I love Pope Francis. Nuff said.
Living with shame is like walking barefoot on glass. If anyone knows about public shaming, it’s Monica Lewinsky.
I chose the video of a TED talk that Ms Lewinsky gave for this post because she does not believe the things I do, at least in certain areas. I want to make the point that neither this nor her previous behavior matters in what I’m about to say. You can find the video at the end of this post.
The current practice of using personal attacks and character assassination to advance political agendas is one of the great evils of our time. It slashes people’s spirits like emotional shrapnel. If it doesn’t absolutely destroy them, it hurts them so profoundly, alienates them so deeply, that most of them will never be the same again.
This is trauma on a deep, social/psychological level.
People engage in these merciless attacks on others in comboxes, on their own blogs or Facebook and twitter accounts, from in front of television cameras, and in personal conversations. They aren’t merely disagreeing with others, they are actively trying to destroy them with hazing, mockery, slander and character assassination.
There is a profound moral disconnect at work in all this. Invariably those who engage in character assassination to advance their views make all sorts of aggressive and self-righteous statements about themselves and their cause. It does not matter if they are pro life or pro abortion; in favor of gay marriage or against it; pushing for euthanasia or working to stop it. At some point they have fallen into the clutches of the devil.
You read that correctly. A person can be fighting for the sanctity of human life, working mightily to stop abortion and euthanasia, praying and fighting to defend the family; they can do all these things, and be working for the devil.
How can this happen?
It begins when we lay aside the armor of God — which St Paul tells us is peace, faith, truth, righteousness, salvation and reliance on the Holy Spirit — and take up the weapons of satan, which are self-righteousness, hatred, slander, mockery, lies, destruction and a refusal to forgive.
St Paul said that the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, forebearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. He also said that the acts of the flesh are debauchery, orgies, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions, envy.
Now I ask you, which of these lists best describes the attitudes and behaviors of those who engage in attacking others with slander, mockery, hazing and character assassination? Christians who try to destroy others with words may not be attending orgies, but how much love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control do we see in them and in their behavior?
Who are they serving when they try to destroy people with their vicious words and ugly photos? If we do not see the Spirit of God in their actions, but we see instead the spirit of the flesh, then who is their master? Who is their lord?
I know that Christian-bashing blogs and books routinely engage in character assassination as a tactic and a lifestyle. I also know that many in these groups are hardened in this sin and refuse to consider the destructive evil of their actions.
But my focus in this Lenten season is Christians who have fallen into this pit alongside the people they claim they are trying to convert. I think these are Christians who have fallen away from Christ without realizing it. I think they are Christians who are trying so hard to do His will that they have exhausted themselves in the effort.
They have been overcome by the world unawares. They’ve forgotten that the first part of doing His will is trusting Him. These are people who need to retreat from the fight and seek Him with all their hearts. They have lost the battle in this spiritual warfare. If they continue, they may lose the war, as well.
St Paul counseled First Century Christians to let go of the legalisms that crippled them in their walk with Christ. He told them to forget about who was circumcised and who was not. He said that the only thing that matters is faith expressing itself through love. Elsewhere, he said that only faith, love and hope abide. In other words, we take three things with us when we leave this life: Our faith, hope and love.
This is the treasure that Jesus spoke of, that He told us to lay up for ourselves in heaven.
How much faith, hope and love are in character assassination, slander, and the social murder of another person? Who will we convert to Christ by this ugliness and hate? Why would anyone want our Jesus or believe that He is Love when we, His followers, do these unGodly things in His name?
It is not only possible, it is more effective in the long run, to avoid attacking people personally and confine yourself to a strong advocacy for what you believe. A firm and unyielding commitment to those beliefs will win out in time, even if it gets knocked down repeatedly at the beginning. Stand for life. Do not slander those who support abortion or euthanasia or egg harvesting or whatever.
Speak the truth of Christ crucified. Share the hope of forgiveness and eternal life. Do it especially with those who spurn Him and who will call you names for speaking of Him.
Never back away or back down when the question is Jesus Christ. Do not become silent for fear of being slandered and slimed yourself.
When others engage in character assassination, speak out against the practice. You may make a target of yourself by doing this. That is often what happens when people take a stand on the Gospels. But taking a stand for Jesus and His teachings is our universal vocation as Christians.
Do not attack other people on a personal level. Put your ideas forward with the absolute knowledge that He can persuade where you can’t. What I’m saying is don’t rely on yourself. Just do what He tells you and trust Him. Trust Jesus.
Do not sit silent when people you are with engage in these sins. Do not feed this behavior by watching it on tv or clicking on it on the internet. Do not use the anonymity of the combox to unhinge youself from your conscience. None of us is anonymous to God.
It is easy to become a slave to the approval, ratings, readership, votes or whatever that demagoguery, slander and personal attacks can bring. I would be the last to deny that those of little conscience and no fidelity to Christ make money, gain promotions, and acquire power by doing these things.
After all, what did satan offer Jesus when he tempted Him? He offered power, money, prestige.
You can get elected slandering people. You can get ratings and big careers and catapult yourself into bestsellerdom. What you cannot do is destroy other people — deliberately and maliciously inflict harm on them that pushes them to the edge of despair and scars them for the rest of their lives — and stand righteous before the living God.
The more you do this, the more it destroys you. That is what it means to deliberately and for your own pleasure and dark gratification to destroy another person with your words, your Photoshopped photos, your hazing, mockery and shunning. That is what it means to bring another person down like a lion bringing down a gazelle.
That is character assassination, and it destroys those who engage in it from the soul out.
We have become a nation of people who advocate for things we claim to believe by using character assassination instead of discussion. If someone disagrees with us, we try to destroy them and their standing in the community. We try to degrade them to death.
We do not talk about why we think their ideas are wrong. Instead, we try to vanquish their ideas by destroying their worth as people.
If you engage in character assassination, if you sit still and be quiet while others do it in front of you, if you enjoy watching while it is done to someone else, you are in sin. You are erecting a fence between yourself and your own salvation. You are putting a barrier between you and the Holy Spirit, between you and Jesus.
Slander and character assassination are murder with words. The damage they do to the people who suffer them is real and lifelong.
Do not inflict blood guilt on your own soul for the paltry pleasure of joining in with the crowd in the latest hate-off. Follow Christ. Say no to this sinful practice. It, like its author, is from the pit.
I recently bought Amazon’s new Amazon Fire TV.
I’m an Amazon Prime user, and they sent me an offer to buy it for a lower than listed price. You know how it goes. I clicked and made off with it.
Part of the sell line on the Amazon Fire TV is how easy it is to hook up. However, for those of us who are using Lazarus tvs from early in the century, that’s not exactly true.
We have a newish big-screen tv in our master bedroom. This is my husband’s tv. He uses it with Roku.
Me? I tend to watch tv late at night after he’s asleep. I also tend to stay away from the bedroom except when I’m ready to go to sleep. That means I watch the ancient big screen tv in the living room; the one that we bought way back in 2001
We paid a lotta dough for that thing. But it has been a good investment simply because it wears like iron. Fourteen years into its life, it’s still plugging along without a problem.
I like to buy techie stuff, but I also have a significant cheap streak. I almost can’t make myself replace a perfectly good whatever when it’s working. Even when time and technology pass it by, I hesitate to give it the old heave-ho.
I handle this with computers by passing them along to my kids. It’s always amazed me how short the life span is for a computer when one of my kids gets his hands on it. The same laptop that will grind on for years for me, falls apart — usually literally — under the full torque gaming and being lugged absolutely everywhere that is life for one of my kid’s computers.
But that is another post.
This post is about my brand new Amazon TV and my lazarus television. The problem is that Lazarus doesn’t have HDMI ports. And the Amazon Fire TV requires HDMI ports.
If you waste your time calling “experts” at Best Buy and your cable company and such, they will tell you in a condescending tone that reminds you quite clearly that you are an old woman and old women don’t know nothin’, that your old groaner of a tv is dead to today’s technology.
You can not use your new fangled Roku/Apple TV/Amazon Fire TV with a dead as a rock old-fangled tv from the past they say while doing everything but rolling their eyes.
You. Can. Not. Do. It.
Fortunately for me, I’ve raised male children and am not intimidated in the least by the pretentions of sneering young men at techie places. I know they’re mostly full of self-congratulation and testosterone.
Long story short, here’s how you rig up your old school big screen to work with today’s channel surfer.
Then, when your order comes in, plug it in. The RCA cables are color-coded, so it’s hard to go wrong. If you find the process intimidating, get a young y chromosome geeky person to do it for you. Most neighborhoods have several of them and, in my experience, they work for praise.
Be sure to turn off Dolby stereo on your Roku/Apple TV/Amazon TV.
You’re good to go.
I just saved you the cost of a new tv.
Every public figure has groupies of one sort or another.
Pope Francis looks more startled than I’ve ever seen him when he’s surrounded by his groupies.
Foxes have dens, birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay His head. Jesus Christ
Sprinklergate, the story that the Cathedral of St Mary in San Francisco was using its sprinkler system to clear the cathedral steps of homeless people, is a symptom of a big-time problem.
That problem is that American cities are haunted by over a half million ghosts. These ghosts sleep on park benches, sidewalks and in shelters. They panhandle and go through dumpsters, searching for clothing, food, money, drugs.
These are not silent ghosts. They accost us as we walk to work, they wave signs begging for cash as we drive down the road. They take over the public libraries and, as St Mary’s has discovered, can block entrances to buildings with their vacant-eyed vigils.
The ghosts haunting American cities are the homeless. They are not in any way homogenous. Some of them are temporary down and outs. Others are mentally ill. Many are drug addicts and alcoholics. Others are panhandlers posing as homeless while they ply their trade.
Homelessness is the opposite of the American dream. It is the opposite of what, until a few decades ago, was the American self-image. I am old enough to remember a time when America did not have homeless people lying on its park benches, snoring in its libraries and blocking the entrances to its churches.
I was born in that era between the Great Depression with its hobos and today with our ubiquitous and ignored homeless.
America’s basic response to homelessness among so many of its citizens, including many children, has been to ignore them. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development issues a glossy report on the homeless every year. This report differentiates between types of homelessness. There are the homeless who stay with relatives, and are not, to my way of thinking, truly homeless at all.
Then there are those who sleep in shelters or whatnot. Finally, we get to the homeless that inspire us to such conflicting feelings of pity, indifference and annoyance, those who do not have shelter at all.
In the meantime, while we ignore the homeless, and refuse to even take a look at the government policies and social changes that made them homeless, we shift the burden for dealing with them onto whoever the homeless themselves chose to impose themselves upon.
Businesses, public buildings of all sorts, churches and other facilities can easily find themselves unable to perform their intended functions because of the homeless sleeping on the sidewalks at their entrance or sitting inside their buildings. Mothers won’t bring the kiddos to the library if the homeless take it over. Guests won’t check into hotels whose entrances are blocked or whose lobbies are filled with homeless people. Churches can’t hold services if the worshippers stay away rather than step over the homeless, sitting on the steps.
We ignore the homeless because we feel helpless to do anything decisive for them. We ignore them because we don’t truly understand what policies and practices of political and social corruption made them homeless in the first place. We ignore the homeless because they overwhelm us and baffle us and scare us.
Worse, we ignore them because if we acknowledged that many of our political and social ideas on both sides of the political spectrum have created this problem and allowed it to grow, it would require us to re-evaluate many of our simplistic viewpoints. We ignore the homeless because not ignoring the homeless would require us to change.
So, we dump them.
We dump them on the businesses and operators of public buildings. We dump the problem on the administrators of these businesses, public buildings and churches. Then, when they take any action to dislodge the homeless from camping out on their property and blocking access and use by those for whom it was intended, we excoriate these administrators for their heartlessness.
This public venting of moral outrage has nothing to do with compassion. It is just us, being our hypocritical selves about a problem we will not do anything to solve. We will not take a homeless person home and house them in our spare bedroom. We will not let them sleep on our porch. We will not change our politics to fit the realities of real life.
We will ignore them and what brung them.
They are not people to us. They are ghosts of what once was people like us. Somebody birthed them, taught them to write those signs they hoist and how to read the hours of operation on the signs in front of public buildings.
They were once part of the larger society.
But now they are ghosts.
And we ignore them.
And we denounce those on whom we dump them for being overwhelmed by them.
And we will not change.
I’ve been sick as the proverbial dawg these past few days. I managed to put together a couple of posts, but then I fell back into bed and pulled the blankets over my head.
I’m not feeling all that great today, either, but I have roused myself from my coughing and hacking and moaning and complaining long enough to realize that there’s another oddball “scandal” about the Catholic Church leap-frogging around the internet.
From what I gather, a cathedral in San Francisco (of all places) attempted to use a sprinkler system to encourage homeless people to vacate the steps leading into their building. Or some such.
Needless to say, the story has fueled the tanks of Catholic bashers. It’s also brought out quite a few disappointed and sad comments from faithful Catholics, as well. The story seems to be all about whether or not the Catholic Church and the Archbishop of San Francisco should be keel-hauled and sentenced to extinction over Sprinklergate.
I haven’t read too much about a couple of issues that I think are somewhat pertinent.
First, the Archbishop of San Francisco is engaged in a battle over the future of the Catholicism in that great city, i.e., whether or not the Church will be run by its own teachings or by secular authorities and the mob actions of “activists” who don’t agree with those teachings. This particular argument is about homosexuals.
Second, digging up dirt on someone who opposes them is a standard tactic of the gay rights movement. Demands for civil and human rights for gay people are just. Homosexuals have been subjected to unjust discrimination and violence for a long time.
But that does not justify advancing this cause by denying the human rights of other people. Far too often, the gay rights movement has advanced its cause by the ignoble method of organized and manufactured character assassination of those who oppose it.
Using character assassination as a method of political bullying is an effective tactic. It harms, sometimes destroys, the ability of the person who is attacked to put their ideas forward in a credible manner. It also serves as a warning to anyone who might be inclined to join them that they, too, will be destroyed. In this case, it sends a signal to other bishops to duck and cover or be personally attacked as well.
I’m not going to take a position on Sprinklergate in this post, but I am going to raise a simple question: Is the whole scandal and the sudden media focus on this rather obscure action by the cathedral an example of attacking the Archbishop because he’s standing for Catholic teaching?
I’m not saying that turning the sprinkler system on homeless people to get them to move off the church steps is a good thing. What I’m saying is that the reason it has been so widely reported may very well be politically motivated.
Archbishop Cordileone has been attacked, picketed and and smeared ever since he took office in San Francisco. These attacks are because he has taught actual Catholic teaching as regards gay marriage. This latest series of attacks are precisely and directly because he has been doing his best to create a Catholic Church in San Francisco (again, of all places) that is actually Catholic.
In a back-handed way, Sprinklergate is a compliment to Archbishop Cordileone. If this is the best his opponents could do, then he must be an honest man.
There are other issues about Sprinklergate which need to be discussed. But that really is the topic for another post.
My point here, dear Catholics, is don’t be so quick to join in with public lynchings of our clergy when those public lynchings are so obviously linked to actions by that clergy to defend the teachings of the Church in a Catholic-bashing world.
Now, I’m going back to coughing and hacking, moaning and complaining. As soon as I feel up to it, I’ll write another post talking about other overlooked issues in Sprinklergate.
The city of Washington, DC has passed two laws that directly attack religious freedom.
The first is the ironically titled Human Rights Amendment of 2014. According to Catholic News Agency,
… the Human Rights Amendment of 2014, forces religious schools to recognize persons and groups who might conflict with their stated mission and allow them use of their facilities and benefits. For example, a Catholic school would be forced to officially recognize an openly-gay student group and could not deny them use of its facilities.
The second is the equally mis-titled Reproductive Health Non-Discrmination Act of 2014. Again, according to Catholic News Agency,
… the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2014, prohibits all employers from discriminating against employees over their “reproductive health decision making.” Thus, a Catholic or pro-life group could not make employment decisions based on their employees’ decision to act contrary to the mission – such as procuring an abortion, for example.
Both of these two laws are direct attacks on both religious liberty and First Amendment freedoms. That is why I say that their titles are ironic. They do not guarantee human rights and freedom from discrimination. These laws themselves are attacks on the basic human right of religious liberty and freedom from discrimination of religious believers.
To read a fact sheet on the two laws, go here.
There are two resolutions in the United States Senate which would overturn these laws. Congress has 30 days to review the bills, which are slated to become law on April 17. As noted in the Catholic News Agency article,
The Archdiocese of Washington supports these two resolutions, which, they say, “subjugate the Church’s moral teaching to the moral views of the government” and “result in discrimination against religious believers.”
The Knights of Columbus, the United States bishops’ conference, the Catholic University of America, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention have joined the Archdiocese of Washington in the call to pass the resolutions.
I do not know if Georgetown University has joined the opposition to these laws. If they have not, I would like to know why.
Congress clearly has the power to overturn these laws. The question, as always with Congress, is will they use their power for the purpose it was given to them, or will they set this up as another partisan fight in order to align voters for the ’16 elections?
Congress needs to hear from their constituents as to why they are not doing any of the things that got them elected in the first place.
The Archdiocese of Washington issued the followed press release concerning the resolutions in Congress on March 18:
U.S. Senate Must Stand for Religious Freedom in Nation’s Capital
March 18, 2015
WASHINGTON – Today the Archdiocese of Washington, along with a large and growing coalition of religious institutions, faith-based organizations, and pro-life advocacy organizations within the District of Columbia, welcomes the introduction of two resolutions disapproving the unprecedented attack on religious freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of association in the nation’s capital through the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act (RHNDA) and the Human Rights Amendment Act (HRAA).
HRAA, by removing conscience protections in the law, would prevent religious educational institutions from operating according to the tenets of their own faith with regard to human sexuality, and RHNDA would force religious institutions and other organizations to hire or retain employees who publicly act in defiance of the mission of their employer. Both laws subjugate the Church’s moral teaching to the moral views of the government, violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and result in discrimination against religious believers.
The Archdiocese of Washington has long respected home rule for the District of Columbia and, therefore, advocated for our religious rights with the D.C. Council throughout the legislative process. Despite this, the Council passed these acts. The archdiocese’s appeal to Congress to restore these constitutional rights is the only legislative recourse that remains. The Council of the District of Columbia transmitted the new measures to Congress on March 6, initiating a thirty-day congressional review period.
The archdiocese is grateful for the resolutions introduced today in the U.S. Senate and is hopeful for swift action in both chambers of Congress within the remaining days of the congressional review period.
This year is the 100th anniversary of what is often called “The Forgotten Genocide,” which is the Armenian Genocide.
This slaughter of Christians by the Ottoman Turks occurred during World War I. Together, the formed the kick-off for the bloodbath that we remember as the 20th Century.
I’m going to write about the Armenian Genocide after Lent. The Vatican Archives are a source of information about this forgotten genocide of Christians.
Vatican City, Mar 20, 2015 / 11:14 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Ahead of Pope Francis’ Mass commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, newly released historic documents confirm the Holy See’s broad commitment to helping the Armenian people at a time when few others would.
The Italian Jesuit-run magazine La Civiltà Cattolica stressed that newly published documents “prove how the Holy See, always informed about events, had not remained passive, but was strongly committed to face the issue” of the Armenian Genocide. “Benedict XV was the only ruler or religious leader to voice out a protest against the ‘massive crime’.”
The Armenian Genocide is considered to have begun April 24, 1915 with a massacre of Armenians in Istanbul. Over the next eight years, 1.5 million Armenians would be killed and millions more displaced.
More than 100 people were murdered by the bombing of a Shiite Mosque in Yemen.
This highlights something that Americans in general have been ignoring. Much of the conflict in the Middle East comes from warring factions within Islam itself.
This bombing marks the first attack by ISIS within Yemen.
From USA Today:
Suicide bombers killed more than 130 worshipers in two Shiite mosques in Yemen’s capital Friday, one of the deadliest attacks in the war-torn nation’s history.
The bombings could trigger new sectarian violence in the mostly Sunni nation under assault from Shiite rebels known as the Houthis.
Al-Masirah TV, a network owned by the Houthi rebels, said 137 were killed and 345 were injured when four suicide bombers attacked the Badr and Al Hashoosh mosques in Sanaa, the Associated Press reported. A fifth suicide attack at another mosque was foiled in the northern city of Saada, the network said.
The two mosques were attacked during Friday midday prayers, the busiest time of the week. While they are both controlled by the rebels, Sunni worshippers also attend services there.
A group claiming to represent the Yemeni branch of the Islamic State — composed of Sunni extremists — claimed responsibility for the attack, describing it as a “blessed operation” against the “dens of the Shiites” in an online statement, the Associated Press reported.
The reason that’s fun?
Because I like to buy certain things: Shoes, purses and techie stuff.
I actually enjoy trying out software and reading about it and figuring out what will work the best for what I want to do.
So, it’s been a kick, tossing out Microsoft Office and Filemaker Pro and loading up on the likes of Scrivener, a book writing software created by a book writer for book writers.
When I read on the Scrivener blog that the much-delayed, highly-desired Scrivener for iPad might actually be available for purchase by late summer or early fall, it was interesting enough for me to bring it up at dinner with my husband.
Hubby responded by asking What’s Scrivener?
I was stumped for a moment. How do you describe gravity? It just is, and you can not function or live long and prosper without it.
Scrivener, if you’re a writer, is both your left and right hands. It won’t write your books for you, but it will turn your computer into a book writing machine of the first order.
I’d as soon go for a walk in the snow without my shoes and socks as I would to sit down to write my book without Scrivener. I could do both, but Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
The on line tutorials, which can be found both on the Scrivener website and on YouTube, will get you up and running and teach you how to do anything you want to do with the software. The blog forum is friendly and helpful and the technical support from Scrivener staff is quick, personal and effective.
Scrivener can be had for the paltry sum of $45.
As for Scrivener on the uber portable iPad?
My former colleague, Representative Todd Russ, recently passed a piece of legislation, HB 1125 that would move issuance of Oklahoma marriage licenses from court clerks to clergy or judges.
Under Oklahoma law as it presently stands, court clerks, who are elected officials, issue marriage licenses.
I think that the bill is a response to lawsuits against court clerks around the country who have not issued marriage licenses for gay marriage due to their religious belief. It appears to be an attempt to remove that pressure from court clerks. According to both the author and representatives who opposed the bill, court clerks have not objected to the legislation.
During floor debate, Democratic Leader Scott Inman raised the question of whether or not the bill would, as an unintended consequence, open the door for “marriage” of any type, including group marriage, polygamy, marriage between humans and animals, etc. Rep Russ answered that HB 1125 does not change regulations as to what constitutes legal marriage.
I think that Representative Russ made an attempt to deal with a problem. I don’t think that this piece of legislation does what he hopes. It has huge holes in it. It also transfers the potential for court challenges and judicial pressure from court clerks to the clergy.
There is no definition of clergy in the bill. This piece of legislation, by creating a whole new legal responsibility for clergy, needs a definition for what constitutes clergy that is specific to the legislation.
As it stands now, the only requirement in the law is that the clergy be “ordained.” That leaves the definition of what constitutes clergy for the purposes of performing this government function entirely in the hands of the religious body of which they are a part.
Since “ordained” is not defined in the bill either, any person could, for the purposes of this law, “ordain” themselves. I am aware that there are definitions in other places in the statutes. But since this creates a new kind of clergy that is part government functionary and part religious leader, a new definition is called for.
Another serious problem with the legislation is that it does not define what relationship the clergy would hold vis a vis the government. Are they now government officials, rather than clergy? That is a legitimate question, since they are now charged with enforcing state law concerning marriage so far as it pertains to the issuance of marriage licenses.
America has kept the issuance of marriage licenses and the definition of marriage as a legal construct entirely under the auspices of the government for over 200 years. The idea of transferring this to clergy is a radical change with many unintended consequences.
One unintended consequence would be the massive impact that this change would have on arguments concerning religious freedom. I believe strongly that clergy should not be government officials by virtue of their ordination. If we make them that, we also make them subject to the same oversight and control as any other government functionary.
Statutes that make all ordained clergy function as government opens clergy and faith to government regulation. It transfer the court challenges and pressure being brought against court clerks to clergy. It pierces the protected legal status that clergy holds now.
This legislation, which I think is a good-faith attempt to deal with a serious problem, will, in a few years, create other problems concerning attempts to limit religious freedom that will be exceedingly grave. It has the potential to create a religious freedom train wreck.
HB 1125 has been the object of quite a bit of purple prose, both in the mainstream press and in the blogosphere. This includes claims that Oklahoma has done away with marriage licenses, or that the bill would limit marriage to people of faith.
These claims are not accurate. The bill changes how marriage licenses are issued. It does not do away with them. Any one who wants to get legally married in Oklahoma today would be able to get legally married under this bill if it becomes law.
I’m not sure how to handle the problems we are now facing as a result of the nihilism that is being applied to family law in this country. If I was still a legislator, I would have voted against this particular bill for the reasons I give above.
My greatest concern about the bill is that it would change the legal status of clergy and that would create the means for successfully attacking religious freedom in the future. It does not matter if the bill labels clergy government functionaries or not. If this bill becomes law, that is the function they will be performing.
I have no doubt that future civil challenges would use this law to seek to define clergy as government functionaries through the courts. This law creates a means by which clergy can be subjected to government regulation as civil authorities.
In today’s political climate, that would be a disaster for religious freedom in this country. Groups have been attempting to control what clergy preaches for decades. This law hands them the means to do that. It would also open the doorway for legitimate court challenges requiring clergy to perform gay marriages (and other inventive forms of “marriage”) even if it violates the teachings of their faith.
You can read the version of the bill that passed the House here.
I went all winter and never got a cold. Now that the weather’s turning warm, it catches up with me.
I’m taking a sick day today. I’m going to sleep, watch old movies on tv and get well.
See you in a few.
The boys and girls in DC are doing their doo-dah, once again.
It seems that Congress has labored and almost brought forth a bill. That in itself is newsworthy. Congress doesn’t make laws these days. It makes slander against anyone in the opposing political party that it can find to attack. By opposing party, I mean, of course, both of the political parties. Each political party is the opposing party to somebody.
It seemed for a moment in political time that this great American law-making body was actually going to make a law. They found something they could agree on enough to get enough of themselves to stop denouncing one another long enough to … ummm … actually do something that was part of the job they were elected to do.
Congress was poised on the tip of an actual vote on an actual bill. Americans everywhere held their breath. Would this Congress, long thought barren, bring forth a law?
Not, mind you, that it was much of a law. This particular bill would set up a fund for victims of sex trafficking. The monies to support this fund would come from fines that are paid by those who are convicted of sex trafficking. The money in the fund would be disbursed through grants to local law enforcement and non profits.
In other words, the law would not “protect” sex trafficking victims, as one headline I read stated. In fact, it would not do anything for sex trafficking victims in a direct fashion. But it would provide jobs for folks in the shiny new anti-sex trafficking industry, and some of them night help sex trafficking victims. Of course, the recipients of the grants would be subject to all sorts of politically correct stuff and nonsense, but that’s another post.
This bill is, as they say, a modest proposal. It is an especially modest response considering the horrific crime against humanity that it seeks to address. The real story here is that Congress actually came so close to passing a bill.
But, never fear my fellow Americans. Congress is not going to allow itself to break its losing streak by doing something. It seems that the Dems discovered that (Gasp!!!!) the bill does not allow these monies to be used to pay for abortions for victims of sex trafficking.
Now, we can not have that. Any piece of legislation that concerns “women’s issues,” which is to say any piece of legislation that involves sex, which as we all know, is a man’s delight and a woman’s “issue,” must have a codicil in it somewhere providing “access” for abortion. The reason for this is simple: All any woman needs, ever, is an abortion.
If a woman is kidnapped, raped, beaten, shut in a tiny room and only let out to be repeatedly sold so that she can be raped again and again and again, night after night, day after day. If she is sold across borders and put in “legal” brothels or put on the street and sold hand to hand, if she is told that if she resists, her family in her home country will be killed … if all this is done to her … why then, what she needs is an abortion.
I know something about this problem. I sit on the board of directors of a non-profit that rescues these women, often at great personal risk (people who will do all this, will kill anybody you know.) This organization provides a home environment, therapy, medical aid, education, clothing, and anything else these women need to help them rejoin humanity. Sometimes, the women are pregnant. When they have their babies, it’s a time of great rejoicing in the shelter. The babies are loved and the women are supported.
Odd as it may sound to the abortion-is-all-women-need crowd, when women are given the option of having their babies without paying a horrific price for doing so, when they are honored, respected and loved and their babies are honored, respected and loved, they want the children.
Many of the women we are talking about come from very traditional, conservative societies where children are valued. They value their maternity, when the people around them value it.
But I digress. Let’s return to the ugliness of Congress. It appears that this modest little piece of legislation is in big trouble.
The Democrats (or at least enough of them) are going into a you-can’t-pass-a-bill-about-women-without-promoting-abortion frenzy. They are willing to see the bill die rather than forego using it to fund abortion.
Because, you see, if help for women doesn’t include abortion, why then, it’s no help at all. Women need abortions. More than they need rescue, therapy, medical care (many of these women are horribly injured) freedom from slavery, legal aid, love, support and home, these women — like all women, everywhere — need abortions.
If the Ds can’t make sure that the sex trafficked ladies get their abortions, then they will protect them from having freedom, medical care, therapy, shelter, legal assistance, love, support and home forced on them. After all, without abortion, why would any of these things matter to a woman?
Just when it seemed that the Ds would take home the trophy for dereliction of duty for the week, the Rs jumped in. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that, unless the Ds stop fighting the sex trafficking bill, he will not schedule a vote on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch, who is President Obama’s nominee for Attorney General.
Because, you see, refusing to do its job is how Congress gets its way, and its way is always about partisan fighting.
There is the possibility that public dismay might jog the Stepford Congress out of its partisan thrall. But that won’t happen unless public dismay convinces the people who own Congress that their investment is in danger. It’s more likely that this bill will go the way of the ban on abortions after 20-weeks.
These people campaigned on all sorts of issues, and that got our votes. But they were lying in all those campaign ads. They were sent there to do what they are doing, which is to position their parties to take over the White House in ’16 and allow their money backers to take control of the Imperial Presidency.
The Ds are fighting over money for abortion because that’s big campaign $$ to them. The Rs are blocking everything that Congress might do because, as any politician knows, it’s easier to sell the public on being against things than it is to explain why you’re for something. They don’t want to do anything because there is risk in doing things and that might hurt the chances of taking the White House in ’16.
That’s why this little bill almost came to a vote. It looked like such a win-win-win-win that everybody thought it would be good political fodder for themselves.
But then, abortion reared its ugly head, and Congress stopped itself from breaking its self-imposed losing streak just in the nick of time.
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON — An amazing thing about Congress: Things can always get worse.
After several years of troubles with spending bills that were once routinely bipartisan, the Senate has now found a way to disagree on a bill that would protect victims of sex trafficking. And in the process, that dispute has ensnared President Obama’s largely uncontroversial nominee for attorney general, Loretta E. Lynch.
The latest impasse sweeps up five years of the lowlights of congressional dysfunction: abortion and immigration policy disputes, White House exasperation, garden-variety distrust, and mutual loathing between Democrats and Republicans.
“Life is really simple,” Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and minority leader, said on the Senate floor on Monday, attributing the sentiment to Confucius, “but we insist on making it complicated.”
The bill in question, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, is a modest measure with broad support in Congress that seeks to create a victims’ fund from fines collected from perpetrators of sex trafficking. A similar measure has passed the House and was expected to pass easily in the Senate.
But a provision in the Senate bill would prevent the fees from being used for abortions for the victims. Democrats say Republicans sneaked it into the bill. Republicans firmly deny the charge. And Democrats now say they will not vote for it unless the language is removed, something that Republicans decline to do.
In turn, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, has said he will not turn to the matter of confirming Ms. Lynch, Mr. Obama’s nominee to replace Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., until the sex trafficking bill gets off the floor. A procedural vote to move the bill forward was expected on Tuesday.
I am aware that there are Islamic teachings which lead to a more peaceful application of that faith. I think that the interpretation referenced here is an accurate depiction of of the application of Islamic teachings of a thousand years ago. It also seems that it is still relevant to Islamic extremists today.
I want to emphasize that this video discusses events which happened almost over a thousand years ago. The reason I am posting it here is to correct the inaccurate history of the Crusades which is being used in the popular media to attack and degrade Christians and Christianity.
“If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.” Harry Truman
The New York Post has run a story using unnamed sources to identify President Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett as the source of the story about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of her home computer to conduct official business.
The question has rapidly evolved into a “What was she hiding?” scenario that is the stuff media storms and political pilings on are made of. The resulting furor has led to an announcement from Speaker Boehner that the House of Representatives is going to “investigate” the whole email question.
That is certainly a legitimate thing for Speaker Boehner to do. However, I do not expect an honest investigation that is concerned with getting to the truth. I expect partisan grandstanding masquerading as an investigation, all of it with an eye to the ’16 elections.
According to the New York Post, the reason behind the White House leaks was that President Obama does not think that the former Secretary of State is “liberal” enough. In other words, she might, if she were elected, do something different than what he would do.
There are also tales of little boy bitterness on the part of President Obama because Democratic candidates did not want him standing beside them in the ’14 elections. He reportedly blames Clinton machinations inside the Democratic Party for this.
If that’s true, he’s teetering on delusion. The reason Democratic candidates did not want him beside them was that he’s political poison in much of this country. The reason for that is his own short-sighted and destructive domestic policies such as the HHS Mandate.
Whatever the reasons, Mr President needs to be careful. Sometimes, when you set fire to your neighbor’s house, you end up burning down your own house along with it.
From the New York Post:
President Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.
But she did so through people outside the administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.
In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.
Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been going on at the State Department. I’m told that the email scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.
… “My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” one of Bill’s friends quotes him as saying. “The Obamas are behind the email story …
…“Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president,” a source close to the White House told me. “They believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal.”
If she gets into the White House, they believe she will compromise with the Republicans in Congress and undo Obama’s legacy.
Fourteen people are dead and at least 78 people were injured in deadly terrorist bombings of two Christian churches in Pakistan. One of the Churches was Catholic the other protestant.
Churches in Pakistan have been forced to post guards during Church services because of the threat of violence against Christians in that country. One of the guards, spotted the suicide bomber, trying to enter the Catholic Church and tried to stop him. This forced the terrorist to detonate the bomb before entering the church. This saved many lives.
At Christ Church, guard Zahid Goga confronted the bomber, but was shot in the head by the bomber’s accomplice.
Pakistani Christians took to the streets in mass demonstrations following the attacks.
According to news reports, this particular slaughter of unarmed Christian civilians was the work of the Taliban. Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, a faction of the Pakistan Taliban has claimed responsibility for the murders. He says that the Taliban plans to carry out similar attacks in the future.
There has been little coverage of these attacks in the mainstream media.
From Catholic Herald:
Although the incident has been condemned by Pakistan’s Prime Minister, President and the majority of politicians, and compensation has been announced for the dead and injured, this is not enough,” he said.
Christians are constantly under attack, especially with their churches and colonies being attacked under the cover of blasphemy accusations, and sometimes by Taliban and extremists. Christians are living under constant fear for their lives and many have fled the country.
I believe these attacks are sustained attempts to force Christians out of Pakistan.”
There is a constant demand to provide security to Christians and even the Supreme Court of Pakistan has ordered security to be provided to them, but the government has not done anything about it, Mr Saeed continued.
I would like to salute to the bravery and sacrifice of Zahid Goga who martyred himself to save hundreds of faithful who were worshiping in church. I also salute the bravery of the policeman who was killed at Catholic church in his attempt to stop the attacker,” he said.
Mr Saeed added that the government had failed to provide justice to Christians in light of previous attacks.
From Voice of America:
Hundreds of Pakistan’s minority Christians rallied in the eastern city of Lahore, blocking roads and shouting slogans in a second day of protests against twin suicide bombings outside two churches in the city that left 15 people dead.
Hundreds of police were deployed to the area Monday as Christian schools were closed for the funeral services for the victims.
Seventy people were wounded Sunday in the attacks when two gunmen tried to shoot their way into the churches during services in the majority-Christian Lahore suburb of Youhanabad. When security guards stopped them at the gates, the attackers detonated explosives.
After the attack, angry Christian mobs blocked highways, ransacked a bus station and killed two people they suspected of being involved in the attacks.
A militant group allied to the Pakistani Taliban has claimed responsibility for the blasts.
Pakistan Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan denounced the bombings as an “inhumane act” and said terrorists are hitting soft targets like churches and mosques in utter desperation following increased military action against them.
Members of the Taliban launched suicide bombings against a Catholic church and a Protestant church in Pakistan, leaving at least 14 dead.
Arriving at the bombed church in the afternoon, Archbishop Sebastian Shah of Lahore complained, “The government has failed to protect us.” The bishop said that Christians have pleaded for protection, warning of impending attacks, to no avail. He praised the members of the congregation who had blocked the terrorists from entering the church, at the cost of their own lives, describing them as martyrs. “We are already on the road to Calvary,” the archbishop said.
Later the Pakistani bishps’ conference issued a statement deploring the bombing and calling upon all of the people of Pakistan to “stand alongside their Christian brothers and sisters, against extremist forces.” The statement demanded “extraordinary measures” by the government to protect religious minorities, and instructed Christians to “avoid violence and to cooperate with the police in their investigations.”