After earlier reports that Jeffery John was likely the next Bishop of Southwark, the Telegraph reports he will not be receiving a mitre anytime soon. Yes, some skepticism about the news media is in order.
I hope that report is accurate, and not so much because he is gay. He claims to be celibate, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on that even though he lives with his partner. Yes, I can be very generous on occasion. Enjoy it while you can.
However, I do not think anyone who teaches what he does should be made bishop. Also, I still want the Church of England and the Anglican Communion to succeed somehow somewhat within the bounds of the faith. And the appointment of Jeffery John would have been extremely divisive and repellent to many orthodox. Right now the CofE and the Communion need something like that like a hole in the head.
Kudos to Rowan Williams for seeing that and putting the unity of the church before his own personal views.
So, yes, I am relieved it apparently will not happen at this time at least.
Of course, that does not mean there is not wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
Obama, Dictator and Coward (UPDATE: and Liar)
What does Obama do when a appointee he desires to oversee Obamacare is slightly controversial and not-so-slightly way out Left? He goes over the heads of Congress and gives him a recess appointment.
And the appointment of Donald Berwick is not just any recess appointment as even the New York Times notes:
The recess appointment was somewhat unusual because the Senate is in recess for less than two weeks and senators were still waiting for Dr. Berwick to submit responses to some of their requests for information. No confirmation hearing has been held or scheduled.
In other words, there was no effort by Obama or his Demorat allies in the Senate to have a proper hearing or much vetting at all. Hmmmm, I wonder why?
So here we have in Berwick a Socialist who just loves the UK’s NHS and openly praises healthcare rationing and heathcare as income redistribution. That would make for interesting hearings, would it not? But the hearings would be too interesting for Obama, especially in an election season. He’d rather opposition be silenced and “get out of the way” of Obamacare and of this appointment. So he bypasses basic vetting, as well as democracy, and recess appoints this Socialist to avoid even a single confirmation hearing.
Obama not only has a totalitarian streak, he has a yellow streak as well.
MORE: Obama’s line blaming those obstructionist Republicans – it’s a lie. In fact, Republicans were eager for the confirmation process . . . which was the problem. From Jake Tapper, ABC:
Republicans were not delaying or stalling Berwick’s nomination. Indeed, they were eager for his hearing, hoping to assail Berwick’s past statements about health care rationing and his praise for the British health care system.
“The nomination hasn’t been held up by Republicans in Congress and to say otherwise is misleading,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which would have held Berwick’s hearing. Grassley said that he “requested that a hearing take place two weeks ago, before this recess.”
Berwick’s nomination was sent to the Senate in April, and his hearing had not been scheduled because he was participating in the “standard vetting process,” a Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee told ABC News.
But speaking not for attribution, Democratic officials say that neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, were eager for an ugly confirmation fight four months before the midterm elections.
Nor was Obama. Who needs democracy when you can chicken out and be a dictator.
And the appointment of Donald Berwick is not just any recess appointment as even the New York Times notes:
The recess appointment was somewhat unusual because the Senate is in recess for less than two weeks and senators were still waiting for Dr. Berwick to submit responses to some of their requests for information. No confirmation hearing has been held or scheduled.
In other words, there was no effort by Obama or his Demorat allies in the Senate to have a proper hearing or much vetting at all. Hmmmm, I wonder why?
So here we have in Berwick a Socialist who just loves the UK’s NHS and openly praises healthcare rationing and heathcare as income redistribution. That would make for interesting hearings, would it not? But the hearings would be too interesting for Obama, especially in an election season. He’d rather opposition be silenced and “get out of the way” of Obamacare and of this appointment. So he bypasses basic vetting, as well as democracy, and recess appoints this Socialist to avoid even a single confirmation hearing.
Obama not only has a totalitarian streak, he has a yellow streak as well.
MORE: Obama’s line blaming those obstructionist Republicans – it’s a lie. In fact, Republicans were eager for the confirmation process . . . which was the problem. From Jake Tapper, ABC:
Republicans were not delaying or stalling Berwick’s nomination. Indeed, they were eager for his hearing, hoping to assail Berwick’s past statements about health care rationing and his praise for the British health care system.
“The nomination hasn’t been held up by Republicans in Congress and to say otherwise is misleading,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which would have held Berwick’s hearing. Grassley said that he “requested that a hearing take place two weeks ago, before this recess.”
Berwick’s nomination was sent to the Senate in April, and his hearing had not been scheduled because he was participating in the “standard vetting process,” a Democratic aide on the Senate Finance Committee told ABC News.
But speaking not for attribution, Democratic officials say that neither Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nor Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, were eager for an ugly confirmation fight four months before the midterm elections.
Nor was Obama. Who needs democracy when you can chicken out and be a dictator.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Arizona Sheriff Receives Death Threats from Mexican Mafia While Obama Fiddles UPDATED
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu has received death threats from the Mexican Mafia.
Meanwhile, Obama tells us “the border is as safe as it ever has been” and prepares to sue Arizona for trying to defend itself from predations across that oh-so-safe border.
UPDATE: It’s official. Obama’s Justice Department is suing Arizona.
Meanwhile, Obama tells us “the border is as safe as it ever has been” and prepares to sue Arizona for trying to defend itself from predations across that oh-so-safe border.
UPDATE: It’s official. Obama’s Justice Department is suing Arizona.
Obama and “Freedom of Worship”
The Obama Administration is endorsing “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion” in its pronouncements. And many concerned about religious freedom are beginning to get alarmed about this.
Now, in case one thinks this a bit paranoid, I point out two things. First, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Second, there is an established pattern of the Obama regime avoiding saying “freedom of religion” and saying instead “freedom of worship.”
Of course, the reason this alarms is that genuine freedom of religion includes much more than the freedom to worship in one’s church, synagogue or home. It includes the freedom to live according to one’s religion (without unduly impinging on someone else’s freedom). For real freedom of religion, mere “freedom of worship” will not do.
Those who wish to push religion and freedom of religion out of the public square and into the private shadows would love a shift of U. S. policy toward such “freedom of worship.” Is the Obama regime among them?
To their credit, First Things was on to this before most. This is indeed something to watch carefully. One scholar put it very well:
As Tom Farr, Professor of Religion and World Affairs at Georgetown University and the former head of the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Office, stated at a recent congressional hearing forecasting international religious freedom issues to watch in 2010, “Those of us in the business of sniffing out rats know that this is a rhetorical shift to watch.”
Now, in case one thinks this a bit paranoid, I point out two things. First, it’s not paranoia if they really are out to get you. Second, there is an established pattern of the Obama regime avoiding saying “freedom of religion” and saying instead “freedom of worship.”
Of course, the reason this alarms is that genuine freedom of religion includes much more than the freedom to worship in one’s church, synagogue or home. It includes the freedom to live according to one’s religion (without unduly impinging on someone else’s freedom). For real freedom of religion, mere “freedom of worship” will not do.
Those who wish to push religion and freedom of religion out of the public square and into the private shadows would love a shift of U. S. policy toward such “freedom of worship.” Is the Obama regime among them?
To their credit, First Things was on to this before most. This is indeed something to watch carefully. One scholar put it very well:
As Tom Farr, Professor of Religion and World Affairs at Georgetown University and the former head of the State Department’s International Religious Freedom Office, stated at a recent congressional hearing forecasting international religious freedom issues to watch in 2010, “Those of us in the business of sniffing out rats know that this is a rhetorical shift to watch.”
Friday, July 02, 2010
Benedict XVI and Celestine V
Pope Benedict appears to have become quite a fan of Pope Celestine V. He has left his pallium on Celestine’s tomb and this Sunday is scheduled to pray before his relics for the second time in 15 months.
Celestine V is a unique pope. Chosen by a long deadlocked conclave in 1294, he was a saintly old monk (in a time of rather unsaintly popes) with neither desire nor talent for Vatican politics and administration. Overwhelmed, he resigned after only five months, the only pope to ever resign.
He hoped to end his life in peace far from Vatican politics. But his nasty successor, Boniface VIII, who not-so-by-the-way had encouraged him to resign, soon had him imprisoned. The old monk-pope died under Boniface’s imprisonment near the age of 90.
I am not going to read too much into Benedict’s veneration of Celestine. One reason for this Sunday’s event is the celebration of Celestine’s 800th birthday. But Benedict’s reverence for this particular pope is interesting indeed.
Celestine V is a unique pope. Chosen by a long deadlocked conclave in 1294, he was a saintly old monk (in a time of rather unsaintly popes) with neither desire nor talent for Vatican politics and administration. Overwhelmed, he resigned after only five months, the only pope to ever resign.
He hoped to end his life in peace far from Vatican politics. But his nasty successor, Boniface VIII, who not-so-by-the-way had encouraged him to resign, soon had him imprisoned. The old monk-pope died under Boniface’s imprisonment near the age of 90.
I am not going to read too much into Benedict’s veneration of Celestine. One reason for this Sunday’s event is the celebration of Celestine’s 800th birthday. But Benedict’s reverence for this particular pope is interesting indeed.
About Historians
A Siena poll of academic historians rating the presidents reminds me of why I don’t trust historians . . . and why you shouldn’t either. In it, Obama is ranked the 15th best president . . . three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.
Yes, utterly absurd, to put it charitably. (And apologies if you spewed coffee on your keyboard.)
This sort of ideological bias among historians is nothing new. I remember seeing such rankings of presidents as a child. And even then, I thought they were rubbish. (Yes, I was slightly precocious. And the bias among historians is that obvious.)
Let’s look at another area. All my life I have seen numerous documentaries on the atrocities of the Nazis. And that is as it should be. It is important that we never forget the lessons of that dark time.
It is now over twenty years after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Where, pray tell, are all the documentaries on the atrocities of Communism? For that matter, where are all the documentaries on the atrocities of Stalin and the Bolsheviks before him? They murdered far more people than Hitler. Why do we see and hear so little about that?
Such bias is disturbing; for how we think of the past will effect how we act in the future. If we are ignorant of the predations of the Left, we are more likely to fall for them again. If we are ignorant of the principles behind the founding of our nation (And such ignorance is practically encouraged in our public schools.), we will be less likely to defend them. And no telling what will be the result of such idiocy as considering Obama a better president than Reagan. (And that idiocy is more widespread than you might think.)
In short, history is too important to entrust to academic historians.
And academic historians, as a group, have again and again shown themselves to unworthy of trust.
Yes, utterly absurd, to put it charitably. (And apologies if you spewed coffee on your keyboard.)
This sort of ideological bias among historians is nothing new. I remember seeing such rankings of presidents as a child. And even then, I thought they were rubbish. (Yes, I was slightly precocious. And the bias among historians is that obvious.)
Let’s look at another area. All my life I have seen numerous documentaries on the atrocities of the Nazis. And that is as it should be. It is important that we never forget the lessons of that dark time.
It is now over twenty years after the fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. Where, pray tell, are all the documentaries on the atrocities of Communism? For that matter, where are all the documentaries on the atrocities of Stalin and the Bolsheviks before him? They murdered far more people than Hitler. Why do we see and hear so little about that?
Such bias is disturbing; for how we think of the past will effect how we act in the future. If we are ignorant of the predations of the Left, we are more likely to fall for them again. If we are ignorant of the principles behind the founding of our nation (And such ignorance is practically encouraged in our public schools.), we will be less likely to defend them. And no telling what will be the result of such idiocy as considering Obama a better president than Reagan. (And that idiocy is more widespread than you might think.)
In short, history is too important to entrust to academic historians.
And academic historians, as a group, have again and again shown themselves to unworthy of trust.
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Pray for Christopher Hitchens
Christopher Hitchens has announced that he has esophageal cancer, a particularly difficult form of cancer. His prognosis is not known, but it is usually not good for this disease.
In spite of his several outrages, I have long respected the man for actually thinking, unlike many of the Left. Predictable and knee-jerk he is not. But regardless of what you may think of him, please join me in praying for him.
I trust that would not annoy Mr. Hitchens too much.
In spite of his several outrages, I have long respected the man for actually thinking, unlike many of the Left. Predictable and knee-jerk he is not. But regardless of what you may think of him, please join me in praying for him.
I trust that would not annoy Mr. Hitchens too much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)