GraniteGrok

This is going around the 'Net via email and there is a message here for those that believe in the separation of God and State (based on an unofficial letter to two Baptists - NOT as official government edicts).

President Barack Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

I  found this very interesting.  Do you know the Preamble for your state? . . 

Be sure to read the message at the bottom!

• Alabama 1901, Preamble - We the people of the State of   Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
• Alaska 1956, Preamble - We, the people of   Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
• Arizona 1911, Preamble - We, the people of the State of   Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
• Arkansas 1874, Preamble - We, the people of the State of   Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
• California 1879, Preamble - We, the People of the State of   California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
• Colorado 1876, Preamble - We, the people of   Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
• Connecticut 1818, Preamble. - The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in  permitting them to enjoy.
• Delaware 1897, Preamble - Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
• Florida 1885, Preamble - We, the people of the State of   Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
• Georgia 1777, Preamble - We, the people of   Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
• Hawaii 1959, Preamble - We , the people of   Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance .... Establish this Constitution.
• Idaho 1889, Preamble - We, the people of the State of   Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..
• Illinois 1870, Preamble - We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
• Indiana 1851, Preamble - We, the People of the State of   Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
• Iowa 1857, Preamble - We, the People of the St ate of   Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
• Kansas 1859, Preamble - We, the people of   Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
• Kentucky 1891, Preamble.. - We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
• Louisiana 1921, Preamble - We, the people of the State of   Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
• Maine 1820, Preamble - We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
• Maryland 1776, Preamble - We, the people of the state of  Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...
• Massachusetts 1780, Preamble - We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction 
• Michigan 1908, Preamble..  - We, the people of the State of   Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
• Minnesota, 1857, Preamble - We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
• Mississippi 1890, Preamble - We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
• Missouri 1845, Preamble - We, the people of   Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
• Montana 1889, Preamble. - We, the people of   Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..
• Nebraska 1875, Preamble - We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
• Nevada 1864, Preamble - We the people of the State of   Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
• New Hampshire 1792,  -  Part   I. Art. I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

Continue reading "Who is "We"?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

More and more news is coming out regarding the monsters disguised as human beings responsible for the hideous murder and attempted murder of a mother and daughter in Mont Vernon, NH.  The Nashua Telegraph reports that one of the suspects,

“Christopher Gribble updated his Facebook status: ‘had an awesome time with steve and autumn! dexter is such a funny show!’ That update was made at 10:58 a.m. Sunday. Earlier that morning, around 4 a.m., police say Gribble and three other teens entered the home of Kimberly Cates killing her and injuring her daughter, the primary weapons being a machete and a knife. Gribble, of Brookline, has been charged with first-degree murder, accused of stabbing her repeatedly.”

The piece then tells us

“Dexter is a popular TV show about a serial killer who murders those who he feels deserve to die or who have slipped through the justice system.”

Reading this news while surfing the Internet, I also stumbled upon the story of the banning of a Christian song at a public school. OneNewsNow.com had the details back in September, surrounding events occurring in 2006:

“The Everett School District in Washington State would not allow students in an instrumental ensemble to play ‘Ave Maria’ at their high school graduation.”

It continued, quoting The Rutherford Institute founder John Whitehead, representing one of the students in a suit filed in the matter:

"The 'Ave Maria' that they chose is not the one we all know. It’s the one by France Babel, which is unrecognizable. There were no lyrics and no words,’ he recounts. ‘When school officials found out that the wind ensemble, which is a group of students, had chosen ‘Ave Maria,’ they thought it was too religious and they banned it and said that they couldn't play it at the graduation ceremony.’”

In an op-ed piece published this week lamenting the fact that the Courts sided with the song-banners, Whitehead writes,

“In an attempt to avoid offending anyone, America’s public schools have increasingly adopted a zero tolerance attitude towards religious expression. The courts have not helped, allowing schools the discretion to let an offended minority control a cowed majority. Such politically correct thinking has resulted in a host of inane actions, from the Easter Bunny being renamed ‘Peter Rabbit’ to Christmas Concerts being dubbed ‘Winter’ Concerts and some schools even outlaw the colors red and green, saying they’re Christmas colors. And now, simply because someone is offended by the title, students cannot play music which has no words and is performed with no religious intent.”

So why do I bring this up with the story of the Mont Vernon murder? Simple. I was struck by the fact that these murderous punks are being exposed to television shows like Dexter (of which I had not heard prior to now) glorifying serial killing, of all things, while at the same time, America’s courts are keeping the publicly-funded government schools—and most other areas of “the public square”-- free from the “threat” of the Christian religion. Might it just be possible that, perhaps if the alleged killer Gribble and his comrades had received some little bit of religion that teaches the value of fellow human beings and the sanctity of each and every life, maybe—just maybe—they might have thought twice before committing this grisly and heinous act?

Posted by Doug at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest post by Karen Testerman

What Happened?

I have been pondering a question recently posed to me asking what happened to my state?  What is happening to our nation?  I was reminded - "My people perish for a lack of knowledge."   Hosea 4:6 But what knowledge?

Do you wonder why the polls of our youth today show a leaning in favor of homosexuality?   Perhaps we can find a glimpse of an answer here.  Just recently the National Education Association (NEA) passed an action item that amounts to an endorsement of same-sex marriage - as well as a call to oppose national laws protecting one man, one woman marriage.

The NEA is described as the largest professional organization and largest labor union in the United States,[1][2] representing public school teachers and other support personnel, faculty and staffers at colleges and universities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become teachers.   And they the people who teach at our public schools, have just passed an action item to endorse same-sex marriage.

Jeralee Smith is the founder of the NEA Conservative Educators Caucus.  Jeralee declared that the resolution will not stop at just endorsing gay unions. 

The NEA, financially supported the attempt to defeat Proposition 8 in California last year. Voters passed Prop. 8, which defines marriage as between one man, one woman.

The teachers have two alternatives. . . Teachers who do not want their money being used to support the organization's liberal agenda can attempt to become a religious objector - someone who can show that their faith puts them in conflict with what the union is doing. They can file to have at least some of their dues redirected to causes that do not conflict with their faith.  Oh really?  What about the recent legal cases challenging the teachers for religious expression?

A better alternative for these teachers is to join an alternative union that does not support causes that conflict with their deeply held beliefs and values. Tracey Bailey, director of education policy with Association of American Educators, said he wants teachers to know his group can also help with any legal issues.

But what can we as parents do?  How do we combat the "tolerance" mantra when we ask as did David Parker and Rob Wirthlin to opt our children out of these instructions?  Is it really legal to displace parents?

Continue reading "Drip. Drip. Drip. Slow but steady goes the decline..." »

Posted by Doug at 6:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

New national bird to replace Bald Eagle?

As we prepare to celebrate yet another Fourth of July, I cannot help but feel a bit melancholy as I review and contemplate the Declaration of Independence, and think about the birth of this “great experiment”, known as America. Have we reached the end of the line, as far as our belief in and adherence to the principles upon which this Nation was founded? When reading the beautiful and eloquent words as created and agreed to by the Founding Fathers, how can you not feel a sense of distance and unfamiliarity when comparing them against the realities we see today.

Consider what is unquestionably the most famous part of the Declaration:

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”

Are there any “self evident truths” and “unalienable rights” here in the new Age of Obama, or are these things just merely quaint, outdated ideas from a bygone era? Do these words somehow mean the “Creator” gives a woman the right to “terminate” pregnancies? As she exercises “choice,” what about the unborn child’s right to “life?” President Obama has famously declared that that he wouldn’t want his young daughters “punished” with a pregnancy. So much for the unalienable right to life for his grandchildren-- Such a fine example set by our “dear leader.” What part of the Fourth does he honor?

In our supposed enlightened age, how many Americans even acknowledge some sort of “Creator,” anyway? While many claim to believe, they willingly turn a blind eye as the rights given us by the Creator are systematically stripped away—even to the point of a knowing chuckle or two at those who suggest that much of what our present government does is immoral. “What old-fashioned notions,” they say. “Don’t be so melodramatic.” One must conclude that if they actually believed in a God as a giver of rights to begin with, they would be more vehement in the defense of such. Think about that—why would a person go to the mat for something he or she doesn’t believe in?

Does “pursuing Happiness” give a person the right to the fruits of the labor of others? I suppose one could be happy with getting an extra “slice of the pie” that somebody else has paid for. But what if you happen to be the person that actually earned the “pie?” How happy will you be at the prospect of watching more and more of your just due taken and distributed to others? Is this not what’s happening on a grand scale all around America today? No matter where you look-- whether it’s the federal, state, county, or local government—it’s all the same: all are poised to take an even greater share of the fruits of our labors through taxation. They say money can’t buy happiness, but it sure does help. No matter what consists of “happiness” for a person in 2009, the fact is, it’s going to cost more.

Continue reading "Fourth of July. Are we even worthy?" »

Posted by Doug at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

The Christian Church has done, on average lately, a horrible job of declaring what we believe in and on.  From the Evangelical Outpost, I ran across a review of a book that struck a chord as it amplified an answer I had given in an email string concerning the gay marriage debate here in NH.

First, the part of the review that nailed it:

Back in the 1940’s Donald Grey Barnhouse, a Presbyterian pastor, asked the question, “What would it be like if Satan took over a city?”

Barnhouse speculated that if Satan took over Philadelphia, all of the bars would be closed, pornography banished, and pristine streets would be filled with tidy pedestrians who smiled at each other. There would be no swearing. The children would say, “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am,” and the churches would be full every Sunday . . . where Christ is not preached.

In his newest book, Christless Christianity, Dr. Mike Horton warns Evangelicalism in America that Barnhouse’s hypothetical scenario is quickly becoming a reality. According to Horton, the driving mantra of so many Evangelical churches today is, “do more, try harder.” Sermons are filled with seven or twelve step plans for having a happier marriage or better finances. Ironically, as a newer generation reacts against the harsh legalism of their parents, they are merely replacing it with a softer (but more sadistic) form of legalism. Famous TV preachers like Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer victoriously proclaim that they have finally realized that Christianity isn’t about following a lot of rules. But they go on to tell their audience that it is only about “Loving God and each other.” ...

One famous Evangelical pastor has recently made popular the phrase, “deeds, not creeds.” Evangelicals have their doctrine right, this pastor tells us, they just aren’t living it. Against such sentiments, Dr. Horton argues that many Evangelicals actually do not have their doctrine right, or at least they aren’t preaching it correctly. Evangelicals have confused the important categories of Law and Gospel, turning the Gospel message (which is supposed to be the good news of something that Christ has already done for us), into the Gospel program. If you’ll only live out the Gospel (by reading your Bible every day, joining a certain group at church, and learning how to be a Christ-like example to others), you’ll be healthy, wealthy and wise. The question to be answered is, “What would Jesus do?” rather than, “What has Jesus done?” But Horton says that this is a confusion of categories. The Gospel, by its very nature, is not something that you can do; rather it is something that has already been done. This confusion leads to bad preaching. Rather than preaching Christ and the Gospel, pastors try to mine a Biblical text for “practical” life principles that will help to improve your marriage, your finances, your relationship with your children, etc. As a result, many Evangelical churches today are not saying anything that you can’t hear from Dr. Phil, Dr. Laura, or Oprah (and most of the time, Dr. Laura says it better). All of this leads to what Horton calls a Christless Christianity. It is possible to walk into an Evangelical church on a Sunday morning and walk out without ever having heard the Gospel of Christ preached. 

Let me present an email threadlet that showed an uninformed view of Biblical teaching by a more general public.  I hold that if the Church was doing a better job of preaching correct theology, this email string might never happened.  Why is this relevant?  If the Church is not preaching the Gospel to Christians, why should we expect non-Christians to understand it? And if we attempt to use Christian based arguments in general life, they may not hold with others that are both unfamiliar with them or consider them spurious.  After all, if they are of less importance to us, why should they be to them? 

The back story is that the email conversation was with a number of fairly libertarian leaning friends who seem to be much more guided by other than Biblical philosophy truths when discussing the on going political battles here in NH concerning gay marriage).  It shows the misunderstanding of the underlying theology which is then used as a debating club. 

We join in after I had made the argument where the argument moves into the realm of "gay marriage is ok, but multiple folks in such an arrangement is wrong".  Here's the run up:

Continue reading "We have let the most important message slip away..." »

Posted by Skip at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ryan Bilodeau appeared on MTNP Radio several years ago to discuss events transpiring at URI. At the time, he was the chair of the College Republicans in that Rhode Island school. Fast forwarding two years to the present, Ryan has just graduated and sets off on a new path in life. He wrote a nice note on Facebook regarding his plans, which he agreed to allow me to share with 'Grok readers. I find it uplifting and inspiring that, in a world seemingly gone mad like the one in which we live, there are still young people willing to listen to the message of Jesus, and some that, when they hear God's call, accept. Congratulations, Ryan, and may God Bless you! 

With graduation behind me, friends new and old have e-mailed or facebook messaged me wondering what lay in my future plans. I’m writing this message today in a medium that provides for the most amplification possible. My motivation also emanates from the joy resulting from the path down which I have begun to walk and the subsequent desire to share it.

Let me begin with a passage from the Bible that explains everything: "I will give you shepherds after my own heart." Words found first in Jeremiah 3:15 and echoed later by John Paul II in his encyclical letter "Pastores Dabo Vobis," they truly represent my pivoting from the political and earthly world in which I resided into the one I enter next: a spiritual one. This Fall I will be entering Our Lady of Providence Catholic Seminary.

This may come as a shock to some who know me only as “political Ryan”. My time working in politics in Rhode Island and around the country had undoubtedly created an operative who violated many a maxim by which my faith instructed me to live. I regret the mistakes that I made, but I conversely welcome and am now experiencing their sanctification. It was during the political events at mansions in Newport or at conventions in DC that I saw firsthand (and participated in) a culture that stood in opposition to my entire moral code. From my point of view, I was partaking in a world based on “chasing the wind.” God spoke to my heart throughout it all, but I did not always listen.

I returned home this Fall from a summer in DC and my choice in the matter of listening was largely removed. The same thoughts which first surfaced as a teenager began returning as I spent the Fall semester riding the RIPTA bus to school and back in order to save money. On the bus I saw people struggling just to get by. It occurred to me: these are the people God wants me to work with and for throughout the rest of my life. I was not meant to move in circles that only congregated at cocktail parties. Instead God wanted me to be like His son Jesus who ate with sinners, lived humbly and stood firmly in truth with love. A good shepherd.

I enter this Fall extremely excited to begin a period in my life that I now realize to be the culmination of the previous ones and the beginning of the life that God was calling me to all along. What is great about God is that he calls the biggest of sinners to live pure lives and the meekest of men to lead others. In relying upon Him completely I am at peace with whatever He calls me to do.

I'd like to reference several last Bible passages before I depart, which are all found in 1 Corinthians 13. In the beginning we are reminded "If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing." This is an important commentary relating to my discernment process. The parameters of politics and its system itself drained from my motivation the love with which one should engage in political involvement. I was able to do great things in politics, but often acted out of selfish reasons, which is by definition contrary to love. The priesthood allows me to represent Jesus for others and act selflessly out of love like Jesus did. I thank God for calling me to this vocation.

Ryan K. Bilodeau

Woonsocket, RI

Posted by Doug at 12:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Although I am not an Episcopalian, I have been commenting on the American Anglican church for quite some time.  Certainly, I believe, a drifting away from Christian heterodox theology and towards a more social gospel has not helped.  What hurts more is when the leaders of that church themselves digress widely from it and condone that action.

Examples?   Certainly I believe that NH Bishop Gene Robinson, an openly gay man living with his partner has done so - he single handedly has done to create the schism that now is wreaking havoc worldwide.  The priest, Rev. Redding, that embraced Islam as a practicing muslim and claiming that the two theologies were compatible (me: you have GOT to be kidding, unless you are will to be intellectually dishonest on both theologies) doesn't help.

Now this (and I guess I missed the Druid story) - another priest trying to claim a simpatico equivalence with far different theology than Christianity.  Is there something about their seminaries that is just a bit "off" lately?

The Zen Episcopalian

The modern Episcopal Church always strives to stay ahead of the latest fads. In recent years it has dealt with its first openly homosexual bishop, its first Islamic priest, and its first Druid priest. Now it might be on the verge of electing its first Buddhist bishop.





Kevin Thew Forrester, who is ordained both as an Episcopal priest and as a lay Zen Buddhist, was elected bishop by the Diocese of Northern Michigan (the Upper Peninsula) in February. He is also known as "Genpo," or "Way of Universal Wisdom." A majority of Episcopal bishops and diocesan standing committees now must consent to his election by July. The 2003 election of actively homosexual Gene Robinson as New Hampshire's bishop has already fueled schism within the Episcopal Church and the global Anglican Communion. Would a Buddhist bishop add to the division, or merely be an anticlimax?





"I have been blessed to practice Zen meditation for almost a decade," Forrester has explained. "About five years ago a Buddhist community welcomed me as an Episcopal priest in my commitment to a meditation practice -- a process known by some Buddhists as 'lay ordination.'" He further opined: "Literally thousands of Christians have been drawn to Zen Buddhism in particular because, distinct from western religions, it embodies a pragmatic philosophy and a focus on human suffering rather than a unique theology of God."



Hmmm, see the problem already - it does seem to be fairly easy to spot!  And when one deviates from the norm, as a spiritual leader, HOW did the other Bishops (who should be responsible for maintaining the standards of their faith) approve this?

Forrester, who is 51 and has been an Episcopal priest since 1994, insists Zen Buddhism is compatible with his faith. "It's not a matter of holding two faiths. There's one faith and it's Christianity," he told a local Michigan newspaper. "The gift is that that faith is deepened by my meditative practice and I'm eternally grateful to Zen Buddhism for teaching me that practice and receiving me as an Episcopal priest." Forrester insists that his faith allows him to be "open to receive the truth and the beauty and goodness, and the wisdom from the other religious traditions of the world, and to be in dialogue with them."

Last I knew, Christianity stands on one single tenant: Christ, the Son of God, came to take on the sins of the world by His death on the cross, and by believing on Him, we have everlasting life with Him after our physical death.  Even Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father but by me" (John 14:6).

We can argue about all of the other points, but that is THE primary substance - and NO other religion has this as one of its tenants.  To believe otherwise is heresy.

Continue reading "It just keeps getting worse for the Episcopalians that actually believe in traditional Christian theology" »

Posted by Skip at 8:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I sent an email to Rep. Thompson reacting to a post at Cornerstone Policy Research about a response Mr. Thompson gave to one of that group's supporters. From Cornerstone:

So, it seems that once again one of our elected officials are of the opinion that we will just believe anything they write…

The latest case being State Representative, Robert Thompson of Manchester, who recently sent what appears to be a “stock” response to one of our Cornerstone supporters…

After our supporter sent Rep. Thompson an email urging him to not support The Bathroom Bill, HB415, as it would trample on religious liberties among other reasons, Rep. Thompson replied that not only does “religion have no place in government”, but that the founding fathers were so concerned about this, that they added a “separation of church and state” clause into the Constitution.

Click here to read the whole post, including Thompson's offending note.

This is my response to him:

Rep. Thompson,
How could you be such a boob as to write the following false statement in an email:

"Secondly, I certainly feel that religion has no place in government. Our founding fathers, who wrote the constitution, were very concerned about religion interfering with law making and included a separation of church and state into the constitution. This is a very important part of our constitution that has seemed to have gotten away from us. The Judeo-Christian values our country were founded on are important but do not belong in government."

Robby, You've obviously never bothered to read the Constitution, or much of anything one might guess. The U.S. Constitution only refers to religion once in the 1st Amendment where it guarantees freedom OF religion, and that means religion of the public square. Your red-herring concept of a separation was first mentioned in a letter by Mr. Jefferson to the Danbury, CT Baptists who were complaining to him when he was POTUS years AFTER the Constitution had been written and ratified that they thought it was unfair that they had to pay taxes that went to support the CT state religion at the time which was Congregationalism, because contrary to your moronic lack of knowledge about American history, the respective states had official state religions well into the 19th century. That so-called "separation" Jefferson coined referred to government having no power over religious liberty among the various states, including their 10th amendment right to establish state religions which they did in fact have. You shouldn't even be a legislator, you're so ignorant of the laws governing this land and even the history of New England where you reside..  It's uneducated buffoons like you that make our democracy as horribly fragile as it's recently become.

Furthermore, on religion in "government" as you ridiculously call it, in your attempt to set up a straw man,...John Adams who knew a helluvalot more than I would dare say you do, especially when it comes to the documents he was involved in drafting and ratifying, but even more so on questions of wisdom...political, moral and otherwise, said the following:

Continue reading "A letter to Representative Robert Thompson of Manchester regarding his ignorance of American history and the Constitution" »

Posted by BillA at 6:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Romans 1:16

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

As regular readers know, neither Doug or I hold the NH Episcopalian Bishop Gene Robinson in high regard.  It comes as no surprise that we both disagree with his stance on homosexuality on religious grounds (regardless of his standing within the disintegrating Episcopal Church) - we continue to believe that it is against Biblical teachings.  No, this is not about being tolerant of what society demands that we be accepting of something; rather, it is about adhering to absolute rights and wrongs.

Further, I have additional problems with the Bishop, as it seems that he has become the lightning rod and representative of liberal theology within that Church.  As such, he is one of the leading root causes of the ever-widening split amongst believers in that Church. As he continues his jihad for tolerance for gay and gay marriage

sidebar: in liberal speak, tolerance really means you have to accept what I want you to - you have no choice in the matter; if you don't, you are full of hate and, in this case, homophobia.

Now, I have another reason to believe that this man is pushing his own agenda and not His agenda:

N.H. bishop invited to D.C. to give prayer
Robinson to speak at an inaugural event

New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, an outspoken, international gay rights leader, has been asked to give a prayer at one of President-elect Barack Obama's first inauguration events at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

Obama can invite anyone he wants to his Inauguration - I have no problem with the fact that the Bishop has been asked.  What I do have a problem with is how he will portray himself and his prayer:

The announcement follows weeks of criticism from Robinson and gay-rights groups over Obama's decision to tap the Rev. Rick Warren, who's likened committed gay relationships to incest and polygamy, to pray on inauguration day.

Robinson, an early Obama supporter, said last month the choice of Warren left him feeling as if he'd been slapped in the face. In a telephone interview this weekend, Robinson, of Weare, said he doesn't believe Obama has included him in response to the Warren criticism. But he said his inclusion won't go unnoticed by the gay and lesbian community.

Nope, carping about evangelical Rev. Warren is not my problem (at least, not right now)...

"It's important for any minority to see themselves represented in some way," Robinson said. "Whether it be a racial minority, an ethnic minority or, in our case, a sexual minority. Just seeing someone like you up front matters."

Warren, author and high-profile pastor of a California mega-church, will still give the invocation at the Jan. 20 inauguration, shortly before Obama delivers his much-anticipated inaugural address. Robinson will share his invocation prayer Sunday afternoon on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during an inaugural kick-off event.

And it is not that a person who I believe is in error concerning his views on sexuality giving a national prayer.....

Remember:

Why do I quote Scripture.  Well, for a Christian, the Bible and the Gospel message IS the standard of my faith.  So, in light of this, what does this Bishop, this leader of a mainline CHRISTIAN Church have to say?  

Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden will be there, and Obama is expected to speak, Robinson said. The event will be open to the public and run on HBO. Robinson doesn't yet know what he'll say, but he knows he won't use a Bible.

One...

"While that is a holy and sacred text to me, it is not for many Americans," Robinson said. "I will be careful not to be especially Christian in my prayer. This is a prayer for the whole nation."...

Two...

...At home, Robinson was long known foremost as a gifted and devoted priest. He gained international attention after New Hampshire Episcopalians made him their bishop and, as a result, the worldwide church's first openly gay bishop.

His election has divided the church here and abroad. Despite his insistence that he wants to be "the good bishop, not the gay bishop," Robinson has sought out a high-profile role as a gay rights activist while also leading his congregations here.

The "good bishop"?  Umm, why would a "good bishop" deny the fundamentals of his own Christian beliefs?  Why would he deny the Gospel at such a time?  Given the Great Commandment, wouldn't this be a time to give a "Christian" prayer? Or is the Bishop ashamed of his faith?  I know of no other religious leader that would deny his faith for this kind of event...

He signed on to the Obama campaign early during the New Hampshire primary, saying he liked Obama's commitment to uniting people of different viewpoints and lifestyles. When Obama invited Warren, who has campaigned against gay marriage in California, to give the invocation inauguration day, Robinson shared his disappointment.

"I actually have a lot of respect for Rick Warren, amongst evangelicals," Robinson told Beliefnet.com in late December. "He's taken a hit for his compassionate response to AIDS, his commitment to alleviating poverty. He's done some good things. The difficult thing is that he's said, and continues to affirm, some horrendous things about homosexuality."

In other interviews, Robinson said Warren deserved "to be at the table" but not in such a prominent way. And he wasn't alone. Gay rights groups chimed in with their own complaints.

Hmmm, great "tolerance" shown by the good Bishop - not accepting someone else's views on homosexuality...and from a religious leader!  Yes, tolerance is supposed to work both ways....

Posted by Skip at 8:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From the NYT (huh? really?)that religion provides an "internal governor" on one's behavior

If I’m serious about keeping my New Year’s resolutions in 2009, should I add another one? Should the to-do list include, “Start going to church”?

This is an awkward question for a heathen to contemplate, but I felt obliged to raise it with Michael McCullough after reading his report in the upcoming issue of the Psychological Bulletin. He and a fellow psychologist at the University of Miami, Brian Willoughby, have reviewed eight decades of research and concluded that religious belief and piety promote self-control...

...“We simply asked if there was good evidence that people who are more religious have more self-control,” Dr. McCullough. “For a long time it wasn’t cool for social scientists to study religion, but some researchers were quietly chugging along for decades. When you add it all up, it turns out there are remarkably consistent findings that religiosity correlates with higher self-control.”

Think about it - with more internal control, more self-control, then less external control (e.g., laws) are needed.  If people control themselves from an internal sense of morality, knowing good from bad and right from wrong, less is needed from society.  

Both Doug and me posit that as we have become a more secular society (along with the fact that politicians seem to want to justify their existence by passing new laws),  that sense of right and wrong that used to keep most of us on the straight and narrow seems to disappear.  Thus, in order to to maintain an ordered society, control must be established external - which eventually leads to a larger, more intrusive government.

It's also good for you as well:

His professional interest arose from a desire to understand why religion evolved and why it seems to help so many people. Researchers around the world have repeatedly found that devoutly religious people tend to do better in school, live longer, have more satisfying marriages and be generally happier.

(H/T: The Speculist)

Posted by Skip at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just got this in the email from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council. He rightfully notes we should remember that there is One of a higher authority than any person, no matter how important:

We are in transition in Washington these days. The sitting President isn't sitting much. George W. Bush is determined to "finish sprinting." We wish him well and we thank him and his family for what he has accomplished and what he has been willing to endure to keep our nation safe and free.

These days most people are focused, understandably, on the words and deeds of the incoming President. As the new administration of Barack Obama takes shape, we will certainly have much to say.

Political power has always attracted attention. The people's eyes naturally go to the wielder of the sword and the scepter. It was so in Biblical times. The Gospel of Luke tells us that "a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." The Roman Empire was vast in those days. It stretched from Britain in the north, to Spain and Portugal in the west, deep into Africa and Egypt in the south, and as far east as modern-day Syria. Caesar Augustus ruled all of this territory and the teeming millions who inhabited it.

Rome needed increased revenues, and Caesar knew how to get it. He first ordered that a census be conducted. He wanted a head count in order to apportion the amounts of money each provincial governor-like Cyrenius, governor of Syria-would be required to raise.

 

Continue reading ""more important than all the Caesars..."" »

Posted by Doug at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had previously blogged about FOCA here, and wondered if Obama would be willing to sign the Freedom of Choice Act - which pretty much does away with any state or local restriction on abortion - if the Catholic Church decided to not go along.

Well, according to this, it seems that "closed" will really mean closed.  A "compromise" by the Catholic Church (the correct move, IMHO) to sell those hospitals will not be in the works.  I'm betting that the Left is going to scream "scorched earth" - my take it will be a principled stand on absolute right and wrong - and abortion is wrong:

IF President-elect Barack Obama goes through with his campaign pledge to sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act, holy hell is going to break loose.

FOCA may be the most radical social legislation in decades. It seeks to strip every last restraint from abortion - outlawing states' requirements for waiting periods, informed consent or parental consent; preventing health and safety regulation of abortion clinics and abortionists - and even ending restrictions on partial-birth abortion.

With one stroke of the president's pen, it would nullify every one of the 330 or so federal, state and local abortion laws on the books, most of them supported by a majority of Americans.

And that's just the start. The law would also compel taxpayers to fund abortions and provide abortions in military hospitals. Most provocatively of all, it would force religious hospital and health-care institutions to perform abortions in violation of their convictions.

So, with that background, what are the thoughts of the Catholic Leadership?

The Catholic Church, for one, won't stand for it. The ranking American prelate to the Holy See, James Cardinal Stafford, denounced Obama's vision as "aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic."

FOCA means war.

..."There are grave consequences," he said. "It would not be sufficient to sell them to someone who would perform abortions. That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil."

"This is not a matter of political compromise or finding some common ground," said Bishop Daniel Conlon of Steuvenville, Ohio. "It's a matter of absolutes."

...Asked whether politicians voting for FOCA would incur automatic excommunication, Cardinal George refused to rule it out, saying: "The excommunication is automatic if that act is in fact formal cooperation and that is precisely what would have to be discussed once you see the terms of the act itself."

I just pray that the many Baptist and other Protestant based hospitals take such a principled stand.  When enough people say "enough", even the Community-Organizer-in-Chief will have to realize that the Community has spoken, and they are not in a Obamessiah kumbaya mood.

Is this what Obama meant when he said that he would unite the country - everybody think like me?  Looks more like in opposition to me...

Posted by Skip at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, that time of year is once again upon us. You know- the time of year when one can still find a few people around that are brazen and uncouth enough to use the “C” word. That’s right- there is a small minority of people who still dare to refer to the “Holiday Season” as (gasp!) Christmas! Can you imagine? Don’t “those” kinds of people understand that they might offend somebody with such blatant attempts at forcing their “belief system” on others?

The good news is that with each passing year, the list of entities that can be counted on to respect the Constitution’s recently discovered ban on all things Christian continues to grow. We all know that the public school system has been systematically erasing our Nation’s Christian heritage for what is now going on an entire generation. Indian (oops) Native American (oops) FIRST AMERICAN “spiritual” rituals? No problem. Japanese paper origami cranes as "a wish for world peace?" No problem. Singing “Silent Night” at a “seasonal concert”? BIG PROBLEM!

We are now at a point where it has become a societal taboo to even utter the word “Christmas”.  Consider the local hospital’s annual decorative tribute/ fundraiser, which occurs each year around this time: The “Holiday Tree of Love”. How nice. How non-sectarian. How “non-offensive”. How very “sixties”. Can you imagine the uproar if the hospital referred to its tree by the term Americans used to call this ubiquitous December decoration- a CHRISTMAS tree? Heaven forbid they do so because that would be “imposing” a religion on people!

And don't worry about having any religion forced on you when shopping Amazon.com, who, while seeking to profit from (ahem) "holiday" gift giving traditions, celebrate the always safe and beloved "12 Days of Holiday".  (After being a customer who has spent lots of money here through the years, I will seriously consider whether I wish to do business with them any more)

It’s really not all bad, however. Perhaps we can, through the simple replacement of certain words, re-introduce some traditional Christmas (oops) songs back into the various “holiday concerts” and other “winter celebrations”. How great it would be to once again hear the children singing Bing as he croons,

Continue reading "Avoiding the "C" word" »

Posted by Doug at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What do you say when a Christian Church deliberately disavows itself of its place to judge morality?  After all, morality is, and simplistically put, all about declaring what is right and what is wrong.  Yes, that does mean that one has to make a judgement.  Yet, as you read through the post, the questioner is asking "what is the stance of the church?  Isn't this what the church should be doing?"

And what about a church that descends to the political correctness of the day vs the timeless message of the Book that purports to be its standard?

So, those are the thoughts that I had as I read this post over at CNSNews (emphasis mine):

(CNSNews.com) – Religious leaders and AIDS activists told CNSNNews.com Tuesday that labeling sex outside of marriage as sinful or having multiple partners as immoral behavior is “biased” – something society has “moved beyond.”

But ask yourself, if promiscuity is no longer sinful, what is?  Is it what I say it is?  After all, that's what Obama thinks of sin ("...Being out of alignment with my values...").  Ask yourself - when nothing is wrong, what happens to society in general?

At a telephone news conference in advance of World AIDS Day, AIDS activist groups and representatives of various religious groups said that counseling teens and others to be abstinent and restricting sex to marriage just isn’t “realistic,” and called on churches and the incoming Obama administration to deal with HIV/AIDS in a “truthful” and “medically accurate way.”

The Rev. Michael Schuenemeyer, executive for health and wholeness advocacy in the national offices of the United Church of Christ, said the church should be “nonjudgmental” when it comes to HIV/AIDS – and cited a recent workshop he attended as an example of how the Church should act.

I have no problem if Public Health people want to approach AIDS from that angle - that's their job.  People should know the biology of the disease and how it obtained.  But I ask why a religious leader should be stating morality is to be dismissed - isn't that their job?

One of my favorite questions is "So, we should be so open minded that our brains fall out?". 

Continue reading "So when a Christian church turns its back on Biblical teaching to grasp for political correctness..." »

Posted by Skip at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During the campaign, it certainly was clear that Obama attended a Black Liberation theologically based church for over twenty years.  During the campaign, Obama stated that sin is when he is out of alignment with his values.

Now, as an Evangelical Christian, I was always of the belief that sin was when I was out of alignment with GOD'S values - mine mattered not a whit.

So, when I saw this interview of Obama by Cathleen Falsani of the Chicago Sun-Times back in 2004, I decided to give it a read. I would suggest that you go read the entire thing over at Christianity Today for the full context.  That said, I pulled these out:

FALSANI:
So you got yourself born again?

OBAMA:
Yeah, although I don't, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at its best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.

I think that, particularly as somebody who's now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there's an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.

 [snip]

FALSANI:
Do you pray often?

OBAMA:
Uh, yeah, I guess I do.

It's not formal, me getting on my knees. I think I have an ongoing conversation with God. I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it.

One of the interesting things about being in public life is there are constantly these pressures being placed on you from different sides. To be effective, you have to be able to listen to a variety of points of view, synthesize viewpoints. You also have to know when to be just a strong advocate, and push back against certain people or views that you think aren't right or don't serve your constituents.

And so, the biggest challenge, I think, is always maintaining your moral compass. Those are the conversations I'm having internally. I'm measuring my actions against that inner voice that for me at least is audible, is active, it tells me where I think I'm on track and where I think I'm off track.

It's interesting particularly now after this election, comes with it a lot of celebrity. And I always think of politics as having two sides. There's a vanity aspect to politics, and then there's a substantive part of politics. Now you need some sizzle with the steak to be effective, but I think it's easy to get swept up in the vanity side of it, the desire to be liked and recognized and important. It's important for me throughout the day to measure and to take stock and to say, now, am I doing this because I think it's advantageous to me politically, or because I think it's the right thing to do? Am I doing this to get my name in the papers or am I doing this because it's necessary to accomplish my motives.

[snip]

Continue reading "An Obama interview on his beliefs at Christianity Today" »

Posted by Skip at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Catholic? Pro choice? Guess what? You can't be both...

This Youtube video is based on the "Voters Guide for Serious Catholics." I have seen this in print in several places, including newspapers like USA Today. I wonder how many of my fellow "Catholics" will choose to somehow forget the list of "non-negotiables" and instead go straight for other "human rights" issues as some sort of trade off.

From the Guide:

On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy among several morally good options. A Catholic can take one side or the other and not act contrary to the faith. Most matters do not have a "Catholic position."

But some issues concern "non-negotiable" moral principles that do not admit of exception or compromise. One’s position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with the Church’s moral norms.

This voter’s guide identifies five issues involving "non-negotiable" moral values in current politics and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.

You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote intrinsically evil policies. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with the moral law.

Here are the 5 NON-NEGOTIABLE issues:

Continue reading "A quick reminder for Catholics (and others): The Five "Non-negotiables"" »

Posted by Doug at 9:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Bishop & Nate... Afraid to debate?

As noted in this previous post, I linked to Dartmouth senior Nathan's piece at the Wayward Episcopalian blog where he's put forth the call for suggestions of what he should ask NH's openly gay Episcopal bishop Eugene Robinson in an interview he's conducting with him later this week. Earlier this morning, I availed myself of his call and comment section and left the following suggestions he ask the bishop:

• Ask him how he feels about placing the desires of the flesh above the job of bringing souls to Jesus.

• Ask him what he thinks his Maker will say to him when its his turn.

• Ask him what he would counsel a confused preteen about sexuality-- would he tell him to follow his "desires" wherever they take him?

• Ask him what is worse-- flushing a Koran down the toilet, or using the Bible to promote the gay agenda?

• And ask him if he'll come on our radio program in Laconia to defend his positions and "teachings". (Meet the New Press radio; 1490 WEMJ)

At the time, my posted comments appeared on the blog. I checked it a little while later to see if anyone had responded and, unsurprisingly, no one had... probably not too many people read the kid's tripe anyway. As mentioned above, I referred to Nathan's piece in this prior post about the gay bishop's visit here to our town of Gilford, and I actually copied and pasted the above questions published as I submitted them directly FROM his blog.

Guess what? I refreshed the open page a few minutes ago to see if anybody responded to my input, and, yep-- you guessed it---

MY COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED, AND THE POST SHOWS "0" COMMENTS

Ya just gotta love these "open minded" and oh-so-"tolerant" lefties like Nate-- everything's just ducky until you raise points they disagree with, or are damaging to their cause. Then, all bets are off. Why engage in debate when you can simply stifle it? This is the future in Barack Obama's Amerika. Are we sure we really want that?

Posted by Doug at 1:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBacks (0)

I guess there are times when doing the Lord's work must be done behind closed doors. There was a time when they used to call it confession. I don't know what you call this, or how the Bible says they can do what they are doing, which is destroying their church.

Today's Laconia Daily Sun has the story, reporting on Saturday's appearance (as noted in this prior post, and discussed on MTNP radio) here in Gilford of NH's gay Bishop Eugene Robinson to promote the movie, "For the Bible Tells Me So" shown at a local "church." Read the whole thing, as what the bish has to say might leave you somewhat dumbfounded, as it did me. "Hatred" for women by Catholics, and in both Testaments of the Bible? I had no idea...

by Ray Carbone

GILFORD- In a revealing moment during the discussion time following the showing of the documentary movie at the First United Methodist Church of Gilford Saturday night, the Rev. V. Gene Robinson, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, told a group of about 100 people that he led a secret retreat for gay Catholic priests two years ago.

"About half were diocesan priests and half were in various (religious) orders where you have a little more flexibility," Robinson said during the question and answer period after the movie, The Bible Tells Me So," the story of about how Christian families deal with learning that one of the family members is homosexual.

The true purpose of the retreat was kept secret from Catholic Church leaders or it never would have been allowed, the bishop said.

Robinson, who is the first openly gay leader in a large American Protestant church, said he told the Catholic clergy members that there's such a strong link between the fear of homosexuals and the hatred of woman and that he did not think the Catholic church would ever accept gay clergy members until it first accepted women clergy members.

"I told them, go home and work for women's ordination and you're going to be 75-percent of the way there, he said.

 

Continue reading "Gay Bishop claims to have hosted secret "gay retreat" for Catholic priests." »

Posted by Doug at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Not content with the debauched lifestyle he has chosen, this "man" seeks to spread what he does through the "churches", and invokes the Bible as justification.

Why can't he just shut up and go about his "business" quietly? What kind of  a "leader" is willing to destroy the very enterprise he heads? And worse, what kind of people are in his "flock" that would allow this to even happen? No wonder the "churches" are emptier and emptier every weekend. Why bother dragging your rear end down to "church" on Sunday when you can simply turn on MTV?

While not officially part of First United Methodist Church in Gilford, the Open Door Fellowship is made up mostly of members of that church and it meets at the church facility. Its mission is to support full rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

"Our goal is to help and support the full rights of everyone in the community and to seek to achieve a more fully inclusive denomination," Thomason said.

Yeah, and if the "church" needs to be destroyed in the process, so be it, I guess.

Posted by Doug at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This speech given by Archbishop Charles Chaput Friday evening at a dinner sponsored by ENDOW (Educating on the Nature and Dignity of Women) contains some of the best words I've heard uttered by an American Catholic leader in a long time. It's fitting it makes the news cycle rounds today, as I walked out of my Church during the homily this morning after being lectured by a very misguided Pastor about voting for candidates that promote "peace" instead of war and torture. This came on top of his euphemistic admonishment to "respect life at all stages" (yes- Father can't often bring himself to speak the "A" word, as he fears offending the liberal portion of his dwindling flock). I forwarded the Archbishop's words to him, as he really needs to read them and LEARN them. It's a long read, but well worth it. The most Reverend Chaput reminds us that as Catholics and Christians, we are NOT obligated to refrain from speaking and acting our beliefs in the political world, nor should we tone down in order to not offend (my Pastor's problem) which is the point of his new book, "Render Unto Caesar"...

I want to do three things with my time tonight. First, Terry asked me to talk a bit about my book, "Render Unto Caesar," and I’m happy to do that. Second, I want to talk about some of the lessons we can already draw from this year’s election. And third, I want to talk about the mission of ENDOW.

Before I do any of that though, I need to say what a friend of mine calls my “Litany to the IRS.” Here it is. I’m not here tonight to tell you how to vote. I don’t want to do that, I won’t do that, and I don’t use code language -- so you don’t need to spend any time looking for secret political endorsements.

I plan to speak candidly, but I can only do that if you remember that I’m here as an author and private citizen. I’m not speaking for the Holy See, or the American bishops, or any other bishop, or even officially for the Archdiocese of Denver. So the things I say tonight are my personal views, nothing more. I think they’re pretty solidly grounded in Catholic teaching and the heart of the Church, but it’s your task as Catholics and citizens to listen, evaluate and then act as you judge best.

As adults, each of us needs to form a strong Catholic conscience. Then we need to follow that conscience when we vote. And then we need to take responsibility for the consequences of the vote we cast. Nobody can do that for us. That’s why really knowing and living our Catholic faith is so important. It’s the only reliable guide we have for acting in the public square as disciples of Jesus Christ.

So let’s talk for a few minutes about "Render Unto Caesar." When people ask me about the book, the questions usually fall into three categories. Why did I write it? What does the book say? And what does the book mean for each of us as individual Catholics? This last question will be a good doorway into talking about the 2008 election, but let’s start at the beginning first. Why did I write this book, now?

 

Continue reading ""Little Murders"" »

Posted by Doug at 12:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

13 States Protest Abortion Refusal Rule

Hartford, Conn. (AP) - Attorneys general from 13 states on Wednesday protested a proposed Bush administration rule that would give stronger job protections to doctors and other health care workers who refuse to participate in abortions because of religious or moral objections.

In a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services, the states said the rule is too vague in defining abortion, and may be interpreted to include birth control.

"It threatens to drastically discourage and even deter a woman's right to choose," Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. "This proposed rule unconscionably puts personal agendas before patient care ... failing even to acknowledge the rights of rape victims and others to access birth control and related vital health services."

In this case, women wanting to kill their baby sense of choice trumps that of the freedom of choice of religion, of the morals, of those that believe that performing abortions goes against the patient care of those babies.

Now, here is the moral problem - one wishes to terminate a life.  The other wishes to cherish it.  The former only asks that their right to choice be affirmed - and allow them to direct such women to other medical specialist that would carry out the procedure.

Readers - who is right?

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

by Patrick Hynes

There is evidence that Sen. Joe Biden’s presence on the Democratic presidential ticket has done Sen. Obama no favors among Catholic voters. And yet Andrew Kohut from the Pew Research Center argues that

“There is a tendency … to exaggerate the role religion has on voter behavior.”

What’s the deal?

Kohut errs when he speaks in such broad strokes about religion. For example, despite a six year propaganda effort on the part of progressive evangelicals and the mainstream media, white evangelicals support Sen. McCain over Sen. Obama by roughly similar margins to those President Bush enjoyed over Sen. Kerry. Going to church on Sunday still rivals owning a gun as a determinant to whether you will vote Republican.

To the extent Kohut is referring only to Catholic voters however, he has a point. There is an open debate whether there really is anything we can accurately call “the Catholic vote.” Geographic and ethnic diversity make is nearly impossible to measure “how Catholics vote.” We simply cannot lump white Catholics of Eastern European extraction with Mexican-Americans. In fact, Latino Catholics who are several generations removed from their ancestral homelands vote differently from Latino Catholics who are only one or two generations removed (they are more apt to vote Republican).

Continue reading "Guest Post: Religion and 2008" »

Posted by Doug at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Every political cycle, especially Presidential cycles, one will be treated to video upon video by the MainStream Press (MSM) of this, that, and the other candidate ascending into the pulpit of all kinds of churches to "speak" to the congregation.

Although this cycle had more Republicans doing this (think Rev. Huckabee), I generally see more Democrats doing this during their campaigns.  Now, are they "converting" the saved in a political sense, or just an appearance as any other event lends itself?  Dunno - I've never been in a church where a political candidate has taken the platform to speak.  I do know, however, that in the churches of which I have been a member, the Pastors / Preachers are generally cognizant of not speaking about a single candidate - just issues concerning Biblical import - because of IRS rules.

Thus, I could never quite square the corners - if the Pastors cannot speak of political things, then why are the politicos allowed to speak?

This article, then, in the Washington Post caught my eye:

Ban on Political Endorsements by Pastors Targeted

CHICAGO -- Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.

The effort by the Arizona-based legal consortium is designed to trigger an IRS investigation that ADF lawyers would then challenge in federal court. The ultimate goal is to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out a 54-year-old ban on political endorsements by tax-exempt houses of worship.

"For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church," ADF attorney Erik Stanley said. "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."

Yet an opposing collection of Christian and Jewish clergy will petition the IRS today to stop the protest before it starts, calling the ADF's "Pulpit Initiative" an assault on the rule of law and the separation of church and state.

Backed by three former top IRS officials, the group also wants the IRS to determine whether the nonprofit ADF is risking its own tax-exempt status by organizing an "inappropriate, unethical and illegal" series of political endorsements.

"As religious leaders, we have grave concerns about the ethical implications of soliciting and organizing churches to violate core principles of our society," the clergy wrote in an advance copy of their claim obtained by The Washington Post.

My personal view that the Constitution, as originally written, was done so to keep the fledgling Republic from establishing a true State-sponsored church like the Church of England and the Lutheran Church in Europe.  I do support the view that many of the Founders did acknowledge the idea of Deity, a Supreme Creator at the least )if not an omnipotent God).  After all, our individual rights are given by God (which very much is part of the difference from other constitutions or declarations of human rights (such as the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights - see it's Article #29 to see where your rights stem from "(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.").

Such endorsements are prohibited by a 1954 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not "participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office."

So, the pols get the amendment written, and then trample it all to bits.  Just like the political types decided to exempt themselves from the Do-Not-Call List.

But there are those that want to settle for the status-quo.  In my mind, these are often the people that wish to keep religion out of the public square entirely! It continues:

Continue reading "Tell you what - I'll trade you!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

[For GraniteGrok by Gigi L.]

A call for people to Pray

In 1775 the First Continental Congress “Designated a time for prayer in forming a new Nation."

1863- Abraham Lincoln called for a National day of prayer & fasting during the Civil War.

1952 - A bill proclaiming an annual National Day of Prayer was passed unanimously by Congress. President Truman signed it into law. It required each President to select a day for national day of prayer each year.

1972 - National Prayer Committee was created. 

1988 - A bill was introduced to make the National day of Prayer the first Thursday in May. It received bipartisan support and became a law. It was signed by president Reagan on May 5th, who commented, "On our National Day of Prayer, then, we join together as people of many faiths to petition God to show us His mercy and His love, to heal our weariness and uphold our hope, that we might live ever mindful of His justice and thankful for His blessing."

1993-1998- The National day of Prayer continued with each President recognizing the importance of this day. President Clinton in his 1997 signing said,  "Let us uphold the tradition of observing a day in which every American, in his or her own way, may come before God seeking increased peace, guidance, and wisdom for the challenges ahead."

The National Day of Prayer has had its critics, led by groups who refuse to accept any type of religion. Rather than simply choose to not participate, some have gone so far as to protest this special day. Fortunately, these actions have thus far not changed the spirit of this tradition our Founders thought so important. This National Day of Prayer is an opportunity to reflect and pray for our Nation and all her people.

Americans are the sort of people that, when a tragedy strikes, we automatically and immediately reach out and help. In every community across the Nation, people do this in many ways, sacrificing time and effort, oftentime never realizing that this is what our Creator expects of us. There is no doubt that such actions are the answers to the prayers of those in need. In this way, the act of praying becomes a vital part of fulfilling the greatest commandment of all: "Love one another as I have loved you."

Whether or not you want to accept God as your Creator, he has an influence on how each and every one of us lives our lives.  For many He is a last resort when faced with difficulties, yet amazingly enough, when people pray, worries become less and at times solutions become clearer.

Today, Thursday May 1st, is the National Day of Prayer. According to the Day of Prayer Task Force website,

The theme for this year is "Prayer! America's Strength and Shield" and is based on the verse from Psalm 28:7 which states: "The Lord is my strength and shield; my heart trusts in Him and I am helped."

At any time of the day or night we can call on Jesus. He is always waiting, listening for our call. What a wonderful blessing. No phone needed, no e-mails, just a whisper...

Posted by Doug at 7:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...when the way that the Left treats Christianity is the same that it treats Islam.  Or Hinduism, or paganism, or....you get the idea - when Christianity is treated the same, no more and certainly no less, than other religions.  In other words, the callousness by which Christians are treated, the disdain for the majority religion.

Why is this so?  I believe it concerns a single word "Accountability" and an unwillingness to admit that there is a Higher Power than Man. 

Why does THAT matter? If God does not exist, we are only accountable to ourselves...and therefore, everything is relative.  After all, if there is only Man, only Man makes the rules, and given Man's nature, everything can be fungible with respect to right and wrong, respectful or not, tolerated or not.

Like this crap from Larry Lessig who is very much a Lefty leaning, Stanford law professor.  Who is also associated with Google - you know the company - the one whose corporate motto is "Don't be evil".  Would Google, if they had known, allowed the main character to have been Mohammed?

Oh, did I say, an Obama Technical Advisor as well?  What is with Obama's choice of whom he surrounds himself?  Isn't he in enough hot water all by himself by denigrating people who "cling to religion"?  Trust me, this ain't helping much... 

Including making videos of a gay Jesus disrobing to just a diaper and then gets hit by a bus.  To a group of people at Google.

He has the Free Speech rights to do so - and so do we to complain.

The Left is all about respect, listening to all sides, not offending, and being tolerant.  Ask yourself - does this video fit the bill?

Erick has more here and here from WTH for better takes on this.
 

Posted by Skip at 7:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier today on our radio program, Michigan Congressman Thadeus McCotter discussed why he doesn't think President Bush should go to the Beijing Olympics, stating

We don't think that the president, for the first time in US history should attend a foreign hosted Olympics because... his presence at the Games has deviated from the norm and set a political gesture into the Olympics.

In a letter to the president last September, Congressman McCotter wrote that in light of a long list of

the communist dictatorship's rogue actions against our nation and others, your attending these games in communist China will subvert the moral authority of your position as the Leader of the Free World-- a Free World which will be watching and weighing your participation.

To that end, he has filed legislation in Congress which, according to his website, is 

"a bill in Congress restricting all government officials and employees from attending the opening ceremonies of the 2008 Beijing Olympics in communist China. The bill does NOT affect America’s Olympic athletes. The bill H.R. 5668, The Communist Chinese Olympic Accountability Act, is a follow up to a September 11, 2007, letter to President George W. Bush in which Congressman McCotter and a bi-partisan coalition of Members of Congress, state: 'We urge you [President Bush] to reconsider your decision to attend the 2008 Beijing Olympics in communist China.'"

This is a great idea, in that it allows the athletes to participate in the games without becoming political pawns, while at the same time sends a message that we are not going to accept a rival system of government that seeks to undermine ours through deception and espionage while trampling the human rights of its citizens in ways not tolerated elsewhere in the civilized world.

You would think President Bush would know better than to even consider such a trip, especially given the the violence in Tibet and elsewhere that's recently been all over the news.

I challenge New Hampshire's two Congressional Representatives, Democrats Shea-Porter and Hodes, to step up and join Congressman McCotter in his effort to stop President Bush from making a huge mistake.

How about it? Will the two of you support HR 5668? I wonder what the variaous candidates running for Congress this fall think? Albeit, it will be over before they get to Congress, but I'd still like to know how they would vote. This is a fantastic way to send a huge message without punishing a single athlete.

Posted by Doug at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It is being reported by Reuters that Catholics are no longer the world's number one religion.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Islam has overtaken Roman Catholicism as the biggest single religious denomination in the world, the Vatican said on Sunday.

Monsignor Vittorio Formenti, who compiled the Vatican's newly-released 2008 yearbook of statistics, said Muslims made up 19.2 percent of the world's population and Catholics 17.4 percent.

"For the first time in history we are no longer at the top: the Muslims have overtaken us," Formenti told Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano in an interview, saying the data referred to 2006.

It then goes on to finger the reason:

...while the number of Catholics as a proportion of the world's population was fairly stable, the percentage of Muslims was growing because of higher birth rates.

Hmm. The other thing I learned in the news today is that this guy is a Catholic priest:

Yeah, I didn't believe it, either, until I went to the website of St Sabina and discovered, surprisingly, this "priest" and his "church" are indeed Catholic. And this "church" was the site of Barack Obama's racist, bigoted, hate-mongering pastor "Rev" Wright's re-entry into the public eye after a week in hiding.

Barack Obama’s former pastor, who canceled several public events after an uproar over his incendiary comments, surprised a Chicago congregation by attending an event to celebrate poet Maya Angelou’s birthday.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright got a raucous standing ovation when he entered Saint Sabina church on the South Side on Friday night, video from WBBM-TV showed. Members yelled “Hallelujah!” as Wright embraced the Rev. Michael Pfleger, Saint Sabina’s pastor.

I've been a Catholic all my life, and I've never encountered a "priest" like Pastor Pflegler. If I had, there would be one less person calling himself a Catholic in the world. Thankfully, I always have gone to normal, REAL Catholic Churches where the LOVE of God is preached, not the HATRED of fellow man, as is apparently the norm in "black" "churches", including ones that claim to be Catholic. I've long known black racism existed. I had no idea it had risen to the level that it has even corrupted their "churches." God help them-- especially the children, for whom this will perpetuate such garbage for yet another generation... (much like radical Islam)

[H/T Michelle Malkin]

Posted by Doug at 4:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 9:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Tomorrow is Easter - in my mind, the most solemn, yet joyous day in the Christian calender. It is the culmination of the Old and New Testament - God's love for us.  In His absolute holiness, our sin (from the free expression of will) is anathema - holiness cannot accept any blemish of that holiness.

But in His mercy and grace, He provided a propitiation for that sin - His Son.  Fully human and fully God, living a sinless and perfect life, Jesus submitted His will to that of His Father's on Good Friday, willingly taking on our sins, and willingly paid the ultimate sacrifice for that sin as foretold in the Old Testament:

Today, we celebrate and give thanks for His Resurrection, the true mystery of the Christian faith.  Why?  For if he had not risen, our faith is in vain. Only in His death and subsequent Resurrection can we hope and believe in the promised eternal life outlined in His Word.

He has risen, indeed!

For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved.   (John 3:16-17) 

Posted by Skip at 10:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Anybody that watches TV and follows politics at all knows that the Democratic candidates seemingly spend inordinate amounts of time campaigning in churches and would have to admit we don't see the same on the Republican side. While we generally associate faith and Christian values with conservatism, we just don't find Republicans as publicly mixing it with politics-- at least within houses of worship with cameras rolling.

As Catholics, we just don't do politics in Church. It's God's house, and of course, the purpose of Mass is to worship Him-- period. But that doesn't mean that people who are Catholics cannot still have an opinion when it comes to politics. In fact, we are encouraged to be active and involved-- we just don't bring it into our Churches. Instead, we are asked to seek out politicians who will best reflect our beliefs and values in line with the teachings of our faith.

Yesterday, the McCain campaign released the following report announcing he has won the support of many Catholics from across America. And why not? When you look at the core teachings of the Church regarding life, forgiveness, and respect for our fellow man, Senator McCain stands head and shoulders above the Democrats candidates who are, after all, representing "the Party of Death." I am glad that our religion is more low key when it comes to politics within the confines of our Church walls. I am glad that my pastor won't stand in front of the Church and tell us who to vote for-- that way there, it is up to US to venture forth into the world and make our own decisions using our best judgement. I am proud to call myself a Catholic, and I am proud that many of my fellow brothers and sisters have joined with me in publicly announcing support for John McCain.

ARLINGTON, VA -- Today over 100 prominent Catholics nationwide have come together to support John McCain for president. The National Catholics for McCain Committee, led by U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Former Governor Frank Keating (R-OK), is growing rapidly. The group is represented by elected officials, businessmen and women, grassroots organizers, students, and Catholic leaders from over two dozen states.

"John McCain has a common sense vision for America based on faith, freedom, and families," said Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), National Co-Chair of the National Catholics for McCain Committee. "Committed to the protection of innocent human life, he is a leader Catholics will be proud to support. John McCain knows from experience what it means when a society tramples on the truth of the value of the human person. He is committed to defending the dignity and value of every person, regardless of their status."

John McCain expressed his deep appreciation and stated, "I want to thank Catholic voters today, who have played a vital role in electing me as the Republican nominee for the presidency. I am humbled by the support of such a diverse group of Catholic leaders who are dedicated to the defense of traditional marriage, advocate for the protection of innocent human life, and share my vision for a stronger, safer and more prosperous America. I stand firmly with those Catholics who believe that human rights are natural rights for all people, in all places, and in all stages of life."

The National Catholics for McCain Committee is actively recruiting Catholics at the national, regional, state, local, and parish levels to help share John McCain's vision and pro-Catholic message. 

Here is the list of those officially signed on: 

Continue reading "Catholics for McCain" »

Posted by Doug at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We here at the 'Grok wish all our readers a very Merry Christmas.  Though the words are over 2,000 year old, they ring as true today as the actual event did back then in Bethleham.  We wish you peace on Earth and Good will towards men no matter your circumstance or location.

The retelling itself? Christmas and Easter - a birth for a death - part of the basic tenants of the Christian faith. A birth for a life that was all at once perfect, blameless, and without sin; one that fully filled all of the Old Testament Law of God - the unkeepable standard of holiness.  This Baby knowingly offered himself as the ultimate atonement for our sinful lives (for who among us can claim to have never broken God's Laws?).

While we celebrate His life at this time of the year, we Christians look forward to the fulfillment of His Promise - eternal life through the Greatest Gift the world has ever known - His life for ours. 

John 1:1

¹In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ²He was with God in the beginning.     ³Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

Continue reading "Forsaking Glory, a Birth for a Cross, a Promise of Life" »

Posted by Skip at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...who has blessed us, our families and friends, and this Nation.  Even as there are those that believe that our Nation is stumbling and will never achieve their version of utopia (and never cease to kvetch to the rest of us), we have much to be thankful for in this country.  We are financially the richest nation on the planet, we are militarily the most powerful nation in the world, we are the largest economy ever seen in history.  We can come and go as we wish.  Our nation is yet the melting pot of the world where many races and nationalities have shown that we can live in harmony with each other - not the norm at any time or any other place.

But more importantly, we have the most free media anywhere that allows us to speak our minds and to criticize our leaders and neighbors, we have the freedom of speech that allows us to spread those thoughts to anyone what will listen, and the freedom to associate with others of like mind.  We can freely choose our leaders - and get rid of them freely too!

We also posses the freedom of religion to praise our God without fearing for our families or ourselves.  I am thankful for this country that believes that our rights emanate from God and not from the whims of men. 

No, we are not a perfect nation - and I hope and pray that God is not done with us yet, that we will become better still. I have reservations that we will ever become the Utopia that some feel we must be before stopping their kvetching, but compared to almost any other nation on Earth, there is much to count as blessings.  We ARE the shining beacon of light in a world that often time has no light at all. 

And I believe it is because God has blessed this nation.

And for that, I give thanks... 

The true meaning of Thanksgiving; truly giving heartfelt thanks to God.

Take a moment, close your eyes, and remember the maxim by which they lived - giving thanks for anything requires a contrite, open, and willing heart and acknowledged that there is a Higher Power than themselves that, even as half the Pilgrims had died of illness and starvation, would look out for them and would bless them. 

They certainly did...will we?

Posted by Skip at 11:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Signing the Mayflower Compact

.

The Mayflower Compact has always been one of my personal favorite American documents. I always like to read it around Thanksgiving. It is a short and simple statement that life should be ordered by mutually-agreed to laws. Written by rational, thinking, and consummately civilized persons, The Mayflower Compact is universally considered to be the first basis in the New World for written law: 

“In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia; do by these presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the General good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord, King James of England, France and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.”

It was signed by 41 of the Mayflower’s 102 passengers. Contrast the words of the Pilgrim settlers, half of whom died in the first New England winter, with those being spouted by partisans of the current movement to erase the mere mention of God from any area of public and government life. I am sure that many such persons and groups, led by the ACLU, cannot have much stomach for the fact that our forebears came to this land “for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith.” It really flies in the face of their arguments in favor of removing “under God” in our Pledge and “In God We Trust” from our money.

.

One Compact signer, Edward Winslow eventually became one of the Pilgrim leaders. He served as the governor of the Plymouth colony on three different occasions. His wife, Elizabeth (Barker) Winslow, died soon after their arrival. He then married, in May 1621, Mrs Susannah White, the mother of Peregrine White, the first white child born in New England. This marriage was the first in the New England colonies.

Winslow is also noted for writing one of the few known personal accounts of the first Thanksgiving. From a document known as “Mourt's Relation” he writes,

Continue reading "Having undertaken for the Glory of God and the Advancement of the Christian Faith..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE:   Gee, a first for the 'Grok - even before the post goes up, there's an update....but read it carefully.  From the official Chinese news agency:

BEIJING, Nov. 8 (Xinhua) -- China Thursday rebuked reports that the it would ban foreign athletes from bringing Bibles to the Olympic village during the Beijing Olympic Games next year, dismissing them as "sheer rumors".

"We have taken note of the reports and checked with the relevant authorities. The facts prove that the reports are sheer rumors," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a routine press conference.

[snip]

"The Chinese government has never ever issued such a rule, nor any such statement," Liu said. "China's religious affairs authorities and the Beijing Olympic organizing committee have not - and could not - issue a rule banning the Bible in the Olympic village."

China has always respected and protected the religious freedom of foreigners living in China in line with laws and regulations, he said.

According to the Provisions on the Administration of Religious Activities of Aliens Within the Territory of the People's Republic of China, foreigners are allowed to bring in religious publications, audio-video materials or other objects for personal use, Liu said.

"We are suspicious of the ultimate motivations of those who spread such rumors. They should be responsible, and not do things that are not beneficial for themselves and undermine mutual understanding between China and the world," he added

Such parsing....note that while foreigners are allowed such freedoms, their citizens are not.  Once again, we see the value (and the perceived danger) of ideas being allowed the freedom to go where they might.  The Bible, holder of such truths that have changed the world, would certainly change Chinese society (and I believe for the better).

And that is what they fear.... 

---------------------

You know, they do everything they can to suppress the practice of religion.  They want to drive it underground and keep separate the State and any other than the religion of the State, of Liberalism, of Statism, of atheism.  They fear what the ideals of religion can bring - especially that there is something more than the state that is in control and in charge.  For if they allow that it is true, some of what they have as control evaporates.

And no, it is not the ACLU that I am talking about...try Communist China:

Just in time for the Olympic Games.  And wouldn't this be the first time that an Olympic host ever regulated the religion of the visiting athletes?

And what does the International Olympic Committee say about this? I just went to their web site - the answer is:

<try a cricket chirp here> 

It seems that in their rush to have it their way (like Saudi Arabia), they want any Christian athletes to leave their Bibles at home.  From the NY Sun:

The organizers of the 2008 Olympic Games in China have put the Bible on the list of items that athletes are banned from bringing with them to Beijing, we learn from a report in the Catholic News Service, picking up an item in the Italian daily La Gazzetta dello Sport. This would seem to undermine claims by a Chinese government official, Ye Xiaowen, who told Reuters last month that China would accommodate the religious needs of visiting athletes. The Chinese official claimed to Reuters that restrictions on Bibles were intended "to prevent illegal vendors from driving up prices, which are kept extremely low by government subsidies." Only a Communist would buy that economic explanation, which makes no sense.

Continue reading "The REAL weapon they fear" »

Posted by Skip at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I first saw this in the local paper, The Citizen, but since they just redid their site, I can no longer find the "find past issues" button / feature anymore.  So, this reference will have to do:

Church leader says members unhappy with gay bishop should refocus

The bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States says church members unhappy with the ordination of a gay bishop in New Hampshire should worry about more pressing world problems. We need to refocus on more life-and-death issues like starvation, education, medical care.

World problems?  As much as any of us should be worrying about world problems, I agree.  Where again I see this as a microcosm of the problems of the "mainline" Protestant churches here in the US is the seemingly over-emphasis of a social gospel vs what many Evangelicals see as the role of a church, which is preaching the Gospel to save sinners. As I said in my recent post about John Kerry:

The Left just doesn't get it.  Yes, the teaching are important...but they put the cart before the horse.  It is the INDIVIDUAL salvation and repenting that is the primary message.  What is referred to as "the social gospel" comes afterwards as a result of a changed heart.  As long as they continue to ignore this principle, they will be wandering in the Evangelical desert (as it were) for more than a few years.....

With the mainline churches seemingly abandoning this primary mission, it is no wonder that their membership over the last few years has been plunging almost as fast as the mainline newspapers and network news shows - abandoning first principles in those areas too.

In her statement, it appears that she is just attempting sweeping the whole controversy thing under the rug - social gospel, all inclusivity, gay acceptance and ordination...you know, the typical stuff.  And avoiding the real controversy - where is the stance on Biblical principles?

Anyways, back to the Bishop Schori story:

Continue reading "Social vs Individual Gospel?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I thought all Americans were guaranteed their rights to religious freedom, but apparently unless we support the gay agenda, even though it goes against many people's religious beliefs if nothing else, we will continue to be pressured to ignore our own religious convictions and be ridiculed by homosexuals unless we jump on their bandwagon.

A case in point is the pressure that Barack Obama is receiving from the gay community, click here for the story.

Since there is no scientific consensus that gays are born that way and many scientists believe our sexuality IS a matter of choice, McClurkin has said absolutely nothing wrong in the story above. However, the gay community continues to use fear tactics to attempt to silence any opposition to their agenda of full marriage for homosexuals. Many homosexuals are striving diligently to be legitimized and validated, but many religious people believe God does not condone homosexuality, and therefore many of us will continue to believe that marriage should exclusively be a union between a man and a woman.

Does this mean we're homophobes? No, it does not mean that we hate or want to harm any homosexual. In fact, I agree that what anyone does in their own bedroom is their business as long as whatever they do is between consenting adults.

Continue reading "Reverse Discrimination?" »

Posted by Judy at 6:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (27) | TrackBacks (0)

See my original entry here, then click here for the update.

Oh, how I would like to have been a fly on the wall when Richard Roberts met with the Board of Regents. While Pastor Roberts has supposedly asked for a leave of absence, I'm guessing that it was at the prompting of the Board. I guarantee you that there is alot more going on in the background that we may never hear about.

With a university's survival on the line, not to mention the entire ministry begun by Oral Roberts, trust me when I tell you that the Board won't hesitate to throw Richard and Lindsey Roberts under the bus to save the university and the ministry...not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars of donations at stake! Yep, the love of money is the route of all evil, but I'm confident that God's will shall prevail eventually although we may never know the entire truth...unfortunate since it IS the truth that sets you free!

H/T: Doug

Posted by Judy at 4:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

............

Many public schools have become pagan religion indoctrination centers. These schools now teach children anti-Judeo-Christian beliefs and pagan religions, and try to mold children's minds through the latest techniques in behavioral psychology.

By teaching religious mysticism, public schools throughout the country are filling impressionable young minds with group think, multiculturalism, paganism, Earth worship, astrology, polytheism (belief in many gods), and pantheism (belief in spirit gods that exist in trees, rocks, and water). The God of Moses is out in our public schools, and Earth worship is in.

.

Many teachers in public schools across the country now stress feelings and mystical experiences, not facts and reason, much less critical reading and thinking. Their behavior modification techniques indoctrinate children with emotion-driven group think and anti-Western, anti-Judeo-Christian values.

Author Aldus Huxley wrote about ‘new-think’ indoctrination in Brave New World, his frightening novel about a future totalitarian society. In his book, school authorities molded children’s minds so that as adults, they lost their ability to think critically or judge the policies of their leaders.

.

Indoctrinating children with pagan beliefs in our public schools could have a similar effect. If a child believes he or she can turn into a bird or pass a math test by rubbing a voodoo necklace, then facts, reason, hard work, and dedication go out the window.

Posted by Doug at 8:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I grew up in Oklahoma City when Oral Roberts was on TV.

My siblings and I used to make fun of him. When he would ask people to come and put their hand on the TV, we'd jokingly do what he said. He would holler, "heal, heal, heal!" We'd all laugh and practice saying the same thing as we held our small hands on the TV. We thought he was nuts!

Well, the institution that Oral Roberts built in Tulsa, Oklahoma is awash in scandal. Click here to read about what's going on.

I have had friends whose children attended ORU. Many of them thought there was something "wrong" with the teachings at ORU. Some told me that it appeared that they cared more about "right appearance" rather than "right belief."

Continue reading "False Shepherds?" »

Posted by Judy at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

.

Disgraced Pastor Ted Haggard Asks Supporters for Cash. Is this the true definition of Chutzpah or what?!

Did you get a severance package equivalent to a year's salary of $138,000 from the last job you left? Can you sell your home for $715,051.

Would you ask others to support you if you disgraced your church, not to mention yourself, in such a manner and had equivalent assets?

Is it any wonder why Christianity gets a bad rap sometimes? There are nuts in the Church, just like there are nuts in the world! Hopefully, we don't judge everyone by the few nuts in either population. Well, please feel free to perhaps not apply this to those who kill in the name of God! As though God would ever tell islamo-facists to kill Americans or anybody else in His name.

This is about as bad, not quite, as Bishop Robinson insinuating that some of Jesus' disciples may have been gay! For the skinny, check out this podcast from MTNP this past Saturday, when we discussed the story, as reported some two years ago at WorldNetDaily.

Posted by Judy at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We use SiteMeter to track visits to the 'Grok (darn, I gotta figure out why it isn't showing at the bottom of the page...sigh....add it to-do list).  One of the aggregator sites, NH News Links, linked to us so I went on over to see what story they had linked to (Doug's post about upcoming stuff).  On working down the page, I saw a number of posts about Bishop Gene Robinson and his decision to enter in a civil union here in NH (here, here, and here).

You gotta love the Internet and blogs - go looking for one thing and find something interesting everywhere you go when you least expect it.

Anyways, the 'Grok has done a bunch of posts on the decline of the "mainline" Protestant churches, including the Episcopalian church, as they seem to be turning, in my opinion, from a spiritual gospel to a more socially / culturally oriented theology (here, here, here, here, and here among others).

It seems that Bishop Gene Robinson has decided to insert himself into the news.  He announced to BBC while in London that he was going to consummate a civil union with his partner.

(London) The only openly gay bishop in the worldwide Anglican Church has unveiled plans for a civil union with his longtime partner, unleashing an attack by church conservatives who call it a publicity stunt.

[snip] 

The timing would bring it just weeks before bishops from around the world are to meet in London for their once-a-decade meeting called the Lambeth Conference.

[snip]

"I am certainly not doing that to rub salt into anyone's wounds, but no one should expect me to penalize me and my partner when these rights are being offered,"

Call me skeptical, but to announce this before one of the most important meetings of the Anglican Church when he single handed has thrown his church into such turmoil?  This could have been done afterwards, or even after the first of the year.  Does he really think that this helps his cause? 

[snip]

Robinson first raised the possibility of entering into a civil union when he testified in April before a New Hampshire committee hearing leading up to the vote that passed the law.

He has made it no secret that this is one of his signature issues.  Not necessarily in word but certainly in deed.  No, his emphasis has not been on healing, not on winning souls, not on stemming the decline in his church membership.  It is my opinion that he has used his position for his own purpose.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the titular leader of the worldwide denomination has been trying to keep the Church from splintering over Robinson's election in 2004.

While Robinson will be allowed to attend the Lambeth Conference, Williams will not allow him to participate or vote.

A similar restriction has been placed on bishops consecrated in the US by Akinola.

On one level, Williams has done the right thing - putting both antagonists "into the penalty box".  However, this does not solve the problem - in watching words in the media, it is clear that Robinson is not going to stop his crusade.  And given the sin that Bishop Akinola sees being paraded by a church leader, neither will he stop in his admonishments.

Continue reading "The Bishop is at it again" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

No, this is not JUST an ad for our good friend Pat Hynes from AnkleBitingPundits (and co-host of Meet The New Press).  But it works (read it, fact filled, and points out the importance of a rather large group that the Left both ridicules and is trying to court at the same time - a Skip recommendation!)

Rather, it is to point out that this group, like it or not, is going to play a major role in the upcoming election.  And over at CSNSNews, they are reporting that part of the Religious Right, the Evangelicals (and yes, as a born again Christian, I count myself within that group), as a group  do view things differently from the American population at large. 

This has major ramifications for the upcoming elections. 

Evangelical Christians' priorities for change in government and society deviate from average Americans' priorities more than any other subgroup, according to a study released this week by the Barna Group, a Christian research firm.

The study asked respondents to rank the importance of 11 different issues, including overall care and resources devoted to children, the quality of public school education, national security, poverty, the state of marriage and families, the spiritual state of the country and the environment.

Interest piqued, I decided  to look at the report at the report author, The Barna Group (which I highly suggest going over and reading it - it isn't all that long).  What it shows is that to attract Evangelicals (and like minded people), politicians and leaders are going to have to do a better job of figuring out what this group actually believes in, in order to attract their support.

And those issues are not ones we now see playing in the popular political culture.

The survey Question:

Think about how you would like the United States to change within the next 10 years. If you had the ability to make the decisions, tell me how important each of the changes I describe would be to you: absolutely necessary, somewhat important, not too important, or a waste of resources. 

The Results: after the jump 

Continue reading "And what happens when the future vision is different?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Even being a Christian myself, I'm sometimes embarrassed by how we act. We forget that God draws people to Himself, and we're merely facilitators sometimes. I hate it when Christian's beat people over the head with their Bibles rather than "lovingly" bringing them into the Kingdom. However, this can take on some interesting ideas of what "lovingly" means as well. Sometimes truth and honesty, wrapped in loving confrontation, feels anything but "lovingly." 

Since Bill Mayer is at it again, I thought some of you might be interested in reading Father Jonathan’s "loving confrontation" on Mr. Mayer’s un-enlightened state when it comes to Christianity. Yeah, I already know you chimps will be offended. God Bless you anyway.

Before any of us became Christians, we were all "un-enlightened" too and most of us didn’t understand God, or may have even believed that He didn't exist at all. We certainly didn't know what Christianity was really all about.

It’s kinda one of those things that you have to experience for yourself and then you’ll “get it.” Being forgiven for your sins, no matter what they are, is the biggest high in the universe...no drugs required. Perhaps that's why some newly born agains (and old timers) can be, admitedly, a bit overly zealous.

The nice thing about God is that he already knows everything about you, and He’ll still welcome you into his Kingdom just as you are, warts and all. How many people do you know who will welcome you in your absolutely worst state? Pretty cool when you think about it…

But, after you “join” you’ll likely have a deep desire to change for the better. Plus, He’ll provide you some insight into yourself, too, and even possibly reveal why you do those stupid, destructive things you do. It’s a win-win situation if you're willing. I like that! 

Posted by Judy at 5:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In show of sensitivity, schools chief renames Easter events

TIVERTON — The Easter Bunny was to have made a stop at a craft fair at the Tiverton Middle School tomorrow, appearing for photos with students as part of a fundraising effort sponsored by the school’s Parent-Teacher Council.

.

But Schools Supt. William Rearick called a halt to the use of the word “Easter” at a school event, just as the word “Christmas” is out of bounds in school publications and activities.

.

Instead of the Easter Bunny, the Parent-Teacher Council booth will offer photos with Peter Rabbit.

Similarly, Rearick said, he has told officials of the Tiverton Land Trust that a flier inviting children to an egg hunt cannot include the word “Easter.” Rearick said he planned to review the proposed wording — which a Land Trust official said does not include the word “Easter” — before deciding whether students can take the flier home. Rearick said yesterday,

“We’re trying to walk a fine line between promoting any religion” while permitting celebrations.

“I don’t like the term ‘politically correct,’ ” Rearick said, but during the last year and a half or two years, he has become “more aware of folks who don’t have a Christian background.”

Posted by Doug at 7:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Washing Feet Endangers Students, School Says

If Jesus washed his disciples' feet at a Georgia college in 2007, he'd likely be accused of "hazing."

That's the position a Christian ministry at Savannah State University has found itself in, after it washed the feet of its new members. The campus ministry Commissioned II Love (C2L) was also accused of "harassing" students by sharing their faith.

Washing of feet is a symbolic gesture of servitude in the Christian faith, following the example of Jesus, who washed the disciples' feet during their last meal before his crucifixion, as recounted in the New Testament gospel of John (13:1-17).

The Christian group says the foot washing ritual "serves as a symbol of purity, a charge to share the gospel, and an act of service to others ... [it] is not a condition of gaining membership, status, or acceptance into C2L or holding an office."

The explanation appears in a lawsuit brought by C2L against SSU after the group was suspended for "harassment" and "hazing."

As most committed Christians know, the washing of feet was done by Jesus to his disciples before he was crucified.  This was a practical example of leadership by example, as in that time, that activity was done by slaves and servants.  The "Master of the house" would never humiliate himself to wash the feet of his guests (even today in the Middle East, notice that hitting with "dirty" shoes is a sign of extreme disrespect).

Yet, Jesus "lowered" Himself to show that no one is above another.  In like manner, C2L is trying to show others of this philosophy.  Yet it seems that C2L, in following His example, have fallen prey in the latest example of anti-Christian activities on a college campus.

And frankly, a trumped up charge, IMHO.  HOW can ANYONE see that the simple act of washing feet is "hazing?"  I can see where forcing candidates to drink large quantities of liquids (people have died of both water and alcohol intoxication), requiring risky behavior, or abject humiliation could be construed as hazing, but washing of feet?

And "sharing their faith" is harrassment?  What about events where activities like truely harrassing military recruiters and damaging their property, throwing eggs, and outright shouting / taunting are allowed by college administrations (who then sanction that as First Amendment rights or academic freedom of expression)?  Yes, a double standard....

Continue reading "News Flash - washing of feet is college "hazing"!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, the American Anglican church (the Episcopalians) are rejecting the will of the majority of the Anglicans around the world.  Why?  It is my observation that this is nothing more than typical American radicalism, an outgrowth of the narcissistic '60s generation, not willing to bow to authority.

NEW YORK - Episcopal bishops risked losing their place in the global Anglican family Wednesday by affirming their support for gays and rejecting a key demand that they give up some authority to theological conservatives outside the U.S. church.

One would think that being a minority,  they would get the idea that the majority has the upper hand, that their pleas for unity should be accepted for the sake of unity.  Even though that which they fight for most is anathema to the majority.  As the saying goes, only in America!

"We cannot accept what would be injurious to the church and could well lead to its permanent division," the bishops said in a resolution from a private meeting in Texas.

The Episcopal Church is the U.S. wing of the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, a fellowship of churches that traces its roots to the Church of England. But it is at odds theologically with the vast majority of Anglican churches, which take a more conservative view on sexuality and other issues.

Isn't this kinda backwards?  The American bishops, less than 3% of the world wide population, are doing and espousing that which is causing the split (a liberal theology, especially concerning homosexual priests and bishops), but are refusing to own up to it?  Or recognize it?

Episcopal bishops said they still have a "passionate desire" to stay in the communion. But the Anglican spiritual leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, issued a brief statement Wednesday calling their decision "discouraging." The small yet affluent Episcopal Church, with 2.3 million members, covers a significant chunk of the Anglican Communion's budget.

Basic reasoning here - if you don't agree with the rules, do you really belong in that group?  If you do not believe with the majority's belief, are you, by definition, part of that group?

And if the rest of the world's Anglican church decides against the American branch, who would be in the right? 

Posted by Skip at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Same-sex edict worries Bay Area Episcopalians 

The Anglican Communion's directive this week that its Episcopal branch in the United States ban the blessing of same-sex unions is a direct rebuke to the Bay Area, where the Diocese of California has blessed the practice for nearly three decades.

Laxity, meet authority.  Freedom of or for anything - meet beliefs.   Once again, I find myself commenting on another denomination within the Protestant church, thus for full disclosure, my beliefs are those of a conservative evangelical.

Unlike many Baptist churches, there is the agreement to be in a group that agrees to go by certain beliefs.  Not following those beliefs almost means a self-selection out of that group.  If one goes against certain standards, the people determining the standards have the choice to not include those that do not hew to those standards.

Rather simple, eh?

The Episcopal Church risks being severed from the 77 million-member Anglican Communion, the largest, most unified Protestant denomination in the world. The question roiling the global body is whether it can be multicultural enough to include literal believers in Nigeria as well as liberals in the Bay Area.

Only in San Fran!  Here, the author of the article, Matthai Chakko Kuruvila, is really showing a bias here.  It is not a question of being "multicultural enough"; rather, it is an adherence to a given, known set of standards.  That standard is not popular culture, passing fads, or what someone thinks might be right.  It is, however, something that does last beyond this decade's indulgences - the Bible.

In the Bay Area diocese, which is believed to have performed more same-sex unions than any other in the country, many Episcopalians say unity must not come at any cost.

Continue reading ""San Fran values" - church time!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This story in USA Today is titled:

Episcopal church's new dawn

I don't think that the headline author read the article all that closely. Rather optimistic in my view, especially when one thinks about its contents. 

Now, this is not an article bashing the Episcopal Church.  Rather, as an Evangelical, I just happen to see a few theological quotes from the Presiding Bishop of the American branch of the Anglican Church, and just shook my head.  What came to mind, as it does for a number the other "mainline" Protestant churches, was the image of multiple ship captains standing confidently at the wheel proclaiming 'full speed ahead - all is well".

And their bows, at flank speed, are all plowing holes into the sea at negative angles.

The problem is, as churches forsake or compromise their theology in attempts to be more like the non-church world, the differences disappear between them.  What's left?  Not much more than a social club (with more uncomfortable seats) would be my observation.  The heart and soul (pun intended) of a church IS it's theology - it's set of core beliefs and practices.  It is these aspects of a church that entice people to come, to worship, and to believe (although, not unlike a social club, liking the other folks does help, I must admit).  Ditching or modifying, or worse, leaving those core beliefs behind in "a way forward" leaves.....an emptiness in people searching to believe.

Anyways, I digress....back to the article. 

For instance, when asked about the decline in membership (one third gone since 1960 when many churches are growing):

Or optimism. To hear her talk, the future of her denomination is brighter every day, with many "healthy, vital churches."

Yup, sure, anything you say.  Simply spin, this answer.  A severe schism underway, declining membership and withheld revenues, and things are "brighter"?  Er, see comment on "bows, plowing" above. 

How about when asked about the schism that this American branch of the Anglican Church is having with the other churches (e.g., South Africa, Nigeria) because of its liberal stances?

Condemnations from Global South primates?

Jefferts Schori steers the discussion to the positive, focusing on the mission she shares with many of the African primates to address the terrible plagues of war, poverty, disease and hunger.

"We can work on these together. Human need is so overwhelming that it seems incredibly sinful to spend time" on church politics.

Oh boy.... 

Continue reading "Dawn, or Sunset" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I have written a number of times about Muslims demanding special rights (in my humble opinion, here and here for one example).  In these examples, Muslims are claiming exemption from rules or laws that would have landed me, a Christian, in hot water right off the bat.

For example, it would be unlawful for me to not rent a room / apartment / house to an unmarried couple.  It would be unlawful for me to discriminate in the same to a Muslim.  Yet, I could make the case that first scenario would be against my religious beliefs as I believe that that would be sinful.  And in the second, I'd rather rent to another Christian.

In our land, the rule of law says that my religious views, while important, cannot be foremost.  The Muslims at the airport are, indeed, attempting to make that case that they get to discriminate on the basis of their religion.

My belief is that the taxi cab drivers should find another line of work.

Now, this (H/T: LGF):

As the Ohio State Buckeyes pummeled the Northwestern Wildcats on Ryan Field last November, senior Amir Siddiqui and his friends slipped below the bleachers, removed their shoes and knelt on pieces of poster board to pray.

As the sea of purple cheered and jeered above, Siddiqui tuned out the world around him to perform salaat, the Islamic ritual prayer that faithful Muslims recite five times daily.

Siddiqui will do the same in Welsh-Ryan Arena next week when the Buckeyes basketball team goes up against the Wildcats. But rather than pray amid raucous crowds, some Muslim students are pressing Northwestern’s athletic department to set aside a secluded space for the ritual, or grant them permission to come and go from the arena before the buzzer.

“If we attend the game in its entirety, we would miss one of our five daily prayers,” said Siddiqui, president of the Muslim cultural Student Association. “I can leave the game early, come later, or pray somewhere in the stadium on dirty floors with lots of noise and lots of people around, which isn’t a huge problem. But we’d love to have a small area.”

(whole story can be found at Chicago Tribune (registration required) 

I'm not anti-Muslim....but I am pro "everyone treated the same".  I see this, I see the story of the Dearborn Muslims pressing for special rights in gyms, the Italian beach closed off to non-Muslims, the pool in England closed off for certain hours and even the male staff excluded.

In the above story, I see the subtle push once again. I see the PC argument of "you MUST respect my religion" and "you MUST accomodate me".  Yet, the emphasis is never "this is voluntary".  

If prayer time is that important, one would normally think to plan their day around it.  But if Siddiqui wants to pray during a conflicting activity, that is his decision - but is it fair to impose the activities that this belief requires on others? Is asking for privileges that a Christian, a Hindu, Bahai, Jew, agnostic, or atheist would not be granted right?  Would granting them denote discrimination to others by omission? Would the University be willing to create "secluded" areas for each and every religion?  Could everyone move around, to come and go?

I have no problem if Muslims wish to pray.  But just as the rule of law regulates how I express my beliefs, all should be subject to the same social mores.  

To me, this is one of the problems in this country - separateness instead of a melting pot.  When everyone insists on identity politics and recognition, we lose that which makes us one.

Posted by Skip at 8:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sir,
. 
Every freedom loving American should be concerned about Rep. Keith Ellison's recent 'ceremonial' Qur'an swearing-in session.
.
Traditionally, the act of being sworn-in on the Bible has effectively been representative of holding one's oath (to uphold the US Constitution) accountable to the Giver of the liberties and values enshrined in the Constitution and has also essentially served as an affirmation of one's agreement with those values as the final authority over one's actions while in office. In choosing to be sworn-in on the Qur'an, Rep Ellison has effectively jettisoned the values of the US Constitution since the Qur'an demands loyalty to Islamic law as the supreme law. The values espoused by the Qur'an do not speak to American society's mores - to America's age-old acknowledgment of every individual's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Quite the contrary - they stand in alarming contradistinction to them!  As if that were not enough to generate concern, has America forgotten that almost 6 years ago, it was Qur'an taught and inspired people who nearly brought this country to its knees on Sept the 11th and that to this day, Qur'an instructed fundamentalists view America as the "great satan" and seek to destroy this country and the values that it upholds? 
. 
Concerned Americans wisely recognize that the degradation of society's freedom loving mores does not happen overnight - but over gradual, inconspicuous and seemingly minor acts that, as a composite over time, dramatically alter the face of society and day-to-day lives of individuals for the worst.  America would do well to vigorously defend its values at the outset before the "die is cast".
.

A friend of the 'Grok
Prospective American citizen

Posted by Doug at 7:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Back to the Minneapolis airport, once again.  First it was the taxi drivers, then the "flying imams", and now this story another push by Muslims for special treatment:

Twin Cities airport balks at offering Somalis own prayer room

MINNEAPOLIS - Somali refugees who want a place to pray at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport might have to share space with people of other religions, airport officials said Tuesday.

As a frequent flyer, I know that most airports of "size" have a quiet place to go, calm oneself, and meditate.  While many may look like a Christian chapel, they are generally non-sectarian in outlook; larger airports may often sponsor services for a variety of religions.  But it is just one room that is set aside.

Besides, we all learned to share in kindergarten, right? 

Airport Director Steve Wareham told Somalis gathered for a meeting that if the airport provides a special area for Muslims to use, it potentially would have to accommodate other faiths the same way.

That's right!  What is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Problem is, most times the goose is not laying golden eggs so that the goose and gander can check in separately.   

"Our request would be you try the quiet seating area," he said.

Reasonable request.  Start small, start with the easy suggestions first.

Continue reading "Back to separate and equal - or is it unequal?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad!

Posted by Doug at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The next two posts are about clerics, Christian ones, in Britain making opposite pronouncements concerning the struggle between the Christian outlook and standing up to or appeasing the Muslim one.

Well, reading this article frames the argument a tad - it basically confirms that Britain is seemingly a post-Christian nation:

Religion Does More Harm Than Good

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.

The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.

Some other sobering stats after the jump 

Continue reading "Maybe this will set the stage for the next two posts" »

Posted by Skip at 9:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A leading Church of England bishop has launched an outspoken attack on "thoughtless bureaucracy and political correctness" for helping to "write Christ out of Christmas".

.

The Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, accuses a small but powerful group of officials of marginalising religious celebrations out of an oversensitivity to multiculturalism.
 

Writing in The Mail on Sunday, Bishop Nazir-Ali, who was born to Christian parents in Pakistan but comes from a Muslim family background, also appears to call for Christians to maintain their traditions to combat the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism.

"Britain is again faced with the challenge of a totalitarian ideology that...claims to be rooted in a religious tradition," he writes.

"If Britain is to defend its values successfully, it must rediscover the Christian faith in which these values are ultimately rooted."

Posted by Doug at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is just a little overboard, don't you think?

A man used flammable liquid to light himself on fire, apparently to protest a San Joaquin Valley school district's decision to change the names of winter and spring breaks to Christmas and Easter vacation.

The man, who was not immediately identified, on Friday also set fire to a Christmas tree, an American flag and a revolutionary flag replica, said Fire Captain Garth Milam.

[snip]

Seeing the deputy, the man poured the liquid over his head. He quickly burst into flames when the fumes from the gas met the flames from the tree.

[snip]

The man suffered first degree burns on his shoulders and arms, Milam said.

Kern County Sheriff's Deputy John Leyendecker said the man had a sign that read: "(expletive) the religious establishment and KHSD."

On Thursday, the Kern High School Board of Trustees voted to use the names Christmas and Easter instead of winter and spring breaks.

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

(H/T: Karen)

Try this link; it is just a few minutes. I'm not the big one on music - more Doug's area than mine - he just loves his Grok N'Roll!  I don't even like country music for the most part (embellishment - it isn't that I dislike it as I do like some, but I'm just not a big fan).  This, however,  I liked - even though it does have that country twang; I liked the harmonies.

I liked the message more.

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

REMEMBERING 9/11

NOW that the President has called us to prayer...

NOW that Congress has called us to prayer...

NOW that our Governor has called us to prayer...

NOW that the city Mayor has called us to prayer...

NOW that the liberal media and most other branches

  of our American society have called us to prayer...

NOW that our churches are assembling in special

  prayer...

Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court,

I have only one question...

Would it be O.K. to pray in our schools...?

Posted by Doug at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Much has been written here in NH, due to the ascendancy of Gene Robinson to bishop of the NH Episcopalian church (openly gay, recently admitted to a rehap facility for alcohol abuse). As an Evangelical Baptist, I have glumly watched, sometimes in horror, as these “high” churches (for their liturgical services) have changed their doctrines to suit the times and the norms of the public culture from their original doctrines of how to worship God.

Concerned about their fracturing denomination, about 150 Central Florida Episcopalians packed the sanctuary of St. Richard's Episcopal Church on Saturday.

.

"We take no position on Scripture or theology or morals," said Donna Bott, a leader of a group called Episcopal Voices of Central Florida, which sponsored the meeting. "We are just Episcopalians."

Posted by Doug at 4:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the NRO Online forum, Kathryn Jean Lopez made this observation:

Chuck Schumer on the Senate floor earlier today: “There is a group of people in America of deep faith. I respect that faith. I've been in enough inner city black churches, working-class Catholic parishes, rural Methodist houses of worship, small Jewish synagogues to understand that faith is a gift. The trouble with this group, which I call the theocrats, is they want their faith to dictate what the government does. That, in a word, Mr. President, is un-American. This exactly what the founding fathers put down their plows and took up muskets to fight.”

As usual, the liberal Sr. Senator (D-NY) is wrong.  Isn't it just lovely how he insults people of faith that he first says have a gift, and then turns around and calls them un-American?  And he's wrong as to the founding fathers as well. 

Regardless of what his definitions are, a theocrat (a ruler of a theocracy) can only exist where there is a theocracy which is either (1: a political unit governed by a deity (or by officials thought to be divinely guided) 2: the belief in government by divine guidance - Wikipedia).  In fact, the Founding Fathers all pretty much thanked God for what they were about to do and thanked Him for the strength to do so.  As far as I am concerned, this is another case of another person trying to make political points by redefining words and mangling history.  Yet Senator Schumer prattles along, knowing that no on is going to challenge him on his grasp (or lack thereof) of American history.  After all, who are we to correct him?
 

Continue reading "A case for theology" »

Posted by Skip at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 1:

The Pope has spoken out on the situation (from Reuters again):

July 17, 2006 -- INTROD, Italy - Pope Benedict yesterday condemned Hezbollah's "terrorist acts" and Israel's "reprisals," calling the cross-border violence unjustifiable.

In his first public comments on the crisis, he said the violations at its root cannot be used to sanction bloodshed. He called for a resumption of dialogue.

"The causes of such fierce confrontation are, unfortunately, objective situations of violation of law and justice," the pope said from his holiday retreat in the Aosta Valley.

 In my eyes, this is still only 1/2 right.  Hezbollah (or however one wishes to spell it) started this current instance.  Israel, in the past, has ignored most of the past infractions, but has finally (and rightfully) decided to protect its citizens.

There are a number of commenters out in the 'Sphere that has said the same thing so I will apply it here.  What if it was the case that Italy had entered the Vatican and kidnapped a couple of the Swiss Guards?  What if Italy was lobbing shells or rockets into the Vatican proper?

And if the Vatican had been been under attack for the last 60 years?

Continue reading "The Vatican has it wrong" »

Posted by Skip at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From the LA Times, I just stumbled over this article discussing the meltdown of those Protestant denominations (the "mainline churches"). Much has been written here in NH, due to the ascendancy of Gene Robinson to bishop of the NH Episcopalian church (openly gay, recently admitted to a rehap facility for alcohol abuse). As an Evangelical Baptist, I have glumly watched, sometimes in horror, as these “high” churches (for their liturgical services) have changed their doctrines to suit the times and the norms of the public culture from their original doctrines of how to worship God. This is the last place (the LA Times), that I would have expected to see these liberal churches to come under fire.

The first paragraph is a great summary:

The accelerating fragmentation of the strife-torn Episcopal Church USA, in which several parishes and even a few dioceses are opting out of the church, isn't simply about gay bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions or the election of a woman as presiding bishop. It also is about the meltdown of liberal Christianity.

Continue reading "How can we change our doctrine today?" »

Posted by Skip at 7:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

This was first published (by me) on the John Stark Review blog a little while ago....being reminded of it, I decided that you folks may find it interesting.  In the time that this was first posted, Mr. Newdow has tried again to have "Under God" removed, and was rebuffed by the courts.....

A self-avowed atheist, Michael Newdow achieved notoriety a while ago by bringing suit to ave the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. The Ninth Circuit District Court agreed with him, but was overturned by the US Supreme Court. The Supremes ruled that Mr. Newdow was unable to bring suit due to “lack of standing” - a legal term that says “you have to have a dog in this fight”. Since he did not have custody of his daughter, he could not sue in her name. Sounds like a valid reason to me: one cannot come through the door unless you have the key to the lock.
 

Continue reading "Under God - The Tyranny of the Minority" »

Posted by Skip at 7:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)