Showing posts with label DIALECTICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DIALECTICS. Show all posts

Friday, June 28, 2013

After Marriage Decision, Churches Wonder: What`s Next?



2 hrs 12 mins ago 2:10Tribune Religion

After a historic Supreme Court decision this week on same sex marriage, the LGBT community praised the decision and celebrated. But some churches are wondering what this means for them and their futures. One Pastor says it doesn`t matter what the government says and that his church still has the same stance on same sex marriage. Many churches are torn about what to accept and what to do going forward.



.

Michael Eric Dyson: "A symbolic Jew has Invited a Metaphoric Hitler to Commit Holocaust and genocide upon his own people”



MSNBC's Dyson on Clarence Thomas: A symbolic Jew has Invited a Metaphoric Hitler to Commit Holocaust

TPNNVideos


Published on Jun 26, 2013


Unconscionable racism and defamation of character runs rampant on the left in the wake of the Voting Rights Act decision on Tuesday. Though the decision was cast by a majority of the Supreme Court justices, the wrath of the left has largely been directed at Justice Clarence Thomas, a black justice who has earned the ire of liberals for decades for having the audacity to break the presuppositions of the left that to be black is to be dogmatically liberal.

In a segment on MSNBC's Martin Bashir, Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson rehashed the issues of the Civil War and lobbed outrageous rhetoric at Justice Thomas saying, "A symbolic Jew has invited a metaphoric Hitler to commit holocaust and genocide upon his own people."

.

P.S.

Michael Eric Dyson
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life

Dyson was born to African-American parents, Everett and Addie Dyson. He attended Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan on an academic scholarship but left and completed his education at Northwestern High School.[1] He became an ordained Baptist minister at 19 years of age.[2] Having worked in factories in Detroitto support his family, he entered Knoxville College as a freshman at age 21.[3] Dyson received his Bachelor's from Carson–Newman College (magna cum laude) in 1985,[1] and his Master's and Doctorate in religion, from Princeton University. Dyson serves on the board of directors of the Common Ground Foundation, a project dedicated to empowering urban youth in the United States.[4] Dyson and his wife, writer and ordained minister Marcia L. Dyson,[1] are regular guests and speakers at the Aspen Institute Conferences and Ideas Festival.[5][6] Together, they lecture on many American college campuses.

Career

Dyson has taught at Chicago Theological Seminary, Brown University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Columbia University, DePaul University, and theUniversity of Pennsylvania.[1] Since 2007, he has been a Professor of Sociology at Georgetown University.

....

Enough said!

.

Monday, June 17, 2013

Zbigniew Brzezinski on Syria: US is engaging in "mass propaganda", "Who's fighting for democracy?"




PlanetEarthAwakens01

Published on Jun 14, 2013


I can't believe it! Brzezinski is right. The west is absolutely engaging in mass propaganda by portraying the Syrian conflict as a fight for democracy when many of the rebels want anything but. They pledge allegiance to Al-Qaeda, explicitly call for Sharia law, kill thousands of Christians, use terrorist tactics yet our corrupt media and political class pretend arming them will produce democracy.

....
....

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Jesuit Superior General Says Pope’s Style is 100 Percent Jesuit



June 7th, 2013 | Author: bsindelar




Pope Francis is 100 percent Jesuit and his style shows it off, said the superior general of the Society of Jesus, Jesuit Father General Adolfo Nicolás, in a recent interview with Rome Reports.

“I think we’re already seeing signs. … On Holy Thursday, he told priests that a shepherd should smell of sheep. It’s a great image which speaks to the pastoral mission of clergy, be it bishops or priests,” Fr. Nicolás said.

Fr. Nicolás also said he believes that the election of a Jesuit pope won’t have any repercussions on the Society’s members:

“It’s very clear to us, nothing has changed, nothing. The pope is the person the cardinals chose among themselves because they think he can lead the church. So we obey and work with him with the same intensity as we had with other popes.”

Even though the vow of poverty has always been a basic tenet for Jesuits, Fr. Nicolás believes this idea has gained importance within the church.

“That Cardinal Hummes told the pope the same thing [“Don't forget the poor”], means that it’s part of the church now. And that’s a good thing. It’s good because St. Paul mentioned it in one of his letters: we have to move with freedom because we are free with Christ, but we must never forget about the poor. He said this was one of the signs of being a Christian,” said Fr. Nicolás.

Watch the Rome Reports video with Fr. Nicolás below.





Source
.
.

Wednesday, June 05, 2013

Chicken Little, Predictive Programming and the Great Final Deception




gmoore49

Published on Sep 11, 2012


Do you believe in UFO's? Do you believe in Extraterrestrial Aliens (ET)? Did you know that TODAY 36% of Americans believe aliens have visited our planet, and 48% are not sure. To be certain, 77% believe that signs suggest aliens may have visited this earth. Amazingly, in times past these statistics would have been reversed--almost no one believed in aliens and ufo's until AFTER the advent of television and the motion picture industry. Any suggestions on WHY this might be? Enter Hollywood . . .

Hollywood is the magician's wand (holly-holy) which has been used to cast a spell on the unsuspecting public. Ideas that would normally be seen as bizarre, vulgar, undesirable or impossible are inserted into films in the realm of fantasy.
When the viewer watches these films, his or her mind is left open to suggestion and the conditioning process begins. These same movies which are designed to program the average person, can give the discerning viewer a better understanding of the past workings and future plans of the ruling elite.

This is called "Predictive Programming"!

So, this belief in aliens is merely propaganda for purposes of uniting the world into a one world communist nation--a New World Order. Movies (especially Science Fiction movies) are used to prepare people for the evil plans of the ruling elite. Knowing this, it becomes patently clear that 911 was also encoded in hollywood movies from at least 50 years ago. Add this to the forensic evidence of controlled explosions used on the twin towers, and we have a case for the greatest true conspiracy of modern times. Therefore, 911 was not the work of Islamic terrorists, but instead it was the work of occultists coming from all the different religions, governments, and corporations. 911 days after 9/11/2001, the Madrid bombing took place (on 3/11/2004). Exactly 7 years after this event (on 3/11/2011) the great Japan Earthquake took place and Battle: LA was released. That earthquake has been proven to have been done by HAARP. Date alignments are not coincidences, therefore these occultists (of whatever nation, occupation, or religion) are working together IN SYNC to create these events. They are preparing to put on a much bigger "show" than 911--the Great Final Deception, the Fake Alien Invasion. These are the same occultists that are currently running our governments, hollywood, the media, and the majority of corporate and religious institutions around the world--by the book, by the numbers, and laying it ALL out on the line.

Movie clips are used ONLY to demonstrate how Hollywood is using these movies to manipulate the unsuspecting public into following their plans for a New World Order. Movies used, in order of appearance, include:

Battle: Los Angeles (2011)
Chicken Little (1943)
Independence Day (1996)
War of the Worlds (2005)
Chicken Little [Preview] (2005)
Conspiracy Theory (1997)

News Clips and other miscellaneous clips can be found at these links:

IAMNUTS: Ballet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaaLFu...

UFO Force, Alien Invasion - US Military Has Plan! (And Wont)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC5-nl...

What will Happen When Aliens Attack - Michio Kaku
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csTfEz...

Music by Kevin MacLeod
http://incompetech.com/

Specific music clips used:
Private Reflection
Truth of the Legend
Hero Down

Licensed under Creative Commons "Attribution 3.0"http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b...

All other music from the video sources listed above.

More information on my website located at:

http://www.itsaboutthattime.net/

http://www.itsaboutthattime.net/art/h...

WARNING: Federal copyright law permits its citizens to reproduce, exhibit, or distribute portions of a copyrighted work, such as a motion picture, video, audio, article, or book, under certain permitted circumstances, without receiving prior authorization of the copyright holder. For those who may be concerned, this is called the "fair use law" and it allows a person to use portions of a copyrighted work for education, criticism, parody, or the reporting of news. The following production is therefore protected under US copyright act 17, section 107, called Limitations on Exclusive Right of Fair Use.

.

Sunday, May 19, 2013

IRS commissioner stonewalls on prying into pro-life group’s prayers


4:05 PM 05/17/2013



Caroline May
Political Reporter



Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee Friday, acting IRS commissioner Steven Miller was unable to answer whether it was appropriate for the IRS to inquire about the prayers of an organization seeking 501(c)(3) status.

Illinois Republican Rep. Aaron Schock pushed Miller for answers about some of the pro-life organizations the IRS reportedly targeted when the groups sought tax-exempt status. The Thomas More Society law firm has alleged that the federal tax collector pressed these organizations to reveal the content of their prayers.

“Mr. Chairman, I have with me a 150-page document given to me by the Thomas More Society detailing a number of pro-life organizations throughout the country which in application for 501(c)(3) status were given horrible instances of IRS abuse of power, political and religious bias, and a repression of their Constitutional rights,” Schock said, submitting the documents to the IG for Tax Administration.

Schock went on to ask about some of the alleged IRS abuses against the pro-life groups.

“A letter from the IRS office of exempt organization specialist in El Monte, California, specifically the Pacific Coast Division — I would note this is not in the Cincinnati division — to the Christian Voices for Life of Fort Bend County in Sugarland, Texas dated March 31, 2011, that I have here with me today. They were asked specifically, again this is a pro-life group, ‘In your educational program do you do education on both sides of the issues in your programs?’ Mr. Miller, your knowledge of the 501(c)(3) application, is that an appropriate question to ask?” Shock asked.

“Sir, I’m going to be honest and I’m not going to be able to speak to a specific development letter in a specific case I don’t know that I can do that under 6103,” Miller responded.

“Okay, let me ask you about another letter that was received by a pro-life group, this one in Iowa. Their question specifically asks from the IRS to the Coalition for Life of Iowa, ‘Please detail the content of the members of your organization’s prayers.’ Would that be an appropriate question to a 501(c)(3) applicant? The content of one’s prayers?” Schock asked.

“It pains me to say I can’t speak to that one either. But that’s an —” Miller said

“You don’t know whether or not that would be an appropriate question to ask an applicant?” Schock interrupted Miller.

“Speaking outside of this case, which I don’t know anything about, it would surprise me that that question was asked,” Miller said.

Schock followed it up with another question.

“And finally during another applicant’s conversation or back and forth they were asked specifically, ‘Please detail certain signs that may or may not be held up outside of a Planned Parenthood facility.’ Would that be an appropriate follow up to an applicant for 501(c)(3) application?”

Miller responded that he did not know the context but that it did not “sound like the usual question.”


.
-End-


Note:

I was able to watch a portion of these hearings while they were being conducted on C-SPAN, specifically this line of questioning by Rep. Aaron Schock, (R-IL).  
I was shocked and amazed to hear the Congressman from Illinois drop the name of THOMAS MORE (in Thomas More Society) as if he were mentioning an American Hero of the Revolutionary War.   Immediately, I lost interest in the hearings and thought about who Sir Thomas More was.  I automatically remembered his persecution of Protestant Reformed Christians in Great Britain...

When I think of who Thomas More was, the name of William Tyndale translator of the Unadulterated Holy Bible to the English Language comes to mind; And I think of other Protestant Reformed Martyrs that were tortured and burned alive for their faith. This same Thomas More is now the Roman Catholic patron saint of statesmen and politicians; Our nation holds an annual RED MASS (in his honorcelebrated each fall at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington, D.C. on the Sunday before the first Monday in October (the Supreme Court convenes on the first Monday in October).    

Yes, I quickly lost interest in these hearings and was reminded that all this commotion is just a harbinger (a preview) of the persecution that will ensue for the faithful Christian remnant in the land of the free in the near future...  

We're now quotingThomas More, hah!  

Here comes America's Inquisition; And it will be brought to you with the blessings of the Thomas More Society, no less. 

Arsenio.

Monday, April 15, 2013

The US and the new Pope

Monday, March 25, 2013


In this photo provided by the Vatican paper L''Osservatore Romano, Pope Francis meets US Vice-President Joe Biden after his installation Mass at the Vatican.


By: Cubargie Joe


By Cubargie Joe
(José Manuel Pallí)
LATINOS R US

I am old enough to remember the hullabaloo in the United States —and also among Catholics in the rest of the Americas— when John F. Kennedy ran for and won the presidency, becoming the first (and still the only) Catholic president of the United States in 1961. A great number of US voters and their Protestant ministers were deeply suspicious of Kennedy’s faith. My mother in Argentina and her sisters in Miami, on the other hand, were joyous with the news of his election.

When in 1974, then Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz —who had to resign in 1976 due to another one of his off—coloured racist jokes—made a joke directed at Pope Paul VI’s opposition to population control (mimicking an Italian accent he told the press corps “If you don’t play-a da game, you don’t make-a da rrules”), he was amply criticized for his insensitivity towards Italian—Americans, not for his disrespect towards the head of the Catholic church.

When I arrived in the United States in the late seventies, Catholicism was still very far from being mainstream —even in Miami, by then already “cubanized”. I recall being handed out religious literature where Catholics were ridiculed and even demonized.

The intensive news coverage of the resignation of a Pope and the enthronization of another one has shown how much the weight and image of Catholicism in the United States has changed since Kennedy’s Camelot days. And this despite the many hits that image has taken lately because of the incidence of pedophilia among Catholic priests, which has taken a heavy toll on the finances and on the moral authority of the Catholic Church.

Over the past few weeks, seldom has a day gone by without national TV newscasts spending close to twenty five per cent of their air time discussing the succession of Pope Benedict XVI. The White House’s salute to the new Argie pope, Francis, was warmer and more enthusiastic than that of many countries in our region firmly imbedded in Catholic tradition (warmer than the Casa Rosada’s reaction to Cardinal Bergoglio’s election), and was perceived by “Latinos” in the US as a sign of a renewed commitment from the government to them and their aspirations, as well as emphasizing the increasing importance of the southern portion of our western hemisphere in the eyes of Washington. Hopefully, this time around we will move beyond mere rhetoric; though, “thinking it better”, yes, you are right, I may be drifting into the same capital sin of wishful thinking I so often criticize.

Much has been said about the significance of electing the first Latin American pope, but from the perspective of a country where the efforts of the Catholic Church in the field of education is ever more appreciated, the fact Francis is a Jesuit may be even more significant.

I am personally gratified by the fact the Pope roots for the same football team I do, San Lorenzo de Almagro, also known as El Ciclón. It would have been unseemly, (and worrisome in terms of the topic mentioned in the last paragraph below) if he had been a fan of the Red Devils from Avellaneda. In any event, this appears to settle who will be playing in the second division next year. A “football-fan pope” is also gratifying for someone who grew up being looked askance by many dear but somewhat snobbish relatives and friends who thought there was something wrong (demeaning?) in devoting Sunday afternoons to football, watching it from the stadium or the rafters to boot. Despite our love of sports in the United States, we still do not fathom the strength of the bond that ties what we call soccer to what some call “the less educated classes” around the world.

As for the many PHDs in wishful thinking who are already at work trying to establish a parallel between the fall of the Berlin Wall and their hopes for the demise of populism in Latin America, seeing in Jorge Bergoglio a later day version of Karol Wojtyla, their best hope seems to be that the Catholic Church will simply bolster its rhetoric about poverty, inequality and other social issues, as it has done in the past, without forcefully seeking any significant change. But watch out guys, this fan of El Ciclón seems to be the real thing, and he may end up blowing strongly in a different direction than the one you wish for.

From a Miami perspective, the only thing that could have made a bigger splash among us would have been that Havana Cardinal Jaime Ortega Alamino had ended up being the chosen one. Cardinal Ortega has been vilified by many of my Cuban neighbours in Miami mainly for his willingness to sit down with the Cuban government to negotiate for more space for the Church and for freedom for a number of political prisoners. Dialogue with the Castro brothers is still anathema for many US Cubans, not all of them old-timers. But still, I suspect that having a Cuban pope would have had a huge impact on US-Cuba relations, despite the resistance of those who take pride in calling themselves recalcitrant. We do not get to confirm this, but we can always hope —ten more Our Fathers when I go to confession next week, I know— that someone with Francis’s background and track record may also help loosen up the deadlock in what we call US policy towards Cuba —a “policy” that for over fifty years has served only one purpose: to hide the absence of a policy—, getting us to where Pope John Paul II wanted us all to be when he said we should all open ourselves to Cuba.

Another topic frequently covered in the US media lately has been the prophecy that appears to signal that the new Pope will be the last one, in which case we may all want to heed that Juan Luis Guerra song where he urges us to get our papers in order (hay que arreglar los papeles). Another good reason to get rid of all our fears and open up to each other, before it is too late.

José Manuel Pallí is a Cuban-born lawyer, originally trained in Argentina and has been a member of the Florida Bar since 1985.


.

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

Teaching Biblical Spirituality




The teaching of courses in spiritual formation in Adventist universities and colleges has become a matter of much debate in the last few years. Recently, the Seventh- day Adventist Theological Seminary and Andrews University have been under scrutiny for offering courses in spiritual formation to their students.

With the dissemination of New Age and Eastern spirituality in popular books, the media, and websites, Christians of all denominations have become aware of the dangers of these “new” approaches to communion with the divine. Seventh-day Adventists are naturally concerned about this new trend because authentic Christian spirituality has been one of our core values since our beginning as a denomination 160 years ago. During her lifetime, Ellen White frequently spoke about the need for reading and meditating on the Word of God, prayer, and fasting. She admonished that we should “cultivate a love for spirituality and true godliness” (2T 315). She also stated, “The revival of true godliness among us is the greatest and most urgent of all our needs” (1SM 121). For over a century we have advocated and promoted through conferences and publications the subjects of personal Bible study, prayer, devotional life, Sabbath keeping, fasting, faith nurture, and many other approaches to spiritual growth and sanctification. And, today, our church is again placing an emphasis on revival and reformation, spirituality and discipleship. The genuine and authentic lives we live will impact the world for Christ.

In 2005, the General Conference session voted to add a new fundamental belief titled “Growing in Christ.” This fundamental belief highlights the needs for spiritual growth. The last part of this statement reads, “In this new freedom in Jesus, we are called to grow into the likeness of His character, communing with Him daily in prayer, feeding on His Word, meditating on it and on His providence, singing His praises, gathering together for worship, and participating in the mission of the Church. As we give ourselves in loving service to those around us and in witnessing to His salvation, His constant presence with us through the Spirit transforms every moment and every task into a spiritual experience.”

Given the world in which we live, the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary believes that the responsible thing to do is to teach its students and pastors about Christian spirituality. Our courses enunciate clear biblical, theological and Adventist principles. We are diligent to select good academic books on this subject and the choice of books we adopt for our classes does not mean we accept all of these authors’ points of view. Yet we believe one goal of graduate education is to impart the skill of discernment and we desire to teach our students to be deep thinkers and not mere reflectors of other people’s thoughts. By God’s grace, we intend to be faithful to our mission as we equip our students to become good mentors and ministers of our faith and heritage and as they assist church members to deepen their journey with God.

There are some who accuse the Seminary of teaching contemplative and emergent types of spirituality because we have called our courses by the name of “Spiritual Formation”. We do not teach such approaches to spiritual development. In academic circles the expression spiritual formation is a synonym for spiritual growth toward godly maturity, or the process of Christian discipleship and sanctification. It is unfair and false to state that spiritual formation is evil because it is associated with the writings of Church Fathers, some strands of more recent Roman Catholic thoughts, and some devotional practices of other religions. The intent of spiritual formation is to teach students what Scripture says about living a genuine life of commitment to God, to be open to the convictions of the Holy Spirit, to be regenerated in Christ. Spiritual formation is an academic term used to describe courses or subjects that deal with spiritual development and faith nurture. By using this term we are saying that we offer biblically-based classes that focus on the spiritual lives of our students. And shouldn’t we do more, not less, of this kind of faith nurture? Yet, to avoid any further confusion, we have decided to change the name of our courses to refer instead to biblical spirituality. We hope this will help alleviate some genuine concerns people have had.

Please join us to pray for the spiritual growth of our students in our Adventist institutions.

Denis Fortin
Dean

.

Monday, April 01, 2013

More Dishonest Coverage From Pro-Homosexual Media



Cliff Kincaid — March 29, 2013





A big news story came out of Tuesday’s March for Marriage demonstration in Washington, D.C. But it didn’t make “news” in the major media. As one who covered the event, it was significant that there were so many members of minority groups. This was not a mostly white crowd. In addition to the presence of black, Hispanic and Asian supporters of traditional marriage, there were some notable Democrats, such as New York State Senator Ruben Díaz, and he let people know he was several minorities in one.

“I’m Puerto Rican,” he said. “I’m black, with kinky hair. I am a Democrat and I am a senator. I’m against abortion. I’m against same-sex marriage, and I won the last election with 89 percent of the vote.”

J.C. Derrick of World magazine has a good analysis of how the major media, led by The Washington Post, virtually ignored the March for Marriage. But unless you actually see what happened on the ground, as the thousands of traditional marriage supporters held their demonstration, you would miss the true significance of how dishonest the media’s coverage of this issue has become.

The March for Marriage went by the Supreme Court before returning to the National Mall location where the rally was held. The group has posted a video of excerpts of the major speeches.

Ken McIntyre of the Heritage Foundation wrote a dispatch, with pictures: Marching for Marriage—and Children. John Burger of the Catholic World Report estimated the crowd at 10,000. Based on attendance at several rallies in the nation’s capital, I put the crowd size at about 5,000.

Díaz, the New York state senator, led an all-night vigil for the rally of 32 buses filled with Pentecostal ministers and members of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization.

He was the only Democratic state senator in 2011 to cast a “No” vote on the homosexual marriage bill in New York State and he was the only lawmaker to rise to speak against it. “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage, a long time ago,” Díaz said.

The video excerpts are interesting, in that a self-proclaimed homosexual man, Doug Mainwaring, co-founder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, was also shown opposing homosexual marriage.

He spoke at a Heritage Foundation event, saying, “I used to be pro-same-sex marriage but the more I thought about it, it occurred to me, this just isn’t right. Marriage is the most successful institution that civilization has produced over the last few millennia, and we shouldn’t mess with it. If we attempt to redefine marriage, we’re going to redefine children in the same way. In fact, I prefer to use the term ‘undefine.’”

His speech at the March for Marriage included the admonition that the Supreme Court should “ignore the media’s relentless, manufactured urgency to institute same-sex marriage.”

That media campaign, as we revealed in a recent column, includes the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), funded by all of the major news organizations. Natalie Morales of NBC’s Today Show was the host of the March 21 New York fundraiser for the group.

On cue, Jenna Wolfe, NBC Today Show weekend anchor, came out as a lesbian on the air on Wednesday, as the Supreme Court prepared to take up the second of two homosexuals rights cases. She announced that she and her lesbian partner, Stephanie Gosk, an NBC News correspondent, were getting married, and that she, Wolfe, was pregnant. There was no word on the identity of the father.

However, People Magazine, which carries a story about the couple, says Wolfe “underwent artificial insemination with an anonymous donor.” Referring to acceptance of homosexual rights and homosexual marriage, Wolfe told People, “…I don’t want to bring my daughter into a world where I’m not comfortable telling everyone who I am and who her mother is.”

It seems as though the father just doesn’t matter at all. Welcome to the world of “homosexual marriage.” It is just not an issue for the major media.

But the omissions and distortions don’t end there. On the NBC Nightly News on Tuesday night, host Brian Williams claimed that a majority of Americans now support homosexual marriage. But the Reuters Corporation recently released the results of a huge poll finding only 41 percent of America supports it.

The company tried to mask the results by highlighting majority support for benefits for “same-sex couples.” But the story about the poll notes in the fourth paragraph that only 41 percent of people say same-sex couples should be permitted to marry.

This poll is significant for two reasons. One, it was a large poll of 24,455 people. Second, its parent company, Thomson Reuters, signed on to a Supreme Court brief endorsing homosexual marriage.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council commented, “If 41% was all the support Reuters could scrounge up for same-sex ‘marriage,’ then you know they exhausted every avenue trying to push that number higher—and couldn’t.”

NBC News correspondent Kristen Dahlgren did a story on Tuesday’s Brian Williams newscast on “TV’s impact on the gay marriage debate” which totally ignored the role of NBC News, which like CBS News and Fox News, funds one side of the debate—the NLGJA.

As the Supreme Court took up the cases, the NLJGA issued a statement saying, “NLGJA would like to remind journalists, bloggers, columnists and media analysts of the important role they play in giving citizens the information needed to understand the full impact these cases will have in their communities.”

That obligation apparently doesn’t include facts about how the media are distorting and manipulating the coverage on behalf of a special interest group that includes major media figures and “news” organizations.

Is it possible that pro-homosexual coverage disguised as “news” has played a role in making homosexual marriage more acceptable? If so, perhaps there will be a backlash when the American people realize they have been conned and deceived.


/
.

Sunday, March 31, 2013

Care for your job? Hide your religion

#159 - April 2013


On balancing equality policies and freedom of religion


Can one object on grounds of religion to the performance of certain activities at the work place? The Strasbourg Court has hardly contributed to finding a solution and bringing more clarity to the issue…




Let’s try to imagine two persons, one working as a registrar of births, marriages and deaths at a local public authority and another one providing sex therapy and relationship counselling services. Both are convinced Christians with firm views that entail a refusal to endorse homosexual relations in any way. On the other side there are their employers, proudly implementing their internal “dignity for all”/equality/diversity/equal opportunities policies (also covering discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation). One day, with the introduction of civil partnerships for same-sex couples in the relevant country, the public authority decides to designate all of its births, marriages and deaths registrars as the right and proper people for conducting the relevant ceremonies. The registrar is particularly unlucky, as other local authorities in the same country had allowed registrars with a sincerely held religious objection to performing same-sex civil partnerships to ‘opt out’. The registrar’s refusal to conduct or be associated with civil partnerships ultimately leads to a disciplinary action and to her final dismissal. The counsellor does not fare better, as his reservations, on religious grounds, to commit himself to providing counsel to same-sex couples brings about the very same, dire consequences. This is the true story of two British citizens (Ms. Ladele, a registrar, and Mr. McFarlane, a counsellor, respectively), whose applications were decided on by the European Court of Human Rights after unsuccessful national judiciary proceedings. Ms. Ladele’s complaint was of indirect discrimination on grounds of religion (Article 14 in combination with Article 9 of the Convention), while Mr. McFarlane mainly centred his arguments on Article 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion).



The verdict of the Court

It is interesting to note that while the considerations on the right to freedom of religion made in the judgment (described in last month’s edition of europeinfos with regard to two other applicants covered by it) also apply to the two cases at issue, the final result is different and comparatively negative.

In the case of Ms. Ladele, the Court rejected her claim by underlining that the aim pursued by the employer was legitimate (providing a service in a way that promoted equal opportunities and countered discrimination); and that the means used were proportionate: although Ms. Ladele’s entering into her contract of employment did not entail a ‘waiver’ of her right to manifest her religious belief in the aforesaid way (the requirement to perform civil partnership was introduced by the employer at a later date), the local authority’s policy aimed to secure the rights of others, also protected under the Convention, and the national authorities had not exceeded the wide margin of appreciation at their disposal in striking a balance between competing Convention rights.

As regards Mr. McFarlane, the Court in his case as well had to verify whether a ‘fair balance’ had been struck by the State between the competing interests. The judges significantly underlined that an individual’s decision to enter into a contract of employment and to undertake responsibilities which he/she knows will have an impact on freedom to manifest religious belief is not decisive with reference to the assessment of whether there has been an interference with his/her right to freedom of religion. However it went on to add that this element has to be weighed in the balance when assessing the aforementioned ‘fair balance’. For the Court, the most important factor was again that the employer’s action was intended to secure the implementation of its policy of providing a service without discrimination; and that the State authorities benefitted from a wide margin of appreciation in deciding where to strike the balance (again, not exceeded, according to the judgment).

The outcome is made even more striking by the fact that the Court accepted two key elements with regard to both applicants: their refusals constituted a manifestation of their religion and the ‘no exception’ approach of their employers had entailed particularly serious and severe consequences for them.



A fair solution?

The motivation of the judgment seems to lack the soundness and scrupulousness which the delicacy and complexity of the cases would have demanded. It is doubtful whether the Court made any effort at truly giving guidance on how to balance the rights at stake and the decision will surely not go down in history as a significant contribution to legal certainty. The question of how and why policies that have as their stated objective that of ensuring ‘dignity for all’ and equality can lead to such seemingly self-contradictory effects might be disturbing, but it has some pertinence. From an EU perspective, although the reference point for these cases is the already existing Directive 2000/78/EC, the persistent reservations concerning further EU non-discrimination legislation are also related to sincere concerns for the way the right to freedom of religion (as well as other core fundamental rights) can be effectively ensured in this context.

On a more general level, when cases such as these - that could be settled through reasonable, flexible and sensible solutions - end up in front of an important body such as the Strasbourg Court, the signal is a worrying one. The way towards the guaranteeing of “…the right to express one's own personality at the workplace without suffering any affront to one's conscience or personal dignity” (Centesimus Annus, § 15) also requires a greater effort of all the parties involved in constantly working out together the way to reconcile opposing positions. Rigidity leads to tensions and from there, the step towards conflict is all too short.



More questions than answers

Apart from the doubtful solidity of the arguments used by the Court to support it, many questions remain open after this judgment and some additional ones are raised by it: was the concrete impact of the two applicants’ behaviour on the overall effectiveness of their employers’ service truly significant or rather marginal? Is enough being done to ensure that the religious convictions of single employees are respected and that they are not forced to act against them, while avoiding a genuine disruption of the services provided? Will the judgment have a negative effect (and if so, to what extent) on those people who intend to act in accordance with their faith and conscience at the workplace in morally delicate situations? Does the decision entail the acceptance of the risk that other persons in a similar situation to the applicants could be de facto prevented from, or have a much steeper and more unpleasant climb, in order to gain access to certain occupations?

The outcome of the proceedings signals the recognition of a sort of stifling, implicitly dominant position for equality policies over core human rights, such as the one to freedom of religion; as well as a rather embarrassing disregard of discrimination on grounds of religion in comparison with other, more ‘popular’, grounds of discrimination. On the other hand, the credibility of such serious concerns does not need to be undermined by exaggerated statements, like the ones used in the dissenting opinion to the decision, which referred to the role of freedom of conscience vis-à-vis Nazi firing squads or the Spanish Inquisition.

The maturity of a society is also measured by the extent to which it manages (or fails) to find acceptable and convincing solutions in intricate matters involving balancing conflicting rights. For the moment, we seem to be ‘not quite there yet’…


Alessandro Calcagno

COMECE


Fuente
.

Thursday, March 28, 2013

Between Two Ages



Between Two Ages


Uploaded on Oct 10, 2011

Brzezinski - Between Two Ages, new world order

A look at Zibigneiw Brzezinski's 1970 book 'Between Two Ages' and how this closely resembles the present time as the so-called elite attempts impose globalism and global governance on the world.



.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

The Catholic Church’s angry Christmas


WEDNESDAY, DEC 26, 2012 03:16 PM EST

After the pope denounces gay marriage, in a bizarre holiday message, the Church goes on the attack for "life"

BY MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS

(Credit: AP/Shawn Pogatchnik)


For the holidays this year, the Catholic Church chose to give the world the gift of bizarre, alienating and utterly missing the point rhetoric. Oh, you shouldn’t have! We already got one of those from the NRA!

First, Pope Benedict XVI used his annual holiday message to the Vatican to denounce gay and lesbian progress as a “manipulation of nature” and an “attack” on the family. Now, Cardinal Sean Brady, the Primate of all Ireland, has used the galvanizing death of a pregnant woman in a Galway hospital as an excuse to double down on anti-abortion rhetoric. Guys, maybe next year you could ask Santa for a sense of timing and a pair of ears that aren’t tone-deaf.

The harrowing, cruel experience of Savita Halappanavar, who died of septicaemia in October, has provoked unprecedented national outrage. Her widower alleges her doctors wouldn’t intervene to save her life while her fetus still had a heartbeat, on the excuse that “This is a Catholic country.” Now, following a wave of public protests and an advisory from the European Court of Human Rights, Ireland, the only European Union nation that still outlaws abortion, has begun the delicate process of loosening its restrictions. Earlier this month, Minister of Health James Reilly announced the government is introducing new laws that will permit abortion when the life of the mother is at risk. The new regulations will still be plenty restrictive – a mere risk to the mother’s health will still not be sufficient to obtain an abortion, and Reilly assures that the changes will “clarify what is legal for the professionals who must provide care while at all times taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child.”


Yet at a moment when a minute move toward preventing more women from dying in agony is finally on the table, Brady took the opportunity to deliver a Christmas message about “life” to the people of Ireland, urging, “No government has the right to remove that right from an innocent person.” In case you’re wondering, it’s not the innocent life of Savita Halappanavar he’s referencing here.

Nobody expects the Catholic Church to do a sudden, swift about-face on the topic of abortion. But instead of trying to whip up the masses with some phony-baloney rhetoric about honoring life, Brady – or any other Irish priest with an ounce of true courage – could have spoken out with compassion about a tragic loss. He could have extended condolences to her family. He could have mentioned that while the Church opposes abortion even to save the life of a mother – Pope Pius XI famously, chillingly declared that “However we may pity the mother whose health and even life is imperiled by the performance of her natural duty, there yet remains no sufficient reason for condoning the direct murder of the innocent” – it does however clearly insist “physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child.” In other words, you can’t just sit back and let a woman die.

In fact, even if you’re sticking strictly with the letter of Catholic law, doctors are permitted to intervene to save a mother in any ways that aren’t what is known in the Catechism of the Catholic church as “direct abortion.” If a fetus doesn’t survive as a result of a necessary procedure – for instance a lifesaving removal of a fallopian tube – that’s not contrary to doctrine. That’s why, even while the investigation into the death of Halappanavar is still going on, it’s really not difficult to imagine, in a country that valued women’s lives at least as much as it values fetuses, a situation where doctors could in good conscience have done a whole lot more to save her, even while allowing for the possibility that their actions might result in the loss of the baby.

So why aren’t the likes of Brady talking about that? Why, as their nation is inching slowing toward an acknowledgment that it’s pretty much the opposite of respecting life to let women suffer and die over a non-viable pregnancy, why isn’t Catholic leadership speaking out with, at the barest minimum, a clarification of existing doctrine? A reminder that doctors have an obligation not just toward fetuses but mothers? A message of respect toward women? Instead, Brady, in his willful, insulting abuse of a holiday message, told his flock that “Public representatives will be asked to decide whether a caring and compassionate society is defined by providing the best possible care and protection to a woman struggling to cope with an unwanted pregnancy or by the deliberate destruction of another human life.”

In a speech about life, he cravenly didn’t mention Halappanavar’s name. In a message of compassion, he ignored the lack of compassion that led to an avoidable death. Instead he said, “I hope that everyone who believes that the right to life is fundamental will make their voice heard in a reasonable, but forthright, way to their representatives.” I hope so too. And I hope when they do, they remember the name of Savita Halappanavar.




Mary Elizabeth Williams is a staff writer for Salon and the author of "Gimme Shelter: My Three Years Searching for the American Dream." Follow her on Twitter: @embeedub.



,

Saturday, December 08, 2012

Transforming the World by Subverting the Church




Real Conspiracies -- Part 3

Transforming the World by Subverting the Church

Berit Kjos - October 2006






"...we have seen how Dr. Walter Rauschenbusch... and the leaders of the social-action movements in the churches decided to do away with Christian individualism and turn to outright collectivism, using the church as their instrument.... Religion was only a means toward achieving socialism. And, like all other false prophets who have infiltrated religion through he centuries, [Rauschenbusch] used a 'front' or disguise. This disguise, as we have seen, was 'The Kingdom of God.' The Kingdom was not pictured as a spiritual society into which men and women had to be born as individuals through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as Savior, but as a collectivist society which would be brought about by... eradication of poverty, redistribution of wealth... and 'economic justice.'"[1] Edgar Bundy,Collectivism in the Churches.

"Rockefeller promoted universal ecumenism by stating in December 1917... 'I see all denominational emphasis set aside....I see the church molding the thought of the world... I see it literallyestablishing the Kingdom of God on earth."[2] Dr. James W. Wardner, Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People who are Working to Destroy America.

Conspiracies have battered the Church for 2000 years -- just as God warned us. Ever since Jesus walked the narrow streets of Jerusalem, spiritual battles have challenged Christians to stand firm on His Word and resist the wide ways of the world. Today the battles rage as fiercely as ever.

The Social Gospel of the early 20th century shifted the focus of many church leaders from God's unchanging Word to the world's pliable illusions. Socialist seminary professors, pragmatic pastors, and deluded idealists validated their visions with hand-picked Bible verses that "fit" their social message. "Offensive" words like sin and redemption were redefined, contextualized or ignored. No need for the cross, since all people were considered essentially good.

Naturally, as socialist ideals tore away at the old Biblical barriers to spiritual pluralism, the change process accelerated. Even "conservative" pastors -- like their purpose-driven guides -- began to view Christianity primarily as good "deeds, not creeds."[3]



Transformational tactics

In Part 2, we documented these early strategies, patterned after the Kremlin's plan for the Soviet "church."


Infiltrate church institutions.


Adapt the Communist social campaign to America's unique beliefs, wants, and values.


Concentrate on seminaries where each new convert learns to influence thousands.


Divert the heart and purposes of the Church from the spiritual to the material.


Demonstrate tolerance toward beliefs and values that clash with God's Words.



"It’s not just tolerance, it’s to go beyond tolerance, to principle pluralism, which... means no religion has a privileged place," said Richard Cizik, who represented the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) at the prestigious 2006 Clinton Global Initiative conference. "I would say one step even further, which is to say partnership.... The fundamentalists have a pessimistic view of the future and they have this perception, unlike evangelicals and liberal Christians, that there’s an unbridgeable divide between the believer and the unbeliever.... We don’t believe that."[4]

Of course they don't. God's Word clashes with the world's vision of pluralism! That's why Jesus said, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.... If they persecuted Me they will persecute you... for they do not know the One who sent Me." John 15:19-20

The world readily accepts Christian love, charity, and willingness to serve the needy. It just can't accept the source of that love. It wants the fruit of God's Spirit but transplants its roots into the soil of humanism. To succeed in this assault, it fine-tunes the following strategies:

1. Infiltration, then mass conversion to a counterfeit system. In Part 2, we looked at some revealing testimonies given by former Communist leader Manning Johnson before the Committee on Un-American Activities of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1953. Here are a few more:


"The plan was to make the seminaries the neck of a funnel through which thousands of potential clergymen would issue forth, carrying with them, in varying degrees, an ideology and slant which would aid in neutralizing the anti-Communist character of the church and also to use the clergy to spearhead important Communist projects....

"This policy was successful beyond even Communist expectations. The combination of Communist clergymen, clergymen with a pro-Communist ideology, plus thousands of clergymen who were sold the principle of considering Communist causes as progressive... furnished the Soviet apparatus with a machine which was used as a religious cover for the overall Communist operation."[5]

Of course, they wouldn't call it Communism. Words like compassion and world service felt far better.


2. Communitarian partnerships

Today, more than a decade after the supposed "death of Communism," a more pleasing version is rising like the mythical phoenix out of its own ashes. It's new label? Communitarianism! Like the old system, this upgraded version would control the masses through universal surveillance, personal data files, and a hierarchy of groups or councils (originally called soviets). It's already being marketed to the public as decentralized leadership, sustainable development, supportive networks, and voluntary service.

Does it sound confusing? Here is a simple formula: Communitarian systems are based on networks of "partnerships" between the public sector (government), private sector (business) and social sector (civil society, including churches). In other words, social sector "volunteers" would serve the government (ultimately the UN agenda) providing most of the "social services" needed for the global welfare state.

The catch? The private and the social sectors must conform to the standards (personal, performance, development, etc.) determined by the public sector (the government). Instead of owning everything, it would justcontrol everything. Its standards already include "mental health," which involve pluralistic guidelines for religion and values." So within this "compassionate" and "tolerant" socialist system, Christians would no longer be free to serve God as He leads. And this is just the beginning!

As mass movements such as Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven PEACE Plan enter into partnerships with the United Nations, White House, CFR and other governmental and policy making institutions, they are pressed into an ever-changing consensus pattern.[6] To continue their determined march toward "success" (based on unconditional relationships and measurable results) they bind themselves to the evolving regulation of the global management system.

3. Collective thinking.

Purpose-Driven and Church Growth movements -- as well as the secular transformational networks driven by Peter Senge and Peter Drucker -- emphasize relational vitality and collective thinking. As Manning Johnson testified, group thinking and interdependent relationships are powerful weapons against individual resisters and a Bible-trained conscience:

"The Communists have an advantage in religious organizations due to the fact that their forces within religious groups are well organized as a totalitarian group. This gives this destructive element a great tactical advantage over all others in the religious organizations who deal with religion as individuals, operating ethics on the basis of an individual conscience before God...."

"Communist strategists counted the effectiveness of their forces not so much on numbers alone, but on the importance of individuals loyal to communism in key spots where a small group can influence large numbers.... Thus, one professor of divinity, lecturing to future clergymen, who in turn will preach to thousands of churchgoers, is, in the long run, more dangerous than 20 Red preachers, singing the praises of communism from the pulpit....

"...if an infiltrated body has 1 per cent Communist Party members and 9 per cent Communist Party sympathizers, with well-rehearsed plans of action, they can effectively control the remaining 90 per cent who act and think on an individual basis. In the large sections of the religious field, due to the ideological poison which has been filtered in by Communists and pro-Communists through seminaries, the backlog of sympathizers and mental prisoners of Socialistic ideology is greater than the 10 percent necessary for effective control."[7]


4. Small groups and the dialectic process

To "control the remaining 90 per cent" who act and think on an individual basis, former Communist leaders assigned all their subjects -- workers, managers, prisoners and students -- to local "soviets" (groups or councils) where they were trained in Georg Hegel's dialectic process. They had to


"Share" thoughts and notions. [Now cheered as "authenticity"]


"Confess" contrary attitudes. [Brainwashing and "Education Reform"]


Write "self-criticisms" for group evaluation. [When Iron Gates Yield]


"Celebrate" Communist ideals and heroes


"Commit" themselves to follow the group consensus.


Practice what the group (led by the facilitator) decides. [PRAXIS]

This dialectic process is now the centerpiece of the world's management systems. Designed to conform all minds to a common vision and mission (purpose), it calls for ground rules that ban divisive truths but demand tolerance for the world's corrupt values. [8]

This process was described in our article "Small Groups and the Dialectic Process," which summarizes the strategies taught in Leading Congregational Change (LCC). "This is a book you ought to read before you change anything," wrote Rick Warren in his hearty endorsement on the back cover.[9]

The LCC shows us that the dialectic group doesn't operate in a vacuum. It's part of a system that controls the planned transformation with vision-casting, team-building, top-down standards, force field analysis,capacity building, and service learning. To persuade church members to go along with the transformation, leaders must continually create tension through crisis, thus arouse dissatisfaction. Forget God's call to "be content" in Him. That doesn't fit the plan for continual change through unceasing agitation.

This unbiblical program follows the same Total Quality Management model embraced by governments, corporations, education systems, the United Nations and other organizations around the world. Do you wonder where the Holy Spirit fits into this scheme?

Written by James H. Furr, Mike Bonem, and Jim Herrington, the LCC was published by Jossey-Bass, which works closely with the Peter Drucker Foundation (renamed Leader to Leader). "We thank Rick Warren," it tells us, "for the opportunity to reach and refine our understanding of congregational transformation as part of Saddleback Valley Church's Purpose-Driven Church Conference. ... We also saw many applications in Peter Senge's The Fifth Discipline...."[10]

When assigned to a group, members are encouraged to eat together, play together, serve the community together, and do short-terms mission trips together. There's nothing wrong with Christian togetherness. But in this context -- created by trained facilitator/leaders -- every event becomes a practice session (praxis) in group dialogue and "Repressive Tolerance." The latter refers to "intolerance against movements from the right, and toleration of movements from the left." [See "Cultural Marxism" and "Three kinds of group relationships."][11]


Resisting Deception

Well aware of the struggles and temptations His people would face, God gave us Scriptures that both warn and equip us. Here are three worth remembering:

"As you have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving. Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ." Colossians 2:6-9

"And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

But "thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable...." 1 Corinthians 15:56

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

See also Dealing with Resisters, The 21st Century Church, and The Mind-Changing Process.

1. Edgar C Bundy, Collectivism in the Churches: A documented account of the political activities of the Federal, National, and World Councils of Churches (Wheaton, Illinois: Church League of America, 1957), page 101.

2. Dr. James W. Wardner, Unholy Alliances: The Secret Plan and the Secret People who are Working to Destroy America, 1996, page 154. www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/books/unholy-alliances/council-of-churches.htm

3. Warren's P.E.A.C.E. Plan and UN Goals - Part 3 at www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/peace-un-3.htm

4. Clinton Global Initiative: Mitigating Religious and Ethnic Conflict at www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Document.Doc?&id=80

5. Committee on Un-American Activities of the U.S. House of Representatives, 83rd Congress, in July, 1953, page 2229. Cited by Bundy, pages 127-128.

6. Equipping Leaders to 'Lead like Jesus'? at www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/peace-un-2.htm

7. Committee on Un-American Activities, page 2278.

8. Reinventing the World at www.crossroad.to/articles2/Reinvent1.htm

9. James H. Furr, Mike Bonem and Jim Herrington, Leading Congregational Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000). Back cover.

10. Ibid., Acknowledgements.

11. www.crossroad.to/charts/dialogue.htm & www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/cultural-marxism.htm


S

Friday, November 30, 2012

Ann Coulter vs. the Jesuits at Fordham: A college invite is rescinded


9:11 am November 10, 2012, by Maureen Downey



Pundit Ann Coulter

I have written this blog now for several years, and only mentioned acidic pundit Ann Coulter once. Three weeks later, I am bringing her up again because this incident demonstrates a sensible way to handle controversies over college speakers.

Coulter was invited to Fordham University in New York to speak on Nov. 29 by the College Republicans.

The planned appearance triggered protests and a student petition  A group of students argued that tuition should not be used to underwrite speakers at the private college who are “not compatible with the values the Fordham community professes – particularly the Jesuit tenet of ‘Men and Women for and With Others’.”

See what you think of Fordham President Joseph M. McShane’s response and of the decision Friday night by the Fordham College Republicans to cancel Coulter’s appearance.

First, Father McShane’s statement:

The College Republicans, a student club at Fordham University, has invited Ann Coulter to speak on campus on November 29. The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement. There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative — more heat than light — and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.

As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.

“Disgust” was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.

Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.

The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy — and one another — stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.

Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President

From the College Republicans late Friday:

The College Republicans regret the controversy surrounding our planned lecture featuring Ann Coulter. The size and severity of opposition to this event have caught us by surprise and caused us to question our decision to welcome her to Rose Hill. Looking at the concerns raised about Ms. Coulter, many of them reasonable, we have determined that some of her comments do not represent the ideals of the College Republicans and are inconsistent with both our organization’s mission and the University’s. We regret that we failed to thoroughly research her before announcing; that is our error and we do not excuse ourselves for it. Consistent with our strong disagreement with certain comments by Ms. Coulter, we have chosen to cancel the event and rescind Ms. Coulter’s invitation to speak at Fordham.

We made this choice freely before Father McShane’s email was sent out and we became aware of his feelings – had the President simply reached out to us before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being cancelled. We hope the University community will forgive the College Republicans for our error and continue to allow us to serve as its main voice of the sensible, compassionate, and conservative political movement that we strive to be. We fell short of that standard this time, and we offer our sincere apologies.

–From Maureen Downey, for the AJC Get Schooled blog


.
.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Andrews University Press Releases Book on Issues of Homosexuality

First major title from an Adventist publishing house on the subject (Posted September 19, 2012)

Andrews University Press has just released the first major book from a Seventh-day Adventist publishing house addressing the complex issues surrounding homosexuality and Adventist life and faith.

Niels-Erik Andreasen, president of Andrews University in Berrien Springs, Michigan, and chair of the Andrews University Press board, said the topic of this book is timely and needed. “Recent developments in our faith community, religious organizations, American politics, and secular society require careful thought on this sensitive subject. Andrews University is pleased to help sort out some of these issues by bringing together a range of perspectives on this subject within our church.”

Titled Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church: Biblical, Counseling, and Religious Liberty Issues, the nearly 600-page book was released in early August. It is a collection of 14 major essays on a range of topics, and an additional six personal testimonies from individuals who have struggled with homosexuality in their personal lives. The content of the book, including the testimonies, is material largely based on presentations at a conference on the same subject held at Andrews University and sponsored by various entities of the Adventist Church in October 2009.


“Much as it might like to, the church can no longer evade questions about homosexuality and same-sex marriage,” says Nicholas P. Miller, lead editor of the work, along with Roy E. Gane and H. Peter Swanson, all of the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews. “Society, with increasing stridency, is forcing Christians to confront these topics,” Miller says.

Miller points to the several states whose legislatures have enacted same-sex marriage provisions, sometimes against the convictions of their own citizens. He notes that this fall at least two states, Maryland and Washington, will have referendums on election ballots, initiated by citizens seeking to overturn the same-sex marriage laws recently enacted.

“Consider the strange controversy and apparent outrage that erupted when the owner of a national fast-food chain recently expressed his support for traditional marriage,” Miller said. “It was the same position held until very recently by the president of the United States. And the media-driven reaction is an indication of how efforts are being made to shift public sentiment on this issue. Meanwhile, a film documentary affirming the gay lifestyle among Adventists is being heavily promoted by some within the church. Through all of this Adventists must have a clear understanding of all the issues at stake, and they are significant.

Ronald Knott, director of Andrews University Press, notes that along with the biblical and religious liberty issues, the book makes a passionate case for the highest level of pastoral love and support for those Christians who, he said, “may have been lured down a dangerous spiritual path by charming but false arguments from Scripture and political history, coming from outside and inside the church.”

Following a preface and general introduction, various essays and articles are divided into four sections. The first addresses the Old and New Testament biblical material on homosexuality, with articles by Gane, Richard Davidson, and Miroslav Kis, all of Andrews, and Robert A. J. Gagnon of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. The second section addresses legal and religious liberty issues, with essays by Miller, Alan J. Reinach from the Pacific Union Conference, Gerald Chipeur, a partner with the Canadian law firm Miller Thompson LLP, Scot Zentner from Cal State, San Bernadino, and Gary Wood from Andrews University. The counseling section features articles by Stanton Jones of Wheaton College, Mark Yarhouse of Regent University, Carlos Fayard of Loma Linda University, and Inge Anderson, founder of a ministry to homosexuals. The fourth section includes personal testimonies from several Christians who have lived and struggled with homosexuality. An appendix reproduces the various official statements relevant to homosexuality issued through the years by the Adventist Church.

In addition to his teaching responsibility as associate professor of church history at Andrews, Miller is also director of the university’s International Religious Liberty Institute. On October 6 the institute will sponsor a daylong forum on the political, religious, and social issues regarding same-sex marriage. The event will be held at the Spencerville Seventh-day Adventist Church in Spencerville, Maryland. The forum, planned in the context of Maryland’s ballot referendum to overturn the state’s same-sex marriage law, will draw attention to the issues and to the new book, and will feature panel discussions and a sermon on Adventists and social issues by Bill Knott, editor and executive publisher of Adventist Review and Adventist World magazines.

Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Church is available through Adventist Book Centers, and online at Amazon.comand Andrews University Press.

Andrews University Press is the only regularly established academic publishing house to serve the Seventh-day Adventist Church worldwide.

—information supplied by Andrews University

Copyright © 2012, Adventist Review

.

Saturday, September 29, 2012

Religious leaders look for ways to up security while keeping a doors-open policy



Dan Gross/The Gazette - Parishioners fill the sanctuary for service at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg on Sunday.



Dan Gross/The Gazette - Parishioners fill the sanctuary for service at Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg on Sunday.

By Elizabeth Waibel | The Gazette, Published: September 26


On Sept. 13, two days after an attack in Libya killed four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens, the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI issued a joint intelligence bulletin warning that the risk of violence could increase in reaction to an anti-Islam video posted to YouTube.
The bulletin urged officials and the public — including faith-based organizations — to be on the lookout for threats and suspicious activity. But that was not the first warning they had received that churches, mosques, synagogues and other places of worship can become targets for violence.
While security threats and terrorist attacks have changed the way airports, schools and concerts screen crowds of people, many religious institutions struggle to incorporate security measures into their open-doors philosophies.

In recent years, as churches and other religious institutions in Maryland have faced theft, vandalism and even violence, many are developing strategies to ensure the people who come through their doors for help are, as much as possible, kept safe.
‘Door to God’
On Aug. 5, a man walked into a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wis., shortly before services started. He shot and killed six worshipers in an attack apparently motivated by ethnic prejudice before killing himself.
Arvinder Uppal, chairman of the Guru Nanak Foundation of America, a Sikh place of worship in Silver Spring, heard about the attack a few hours after it happened, just after GNFA finished its services. She said her first thought was a defensive stance.
“I wanted increased security right away,” she said. “I know at GNFA we have had several hate incidents.”
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, people threw stones at the building and broke windows, Uppal said. In addition, two senior citizens were assaulted near the building about two years ago. Now a police officer is stationed outside the foundation during its largest weekly service.
Although extra police patrols are encouraging, Uppal said there is a limit to how much security GNFA can add. To include such protection as metal detectors and security checks would violate Sikh beliefs, she said.
Sikh places of worship are called gurdwaras, which, roughly translated, means “door to God,” Uppal said. Larger gurdwaras in India have multiple doors that are open to anyone at all hours of the day.
“How do you close the doors of the most open community in the world? We will not do that,” Uppal said. “We will not change the basic tenets of Sikhism because of one person’s mistake.”
In North Potomac, Bhai Gurdarshan Singh, head granthi of the Guru Gobind Singh Foundation, said he thinks the area’s diverse international community helps keep religious minorities safe.
His gurdwara has a security camera in one corner, although the doors remain unlocked from early morning until late evening so people can come in, bow and read the scripture verse of the day.
“Traditionally, people, before they go to work . . . just come and bow and go,” he said, saying that many stop by on the way home from work as well.

Read more