Rick Warren, Inauguration and Gay Rights

Gay rights activists are up in arms because Obama asked Rick Warren to offer an invocation at the presidential inauguration next month. Warren is unacceptable, in their view, because he supported the Proposition 8 drive to outlaw gay marriage in California. They feel betrayed because they thought Obama was devoted to their cause. They forget he is also a politician who is keenly interested in attracting more Christian voters to his cause. This was a chance to do so and also reinforce his image as a unifier. I do not think it indicates any sympathy on Obama's part for conservative Christian beliefs.

For his part, Rev. Warren is getting it from both sides. The gay-marriage advocates consider him a bigot while many on the right consider him a turncoat for daring to participate in the inauguration. Personally I don't see the problem. It is appropriate and fitting that Christians pray for our national leaders - whether we agree with their actions or not. Warren has made his disagreements with Obama about abortion and gay marriage crystal-clear. Presumably, his invocation will not ask God's blessing on those parts of the Obama agenda that conflict with Christian belief.

What's interesting to me is how the Proposition 8 defeat has so galvanized gay activists in the last few months. Any Christian who disagrees with gay marriage is now a de facto bigot. The anger is palpable, and it is leading to all kinds of intimidating and even violent rhetoric against people who gave even casual support to Proposition 8. The Mormon church is a particular target of gay wrath. Rick Warren also endorsed the proposition, but was by no means a leader or even particularly vocal about it. Indeed, he is regarded as far too soft on the culture-war issues by many conservative Christian activists. No matter - he made the wrong choice, and now he has to pay. To get a taste of it, read this post by a liberal who found himself sympathizing with Warren, and then read the comments that follow.

Al Mohler rightly points out that the angry response to Warren's presence at the inauguration will not be the end of this battle. Gay marriage is quickly becoming an issue where everyone will have to take a stand - and there is no middle ground. It's going to get ugly.

Rick Warren has just found himself in the midst of a whirlwind. We must pray that God will give him wisdom as he decides what to do -- and what to say -- as he stands in this whirlwind. But every evangelical Christian should watch this carefully, for the controversy over Rick Warren will not stop with the pastor from Saddleback. This whirlwind is coming for you and for your church. At some point, the cost of being "cool" will be the abandonment of biblical Christianity. We had better decide well in advance that this is a cost far too high to pay.

Viva Cristo Rey!

An unfortunate fact of life in 2007 is that the word "martyr" conjures up for most of us images of Islamic suicide bombers. In fact, the first martyrs were Christians who died at the hands of Romans, hundreds of years before Mohammed came along. Unlike today's terrorists, the first Christian martyrs did not seek to die for their faith. Many stories show them accepting their fate, and as the moment grew closer they often embraced it. They did not try to take others with them.

Americans have a hard time understanding the reality of true martyrdom. Other than a few cases of early missionaries being killed by Indians, it's just not part of our heritage. Martyrdom is something that happened a long time ago in places far, far away - but not always. 1927 was not so long ago, and Mexico is not so far away.

In 1917 Mexico adopted a new constitution that, among other things, imposed a number of restrictions on the religious freedom. The specific target was the Catholic Church but others were affected as well. Churches were forbidden to operate schools and their ability to own property was severely restricted. Ministers were stripped of the right to vote and ordered not to wear clerical garb in public or speak about political issues. Worship services outside of church buildings were outlawed.

For the first few years these provisions were only sporadically enforced. In 1924 Plutarco Elias Calles took over as president and soon began oppressing the Church with gusto. A resistance movement called the Cristeros arose in parts of Mexico.

Keep in mind, this is not that long ago. In 1927 Ronald Reagan was a teenager, Billy Graham a child, and George H.W. Bush a toddler. Josef Ratzinger was an infant and Karol Wojtyla was a small child. People are alive today who saw these events in Mexico. It's not ancient history.

The Calles government was ruthless. Between 1926 and 1934, the number of Catholic priests in Mexico dropped from 4,500 to 334. Most were expelled or left the country voluntarily, but at least 40 priests were killed. One was a young Jesuit named Miguel Agustin Pro.

Padre Pro served his flock faithfully despite the very difficult conditions. He used a variety of disguises to reach people who needed him, sometimes dressing as a beggar and arriving in the middle of the night to perform baptisms. He reportedly donned a police uniform in order to visit condemned prisoners in jail.

With an assassination attempt on an ex-president as pretext, in 1927 Padre Pro was arrested along with his brothers Humberto and Roberto. Another man confessed to the crime and said the Pro brothers had nothing to do with it. Nonetheless, President Calles ordered Padre Pro executed while sparing his brothers. Calles wanted to use the execution to inspire fear and so invited reporters to document everything. We have photographs of the event.

On November 23, 1927 - eighty years ago today - Miguel Agustin Pro, S.J., was led from his cell to a courtyard where the firing squad waited. After blessing each of the soldiers, he asked for a moment to pray. This last request was granted and he knelt on the ground. Then, refusing a blindfold, he faced his executioners with arms outstretched in imitation of Christ on the Cross. He clutched a crucifix in one hand and a rosary in the other.

As the soldiers prepared their weapons, Padre Pro shouted "May God have mercy on you! May God bless you! Lord, thou knowest I am innocent! With all my heart I forgive my enemies!" Just before they fired, he cried out "Viva Cristo Rey!" "Long live Christ the King!"

Padre Pro lived through the first rifle volley, and a soldier killed him with a bullet at point blank range. He was 36 years old.

Fifty-two years later, another priest came to Mexico and was greeted with open arms by a different president. This was no ordinary priest; it was the Bishop of Rome. You see, the gates of hell did not prevail against God's church; they could not prevail. In 1988 Padre Pro was beatified by Pope John Paul II - the first step toward sainthood.

Will there be more such martyrs? Times change. Constitutions can be amended, or just ignored. There are more than a few people in the United States right now who would like to do what President Calles did in Mexico. Will today's Christians have the courage of Padre Pro?

I'm afraid some of us may find out.



Padre Pro web site
Video dramatization (in Spanish)

No More Miller Time

This story has been all over the blog world the last few weeks but I'll pass it on anyway, in case some people missed it.

In San Francisco the gay and lesbian community has an event each year called the Folsom Street Fair. It includes a wide variety of sexual acts that normally occur behind closed doors between consenting adults. Here are some very graphic images of the event. Prepare to be shocked.

Disgusting as this is, it would not be so bad if these people would simply practice their lifestyles among themselves. For some reason, however, they feel compelled to use the opportunity to attack the religion most Americans hold dear. Their promotional poster is a satire of Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper, featuring a table covered with sexual devices. You can see it here.

The fair also features a group called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the purpose of which seems to be mocking the dedication and sacrifice of Catholic nuns. Clearly the Folsom Street Fair is an anti-religious event. In particular, it is an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic event. (For some reason Islam gets a pass, despite its history of violence toward homosexuals.)

The Folsom Street Fair is supported by numerous local businesses in San Francisco and one national sponsor: Miller Brewing Company. After complaints, Miller had its logo removed from the Last Supper poster but continued to sponsor the main event.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is leading a campaign to boycott of all Miller products until the company promises to no longer sponsor such anti-religious events. I think it's a great idea. Miller can't have it both ways; if they want Christians to buy they products, they need to stop funding events that insult us and degrade our culture.

So next time you feel like it's Miller time, find something else to drink. A company that supports obscenity and religious bigotry does not deserve your business.

One Picture Says It All

This photo has been circulating around the net for a couple of days now. It's a little dark so in case you can't tell, the TSA agent searching the elderly nun for weapons is wearing a Muslim headscarf. Bigger image (along with some interesting comments) here.

It is possible, I suppose, that terrorists could disguise themselves as elderly nuns, sneak aboard planes and cause violence and mayhem. Therefore the authorities must be vigilant. However, given that all significant terrorist attacks in the West in recent years were perpetrated by young Muslim males of Middle Eastern origin, the continued insistence on politically correct, color-blind screening protocols is insane.

As for the nun, I am struck by her apparently docile acceptance of this outrage to her dignity. No doubt she regards it as an opportunity to turn the other cheek. Probably she would be just as calm if she were facing death as a martyr. I hope I could do likewise. I fear that many of us will find out in the next few decades.

The Battle for Malta

September 11 was a significant date in the history of Christian-Islamic conflict long before the year 2001. Do you know what happened on September 11, 1565? I didn't either, until I read this excellent article by Paul Cella.

By the middle of the 16th century, the Knights of Malta had been for decades a particular irritation to the Sultan of the Empire of the Ottoman Turks, then the world's premier superpower and the imperial power of the Jihad. The Knights were skilled and cunning seamen: the Christian answer to the Barbary pirates whose razzias or jihadist raids had, literally for centuries, terrorized the coastal lands of southern Europe. These pirates were slavers and pillagers, terrors of the sea. How many "sick and sunless" captives were made by them, consigned to the filth and misery of the life of a galley oarsman, can only be conjectured. They made prisons of great oared ships; and the fate of their prisoners was one of wretchedness beyond reckoning. Athwart this menace stood the ancient Noble Order of St. John of Jerusalem. One historian (voicing a consensus of historians) gives them this honor: "in skill, seamanship, and fighting ability there was no single vessel in the Mediterranean that could compare with a galley commanded by one of the Knights from Malta."

READ MORE

Funeral Rights?

A man named Cecil Howard Sinclair died recently. It is unclear what, if any, religious affiliation he had. His brother, however, is a janitor at High Point Church in Arlington, Texas. Somehow, plans were made for a funeral to be held at High Point.

The problem is that the deceased Mr. Sinclair was gay. The family says that church officials knew this at the time the funeral was scheduled. High Point's pastor denies it, saying they became aware that Mr. Sinclair was gay only when preparing a video tribute for the service which showed photos of men kissing and embracing each other. In any case, permission to hold the funeral at High Point was suddenly withdrawn because the church did not want to appear as if it endorsed the homosexual lifestyle.

I am not familiar with this church or its theology. Certainly they have the right to decide the conditions under which funerals can be held on their property. They are also correct that homosexual acts are sinful and churches should not condone them.

One thing that seems strange is why, if High Point is so firmly anti-gay, Mr. Sinclair's partner and family would want to hold his funeral there. Presumably Mr. Sinclair would have wished otherwise. We don't really know if the family accepted Mr. Sinclair's lifestyle. Maybe some did and some didn't, and the funeral arrangements involved compromises to keep everyone happy. It may also be that High Point Church does not have clear policies for such things. The whole thing sounds like a giant miscommunication to me.

To its credit, High Point offered to pay for another facility to hold the service, produced the tribute video, and provided food for the family and friends. That was very kind of them, but Mr. Sinclair's survivors still sound displeased.

The real issue in this case is not the propriety of Mr. Sinclair's lifestyle. It is whether the funeral service would have placed the church in a position where it appeared to endorse something it believes to be wrong. Without knowing all the details, it is hard to make that judgment from afar. Sadly, it is kind of unusual nowadays for church leaders to expose themselves to public criticism just to defend a moral principle, so I am a little bit skeptical. I hope they were in fact trying to defend the Faith as they understand it. Yet I wonder if other factors were involved in the decision.

Another reason to question this story is that nondenominational megachurches, which is what High Point seems to be, are not exactly well-known for consistent teaching of Biblical morality. Suppose, for example, Mr. Sinclair was not gay. Suppose further that the service was to feature photos of him kissing a female with whom he had been living outside of marriage. That lifestyle is just as sinful as living with a gay partner. It would have made High Point appear to endorse immorality. Yet somehow I doubt High Point would have canceled a funeral under those circumstances.

The fact is we all live sinful lifestyles of one kind or another. Without the grace of God, none of us have any hope of redemption. We don't know Mr. Sinclair's fate. We should hope that, in the last moments of his Earthly life, he grew convicted of his sins and asked God for forgiveness and mercy. We should also hope that the confusion surrounding Mr. Sinclair's death will lead everyone involved to re-consider how they are living their own lives.

P.S. I found this story at the Texas Fred blog. You may recall that I have had disputes with Texas Fred in the past. I was pleased to see in his post on this subject - and another one today - that Fred seems to be taking an interest in the Bible. He even quoted some Scriptures.

Fred, if you are reading this I hope you will continue to explore the Bible and reflect on what it teaches us. Here is a passage you might find thought-provoking. Here's another one. And another.

Egyptian Prison Break

Here's an encouraging, and quite possibly miraculous, story of a Muslim who converted to Christianity. Other Muslims were not pleased.

I first learned of Sheikh El-Akkad from TROP last fall, when they had a link to this story. El-Akkad used to be the leader of a group that taught and promoted Islam, but he gradually "became disillusioned," began to pray that he could "somehow know God personally," and eventually converted to Christianity. When the secret police learned of it, he was arrested, apparently under a provision of Egyptian law that allows imprisonment for "insulting a heavenly religion" and "committing blasphemy against Islam." Though a court eventually ordered his release, the authorities defied the court order and transferred him to a prison "notorious for its spartan conditions in the desert," housing its prisoners in one by two meter cells.

The more recent story tells how, in April, prison officials told El-Akkad that he would stay there for another ten years if he did not return to Islam. He replied, "God has brought me to this place, and he alone will let me go to my home. You cannot do anything against God." Just hours later, in a gesture that has not yet been explained, prison officials handed him money for a taxi, opened the door of the prison, and sent him home. It isn't quite as dramatic as St. Peter's prison visit from the angel, but it'll do very well! [Source]

Talking About Nothing

At the Thai restaurant in Campbell, the talk was spicier than the fish.

Someone asked why jocks thank God if they win a game. Does the Almighty really care if you covered the spread? And isn't scaring children by telling them they could burn in hell a form of child abuse?

That kind of gleeful, irreverent chatter, which lingered long after the restaurant closed, was the whole purpose of the meeting for the Santa Clara Brights, a group that formed in late 2003. The outings give atheists a chance to openly express their beliefs without fear of rejection or retribution. MORE

I've never understood how otherwise intelligent people can decide to adopt atheism. I can accept that one might be agnostic, i.e. not knowing whether or not there is a higher power. That position at least acknowledges that there are limits to human understanding of the universe. To be absolutely certain that there is no god, as atheists are, strikes me as just as much a matter of faith as anything that Christians, Jews, Muslims, or Buddhists believe.

However that is not the point I wish to make here. The story quoted above is about a group of atheists who gather together to, apparently, celebrate their lack of belief. I don't get how this works. Religious people of any persuasion assemble regularly to discuss their beliefs, read scriptures, consider how religious doctrines relate to everyday life, etc. These are all positive activities, and there is a virtually unlimited variety of things to learn and do.

Atheists, it seems to me, really have nothing to talk about. There are only so many different ways you can say "there is no god." Doesn't it get boring after awhile? What more is there to discuss? If atheism is so obviously correct and doesn't require any faith, then why is it necessary to study it?

The answer, I think, is that these sort of meetings are mainly social affairs. Fine - they can talk about sports, weather, politics, art, music, whatever turns them on. If atheists are more comfortable when they know their companions are equally certain there is no god, more power to them. Enjoy yourselves however you like.

Yet, as the story reveals, there is more going on at these events. Since there is apparently little to say other than "God doesn't exist" and "How about those Cowboys?" the conversation turns to how dumb and gullible those religious people are, and the many ways in which we are supposedly plotting to oppress the infidels.

In fact, in my experience most religious people don't give atheists a second thought. We're busy doing other things. When atheists and Christians clash, as in the matters of school prayer, Ten Commandments on the courthouse wall, etc, the atheists usually get their way. So I don't get why they feel so threatened.

The weirdest part is the exclusivity. Atheists seem positively terrified of having to discuss religious matters with a religious person. Why is this? Deep down, I think they know that their beliefs are no less "religious" than those of Christians, etc. Because they cannot admit this without exposing the vacuity of their own logic, they avoid situations where they might have to defend their own religion against others.

Think about it: if you go from atheism (there is no god) to agnosticism (I don't know if there is a god), you at least have to admit that there might be a god. And if you admit this, then you have to entertain the arguments in favor of there being a god. You can, and must, have honest conversations with religious believers. Maybe you still aren't convinced - but at least you think about it. An atheist cannot cross that line.

Outwardly, atheists appear to dislike and sometimes even hate religious believers. Dig a little deeper, and I think they are actually afraid of us. That's why they feel the need to have atheist-only social events.

I'm sorry they feel that way. I'm sorry that some Christians, in their zeal to spread the Gospel, probably take an overly aggressive approach in talking to atheists. Christianity is all about free will. We're not about "rejection or retribution," which is what the atheists in this story say they fear. We'd like to share with everyone what we think is Good News, but in the end the decision to believe - or not believe - belongs to each individual. God respects that decision, and we should, too.

For more about atheism, you can visit Et Tu. Jen is a former atheist who made a long and thoughtful journey into Christianity, all nicely chronicled on her blog. Check it out.

Political Land-scape

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial about Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. He is, in other words, the Baptist interface with Congress and the White House. I've seen Land on TV many times but in this interview he was unusually blunt about the forthcoming presidential campaign. It begins with this:

Rudy Giuliani didn't score many points with social conservatives last week when he issued this impassioned endorsement of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a federal ban on "partial-birth" abortion: "I agree with it." He certainly didn't win over Richard Land, who has said he would never vote for Mr. Giuliani. When people ask the Southern Baptist Convention's representative in Washington why the former New York mayor's promise to appoint strict constructionist judges if he's elected president isn't enough, Mr. Land replies: "If he'll lie to two wives, what makes you think he wouldn't lie to you?"

I was particularly fascinated with Land's view on New Gingrich, whom his allies Richard Land and Jerry Falwell seem to be promoting as their candidate in 2008.

"I am not a big enough hypocrite to have made character an issue with Bill Clinton and turn around and vote for men who broke their oaths to their wives." Having been in his current position since 1988, Mr. Land has had more than enough opportunity to see Mr. Gingrich up close, and he has not been impressed: "When he was speaker, when they went into conference to negotiate, it was always our issues that got negotiated away and his economic issues that didn't."

Mr. Land suggests that Mr. Gingrich was good at paying lip service to evangelicals: "He always understood how important social conservatives were to the coalition." But Mr. Land believes that many of them have learned their lesson: "I think most evangelicals still don't trust him."

Do I detect the beginnings of a split in the social conservative coalition? Read the full story and see what you think. Land seems to be setting up support for Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson. Dobson and Falwell are holding out for Newt Gingrich. Meanwhile conservatives who think winning the Iraq War and defeating terrorism are a higher priority are lining up behind Giuliani.

All this will be sorted out in the primary campaign and by the time Election Day gets here everyone could be united again. If not, a Democrat may coast into the White House.

Returning to his political wonk persona, Mr. Land notes that in 2006, about a quarter of voters identified as white evangelicals, and 70% of them voted for Republicans. The three quarters who didn't identify as white evangelicals voted 61-37 for Democrats. Which means, according to Mr. Land, "that Republicans can't win elections just with evangelicals, but without them, Republicans face a loss of apocalyptic proportions."

Abortion Bigots

Last week the Supreme Court upheld a federal law banning the ghastly partial-birth abortion procedure. It was a 5-4 vote, and the justices in the majority were all Catholic. Soon afterward, this cartoon by Tony Auth appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

Mr. Auth is, of course, entitled to his opinion and a certain degree of artistic license. The point he appears to be making is that the five justices voted the way they did due to their Catholic beliefs. Rosie O'Donnell and other anti-life activists made similarly hysterical statements.

This is a laughable argument on its face. First, think for a moment about what the Court did. This ruling agreed with a law passed by Congress, most of whose members are not Catholic and are nominally Christian at best, and signed into law by a Methodist president. Liberal Democrats like Harry Reid and Pat Leahy voted to ban partial birth abortion. It can hardly be described as some kind of Catholic conspiracy, as the cartoon suggests.

Second, while Catholics are a big part of the pro-life coalition, they are not the only part. Evangelical Christians, conservative Jews, Muslims, and many mainline Protestants are equally in favor of limiting abortion in general and partial-birth abortion in particular.

Third, there are plenty of reasons to oppose partial-birth abortion that do not depend on any sort of Christian belief at all. Law professor Robert Miller explained this in First Things.

Similarly, until the last few decades, Anglo-American law, which has historically been dominated by non-Catholics, treated abortion as a serious crime, even in early pregnancy, and consistently did so in order to protect the life of the unborn child. If you’re heard otherwise, see the monumental new history of Anglo-American abortion laws by Professor Joseph W. Dellapenna, Dispelling the Myths of Abortion History, a massive work spanning eight centuries and 1,200 pages, which is destined to become the magisterial treatment of the subject. Note to Mr. Auth: Prof. Dellapenna is not a Catholic; he describes himself as a lapsed Unitarian.

Furthermore, if Mr. Auth bothered to read the philosophical literature on abortion, he’d find that there are serious arguments on both sides of this issue. In particular, he might be surprised to learn that many of the most sophisticated defenders of abortion rights long ago conceded that a human fetus is a human being, not a clump of cells (it’s rather difficult to know much about embryology and conclude otherwise). Hence, most such philosophers defend abortion either by arguing that abortion is a permissible form of homicide, such as self-defense, or else by distinguishing human beings from human persons (human persons being human beings with some minimal level of mental capacity) and arguing that only human persons and not human beings generally are entitled to moral protection.

For my part, I sense in both these doctrines a reductio ad absurdum of the view they are meant to defend, and so I think the arguments fall out very largely on the pro-life side. Still, I recognize that the issues here are very complex and involve many contestable points in ethics and meta-ethics, and so I appreciate that other people, reasonably and in good faith, often come to views different from my own. Mr. Auth, probably because of his complete ignorance of the relevant arguments, is unable to say the same. MORE

John Yoo, another law professor and former Bush Administration official (whom I totally disagree with on many issues) describes the Auth cartoon as nothing less than ignorant bigotry.

Playing the religion card is worse than silly because it shows how intellectually lazy the liberal defense of Roe has become. There are many reasons why the Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion law, but not a state ban that it struck down in 2000. The Court found the state law too vague, while the federal law is more specific about the prohibited procedures. The Court may have been demonstrating more respect for the judgment of Congress than that of the states. Or the Court may have been following public opinion: Polls show that a majority of Americans agree with the partial-birth abortion ban. Almost two-thirds of the Senate, including Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy and Harry Reid voted for it. Four years ago, today's critics didn't ask whether Mr. Leahy's and Mr. Reid's votes were inspired by their Catholic or Mormon faiths.

Rather than develop reasoned responses to the Court or the arguments of conservatives, liberal critics resort to the mystical for easy answers. They suggest that irrational religious faith or pure Catholic doctrine handed down from the Vatican drives the Justices. It is much easier to dismiss your opponents as driven by mysterious forces than to do the hard work of developing arguments built on human reason. This religious critique recalls the nativist fear of Catholicism that too often appears in U.S. history. Senate Democrats appealed to the same bias when they filibustered judicial nominees for their "deeply held" religious beliefs, as Sen. Charles Schumer said of now-circuit judge William Pryor.

Now that liberals want to keep count of these matters, I should disclose that I am not Catholic. I did clerk for Justice Thomas, but I didn't know if he was Catholic at the time. To confuse matters, I agree with the late law professor John Hart Ely (religion unknown) who wrote that Roe v. Wade was wrong "because it is not constitutional law and gives no sense of an obligation to try to be." But if the Court ever returned the issue to the states, I would probably vote for a woman's legal right to an abortion in California. And I fully agree with my liberal colleagues who like to make sport of Justice Kennedy's opinions: He often seems more interested in his power on the Court as the crucial fifth vote than in consistently advancing a coherent view of constitutional law. MORE

Chuck Colson of Prison Fellowship is demanding an apology from Auth and calling for people to drop their subscriptions to his newspaper. I hope he succeeds but I'm not holding my breath.

Banned in Beijing

Apparently I've said a few things that the Chinese government didn't appreciate. How do I know? According to this site, Driving Out The Snakes has been blocked from public access in China.

I don't know exactly when I got on the Forbidden List. My traffic stats show visits from several different cities in China recently, so somebody is getting through. It may just be the censors checking up on me.

I'm sorry people in China aren't being allowed to read my pithy thoughts. On the other hand, I'm pleased to be an officially designated Enemy of the State. I must be doing something right.

Adios Imus

I've never heard more than a few bits and pieces of Don Imus. Nothing I heard made me want to listen any further. I think the furor over his recent comments which now seem to have ended his radio career says more about the rest of us than it does about Imus.

First of all, who did Imus insult? He did not, as far as I've read, say that all black females are nappy-headed hos. He was referring specifically to the Rutgers ladies basketball team. What he said was ignorant and ugly and he owes those young ladies an apology.

If, however, you are not a member of the Rutgers ladies basketball team, you have no business demanding an apology, because you have not been insulted. Who made Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton the official conscience of black America? Was it black Americans, or was it the media which needs a handy face to put on stories about race?

Second, Imus seems to have a long pattern of saying outrageous things like this. Yet he has not lacked for a wide variety of famous, and generally liberal, people willing to make guest appearances on his show. Why are they all suddenly so outraged with him? This could not be a surprise to his regular audience and guests. This suggests to me their current disgust has more to do with media attention than any principles of propriety.

Third, the cancellation of Imus by MSNBC and CBS Radio was driven totally by money. Advertisers were starting to bail out. No advertisers, no show. It's not at all complicated. I don't believe for a second the faux sensitivity of the network executives. They are protecting their business. Nothing more, nothing less.

I will leave you with a quote from Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, placing this story in the context of other recent events.

“Two years ago, Penn Jillette (of the comedy team Penn and Teller) went on Showtime calling Mother Teresa ‘Mother F—king Teresa’ and called the nuns who worked with her ‘f—king c—ts.’ Showtime is owned by Viacom and that is why I wrote to its chief, Sumner Redstone, to register a complaint. He wrote back extolling the merits of ‘artistic freedom’ and ‘tolerance.’ Last year, on Viacom-owned CBS radio, Jillette said Mother Teresa ‘had this weird kink that I think was sexual,’ compared the saintly nun to Charles Manson and said she ‘got her [sexual] kicks watching people suffer and die.’ Again, nothing was done about this.

“In 2005, Bill Maher went on HBO at the time of the death of Pope John Paul II and said, ‘For those who could not make the funeral, the Vatican has asked that in lieu of flowers, just stop touching your d—k.’ He also said that the whole story of Jesus, the Virgin Mary and the Resurrection was ‘grafted from paganism’; he ended by mocking the death of the pope and the upcoming conclave. The letter I received from HBO said that ‘it’s a free country, and people are free to say silly things—even on HBO.’

“Right before Easter, the Catholic League protested the chocolate Jesus with his genitals exposed that was to be shown in the art gallery of the Roger Smith Hotel in midtown Manhattan (located on street level, the public was invited to eat him). Air America radio co-host Cenk Uygur, writing on ‘The Huffington Post,’ said, ‘So is the argument that Jesus didn’t have a d—k? Or were people offended because it was too big? Too Small? Too immaculate? Not immaculate enough?’ Regarding Imus’s remark, Uygur called it ‘derogatory and insulting.’

“Similarly, Joan Walsh on Salon.com said the chocolate Jesus was not ‘a big deal,’ and advised people not to go see it if they didn’t like it. She has now called on Imus to be fired. Even New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg said ‘don’t pay any attention’ to the chocolate Jesus, but he now finds it necessary to brand Imus’ comments ‘repugnant.’

“In other words, Catholic bashing is humorous and an exercise in liberty. Racism is awful. Bigotry, then, is neither good nor bad—it just depends who the target is.”

So Much For Realism

Vermont is almost certainly the most liberal of the 50 states. For years they have sent an avowed socialist to represent them in Congress. Vermont is the land of Ben & Jerry's ice cream for the Common Man. Those few Vermonters who actually believe in motor vehicles tend to buy Volvos.

Given all this, I am not terribly surprised when they do wacky things in Vermont. This one, however, stuns me. Officials in Burlington decided to stage a mock "hostage" drill at their local high school, using police officers, school personnel, and a handful of volunteer students. No problem so far - these things do happen so police and school staff ought to be prepared.

In order to make the drill as "realistic" as possible, a fictional scenario was developed for the players to follow. So, what kind of people would you expect to invade a public school and take hostages? Muslim terrorists, maybe? It's happened before. But no, in Vermont offending Muslims is verboten. They found another target:

The mock terror attack involved two irate men armed with handguns who invaded the high school through the front door. They pretended to shoot several students in the hallway and then barricaded themselves in the media center with 10 student hostages.

Two Burlington Township police detectives portrayed the gunmen. Investigators described them as members of a right-wing fundamentalist group called the “New Crusaders” who don't believe in separation of church and state. The mock gunmen went to the school seeking justice because the daughter of one had been expelled for praying before class. MORE

Keep in mind, the whole idea was to keep the exercise "realistic." Now, do the "New Crusaders" sound like people who are likely to live in Vermont and send their daughters to public schools? How often have we seen "right-wing fundamentalist groups" who "don't believe in separation of church and state" invade schools "seeking justice" in the last few years?

This is nothing more than blatant anti-Christian bias and political correctness run wild. Realism was the last thing on their mind. It was an opportunity to take a free shot at a group they don't like, and they grabbed it.

The most amazing thing is that the folks in Vermont actually thought they get away with such bigotry. That tells you how insulated they are. In their minds, Christianity is nothing more than some crazy cult composed of people who eat meat, harm the environment and have too many kids. People like us aren't welcome in Vermont.

More here, here, and here.

Chocolate Profanity

Why do some artists feel compelled to insult people? An art gallery in New York has acquired a six-foot sculpture of Christ, made entirely of milk chocolate. It is called "My Sweet Lord." That sounds cute until you see He is nude and anatomically complete. By pure coincidence, they claim, the gallery intended to unveil this so-called "art" next week - Holy Week, the days leading up to Easter, the most important holiday for Christians. Faced with a public outcry, the exhibit has now been canceled.

Here is a picture of the sculpture. Personally, I think the idea of portraying Christ in chocolate is pretty strange but you could certainly do much worse. Showing the Lord as, ahem, fully male is historically and theologically accurate. I think we all know this and don't need to see it in 3-D, however.

David Kuo makes a good point. As outrageous as the statue is, it makes a point we often forget. Christ was Himself mocked, ridiculed, scorned, beaten and ultimately killed. Why? Because He loved us. He gave Himself up for us - all of us, including the one who made this statue. It's a thought worth reflecting on at this time of year.

Crunchy Con reminds us that we rarely see artists doing things to insult Mohamed. Why not? Because they know what would happen to them. They know that it's perfectly safe in our society to heap indignities on Christians. The artists who do so are, in a word, cowards. They only insult the people that they know will not strike back.

Just to be clear, I don't think artists who do these things should face any sort of legal restrictions. Everyone in America is free to express their ideas, however repulsive they may be. The rest of us of free to ignore those ideas and to avoid doing business with those who promote them. We can also create our own art and let the public decide what it likes. Somehow, I doubt the chocolate version will stand the test of time.

While Europe Slept

Various bloggers are starting to notice a new book by Bruce Bawer called While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within. Bawer is not exactly a right-wing Bush fan. He is an openly gay leftist with no sympathy for Republicans, conservatives, or Christians.

Bawer sees what most on the political left do not: Radical Islam is not friendly to liberal secularism. Quite the opposite: look at what Bawer recently said in his blog:

One of the most disgraceful developments of our time is that many Western authors and intellectuals who pride themselves on being liberals have effectively aligned themselves with an outrageously illiberal movement that rejects equal rights for women, that believes gays and Jews should be executed, that supports the coldblooded murder of one's own children in the name of honor, etc., etc. These authors and intellectuals respond to every criticism of that chilling fundamentalist code – however cogent and correct the criticism may be – by hurling the "R" word...

By "R word" he means "racism," the only Crime That Cannot Be Forgiven in our culture. The attitude he cites is both ignorant (Islam is a religion, not a race) and suicidal. Leftists defend a movement that will, when and if it succeeds, wipe out the so-called freedoms leftists hold so dear. Rod Dreher sums up this illogic well.

I honestly don't get this. Shouldn't liberals be the most concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, given that the things they profess to value are the first things they would lose under Islamist pressure? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that this sort of liberal hates political conservatives and orthodox Christians more than he loves his own liberty. And he wishes to cling desperately to his own self-image as a defender of the poor, oppressed minorities, even when some of those poor, oppressed minorities would just as soon see him and his kind swinging from the gallows. MORE

China Blinks at Muslim Threat

Here is an interesting story (found at Dymphna's Well). The impending Chinese New Year will inaugurate the Year of the Pig. Normally this would result in China being festooned with images of pigs all over the place. Not so this time. The government has issued an order that pigs not be used in any form of advertising for the new year. Why, you may ask? Because the Chinese Muslims find pigs unclean and offensive.

The ban also applies to cartoons and traditional paper-cut images of pigs, and to slogans such as 'golden pig brings you fortune' and 'wish you a happy pig year,' the executive said. MORE

While it is pleasing to see the Chinese government attempting to accommodate religious minorities, we have not yet seen any such favors being done for the nation's Christians. Quite the opposite, actually.

Furthermore, the rulers of China are not in the habit of giving in to threats from people who feel oppressed or mistreated. The normal response is to impose even more oppression or mistreatment. So what's different this time?

Either Beijing is feeling unusually generous, or they are more afraid of their Islamic population than it appears. Either way, it's very strange.

The Kindness of Pro-Choicers

From Gazizza I learned of this page illustrating the 2006 Walk For Life in San Francisco. That city - the namesake of which must be gnashing his teeth up in the clouds somewhere - is probably the most concentrated snake pit on our continent. The inhabitants certainly show no mercy to the brave few who dare to stand up for the unborn. Pro-life people are clearly not welcome in San Francisco.

The photos of the counter-demonstrators are both disturbing and revealing. Disturbing because most of us, whatever our political or moral disagreements, never have this level of vicious anger toward our neighbors. Revealing because for the 2007 event, Planned Parenthood supposedly refused to support the counter-demonstrators. They know this kind of bile doesn't help their cause.

Click here and prepare to be disgusted.

Mapping Faiths

This page may take a few minutes to load but it has some very interesting maps that graphically illustrate the impact and variety of faith in the U.S. (Hat tip to The Curt Jester). I found some of it very surprising.

The first map shows you, by county, what percentage of the population claims membership in any kind of church. West Texas, the northern Plains, and Utah appear to be the most deeply religious areas of the country. The Pacific Northwest is the least religious area.

The second map kind of shocked me. I had no idea the U.S. was still so regionalized into various denominations. Baptists dominate the South. Lutherans are found in the northern Plains. Mormons prevail in Utah and areas of surrounding states. Methodists lead in scattered areas of the Midwest, Kansas and Nebraska. Catholics are predominant in South Florida, along the Mexican border, and most of the West, Midwest and Northeast.

The rest of the maps break the country down further by individual denominations. This can show some interesting anomalies - for example, the Episcopalians appear to have established a stronghold in South Dakota. The Amish and Mennonites are more widespread than I would have thought. The map of Unitarians is almost a perfect match for the "blue" areas we see after election time that typically vote Democratic.

Bottom line: most religious denominations are segregated in certain areas. The only ones with a serious nationwide presence are Baptists, Catholics, Pentecostals and Presbyterians. Even so, the U.S. is probably more diverse in this regard than most nations.

World Day of Peace

Today is the 40th annual "World Day of Peace." This does not not mean that we should all put on groovy clothes, hold hands and sing Kum Ba Ya. It wouldn't hurt, I suppose, but there are better things to do. For example, pray for an understanding of what "peace" really means.

War is a terrible thing and the lives lost in them are distressing. Yet there are other wars in progress, right under our noses. Benedict XVI talked about it in his message today. I've put some key points in italics:

The duty to respect the dignity of each human being, in whose nature the image of the Creator is reflected, means in consequence that the person can not be disposed of at will. Those with greater political, technical, or economic power may not use that power to violate the rights of others who are less fortunate. Peace is based on respect for the rights of all. Conscious of this, the Church champions the fundamental rights of each person. In particular she promotes and defends respect for the life and the religious freedom of everyone. Respect for the right to life at every stage firmly establishes a principle of decisive importance: life is a gift which is not completely at the disposal of the subject.

Similarly, the affirmation of the right to religious freedom places the human being in a relationship with a transcendent principle which withdraws him from human caprice. The right to life and to the free expression of personal faith in God is not subject to the power of man. Peace requires the establishment of a clear boundary between what is at man's disposal and what is not: in this way unacceptable intrusions into the patrimony of specifically human values will be avoided.

As far as the right to life is concerned, we must denounce its widespread violation in our society: alongside the victims of armed conflicts, terrorism and the different forms of violence, there are the silent deaths caused by hunger, abortion, experimentation on human embryos and euthanasia. How can we fail to see in all this an attack on peace? Abortion and embryonic experimentation constitute a direct denial of that attitude of acceptance of others which is indispensable for establishing lasting relationships of peace. Full address.

Benedict has an interesting style that gets to the heart of the matter. His message boils down to this: if we don't respect life, there can be no peace. If we cannot accept others in the quiet of the womb, we will never learn to accept those of other nations as our brothers.

Peace begins at home. Peace be with you.

Merry Xmas!

I have always been disturbed and sometimes offended when people use "Xmas" as an abbreviation for Christmas. To me it looks like just another way to take Christ out of Christmas. Unfortunately, to many people that is exactly what they mean to do, whether through ignorance or malice. So I was surprised this week to learn that there is more to the story.

In the Ancient Greek language of the scriptures, the word Christ begins with the letters Chi and Rho. These letters look like X and P in our modern alphabet. Anyone who has ever pledged a fraternity should recognize them.

The Roman emperor Constantine, a Christian, created a banner for his fourth century armies to carry with a symbol combining the letters Chi and Rho. The symbol came to be called the Labarum, and to this day you will see it in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic liturgical artwork. It looks like this:



So, using "X" in reference to Christ isn't necessarily a bad thing, though most people don't know the history behind what they are writing. The joke is on the atheists who really do want to take Christ out of the holiday. They're just using a different name.

Interesting article from Wikipedia.