Mainstream Protestant Denominations: Triggering Ideas Banned

Major news about Mainline Protestant Christianity, from the Babylon Bee:

LOUISVILLE, KY—While some college campuses have established safe spaces where the disenfranchised can avoid the pressures, biases, and judgement of the world, mainline Protestant denominations are taking it one step further. The entire umbrella group has now been designated a safe space for those who would otherwise be offended by the gospel, sources confirmed Wednesday.

Speaking on behalf of a plethora of denominations including the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and the United Methodist Church, a spokesperson issued the following statement: “We are in agreement that there is a great need for churches to rise up and create spaces that are safe for questioning and accepting our identities, doubts, fears, failures, and blatant sins. Effective immediately, we are declaring all mainline Protestant churches safe spaces, where there are no judgments, conviction, repentance, or gospel presentations whatsoever.”

The statement listed elements that safe space churches should remove from their premises, including “crosses, Bibles, pulpits, organs, hymnals, systematic theologies, and sermons exhibiting any form of triggering micro-aggression. Be considerate.” Words like “sin,” “hell,” “death,” “wrath,” “propitiation,” and “substitutionary atonement” are also on the ban list.

On behalf of all of mainline Protestantism, the spokesperson expressed heartfelt joy that they were able to make such a major step toward accepting—and not judging—anyone who may be on a path toward God’s judgment. “Our congregations are now spaces that are safe from the power of God in the gospel, where each person is free to construct their own narrative. That’s worthy of celebration.”

This, of course, is not a sudden shock, but rather the culmination of longstanding trends in these denominations.

Obama Contraceptive Mandate Isn’t a “Women’s Issue”

Liberals have portrayed conservative resistance to the Obama Administration’s mandate that Catholic (and other religious) institutions have to supply free contraceptives to employees as part of a “war on women.”

Of course, in the eyes of liberals, “women” equals feminists.

But real world women typically don’t agree with feminists. This is certainly true of abortion, where women are either no different from men in their opinions or, in some of the best polls, a bit more opposed to abortion being legal.

But what about the contraceptive mandate?

A recent Gallup poll asks respondents “How closely are you following the news about whether religious-based employers should cover contraception for their employees as part of their health plans — very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?”

Then, respondents were asked “Based on what you know or have read about the matter, do you sympathize more with the views of – [ROTATED: religious leaders (or) the Obama administration]?”

Overall, 48 percent of the sample agreed with “religious leaders,” and 45 percent with the “Obama administration.”

But men and women gave virtually identical answers. 49 percent of men agreed with “religious leaders,” and 47 percent of women did. The two percent difference is within the margin of error.

While 39 percent of Catholics and 42 percent of Protestants agreed with the Obama Administration, 68 percent of people who professed no religion agreed with the Obama Administration. So the “war on women” seems to be, in reality, a war of irreligious people on religious people.

Greece, the Future of America?

From Front Page Magazine:

Heretofore, debt-defaulting Greece has operated on Raiders of the Lost Ark-logic: “You throw me the idol; I’ll throw you the whip.” Its European Union and International Monetary Fund sugar daddies have tired of sending cash without budget reforms in return. On Thursday, they rejected Greece’s newest amorphous pledge of budget cuts later for billions now. Burned before by big promises with no fulfillment, the Eurogroup sent a clear message to the Greeks through its chair Jean-Claude Juncker: “no disbursement before implementation.”

But with Greece already forcing creditors to take a haircut, and refusing to make good on its pledged reforms, why would European nations agree to throw more good money after bad?

A coalition of Greek political leaders came to an agreement on Thursday to narrow the chasm between revenues and receipts in hopes of paving the way for $172 billion in new loans from the European Union. But EU finance ministers balked at the proposal that contained very little in specified cuts for non-defense-related government expenditures. The European finance ministers demanded from the troubled nation $325 billion in new cuts and parliament’s preapproval of the plan before it will agree to a further bailout. Greece, which is already de facto in default since other nations are paying its creditors, stands to legally default on March 20 if it doesn’t receive a cash infusion.

The refusal to implement promised budgetary and economic structural reforms is a tacit admission that Greek politicians believe the debt crisis just isn’t their fault. This is a popular sentiment within Greece, muted only when going abroad with hat in hand. Foreign bankers, EU bureaucrats, and American capitalists are favorite scapegoats according to internal Greek rhetoric. If outsiders are to blame for the crisis, why should Greeks reform their economic system? It’s everyone else who has the problem, after all, not Greece.

This attitude manifests itself in periodic temper-tantrum street protests and strikes by state workers. Government officials behave similarly in refusing to cut state jobs and services lest they alienate voters and find themselves out of a job. The procrastination seems to be based on the hope that the EU will inflate the currency—as Greece so often did when it controlled its money in the past—and print away the nation’s debts. Given that one in ten Greeks, and one in four employed Greeks, calls government boss, the country’s political leaders have made it nearly impossible to institute meaningful reform. The politicians have bribed the populace into supporting big government, and the populace’s dependence on the behemoth state has made it politically suicidal for politicians to cut into it. Not doing what is personal political suicide is surely national political suicide.

“That’s enough, we can’t take it anymore,” chanted protesters in Athens on Tuesday. The mantra is that there is nothing left to cut. The media is only too willing to repeat it. The New York Times characterized the initial rejected agreement as “a package of harsh austerity measures,” while the UK’s Independent claimed that the “austerity drive has sent unemployment to a record high of 18.2 per cent and the country’s finances into a spiral of recession.”

But Europe’s finance ministers know something that journalists do not. There hasn’t been an austerity drive. Sacrifices have been demanded of taxpayers, such as a 217 percent rise in property taxes. And this deprivation has resulted in three years of negative growth—with a debt-to-GDP ratio set to approach 160 percent this year. But there has been no state austerity program. Greece’s government increased its spending by six percent last year. What is austere about that?

Is there nothing left to cut? Child care is free in Greece. So is university education. Private colleges, and home schooling, are forbidden. The dole is a constitutional right. So is health care, which is provided by the state. The government picks up the tab on trips to the dentist and eye doctor. The country’s 2010 budget identified 74 state-owned enterprises worth 44 billion euros. Workers retire at an average age of 53, with decades of pensions acting as a severe burden on taxpayers.

This attitude manifests itself in periodic temper-tantrum street protests and strikes by state workers. Government officials behave similarly in refusing to cut state jobs and services lest they alienate voters and find themselves out of a job. The procrastination seems to be based on the hope that the EU will inflate the currency—as Greece so often did when it controlled its money in the past—and print away the nation’s debts. Given that one in ten Greeks, and one in four employed Greeks, calls government boss, the country’s political leaders have made it nearly impossible to institute meaningful reform. The politicians have bribed the populace into supporting big government, and the populace’s dependence on the behemoth state has made it politically suicidal for politicians to cut into it. Not doing what is personal political suicide is surely national political suicide.

“That’s enough, we can’t take it anymore,” chanted protesters in Athens on Tuesday. The mantra is that there is nothing left to cut. The media is only too willing to repeat it. The New York Times characterized the initial rejected agreement as “a package of harsh austerity measures,” while the UK’s Independent claimed that the “austerity drive has sent unemployment to a record high of 18.2 per cent and the country’s finances into a spiral of recession.”

But Europe’s finance ministers know something that journalists do not. There hasn’t been an austerity drive. Sacrifices have been demanded of taxpayers, such as a 217 percent rise in property taxes. And this deprivation has resulted in three years of negative growth—with a debt-to-GDP ratio set to approach 160 percent this year. But there has been no state austerity program. Greece’s government increased its spending by six percent last year. What is austere about that?

Is there nothing left to cut? Child care is free in Greece. So is university education. Private colleges, and home schooling, are forbidden. The dole is a constitutional right. So is health care, which is provided by the state. The government picks up the tab on trips to the dentist and eye doctor. The country’s 2010 budget identified 74 state-owned enterprises worth 44 billion euros. Workers retire at an average age of 53, with decades of pensions acting as a severe burden on taxpayers.

“Nothing left to cut” is the rhetoric. Reality is closer to “Nothing has been cut.”

So much of it sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

A bloated public sector, and riots (or near riots) when an effort is made to cut back (read: Madison).

Promises to implement austerity and get things under control that are cavalierly broken (read: Obama budget).

Attempts to find scapegoats to avoid facing reality (read: the one percent).

Attempts to fix the problem with increased taxes (read: Illinois).

Government control of industry (read: General Motors).

Even the outlawing of home schooling, when hasn’t come to American yet, is clearly a battle that will have to be fought, given the fact that liberals view public schools as a means to indoctrinate children into their orthodoxies about homosexuality, global warming, and such.

If the liberals win, nobody can say we didn’t see what the consequences would be.

Germany: Liberal Theologians = Dying Church

From InsideCatholic.com:

In The Joys of Yiddish, Leo Rosten defined chutzpa as “presumption-plus-arrogance such as no other word, and no other language, can do justice to” and then offered classic examples of chutzpa in action: “Chutzpa is that quality enshrined in a man who, having killed his mother and father, throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. A chutzpanik may be defined as the man who shouts ‘Help! Help!’ while beating you up.”

Leo Rosten should have lived to experience German Catholic theologians of the early 21st century.

In anticipation of Pope Benedict XVI’s forthcoming visit to his homeland, more than 200 German theologians -- men and women who have earned doctoral degrees in theology and teach in German universities -- have issued a manifesto, “The Church in 2011: A Necessary Departure.” The manifesto itself does not identify the destination for which the Church is to depart, but the terminus ad quem seems reasonably clear from a careful reading of the document: Catholicism is to transform itself into another liberal Protestant sect by conceding virtually every point at issue between classic Christianity and the ambient culture of the postmodern West.

It is, perhaps, no surprise to find German Catholic theologians publicly supporting the ordination of married men and women to the ministerial priesthood (overtly), same-sex “marriage” (slyly), and full communion within the Church for those in irregular marriages (subtly but unmistakably). These causes have been espoused for years. German theologians dissented en masse from the 1993 teaching of Veritatis Splendor on the nature of moral acts and from the 1994 teaching of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on the Church’s inability to admit women to Holy Orders. What was particularly striking about this new manifesto was its attempt to address serious problems with tried-and-failed solutions. That bespeaks a remarkable lack of intellectual creativity and historical sense.

Thus we are told that the German sexual abuse cases that came to light in 2010 have “plunged the Catholic Church in Germany into an unequaled crisis.” Really? I understand, and in many respects sympathize with, German complaints about the ubiquity of references to the National Socialist period whenever anything German is discussed. But was 2010 really a crisis greater than that in which German Catholicism found itself between Hitler’s 1933 accession to power and Nazi Germany’s defeat in 1945? (Do today’s Catholics face crises of conscience greater than those faced by Count Claus von Stauffenberg or Sophie Scholl?) Moreover, what about the crisis of faith that emptied German churches over the past two generations, such that weekly Mass attendance in urban areas hovers around 5-10 percent?

The manifesto is also notable for its failure to examine academic consciences, an exercise that might have led to more measured assessments of responsibility for the current situation. Do these theologians imagine that they and their teachers bear no responsibility for the “paralysis and resignation” they deplore in German Catholicism? Does German theology’s tendency to treat the Bible as a specimen to be dissected rather than a gift to be studied with a full array of interpretive tools (including the eyes of faith) have nothing to do with today’s crisis of faith in a land whose very language was formed by Luther’s biblical translation? Has the theologians’ bizarre notion that “freedom of conscience” means abject surrender to the sexual revolution in all its demands had nothing to do with the Church’s failures to convert a hedonistic culture?

Few of these academics have any serious or sustained connection to the liturgical or pastoral life of the Church; yet they assume they occupy a privileged position from which to understand what has happened to German Catholicism and how its genuine problems can best be addressed. Why?

Seeking a rousing conclusion to their call to the ecclesiastical barricades, the German theologians advise their fellow Catholics that they should “look to the future with courage and walk on water, like Peter as Jesus said to him, ‘Why do you have fear? Is your faith so weak?’” A question to the professors: Would each of you who believes that Peter walked on water please raise your hand?

There is nothing particularly Catholic about any of this. Rather, it’s what we call the“established church syndrome,” and it most certainly applies to “Mainstream Protestantism” in the United States (which is no longer mainstream).

Relgious organizations that take for granted that a fair number of people will come through the doors (either out of habit, or because they have no choice) lose missionary zeal. They become places where people wanting a cozy sinecure go for a career.

They crave “mainstream” acceptance, which means they shy away from (and soon enough, actively oppose) ideas of which the secular media and secular academia disapprove, such as belief in miracles or Christian views on sexual morality.

Catholicism, of course, is heterogeneous, and parts of the Church have avoided this curse — the campus ministries at Texas A & M and the University of Wisconsin, Madison, for example.

And some parts of the world are producing large numbers of men and women going into religious vocations, a phenomenon that seems to have coincided with the tenure of John Paul II as Pope.

Marquette, unfortunately, resembles Germany more than places where Catholicism thrives. It’s not the fault of the Theology Department, which is reasonably faithful. It’s more the fault of a politically correct Campus Ministry, campus bureaucrats and a heavily secular faculty.

And the fact that students come here socialized more by the mass media than by the Church (and indeed, only a minority of freshmen will now call themselves Catholic) doesn’t help either.

Europe Doesn’t Get Religious Freedom: Majority Support For Banning the Burka

From the Financial Times:

More than half of voters in four other major European states back a push by France’s Nicolas Sarkozy to ban women from wearing the burka, according to an opinion poll for the Financial Times.

As Mr Sarkozy presses ahead with plans to ban the wearing of the burka in public places, the FT’s latest Harris poll shows the move is not just strongly supported in France, but wins enthusiastic backing in the UK, Italy, Spain and Germany.

The poll shows some 70 per cent of respondents in France said they supported plans to forbid the wearing of the garment which covers the female body from head to toe. There was similar sentiment in Spain and Italy, where 65 per cent and 63 per cent respectively favoured a ban

The strength of feeling in the UK and Germany may seem particularly surprising. Britain has a strong liberal tradition that respects an individual’s right to full expression of religious views. But here, some 57 per cent of people still favoured a ban. In Germany, which is also reluctant to clamp down in minority rights, some 50 per cent favoured a ban.

“This poll shows that the number of people in France opposed to the burka is going up and that is the product of debate on burka and national identity,” said Professor Patrick Weil, an expert on national identity at the University of Paris-Sorbonne. “But the figure is clearly going up in other countries in Europe like the UK as well, and that reflects the growing concern that there is about this issue in some parts of Europe.”

In the US, concerns about the issue are far less strong than in Europe. Just 33 per cent of Americans surveyed by Harris supported a ban, a far lower figure than the 44 per cent who said they [opposed] it.

The figure for the U.S. is appalling, but the figures for Europe are beyond appalling.

Europe, it seems, just doesn’t get individual liberty. One can be put in jail for denying that the Holocaust happened. One can be put in jail for saying that homosexuality is sinful.

As for Islam, policies tend toward two polar extremes. Either Muslims are a politically correct “minority” that gets special protection, or they are singled out (as here) for special persecution. The idea of equal liberty for all just doesn’t register there. America’s special history has created a very special political culture, which in spite of this nation’s faults is simply superior to that of Europe.

And not just in terms of liberty. It’s a culture with less class envy, more stress on individual achievement.

In Europe, while opposition to the burka was strong, few respondents said they were prepared to support the ban as part of a wider drive towards secularism in their country.

Asked if they would support the burka ban if it were accompanied by a clampdown on wearing all religious icons such as the Christian crucifix and the Jewish cappel, only 22 per cent of French people said they supported such a move. In Britain, just 9 per cent of people said they would back such a move.

One might say it’s nice that Europeans will tolerate at least some religious free expression. The problem is that, in the absence of a robust civic culture supporting religious freedom (and freedom generally), how secure at the freedoms of Christians and Jews when their free expression irritates the secular elites that control the continent?

We know the answer to that already.

Anti-Christian Censorship in the Public Schools

Public school administrators continue to censor Christian expression. First, a kid who drew a poster of Jesus.

The case of a former kindergarten student whose art project with Jesus was censored by his New York school will be heard in an appeals court Friday.

Antonio Peck, the student, had drawn a poster with several religious figures with the words, “The only way to save the world,” for an art project that had to show understanding about the environment. Antonio meant to express his belief that God is the only way to save the environment, according to his legal representative Liberty Counsel.

The poster was rejected by his kindergarten teacher because of its religious content and he was told to create a second poster.

For the second poster, Antonio had children holding hands around the globe, people recycling trash, and children picking up garbage. On the left side of the poster was the figure of a bearded man wearing a robe that was kneeling on the ground with hands stretched toward the sky. Although the figure is not identified, Antonio said it was Jesus.

The second poster was allowed to be displayed on a cafeteria wall, along with 80 other student posters. But what made Antonio’s poster different was it was folded in half to hide the Jesus figure.

“Despite the federal guidelines on religion in public schools recognizing that students may include religious themes in assignments, school officials insisted on folding Antonio Peck’s poster in half to hide the figure they interpreted to be Jesus,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. “What a terrible message to send to students that everything is permissible so long as it is not Christian. These educators need educating about the Constitution and American history.”

Then we have this:

HARRISBURG, Pa. — On the day President Obama addressed the nation’s schoolchildren, a middle school student donned an anti-abortion T-shirt to protest Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s health care system.

The student wore the “Abortion is not Healthcare” T-shirt without incident until his fifth-period teacher sent him to the principal’s office. He was ordered to turn the shirt inside out because it might offend other students.

The boy’s father, William Boyer of New Cumberland, Pa., filed suit last Monday against the West Shore School District, alleging that his son, E.B., was unfairly censored by school officials on Sept. 8.

Valerie Burch, a staff attorney with the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the student’s T-shirt represented political speech, the most protected form of speech, even inside schools.

If the district does not have a dress code that prohibits wearing T-shirts, then it has to permit this one, she said.

The district’s dress-and-grooming policy prohibits clothing “which creates a hostile educational environment or evidences discriminatory bias or animus” or displays “inappropriate words.”

Boyer is seeking to have the district’s policies struck down and to remove any references to disciplinary action from his son’s record. He also is seeking damages such as court costs and attorneys’ fees.

Chronically, school bureaucrats censor any religious expression in the public sector. But the Bill of Rights does not require that religious expression, coming from private citizens, must be censored.

Perhaps some of this is just timidity. Principals and school boards are used to being scared of secular forces (usually including the ACLU), and in the past have seldom had trouble from people defending relgious freedom. To a degree this is changing, but it’s pretty obvious that the cases that get publicized and get to court are just a tiny fraction of the censorship going on.

A lot of censorship is happening under the radar.

But it isn’t just timidity. There is a positive anti-Christian animus behind a lot of this, coming from liberal school administrators.

Palin, God and Iraq: Liberals Are Lying

Here is the famous video clip were Sarah Palin supposedly said that the troops in Iraq are engaged in a “task from God.”

YouTube Video
Liberals, of course, never seem to mind when religious types say that God is on their side. They never raised an objection, for example, when a bunch of leftist clerics started an anti-SUV campaign, asking “What Would Jesus Drive.”

In 1964, all the Mainstream Protestant organizations came out in favor of the Civil Rights Act. They took the position that God hates racial prejudice.

Then why should we object to saying that God hates terrorists? That’s just as plausible.

But in fact, Palin never said that the Iraq War is a “task from God.”

She said to pray that it is a task from God.

Here is the quote (go to approximately the 3:35 point):

Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right also for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God.

And further:

That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.

Linguistically, this isn’t difficult. She is telling people to “pray . . . that our leaders . . . are sending them out on a task from God.”

Both the Mainstream Media and the elites in the Democratic Party are highly secular, so we might suppose that they don’t know what a prayer request sounds like.

But can’t they read English?

In fact, what we have is secular cultural elites who hate Palin, don’t like Christians, and don’t especially care whether what they say about either is true.

Atheists: Key Constituency of the Democratic Party

From National Review Online:

It will surprise nobody to learn that the American left is much less religious than the rest of the U.S. population. The General Social Survey tells us that in 2004, liberals were less than half as likely as conservatives to attend a house of worship weekly, and nearly three times as likely as conservatives never to attend. Furthermore, the American left is becoming more secular still: While 27 percent of American liberals attended church weekly in 1974, only 16 percent did by 2004. In contrast, the percentage of church-attending conservatives rose over the same period from 38percent to 46percent.There are still some religious liberals left in America, but today they are outnumbered by religious conservatives by about four to one.

Secular liberals, and especially those who are explicitly nonbelievers, have become a major force on the political left. Researchers have found, for example, that delegates to the Democratic National Convention — the politically-active folks who nominate the Democratic candidate for the U.S. presidency — are more than twice as likely to be completely secular as the population-at-large.

Further, secularists are by far the most politically active liberals at the grassroots level. In the 2005, the Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality revealed that those who never attend religious services are just 11 percent of the adult population in America. But they are 21 percent of self-described liberals, 27 percent of liberals who contribute money to political causes, and 33 percent of liberals who attend political rallies and events. The bottom line is that the Democratic party — at least at the national level — depends critically on nonbelievers. They have influence over American liberal politics that extends far beyond their actual numbers in the population.

Of course, Democratic politicians keep saying that they want to connect with the “faith community.” They claim that they have just as much right to be the party of believers as the Republicans.

But the simple fact is: they don’t.

Deep in their hearts, they think that conservative Christians are ignorant rubes who can be persuaded to vote for the party of abortion and gay marriage by some pro forma expressions of Christian faith.

But the simple fact is: they aren’t and they won’t be.

WTMJ Supports Sykes on Parody “Coexist” Bumper Sticker

That’s the word from Tim Cuprisin, after a conservation with Jon Schweitzer, the general manager of WTMJ.

Leftist “Interfaith” Group Tries to Censor Charlie Sykes

It all started with a parody from Tom McMahon, who was aggravated by the extremely smug and intellectually slovenly bumper sticker in which a variety of religious symbols spell out “COEXIST.”



McMahon produced a parody bumper sticker with Nazi and Communist symbols substituted.



His point, of course, was that some religious views are simply impossible to coexist with, and must (like Nazism and Communism) be fought.

Charlie Sykes picked this up and ran it on his blog, and then the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee jumped in, demanding of Sykes and Sykes’ boss that the symbols be removed.

Interfaith Conference

Is the Interfaith Conference a protector of religious tolerance, attentive to slights against diverse faiths?

No, they are a bunch of liberal bureaucrat/activists who dislike Sykes simply because Sykes is a conservative.

Their leftist politics is not some sort of secret. They advertise it all over their web site.

They are, for example, supporters of socialized medicine. Not only did they sponsor a showing of the Michael Moore film “Sicko,” they strongly supported the “Healthy Wisconsin” proposal in the recent state budget battle.

They are also strong supporters of a Housing Trust Fund supposedly for low-income housing. While this may sound good, in reality it is merely a pork-barrel subsidy for local social activist organizations.

They are supporters of something called “Project Working Communities.” The web site of that project lays out its objectives.

• When available, all jobs will be with locally owned, union-represented businesses paying living wages and offering full-time work.
• All construction-phase jobs will pay at least prevailing wage.
• During construction, at least 25% of jobs will be in Disadvantaged Business Enterprises/Minority Business Enterprises and 5% in Women’s Business Enterprises
• During construction, at least 25% of employees will be minorities and 5% women.
• After construction, at least 75% of jobs will pay at least a living wage or market wage (whichever is higher), plus health insurance. The living wage is 110% of the federal poverty line for a family of four (in 2003, $9.73 per hour). Jobs without health insurance will pay at least $2 per hour more.
• Preferred jobs will be full-time, with sick leave, vacation time, and flexibility for family needs.

In short, unionization and rigid affirmative action quotas will be imposed, and economic reality will be ignored.

The Conferences sponsors a meeting called Common Ground, “A One Day Conference on Racism and White Privilege” where, from all appearances, the race card will be played incessantly. The program from the 2007 conference makes this clear, and the 2006 program features panels on subjects like “Globalization and New Urbanism are metaphors of white privilege,” and “White bonding, hurricane Katrina & other unnatural disasters.” Add to that the enchantingly titled “Old glory, mom, apple pie and racism: A dialogue on race beyond black and white.”

Anybody familiar with the mindset of leftist clerical bureaucrats won’t be surprised to learn that they oppose the death penalty.

Nor to learn that they favor a very liberal approach to immigration, and buy into the standard environmentalist agenda.

Who is Anti-Semitic?

Perhaps the most bizarre thing about the Interfaith Conference statement is the claim that the parody bumper sticker is somehow anti-Semitic. Yet the actions of the Conference raise serious questions. For example:

When the Toledo charity KindHearts was shut down this past February, for raising millions of dollars for Hamas, the group’s leaders got off scott free. One of those leaders was KindHearts’ President, Khaled Smaili. Another was KindHearts’ South Asia Director, Zulfiqar Ali Shah. Unlike Smaili, who has remained virtually silent since the closure, Shah has continued to bask in the spotlight. He now sits in his new digs in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the Religious Director of a large Islamic institution and the toast of the media. Today, the Interfaith Conference of Greater Milwaukee will be sponsoring a Shah talk, taking place at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church.

And further:

. . . Shah’s love for his fellow man was not manifest, when, just a few years prior, in June of 2001, he spoke of a wild conspiracy regarding Jews retaking the Saudi city of Medina. He said, “If we are unable to stop the Jews now, their next stop is Yathrib (The Prophet’s city of Medina), where the Jews used to live until their expulsion by Prophet Muhammad. That’s the pinnacle of their motives.”

You can find further information on Shah here. Local Milwaukee columnists Cary Spivak & Dan Bice raised a variety of questions about Shah in a 2006 article.

But Shah’s group, the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, is a member of the Interfaith Conference!

The simple fact is that the Interfaith Conference lacks any credibility in attacking Sykes, or making any assertions about religious tolerance.

They are simply a bunch of liberals and leftists who dislike Sykes because they don’t like conservatives.

A Christian Soldier At War -- And Anti-Christian Bigotry

Marquette alumnus and future Jesuit priest William Blazek wrote a Veterans Day piece for the Washington Post/Newsweek website, just published today.

Among his observations:

One thing that has always struck this veteran about those who serve our nation in the armed forces is the incredible generosity with which they care for each other, the incredible generosity with which they love one another. They do this in sharing meals, in giving burned-out comrades time to catch a bit of sleep, and in simple things like cups of coffee. Although I could not see it as clearly then, God was very present to us in such simple gestures during the First Gulf War. Now that I am a bit more practiced in looking for signs of Him, it is not too hard to figure out. To take care of someone is to love that person, and God is love. Therefore, we can find God’s love in our service members’ care for each other.

A nice sentiment, and typical of American soldiers today as in the past.

But the essay, unfortunately, opened the floodgates for anti-Christian bigotry in the comments section following the article.

Among the typical statements:

Why do Christians call any positive emotion love? It cheapens the word.

What you have here is the concept known as ‘comitatus’. It’s group identity, being a part of a warrior band. Comradeship.

Talk about reaching for the same old towel.

Everything you describe here was done in much the same way by successful warrior bands from time immemorial. The Vikings just didn’t see it as evidence of the presence of Wotan.

And then:

God is very present to us in such simple gestures. . . To take care of someone is to love that person, and God is love. Therefore, we can find God’s love in gays’ care for each other.

I’m not saying all service people are gay but what I am pointing out is that some people who find God in simple gestures of those they approve of somehow can’t find God in the same gestures of those they condemn.

It’s not clear Blazek would disagree with this. It seems this poster can’t accept a Christian sentiment without working homosexuality into the discussion.

And pray tell, didn’t your God have something to say about killing? Oh, yes, I know. You conveniently forgot all those teachings about “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” and stuff that Jesus said about peace. If you find God in a cup of coffee and can’t figure out that a battlefield is not a tribute to Him or anyone else, then you don’t understand squat.

And then:

This said, to those Wiccan or other pagan soldiers who still serve today, I wish you the best. Stand like the stones, burn like the fires, shout with the wind, and fill your spaces and roles confidently and fully like water. Wherever you may fall, the earth mother waits to embrace you. You are not alone.

And then:

What’s God got to do with anything? There’s no God, or if there is a God, there’s no evidence of his existence in a combat zone.

Do us all a favor will you? Keep God out of a discussion of what goes on in a combat zone. Soldiers help each other out for partly altruistic and partly for selfish reasons.

What keeps men going is comradeship, not God.

That pietistic hogwash your put out has no place in any serious discussion of the business of war.

And further:

Oh, yes!

War is the ultimate expression of love!

Love thy neighbor by blowing his head off! Yes, war is a divine virtue!

Hallelujah and let’s kill in the name of Jesus.

And then:

Regarding Anne . . . I think she is tired of the trail of death that is associated with Christianity. (Before you get your panties in a twist, read a history book or two and you’ll see why the rest of the world is sick of you Christians.)

Most likely, she used small words that Christians can understand.

Of course, she could have explained how the metaphysics and epistemology of a dualisism of Christianity is constantly out of synchronization with its axiology, but she didn’t want to talk over your heads.

Besides, it’s fun to watch you Christians tweak when anybody challenges your beliefs.

Have a nice day.

And then:

2 studies should be done: The Use of Religion for Power and The Use of Power for Money. If you ask: “Is God on the Battlefield?” The answer should be: “No, people are on the battlefield and they were put there by other people for reasons they may not (1) know or (2) agree with.”

Getting people to risk their lives for an abstraction (national identity) requires Demonizing the other side - be they fighters or innocent bystanders. Hence, the illogic - if they are devils, god must be on our side.

From all I have heard of Jesus this was not the sort of logic he engaged in or practiced.

And then:

When (some) Christians want to justify warfare, they always quote Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers. Is overturning tables equivalent to shooting people, maiming them, dropping bombs on them? Isn’t there a distinction between violence towards inanimate objects and violence against human beings? Presumably God could have nuked the lot of them to prevent the crucifixion, but he didn’t. I wonder why not?

And then:

You got Bush living down to his own myth of the Antichrist cause that’s the only place his cokehead self can find in the universe... And you have people parroting everything that crosses his fratboy mind, why?

Cause that’s what they’re *told.*

And they know nothing else.

And then:

This is a vile attempt to somehow suggest that God, whatever your theistic bias, is somehow present on the battlefield ------ perhaps in that cup of java. Or, maybe he’s in the next IED.

Tell me, doc: Is it the same God that allowed my friend to blown to bits in front of me ------ while sparing my sorry, sinful a$$? Or, is it the God that high school basketball teams each pray to?

While we’re at it, how does this prayer thing work? If enough people pray about the same thing does God finally take notice ------ as if HE says: “Oh for Christ’s sake, alright already! I’ll save the dying child, the cancer-ridden pregnant mom, and I’ll let your team beat the other guys.”

Exactly what part about “Thou shalt not kill” don’t you fundamentalists get?

Do me a favor ----- don’t pray for me.

It keeps going:

As for the Chaplain, here, well... he thinks it’s special ‘God’ is in a cup of coffee if people are sufficiently-stressed-out.

I don’t get why it’s a big deal, really. I been under siege in America, and, senses get sharp, but ‘God,’ (well, Goddess) was in that coffee in the first place.

Not like I never spent a long night waiting for some Christians to sober up and act on their righteous threats.

Try having a break-action .410 between yourself and a whole lot of Fundie gun enthusiasts that are told you and everyone you love are Satanic agents.

And then:

And I swear to the Gods, Captain, If I could move, instead of being on the Internet all these days, I’d be over there. Not cause I have any faith in the ‘faith-based policy,’ but cause I don’t trust you Christians with guns, never mind in someone else’s country.

And then:

William Blazek sadly reveals the sentimentality mistaken as ‘religious’. A sunset, the fact that someone smiles at you, perhaps getting a parking space in the mall when you’re pressed for time. These become ‘signs’ to the believer. Small ‘favors’ the Catholics would say.

Unfortunately, if the believer is so moved and so attentive to Godliness in life as emotional neediness, much of reality in all its harshness, venality, and violence go unnoticed and unaddressed. It is this immaturity to face life as it is and to face themselves as they are that makes religion and the religious a target of ridicule for those who cannot in honesty agree with the perceptions and conclusions they offer.

And then:

Except Jesus (as) wasn’t a soldier for a world empire occupying and interfering in foreign lands to satisfy corporate greed and thirst for world domination. You gave a scruffy GI Joe some love. But what about the principle of your mission?

Save the platitudes for when you are just a regular person helping another regular person. You were on a mission to kill people so your leaders could get access to 100s of billions in Kuwaiti wealth and a permanent strategic foothold in the Arabian Peninsula like empires have tried to do for eons.

Repent to God for the evils which you have engaged in.

And then:

The “seeing” of God in these experiences is really the act of interpreting what actually happened (meaning, sharing, bonding) within the context of a preexisting dogmatic belief structure. To me, that actually corrupts and pollutes the experience since it is no longer seen for what it is. Instead, it is exploited in the service of superstition.

It keeps going:

People of faith see Jesus and Mary in rust stained highway underpasses, potato chips, grilled cheese sandwiches, and trees that get spared by the California wildfires.

Many of these comments don’t, in fact, begin to address what Blazek wrote.

Some semi-reasonable posters, for example, pointed out that battlefield camaraderie may exist among non-Christians -- like atheists or “pagans” (whatever that means these days). There is no reason to think that Blazek would disagree.

Rather, people who have a deep-seated hatred of Christianity spew forth their grudges.

Bill Moyers Attacks Karl Rove as an Agnostic

An ill-tempered partisan rant from Bill Moyers is no surprise.

But what is interesting about this one, from a forthcoming PBS special, is that he attacks Karl Rove for being (supposedly) an agnostic.

One would think that liberals would be tolerant of agnostics, but they aren’t tolerant of Karl Rove.

According to Moyers, “you have to wonder how those people on the Christian right feel discovering they were used for partisan reasons by a skeptic, a secular manipulator.”

Of course, Moyers, like liberals generally, believes that Christian conservatives are stupid people who could not make a rational vote choice, which is why Rove was able to “manipulate” them.

Yet somehow he “manipulated” them into voting for a candidate (George Bush) who shared their policy preferences about things like abortion, the homosexual agenda and taking “under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Rove may or may not be an agnostic, but Moyer’s argument is a singularly stupid one.

Rove did not sell himself as a devout Christian. He sold George Bush as a Christian, and as somebody who agreed with Christians on key social issues.

No misrepresentation was required.

Had Rove believed that Christianity is evil, then his selling Bush to Christians as a Christian candidate would be immoral. But there is no evidence Rove believes that Christianity is evil. Indeed, he has been quoted as saying he does not have the “gift of faith.”

Not exactly the words of somebody who thinks Christianity is an evil delusion.

We frankly would prefer an atheist president who agrees with us on key issues to a nominal Christian whose worldview is that of the secular left. And most real Christians we know (“real” defined as taking the Bible more seriously than the editorial page of the New York Times) agree with us.

But Moyers believes that conservative Christians are ignorant hicks, and voted for Bush in the belief that everybody with any connection whatsoever to the Bush White House must be a devout believer.

Of course, Christians would be ignorant hicks if they voted for people who think like Bill Moyers.

The Future of Europe -- And the U.S.?

In the new issue of The American Conservative (which is not on the web yet) an essay from Swarthmore political scientist James Kurth. His forecast for Europe is not optimistic. Via Beliefnet and Dad29:

Current social attitudes and demographic trends in the West suggest that there will be a continuation of low reproduction rates among Western peoples and therefore a severe decline in their populations. Conversely, there will be a continuation of high immigration of non-Western peoples into the Western nations and of higher reproduction rates among the non-Western communities in the West than among the Western people themselves. This will have major consequences not only for the military strategies of the Western nations but for their national security -- and even identity.

The most dramatic consequences are likely to occur in Europe, where most of the non-Western populations will be Muslim. These communities already perform functions essential to the economic system, and within the next decade, they are poised to become an important part of the political system. Many European countries will become two nations, and Europe as a whole will become two civilizations. The first will be a Western civilization or, more accurately, given Europeans’ rejection of many Western traditions, a post-Western civilization comprised of people of European descent. It will be secular, even pagan, rich, old, and feeble. The second will be the non-Western civilization, descended from non-European peoples. It will be religious, even Islamic, poor, young, and vigorous. ...The two civilizations will regard each other with mutual contempt. In the new civilization, there will be a growing rage, and in the old civilization, there will be a growing fear. These will be the perfect conditions for endemic Islamic terrorism, urban riots, and mob violence: an Islamist insurgency within Europe itself.

For the nations of the West, which have arrived at this historically unprecedented state, a viable strategy for the nation is no longer possible because they are no longer really nations at all.

Two pessimistic? Maybe.

Applicable to the U.S.? Not in the short run. In the long run, a real danger.

But the U.S. is still a Christian nation, notwithstanding the hostility toward Christianity of certain elites. And the massive immigration of people not acculturated to American norms is from Hispanic Christians, not Muslims.

An irony of all this is that the safety of secular people in the U.S. (and this includes not only atheists and agnostics but the nominally religious) lies in the fact that this is a Christian nation.

Christians will protect, both by being willing to fight and willing to procreate, the moderate Constitutional regime that secures the liberty of all.

Which is why the secular hostility to Christians, as well as the tendency of secular people to romanticize Muslims as victims of Western imperialism, is so short-sighted.

Secular Intolerance in Europe: Scientology

It seems that Tom Cruise is not allowed to film in a certain location in Germany because of his religious beliefs.

He is a Scientologist.

Tom Cruise has been banned from making a film in Berlin about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler because the German government says his belief in Scientology is akin to Nazism.

The Hollywood star is set to play Count Claus von Stauffenberg, who almost succeeded in assassinating the Nazi leader in 1944.

The project is due to start production next month but the Germans fear Cruise will use the film, which he is co-producing, as a public relations vehicle for Scientology, which many of the country’s politicians have compared to Nazism.

The German government claims it masquerades as a religion to make money, a charge Scientology leaders reject.

The country has fought against the sect for a decade. It is even under observation by the Federal Agency for the Protection of the Constitution, a body that usually hunts spies, terrorists and neo-Nazis.

One of Germany’s few war heroes, Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg had been deeply opposed to the Nazis’ treatment of the Jews and planted a briefcase bomb under a table near Hitler in his Wolf’s Lair headquarters on July 20, 1944. The bomb went off but only wounded the Fuehrer.

Two hundred of his conspirators were also arrested and killed.

German Defence Minister Franz-Josef Jung has ruled that Cruise should not be allowed to film in the inner courtyard of his ministry where von Stauffenberg was shot.

A Defence Ministry spokesman said: “The film makers will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult.

“In general, the German military has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg as a person.”

Of course, he has no evidence that the portrayal will be anything less than serious and authentic.

We have no problem with calling Scientology a cult.

We have a huge problem with any government deciding what is a cult and what isn’t, and discriminating against “cult members.”

While the word “cult” might, in principle, have some objective definition that distinguishes between a cult and a church and a movement, in practice a “cult” is a religious movement one happens to dislike.

We have heard of liberal women who label as “male cult” any religion that doesn’t ordain women as ministers. And any religion that takes its beliefs too seriously (with “too seriously” judged by secular people) is going to be called a cult.

Further, people have every right to join a cult -- a real cult that we and the secularists would agree is a cult.

This is just another example of the secular intolerance of Europe.

Secularist Europe Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists

From the Brussels Journal:

Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for “Volksverhetzung” (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe’s official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are “undemocratic” and “a threat to human rights.”

Without legalized abortion the number of German children would increase annually by at least 150,000 – which is the number of legal abortions in birth dearth Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle compared the killing of the unborn to the killing of the Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War. On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled that, in doing so, the pastor had “incited the people” because his statement was a denial of the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi-Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to one year in jail. Earlier, he had already spent eight months in jail for calling abortionists “professional killers” – an allegation which the court ruled to be slanderous because, according to the court, the unborn are not humans.

Other German courts convicted pro-lifers for saying that “in abortion clinics, life unworthy of living is being killed,” because this terminology evoked Hitler’s euthanasia program, which used the same language. In 2005, a German pro-lifer, Günter Annen, was sentenced to 50 days in jail for saying “Stop unjust [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical] practice,” because, according to the court, the expression “unjust” is understood by laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions are not.

Volksverhetzung is a crime which the Nazis often invoked against their enemies and which contemporary Germany also uses to intimidate homeschoolers. Soon, the German authorities will be able to use the same charge against people who question Darwin’s evolution theory.

Indeed, next Tuesday, the Council of Europe (CoE), Europe’s main human-rights body, will vote on a proposal which advocates the fight against creationism, “young earth” and “intelligent design” in its 47 member states.

According to a report of the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly, creationists are dangerous “religious fundamentalists” who propagate “forms of religious extremism” and “could become a threat to human rights.” The report adds that the acceptance of the science of evolutionism “is crucial to the future of our societies and our democracies.”

“Creationism, born of the denial of the evolution of species through natural selection, was for a long time an almost exclusively American phenomenon,” the report says.

“Today creationist theories are tending to find their way into Europe and their spread is affecting quite a few Council of Europe member states. […] [T]his is liable to encourage the development of all manner of fundamentalism and extremism, synonymous with attacks of utmost virulence on human rights. The total rejection of science is definitely one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights. […] The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that the advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy. [...] If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists.”

George Orwell, please call the Council of Europe.

Letting people advocate creationism or intelligent design is a serious threat to “human rights and civic rights.” But having the government impose an orthodoxy on the subject is perfectly fine.

According to the CoE report, America and Australia are already on their way towards becoming such undemocratic theocracies where human and civic rights are endangered. Creationism is “well-developed in the English-speaking countries, especially the United States and Australia,” the report states.

“While most curricula in Europe today unashamedly teach evolution as a recognised scientific theory, the same does not apply to the United States. In July 2005, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll that showed that 64% of Americans favoured the teaching of intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution and that 38% would support the total abandonment of the teaching of evolution in publicly owned schools. The American President George W. Bush supports the principle of teaching both intelligent design and the theory of evolution. At the moment, 20 of the 50 American states are facing potential adjustments of their school curricula in favour of intelligent design. Many people think that this phenomenon only affects the United States and that, even if it is not possible to be indifferent to what is happening on the other side of the Atlantic, it is not the Council of Europe’s role to deal with this issue. That, however, is not the case. On the contrary, it would seem crucial for us to take the appropriate precautions in our 47 member states.”

Though one may disagree with people who take the Book of Genesis literally (believing that God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh), surely secularist political organizations telling people what they may or may not believe, constitute a far greater threat to human rights than religious institutions telling their faithful how to vote. In the voting booth people are free to do what they like, whilst in contemporary Europe people are no longer free to publicly voice their own, deeply felt opinions in public.

In Germany, believing abortion to be as murderous as the holocaust is a crime, and educating your own children is a crime too. In France, saying that “homosexual behaviour endangers the survival of humanity” is a crime, and so is the distribution of pork soup to the poor. In Belgium, speaking out against immigration is a crime.

Europe is the continent that, for centuries, imposed a religious orthodoxy on its population. In some places the established church was Catholic, and in others Protestant. But the intolerance of dissenters was close to a constant.

It seems the culture of Europe hasn’t changed much.

Now the orthodoxy is secular. But the willingness to punish people who won’t hue to it remains very much in place.

Is America better? Yes, the civil culture here is a lot more tolerant.

But not perfectly tolerant. And the people here who look to Europe as a model -- for the abolition of the death penalty, for socialized medicine, for preferring John Kerry to George Bush in 2004 -- are perfectly willing to shut up opinions they don’t like.

Indeed, there are a fair number of people like that on the Marquette campus.

Just last year, Jess Cushion, President of the Gay/Straight Alliance claimed that any speaker opposed to gay marriage should be banned from the Marquette campus. She explained:

. . . the problem is that gay marriage is an issue of human rights, and having a speaker on campus that will stand up against human rights would basically be promoting hate speech on campus . . .

It’s no wonder that liberals now don’t call themselves “liberals.” They call themselves “progressives.”

Perhaps that’s appropriate, notwithstanding that their vision hardly constitutes progress.

For generations, liberals in American had some tenuous relationship with classical liberalism and its defense of individual liberty and free speech.

But that is fast disappearing.

Media Bias in Europe: Worse than the U.S.?

American conservatives can get to exercised about liberal media bias in the U.S. that we sometimes forget that it’s even worse elsewhere.

Like Europe, for example.

Via NewsBusters, an example from the war in Afghanistan.

Reporter Michael Fumento, embedded with U.S. forces in that war, describes two Associated Press reporters from Spain.

One of the AP reporters says he believes 9/11 was a Bush administration conspiracy hung on al Qaeda. . . . I don’t hear the other reporter sound out on the subject, but he never takes off his Che Guevara T-shirt. Maybe these two will provide unbiased footage and commentary notwithstanding their personal views--maybe not.

When liberals here in the U.S. proudly proclaim that President Bush is vastly unpopular in Europe, and therefore is a bad person and a bad president, they are ignoring that Europeans are judging him based on what they see in their media.

Biased media produces biased opinions. This can be counterbalanced by a diversity of media sources. But when it’s not what the people believe -- especially on matters far from their personal experiences -- will simply reflect what the media tell them.

Indeed, negative opinions of Bush around the world are the result of a (literally) unholy alliance. Secular leftists who dominate the media in Europe dislike him because he’s a conservative, but also (probably to a greater degree) because he’s a Christian and a Texan.

In the Muslim world, they hate him because he is allied with Israel.

But neither the secular Europeans nor the anti-Israel Muslims have any particular moral authority.