But for the Church to seek to support state bigotry is something they will regret as surely as they came to regret their persecution of Galileo." The Church puts God's law above the state and demands that they have the right to influence society. Separation of Church and State is a liberal anti-religiously bigoted fiction and an error that religion should have no impact in the public square. But men and women who are religious and live according to those tenents cause family units to spring up of high moral fiber and consequently communities and larger societies will develop better with a religious foundation than without. There was no persecution of Galileo by the way. The Church never condemned the Copernican system. It was Galileo's insistence on "the facts" (that have since been proven wrong such as tidal effects being proof of planetary rotation) regarding his hypothesis that "proved the Bible wrong" that was censured. Galileo was prideful and arrogant in his attitude and he'd promised to continue his research as a "hypothesis" until better proof could be determined. Had he done this, he would have continued prudently and enjoyed the patronage and support of the scientific ecclesiastical authorities such as Cardinal Schaumberg and Bishop Tiedemann Giese who had supported him previously. Galileo broke this promise in his later fictional publications and provoked a confrontation. The Catholic Church was actually the greatest and at times the only advocate of the sciences and acted prudently in the Galileo affair. Galileo's total punishment consisted in his recitation of seven psalms once a week for three years, he spent a total of 21 days in the apartments of the Holy Office which were very comfortable and his confinement was spent in the homes of friends and family. He died with a papal blessing being given at his funeral.

Posted by: Gerard at Wed Jun 7 02:50:07 2006 (rkwwV)

15 Also, i've never met anyone who held that a homosexual orientation is a sin -- and that certainly is not Catholic teaching. I've met you and way to many others who believe just that, and you know it. Secondly, the argument is just as strong if you limit it to behavior (I always find it funny when the hate brigade claims that marriage is about absollutely nothing except for sexual behavior, but then wants to "protect it"). And dolphin -- under your argument, I'm more than willing to accept your privately held beliefs that homosexuals should be permitted to marry each other, but is it not bigorty to force everyone to accept that position by writing it into law And the point goes over your head again. You don't understand the difference between religious beliefs and public policy. Either that or you are saying you WOULD support legislation to enforce a Kosher diet on the populace. fter all, you will be actively hurting those who are forced to recognize such marriages by forcing them to actively participate in and cooperate with what they believe to be immoral activity -- thus imperilling their imoprtal souls! Again, the line that marriage equality will hurt straight people. This line is always brought out, but never backed... I can guess why. Oh, and I will stand right there with you if the state ever forces someone to "actively participate in and cooperate with what the believe to be immoral activity." We're simply asking for the government of which we are a part to treat us like every other citizen. We don't really care if you approve of our existence. You can hate whomever you wish and I defend your right to do so.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 7 04:06:06 2006 (dvSGO)

16 Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. The etymology of "marriage" presupposes a complementarity. Just as their are no homosexual "couples" they are "pairs" if anything. The problem today is most advocates of calling homosexual pairings "marriage" don't understand the words they are using.

Posted by: Gerard at Wed Jun 7 07:16:18 2006 (rkwwV)

17 Dolphin -- You will not call me a liar again. Consider it a case of me imposing your own rules on you. Ancd certainly do not ever -- AND I MEAN EVER -- contradict me as to what my religious beliefs are, you asshole. Now dolphin, you miss a point in your "religious belief/public policy" argument. Most folks attempt to enact public policies that are in keeping with their moral codes -- moral codes which are often directly tied to religious beliefs. Your argument effectively (though I do not believe you mean it to) excludes from participation in the public policy process any sincere religious believer. After all, they do not -- indeed cannot -- separate their "personal beliefs" regarding right and wrong from what their public policy preferences. But let's take your Kosher food argument. Such a thing would not happen in the US for many reasons -- not the least of which being that those who keep kosher are such a miniscule part of the populace. Israel, on the other hand, might legitimately respond to the will of the majority of its citizenry by requiring that non-kosher food be labeled as such, be separated from non-kosher food, or even forbid kosher and non-kosher food being sold or served in the sam establishments. I know that it might offend your sensibilities, but the majority does have rights that merit respect -- including the right to order society in a manner that conforms with their beliefs, so long as it be just, whether or not such decisions are always "rational".

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 11:32:12 2006 (YMOL3)

18 First of all, if you tell untruths, I will point them out. Don't like it, ban me. Secondly when your so-called religious "beliefs" contradict statments you have made directly in the past (or even in the actual post), I will also point that out. Again, don't like it, ban me. Actually, don't like it, just ask me to leave. I'm respectful enough of others to honor their wishes on their own property. Finally, you have finally made yourself consistent in your last paragraph by acknowleging that you would not be opposed to a theocracy if it was what "the majority" wanted. I have a hunch you only feel that way because in your mind you believe "the majority" follows the same twisted version of Christianity. You would be wrong on that, but at least by admiting you've no problem with turning the United States into a theocratic government you have brought your views into consistency.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 7 12:48:10 2006 (R1q+a)

19 Dolphin -- Your untruths and misrepresentations of my religious beliefs will stop NOW. I do not believe homosexual orientation is immoral, and I challenge you to find any statement of mine to that effect. If you cannot, you WILL retract your libelous falsehood. You have 24 hours. Also, what I suggest would be reasonable and appropriate is NOT theocracy -- it is democracy. I realize you do not believe in such a thing when religious individuals are permitted to participate and win, but that simply is evidence of your failure to grasp and embrace the fundamental nature of a democratic system. But if you really believe that it is inappropriate for me to support and work for laws consistent with my religious beliefs and values, then I suppose you won't be upset if I have to call for the repeal of laws against murder, sexual assault, theft, perjury, etc.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 13:06:44 2006 (9RvvR)

20 Isn't RWR cute when he's mad?? Especially when he starts issuing ultimatums and bossing the rest of us around.

Posted by: Dan at Wed Jun 7 14:45:24 2006 (aSKj6)

21 Fish, you passed biology almost- you shouldn't screw with the fish -or other men. If your pull your head out of your arse and pretend to be human and Christian, you're suppose to "love" your wife, not get your rocks off with a 'special friend' or other animal. STOP changing the definitions of words to fit your micro world, that the rest of the world has to- all of the sudden- accept because YOU don't like the meaning & we have to accept it, and I won't change the meaning of dolphin to Tuna or Chicken of the Sea or Crabs! Your kind of action and belief is EXACTLY what the radical muslims label the rest of the country as - AND DESPISE US FOR LETTING YOU EXIST - they therefore would like to KILL US. Thanks!

Posted by: JimBD at Wed Jun 7 15:07:04 2006 (GoE0N)

22 Dan -- as you well know, I am pretty tolerant of things folks say around here. Dolphin is a special case with a long history of misrepresentions, false accusations, and hysterical hissy-fits -- and that is just the stuff on my site. If he is going to make claims that i have said X, then he can damn-well put up or shut up.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 15:10:14 2006 (9RvvR)

23 Jim -- pretty reprehensible stuff. Could you dial it back a bit?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 7 15:15:27 2006 (9RvvR)

24 Strong, yes. Reprehensible? I think it means un - forgivable. What I said was the truth. I guess Ann Coulter misted my day and I was under in influence. But I'll dial it back and be more PC - a little. As for Dan, he better look up Moral Relativism himself. There are rules of right and wrong, even if you disagree. They are time tested. You can't define the rules as different for each instance. Try applying different rules to each child! Sounds like a typical liberal who let's it blow in the wind, Whatever, Who cares, Free Love, therefore probably anti-war, anti- administration, anti-pro life, a Liberal Catholic ( which I could never really comes to terms with, another oxymoron) which, if you trace back, has trashed the real Roman Catholic Church into the mess it is today.

Posted by: JimBD at Thu Jun 8 13:48:26 2006 (GoE0N)

25 JimBD - where did I deny that there are rules of right and wrong? And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling my Church a mess. And even if you think it is, don't blame the liberals - they're certainly not in charge of the Church these days . . .

Posted by: Dan at Fri Jun 9 00:21:19 2006 (aSKj6)

26 Dan wrote: , "And I'd appreciate it if you'd stop calling my Church a mess. And even if you think it is, don't blame the liberals - they're certainly not in charge of the Church these days . . ." The current Holy Father believes the Church is a mess. Just read his Stations of the Cross meditations from Easter 2005 when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. He described the Church as "full of so much filth" and "like a boat that is sinking". What makes you think that the current heirarchy is not liberal by Catholic standards?

Posted by: Gerard at Fri Jun 9 02:09:13 2006 (rkwwV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 04, 2006

Queer Activists Profane Mass In Minnesota

When Christians protest on public streets during pro-homosexual events, tehy face harrassment and arrest. If they attempted to actually interfere with the event, there would be oputrage.

When will we hear the condemnation of this disruption of Pentecost Sunday Mass in Minnesota?

More than 50 gay rights activists wearing rainbow-colored sashes were denied Holy Communion at a Pentecost service yesterday at the Roman Catholic Cathedral in St. Paul, Minn., parishioners and church officials said.
In an act that some witnesses called a "sacrilege" and others called a sign of "solidarity," a man who was not wearing a sash received a Communion wafer from a priest, broke it into pieces and handed it to some of the sash wearers, who consumed it on the spot.
Ushers threatened to call the police, and a church employee burst into tears when the unidentified man re-distributed the consecrated wafer, which Catholics consider the body of Christ. But the Mass was not interrupted, and the incident ended peacefully, said Dennis McGrath, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
"It was confrontational, but we decided not to try to arrest the guy," he said.

Disrupting the service and profaning the Eucharist -- they need to be arrested next year.

More importantly, participants should be excommunicated next year.

And as far as condemnations -- who wants to bet that the only ones we hear are of the Church, not those who violated the sanctity of the cathedral.

Oh, and here's a suggestion -- why don't you try something like that at a Muslim house of worship? Oh, yeah, they will stone you or decapitate you, not just deny you communion.

Posted by: Greg at 11:32 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.

May 31, 2006

Freedom Endangered in Canada -- Once Again

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.

Who Is The Bigot, Howard?

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.

Terrorstinian Press Insults Lady Liberty

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.

May 28, 2006

A Liturgical Travesty In The Diocese Of Orange

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.

May 21, 2006

Encode This, DaVinci!

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 Â— two children, four grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren, and so on. In just 10 generations Â— roughly 250 years Â— 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" Â— 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 Â— 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.

May 19, 2006

Iran Imposes Nazi Program Upon Its Dhimmis

If you ainÂ’t a Muslim in Iran, you will have to wear specially marked clothing to make you stand out. Think Â“Yellow StarsÂ” 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 Â– 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.

May 18, 2006

Get Your Stones Ready

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.

May 17, 2006

Human Rights And Islam â€“ Incompatible

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 â€“ 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.

Human Rights And Islam Â– Incompatible

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 Â– 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.

367kb generated in CPU 0.2514, elapsed 0.5207 seconds.
79 queries taking 0.4793 seconds, 599 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

August 29, 2006

August 23, 2006

August 21, 2006

August 15, 2006

August 09, 2006

July 28, 2006

July 26, 2006

July 25, 2006

July 21, 2006

July 20, 2006

July 18, 2006

July 17, 2006

July 07, 2006

July 05, 2006

July 03, 2006

June 29, 2006

June 21, 2006

June 19, 2006

June 18, 2006

June 17, 2006

June 16, 2006

June 12, 2006

June 11, 2006

June 08, 2006

June 05, 2006

June 04, 2006

May 31, 2006

May 28, 2006

May 21, 2006

May 19, 2006

May 18, 2006

May 17, 2006

Search Thingy

Categories

GOP Bloggers Blogroll

Live Liberty And Property Blogroll

101st Fighting Keyboardists

Texas Connection BlogRoll

Republican Attack Squad

Web Links

Counters and Stuff

Archives

Recent Comments

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds

Administrative Stuff

About Me

Support This Site

Advertising Disclosure

Munuvians