Look at this solution to the fractures within the Anglican Communion – and notice that certain folks are now simply one “subgroup” among many in this so-called Christian body.

A draft of a constitution detailing a proposed realignment of the worldwide Anglican Communion became public this week, outlining for the first time how divisions over homosexuality may change the face of the more than 70-million-member church.

The unsourced and undated four-page document, named "The Organizing Constitution of the Anglican Global Initiative," has been circulating among some executive members of the Episcopal Church since January, after it was brought to the church's New York headquarters following a meeting of African bishops in Nairobi.

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh, a group of clergy and lay people, made the document available on its Web site. Its existence was first reported this week by the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain.

The articles of the constitution state that the Anglican Global Initiative would be an organization of Anglicans from the Global South, which includes Africa, Asia and parts of the Southern Hemisphere, and those in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada who "hold to the centrality and authority of Holy Scripture."

“The centrality and authority of Holy Scripture.” One would have hoped that those were a given for a body that claims to be Christian, not simply one option among many.

Posted by: Greg at 10:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 234 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, there seems to be a new term of derision directed at those of us who follow the Christ. That term is “Christer”, used in a sense not unlike “nigger” or “kike” by bigots. Take this example, which is the source of the current controversy.

Today’s Christer protests are targeting a different kind of subversion. Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the labor-funded Political Research Associates, has spent over 25 years studying the far right and theocratic fundamentalism. He is co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Berlet — who was one of the speakers at a conference last month co-sponsored by the N.Y. Open Center and the City University of New York Graduate Center on “Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right” — says that “What’s motivating these people is two things. First, an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it’s motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes.”

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 725 words, total size 5 kb.

Well, there seems to be a new term of derision directed at those of us who follow the Christ. That term is “Christer”, used in a sense not unlike “nigger” or “kike” by bigots. Take this example, which is the source of the current controversy.

Today’s Christer protests are targeting a different kind of subversion. Chip Berlet, senior analyst at the labor-funded Political Research Associates, has spent over 25 years studying the far right and theocratic fundamentalism. He is co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. Berlet — who was one of the speakers at a conference last month co-sponsored by the N.Y. Open Center and the City University of New York Graduate Center on “Examining the Real Agenda of the Christian Right” — says that “What’s motivating these people is two things. First, an incredible dread, completely irrational, of a hodgepodge of sexual subversion and social chaos. The response to that fear is genuinely a grassroots response, and it’s motivated by fundamentalist Christian doctrines like Triumphalism and Dominionism, which order Christians to take over the secular state and secular institutions. The Christian right frames itself as an oppressed minority battling the secular-humanist liberal homofeminist hordes.”

Posted by: Greg at 10:12 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 728 words, total size 5 kb.

The Liberty Counsel, a group dedicated to the preservation of religious and civil liberies, has sued a library in Woodland Park, Colorado, regarding its policy on the use of community rooms for meetings.

The Woodland Park Library says its community room is "available to nonprofit civic, cultural and educational organizations for events open to the public." But the policy also says, "Meetings open to the public that are religious or political in nature must provide a balanced view and [meet] with the Board of Trustees' approval."

The Liberty Counsel said it applied to use library's community room at the end of May and again on June 6. The Liberty Counsel noted on the application that the meeting would present a biblical perspective on marriage and homosexuality and would include prayer and scripture reading.

But library officials responded that since the proposed meeting was religious, someone else must present an opposing view.

The policy is not just unconstitutional. On what possible grounds could this government agency insist upon requiring groups to sponsor speech with which they disagree?

Posted by: Greg at 09:59 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 189 words, total size 1 kb.

As I've said, I like to watch international trends to determine what eventual tactics and demands we in the Unied States will encounter from those seeking to impose homosexual marriage on this country against the will of the American populace. This latest development from Canada shows that those who claim that religious believers will be left aone if they don't support the fundamental redefinition of the concept of marriage are very likely lying, biding their time until they are in a position to punish that opposition.

Homosexual activist Kevin Bourassa, co-sponsor of equalmarriage.ca, along with his “spouse,” Joe Varnell – whose Ontario court win paved the way for same-sex “marriage” for Canada – claimed Sunday that churches who vocally oppose the legalization of same-sex “marriage” for Canada should have their charitable status revoked, for participating in politics.

“We have no problem with the Catholic Church or any other faith group promoting bigotry,” Bourassa charged, as reported by the Ottawa Citizen. “We have a problem with the Canadian government funding that bigotry.”

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Among the more despicable public figures in America today is Fred Phelps. Best known for picketing the funerals of homosexuals with crude and morally reprehensible signs, Phelps and the members of his cult-like congregation are now picketing the funerals of American military personnel killed in the line of duty.

A flier on the Web site of Pastor Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church claims God killed Cpl. Carrie French with an improvised explosive device in retaliation against the United States for a bombing at Phelps' church six years ago.

"We're coming," Phelps said Monday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

Westboro Baptist either has protested or is planning protests of other public funerals of soldiers from Michigan, Alabama, Minnesota, Virginia and Colorado. A protest is planned for July 11 at Dover Air Force Base, the military base where war dead are transported before being sent on to their home states.

Why this funeral?

Phelps said the fact that French led an all-American life gives him all the more reason to picket her final public tribute.
"An all-American girl from a society of all-American heretics," he said.
"Our attitude toward what's happening with the war is the Lord is punishing this evil nation for abandoning all moral imperatives that are worth a dime," Phelps said.

Here’s hoping there are enough loyal American patriots – folks on both sides of the question of the War in Iraq – to make this hatemonger (who tarnishes the name of “Christian”) and his rag-tag disciples reconsider their plans, or beat a hasty retreat in the face of public outrage.

UPDATE: More from these fine bloggers:
Michelle Malkin
ninme
The Pink Flamingo Bar Grill
UrbanGrounds
the unequivocal notion
disinterested party
A voice crying out from the thickness
The Stupid Shall Be Punished
OldController
Our Way of Life
Darth Apathy

Posted by: Greg at 01:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 3 kb.

This neat story about the reaction of the Catholic faithful to the newly elected pontiff.

Two months into the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, crowds are pouring into St. Peter's Square in near record numbers to see and hear him.

"The pope is here!" a man shouted in Italian Wednesday morning. Cheers rose from 35,000 as Benedict appeared, standing in a white Jeep-like popemobile. It circled the square, moving slowly as the 78-year-old pope, whose mane of white hair matched his vestments, waved to the faithful.

more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:56 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

This little attrocity from India, where they define charitible activity by Christian missionaries as coercion.

ANGRY Hindu youths have beaten three American missionaries, and tried to kidnap one, as they held a bible studies class in Mumbai.

About 30 or 40 men attacked the missionaries, part of a group of eight, on Saturday night because they thought the Americans were trying to convert Hindus in the Indian financial capital, police said.

The three were treated for bruises and cuts at a hospital but were not seriously injured.

"While this kind of attack is rare in Bombay, the police must take serious action against those responsible and send a clear message that religious intolerance will not be accepted in India," Mumbai Catholic Sabha president Dolphy D'Souza said.

Christians are often accused of "forcibly" converting poor and uneducated low-caste Hindus by bribing them with money and gifts.

Missionaries deny the charge.

I guess those Hindus are scared to death that some more of their untouchables will convert to Christianity and escape the barbaric caste system that still holds sway in India, despite legal attempts to end it.

Posted by: Greg at 01:48 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

We know, of course, that homosexual marriage advocates would NEVER attempt to force religious groups or individuals to violate their firmly held beliefs against homosexual marriage. So then why does the proposed law permitting homosexual marriage not protect such groups, and why are there already legal actions against religious groups that do not choose to participate in them.

Liberals will tweak their contentious same-sex marriage bill but can't guarantee ironclad religious protections, admits Justice Minister Irwin Cotler.

Churches won't be forced to perform gay weddings, he says.

But it's beyond his legal reach to protect provincial marriage commissioners or religious organizations who turn away same-sex couples, he conceded yesterday.

"That's right," Cotler said, when asked if his hands are tied by jurisdictional limits.

Ottawa has the authority to define marriage but provinces have the power to solemnize weddings.

A range of conflicts has already emerged.

Human rights challenges are underway in cases where religious groups refused to rent halls for gay celebrations.

And given the things that such legislation will apparantly allow to be foisted upon unwilling religious believers, what makes anyone think it will be long before protection for churches themselves is jettisoned?

Posted by: Greg at 05:42 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

An earthly loss for the persecuted Church in China -- but they gain one more saint before the throne of God to intercede on their behalf.

Bishop John Wang Xixian, who was arrested for being a Christian and who lived 21 years in a forced labor camp, has died. He was 79.
Bishop Wang of Hohhot, in the Inner Mongolia region, ended his two-year struggle with bone cancer last week, according to the Fides news service.

Father Wang had been a priest only four years when he was arrested in 1957 for the faith.

After 21 years of forced labor, he was released, and in 1980 he returned to his life as a priest. He was ordained a bishop in 1997.

When near the end he was told that Benedict XVI had been informed of his illness and assured him of his prayers, Bishop Wang murmured: "I am unworthy of such consideration."

Bishop Wang's funeral was held May 31 at Sacred Heart Cathedral in Hohhot.

The Diocese of Hohhot has 50,000 Catholics. It has 50 priests, about 100 women religious and 40 seminarians.

May the day soon arrive when the oppressed believers of China see the dawn of a new day of freedom. And may all of us remember the heroic sacrifices of believers like Bishop Wang, and be inspired to work toward the coming of that day.

Posted by: Greg at 05:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 248 words, total size 1 kb.

It is black letter law in Washington state -- schools are available for rent outside of school hours. It is also black letter law that school districts cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination in renting out such facilities -- especially not on the basis of the religious teachings of an organization.

So why is the Lake Washington Education Association demanding that one particular church be denied its rights under the US Constitution and Washington state law?
more...

Posted by: Greg at 01:49 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 651 words, total size 4 kb.

If a Muslim suffers even the most incidental slight, we have cries about hate crimes. If someone fails to show sufficient deference to the Koran, there are riots in the streets of the Muslim world.

On the other hand, if Muslims murder Christians for being Christians, it hardly qualifies as news.

A Baptist lay pastor has been beheaded in Bangladesh, the second Christian leader to lose his life in that country in a year, a Christian news organization has reported.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 377 words, total size 3 kb.

If a Muslim suffers even the most incidental slight, we have cries about hate crimes. If someone fails to show sufficient deference to the Koran, there are riots in the streets of the Muslim world.

On the other hand, if Muslims murder Christians for being Christians, it hardly qualifies as news.

A Baptist lay pastor has been beheaded in Bangladesh, the second Christian leader to lose his life in that country in a year, a Christian news organization has reported.

Posted by: Greg at 01:17 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

We keep hearing from advocates of homosexual marriage that no church will ever be required to perform such ceremonies if they run contrary to church teachings. Supporters of overturning millenia of Western Culture on the matter of marriage insist that they only want to have their relationships recognized by the state and obtain benefits.

I think, though, that recent events in France tell us otherwise.

About two dozen protestors scuffled with priests and security guards at Notre Dame Cathedral Sunday. As stunned worshipers looked on the protestors marched down the aisle to the alter where one, dressed like a priest, performed a mock marriage ceremony for a lesbian couple.

As priests and security guards tried to hustle group out of the nave, one priest was knocked to the ground. The demonstrators chanted "Pope Benedict XVI, homophobe, AIDS accomplice."

Monsignor Patrick Jacquin, who received a minor injury, called the protest an outrage.

Most of the protestors were from the group Act Up Paris. A spokesperson for the group said the demonstration was timed to coincide with the first year anniversary of France's first same-sex marriage.

Interrupting worship services. Profaning the sacrament and the sanctuary in the Cathedral. Assaulting the priest.

The demand for acceptance will not stop with the passage of laws recognizing homosexual marriage. The next demand will be for a law requiring that religious organizations perform such marriages -- no doubt on pain of refusing to recognize any marriages performed if the teachings of the church are not jettisoned.

The line has been drawn.

Posted by: Greg at 04:45 PM | Comments (45) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

1 C'mon. It was done in the name of mockery. The Act-Up organization is famous for shock value -- it was in response to the years of abuses, homophobic messages spewed by its Church on gays.

Hey, payback is bitch, is it?

Cry me a river, please. You're sinking. Your religion is slowly disintegrating and guess what? Jesus will never come by -- after all, he's DEAD.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Mon Jun 6 21:33:04 2005 (ODDFf)

2 Sorry -R, but you're WAY off base here.

Churches are private property. What you have here is Criminal Trespass and Battery. These people need to be jailed.

I can *say* whatever I like. That never gives anyone a right to come on to my property and harass me.

Rephrased - if someone tried to invade say...my home...in such a manner...they would be shot...repeatedly.

Who do they think they are? Someone hurts their feelings so they get to knock people down, push their way into a sacred ceremony, and interrupt what they were doing?

Also - WHAT abuses? Do you mean condemning the behavior? THAT is not abuse. THAT is an opinion. Further, the Church is not homophobic. I cannot STAND that term. They believe (wrongly I think) that homosexuality is a sin. That does not mean they somehow fear it - it means they believe it to be a sin. Don't read more into it than that.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 00:35:22 2005 (r/FBF)

3 I wonder -- how many dead activists would there have been if they had tried this at a mosque? Would it be an international cause celebre, with demands for harsh punishment of those who desecrated a Muslim house of worship and failed to show proper respect to Islam?

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 03:51:10 2005 (4nXaP)

4 Sub, that is YOUR opinion. Let me emphasize this again -- ACT UP is the radical organization founded during the Reagan Years in response to use the shock tactics to force the government/churches to look at their lack of efforts in finding solutions in early 80s.

Today, the ACT UP remains to be the most radical organization of gay spectrum. Their actions, sometimes, are not something that I approved but am I ever surprised with their antics when they crashed through the Cathedral and make the situation a mockery of their faith? NO, NOT AT ALL! In fact, I EXPECTED IT ALL.

Churches, you may argue that it is private, are not probably private in France.

You can *say* whatever you like. Absolutely. You remind me of a videotape I saw where the gay neighbor installed the secret videotape to videotape the harassments they received at the hands of their straight neighbor. AS the gay man was tending the front yard, he was harassed by the straight man with throwing beer cans, objects and at times, the straight man ran across the property and socked the guy down then fled back. They called the cops. Nothing was being done because there was lack of evidence. Even with the guy providing the tape, they said that it is not enough. One word: bullshit. Like you said, if someone do that to me on my property, I'll shoot them but guess what? I'll still go to the jail.

What abuses? Pedophilia. Its repeated arrogance of telling people that being gay is wrong and less than 2nd class citizen (it encouraged people the option to attack gay people as whole). You argued that it is an opinion. But the nutty Church try to make it an authority on their opinion for others to follow. The Church is homophobic, period. The Church will dissipate if people continue to learn the truth that they are nothign but a tool to control the mass of the people.

When I heard that the ACT UP organizers crashed through the Cathedral, I laughed. It is so typical of them. I'm so used to it. You should be.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 03:55:37 2005 (ODDFf)

5 Absolutely not. Book 'em. Charge 'em with felony counts. Attempted murder. Assault. Let them enjoy prison time.

A church is a sanctuary. And I WILL drag them out if that happened in my church. A church is private property but open to those who seek refuge and learning, but not desecration.

Of course, RWR, "R" won't answer the mosque question. He must think everything in a Christian concept.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 04:13:15 2005 (zudZk)

6 I think the key here is, as Ridor mentioned, Act Up is a radicial organization. If you are going to say that Act Up represents all people who think gay people are human, then I fully expect you to say that all Christians are just like Fred Phelps. Well??


Secondly, what do this event have to do with same-sex marriage. Nobody involved as trying to force a church to conduct a same-sex wedding ceremony. This particular radical group used a mock same-sex wedding as a form of protest, but nobody even once claimed that the church should be required to perform any marriage ceremony, especially since even Civil Marriage isn't an option for French same-sex couples.

Finally, I don't know where you live, but here in American, France doesn't make our policy decisions for us.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 04:15:00 2005 (fgsGh)

7 You must have been commenting the same time I was mcconnel. Attempt murder? for walking into a church? Assault is a potential charge since a priest was knocked down in the struggle, but attempted murder??

Geezz now THAT'S a precentdent I wouldn't want to see set.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 04:17:27 2005 (fgsGh)

8 RWR wrote: "I wonder -- how many dead activists would there have been if they had tried this at a mosque?"

Absolutely none. Because they are all dead. Think about it. ;-)

Basically, I'm all for the desceration of holy places -- including the mosques AND Christian churches. It is my personal belief that these are just a building that people tried to make it "sacred".

But again, ACT UP is the radical organization that does not reflect all gays as whole. I enjoy their antics because it is hilarious. It poked fun and mocked at the system that does not work at all.

Telling Africans not to wear condoms is sending them to death -- and that is abuse, subjugator, by withholding the information that could save lives -- for a change, I ain't talk to you, mcconnell.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 04:55:54 2005 (ODDFf)

9 We weren't there. And we don't know if they planned (or expected) to see some hurtin' while protesting. Murder (or manslaughter) is a potential given the volatility of that group's action, whether intentional or unintentional. But I agree with you dolphin, murder may be a bit too far, however, only time will tell when you have extremist groups who get nuttier every year who infringes and trespasses other people's property.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 04:59:51 2005 (zudZk)

10 Ever hear of this group, Protest Warrior? http://www.protestwarrior.com

They respect people's property. Debate with a cool head. They protest in their assigned spots. No resorting to violence. Avoid violence at all costs. And use clever signs to make a point. However, even then Liberals attack them with violence. How ironic.


You don't have to "talk" to me "R". But you just did. Keep quiet on that part for a change. Keep your word. Keep it to an absolute bare minimum. Agree? Shhhhh...

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 05:13:36 2005 (zudZk)

11 McConnell: Member of ProtestWarrior, own a lot of shirts and a bumper sticker, as well as their (new) DVD.

Dolphin: A person that shoves their way into my house, knocking me aside, is an intruder...an invader...into my home. A person who decides to break in to my home had better expect a swift and sure response. As far as what this has to do with same-sex marriage; the participants in this invasion/protest made it fairly clear that at least part of their protest is due to the Catholic church refusing to allow same sex marriage within the scope of the religion.

-R - The sex scandals are just that...scandalous and evil. Their response to it has been FAR less than it should be. I totally agree. Now let's talk about abuses against GAYS.

Their abuses against gays are...none? Telling people not to use condoms is not an abuse. It's a tenet of their religion. Telling people that being gay is wrong is also a tenet of their religion. Jews tell people that eating pork is a sin - I am not hurt by this, despite the fact that I consume large quantities thereof. Muslims tell people that consumption of alcohol is a sin, and I am not hurt by that either (though I only drink very rarely).

So - why are you for the descration of something that someone else finds to be sacred? Why do you CARE that someone else finds it to be sacred? They're not hurting you by thinking that a statue, building, tree, salt stain on a wall, or smoking brazier is sacred...what's your problem where you want to make them feel bad over it?

As for me saying whatever I like, so long as I am not being incredibly loud, and am not violating the rights of another (i.e. I'm not throwing things at them like the cretin in your example), I can say whatever I wish. I do not dislike or have a problem with homosexuals myself - I don't even think it's sinful. That said; I firmly believe in someone's *RIGHT* to believe as they wish and respond appropriately within the scope of their religion (so long as it does not violate a person's rights in so doing - i.e. you can teach that something is wrong, but cannot hurt them or otherwise violate them).

It sounds to me as if you believe that the right to exist includes the right to make others appreciate your beliefs, views, and desires. Many people dislike me and don't follow my viewpoints. That does not give me ANY right or excuse to invade their property, shove them aside, and do as I wish on their property.

You have the right to exist as a human being. You have the right to peaceful enjoyment of your home...to a certain degree (you can't tell your neighbor to stop growing a certain kind of flower or something like that because it interferes with your enjoyment (unless it's in your CC&Rs or is illegal).
You have the right to coexist in some way with the partner(s) of your choice.

You do not have the right to marry in the church of your choice unless they are willing to do so.
You do not have the right to have everyone like you and what your choices or desires are.
You do not have the right to tell others what the tenets of their religion are.
You do not have the right to go onto other people's property to protest their belief system.
You do not have the right to damage the property of others because you do not agree with their beliefs.

You're all for the desecration of people's sacred objects or sites?

I am all for the arrest of you or anyone else who does so with any property that is not your own.

Again, in the event that another invades MY property, they can expect to be shot. Thankfully, in Indiana, if someone breaks into your house (or is even TRYING to break into your house), the presumption is that they intend you or your family harm, and you can shoot on sight. I do not suffer people who break into my home or otherwise threaten my family gladly, and will do whatever is necessary to protect them in the event that such is necessary.

Note that such does NOT include a detailed query as to the intent of the person who threatens my family.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 06:39:52 2005 (lkCzp)

12 Dolphin: A person that shoves their way into my house, knocking me aside, is an intruder...an invader...into my home. A person who decides to break in to my home had better expect a swift and sure response.

Ok, not sure what that has to do with anything at all, but thanks for sharing.

As far as what this has to do with same-sex marriage; the participants in this invasion/protest made it fairly clear that at least part of their protest is due to the Catholic church refusing to allow same sex marriage within the scope of the religion.

While I disagree with you assessment (and suspect that oyu're not familiar with the methods of Act Up), if that was the ENTIRE point of their protest I don't see how that is representative of government policy forcing churchs to marry couples they'd rather not marry, as RWR suggested. The Catholic Church doesn't marry divorcees, the government has never made them. It's merely scare tatics to suggest that this will be any different, a way of avoiding the issue at hand if you will.

That said; I firmly believe in someone's *RIGHT* to believe as they wish and respond appropriately within the scope of their religion (so long as it does not violate a person's rights in so doing - i.e. you can teach that something is wrong, but cannot hurt them or otherwise violate them).

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this one. My view on same-sex marriage is, believe it's wrong if you want but don't try to hurt me by denying me legal rights.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 07:34:22 2005 (fgsGh)

13 Sub,

Yes, PW sells mechandise. It's called "free enterprise." Anything wrong with that? Perhaps the extra $$ for future protests and help cover expenses such as paying for their website. What of it?

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 07:44:30 2005 (LmcbS)

14 Subjugator, you are overreacting.

It is interesting to note that some considered gay to be an active form of evil. And when the sex scandals within the Church is considered to be "evil" -- it is OK as long as the Church gets to delegate what's wrong and right so that they can say, "It was not my fault. It was the Devil's acts!" Hogwash. The Church is responsible for its behavior, whether if it is evil or not.

They preached for years that gay sex is abhorrent. The Mormon Church encourage the electric shock to turn the gays into straight guys. There are horror stories that the Church went as far as to do things.

Look at Fred Phelps! Focus on the Family! Exodus International! These are typical of Christian's behaviors. Look at Michael Sacavarage (sp?), he used his "tenet of his religion" to bash on gays at the gay pride festivals. That is abuse. To attack people of their choices, trying to scare them with hocus pocus is a form of abuse! It is like telling an abused wife that if she tells the cop, she'll be dead.

It is my belief that not to share the necessary information about the protection, especially in Africa, is a form of abuse. This is to SAVE lives, not to worry about the tenet of one s religion!

Who cares about one's tenet of others?! The point is that there is a pandemic in Africa! Why worry about condoms? You do not believe in it, that is OK but to prevent others from getting it is not OK.

I'm all for the desceration of sacred stuff -- know why? To minimize the hocus pocus. People are obsessed over materialism. People needs to see that burning Vatican to the grounds will not halt the world from turning into the tomorrow. Nuke Jerusalem will not bring the armageddon. IN fact, everything will just roll on. People needs to see that there is more to life than religions. But that is my personal belief.

They do not hurt me but they do offend me when they attempt to decide things for me. For instance, I knew of a born-again Christian who came to me and my brother and told us that they can cure us of our deafness because they are born-again Christians. Whoopee! I politely declined and told them that we are fine being deaf. Guess what they did next? They put their hands on my heads and start to pray. What do I do? I shoved the bitch down and knocked her down. For a minute, she thought she was seeing the devil incarnate!

That is the whole point -- the religious groups claimed that they did nothing wrong but they go around and criticize others, telling them what ot do with their lives. IN the past, they destroyed faiths that rejected Christianity, Islam and Judaism. Ask Natives, ask Irish, ask Pagans, ask Canaanites!

Sometimes they need to feel bad for doing things like that.

Like you, I respect their beliefs, but for them to use the bullhorns trying to spread misinformation, that is crossing the line. So when the ACT UP did this, you could say payback is bitch.

It is not a good excuse but it happens all the time. I could use disability issue to point that I abhor hearing people. I could use religion issue to point that I can't stand religious nuts. I could use the politics to point out that I despise conservatives prick but guess what? They are still there, I already accepted that a long time ago -- but I do not have to respect nor listen to their craps.

I already wrote in my blog a long time ago that the Church reserved the right not to perform the same-sex marriage. I personally will not get caught dead setting my foot in the church property.

Just few days ago, Pope Benedict spoke against the gay marriages and urged the governments to stop it -- this man is trying to make us 2nc class citizen. He is willing to use his religion to pressure governments to succumb to his will. The whole point is that many gays need the marriage license, not to marry, but to get the benefits, protections and rights. We do not care about the weddings that you see on reality-based TV shows!

Who wants to visit Indiana? Certainly not me.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 07:45:46 2005 (ODDFf)

15 Finally, I don't know where you live, but here in American, France doesn't make our policy decisions for us.

Tell that to the Supreme Court who has had the inclination to use foreign legal precedent as foundation for some of their opinions!

Posted by: Hube at Tue Jun 7 07:50:59 2005 (hLmHh)

16 I guess people are for the desecration of gay marriage, too. But I don't like the Mormon church or any overly religious zealots. If they want to pray for you, they can. Just do it privately.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 08:44:37 2005 (LmcbS)

17 Umm...McConnell?

*I* am a member of PW. *I* own shirts. *I* bought the DVD.

Heck, I'm wearing a PW shirt right now (the one that shows the signing of the Declaration of Independence and says 'Right Wing Extremists' on it).

Furthermore, I'm a capitalist. I love it when people make money from my purchases...that means they're more likely to be there the next time I need something.

I was talking about what a great site it is, not complaining.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 08:51:36 2005 (lkCzp)

18 Sub,

Ah. Duly noted now that you've explained.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 09:11:02 2005 (LmcbS)

19 Hehe.. I just saw a site talking about PW. He got kicked out, because he offered a suggestion that they hold a rally at a military recruiting center and those of appropriate age all join up. He posted the suggestion on his site, it was incredibly polite and actually I thought a good idea.

Posted by: dolphin at Tue Jun 7 09:19:21 2005 (fgsGh)

20 Dolphin: Sorry, I completely misread something you'd said earlier. When you said, 'Attempt murder...for walking into a church?' I thought you were saying that in answer to my statement about someone going into my house. Ignore that and muy apologista.

Re: the ACT UP protest - I'm not entirely familiar with them. I mean, I've heard about some of the stuff they've done from friends of mine who are gay (I don't remember anything specific though), I don't follow their actions.

You and I are dead on in agreement with religion and how it relates to marriage. My position on marriage is that it's none of the government's business and it's between the people and their religious personage(s).

-R: The pedophile priests are practicing as much evil as you say. I know all too well how much havok a pedophile can wreak on the life of a child, and am dealing with the fallout of that right now. Further, the response of the church has been weak at *BEST*. A lot of people have a lot to answer for that. Unfortunately, we agree all too much on how much evil has been spread there.

Also, please make NO mistake...
I do NOT think homosexuality is evil or a sin.
I do NOT think that homosexuality means one is a pedophile (as some mind blowingly stupid people do).
I do NOT think homosexuality is the result of mental illness (once again, as some mind blowingly stupid people do); though I do think that depression can quite naturally result from people being jerks to homosexuals.

The only reason I'd ever be concerned about one of my children being a homosexual is that, as above, people can be jerks to them and that can make life harder.

That associate of yours that tried to heal you against your will was rude and intrusive. I do not support that sort of behavior; that's called 'battery' and when done in a religious context has the same smell as rape to me (though not nearly as strong).

Here's one to throw a few of you through a loop, but I believe in the allownace of plural marriages and find it to be astonishing that it's illegal. I also find it to be astonishing that some people have gone so far as to make same sex marriage specifically illegal. I mean, what do they care about who marries who? THEY don't have to be in the marriage, so they have no reason to care.

The one objection I have to *any* sexual relationship is when people are overt with public displays of affection. I don't mean hand holding or a quick peck, but deep kissing and public touching of private areas. Keep that to private or secluded places please. I don't want my kids to have to either re-live bad memories or have to explain anything to them. They've experienced enough thank you, and now that they're mine (and not the monsters who abused and allowed the abuse), I'm keeping them nice and sheltered until they're older.

That also means that sex education is under MY purview. I don't want them being introduced to anything that's going to throw them for a loop without my wife or me being the one to introduce it to them. Stuff they see on a day-to-day basis won't make them wonder, but stuff they see rarely *will* make them wonder. In other words, I don't care if they see two guys or gals holding hands or giving each other pecks, but I don't want their teachers reading to them about Rainbow Parties (they do not refer to homosexuality, but to group oral sex), same sex households, or other advanced subjects on sexuality without my express consent.

Sorry...got off on a tangent there.

Sub

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Tue Jun 7 09:30:58 2005 (lkCzp)

21 Maybe you should turn over your children to my mother who bluntly cut to the chase when I was a kid, she said in ASL: "RT (that's my sign name)! MUST TELL YOU IMPORTANT. YOU NOW TEENAGER. YOU KNOW ALL BOYS HAVE PENISES! ALL GIRLS HAVE VAGINAS! IF YOU PUT IN GIRLS' VAGINAS, CAN GET PREGNANT. YOU CANT DO THAT OR I WILL DISOWN YOU! YOU UNDERSTAND ME??"

That was a blunt and straightforward education but I already knew I liked boys when I was 12. But I do not forget what she said. It cuts to the chase then on my own time, I ask about things related to sex.

Subjugator, I hate to say that but I suspect we are much alike in many ways. I think overtly making out in public can be kept somewhere in the dark. But not in the public eye. But I think it's ok for a guy to hold another guy in the public. I feel that the plural marriages are fine as long as women wanted it as well. I mean, these ones in Utah is not good reflective of plural marriage because they forced the teenagers to pull out of school and wed. It has to be done of their free will. In fact, I knew of gay tri-relationship in Tacoma, Washington -- they are happier. Even worse, one of the partners' mother lived in a senior citizen's group home and she bragged that her son has two partners!

Live and let live, that is the motto -- the religious groups seemed to interfere people's lives at its best when people chose to decide for themselves.

Regarding the ACT UP, I believe the famous act that the ACT UP did to the Catholic Church in New York was throwing red paint on St. Patrick's Cathedral Church in New York which stunned the public at large. Its actions are absurd but at that time, very effective. But today, the ACT UP has become somewhat ineffective.

R-
R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 10:42:12 2005 (ODDFf)

22 I guess I am showing my age, folks, but I am old enough to remember when "homosexual rights" meant "stop vice raids on gay bars and bathhouses, and let us in the military." That was only 30 or so years ago.

Later it became "employment non-discrimination".

Then it became "domestic partner & hate crimes legislation".

Then it became "civil unions."

Then it became "marriage."

Next step? Require churches perform homosexual marriage or the government stops recognizing marriages performed by churches that won't -- or declare it a "human rights" issue that overrides religious freedom, which used to be considered a human right.

At least that is what I see, just from watching the trends -- from places like Canada, France, Sweden, and other countries.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 11:11:59 2005 (oNb3q)

23 RWR, just watch. The ACLU will probably be first to sue a church for not performing a gay marriage. Or has it already happened? Next comes the govt where Liberals will be all too happy to see the violation of separation and church and state by enforcing church to perform gay marriages. I may not be too off here considering the pace.

Posted by: mcconnell at Tue Jun 7 11:26:09 2005 (LmcbS)

24 RWR, GOOD! ABout time the religions are put in the closet ... permanently.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Tue Jun 7 18:59:39 2005 (ODDFf)

25 In other words, Ridor, that annoying little First Amendment thing in that irrelevant little Constitution thing needs to be violated and ignored in the name of what you view as the greater good.

Glad that you finally admitted that you don't believe in American values.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Tue Jun 7 23:25:59 2005 (MWljv)

26 Sorry Ridor, but religion should not be in the closet. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that we have to stop doing it. In much the same way that you should not have to be in the closet being gay, religion should not be a closeted society either. There is no shame involved in either.

Rather than being non-religious, you seem to be anti-religious...actively opposing it. That sounds suspiciously like bigotry.

Side note: the ACT UP paint splash incident - I don't call that protest, I call that vandalism, and it's a crime. They'd have been thrown in jail were it up to me.

See, protest is when you stand outside somewhere and make your point known. It's not when you destroy someone else's property.

It would seem you and I tend to agree on the subject of marriage. So long as it's voluntary and between adults, it's none of my business.

RWR: I think the busting up of gay bars was wrong so long as none but adults are inside and what happens inside is not visible or audible to the people nearby.

The employment and marriage stuff I would leave to the indivudual religion or business. I've always thought that bigotry was part of the right of expression, even if cretinous.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 00:14:05 2005 (r/FBF)

27 RWR,

You're right and the march to equality continues. Here's where your slippery slope argument breaks down. All that you have listed have been about establishing equality. None (save perhaps employment non-discrimination, which you don't agree with but it's still a matter of equality since it exists for everyone else) have been about making YOU change at all. To jump from "Gay people want the government to grant them the same rights is grants other citizens" to "churchs will have to change their beliefs" is not only a HUGE leap of logic, but it defies historical precedent and I strongly suspect you don't believe it yourself. The thing is, gay people have gotten married in this country now and the sky hasn't fallen and nobody's heterosexual marriage has broken up over. If the neo-con right has any hope of taking marriage equality away from us they have to shift their fear-tatics from "protecting marriage" to the (equally erroneous) "protecting religion." That's what you're trying to do here I believe.

I have said it many times. I don't WANT to get married in a church that thinks of me as less than human.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 8 04:12:41 2005 (fgsGh)

28 RWR....ROFLMAO!! Hadn't a good knee slapper in longgg time.

Posted by: mcconnell at Wed Jun 8 04:58:10 2005 (zudZk)

29 Dolphin...

Just to be clear, I also think that employers should be able to refuse employment to anyone for any reason they like at any time. If they want to refuse to hire me because I'm bald and/or fat (I look a lot like Elmer Fudd), they can do so in my world. If they want to refuse to hire me because I have splotchy skin (I have vitiligo (sp?)), they can do so in my world.

This is not restricted to any particular group. I figure it's their money to spend as they wish and kinda falls in line with the legal saying that allows pre-emptory dismissals of jurors:

I do not like thee, Doctor Fell,
The reason why, I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Doctor Fell.

You can hire whomever you like, so long as you live up to the contract(s) you sign when so doing.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 07:14:11 2005 (lkCzp)

30 Sub,

That's fine, while I might disagree, I understand that view, my point was that employment non-discrimination is something that's offered to ALL citizens so offering it to gay people fits in with equal rights not <gopbuzzword> special rights </gopbuzzword>. While I would disagree with taking away employment non-discrimination polcies, the most important thing abotu them is that they are applied (or not) the same to everyone.

Posted by: dolphin at Wed Jun 8 09:15:15 2005 (fgsGh)

31 /agree

I completely agree with you there Dolphin. If you're going to have a law protecting a set of things (employment, dog walking, shopping, marriage, what have you), then protect it for all rational subsets or not at all.

One of the 'minority' (now a majority I guess) groups that I belong to is fat people. I screamed with rage when a fat woman sued GNC because they refused to (now get this) WIDEN THE AISLES so she could FIT DOWN THEM. She called that a 'reasonable accomidation.' I called it 'not disabled' and said she needs to put down the fried chicken. Mind you, if anyone's got an excuse to be fat, I do (bad thyroid, low blood sugar (*NOT* from being fat), bad knee (work injury), and bad ankles (old skating injuries), not to mention just being flat uncoordinated)...and I know I can lose weight if I put my mind to it.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 09:38:29 2005 (lkCzp)

32 I'll agree with you, Sub, about the bars and bathhouses. And I even agree with dolphin about the employment issue -- there should be equal laws there, though I disagree with employment discrimination laws that apply to any entity except government.

I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Wed Jun 8 12:50:27 2005 (jNFpp)

33 *grin*

OK - I admit, the surprise there made me laugh.

I can't agree with you on the last bit RWR, simply because I think the government should stay out of marriage. It's none of their business who I marry or how I marry them. Marriage is a function of religion - if gays can find a religion to marry them, so be it - it should not have any relevance whatsoever with the government.

Management of property should be through standardized contracts (or non-standard ones), as should medical decisions, custody, etc...for ALL people, hetero and homo alike.

I hate that the government legislates marriage. I know WHY they do it, but I don't have to like it.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Wed Jun 8 14:56:51 2005 (r/FBF)

34 I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

I always find that to be an interesting view that anti-gay individuals bring up whenever they can't back their hatred. First I find it interesting because it's word for word exactly the argument that was used against interacial marraiges, it went like this then: There's no discrimination, a black person can marry any member of the same race, just like a white person can." It wasn't right then and it's not right now. But I suspect such hate-groups and their followers will continue to try the same old tired rhetoric.

Secondly, there is NOT equality. Any woman in this country can marry a man but I can't. Why, ONLY because I'm male. If gender is a legitimate reason to discriminate aginst American citizens, then can I assume you are in support of removing womens sufferage? Can I quote you on that?

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 04:41:58 2005 (fgsGh)

35 No, you may not, as that is not my opinion.

Nor am I anti-gay -- merely pro-marriage.

Marriage was, is, and always will be the union of one man and one woman. The racial restrictions illegitimately imposed were not fundamental to the nature of marriage, and were, in fact, contrary to the clear dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment. The same cannot be said of homosexual marriage, which requires a fundamental disruption and reconfiguration of the institution of marriage as generally understood for the last couple of millenia in Western Society.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 05:53:03 2005 (DTBYN)

36 You are ANTI-MARRIAGE. You may think gay people don't deserve human rights but to claim to be "pro-marriage" is an outright lie. Who is trying to stop marriages from happening? YOU! You are not doing anything to help any marriage. That's a FACT, with the exception of Rick Santorum (and probabyl a few others) even the strongest opponents of marriage equality acknowlege that straight marriages can't be hurt by gay marriages.

Let's be CRYSTAL clear, the only people trying to ban any marriages at all is YOUR SIDE, PERIOD. Believe what you want but DO NOT delude yourself into thinking that seekign to ban marriage is anything less than ANTI-marriage and ANTI-family.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 06:46:11 2005 (fgsGh)

37 I even support equal rights for homosexuals regarding marriage -- they can marry any individual of the opposite sex they desire.

By your definition, I'll lie to the woman that I'm not gay, I will cheat on her by fucking guys in bathhouses and adult bookstores ... as long as I am able to juggle both worlds in secrecy.

Such a fabulous idea! Not.

Your argument is so retarded.

R-

Posted by: Me is the Ridor at Thu Jun 9 13:41:44 2005 (ODDFf)

38 Who said anything about lying.

If you decided to marry, I would hope you would be as up front about it as you are about your deafness.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 15:33:36 2005 (wfdL5)

39 Then your entire argument falls apart RWR.

It wasn't a very good argument to begin with but nobody is going to marry somebody they already know doesn't love them romantically. So now your back to denying marraige rigths just because a person is gay.

This is just one issue that is so plainly black and white that I can't bring myself to understand why there's even been a debate. Eitehr gay people deserve the saem rights as others or we don't. I'd like to think that in America there wouldn't be a question, but that's the America of ideals and until the far right has been knocked from power we will continue to see an America that looks quite different from anythign that could be refered to as the land of the free.

Posted by: dolphin at Thu Jun 9 17:14:52 2005 (MIt/1)

40 So by your definition, America has never been the land of the free, and has always been ruled by hateful anti-gay right-wingers. After all, homosexual marriage has NEVER been permitted in the US, except under the rulings of a couple of rogue judges. And the American people have never supported homosexual marriage, as witnessed by the fact that EVERY TIME THEY VOTE they reject it.

You are absolutely hysterical.

Oh, and by the way, dolphin, the fact is that the issue is black and white -- marriage is between members of the opposite sex, not the same sex. That is why I cannot believe that we, as a society, are even having the debate.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Jun 9 17:56:16 2005 (WrPVI)

41 RWR,

I repeat again, what is it that has given you such a vile and intense hatred for gay people. Were you wronged by a gay person. If so might I suggest you speak to a counselor. Perhaps you can learn to direct your anger at that one person, express it and move on, this hatred is actually bad for your health.

Posted by: dolphin at Fri Jun 10 04:05:06 2005 (fgsGh)

42 Excuse me, dolphin, but your dime-store psychoanalysis is quite off base.

I don't hate homosexuals.

I believe homosexual activity is sinful and immoral.

Big difference.

So why don't you go take a class in speech or logic and learn how to make an argument without ultimately returning to a baseless ad hominem attack on your opponent.

Posted by: at Fri Jun 10 04:54:13 2005 (LGV5B)

43 I'm assuming the above comment was made by RWR?

Posted by: mcconnell at Fri Jun 10 08:04:32 2005 (LmcbS)

44 Dolphin: While I don't believe homosexuality is a sin and immoral, I also don't equate believing so to being a hater of homosexuals.

Typically...or I should maybe say ideally, a person who believes another is engaged in sinful behavior will want to try and help the other and not hate them for it. Generally speaking I wish to help people that I see who are sinning...sometimes I also feel pity.

That said; even if I though homosexuality was a sin, I don't view it as any more of a sin than my pride, or my overeating, or, or, or...you get the idea. I'm a sinner as much as you or anyone else. It's a binary situation - either you are a sinner or you are not. I'd like to help other sinners...but frequently don't because it'll be intrusive and won't help at all.

Anyway - I'm a sinner, you're a sinner...we're all sinners.

...but God loves us all anyway. That's (part) of why He is so much better than us. He sees the beauty in everyone. My blind eyes see the beauty in but a few.

Sub

Posted by: Subjugator at Fri Jun 10 09:00:47 2005 (lkCzp)

45 Well, Dolphin's not going to answer. Doesn't see intellectual diversity (honesty) for what they are.

Posted by: mcconnell at Sat Jun 11 05:34:01 2005 (zudZk)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If this were done to the Koran, people would die. But since it is only the Bible, some will click their tongues and liberals will call it another blow against "right-wing Christian theocrats."

A publisher is touting a new edition of the Gospels that identifies Christ as a woman named Judith Christ of Nazareth.

LBI Institute says its version, Judith Christ of Nazareth, The Gospels of the Bible, Corrected to Reflect that Christ Was a Woman, Extracted from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, takes Thomas Jefferson's edited Gospel one step futher by "correcting" the gender of Christ and God.

"This long-awaited revised text of the Gospels makes the moral message of Christ more accessible to many, and more illuminating to all," says Billie Shakespeare, vice president for the publisher, in a statement. "It is empowering. We published this new Bible to acknowledge the rise of women in society."

And lest you think this is a joke, you can get confirmation here.

Posted by: Greg at 04:46 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

I can't believe it was unanimous.

The law "does not elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution's need to maintain order and safety," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said from the bench in announcing the decision.

Ginsburg said judges who handle inmate cases should give deference to prison administrators.

So what we have here is a vindication of the ability of prisoners to worship freely, provided that doing so does not undermine prison security. Hardly an outrageous proposition -- especially since we give such accommodations to the terrositst ad Gitmo.

Posted by: Greg at 02:59 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

Pope Benedict XVI, on his first trip away from Rome, has spoken about his desire to work for reconciliation between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

In his homily at a Mass that closed a national religious conference, Benedict referred to Bari as a "land of meeting and dialogue" with the Orthodox Church.

"I want to repeat my willingness to make it a fundamental commitment to work, with all my energy, toward reconstituting the full and visible unity of Christ's followers," he said to applause from the estimated 200,000 people at the Mass.

Benedict told worshippers words were not enough, and that even ordinary Catholics needed to make concrete gestures to reach out to Orthodox Christians.

"I also ask all of you to decisively take the path of spiritual ecumenism, which in prayer will open the door to the Holy Spirit who alone can create unity," he said.

There is much to work on for the split to heal, but there is significantly more in common between the two branches of Christianity than between the two ancient branches and Protestantism. May we see the breach healed in our lifetimes.

Posted by: Greg at 08:57 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 1 kb.

In one of the most arrogant, anti-constitutional decisions made by a judge that I have ever encountered, an Indiana judge has forbidden a pair of Wiccan parents from teaching exposing their son to their religious faith as a condition of the child custody provision of their divorce decree.

A Wiccan activist and his ex-wife are challenging a court's order that they must protect their 9-year-old son from what it terms their "non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

Thomas E. Jones and Tammy Bristol of Indianapolis are fighting a Marion Superior Court stipulation that they shelter the boy from their religion. The Indiana Civil Liberties Union has taken on the case, appealing the December decree to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Jones, a Wiccan activist who has coordinated Pagan Pride Day in Indianapolis for the past six years, said he and his ex-wife were stunned when they saw the language in the judge's dissolution decree on Feb. 13, 2004.

"We both had an instant resolve to challenge it. We could not accept it," Jones said.

Neither parent has taken their son to any Wiccan rituals since the decree was issued, he said.

"I'm afraid I'll lose my son if I let him around when I practice my religion," he said.

Now I disagree with Wicca. I have some very firm beliefs on what fate eternity holds for those who practice Wicca. But when you have two parents who both practice the religion, it is unreasonable and intolerable for a judge to tell them that they cannot pass their religious values on to their child. For that matter, I have a problem if a judge were to order that one parent not pass on any or all of their religious beliefs to their child. Short of an immediate demonstrable harm to the child's well-being, it just is not a matter for the court to be involved in. It is the fundamental right of parents to oversee the religious upbringing of their children.

What was the basis for the ruling?

A court commissioner wrote the unusual order into the couple's dissolution decree after a routine report by the court's Domestic Relations Counseling Bureau noted that both Jones and his ex-wife are pagans who send their son, Archer, to a Catholic elementary school.

"Ms. Jones and Mr. Jones display little insight into the confusion these divergent belief systems will have upon Archer as he ages," the report said.

The dissolution decree said "the parents are directed to take such steps as are needed to shelter Archer from involvement and observation of these non-mainstream religious beliefs and rituals."

The splitting parents challenged that section of the decree, but Judge Cale Bradford, who reviewed the commissioner's work, let it stand.

Uh, I thought that "diversity" was a good thing. I guess not in the eyes of these people. If the issue was the "confusion" that would be created by having the parents teaching one thing and the school something else, why not order the child removed fromt he Catholic school? After all, the kid is not Catholic, and everyone at the school knows that -- and have known that since he enrolled. The decision of the court simply does not make sense.

Additional commentary from Dolphin & Watching the Watchers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:58 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

I don't know if I should weep over this story, or whether I should engage in encourage massive rioting in the streets over the disrespect shown to my religious faith. In either event, I know I should be outraged over the rape of the First Amendment by both the school district and the judge in this case.

A public school prohibited a second grader from singing a religious song at a talent show, prompting a lawsuit Friday alleging violation of the girl's constitutional rights.

A federal judge declined an emergency request to compel Frenchtown Elementary School to allow 8-year-old Olivia Turton to sing "Awesome God" at the Friday night show, but allowed the lawsuit to go forward.

School officials in the western New Jersey community had said the performance would be inappropriate at a school event. A message seeking comment from a school board attorney about the judge's ruling was not immediately returned.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Stanley R. Chesler in Trenton to consider the case later came just hours before Olivia had hoped to sing the pop song by the late Rich Mullins.

One verse has these lyrics: "Our God is an awesome God/He reigns from heaven above/with wisdom, pow'r and love/Our God is an awesome God."

It is implicit in the nature of a talent show that the students, not the school, select their songs. Therefore there is no question of the school "imposing" or "endorsing" anything. There is nothing "inappropriate" in the song -- unless one accepts the warped notion that allowing someone to acknowledge their religious beliefs is inappropriate. However, such a position would put you directly in conflict with the Constitutional prohibition on "prohibitting the free exercise" of religion.

What makes me saddest is that I somehow doubt that the school would have stopped this little girl from getting up on stage and parading around dressed like a whore and singing "Bootylicious". And as the story points out, the school has no problem allowing in a witchcraft ceremony during the talent show, drawn from Macbeth, despite the fact that witchcraft is ALSO a religion.

Such situations sometimes stir in me a disturbing thought. Maybe the Islamists have it right -- maybe we Christians need to take to the streets and leave a path of death and destruction through the cities of this country in order to get the respect from government that our numbers merit and the First Amendment supposedly grants us. But I know that is Satan -- and my own sinful nature -- talking.

We Christians follow the Prince of Peace. He has commanded us to turn the other cheek. He has warned us that we will be reviled by those who reject him, and will be persecuted for the sake of his name. So while we will fight in the halls of governemnt for our rights, and pursue them in the courts, true Christians will not engage in the savage behavior we have seen of late from the intolerant practitioners of a certain false religion.

For Jesus Christ is our Lord.

And Our God IS An Awsome God!

Posted by: Greg at 04:36 AM | Comments (32) | Add Comment
Post contains 532 words, total size 3 kb.

And here I thought they claimed to be persecuted by all of us awful Christians.

"Still, it's a great time to be an atheist," said Fitzgerald, who was raised a Baptist in Fresno. "Five hundred years ago, we'd be burned for what we were thinking. Fifty years ago, we'd lose our jobs. But today, we're free to be atheists.

Posted by: Greg at 02:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, since there seems to be a consensus among the press that the riots over reported Koran desecration were understandable and the fault of the US, I think it is important that we apply the principle to the holy texts of all faiths when they are abused or disrespected as a matter of official government policy.

As such, I am starting the "Slay a Saudi for the Savior” campaign, and expect the support of every liberal and Muslim out there. This is simply a proportional response to this report.

Bibles found in the possession of visitors to Saudi Arabia are routinely confiscated by customs officials, and in some cases copies allegedly have been put through a paper shredder, according to religious rights campaigners.

Reports from the Islamic world of the abuse of Bibles and other items important to Christians emerge from time to time, but generally have little impact - in contrast to the wave of Muslim anger sparked by a Newsweek report, since retracted, of Koran desecration by the U.S. military.

"The Muslims respect the Koran far more than Christians respect the Bible," says Danny Nalliah, a Sri Lankan-born evangelical pastor now based in Australia.

During the 1990s, Nalliah spent two years in Saudi Arabia, where he was deeply involved with the underground church.

"It's a very well-known fact that if you have a Bible at customs when you enter the airport, and if they find the Bible, that the Bible is taken and put in the shredder," he said in an interview this week.

"If you have more than one Bible you will be taken into custody, and if you have a quantity of Bibles you will be given 70 lashes for sure - you could even be executed."

And since there are constant complaints about the abuse of Muslim women, how about this Saudi abuse of a nun?

A friend of his, a fellow Christian in Saudi Arabia, told him of witnessing a particularly unpleasant incident involving a Catholic nun.

The man had been in the transit lounge at the airport in Jeddah - the gateway to Mecca, used by millions of Hajj pilgrims each year - when a nun arrived at the customs desk.

"Some fool [travel agent] had put her on a transit flight in Jeddah. You don't do that to a Catholic nun, because she's going to be tormented."

"They opened her bag, went through her prayer book, put the prayer book through the shredder ... took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it, tormented her for many minutes."

Eventually another Muslim official objected to their conduct, came across and "rescued" her, pointing out to the customs officials that she was not entering the country but only in transit and would be leaving on the next plane.

I demand that the Muslim pigs involved suffer death by beheading for their abuse of this woman of God – right in the middle of Saint Peter’s Square.

I declare a Crusade against the infidels who would dare defile crucifix or shred a prayer book or Bible. We must avenge these insults to the Christian faith.

Death to the Islam!

Death to Mecca!

Death to Saudi Arabia!

***

Uh – anyway, now that I’ve recovered my sense of proportion, I hope folks realize that this is not my actual belief. The above is a satirical piece. Unfortunately, the outrages committed by the Saudis are not something I’ve made up out of whole cloth. They are real.

That is why I urge the State Department to impose serious sanctions against Saudi Arabia and any other Muslim country that violates the rights of Christians. After all – Christianity deserves at least as much respect as Islam.

And to the Islamist fifth-columnists working at CAIR – you’ll get my support for your resolution when you get Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world to apply the same standard to Christian practices and beliefs.

UPDATE -- 5/20/05: Just in case folks didn't like my sources, here is a piece from today's Wall Street journal on the same Saudi policy regarding the Bible -- including this anecdote.

The Bible in Saudi Arabia may get a person killed, arrested, or deported. In September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded in Qateef on a charge of apostasy for owning a Bible.

I wonder what Ms. Azza Basarudin (from the post below) feels about such cases?

More at GOPBloggers.

UPDATE -- 5/23/05 -- More on Saudi Bible desecration here.

UPDATE -- 5/26/05 -- Don't look now, but it isn't just Bibles that the Islamist Horde wants to ban and destroy -- now they want to confiscate Webster's Dictionary for defining anti-Semitism in a way that they don't like.

The latest edition of the dictionary "Webster" identified "anti- Semitism" as opposing Zionism and sympathizing with Israel's enemies, which showed "the racial trend and scientific distortion," officials of the Office of the Arab Boycott of Israel (OABI) were quoted as saying.

Ignorant cretins!

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 834 words, total size 6 kb.

Well, since there seems to be a consensus among the press that the riots over reported Koran desecration were understandable and the fault of the US, I think it is important that we apply the principle to the holy texts of all faiths when they are abused or disrespected as a matter of official government policy.

As such, I am starting the "Slay a Saudi for the Savior" campaign, and expect the support of every liberal and Muslim out there. This is simply a proportional response to this report.

Bibles found in the possession of visitors to Saudi Arabia are routinely confiscated by customs officials, and in some cases copies allegedly have been put through a paper shredder, according to religious rights campaigners.

Reports from the Islamic world of the abuse of Bibles and other items important to Christians emerge from time to time, but generally have little impact - in contrast to the wave of Muslim anger sparked by a Newsweek report, since retracted, of Koran desecration by the U.S. military.

"The Muslims respect the Koran far more than Christians respect the Bible," says Danny Nalliah, a Sri Lankan-born evangelical pastor now based in Australia.

During the 1990s, Nalliah spent two years in Saudi Arabia, where he was deeply involved with the underground church.

"It's a very well-known fact that if you have a Bible at customs when you enter the airport, and if they find the Bible, that the Bible is taken and put in the shredder," he said in an interview this week.

"If you have more than one Bible you will be taken into custody, and if you have a quantity of Bibles you will be given 70 lashes for sure - you could even be executed."

And since there are constant complaints about the abuse of Muslim women, how about this Saudi abuse of a nun?

A friend of his, a fellow Christian in Saudi Arabia, told him of witnessing a particularly unpleasant incident involving a Catholic nun.

The man had been in the transit lounge at the airport in Jeddah - the gateway to Mecca, used by millions of Hajj pilgrims each year - when a nun arrived at the customs desk.

"Some fool [travel agent] had put her on a transit flight in Jeddah. You don't do that to a Catholic nun, because she's going to be tormented."

"They opened her bag, went through her prayer book, put the prayer book through the shredder ... took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it, tormented her for many minutes."

Eventually another Muslim official objected to their conduct, came across and "rescued" her, pointing out to the customs officials that she was not entering the country but only in transit and would be leaving on the next plane.

I demand that the Muslim pigs involved suffer death by beheading for their abuse of this woman of God – right in the middle of Saint Peter’s Square.

I declare a Crusade against the infidels who would dare defile crucifix or shred a prayer book or Bible. We must avenge these insults to the Christian faith.

Death to the Islam!

Death to Mecca!

Death to Saudi Arabia!

***

Uh -- anyway, now that I've recovered my sense of proportion, I hope folks realize that this is not my actual belief. The above is a satirical piece. Unfortunately, the outrages committed by the Saudis are not something I've made up out of whole cloth. They are real.

That is why I urge the State Department to impose serious sanctions against Saudi Arabia and any other Muslim country that violates the rights of Christians. After all -- Christianity deserves at least as much respect as Islam.

And to the Islamist fifth-columnists working at CAIR --you'll get my support for your resolution when you get Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world to apply the same standard to Christian practices and beliefs.

UPDATE -- 5/20/05: Just in case folks didn't like my sources, here is a piece from today's Wall Street journal on the same Saudi policy regarding the Bible -- including this anecdote.

The Bible in Saudi Arabia may get a person killed, arrested, or deported. In September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded in Qateef on a charge of apostasy for owning a Bible.

I wonder what Ms. Azza Basarudin (from the post below) feels about such cases?

More at GOPBloggers.

UPDATE -- 5/23/05 -- More on Saudi Bible desecration here.

UPDATE -- 5/26/05 -- Don't look now, but it isn't just Bibles that the Islamist Horde wants to ban and destroy -- now they want to confiscate Webster's Dictionary for defining anti-Semitism in a way that they don't like.

The latest edition of the dictionary "Webster" identified "anti- Semitism" as opposing Zionism and sympathizing with Israel's enemies, which showed "the racial trend and scientific distortion," officials of the Office of the Arab Boycott of Israel (OABI) were quoted as saying.

Ignorant cretins!

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 840 words, total size 6 kb.

Well, since there seems to be a consensus among the press that the riots over reported Koran desecration were understandable and the fault of the US, I think it is important that we apply the principle to the holy texts of all faiths when they are abused or disrespected as a matter of official government policy.

As such, I am starting the "Slay a Saudi for the Savior" campaign, and expect the support of every liberal and Muslim out there. This is simply a proportional response to this report.

Bibles found in the possession of visitors to Saudi Arabia are routinely confiscated by customs officials, and in some cases copies allegedly have been put through a paper shredder, according to religious rights campaigners.

Reports from the Islamic world of the abuse of Bibles and other items important to Christians emerge from time to time, but generally have little impact - in contrast to the wave of Muslim anger sparked by a Newsweek report, since retracted, of Koran desecration by the U.S. military.

"The Muslims respect the Koran far more than Christians respect the Bible," says Danny Nalliah, a Sri Lankan-born evangelical pastor now based in Australia.

During the 1990s, Nalliah spent two years in Saudi Arabia, where he was deeply involved with the underground church.

"It's a very well-known fact that if you have a Bible at customs when you enter the airport, and if they find the Bible, that the Bible is taken and put in the shredder," he said in an interview this week.

"If you have more than one Bible you will be taken into custody, and if you have a quantity of Bibles you will be given 70 lashes for sure - you could even be executed."

And since there are constant complaints about the abuse of Muslim women, how about this Saudi abuse of a nun?

A friend of his, a fellow Christian in Saudi Arabia, told him of witnessing a particularly unpleasant incident involving a Catholic nun.

The man had been in the transit lounge at the airport in Jeddah - the gateway to Mecca, used by millions of Hajj pilgrims each year - when a nun arrived at the customs desk.

"Some fool [travel agent] had put her on a transit flight in Jeddah. You don't do that to a Catholic nun, because she's going to be tormented."

"They opened her bag, went through her prayer book, put the prayer book through the shredder ... took the crucifix off her neck and smashed it, tormented her for many minutes."

Eventually another Muslim official objected to their conduct, came across and "rescued" her, pointing out to the customs officials that she was not entering the country but only in transit and would be leaving on the next plane.

I demand that the Muslim pigs involved suffer death by beheading for their abuse of this woman of God – right in the middle of Saint Peter’s Square.

I declare a Crusade against the infidels who would dare defile crucifix or shred a prayer book or Bible. We must avenge these insults to the Christian faith.

Death to the Islam!

Death to Mecca!

Death to Saudi Arabia!

***

Uh -- anyway, now that I've recovered my sense of proportion, I hope folks realize that this is not my actual belief. The above is a satirical piece. Unfortunately, the outrages committed by the Saudis are not something I've made up out of whole cloth. They are real.

That is why I urge the State Department to impose serious sanctions against Saudi Arabia and any other Muslim country that violates the rights of Christians. After all -- Christianity deserves at least as much respect as Islam.

And to the Islamist fifth-columnists working at CAIR --you'll get my support for your resolution when you get Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Muslim world to apply the same standard to Christian practices and beliefs.

UPDATE -- 5/20/05: Just in case folks didn't like my sources, here is a piece from today's Wall Street journal on the same Saudi policy regarding the Bible -- including this anecdote.

The Bible in Saudi Arabia may get a person killed, arrested, or deported. In September 1993, Sadeq Mallallah, 23, was beheaded in Qateef on a charge of apostasy for owning a Bible.

I wonder what Ms. Azza Basarudin (from the post below) feels about such cases?

More at GOPBloggers.

UPDATE -- 5/23/05 -- More on Saudi Bible desecration here.

UPDATE -- 5/26/05 -- Don't look now, but it isn't just Bibles that the Islamist Horde wants to ban and destroy -- now they want to confiscate Webster's Dictionary for defining anti-Semitism in a way that they don't like.

The latest edition of the dictionary "Webster" identified "anti- Semitism" as opposing Zionism and sympathizing with Israel's enemies, which showed "the racial trend and scientific distortion," officials of the Office of the Arab Boycott of Israel (OABI) were quoted as saying.

Ignorant cretins!

Posted by: Greg at 01:47 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 840 words, total size 6 kb.

The liberty to worship and believe according to oneÂ’s conscience is a fundamental human right. When will India stop the violation of these rights by some of its provinces?

The police have arrested four persons who were distributing copies of the Bible and biblical literature to the people in Rajnagar Block, Orissa, May 13.

The police action comes in the wake of the alleged conversion of 300 Hindu families to Christianity in Rajnagar. An angry Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has threatened to launch an agitation if the police fail to take action against “those responsible for violating the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act.”

“The area is already tense, and at such a time open distribution of the Bible could add fuel to the fire,” said Mr. Sistikantha Kanungo, officer in charge of the Rajnagar police station. “That is why we arrested the four young men and detained them,” he added.

The arrested are Ashok Namalpuri (2 of Chalakamba village in Nayagarh district, Gorachand Pal (22) of Gaeba village in Gajapati district, Siddheswar Nayak (29) and Bimal Wilson (22) from Koraput.

They had come to Rajnagar in January last and were allegedly involved in conversions by distributing leaflets and pamphlets about Jesus Christ and Christianity and trying to influence school children, the officer added. For the last five months they were also teaching at two primary schools without charging any remuneration.

Says Mr. Subhranshu Sutar, a social activist, “These young men were often seen distributing biblical literature and copies of the Bible in at least fifteen villages in Rajnagar Block alone.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Hemant Sharma, the district collector of Kendrapara, has ordered an inquiry into the conversion of 300 Hindu families. The superintendent of police and the Rajnagar tehsildar will investigate the charges and submit a report within a week.

“OFRA demands that a convert or a re-convert should inform and obtain permission from the district administration before converting to another religion. But nobody has taken any permission in this case. So once the report is filed and someone is found guilty, they would be booked. The law will take its course,” said Mr. Sharma.

No government has any place granting or denying permission to change oneÂ’s faith. No government has any place prohibiting the distribution of religious texts to willing recipients.

Posted by: Greg at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

Listen up, you Islamist pigs. Don't make the US come back and kick your Taliban-loving asses again.

A group of Afghan Muslim clerics threatened on Sunday to call for a holy war against the United States in three days unless it hands over military interrogators reported to have desecrated the Koran. The warning came after 16 Afghans were killed and more than 100 hurt last week in the worst anti-U.S. protests across the country since U.S. forces invaded in 2001 to oust the Taliban for sheltering Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network. The clerics in the northeastern province of Badakhshan said they wanted U.S. President George W. Bush to handle the matter honestly "and hand the culprits over to an Islamic country for punishment". "If that does not happen within three days, we will launch a jihad against America," said a statement issued by about 300 clerics, referring to Muslim holy war, after meeting in the main mosque in the provincial capital, Faizabad.

Even if the charges are true, -- which appears unlikely, based upon the way Newsweek is backpeddling from this story -- we will turn US military personnel over to some Muslim backwater tribunal to be tried under rules set by your false prophet Muhammad sometime about a millenium after Hell freezes over.

Oh, and before any Muslim comes here asking me to tone down the level of contempt -- please note that this IS the toned-down version

Posted by: Greg at 12:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 2 kb.

Pope Benedict XVI has announced that he has waived the ordinary five year waiting period for the beginning of canonization proceedings for his predecessor, Pope John Paul the Great.

The pope made the announcement during a meeting with the Roman clergy at the Basilica of St. John Lateran, first telling the assembled priests, "and now I have a very joyous piece of news for you."

Immediately following Pope John Paul's death on April 2, there were calls from faithful for his sainthood. At his funeral Mass, pilgrims held up banners saying "Santo Subito" ("Immediate Sainthood").

The announcement came on the anniversary of an 1981 assassination attempt by a Turkish gunman against John Paul in St. Peter's Square (search).

The pope read a letter in Latin in which the Vatican official in charge of sainthood, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, announced that Benedict himself had authorized the beginning of John Paul's path to sainthood. The announcement drew a standing ovation from the Roman priests.

Benedict, who had been seated, stood up to join the clergy in applauding the major tribute to his predecessor.

This is clearly a response to the calls of the faithful to begin the process now. At the funeral for the late pontiff, cries of “Santo Subito” were heard throughout the crowd. In my eyes, this is akin to the practice of the early church, where sainthood was often determined by the people themselves, and then recognized by the institutional Church. Perhaps the bestknown example is that of St. Thomas a Becket, whose tomb became a place of pilgrimage immediately after his death, and whose holiness and martyrdom led to his recognition as a saint within three years of his death in acknowledgement of the popular acclamation that he was a saint.

Soon, very soon, I expect that we will be hearing of his beatification and canonization.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

I've intentionally stayed out of the discussion of the pastor in North Carolina who effectively excommunicated members of the congregation for their voting behavior. I"ve stayed out for several reasons. First, i've not been at all clear on what exactly happened -- reports have left me with enough of a fog factor that I don't want to do anyone an injustice.

But beyond that, I've had a second reason for staying silent. While I think that the man's actions are counterproductive in the contemporary world, I do not believe that they are wrong as a matter of principle. Quite bluntly, I believe that a church does have an obligation to discipline members who have strayed from its teachings, even if the misconduct is in the realm of political activity -- and i believe a fair reading of the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering in or punishing a church for doing so.

Before folks start tearing their hair out, i ask that you read this excerpt from Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

During the 2004 presidential election, leaders of the Roman Catholic Church debated whether Catholic candidates who support abortion rights and same-sex marriage should be denied Communion. There was no corresponding debate among Evangelicals. The virtual disappearance of church discipline among Evangelicals--a symptom of a larger loss of biblical ecclesiology--left many Christians simply scratching their heads. Now, the controversy in Waynesville, North Carolina emerges as a flashpoint of confusion. What should we think of this?

In the first place, we should quickly assert the autonomy of the Church as the Body of Christ. Though missiologically located within the secular world, the Church knows only one Sovereign--the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, the church is located within a political context--a context it cannot deny. For most of U.S. history, this has not been an issue of difficulty for the church. This is no longer the case. At first blush, the actions of the East Waynesville Baptist Church appear to be out of bounds. A political judgment of this apparently partisan nature does not seem to be justified by the political context--at least not yet.

Honesty compels me to state that I could foresee a political context in which such a decision, made in extremis, could well be both justifiable and necessary. The church has faced this before. In the context of Nazi Germany, it was an unavoidable issue. Writing to Christians in France, Karl Barth lamented the sin of the German Christians who allowed the Nazi Party to assume power (through democratic elections, we should be reminded). Looking back to the political passivity of the German church, Barth reflected: "At the time and in Germany it implied a retreat of Christianity from responsibility in ecclesiastical and political spheres to the inner sphere of a religious attitude which, in order to maintain itself, no longer concerned itself with, or at least was not willing to fight and suffer for, the right form of the Church, let alone that of the State."

The right form of the church requires a common commitment to certain shared convictions. These commitments are irreducibly theological, but come with inevitable political consequences. Until recently, our domestic political debates have failed to reach a point of crisis with regard to these consequences, but crisis cannot be rejected as a possibility. In such cases, the church must maintain its witness and convictional commitments. A church should exercise discipline against a member who, while claiming to be a Christian, would vote for Adolf Hitler--or David Duke.

Now Mohler, like me, doesn't see the actions alleged in North Carolina as appropriate in today's context. But at the same time, he recognizes that a proper understanding of the nature of the Church mandates that this sort of action be done in the proper situation. Mojhler talks about voting for Hitler or David Duke -- I think of the excommunication of opponents of school desegregation by the Archbishop of New Orleans in the 1960s after they used their political offices and courtroom litigation to attempt to achieve a political result (school segregation) contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The acceptance of limits on speech on matters of faith and morals that intersect with politics cannot be accepted by a true Christian -- or a true believer in any other faith. Gvernment is not God.

Now I will concede that America is not a theocracy. I've yet to meet a Christian who wants it to be, despite the hysterical claims of outraged liberals any time a conservative Christian dares to exercise his or her rights as a citizen. The Church, however, IS AND MUST BE a theocracy by its very nature, no matter how much or how loudly the lukewarm may object. We may be obliged to accept the separation of church and state, but we must never give in to demands for the separation of church and church.

Posted by: Greg at 04:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 831 words, total size 5 kb.

When one hears the word "evangelical", the term "fundamentalist" is not far behind, along with the phrases "right-wing" and "theocrat". Such stereotypes are wrong, for most evangelicals support values that would have to be conceded to be mainstream -- not surprising, given that they make up some 40% of the American public. The only question, at times, is the proposed method of implementing those values. Mark Hall's piece in the Oregonian does a pretty good job of pointing that out.

What do evangelicals believe, then?

First, contrary to many stereotypes, evangelicals are among the most tenacious defenders of religious liberty. We have been fiery opponents of government attempts to dictate religious belief or actions.

Look at the leading "right-wing Christian" legal organizations -- they don't just defend Christians, but also Jews, Muslims, and others. Where these groups differe with the radical secularists is that they believe that neutrality doesn't mean driving religion from the public square. In that, they are exactly in line with American practice from the time of the writing of the First Amendment itself.

Second, evangelicals are concerned about the poor and dispossessed. Flippant critics chastise us for dropping the ball -- including evangelicals such as Jim Wallis, "Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," and Ron Sider, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience."

But the best historical and sociological studies show that evangelicals, along with other religious conservatives, are among the most generous Americans when it comes to donating our time and money.

Look at the statistics that are out there. It is generally those who identify themselves as religious who are the most generous with their giving. While many oppose government programs, it is because they believe that private charity is superior to those programs. And if one looks at the statistics, there is a point to that argument.

Third, evangelicals place a high value on family. We believe the right of parents to raise their children should be respected and supported by the state. Many evangelicals would extend this principle to enabling all parents to provide for their children an education that reflects their world views.

For all we hear the rabid secularists talk about programs "for the children," they tend to ignore the fact that those with the best interest of a child closest to their hearts are their parents. This is a big part of why evangelicals tend to support school vouchers -- because who is most concerned with the individualized needs of a student if not their parents? Granted, these vouchers still will not enable most kids to attend the private schools of the elite liberals, but it will allow them in many cases to do better than they do now, and will actually leave public schools with more dollars per child because no voucher plan proposed has ever taken all the dollars per student for a voucher.

Fourth, evangelicals believe innocent human life ought not to be taken without a very good reason. We overwhelmingly oppose abortion and euthanasia.

Notice the reason for the opposition -- respect for life. I once argued that Jefferson, in listing three inalienable rights, put them in order of importance. The violation of the right to lifeimplicitly violates the others, and so governemnt is obliged to protect us from the unjust taking of life -- including protecting us from ourselves if need be. This respect for life is why there is division on the death penalty among evangelicals, though most will accept it as legitimate, though not mandatory, on biblical grounds.

Strangely enough, it is not the evangelicals who are unwilling to dialogue on these mainstream values. It is their opponents who refuse to discuss, refuse to compromise, and dismiss any attempt by evangelicals to participate in the political process as "mixing church and state" or "attempting to impose a theocracy".

But how do we have a democratic republic if the beliefs of four out of every ten Americans are declared illegitmate and those Americans are excluded from the process? How is it that those values can be labeled extreme when they are shared by enough Americans to enable their supporters to control the executive and legislative branches? The short answer is that those who would exclude the evangelical voice from the political arena are attempting to gain through bigotry, fear, and discrimination that which they cannot gain legitimately at the ballot box because they are the ones outside the mainstream.

Posted by: Greg at 12:46 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 749 words, total size 5 kb.

I spent the morning running my darling wife around to doctors and x-rays after she took a nasty spill this morning. While we are still waiting for results, we're pretty confident that she will be quickly on the mend. Given her health issues, though, I cannot help but be concerned that one day she will seriously hurt. That is why this story touches me in a special way, and chills me to the bone.

Evelyn Roberts, the 88-year-old wife of evangelist Oral Roberts, injured her head in a fall and was comatose today at a California hospital.

Roberts, who lives with her husband in California, fell en route to a dental appointment Tuesday and struck her head on the ground, said Jeremy Burton, spokesman for Tulsa-based Oral Roberts University.

She briefly lost consciousness after the fall and was taken to a hospital where tests revealed internal bleeding, Burton said. She fell into a coma a short time later.

"The Roberts family is asking the public to pray for Evelyn and their family," Burton said.

I know some may argue about Oral Roberts' theology and his politics. My response is that all of that is simply irrelevant. At a time like this, all of those things need to be set aside out of love for fellow human beings who are scared and hurting.

May God's will be done.

UPDATE: Mrs. Roberts passed away Wednesday evening. May God be mercful to her as she enters his Kingdom, and may he shower the Roberts family with comfort at this time of loss.

Posted by: Greg at 09:11 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

Just when it appeared that the Red Chinese might be ever so slightly softening their line towards Vatican involvement in Chinese Catholic affairs, they turn around and make a move like this.

Seven priests of the underground Catholic Church were arrested in China's Heibei province on Wednesday, April 27, the Cardinal Kung Foundation reports.

The priests had been attending a spiritual retreat led by Bishop Jia Zhiguo of the Zhending diocese-- who had been under 24-hour surveillance by police for most of the past month. Bishop Jia had reportedly been warned by Chinese officials that he should not schedule any religious activities.

The tight surveillance of Bishop Jia had begun when the death of Pope John Paul II appeared imminent, and continued through the election of Pope Benedict XVI. The Chinese government has established a history of crackdowns on the underground Church at times when religious sentiments are high-- such as Easter and Christmas-- as well as the time of major national holidays and Communist Party meetings.

The article does not indicate what has happened to Bishop Jia. Based upon this report, I presume he is still at liberty, though under observation by Chinese Security forces.

This action shows that the status quo is unchanged in China, despite official condolences offered by Beijing on the death of Pope John Paul II and congratulations to Pope Benedict XVI. Chinese Christians who refuse to be worship under the auspices of the official churches controlled by the Communist government will remain the subjects of persecution and martyrdom for the forseeable future. The international community will, of course, continue to ignore thse human rights violations, and China will continue to serve as a member of the UN Human Rights Commission.

UPDATE: If you want to see the degree to which Chinese Catholics are persecuted, follow this link. The shear number of priests and bishops prevented from exercising their ministry to their flocks is shocking.

Posted by: Greg at 01:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't like the smutty novels that Father Andrew Greeley writes -- not so much because they are unbecoming of a priest, but more because they are not that good. I've been amused by his tentative efforts at science fiction, and more impressed by his scholarly works in sociology. As a teen, i was especially entranced by his study of American anti-Catholicism, and wish he would write more on the subject. He was the seminary classmate of one of my former pastors, and he cancelled speaking engagements some years ago to fly to be with some of my family's old neighbors and say the funeral mass for their teenage son when he was killed in a fall while rock-climbing. In short, I think he is a good man, even if I don't agree with him in a lot of areas. However today he writes a newspaper column that, in my mind, hits the nail squarely on the head.

Greeley begins by noting that young people seem quite entranced by the newly elected Pope Benedict XVI. How strange, he notes, that there is this "rock star" style enthusiasm for an old theology professor who espouses views that so many of these young people reject. Did John Paul II somehow endow future popes with this sort of charisma, an aura, that draws the young?

That possibility raises the question of whether the pope, almost by definition, enjoys an entirely new charisma -- an immediate appeal to young people. A second question follows on this day of Be Ne De To's installation as pope: Given the inexperience and shallowness of the young, how much is this charisma worth?

I submit that it is a license for a pope to teach and not an automatic guarantee of any other long-term religious impact. One heard often in Rome before the conclave that the new pope should be able to communicate with young people like the late pope. Yet, in truth, the religious attitudes and behavior of young people in every country where there has been a World Youth Day have not changed -- nor, for that matter, have the attitudes and behavior of adults changed in any of the countries John Paul visited. As collective religious rituals, these events were dramatic. They were a celebration of Catholic faith and Catholic heritage -- and as such eminently effective. But they didn't change much in ordinary human life.

My three pretty young Italian cheerleaders, unless they were different from typical Italian young women, would eventually sleep with their boyfriends before marriage and use birth control after marriage. They would see no contradiction between such behavior and enthusiasm for Benedict XVI. Does it follow that the new pope should try to teach as well as celebrate religious faith when he attends the next World Youth Day in Cologne?

An excellent question indeed, especially in a world faced with rising Islamist extremism and lukewarm Christianity that has too often surrendered to valueless secularism. What can Benedict XVI say to the assembled young people at this year's World Youth Day in Cologne (including some of my own students, traveling with a parish youth group led by one of my colleagues)? Greeley has an excellent suggestion -- start with the basics.

If he should tell them that they should reform their sexual lives, they will simply laugh. Far better that he listen to them talk about their religious faith and urge them to be patient and forgiving in all of their relationships and generous in helping others. Let sex wait for the next time or the time after. The re-evangelization of Europe cannot be done all at once. This is what I mean when I say that youthful admiration for the pope gives a license to teach -- wisely, cautiously and slowly, as any good teacher would.

Greeley is correct. Start with the basics of Christianity, and build from there. Begin with the fundamentals and build up from there. Just as one does not whip out The Summa of St. Thomas Aquinas and make it the starting point of catechesis and evangelization, one cannot begin with the nuanced and beautiful Catholic teachings on human sexuality without laying the basics. Too often since Vatican II, those basics have not been effectively taught, whether through neglect, rejection, or confusion, and have been drowned out by what then Cardinal Ratzinger called a "dictatorship of relativism" only a week ago. The Christian nature of Western society has been eroded over the course of decades, and there is no way that this pope will live to repair the damage. But the job is his to start, using the special affection this generation appears to have for the successor of St. Peter as a tool for evangelization. By beginning with the fundamentals of the faith, Benedict XVI may begin a revival of the Christian West that matches the fervor and explosive growth of Catholicism (and Christianity in general) in other parts of the world.

Posted by: Greg at 08:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 835 words, total size 5 kb.

In the West, Muslims practice their religion freely and with complete legal protection. This is fully in keeping witht he ideas that spring from the Enlightenment, that religious tolerance is necessary to a free society. But what of non-Muslims in Muslim countries? I think this example from Saudi Arabia says it all.

Forty foreigners, including children, were arrested for proselytizing when police raided a clandestine church in suburban Riyadh, the head of a wide-ranging security campaign in the capital said Saturday.

Lt. Col. Saad al-Rashud said the 40 were arrested Friday in the neighborhood Badeea. Their church, he said, contained crosses and was run by a Pakistani man who claimed to heal the sick. He allegedly was holding prayers, hearing confessions and distributing communion.

It is illegal to promote religions other than Islam in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam. There are no legal churches in the conservative kingdom, where members of other religions generally can practice their faith in their own homes, but not try to convert people or hold religious gatherings.

Authorities said those arrested with him were foreigners, but did not specify nationalities.

A conviction on proselytizing can result in a harsh prison sentence followed by deportation.

Multiple thoughts spring to mind -- few of them suitable for publication. But I will say one thing, however unpopular.

If Saudi Arabia cannot see its way clear to allowing fundamental freedoms to its people, maybe it should be the next country liberated by the US military.

Posted by: Greg at 02:41 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

Oh, those ever so tolerant Muslims! Their "holy" book is filled with anti-Semitism and negative comments about Christians. Their religious law calls for the death of those who dare to speak against their religion or their prophet. So it should be no surprise that a well-known Swedish minister is in police protective custody following a provocative sermon.

Celebrity Pentecostal preacher Runar Søgaard is under protection by Swedish police after receiving death threats. A high-profile sermon where Sögaard called the prophet Mohammed "a confused pedophile" has triggered fears of religious war.

Excuse me? His sermon has triggered fears of a religious war? I thought Sweden was a Western democracy where religious rights were guaranteed to all citizens. Did I miss it becoming an Islamic caliphate?

Consider this little gem from one Swedish paper, quoting one of the Islamists who dominate Islam today.

"Even if I see Runar while he has major police protection I will shoot him to death," a radical Islamist told Swedish newspaper Expressen.

So what we have here is someone who is prepared to commit murder because a Swede dared to exerciee his rights under Swedish law. I cannot help but notice that the story protects the man's identity, lest he be apprehended by police and prevented from carrying out his religious duty to murder someone for daring to disrespect the founder of the religion that has bred the bulk of modern terrorism. After all, identifying him might also have put the newspaper or the reporter at risk.

And it isn't just a couple of radicals mouthing off, either.

Persons connected to the Kurdish group Ansar al-Islam claim to have received a fatwa, a decree from a Muslim religious leader, to kill Søgaard.

Muslim organizations have called Søgaard's sermon, which is on sale on CD at the Stockholm Karisma Center's web site, a hateful attack on Islam and fear the type of violent conflict that scarred the Netherlands after filmmaker Theo van Gogh was killed by an Islamic extremist for a controversial film.

Notice, they claim they fear that the sermon will cause a violent conflict. They claim they don't want it. Well, fine, then why don't you Muslims act to restrain the radicals among you who threaten to murder an innocent man for expressing his opinions? How dare you blame him for the problem, as if his rights were somehow subordinate to the feelings of the followers of your murderous sect?

That isn't, of course, what they are out to do. Instead they are making demands that Swedish Christians submit to Islam in order to be spared bloodshed and a reign of terror in their streets.

Imam Hassan Moussa, head of Sweden's imam council, demanded that Christian communities repudiate Søgaard's remarks, and promised that Sweden would avoid the ugly scenes experienced in Holland.

Yeah. Swedes should submit to the foreigner among them in their own country, and allow an alien cult to determine their religious rights. In other words, the people of Sweden need to submit to dhimmi status.

What needs to happen is for the Swedish government to follow the precedent set by Ferdinand and Isabella at the end of the Reconquista. Muslims must convert to Christianity or be expelled for the good of the nation, to protect the liberties of the Swedish people. Threats of jihad cannot be tolerated.

And as such threats appear in other countries in Europe or the Western Hemisphere, the same course of action must be followed. Otherwise Western civilization is doomed.

UPDATE: DhimmiWatch has this post about the case. It appears that some Muslim authroities are calling for restraint. On the other hand, at least one denies the words of the hadith in order to deny the charge made against Muhammad.

Posted by: Greg at 01:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 633 words, total size 4 kb.

One of the many “crimes” for which Pope Benedict XVI is often chastised is the “silencing” of heterodox theologians. In reality, all that actually happened was that their licenses to call themselves Catholic theologians were revoked. Want proof? Here is one of the silenced theologians, Father Charles Curran, offering his critique of the new pope's election and the continued push for Catholic orthodoxy, from his tenure-secured job teaching at Southern Methodist University.

I grew up as a typical pre-Vatican II Catholic. I entered the seminary at 13 and became a priest 11 years later, never questioning church teachings. But as a moral theologian in the 1960s, I began to see things differently, ultimately concluding that Catholics, although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith, can and at times should dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Catholic Church feel differently. In the summer of 1986, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the powerful enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy around the world, concluded a seven-year investigation of my writings. Pope John Paul II approved the finding that "one who dissents from the magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology." Cardinal Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — told the Catholic University of America to revoke my license to teach theology because of my "repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches."

I was fired. It was the first time an American Catholic theologian had been censured in this way. At issue was my dissent from church teachings on "the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts," according to their final document to me. It's true that I questioned the idea that such acts are always immoral and never acceptable (although I thought my dissent on these issues was quite nuanced).

Unfortunately, the Vatican — which was already moving toward greater discipline and orthodoxy — was having none of it. Seven years earlier, it had punished the Swiss theologian Hans Küng because of his teachings on infallibility in the church. Later, Cardinal Ratzinger "silenced" Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, an advocate of liberation theology, for a year. Just recently, Ratzinger said U.S. Jesuit Roger Haight could not teach Catholic theology until he changed his understanding of the role of Jesus Christ.

Gee, imagine that. If you are teaching things that run directly contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, you can’t run around calling it Catholic theology. One would have hoped, of course, that fundamental decency and a sense of honesty would have prevented folks like Curran from making such claims. It didn’t, and so Catholic authorities acted to clarify the situation for the world – you cannot use the forum of a Catholic college or university to put forth ideas that diverge from Catholic truth while claiming that they represent authentic Church teachings.

Curran, of course, is distressed by the advent of the pontificate of Benedict XVI. The result is a call for the rejection of the teachings of the Church. If one is looking for evidence in support of the actions taken against him two decades ago, one need look no further than his continued rejection of those teachings and his attempt to undermine them in the minds of others.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 564 words, total size 4 kb.

One of the many “crimes” for which Pope Benedict XVI is often chastised is the “silencing” of heterodox theologians. In reality, all that actually happened was that their licenses to call themselves Catholic theologians were revoked. Want proof? Here is one of the silenced theologians, Father Charles Curran, offering his critique of the new pope's election and the continued push for Catholic orthodoxy, from his tenure-secured job teaching at Southern Methodist University.

I grew up as a typical pre-Vatican II Catholic. I entered the seminary at 13 and became a priest 11 years later, never questioning church teachings. But as a moral theologian in the 1960s, I began to see things differently, ultimately concluding that Catholics, although they must hold on to the core doctrines of faith, can and at times should dissent from the more peripheral teachings of the church.

Unfortunately, the leaders of the Catholic Church feel differently. In the summer of 1986, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the powerful enforcer of doctrinal orthodoxy around the world, concluded a seven-year investigation of my writings. Pope John Paul II approved the finding that "one who dissents from the magisterium as you do is not suitable nor eligible to teach Catholic theology." Cardinal Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — told the Catholic University of America to revoke my license to teach theology because of my "repeated refusal to accept what the church teaches."

I was fired. It was the first time an American Catholic theologian had been censured in this way. At issue was my dissent from church teachings on "the indissolubility of consummated sacramental marriage, abortion, euthanasia, masturbation, artificial contraception, premarital intercourse and homosexual acts," according to their final document to me. It's true that I questioned the idea that such acts are always immoral and never acceptable (although I thought my dissent on these issues was quite nuanced).

Unfortunately, the Vatican — which was already moving toward greater discipline and orthodoxy — was having none of it. Seven years earlier, it had punished the Swiss theologian Hans Küng because of his teachings on infallibility in the church. Later, Cardinal Ratzinger "silenced" Brazilian Franciscan Leonardo Boff, an advocate of liberation theology, for a year. Just recently, Ratzinger said U.S. Jesuit Roger Haight could not teach Catholic theology until he changed his understanding of the role of Jesus Christ.

Gee, imagine that. If you are teaching things that run directly contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church, you can’t run around calling it Catholic theology. One would have hoped, of course, that fundamental decency and a sense of honesty would have prevented folks like Curran from making such claims. It didn’t, and so Catholic authorities acted to clarify the situation for the world – you cannot use the forum of a Catholic college or university to put forth ideas that diverge from Catholic truth while claiming that they represent authentic Church teachings.

Curran, of course, is distressed by the advent of the pontificate of Benedict XVI. The result is a call for the rejection of the teachings of the Church. If one is looking for evidence in support of the actions taken against him two decades ago, one need look no further than his continued rejection of those teachings and his attempt to undermine them in the minds of others.

Posted by: Greg at 12:47 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 568 words, total size 4 kb.

What a world we live in! The faithful (and the faithless, for that matter) are invited to write to Pope Benedict XVI at his new email address.

Got a prayer or a problem for the new pope? Now you can e-mail him. Showing that Pope Benedict XVI intends to follow in the footsteps of John Paul II's multimedia ministry, the Vatican on Thursday modified its Web site so that users who click on an icon on the home page automatically activate an e-mail composer with his address.

In English, the address is benedictxvi@vatican.va. In Italian: benedettoxvi@vatican.va.

Vatican spokesmen could not immediately be reached for comment on how many messages Benedict may have received already.

Pope John Paul II also had an email address, and made use of computers and the internet.

Posted by: Greg at 12:38 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 137 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes – and that seems to be the problem for some folks.

The election of Benedict XVI seems to have put a quick end to the love-feast that we have witnessed in the three weeks since the illness of his beloved predecessor, Pope John Paul the Great. Having been a lightning rod for criticism as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it was inevitable the new pope would be controversial. Yet when it comes down to it, the real complaint seems to be that Pope Benedict XVI is just plain too Catholic.

Consider the criticisms found in this article. First we get the feminists who are seeking to undo the two millennia old practice of limiting the priesthood (and higher advancement) to men only.

The Women's Ordination Conference, a Catholic feminist organization working for the ordination of women priests, said the church desperately needs a healer, but the cardinals have elected a divider: "This is another example of how the hierarchy is out of touch with Catholics in the pews," said Joy Barnes, executive director of the Women's Ordination Conference.

Sorry, Ms. Barnes, there was never any possibility of you getting what your heart desires. The Church hasn’t survived for two thousand years by taking flash-polls and interpreting survey data. You may not like that – and you may even have survey results showing that two-thirds want just the “reform” you are backing. But that said, I wouldn’t count on that change happening. The weight of scriptural, historical, and theological evidence is against you, as my dear former professor Sister Sara Butler (herself once a vocal supporter of ordaining women until she studied the issue more closely) used to tell us back during my seminary days. And while I may now be an ex-seminarian married to a woman who is a former church pastor, I fail to see how such a change can be made in a Catholic context.

And then there was this comment from the “official” organization of American nuns.

The National Coalition of American Nuns noted that the new pope has the reputation of being "rigid in his position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, silencing and expelling theologians, priests and nuns whom he perceived as not being orthodox.

"He certainly is not known for his sensitivity to the exclusion of women in the Church's leadership," the nuns said in a statement.

Uh, ladies, the teachings of the Catholic Church are not the menu of your local Chinese restaurant. You don’t get to pick one from column A and two from column B. The “silenced” theologians (many of whom are incredibly vocal) were not teaching what the Church teaches, but claimed that they were. What else is the individual charged with ensuring orthodoxy supposed to do? And as far as alleged rigidity is concerned, that is a necessary virtue for one who is expected to be the arbiter of orthodoxy.

And where would we be without these words of dissent from those who utterly reject the teachings of the Church on human sexuality, yet insist that they (and not the Church hierarchy) get to redefine the historic teachings of the Church to meet their own desires?

"The new Pope is seen as the principal author of the most virulently anti-gay, anti-GLBT rhetoric in the last papacy," said DignityUSA President Sam Sinnett.

"The elevation of Cardinal Ratzinger is being seen by many GLBT Catholics as a profound betrayal by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and betrayal of one of the most fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ as the loving Good Shepherd who reached out to the ones separated from the flock."

Sinnett called the election of the new pope a test of faith: "We express deep sadness for all those who will find themselves further alienated from the church because of Cardinal Ratzinger's assumption of the papacy. With their support and that of all our members and allies, we will re-double our efforts to speak the truth of our lives as faithful GLBT Catholics."

Never mind that the teachings of the Church are congruent with the words of the Bible itself in a way that the position of DignityUSA is not – they’ve got the truth and the new Vicar of Christ has it all wrong.

I could go on, but it is simply more of the same. Such theological luminaries as Maureen Dowd and Andrew Sullivan have weighed in, as has the New York Times. Their words lead me to ask one pressing question -- How did Catholicism ever manage to make it through its first two millennia without their prophetic voices to guide it?

UPDATE: Seems that I'm not the only one to have noticed that the objections to Ratzinger boiled down to his being too Catholic. This piece showed up in the London Times.

WHAT HAS been most enjoyable about the stunned reaction of the bulk of the media to the election of Pope Benedict XVI has been the simple incredulousness at the very idea that a man such as Joseph Ratzinger could possibly have become leader of the universal Church.

Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: “Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock.”

As headlines, IÂ’ll grant you, itÂ’s hard to beat GodÂ’s Rottweiler, The Enforcer, or Cardinal No. They all play beautifully into the anti-Catholic sentiment in intellectual European and American circles that is, in this politically correct era, the only form of religious bigotry legitimised and sanctioned in public life. But I ask you, in all honesty, what were they expecting?

Did the likes of The Guardian, the BBC or The New York Times think there was someone in the Church’s leadership who was going to pop up out on the balcony of St Peter’s and with a cheery wave, tell the faithful that everything they’d heard for the past 26 — no, make that 726 — years was rubbish and that they should all rush out and load up with condoms and abortifacients like teenagers off for a smutty weekend? Or did they think the conclave would go the whole hog and elect Sir Bob Geldof (with Peaches, perhaps, as a co-pope) in an effort to bring back the masses?

Right on the head, Mr. Baker -- I only wish I had written it so well!

Update 2: I thought I had seen it all when it came to the anti-Catholic garbage of the Left. The I found this piece from SFGate.com, which is the web portal for the San Francisco Chronicle. Talk about disgusting and sacriligious!

This, then, was to be your biggest challenge. To make yourself relevant again, make yourself known. To make open-hearted and sex-positive and choice-happy and pantheistic changes to your dusty dying church that make the world sit up and take notice and applaud.

Is it still possible? Is there still a glimmer of hope that you might choose to buck dour church tradition and kick down the doors and throw open the stained-glass windows and remake yourself as modern, as inclusive, as the Pope That Changed Everything? Because right now, the world has this sad, sinking feeling again. All signs point to more of the same as the last bitter and bilious 2,000 years, if not even worse. All signs point to more repression, homophobia, intolerance, denial, insularity, guilt like a weapon.

Be thankful that the dark, evil hateful repressed, < YOUR BIGOTTED ADJECTIVE HERE > Catholics are restrained by a moral code that says to love their neighbor and turn the other cheek. If you wrote this about Muslims, they'd be purchasing an orange jumpsuit and sharpening their scimitars.

Posted by: Greg at 12:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1316 words, total size 8 kb.

God has given us Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as the new Pope Benedict XVI.

He was elected in only four ballots, which tells me that the Cardinals are pretty firmly united behind him. I also cannot help but suspect that this is the man who John Paul the Great would have chosen as his successor.

As I expected, Joseph Ratzinger did not choose to be called John Paul III. I had a funny feeling that Benedict would be the choice, and have said so repeatedly over the last few days. Many are linking him to the shy Pope Benedict XV, who tried so hard to end World War I. I think another model to consider would be Benedict XIV, who was concerned about the accommodation of Christian truth to the practices of non-Christian cultures.

I find the new pontiffÂ’s words to the faithful inspiring and appropriate. Pope Benedict, for all his gigantic intellect, remains a humble man of deep spirituality.

"Dear brothers and sisters, after our great pope, John Paul II, the cardinals have elected me, a simple, humble worker in God's vineyard.

I am consoled by the fact that the Lord knows how to work and how to act, even with insufficient tools, and I especially trust in your prayers.

In the joy of the resurrected Lord, trustful of his permanent help, we go ahead, sure that God will help, and Mary, his most beloved mother, stands on our side.

Thank you."

We shall see how this papacy will develop. Will he be a pope in the image of John Paul the Great? Or will he be something completely different?

Update: I commented on the London Times piece on Pope Benedict’s youth in Nazi Germany. His detractor’s are already making scurrilous comments about him in relation to his brief – and legally mandated – membership in the Hitler Youth and military service. The Jerusalem Post provides some excellent insight into the issue – and also the important work of this pope in his predecessor’s reconciliation with the Jewish faith.

Posted by: Greg at 11:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 343 words, total size 3 kb.

NOTE: I finished this as white smoke rose over the Vatican. The election of the new Pope Benedict XVI is a great blessing to the Church, and to the world. I hope that the new pontiff will follow the path of ecumenical contact with the churches of the East, and will strive to honor the Eastern Rite Catholics and their heritage of faith.

* * *

As a kid, I first heard the term “uniate” used to describe the Maronite Christians of Lebanon. Later, I heard the term describe Ukrainian Catholics. I didn’t understand what the term meant at the time, but later study – especially during my seminary years at Mundelein – brought me to a deep appreciation of those in the Catholic Church who follow the rituals of Eastern Christianity while being in union with Rome. By extension, I also learned to appreciate the rich spiritual history of the Orthodox churches of the East. To this day, I wonder if they might serve as a bridge between the two halves of Christianity split asunder in 1054.

Joseph P. Duggan raises the same issue in a column on the possibility (however unlikely) of the election of an Eastern Rite pope. Two cardinals in the current conclave are of the Eastern Rite leaders, not Latin Rite. It is not inconceivable – though highly improbable – that one of them could appear on the balcony overlooking St. Peter’s Square, clad in white. It would be a magnificent step towards full equality and respect for the Eastern Rites within the Catholic Church, and towards reunion between the oldest extant strains of Christianity. It would also be in keeping with one of Pope John Paul the Great’s fondest desires and most precious dreams.

John Paul visited numerous countries where the Orthodox Church is dominant and spoke of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches as equals, expressing hope that Christianity once again may "breathe with both lungs." He implored Orthodox Christians to forgive and set aside the schisms of the second Christian millennium and take inspiration from the first millennium, when the Churches of East and West were united. John Paul's encyclical letter Ut Unum Sint ("That All May Be One,") offered a bold invitation to all Christians for their ideas on how the papacy might be transformed to be more effective in promoting Christian unity. Even before Pope John Paul, some four decades ago, Orthodox and Catholic prelates rescinded their mutual excommunications, and the churches recognize the full validity of one another's ordinations and sacraments.

Duggan, of course, notes that one of the great changes that would necessarily be wrought by such an election would be the rethinking of mandatory clerical celibacy. While forbidden in the Latin Rite (and in the United States by a wrong-headed papal decree sought by American bishops n the nineteenth century), the Eastern Rites ordain married men as priests. It is hard to imagine that a pope from among the non-Latin Catholics would long retain the mandatory celibacy that dates back a millennium. Priests would not be able to marry, but married men could become priests. Precedent exists for this in the early history of the Church, and in the special dispensation granted to some Anglican and Lutheran converts over the last couple of decades. When one considers that the church historically has had a father and son serve as popes (in the sixth century – St. Hormisdas, the 52nd Bishop of Rome, and St. Silverius, the 58th), not to mention the married Simon Peter who is reckoned the first, this would be a return to tradition rather than a departure from it.

The election of an Eastern Rite pontiff would be a significant step for the Catholic Church, one that reaffirms its catholicity every bit as much as the election of a Polish cardinal to that office did in 1978. Duggan envisions a pope celebrating a liturgy using the vestments and rituals of the Byzantine or Syriac Church. And yet, there is nothing to stop that from happening now – and a strong argument for encouraging the practice no matter who the next pope is. After all, a pope leads a church which claims the hallmark of catholicity – universality – and as such he is called to be a shepherd to those who worship in the styles of the East every bit as much as those whose rituals are those of the West. Such actions would serve as a healing gesture of fraternal love for Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. May we live to see the day when the seeds planted four decades ago by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in Jerusalem, seeds tenderly watered and nurtured by Pope John Paul the Great during his papacy, bring forth a harvest of unity for the glory of the Risen Savior.

Posted by: Greg at 05:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 814 words, total size 5 kb.

There have been two votes taken, assuming the cardinals have stuck to their announced schedule. Shortly before noon in Rome, dark smoke billoed from the chimney over the Sistine Chapel. There is no new pope yet.

Posted by: Greg at 11:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.