Religion

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?
 

Read more

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?

Read more

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.

Read more

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.
 

Read more