Bishop David Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council, has posted a succinct and excellent summary of the current situation in the Anglican Communion. As his headline puts it, “All is not well in ‘Rowanland’.”
He notes that Rowan Williams is uniting people, but not in the way he intended. There had been a division amongst orthodox Global South primates over how to deal with His Grace. Back in 2008, when it was clear ++Rowan would indaba Lambeth, many orthodox bishops did not go and instead went to the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON). But not all orthodox took that course. ++Anis and ++Chew were among those orthodox who did not attend GAFCON and did attend Lambeth.
“Williams, however, abused this additional chance afforded him by some of the orthodox primates, and there is now probably little differentiation between the GAFCON primates and those bishops led by Chew and Anis.” Indeed, Chew and Anis are among the primates who boycotted the just ended Primates Meeting in Dublin.
Anderson goes to the heart of the current problems in the Communion, the failure of Rowan Williams’ leadership.
Many of the primates have made their reasons for being absent very clear in public and private correspondence to Dr. Williams, who is the convener. However, the Anglican Communion Office, headed by Canon Kenneth Kearon, has concocted reasons for some of them that are simply disingenuous. Most of the primates have made it clear to Dr. Williams why they are absent and why they are frustrated and disappointed in his leadership. With this fact in mind, there is a question that begs to be asked; "Is Dr. Williams competent to lead the Communion?" You would be surprised if you polled liberal revisionists and orthodox conservatives to find that many on both sides would answer NO. It is time to acknowledge before the world that the emperor has no clothes, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has no competency to lead the Communion. . . .
The Anglican Communion is a wonderful global family that has some real dysfunction, and as is often the case, the heart of the dysfunction sits in the center. The heart of the dysfunction is not TEC, nor Bishop V. Gene Robinson, nor Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori. That these have perpetrated grossly unbiblical misconduct and deserve to be severely punished is clear enough, but to posit the blame on all of them gives them entirely too much credit and feeds their sense of importance. The blame properly falls on the spiritual father who should have disciplined the miscreants and is now unable to act for the well being of both the miscreants and the rest of the family. To be effective, discipline needs to be clear, redemptive in nature, and prompt - all of which Dr. Williams is unwilling and unable to fulfill.
+Anderson does not put much hope in the UK Government to appoint someone who will fulfill needful church leadership and discipline. He suggests a new way forward will eventually be found for orthodox Anglicanism that does not rely on Canterbury. As he concludes, “God is still sovereign, and the church still belongs to him, and in time he will set right what man has over turned.”
Again, +Anderson captures the current situation well and in few words. Get thee hence.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
How Things Have Changed in Reynosa
The news of the missionary lady murdered by drug scum in Mexico strikes a chord with me. Obviously, a lady seeking to do good to the people of Mexico being shot in cold blood by a drug gang stirs anyone with a soul.
But it is more personal with me. The shooting occurred south of Reynosa, Mexico.
Back in the 90’s, I helped lead a church mission trip of Junior High kids to build small houses for people in a dirt-poor colonia in Reynosa.
No responsible church would do such a thing today. Reynosa has since become a center of drug cartel violence. I would not allow any kid of mine to go there. And I feel I would be taking my own life in my hands if I crossed the border there.
It is very sad indeed what the drug cartels have done to Northern Mexico. Please pray for the people of Mexico.
But it is more personal with me. The shooting occurred south of Reynosa, Mexico.
Back in the 90’s, I helped lead a church mission trip of Junior High kids to build small houses for people in a dirt-poor colonia in Reynosa.
No responsible church would do such a thing today. Reynosa has since become a center of drug cartel violence. I would not allow any kid of mine to go there. And I feel I would be taking my own life in my hands if I crossed the border there.
It is very sad indeed what the drug cartels have done to Northern Mexico. Please pray for the people of Mexico.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Abomination of the Week
As if the current sham Primates Meeting was not abomination enough:
At the start of Wednesday morning Eucharist, Primates placed, at the foot of the altar, symbols (including photos, food, pictures and other objects) that represented the major missional challenges of their Province. This was so that these local issues are front of mind at any act of worship throughout the week.
1. This sort of thing might be appropriate for a Junior High retreat, but for a meeting of archbishops?
2. I thought something else, rather, Someone else was supposed to be “front of mind” at worship.
Oh, I forgot. “Bishops” Schori and Hiltz are there.
At the start of Wednesday morning Eucharist, Primates placed, at the foot of the altar, symbols (including photos, food, pictures and other objects) that represented the major missional challenges of their Province. This was so that these local issues are front of mind at any act of worship throughout the week.
1. This sort of thing might be appropriate for a Junior High retreat, but for a meeting of archbishops?
2. I thought something else, rather, Someone else was supposed to be “front of mind” at worship.
Oh, I forgot. “Bishops” Schori and Hiltz are there.
The Sham Primates Meeting
In case you have not noticed (and even the ACI has), the current Primates Meeting in Dublin is a sham.
The comically lame explanations of the Anglican Communion News Service aside, primates representing about two-thirds of active church members in the Communion are pointedly absent from the meeting. Most previously have made it very clear why they are not attending – because of ++Rowan Williams’ leadership, or lack thereof, in continuing to invite the primates of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to such meetings even though they and their “churches” have brazenly violated orthodoxy and past decisions of the Communion.
Again, primates representing two-thirds of active members in the Anglican Communion are absent. This is the equivalent of a vote of “no confidence” in Dr. Williams. It is an absence that shouts volumes about the utter failure of ++Rowan’s leadership in upholding orthodoxy and unity in the Anglican Communion.
It is time for Rowan Williams to go.
The comically lame explanations of the Anglican Communion News Service aside, primates representing about two-thirds of active church members in the Communion are pointedly absent from the meeting. Most previously have made it very clear why they are not attending – because of ++Rowan Williams’ leadership, or lack thereof, in continuing to invite the primates of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to such meetings even though they and their “churches” have brazenly violated orthodoxy and past decisions of the Communion.
Again, primates representing two-thirds of active members in the Anglican Communion are absent. This is the equivalent of a vote of “no confidence” in Dr. Williams. It is an absence that shouts volumes about the utter failure of ++Rowan’s leadership in upholding orthodoxy and unity in the Anglican Communion.
It is time for Rowan Williams to go.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Orthodox Anglican Council in Works?
I do not want to jump the gun. Hence the question mark in the title.
But at the Mere Anglicanism Conference, a primate and a prominent bishop sure sounded like a binding orthodox Anglican council is in the works.
++Mouneer Anis (blogged by a third party. Quote may not be exact.):
I agree that the times today need Orthodox Anglicans from around the world to lead. We’ve been reactive for 10 years now and need to take the lead and look at a gathering of Bishops and Primates. The Global South bishops and primates need to meet with orthodox bishops in the West. This meeting is being planned.
+Michael Nazir-Ali:
In resolution of some of these matters, Anglicans need to bring to bear the Word of God on the issues and to be the guardian and interpreter for the church. We should have a healthy perspective on a proper conciliarity that Anglicans have evaded for 150 years. The Reformers would have resolved similar difficulties with a church council. What is wanted now, today, is a conciliar gathering.
Of course, the current Archbishop of Canterbury and allies will avoid, evade, and undermine any binding council. So I foresee the following:
A number of (but not all) orthodox Anglican primates lead a conference of all Anglican bishops who will come and submit beforehand to a brief statement of orthodox belief.
The council will come to robust and binding agreements on the basics of the faith and on contradicting agendas in the Anglican Communion. The council will not formally break with the Anglican Communion but most of the participants will afterward completely disregard the authority of those who do not sign on to the Council’s statements. Although the council may seek to reform the Anglican Communion, there may in effect be a new orthodox Anglican Communion of some sort formed sooner or later.
If a miracle happens, and I’m right, remember you heard it here first.
But at the Mere Anglicanism Conference, a primate and a prominent bishop sure sounded like a binding orthodox Anglican council is in the works.
++Mouneer Anis (blogged by a third party. Quote may not be exact.):
I agree that the times today need Orthodox Anglicans from around the world to lead. We’ve been reactive for 10 years now and need to take the lead and look at a gathering of Bishops and Primates. The Global South bishops and primates need to meet with orthodox bishops in the West. This meeting is being planned.
+Michael Nazir-Ali:
In resolution of some of these matters, Anglicans need to bring to bear the Word of God on the issues and to be the guardian and interpreter for the church. We should have a healthy perspective on a proper conciliarity that Anglicans have evaded for 150 years. The Reformers would have resolved similar difficulties with a church council. What is wanted now, today, is a conciliar gathering.
Of course, the current Archbishop of Canterbury and allies will avoid, evade, and undermine any binding council. So I foresee the following:
A number of (but not all) orthodox Anglican primates lead a conference of all Anglican bishops who will come and submit beforehand to a brief statement of orthodox belief.
The council will come to robust and binding agreements on the basics of the faith and on contradicting agendas in the Anglican Communion. The council will not formally break with the Anglican Communion but most of the participants will afterward completely disregard the authority of those who do not sign on to the Council’s statements. Although the council may seek to reform the Anglican Communion, there may in effect be a new orthodox Anglican Communion of some sort formed sooner or later.
If a miracle happens, and I’m right, remember you heard it here first.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Anti-Christian Bigotry Exposed at U of Kentucky
The University of Kentucky has settled with renowned astronomer Martin Gaskell for turning him down for a post because of his Christian beliefs. I do not find the settlement sum of $125,000 that notable.
But in the process of this case, anti-Christian bigotry in academic science was laid bare for all to see. The excellent Ben Stein movie, Expelled, among other sources has documented this prejudice elsewhere in academia. But the evidence in this case was a smoking telescope, one might say.
Judge Forester specifically noted the following:
• The head of the search committee wrote in an email to the Chair of the Physics & Astronomy Department that “no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin [Gaskell] on any basis other than religious . . .”
• The Department Chair admitted “that the debate generated by Gaskell’s website and his religious beliefs was an ‘element’ in the decision not to hire Gaskell.”
• One member of the search committee admitted that Gaskell’s “views of religious things” were “a factor” in his decision not to support Gaskell’s candidacy.
• Another member of the committee, having discovered Gaskell’s website, warned fellow committee members that Gaskell was “potentially evangelical.”
• The search committee head, anticipating a decision against Gaskell by his fellow committee members, wrote that “Other reasons will be given for the choice . . . but the real reason we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the other duties specified for this position.”
Frankly, I would have held out for a lot more than $125,000. The University of Kentucky got off easy. Bigots.
But in the process of this case, anti-Christian bigotry in academic science was laid bare for all to see. The excellent Ben Stein movie, Expelled, among other sources has documented this prejudice elsewhere in academia. But the evidence in this case was a smoking telescope, one might say.
Judge Forester specifically noted the following:
• The head of the search committee wrote in an email to the Chair of the Physics & Astronomy Department that “no objective observer could possibly believe that we excluded Martin [Gaskell] on any basis other than religious . . .”
• The Department Chair admitted “that the debate generated by Gaskell’s website and his religious beliefs was an ‘element’ in the decision not to hire Gaskell.”
• One member of the search committee admitted that Gaskell’s “views of religious things” were “a factor” in his decision not to support Gaskell’s candidacy.
• Another member of the committee, having discovered Gaskell’s website, warned fellow committee members that Gaskell was “potentially evangelical.”
• The search committee head, anticipating a decision against Gaskell by his fellow committee members, wrote that “Other reasons will be given for the choice . . . but the real reason we will not offer him the job is because of his religious beliefs in matters that are unrelated to astronomy or to any of the other duties specified for this position.”
Frankly, I would have held out for a lot more than $125,000. The University of Kentucky got off easy. Bigots.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Blame Righty CCCVIX1/2
You eeeevil pro-life conservatives are not only responsible for the Tucson shooting, but also for abortionist Kermit Gosnell’s butchery.
Just letting you know.
(I’m getting blamed for so much lately, I’m beginning to feel Jewish.)
Just letting you know.
(I’m getting blamed for so much lately, I’m beginning to feel Jewish.)
Thursday, January 20, 2011
500 Babies Baptized. Protests Break Out.
No less than 500 babies were baptized into the Georgian Apostolic Autocephalous Orthodox Church at Trinity Cathedral in Tbilisi, Georgia, I assume on the Feast of Epiphany.
However, as photos make clear, many of the baptized do not approve of this liturgical practice. And in their honor, we name this mass baptism the abomination of the week.
(Please note that said declaration is made in good humor only. I do not have an opinion on mass baptisms, but I love the photos. Readers are welcome to share their opinions on this practice.)
However, as photos make clear, many of the baptized do not approve of this liturgical practice. And in their honor, we name this mass baptism the abomination of the week.
(Please note that said declaration is made in good humor only. I do not have an opinion on mass baptisms, but I love the photos. Readers are welcome to share their opinions on this practice.)
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
I do not want civil discourse – Don Surber
I may not necessarily agree with 100% of the following from Don Surber, but it sure did wake me up and make my morning.
For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. . . .
Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.
For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”
Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.
Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible. (except for the idiots – Wannabe)
Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.
The left suddenly wants civil discourse.
Bite me.
And you think I can get a good rant on! I think it is important to add that tea party protesters have been directly assaulted by union thugs. That has been ignored/forgotten by the “mainstream” news media.
Surber continues:
There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.
The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.
I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.
Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.
When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.
So screw you and your civil discourse.
I don’t want to hear it.
I have been screamed at for 10 years.
It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.
My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.
I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.
We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.
Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.
So screw you.
You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?
Too bad.
When I read this, I thought Surber might be channeling me!
Now obviously civil discourse has an important place in a society. But truth has a more important place. And when those in power commit crimes against our constitutional democracy with stolen elections, arbitrary dictator judges, reckless raids on the treasury and more and attack those who oppose their crimes, telling the truth and acting on it appropriately will likely seem slightly uncivil. (Hence the tone of this blog on occasion. I might not go quite as far as Surber, but I completely understand where he is coming from.)
In any case, those who have committed and/or cheered on the crimes and have smeared those who opposed them are in no place to lecture anyone about civility. And I share Surber’s suspicion that calls for civil discourse from Lefties are merely yet another attempt to muzzle those of us who are right of center. Those who commit rape do not like anyone crying, “Rape!”
Now, right or wrong, I am still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt in his call for civil discourse . . . for now. He did not engage in the post-Tucson libels and quite clearly said they were wrong. And I give him credit for that. But his administration should still be watched . . . closely.
That is my civil response to Surber’s post although I am sure some will not find it so.
My not so civil response?
YESSSSSSSS!
----
Hat tip to Christopher Johnson.
For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. . . .
Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.
For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”
Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.
Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible. (except for the idiots – Wannabe)
Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.
The left suddenly wants civil discourse.
Bite me.
And you think I can get a good rant on! I think it is important to add that tea party protesters have been directly assaulted by union thugs. That has been ignored/forgotten by the “mainstream” news media.
Surber continues:
There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.
The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.
I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.
Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.
When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.
So screw you and your civil discourse.
I don’t want to hear it.
I have been screamed at for 10 years.
It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.
My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.
I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.
We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.
Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.
So screw you.
You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?
Too bad.
When I read this, I thought Surber might be channeling me!
Now obviously civil discourse has an important place in a society. But truth has a more important place. And when those in power commit crimes against our constitutional democracy with stolen elections, arbitrary dictator judges, reckless raids on the treasury and more and attack those who oppose their crimes, telling the truth and acting on it appropriately will likely seem slightly uncivil. (Hence the tone of this blog on occasion. I might not go quite as far as Surber, but I completely understand where he is coming from.)
In any case, those who have committed and/or cheered on the crimes and have smeared those who opposed them are in no place to lecture anyone about civility. And I share Surber’s suspicion that calls for civil discourse from Lefties are merely yet another attempt to muzzle those of us who are right of center. Those who commit rape do not like anyone crying, “Rape!”
Now, right or wrong, I am still giving Obama the benefit of the doubt in his call for civil discourse . . . for now. He did not engage in the post-Tucson libels and quite clearly said they were wrong. And I give him credit for that. But his administration should still be watched . . . closely.
That is my civil response to Surber’s post although I am sure some will not find it so.
My not so civil response?
YESSSSSSSS!
----
Hat tip to Christopher Johnson.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Should Orthodox Primates Attend the Primates Meeting?
There is an interesting discussion in the Anglican blogosphere about whether orthodox primates should attend the Primates Meeting in Dublin later this month. Matt Kennedy says no. BabyBlue says yes. And there are vigorous discussions in the comments to their posts as well.
I am a bit torn on this question. I have thought, and still do think, that a case can be made for attending the meeting if orthodox primates insist that the first item of business is a vote to expel Katherine Schori and Fred Hiltz. And if they are ready and willing to walk out if the two archapostates are not expelled. (And the two will likely not be expelled.) I heartily agree with Matt+ that scripture mandates those two are not to be treated as legitimate church leaders.
Not attending the meeting at all is the only other acceptable course I can see. For Rowan Williams has so rigged the rules of the game against the orthodox, it is appropriate for them to protest by refusing to play the game.
Past Primates Meetings made robust decisions at least begin to put apostasy in its place. ++Rowan’s response was to undermine those decisions and to undermine the institution of the Primates Meeting as a whole. When the orthodox manage to “win” one, ++Rowan turns it into a loss. Of course, most of the time, Anglican Communion processes are so rigged by Rowan and company, the orthodox hardly have a chance at the start even though they are an overwhelming majority in the Communion.
Like I said, when a game gets that rigged, an appropriate response is to protest by refusing to play. There is no scriptural mandate to play Charlie Brown to Archbishop Lucy.
I am a bit torn on this question. I have thought, and still do think, that a case can be made for attending the meeting if orthodox primates insist that the first item of business is a vote to expel Katherine Schori and Fred Hiltz. And if they are ready and willing to walk out if the two archapostates are not expelled. (And the two will likely not be expelled.) I heartily agree with Matt+ that scripture mandates those two are not to be treated as legitimate church leaders.
Not attending the meeting at all is the only other acceptable course I can see. For Rowan Williams has so rigged the rules of the game against the orthodox, it is appropriate for them to protest by refusing to play the game.
Past Primates Meetings made robust decisions at least begin to put apostasy in its place. ++Rowan’s response was to undermine those decisions and to undermine the institution of the Primates Meeting as a whole. When the orthodox manage to “win” one, ++Rowan turns it into a loss. Of course, most of the time, Anglican Communion processes are so rigged by Rowan and company, the orthodox hardly have a chance at the start even though they are an overwhelming majority in the Communion.
Like I said, when a game gets that rigged, an appropriate response is to protest by refusing to play. There is no scriptural mandate to play Charlie Brown to Archbishop Lucy.
Blame Righty: A Condensed History
Yesterday, I noted that blaming “right-wingers” for shootings they had nothing to do with is nothing new. Those sorts of smears filled the air after the Kennedy Assassination with my home town of Dallas as the target.
Michelle Malkin notes a number of more recent instances in which Lefties blamed the right for killings the right had nothing to do with. The toxic post-Tucson libels from the Left are indeed nothing new.
Michelle Malkin notes a number of more recent instances in which Lefties blamed the right for killings the right had nothing to do with. The toxic post-Tucson libels from the Left are indeed nothing new.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Enough!
I was not intending to post on the post-Tucson controversy. I was busy this past weekend and have had energy issues since. And I did not want to repeat what others have said. (I have tweeted on the subject though. Don’t forget that I have a tweeter feed on the right, no pun intended.)
But Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s little piece this week increased my energy greatly. It is the same old garbage blaming Dallas for the Kennedy assassination. It rehashes the line that Dallas was a right-wing city that killed Kennedy.
This brings back bad memories. I grew up in Dallas. I was very young in the Sixties, too young to remember the assassination itself. But I remember some of the aftermath, of the price Dallas paid for being the unfortunate location of the tragedy. I particularly remember my mom rightly getting angry as we watched CBS’s Eric Sevareid calling Dallas “an adolescent city with adolescent ways.”
It did not matter to the Dallas bashers then or to RFK, Jr. today that blaming right-wing Dallas is absurd. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. He even tried to defect to the Soviet Union. Those right-wingers in Dallas had nothing to do with the assassination and obviously had zero influence on Oswald. There is evidence he was shooting at them instead (the Edwin Walker assassination attempt).
I had thought that this Dallas Killed Kennedy meme was long dead and gone. But apparently not.
It is not unlike today when Leftists blame Sarah Palin and tea partiers for the Tucson shooting . . . even though one of the shooters’ favorite books is The Communist Manifesto. What a big influence Palin is on him! Leftists also blame Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh . . . even though Loughner did not listen to talk radio. As I tweeted Mark Levin, he must have amazing mind control powers!
RFK, Jr. is quite right that the atmosphere surrounding the Kennedy assassination and that surrounding the Tucson tragedy have much in common. The thing is it is the libels of sniveling Lefty smear merchants like him that is the chief commonality.
I could go on, but instead I will praise a man of the Left for standing up and saying enough of this. I will praise Obama. Yes, you read that right. His speech last night was needful and, yes, presidential. He winsomely but firmly stated that the blaming of conservatives for Tucson is not only unhelpful, but also flat wrong. Kudos to him for stepping up.
Let us hope his clear statement brings a quick end to the poisonous libels.
But Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s little piece this week increased my energy greatly. It is the same old garbage blaming Dallas for the Kennedy assassination. It rehashes the line that Dallas was a right-wing city that killed Kennedy.
This brings back bad memories. I grew up in Dallas. I was very young in the Sixties, too young to remember the assassination itself. But I remember some of the aftermath, of the price Dallas paid for being the unfortunate location of the tragedy. I particularly remember my mom rightly getting angry as we watched CBS’s Eric Sevareid calling Dallas “an adolescent city with adolescent ways.”
It did not matter to the Dallas bashers then or to RFK, Jr. today that blaming right-wing Dallas is absurd. Lee Harvey Oswald was a Communist. He even tried to defect to the Soviet Union. Those right-wingers in Dallas had nothing to do with the assassination and obviously had zero influence on Oswald. There is evidence he was shooting at them instead (the Edwin Walker assassination attempt).
I had thought that this Dallas Killed Kennedy meme was long dead and gone. But apparently not.
It is not unlike today when Leftists blame Sarah Palin and tea partiers for the Tucson shooting . . . even though one of the shooters’ favorite books is The Communist Manifesto. What a big influence Palin is on him! Leftists also blame Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh . . . even though Loughner did not listen to talk radio. As I tweeted Mark Levin, he must have amazing mind control powers!
RFK, Jr. is quite right that the atmosphere surrounding the Kennedy assassination and that surrounding the Tucson tragedy have much in common. The thing is it is the libels of sniveling Lefty smear merchants like him that is the chief commonality.
I could go on, but instead I will praise a man of the Left for standing up and saying enough of this. I will praise Obama. Yes, you read that right. His speech last night was needful and, yes, presidential. He winsomely but firmly stated that the blaming of conservatives for Tucson is not only unhelpful, but also flat wrong. Kudos to him for stepping up.
Let us hope his clear statement brings a quick end to the poisonous libels.
Monday, January 10, 2011
You might like your Christmas tree just a bit much . . .
. . . if you use the octave of Epiphany as an excuse to light it up.
Yes, I am talking about yours truly. Yes, I promise to take it down this week . . . well, at least before Lent.
Yes, I am talking about yours truly. Yes, I promise to take it down this week . . . well, at least before Lent.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Ad Orientem John Nails It
In response to the “marriage” of two lesbians by a “bishop” of The Episcopal “Church”, John of Ad Orientem says something of import better than I could:
I think it was Perry Robinson who came up with the great line that in Christianity, you are who you are in communion with. With that in mind, you do know that you belong to the same church as these people, right? And that you are in full communion with the bishop who just blessed this "marriage," right? I am slow. So please indulge me and explain how anyone who self identifies as a Christian can in good conscience belong to a church that is by any reasonable standard utterly apostate. And yes, a church that does these things and ordains and promotes clergy who call abortion a blessing has ceased to be Christian. Do you call sinners into the Episcopal Church for their salvation? Do you in all honesty believe that the Episcopal Church is truly a branch of the catholic church spoken of in the ancient creeds? Do you seriously doubt for even an instant that if any of the Fathers of the Church walked the Earth today, that they would shout "ANATHEMA!" at the Episcopal Church?
Exactly. Now as I’ve said before, I respect those orthodox who feel they should endure in The Episcopal Church. But I think their position untenable.
What John posted could be applied to other mainline Protestant denominations as well. Looking back at my post-college church searches, I rejected churches in most mainline denominations out of hand for the reasons John spells out, although my ecclesiology was not so well developed as to think in John’s terms. I did know that I did not want to be in any denomination in which outrages against The Faith were committed, tolerated, and even promoted. And that ruled out the mainline Presbyterian Church in which I grew up, among others. I was tired of The Faith being undermined and my conscience outraged by my own church.
I could say more. But, like the title says, John nails it.
And thanks to the Good Professor for bringing this to my attention.
I think it was Perry Robinson who came up with the great line that in Christianity, you are who you are in communion with. With that in mind, you do know that you belong to the same church as these people, right? And that you are in full communion with the bishop who just blessed this "marriage," right? I am slow. So please indulge me and explain how anyone who self identifies as a Christian can in good conscience belong to a church that is by any reasonable standard utterly apostate. And yes, a church that does these things and ordains and promotes clergy who call abortion a blessing has ceased to be Christian. Do you call sinners into the Episcopal Church for their salvation? Do you in all honesty believe that the Episcopal Church is truly a branch of the catholic church spoken of in the ancient creeds? Do you seriously doubt for even an instant that if any of the Fathers of the Church walked the Earth today, that they would shout "ANATHEMA!" at the Episcopal Church?
Exactly. Now as I’ve said before, I respect those orthodox who feel they should endure in The Episcopal Church. But I think their position untenable.
What John posted could be applied to other mainline Protestant denominations as well. Looking back at my post-college church searches, I rejected churches in most mainline denominations out of hand for the reasons John spells out, although my ecclesiology was not so well developed as to think in John’s terms. I did know that I did not want to be in any denomination in which outrages against The Faith were committed, tolerated, and even promoted. And that ruled out the mainline Presbyterian Church in which I grew up, among others. I was tired of The Faith being undermined and my conscience outraged by my own church.
I could say more. But, like the title says, John nails it.
And thanks to the Good Professor for bringing this to my attention.
Monday, January 03, 2011
TEC Bishop Marries Two Lesbians (Yawn)
You knew it was coming. The TEC “Bishop” of Massachusetts, Thomas Shaw has “married” two lesbians, namely Katherine Ragsdale, Dean of Episcopal Divinity School and priestess of Moloch, and Canon Mally Lloyd.
So this week, there will be another dithering statement of concern from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the usual statements of joy/condemnation from the usual churchly people. There will continue to be no discipline of The Episcopal “Church”. In other words, life will go on as usual . . . which pretty much illustrates what is wrong with the Anglican Communion.
Throw some rice at Christopher Johnson for alerting me to the blessed event.
Oh, this is the Abomination of the Week, by the way. *yawn* Wake me when The Episcopal “Church” marries three lesbians.
So this week, there will be another dithering statement of concern from the Archbishop of Canterbury and the usual statements of joy/condemnation from the usual churchly people. There will continue to be no discipline of The Episcopal “Church”. In other words, life will go on as usual . . . which pretty much illustrates what is wrong with the Anglican Communion.
Throw some rice at Christopher Johnson for alerting me to the blessed event.
Oh, this is the Abomination of the Week, by the way. *yawn* Wake me when The Episcopal “Church” marries three lesbians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)