Ecstasy and Intimacy: When the Holy Spirit Meets the Human Spirit

Last night I went to hear a friend of mine, New Testament scholar Edith Humphrey, speak about her latest book Ecstasy and Intimacy: When the Holy Spirit Meets the Human Spirit.

Here are some excerpts from her book's introduction:

At some point in the past twenty years, North Americans crossed a Rubicon. Perhaps we were unaware of it at the time, but it is now apparent that there has been a great divide, a sea change in our thinking, which has affected both academy and church.

When I was an undergraduate, the emphasis in class was completely upon "objectivity," "neutral observation," "proving one's point."

Now the spotlight is on "my story," "my response," and "celebrating diversity."

Humphrey rails against the diffuse, generic "spirituality" that has infected everything, including much of modern Christian practice.

"Today many confuse 'spirituality' with 'experience;--the unintentional result being that they actually worship human esoteric moments or points of wonder, without apprehending the fuller reality that God has in store for us. We must not place that One, from whom are all things, and in whom all things converge, in a subordinate position. A study of those who have been intimate with Christ in past age indicats that when the Spirit speaks, he directs us towards the unique and revolutionary Incarnation of God the Son."

"We may feel spiritual, but we need to watch the checks and balances that have been given to us--the Story of Scripture, the witness of the Church through the ages, and the voice of the entire communion today. We may well discover that our age and even our ecclesial community have become tone deaf to some of the most basic spiritual truths."

A thought occurred to me as I was posting some of the egregious outrages against freedom of speech in the post below.

Soon the kind of traditional, Trinitarian, orthodox Christian faith that Humphrey is trying to lead people back to in her book will be illegal.

But, the thought I had was this: when it becomes illegal, then it will become fashionable and attractive again to societies rebels.

Maybe not. Because if you are a rebel at heart you cannot grasp the Truth. As Jesus said in John 7 (NIV).

16 Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me. 17If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.

Outrages against freedom of speech

LifeSiteNews.com has a couple of egregious examples in its news lineup today.

<A leader in Canadian human rights law has come out against a decision by the Alberta Human Rights Commission to prosecute The Western Standard magazine for publishing the Danish anti-Mohammad cartoons.

The Commission’s decision to pursue the Standard after they received a complaint from “radical” Calgary Imam Syed Soharwardy spurred the human rights lawyer Alan Borovoy to write to the Calgary Sun. “During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech,” Borovoy, who is general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, wrote. Censorship was “hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions. There should be no question of the right to publish the impugned cartoons,” he added.

And this yesterday:

A Catholic priest in Belgium known popularly as Fr. Père Samuel is to be brought to trial for hate crimes according to a decision reached last week by the Belgian judiciary. According to the Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/936 ), the priest, who fled from Turkey under Islamic persecution, is being prosecuted for warning against Islamic fundamentalism.

His offending statement: "Every thoroughly islamized Muslim child that is born in Europe is a time bomb for Western children in the future. The latter will be persecuted when they have become a minority."

After hearing of his upcoming trial the priest, who was suspended by his bishop but nonetheless remains a popular clergyman, repeated his statement and warns against "the islamic invasion" of the West.

While that sentiment may seem bitter to some, it is a sincere conviction for many prelates coming from Islamic nations.

In a startling statement which received very little coverage, the Patriarch of the Greek Melkite Catholic Church, stated in an interview published last October "According to me, after 11 September, there is a plot to eliminate all the Christian minorities from the Arabic world."

And, last but not least, I got an email today that had the following email correspondence in it.

Hi all,
>
> Are any of you familiar with a show on EWTN called Life on the Rock? It's
> a
> talk show aimed at a young adult crowd, and I watch it religiously :-)
> every
> week.
>
> A couple of weeks ago, they announced that the next episode would be on
> same-sex attraction. I tuned in as usual, but saw that instead, they
> showed a
> repeat of a previous show, on a completely different topic. The week
> after
> there was a new show, and they mentioned that the last week's show had
> indeed
> been about same-sex attraction.
>
> I e-mailed them, to find out why the show never aired here. I knew it
> was
> EWTN's decision and not Roger's Cable blocking out the show, because it
> was
> still a Life on the Rock Episode that got aired. I told them that the
> only
> reason I could possibly think of, was Canada's hate crimes legislation,
> never
> thinking that it would really be the reason. Guess what? It is.
>
> Here's the response I received from EWTN.
>
> God Bless,
> G-
>
>
> Dear Mr. G-,
> I apologize that you didn't get the show that you were expecting. Due
> to the new hate crimes regulations in Europe and Canada, it is against
> the law for us to air shows whose main topic deal with same sex
> attraction. I would encourage you to purchase the dvd copy of the show
> through our EWTN Religious Catalogue. You might want to show it to your
> friends or family and maybe your parish as well. Here is the link to
> the page that sells past episodes (Stephen and Irene Bennett's show is
> on page 2).
> https://www.ewtn.com/vcatalogue/index.asp?category=liveshows
> In the future, if you see a show with that topic advertized, feel free
> to purchase it through the internet. We really appreciate your interest
> in this topic.
> God Bless you, and keep on watching Life on the Rock!
> Amalia C. Zea
> Life on the Rock Producer
> Eternal Word Television Network

Emphasis mine.

Salt and Light TV will have great coverage this weekend

For anyone who wants to think back over Pope John Paul II's legacy and Pope Benedict's first year, Salt and Light TV is going to have some great coverage this weekend.


This station is young, alive, and deeply faithful. Well worth the subscription.

CFRB Radio plans to remember Pope John Paul II

CFRB (www.cfrb.com) is going to have some good Pope coverage over the weekend, starting at 12:30 p.m. with an interview with Fr. Tom Rosica. You can listen live here.

On Sunday, from 11-noon, they will play an hour-long special, and on Monday, an interview with the Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Ventura on his memories of John Paul II.

Anyway, kinda nice that a MSM station is going to giving some respectful coverage to the late Pope.

I'm glad, too, that after Fr. Tom's work with the media as he organized World Youth Day 2002 in Toronto, he built relationships and is now a go-to person for various media outlets. He did outstanding commentary for CBC last year during the Pope's funeral and later at the installation of Pope Benedict XVI.

Fr. Tom now runs Salt and Light Television and the Salt and Light Media Foundation.

Mark Bertrand makes me wistful about the 16th Century

My fellow Master's Artist J. Mark Bertrand takes a journey through time to the 16th Century and I wish I could tag along.

There's something rather intriguing about those centuries: the rebirth of classical learning, the reformation of the church, the collapse of empire in the East corresponding with the rise of the state in the West, the emergence of trade and the middle class. Not to mention all the paige boy haircuts and the pointy shoes.

No, I wouldn't want to live there, but it's not a bad place to slip away to from time to time. I know that reading history is supposed to innoculate us against repeating our past mistakes, but that's not why I do it. If anything, I crave the sense of continuity, the realization that the arguments and ideas of today are not so new after all. We have this notion of linear progress, with modern man standing at the apex of a rising arc, but read enough history and you begin to suspect that our ancestors were never so naive as we've supposed, and often more insightful.

I think Mark is right, that those who were educated back in those days were a lot better educated than the average PhD student of today who tends to specialize so narrowly that they lose any perspective on where their knowledge fits.

The previous day, Master's Artist Mike Synder took us to the Waffle House.

The thing I like about Waffle House is, no matter where you sit, you can second-hand smoke. That, and the way my forearms always stick to the table.

Read the whole thing, it's better to read about the Waffle House than be there. Mike's piece also offers some wise perspective on our efforts to leave a lasting legacy when it comes to our writing.

And the day before that, Master's Artist Donna Shepherd wrote about an addiction I can relate to.

I attended a writers’ conference this past week. During our evening meal, several of us discussed website design. One woman, who has a site for her children’s writing, mentioned she has no idea how many visitors she draws. An editor who sat with us almost shrieked, “You’re kidding! You don’t have a stat counter?!”

As someone with stat counters on every site, I could hardly believe it either.

It drives me crazy that Jules [Another of the Master's Artists who administrates the group blog]hasn’t put a counter up on this site. But maybe she’s on the right track. When we watch that number tick over to another hundred visitors, we may be tempted to analyze the stats to cater to readers’ tastes, writing ‘to the numbers.’

I hope my number ticks over the 3,000 mark today. That's not a whole lot compared with some blogs I read that have had well over a million visitors and hundreds of comments on every post. But my blog is still only a few months old and it is really cool to see that people from all over the world visit this site, sometimes for the strangest reasons.

Jill Carroll shills for her kidnappers before release

Jill Carroll has a full blown case of Stockholm syndrome. She goes out of her way to praise her kidnappers and say they never threatened or harmed her and she goes out of her way to bash America and President Bush. She reminds me of Patty Hearst, the heiress who got kidnapped by the Symbionese Liberation Army back in the 70s. She then robbed banks with them. It took her a while to come back to herself after her ordeal. Maybe we can expect the same of Jill Carroll.

UPDATE: Bloggers are digging up the old video and reminding us how when she was captured, her translator was shot and killed. Thanks to Kate at Small Dead Animals for the link.

Borders follows Chapters into dhimmitude

Just dropped by Gates of Vienna and read more about the fact that the U.S. book chain Borders has decided not to sell a magazine or two that has the Danish cartoons in them. She has some links to another blog which reports that Borders just recently made a deal to open stores in the United Arab Emirates.

Hmmmm. Could there have been something other than fear, political correctness or dhimmitude to make Indigo-Chapters, the Canadian big box book chain, decide not to carry the Western Standard?

Americans are angry and promising to withdraw their business from Borders.

Dymphna writes:

I wonder if Borders can hear the rising chorus. I wonder if they care.

Somehow, I don’t think this is going away. The cartoons haven’t gone away, so Borders is now aligned with a totalitarian enemy. Good luck to them in the UAE, they will truly need it.

The only block bookstore near us is Barnes and Noble. Maybe they’re listening? Meanwhile, I’ll keep on trucking with Amazon, even if they do give so much room to trolls on the book pages of conservative writers. That seems mild in comparison to Borders’ blatant butt-kissing.

Jim Loney's partner forced to stay in closet during kidnapping

Kidnapped Canadian Peacemaker James Loney spoke to reporters yesterday and it looks like CBC News head Tony Burman is getting his wish that he be treated as the classic Canadian hero. No more criticism of the peacemakers for their fools's errand in Iraq or the organizations lack of gratitude for the hostages rescue. (Though Loney is about the only one among them to have been publicly grateful.) Instead, on the CBC anyway, we have been treated to fawning displays of propaganda and hero worship about what a great hero St. Jim is and what a wonderful, long-suffering partner he has because he voluntarily went into the closet for Jim's safety.

It's hard not to like Loney. There is something transparent and authentic about him, even if I totally disagree with his critique of the war. And I'm glad his supporters back home were wise enough to keep his sexual orientation under wraps while he was hostage. Yes, it could have led him to the same fate as that of his comrade American Tom Fox, who was murdered. At least it shows some level of awareness beyond the Stockholm syndrome of what kind of people they were dealing with in Iraq.

What I find interesting is what St. Jim's partner Dan Hunt said...or at least the portions the Corpse (for American readers, the nickname for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or CBC)about how painful it was to have to keep the relationship secret, to go back into the closet, to not be able to plead publicly for his release.

Loney's partner, Dan Hunt, talked about "their rich life together" and "the excruciating pain" of waiting for four months in secret without being able to speak out for his loved one.

The "me, me, me, me, me, me" focus of that--which could be the CBC's selection of clips--rather than the terrible danger Jim was in---struck me as rather strange. It also seemed more of a swipe at western-style gay bashers, i.e. people who disagree with trumpeting the gay life style as equivalent to traditional marriage, than at the genuinely lethal homophobia of their captors.

Ottawa Citizen Columnist John Robson captures my reaction in this satirical take:

Then confusion came upon the CPT and they were sore afraid and muttered among themselves, saying verily one of our brothers is a homosexual person. And the virtuous oppressed strugglers for justice and holy war who have taken him captive being, even as ourselves, enemies of George Bush, will surely whack off his head if not other bits should news of this wondrous matter somehow reach their enlightened selves whilst they struggle mightily against American injustice.

Yea, said others, and how about that magazine story on the Internet wherein our brother declares that he is gay which could be a clue that he is homosexual if these jihadis are also McWorldly. We are compelled to witness for what we believe and fear not. So let us go unto the magazine and say in the interest of truth would you mind removing that story. And the magazine did, and was delighted to be a voice silent in the wilderness. And no one went about citing Bible verses about not putting candles under bushels or salt losing its savour or any of that rot.

As it is written, or at least read, ye shall speak truth to power in the form of rude noises against George Bush. But behold, when men wield power with not so much scrupulousness about injustice as among the wicked Bushites then maybe just clam up big-time about the truth lest willingness to risk martyrdom should lead to it. For a man should stand up for what he believes in even if it gets him thrown to the lions or stoned to death or nailed to a stick or some such fate but whoa nelly not us bud. Go then and angrily demand gay rights in America where there is sore oppression and much rending of garments before gay pride parades but trouble not the land of Iraq with such stuff.

Find other great columns by John Robson at his website TheJohnRobson.com

The guerilla war being waged in Europe

In the late 90s, my mother and I visited Paris. As we were walking through an underpass a group of men stopped us, asked us to sign a petition to help Rwandan refugees, and demanded a donation. I signed the petition, but I refused a donation, since my "this is a scam" radar went off. But my gentle, generous mother opened up her purse and gave them some money. When I tried to stop her, the atmosphere became more ominous. We got out of there with our purses and none the worse physically but I looked for a gendarme to report them but there was none in sight.

I had also been shocked by how seedy Paris was looking. Graffiti everywhere. But still the subways seemed safe and relatively clean. We didn't worry about walking around at night. Maybe we should have.

But my mother's friend has since told her that thugs tore her son's baptismal cross from around his neck outside his high school. As Theodore Dalrymple wrote in his prophetic article Barbarians at the Gates of Paris, these kinds of events are the constant at dinner table conversation, but they are not showing up in the mainstream news.

Fast forward to 2005-2006 and the "youth riots" and carbecues from late last year, and the recent massive street protests against a law that would allow employeers to fire younger employees within two years of their taking a job.

Gateway Pundit has some scary pictures of something going on within those street protests. Some of those youth who exploded from the banlieus have been preying on the youth protesting against the labor law.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what do they tell you about the complex problem afflicting the West? For one, they tell me that we are not just facing the problem of Islamic extremism, because the youths stealing cell phones and purses do not probably pray five times a day, or participate in other rituals and disciplines associated with the practice of Islam. They are products of the welfare state and modernity as much or more than they are products of Islam. Their own parents would likely disapprove of this behavior and have lost all control of them. The welfare state is creating a burgeoning underclass resentful of its dependency.

A majority of these youths make use of Islamofacism to justify its attacks on infidels to turn crime into something noble. And the youths protesting about their rights to jobs for life? Another side of the same coin. They too have a stifling sense of entitlement.

Rape is another tactic being used by criminal gangs. Girls 15 and under are targeted, and the fact that they are not veiled is blamed.

If I had a daughter who wanted to backpack around Europe, I'd do everything in my power to stop her.

What do we do about it? We have to stop apologizing for Western civilization. We have to start insisting on assimilation to it. We have to start insisting on the inculcation of character and virtue starting with our own youth, and demanding it of those who wish to live among us. We need to brush off the principles that made us great and start standing on them. These principles are grounded in the Judeo-Christian faith. Muslims who wish to be free to practise their religion in peace are welcome as long as they don't try to use the freedoms of the West as a way to remove the freedoms they enjoy for everyone else, especially Christians who receive none of the same reciprocity in Muslim countries.

And this is more than just a religious conflict. We have a huge underclass problem. And Theodore Dalrymple is right in that this is not a racial thing. In the U.K. the underclass is predominantly white, but exhibits the same breakdown of family, lawlessness and criminal behavior as underclasses everywhere.

Dalrymple analyses the beliefs and behaviors of the underclass and finds they more than anything explain their plight, not oppression, not racism since the ones he has studied most closely are white.

We battle not against flesh and blood--but against lies that have a stranglehold on the human mind and human heart, lies that create bondage. Lies that have a spiritual force to them. One thing Dalrymple misses is this....he thinks that the underclass could just decide to live differently. He says they choose evil because they all have moments of clarity when they know that their next lover is going to be just like the rest and probably abuse the children from a previous relationship. Or that having another son out of wedlock will leave that child as fatherless as the man was.

This morning I read in John 8 where Jesus says that those who sin become slaves of sin.

31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?
34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
35 And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

We need a bondage breaker. We need a Savior, Christ the Lord, who can set the captives free. Those of us who know Him have to be on our knees begging to be freed from our own bondage to sin, so that He may shine in us and He can do His redeeming work through us. We have to stop being ashamed of the Gospel, because it is our only hope. Secularism will not save us. It is not saving the French, obviously. It makes them defenceless. It makes them commit demographic suicide.

Great links at Relapsed Catholic--one makes my blood boil

Kathy Shaidle as usual has been blogging up a storm this morning over at Relapsed Catholic. I suggest you go over there to read the items she's linked to on how North America is not assimilating immigrants (Peggy Noonan), how sports writers would better cover the war because they would be looking at the overall game rather than the injuries and deaths alone (Kate MacMillan, and on the Western Standard being forced to mount an expensive defense because a Calgary Imam has taken it before a human rights tribunal for printing the Danish Mohammed cartoons.

The latter one really has my blood boiling this morning. I'm glad I was faithful to do my Morning Prayer and readings before I read about it.

Ezra Levant, the magazine's publisher, writes:

We think we will be successful in the end – freedom of the press is still the law in Canada. But our attacker is using the abusive, costly process of the Human Rights Commission as a punishment in itself. Even if we win, we'll still have to spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting this complaint, and hundreds of hours of our time. Our attacker doesn't have to do anything but sit back – the Human Rights Commission uses taxpayer money and government employees to put us through the ringer.

Please help us fight off this dangerous assault on freedom of the press and freedom of conscience. Donate what you can to our Western Standard Legal Defence Fund – anything from $10 to $10,000 would be appreciated.

My blood boiled when Calgary Bishop Henry faced complaints for writing a pastoral letter on Catholic teachings about marriage and had to go before one of these tribunals. The charges were eventually dropped.

My latest take on The Da Vinci Code movie

In theatres, as coming attractions previews start including trailers for The Da Vinci Code movie, the so-called "truth squads" have positioned themselves to combat lies and distortions likely to be repeated in the film."

Rather than organize protests or boycotts, evangelicals and Catholics are mobilizing "truth squads" reads a headline in the Christian Science Monitor March 22.

In fact, a whole industry has sprung up in the wake of Dan Brown's blockbuster novel by the same name and is gaining momentum as the movie nears its May 19 release date.

-and-

Catholic screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi may have the most effective strategy. She says go to the theatre on opening weekend. But don't see The Da Vinci Code. Instead, take your friends and family to see Over the Hedge, an animated feature DreamWorks is releasing at the same time.

"The box office is a ballot box," Nicolosi wrote recently on her blog Church of the Masses (churchofthemasses.blogspot.com). "The only people whose votes are counted are those who buy tickets. And the ballot box closes on the Sunday of opening weekend."

Opus Dei's Canadian vicar believes the movie creates an opportunity.

Montreal-based Msgr. Fred Dolan said he expects director Ron Howard will make a "beautiful movie," at least from a visual point of view.

"What we have to do is pray that the visual beauty of the movie inspires people to go back to their own roots, to ask What about Jesus? What about the beginnings of Christianity? What were the first followers of Jesus like, what did they believe?"

"If we can accomplish this, it will be fantastic," he says. "God can take things that are seemingly very negative and turn them to good use."

According to Nicolosi, however, the movie will be offensive. She has seen the script, which she describes as "somewhere between idiotic and way too cute."

"It is a movie which begins from the point that Jesus was a fraud," she warns. "He was not only not divine, he was less than a man, who didn't die and rise to save humanity, but rather settled down in Nazareth suburbia and fathered children.

"Oh yes, and the Christian Church which made up all the salvific Messiah stuff about him is a sham association of megalomaniacal conspirators whose unifying principles are in the oppression of women."

There's more at the Western Catholic Reporter website.

Claire Berlinski on European secularlism and anti-Americanism

(thanks to Kate at Small Dead Animals for the link)to this inteview with Claire Berlinksi, author of Menace in Europe.

. . . the popular view of Europe as a completely secular society is too facile. Anticlerical forms of religion have taken hold. Someone once sent me an article, perhaps in was in the Guardian, about three young women, imbeciles all, who had devoted themselves to radical beliefs: the first to the destruction of capitalism, the second to Islam, and the third to something like an old-fashioned Christian heresy, close in spirit to the Albigensian heresy. There is something going on in Europe, a flourishing of sects, all of which have something in common and that is an absolute, virtually pathological, refusal to profit from experience. Now, why should anyone devote herself to the destruction of capitalism when we know perfectly well, if we know anything at all, that the realistic alternatives are monstrous, inefficient, stupid, brutal and self-defeating? When it comes to anti-capitalism and fruity Christianity, it is quite interesting to think of both as Christian heresies. As official belief has waned in Europe, Christian heresies have come to flourish. Communism, after all, has its roots in certain apostolic teachings about poverty and property; and free love is just what the Church faced in the 12th century and effectively crushed. One can argue-and I do, in my book-that Europe remains what it has always been: a Christian society, one now tormented by heresies.

and

The phenomena to be explained are the irrationality and the ardor of European anti-Americanism. Irrational, because entirely disproportionate to any real faults in American society. Of course America has flaws, and no, it is not lunacy to point them out. But in poll after poll, you see substantial numbers of Europeans, non-trivial numbers, who believe the September 11 attacks were staged, yes, staged, by an oil-hungry American military-industrial complex to justify its imperialist adventures in Iraq. In Germany, 20 percent of the population believes this. In France, a book arguing this case was a galloping bestseller. Now that is bughouse nuts. Totally bats in the belfry. Then the ardor: "My anti-Americanism," wrote one columnist in the British Telegraph, "has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me, like a disease. It rises up in my throat like acid reflux, that fashionable American sickness." If only we could harness all that outrage and transform it into a non-polluting energy source! You see this kind of thing all the time in the European press. (Meanwhile, if the French, say, wipe out the entire Ivorian air force, do you see protestors on the streets chanting "No blood for cocoa?" What a question.) When you have these two phenomena together-irrationality and this curious passion, this fervor-it seems reasonable to conclude that you are in the presence of something like a cult. So you consider it, sociologically. What role does this ideology serve in the European psyche? One answer: It fulfills many of the roles once played by the Church. It offers a comprehensive-if lunatic-answer to the question, "Why is the world the way it is, and why is there evil in that world?" It provides a devil to excoriate and then to exorcise. There is community and belonging in anti-American activism, ecstasy in protest. Again, a form of Christian heresy, and no more lunatic, surely, than anything the Cathars believed, if also no less.

Bob Larsen performs exorcisms on CNN

Take a look at the video here.

It's a pretty straight reporting. Interesting stuff.

CBC news head weighs in on the Peacemakers

Tony Burman, the head of CBC News and Current Affairs, is dismayed by the articles and columns criticizing the Christian Peacemakers for their lack of gratitude towards their rescuers. (Thanks to Nealenews.com)

Burman writes:

I find these outbursts of media hostility toward the Christian Peacemakers somewhat perplexing. Informed criticism is legitimate, of course. But before any of these men have had the opportunity to utter a word, where does this come from?

There had been some of this criticism in British newspapers but that isn't surprising. The head of the British army had made a big point about how "saddened" he was that the peacekeepers' organization failed to express immediate "gratitude" to them for the rescue. This also happened with some in the U.S. media who were prodded on by their military.

But here in Canada, who really has the time for hand-wringing about people supposedly "being naive" or "unprepared" or not fast enough in "thanking" the military rescuers? Can any of us forget what is currently at stake in Iraq and throughout the region?

I suspect most Canadians have little patience for this. Most of us not only felt genuine relief and happiness about the rescue but, more profoundly, saw in these "peacemakers" something that was quite admirable, courageous — and classically Canadian.

A desire to get involved. To help out. To make a difference even if it involves real personal risk. That's what Canadians do, in very real terms.

I dunno. All I can say is I'm glad I no longer work for the CBC and have this guy determining the standards for objective truth and journalistic excellence.

Yes, I would agree ALL Canadians feel genuine relief and happiness at the rescue.

I differ on what is classically Canadian, however. What is classically Canadian are the rescuers, who resemble the liberators of Holland, the soldiers who died in various wars to defend what is good and free in the West.

It is not classically Canadian to, in effect, side with Islamofascists against America, or to blame America for the root causes that make the poor terrorists behave the way they do. Oh, but does Burman even allow the word terrorist on the CBC anymore? Aren't they all militants now? Insurgents? As if these Iraqi insurgents are like the French resistance during World War II, somehow noble in their fight against fascist oppression? What exactly does he mean about what's at stake in Iraq, huh? Does it occur to him that maybe some people want him and me and everyone else living here dead or converted to their stunted version of a great religion?

Methinks we have another useful idiot on our hands. It'll be interesting to see the response he gets to this.

Peacemaker thanks his rescuers

Canadian James Loney has publicly thanked the special forces who rescued him from captivity in Iraq. That's good news. I found it easy to share in his joy when I watched him on TV yesterday.

Former hostage James Loney appeared thin but grateful and a bit bewildered when he landed yesterday at Toronto's Pearson airport, four months after he was kidnapped in Iraq. Surrounded by loved ones, he praised the British soldiers and Canadian government officials who worked for his release, and said he looked forward to becoming "reacquainted . . . with freedom."

"I am grateful in a way that can never be adequately expressed in words," Mr. Loney, 41, told reporters at the airport three days after he was rescued, along with fellow hostages Harmeet Singh Sooden and Norman Kember. "It's great to be alive."

Mr. Loney's praise was effusive compared to the more guarded expressions of gratitude uttered by some of his colleagues at Christian Peacemaker Teams, a pacifist aid organization that has been working in Iraq since 2002. Mr. Loney thanked both "the British soldiers who risked their lives to rescue us" and "the government of Canada, who sent a team to Baghdad to help secure our release." He made no mention of the U.S. troops who were also involved.

I believe along with Loney that his rescue is an answer to prayer. And I share in his gratitude, even though I do not share his unconditionally pacifist views. I was among the many who prayed for him and the others.

Another thing has emerged about Loney now that he's freed:

"After this, I'm going to disappear for a little while into a different kind of abyss, an abyss of love," he said. "I need some time to get reacquainted with my partner, Dan, my family, my community and freedom itself."

As he read his statement, Mr. Loney was flanked by his partner, Dan Hunt, and two of his brothers, Ed and Matt Loney. When he finished reading, police ushered Mr. Loney to a waiting limo on a beautiful spring day.

Had this been made public prior to the rescue, Loney's life would have been in even more danger than it was. His being gay might have gotten him killed.

This raises a whole series of questions for me. One of them is---I cannot understand at all the Left's alignment with Islamofacism when the latter is so dangerously opposed to much that the Left holds dear, such as gay rights and feminism. I just don't get it. By alignment I mean that they always seem to take their side against the "evil Americans" and the U.S. administration. They excuse the Islamofascists, blaming their behavior on root causes created by the U.S. "occupation." And they seem to ignore the fact that gays in some Muslim countries have been known to be punished by having walls pushed over on them until they die.

And the other questions this raises for me are: who is a Christian? Who is a Catholic? What whole or part of the Christian faith do I have to believe before I qualify? Does baptism mark me as a Catholic for life, even if I don't hold to everything the Church teaches as true?

I remember a discussion with relatives once wherein I said that anyone who doesn't believe in the Trinity is not a Christian. I was met with a certain level of shock. How could someone be so restrictive? If someone is a good person, shouldn't they have the right to call themselves a Christian if they wish?

The issue of active homosexuality and Christianity is at the cutting edge of a lot of controversy in the Church. There are those who argue that the Church's understanding must evolve to accommodate new social developments, just as it evolved concerning slavery. There are others who argue that Scripture and Tradition are clear that sexual activity outside of a heterosexual marriage is not what Christians are called to. That doesn't mean that homosexuals are unwelcome, it means that like single heterosexuals they are called to chastity. The whole controversy hinges on authority--the authority of Scripture, the authority of Tradition, the authority of the Church in determining how Scripture gets interpreted.

If I were to convert to Roman Catholicism, I would have to sign a statement saying that I believe in everything the Church teaches to be true. Yet baptized "cradle" Catholics go forward and receive communion on Sunday, then publicly proclaim views in direct opposition to what the Church teaches on marriage, and on women and active homosexuals in the priesthood among other things.

There is a lot I still have yet to understand about ecclesiology and sacramental theology. I think Father Carl would say that when one is baptized, one becomes a Christian, because God is the one who chooses us. But we may turn out to be a bad Christian or a good one. But something happens in the sacrament of Baptism, an outward sign of an inward grace. God regenerates us when we are baptized. But, in a talk with some knowledgeable Catholics at a recent ROFTERs meeting, I was told that being baptized does not prevent one from becoming a heretic.

I have no doubts that Jesus loves James Loney and vice versa. Perhaps there are many areas in which his faith is more fully formed than mine. All I know, is that I desire to have a full, Catholic and Apostolic faith. No more cafeteria Christianity for me where I am my own mini-magisterium, picking and choosing what I like and rejecting what I don't. I want to hold to what the Apostles were taught when they saw, heard and handled the Living Word of God. I've been a cafeteria Christian for most of my journey since my adult conversion. When I decided to stop, that's when I began to more consistently experience the fruits of the Spirit in my life.

Believing the truth makes it a lot easier to behave as a Christian, because it is not only be beliving that we are saved, it is by believing that we are sanctified, not by the works of the law. (Galatians 3) That's why it is so important to have the right faith.

Loney's public relationship with his partner, coupled with his being a Catholic, plays into a watering down of the faith and the high standards of following Christ that it sets. Instead it's as if people are saying: Let's not set our standards too high in the sexual arena, folks. The Church needs to change with the times.

What I fear is that this will lead to people being unable to discover a whole new level of freedom in Christ that comes from believing the Catholic faith whole and entire and putting on Christ. Instead of putting on Christ, we will be putting on our version of Christ. Without the real Christ, our charity becomes enabling, our peace-at-any-price becomes weakness, our truth relative to all the other truths out there.

Islam and the Catholic Church

From John Allen's latest The Word from Rome:

Sources told NCR that on the subject of Islam, several cardinals touched on the need for greater emphasis on reciprocity -- the idea that if Muslim immigrants to the West claim the benefit of religious freedom, the same should be true for Christian minorities in majority Islamic states.

"I think most of us felt that Islam represents a challenge to the church, and we need to reflect on how to respond," one cardinal told NCR.

In that regard, sources told NCR that the emerging line of Benedict XVI's papacy on Islam, featuring more explicit challenges to Islamic leaders on terrorism and religious freedom, enjoys strong support in the College of Cardinals.

Seven Angels for Seven Days

In 2004, my novel The Defilers came in a close second to Angelina Fast-Vlaar's Seven Angels for Seven Days in the Best New Canadian Christian Author Award. Last June, I won the prize after what seemed like the millionth revision.

I recently bought Seven Angels for Seven Days at Chapters and just finished it. I loved the book. It's a nonfiction account of a loving married couple's once-in-a lifetime trip to Australia. While in a campground, in the Outback, far from any relatives or friends, Angelina's husband Peter dies. This is a story of love, of grief, of God's provision and mercy, of miracles. A story that is heartbreaking and heartwarming at the same time.

I invited Angelina to "stop by" for a virtual blog tour visit.


1. What motivated you to write Seven Angels for Seven Days?

My motivation to write the book came from several sources. First and foremost I wanted to leave the story for my children as they did not experience their Dad's last weeks and days and the amazing events surrounding his death.Seven_angels_sm_descr
More than that, I felt a definite urging from the Lord to "proclaim what the Lord has done." (Ps. 118:17) This urging became especially strong during my cancer journey when the question, "What have you left undone?" seemed to push itself to the surface again and again.

2. What sort of response have you had to the book?

The responses have been heartening, surprising and somewhat overwhelming.
Many readers tell me their faith in, and love of God have been renewed or strengthened after reading the story.

Others find encouragement that God will also provide for them in difficult times. Couples tell me of renewed love and appreciation for each other and a valueing of time together.
One elderly, terminally ill lady identified with the assault incident as she had kept her own incident hidden for over six decades. My story helped her to talk about it and finally find peace about that as well as other issues before she passed.

Many readers tell me the book is helping them to grieve and even release grief they had stored for years.

All find the trip through the outback fascinating, "as if I were travelling with you."
A constant comment is, "I couldn't put it down!"

3. I found the descriptions of Australia haunting, and your portrayal for your husband Peter so loving and complete, it was as if I had lost someone too as I read the book. How hard was it for you to revisit all these events.

This was more difficult than what I had imagined it to be. To open the journals and reread my experiences brought me back to that place with all the accompanying emotions. I closed the journals and said, "This will not be happening." I'm married again and value my new relationship. But the "urging" would not leave me. One day I read Robert Frost's line, "No tears for the writer, no tears for the reader. No surprise for the writer, no surprise for the reader." I realized my "new" tears would be the price I needed to pay in order to complete the "work" I felt called to do.

4. You also took a second trip to Australia to retrace your steps a year later. Why did you do that?

A return trip to Australia seemed a given if I wanted to complete and resolve my grief journey. Yet, I was surprised to find how healing that second trip was. It enlightened me about so many things, it helped me to put things to rest, it helped me to see that my time of turmoil and grief was the time of God's coming to me.

5. What's the most important thing you hope that people will realize or understand once they read your book?

Our continual prayer for the book is, "That they may see the love of the Father."

6. How much did your being a regular journal keeper help you in fleshing out the story?

I wonder if there would be a book had the journals not been kept. An article, maybe, but the journals provided me with the whole story in all it's detail. Peter even kept track of what we ate, gas mileage, when the speedometer turned over another 1000 miles, how many kangaroos he saw etc. etc. Our photos triggered a lot of memories not recorded. Maps, newspaper articles etc. helped to get the facts right, e.g the crocodile attack.

7. How do you look on the whole journey - to Australia, through losing your husband there, back to Australia, writing a book about it, winning a contest that includes publication...what kind of perspective do you have on it now?

"It's a God-thing." That phrase sums up my perspective. It's really His story. He orchestrated the events, daily guided me in the often overwhelming task to garner a complete story from a dozen journals. Entering the ms. into the contest was definitely His doing. Joe [her present husband] was without a drivers license for a year due to a stroke. The return of the license was delayed and this in turn delayed our annual trip South. During this time, I found the last notice for The Word Guild contest and realized I qualified. We had one week to get it all together. We took the package to the post-office and when we returned home, Joe's license was in our mailbox!

***************

It's a great read, quite different from my novel, so comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. In 2005, I entered the contest again. I grappled again with the "what ifs" and settled down to a state of dispassion about the outcome that almost resembled persuading myself I would not win. So I was genuinely surprised when my name was read. The prize includes publication, so The Defilers is expected to be out in mid-April. That makes is all the better that Angelina's book is wonderful, because it serves the whole purpose behind having the contest in the first place: to encourage Christian authors, raise the bar of quality, and to help get the word out about them.

Dee Stewart on McAuthorship---and why I'm glad it eluded me

Author Frank Peretti is going to make movies and his first production is set for release in September.

In God’s grace, He finally brought me together with some filmmakers who really wanted to work with me and let me work with them. That’s something I’ve always wanted to do – make movies. The bigger picture is that we’re not just making movies; we’re in it for the long haul. We want to follow that Christian principle of, “If you’re faithful in the little things, then God will entrust you with bigger things.”

The question always comes up, “When’s This Present Darkness going to be a movie? How come This Present Darkness isn’t a movie?” Well, I’ll tell you why This Present Darkness isn’t a movie. It’s not a movie because we cannot make a movie that big, that expensive, that technically demanding. It would take incredible resources, staff, studios, special effects, actors ... everything.


You know, all too often we shoot real high, but we don’t realize that the Lord wants to bring us there step by step. So, in good faith, we want to be faithful in the little things. Let’s start with this movie. This is something we can handle. Let’s do the best job we can on it. Let’s learn from it. Learn from our mistakes. Learn from our strengths. Do better each time.

Master's Artist Dee Stewart concerned. She applauds Peretti's willingness to work at the craft, to develop his talent in this area. But she sees something else happening to the culture.

So what concerns me is that some of the things that I see and review--things that have the potential to have been greater than great--fall short of its potential glory, because the writer didn't (like my great grandma used to say) stir up the gift.

-snip-

Yet, I'm concerned that something beyond are ability to think well is driving this push for McAuthorship--my term for instant publishing gratification. A while back just publishing a short story in a magazine or being picked to read at a readers series or presenting your play at your church were gratifying enough. But somewhere in our society(See. this isn't just a Christian writing thing.) We have decided to forget about craft and become the Next American Idol forget about grass roots success through our local community. We don't want to get our hands dirty anymore. And that's problematic for the christian writer, or at least for me, since I am not supposed to follow the world too closely.

I would add to this, that the drive for McAuthorship is fed by dreams of the fame and money that come with success. People would rather "be a writer" than actually write, because writing is hard work. In fact, many a time, I myself have yearned for McAuthorship because being a good writer is just too hard.

I've been blessed by the fact that McAuthorship eluded me. I have had to work extremely hard because easy publication did not come my way. I can be grateful for the tough knocks writing school because I am a better writer for it.

Sandmonkey worried about impact of Rahman's release

While Sandmonkey, an Egyptian blogger, is happy that Rahman isn't going to get the death penalty, he's concerned about how this issue is going to play in the Muslim world and how it could drive more people to extremism.

Instead of this case sparking the much needed debate inside Islam over whether or not people who convert to christianity or judaism should be killed for apostacy and having that debate affect the outcome, the decision was made by the people in power for political reasons and changed the debate to how weak the leaders of muslim countries are these days. Had this case been allowed to proceed and that guy was allowed to walk away based on the argument of the defense and a judge’s verdict, saying that we can’t kill people who leave Islam anymore, there is no telling what positive effect this could’ve had on the average muslim’s psyche. Instead of seeing this case tilt the international muslim community towards moderation, this will further prove the held belief by millions of muslims that their leaders aren’t really concerned for Islam and muslims, and are more worried about pleasing the west than God or their people, which will tilt them more towards extreemism. This was a wasted opprutunity that could’ve sparked much needed change, but alas, it’s now too late.

Oh well, I am still glad he gets to live though!

Is Rahman going to be released?

Looks like he might be. Michelle Malkin is following this. She has great links. Thanks to Kathy Shaidle for the heads up.

Is the Rahman case the tipping point?

If Abdul Rahman gets executed in Afghanistan, will that end the support for the war among those who believe establishing a democratic country there is a good thing?

Dr. Sanity thinks it may be.

Kate McMillan at Small Dead Animals thinks not.

I do not join with those, however, who have called for a withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan should the efforts to have Rahman freed fail. As much as I am troubled by the details of the case, I'm no more so than I have been by reports of corruption, honour killings, human rights abuses or any number of injustices perpetrated under, or tolerated by, regimes that enjoy various types of Canadian military and/or foreign aid. If the Rahman case is justification to pull Canadian troops from the theatre - in a country that was used as safe haven and launch point for Islamist terror attacks on the West - then surely the revelations of United Nations child porn rings should prompt the Canadian government to send back our blue helmets for a refund as well.

We might at least set a precedent by cutting off all foreign aid to China.

It's disturbing to hear voices on talk radio and across the blogosphere suggest Canadian military support for the fledgling Afghan government be withdrawn as a mere consequence of the trial taking place at all - for none of them seem to have considered the obvious followup question - "and then what?"

As we are often reminded - democracy is a process, not a destination. One does not have to dig too deeply into the histories of our own Western democracies to realize that our modern protections of human rights and personal liberty did not congeal fully formed from the ether - they evolved over hundreds of years.

As the beneficiaries of that long and bloody process of democratic trial and error, living in societies more likely to face problems created by the excesses of liberalism than any shortage of it, we tend to view fledgling democracies like Afghanistan from the wrong end of the lens. Instead of comparing them to current Western democratic norms, it is probably more appropriate to measure events against that of Western democracies of the 1800 and 1900's.

In that context, Afghanistan has come a very long way from the unspeakably repressive Taliban regime, and in an extraordinarily short time. But the process has only just begun, and progress is not likely to be plotted on a linear graph. Nor, needless to say, is the outcome assured.

I dunno. We live in an increasingly dangerous world. Thinking like Kate might bring us back to the old RealPolitic type of foreign policy where the West props up thugs and dicatorships, uses divide and conquer strategies, and other even more shadowy means to protect her self interest.

We haven't entirely left that strategy. Working in concert with Saudi Arabia is a prime example. It's also illegal there to convert to Christianity, or even to have a Bible.

But then, our soldiers are not shedding blood to bring democracy to Saudi Arabia.

I'd hate it to boil down to being "all about oil." I don't think it is, though, what's wrong with a nation trying to protect the oil supply of law-abiding nations that pay handsomely for it?

I think Mark Steyn has it right:

Fate conspires to remind us what this war is really about: civilizational confidence. And so history repeats itself: first the farce of the Danish cartoons, and now the tragedy -- a man on trial for his life in post-Taliban Afghanistan because he has committed the crime of converting to Christianity.

One of the main tasks for each and every one of us, whether this is the tipping point or not, is to revive confidence in our civilization.

Interestingly, the Ottawa Citizen this week had an editorial about new evidence on the Crusades--how they were really a defensive war.

The modern impulse to understand the past is what motivated the Roman Catholic church to host a symposium on the Crusades last weekend.

The meeting, called by Pope Benedict, sought to set the record straight on events that began some 900 years ago and lasted for three centuries. The record needs straightening because jihadists in the Muslim world have used the Crusades, or their interpretation of them, as a propaganda weapon in their war against the West. Osama bin Laden teaches that the Crusades marked a murderous aggression against an enlightened Islam.

It serves Mr. bin Laden's purpose to demonize Christendom, thereby keeping his followers in a constant state of mobilization against an external enemy. Contemporary church leaders including the late Pope John Paul II have apologized for the Crusades, which has helped to legitimize the historical view that they represent a stain on Christianity.

In fact, some scholarly research now suggests that the Crusaders were not necessarily motivated by greed and the lust of conquest. The Crusades were, according to current assessments, at least in part an act of self-protection, a defensive move against an expansionist Islam that had captured all of North Africa, most of Spain and parts of southern Italy, and was angling for more. Some historians are even arguing that without the Crusaders, Christianity itself might have disappeared under the heel of militant Islam.

From the left's Holy Bubble. . . Acts of the Appeasers

Dr. Sanity occasionally does some brilliant satire and this is one of them. Using a take-off on the Bible, she catalogues some recent acts of appeasement on the part of the left.

My Lenten journey gets derailed, but I hope I'm back on track

I hit a bad patch in my Lenten observances, falling into self-indulgence and over-eating, one of my besetting sins. I've also come down with a slight cold and that makes me want to feel a little sorry for myself and drop some of the prayer I'd hoped to do over Lent. I've been less reliable in doing evening prayer and in posting it over at The Daily Offices.

This morning, I debated about whether to go to church as today is the Feast of the Annuniciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, commemorating that moment in time when Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost in her immaculate womb. Since the little cathedral I attend bears the name Cathedral of the Annunication of the Blessed Virgin Mary, there was additional incentive to attend.

Confessing my manifold sins and wickednesses in the car on the way there, I realized that one of the benefits of having tried many, many times to be disciplined in prayer, is that I have discovered that without God I am helpless to be good. I cannot even stay awake to pray without His help. That's why I love the fact that we open our Morning and Evening Prayer with: O Lord open thou our lips. . .

I don't need to whip myself for failing, or try extra hard to be better, just believe that He who has begun a work in me will complete it, believe that He will open my lips to praise Him if I ask Him to, that He knows I have no power to be good in and of myself but He's willing to supply me with rivers of living water if I'll let Him.

If you'd like to join me over at the Daily Offices to do the readings associated with this important event in the life of the Church, nine months before Christmas, come on over to the Daily Offices.

BTW, as I was entering the cathedral this morning, I saw my first robin. It flew away before I could take a picture.

Kathy Shaidle guest blogs over at Beliefnet

Relapsed Catholic is a more than daily stop for me in the blogosphere, and for Kathy Shaidle fans, there's an extra opportunity to enjoy her acerbic wit over at Beliefnet where she is guest blogging this past week and next.

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels

This morning, I read in the Globe and Mail that the Canadian hostages rescued by British, Canadian and American special forces refused to cooperate by giving any information about their captors when they were debriefed.

Maxine Nash, a member of the Christian Peacemakers Team in Baghdad, said that the group is considering leaving Iraq. She conceded that the pacifist hostages had mixed feelings about being rescued by the military.

“Our mandate is violence reduction, so this was a tough call. Before they were kidnapped, both Tom and Jim had said they didn't want to be rescued,” Ms. Nash said.

The security source who described the schism among the abductors said that the former hostages had denounced the U.S. occupation of Iraq after they were freed. Attempts to debrief them were unsuccessful and no gratitude was offered to the soldiers for rescuing them.

“The old English guy wasn't too bad, but the Canadians have continued to be stroppy,” the source said. “A lot of people are not too happy about the way they have been.”

Although the activists may not have wanted a military rescue, their liberty comes after long efforts by a team of Canadians deployed to Iraq with the sole aim of finding and freeing them. Among the people working on their behalf were RCMP officers, diplomats and members of JTF2, the secretive anti-terror squad.

I hate the way these people conflate force with violence. We need proper authorities willing and able to use force to maintain the law and to protect the innocent.

It seems odd to me that, in the terms developed by Daniel Patrick Moynihan in his famous 1993 essay Defining Deviancy Down, that the peacemakers define the deviancy of the Americans and the West way up, but define the deviancy of Islamofascist terrorists and criminal kidnappers way down. It's a classic example of what Jesus described as straining at gnats and swallowing camels. The Americans are morally culpable even for honest mistakes, but Islamofascist terrorists are only behaving the way they do because of "root causes."

There's a radio host in Ottawa who justifies holding the microscope to America's flaws the way he does because he says the United States holds itself up to a high standard, therefore she must be judged by it. Noam Chomsky does the same thing.

Well, Dr. Sanity has made her diagnosis, that has, as a preamble a fascinating story from early in her career as a psychiatrist.

Be sure to read the whole thing. In the meantime, here is a salient passage about the peacemakers.

In the case of the peace activists' rescue, there may be some slight degree of neurosis in some of the expectations of gratitude. As my grandmother used to say, ta good deed is its own reward, after all. But OTOH, simple human decency would dictate something more than the graceless attitude exhibited by the rescued toward the rescuers; as well as the appeasement and further enabling of murderous and brutal agenda of their captors. In short, those who were rescued display an enormous degree of self delusion, characterized by the moral contortions and pervasive lying to one's self that goes on in the minds of people who clutch their victimhood and/or martyrdom tightly as a shield against reality.

As I learned all those years ago, no good deed for professional and paranoid victim will ever go unpunished.

-snip-

The same holds for the topsy-turvy world of the the activists and their parent organization. They are psychologically resistant to examining any lies that form the foundation of their belief system, which allows them to see themselves as morally superior beings. It allows them to shirk the responsibility and consequences of their own ill-thought out behavior that led to the death of one of their own. Not only do they shirk their own responsibility for events, but these champions of the oppressed, have enabled and protected those who casually murdered and tortured one of their own (and undoubtedly will do the same to future captives). In a breathtaking inversion of morality, decency, and common sense, they applaud their captors and protect them even as they accuse their rescuers of the responsibility for a plight that was brought about by their own thoughtless and "loving" behavior.

Dr. Sanity's blast of reality this morning

According to Dr. Sanity, these are the troubling facts of life:

More and more information is now becoming available (see here, here, here, here) about two of the most sacred beliefs of the left and cornerstone of their faith in the evil of George Bush, I am speaking, of course, about their belief that Saddam did not have WMD's and that there was no connection between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda.

Yet, I predict that much of this new information will be discounted, dismissed, disclaimed and denied by both the MSM and the lefty blogs.

To acknowledge even the slightest possibility that either of the two fundamental butresses of their religious faith are severely damaged would be enormously threatening and totally out of character for the left, who like to think of themselves as the "reality-based" community.

Except, apparently, when reality doesn't agree with their preconceived notions.

-snip-

The unacceptable knowledge is that we are in the midst of a terrible global war that we neither wanted nor provoked; and that there are evil people who want to destroy our civilization and kill or enslave all of us.

Read it all.

All you might need to know about Abdul Rahman

Thanks to Kathy Shaidle at Relapsed Catholic, I have been directed to this link where there is a treasure trove of information on the Afghani man who faces a possible death sentence for converting to Christianity 16 years ago. All kinds of troubling information, including the fact that Germany had deported him. And apparently that doesn't reflect badly on Rahman but on Germany.

Illan Halimi murder getting traction in Canadian MSM

The Globe and Mail has a half page spread on Ilan Halimi, the Jewish man who was kidnapped and tortured to death in France. It still hedges a bit on whether antisemitism or greed was the motive.

PARIS — The gang leader could not have been more clear.

"At the end of 2005, we decided to kidnap people," Youssouf Fofana, the central figure in France's most violent anti-Semitic crime in decades, told investigators. "We targeted the Jewish community because, for us, it's a community that has money and it sticks together."

Mr. Fofana, 25, and his acolytes are accused of kidnapping a young Jewish man in late January, torturing him and finally dumping him three weeks later along a railroad line southeast of Paris when their ransom demands went unmet.

Burned, beaten and stabbed, his eyes covered by a layer of tape, the victim, a Paris cellphone salesman named Ilan Halimi, died in the ambulance rushing him to hospital.

The casual cruelty of the crime made it front-page news in France. Initially described as an act of greed but not racial hatred, its character changed in the public mind after Mr. Halimi's mother, in an interview with an Israeli newspaper, declared that her son died because he was a Jew.

Her words were immediately reprinted in French papers, creating their own momentum of blame and making the Halimi case a matter of state concern.

Barbara Nicolosi on the Christians in the film industry.

Three parts of her "Wichita Interview" have been uploaded to Church of the Masses.

Part one here.

We Christians do not have the luxury of being lousy. If we are really only going to have a substantial creative impact on five films a year they cannot be sloppy and stupid.

But yes, the incentive for me to be part of starting Act One came out of a tremendous sense of frustration with the work of Christians that I was reading in the production company. The product being sent to the industry by believers was marked by a complete lack of professional understanding of the technical needs of the industry in a screenplay.

Part two here.

At the same time, Flannery said that when you have God in your life you are healthy, and the healthier that you are, the more you are going to be aware of the sickness all around you. She said it takes a healthy person to recognize a freak. So therefore, Christian arts projects today should be stuffed with freaks! What else can we do with the euthanizers down the hall waiting for grandma, and the weird scientists wanting to experiment on little humans, and barbarians coming over the walls in every sense!? Entertainment has to be better than real to be engaging for an audience. When "the real" is a freak show....

The other problem I find with young writers has to do with the failure to create real comedy. I think it is safe to say comedy is almost dead is a genre. For comedy to work, you have to have purity. The audience has to start with some sense of normalcy and purity for something to else to register as a joke.

For example, I was at a real live freak show not long ago with a woman who is a studio writer. Her daughter was playing in a soccer game. This woman was divorced and remarried. So, sitting at the game was my the woman and her ex-husband in the center - because they are the "parents of note", even though they don't live together. Next to the woman is her new husband cradling their new baby. Next to husband number two is his fifteen year old - really bored son from his previous marriage. Meanwhile, on the other side next to the ex-husband is his new wife with their new baby. And next to her is Debbie, with whom the father lived for three years after the initial divorce, and before he married the new one. In the three years of co-habitation, Debbie bonded with the little girl out there kicking the ball around, because she was there from 8-11, so Debbie was another pseudo mother figure. But wait, Debbie’s new boyfriend is also there. And then also in the line is the nanny, who has been the only real constant in the little girl’s life.

Part three here.

Too many Christians think we are supposed to use the arts to give people the answers. We’re not. We’re supposed to use the arts to lead them into a question. And that is just one stage in their personal journey of divine revelation. Once they have a new question, they will be on a search - consciously or subconsciously. They are going to read, they are going to meet people, God is going to send other things in their life. They are not going to get dunked in the baptismal font and raised to the altar from a movie. That’s too much. But the arts can definitely send people delving.

If you understand that, then you understand presenting an artful paradox is enough. We used to say in the convent, “Humble tasks are still necessary ones.” I think the arts task is very humble in getting people to a place of discomfort, what Plato called the stinging fly around the thoroughbred, getting it so angry that it runs. That is enough.

Of course, the purpose of the art is not this. There is no purpose! That's why it is art. But there are goods that come from the arts, and leading peole to wrestle with the Truth is one of those goods.

So, the first mistake beginning screenwriters make is the failure to even understand what the art form is. That is, the power to combine he different levels of meaning in a movie to create paradox that will lead people to ask questions.

Canadians involved in rescue of peacemakers

Wow! Canadian special forces were involved in the rescue of Christian peacemakers in Iraq. And so were RCMP and CSIS agents.

Gee, what a nice feeling to have one's heart swell with pride and patriotism for Canada instead of shame and embarrassment at anti-American remarks and an unwillingness to pay to protect our own sovereignty.

Yeah! Canada!

Truth Squads forming to combat The Da Vinci Code movie

Rather than organize protests or boycotts - steps taken in the past against controversial films - Evangelicals and Catholics instead are mobilizing "truth squads." They're producing books, websites, TV documentaries, DVDs, and study guides. Some hope to use the film as a "teachable moment" that could turn the occasion to their advantage.

Opus Dei launched a revamped website yesterday to help give answers about their organization defamed in Dan Brown's runaway bestseller.

I have more links to truth squads here.

And remember to tell your friends and family to go to the movies on DVC's opening weekend May 19-21 and see "Over the Hedge" instead. Spread the word.

If you want to know why, Barbara Nicolosi at Church of the Masses will tell you.

Why they refuse to say thanks for their rescue. . .

Kathy Shaidle at Relapsed Catholic has added some analysis of the Christian Peacemakers based on her experience with the Catholic Worker movement.

Sadly, it comes as no surprise that the Christian Peacemakers would use the rescue (not just "release", but "rescue") of their deeply delusional brethren to launch a predictable, cliche ridden tirade against, not the terrorist kidnappers, but the very people who saved their lives.

These guys switched from run of the mill KoolAid to double strength Goofy Grape Funny Face sometime back in the "liberation theology" 80s. Expecting them to even fake a little gratitude to the British Secret Service, just for the sake of the cameras and the poor benighted general public, is expecting far too much. Why, that would be inauthentic. Bourgeois. What would Kirkegaard say? ("Thank you", I imagine. But that's just me).

Brigitte Bardot gets more coverage than rising anti-Semitism

As I posted earlier, I found it astonishing how few journalists attended yesterday's B'Nai Brith Canada news conference on anti-Semitic incidents in the year 2005.

Okay, okay, so the number of incidents were down a tad from the year before, but the trend upwards since 2001 is alarming. They are up threefold in that time period, and the group warned of the terrible proliferation of hate on the Internet and on university campuses--often perpetuated by professors---in Canada.

Last night I watched CBC's The National to see if they carried a report on the newser, as there was a CBC reporter and cameras there. Nothing. But, they carried a whole story on aging French film star Brigitte Bardot, a sex symbol from the 60s. She is now in her 70s and let me write a memo to myself to avoid lots of eye make up and avoid the "bed head" look when I reach her age. I digress. There was a wide shot of her press conference on the National's report and the SESSION WAS PACKED.

That's where they all were.

Bardot was protesting against the seal hunt and a shot of her weeping graced the front page of the Ottawa Citizen this morning, with several inside stories.

Anti-Semitism? One short story, no photo, stuck on A6. The Globe and Mail also had a witchy-looking photo of Bardot weeping over the seals on page A8. The anti-Semitism story is on the middle of A 10, no photo. At least it has a big headline.

Now to the CBC's credit, they ran a wonderful Mark Kennedy documentary on the communities that do the seal hunt later in The National. If they had been gushing over the "poor baby seals" that would have been the last straw.

Christian peacemakers RESCUED not released

UPDATE: Mike's Noise has good links to stories with some of the details of their RESCUE, including the fact that the American capture of man only hours before led to information about where the peacemakers were held. Their kidnappers were not present. The hostages were tied up.

UPDATE: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper starts off saying RESCUED then in every subsequent paragraph slips into the word "released." What is wrong with people? Also something seems to be wrong with the PMO website. I haven't been able to get onto it for two hours to post the link to his statement.

UPDATE: Kathy Shaidle at Relapsed Catholic is disgusted. She has more analysis here.


I rejoice that three Christian peacemakers kidnapped along with martyred American Tom Fox last fall have been rescued, by British special forces in a multi-national effort that included Americans and Iraqis.

But I just heard an interview with Canadian James Loney's brother and sister-in-law in which they kept saying he was released.

No, he was not released. He was RESCUED. At the point of a gun. Several guns. Perhaps stun grenades. According to another interview I heard on CBC Newsworld this morning, there were no casualties. That is miraculous, no?

Could God have orchestrated this? Could this have been the answer to the prayers of thousands who have held vigils and sent up private prayers on their behalf? I wonder if the peacemakers might have have preferred a different storyline: that their peaceableness and love would have convinced their captors to release them.
That their captors could be redeemed from demonization in the eyes of the West. Shown to be the good guys, blameless because of the root causes that forced them to behave that way.

But instead, the most militant and well-trained among British forces and perhaps American forces("killing machines" might be the way some anti-war types might have thought of them) mounted the rescue, and did so without harming anyone.

If the meme of "they were released" rather than "they were rescued" takes hold, then the West will lose a beautiful lesson about the nature of force used in a just way vs. violence motivated by revenge.

And not a casualty! What a testimony to the training of those special forces. They are heroes. I believe God made this posssible. And sometimes, yes, even soldiers can be the instruments of His divine plan.

I wonder if the peacemakers will continue to disparage America and their coalition partners. They blamed them for the kidnapping. If they continue to do so, we will have something like the old story about the man who prayed to God for rescue as flood waters rose around his house.

First a man came with a rowboat and asked him to hop aboard. The man said, no, I'm praying that God will rescue me.

As the waters came up to the second floor, a team in a motorboat came by offering to take the man to safety. No, he said, I am praying that God rescue me.

The waters rose further, forcing the man to flee to his rooftop. A helicopter swooped over head and another rescue team lowered a basket to save him from the flood waters.

No, I am praying to God to save me, the man told them.

The waters rose and the man drowned. As he stood before his Maker, he shook his fist and said, "I prayed and prayed for you to rescue me. Why didn't you answer my prayers!"

God said, "But I sent a rowboat, a motorboat and a helicopter! What more did you want me to do?"

Michelle Malkin is on this: She writes:

Our troops teamed with British forces to rescue three left-wing, anti-war activists kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq. Those freed were Canadians James Loney, 41, and Harmeet Singh Sooden, 32; and Briton Norman Kember, 74. The men, who were members of the Chicago-based Christian Peacemaker Teams, were kidnapped on Nov. 26 along with their American colleague, Tom Fox, 54, whose body was found earlier this month.

Reader Jen M. took at look at the Christian Peacemaker Teams website for the group's statement on the rescue and she e-mailed me her observations:

Not once do they thank or even reference the fact that a Special Forces team rescued these guys. In fact, the only reference to military at all is blaming them for the kidnapping in the first place. Nice!

Also on their home page is a long statement about how terribly treated terrorists are when detained by evil soldiers.

The statement also talks of release:

Harmeet, Jim and Norman and Tom were in Iraq to learn of the struggles facing the people in that country. They went, motivated by a passion for justice and peace to live out a nonviolent alternative in a nation wracked by armed conflict. They knew that their only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers. We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end.

Today, in the face of this joyful news, our faith compels us to love our enemies even when they have committed acts which caused great hardship to our friends and sorrow to their families. In the spirit of the prophetic nonviolence that motivated Jim, Norman, Harmeet and Tom to go to Iraq, we refuse to yield to a spirit of vengeance. We give thanks for the compassionate God who granted our friends courage and who sustained their spirits over the past months. We pray for strength and courage for ourselves so that, together, we can continue the nonviolent struggle for justice and peace.

Throughout these difficult months, we have been heartened by messages of concern for our four colleagues from all over the world. We have been especially moved by the gracious outpouring of support from Muslim brothers and sisters in the Middle East, Europe, and North America. That support continues to come to us day after day. We pray that Christians throughout the world will, in the same spirit, call for justice and for respect for the human rights of the thousands of Iraqis who are being detained illegally by the U.S. and British forces occupying Iraq.

During these past months, we have tasted of the pain that has been the daily bread of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Why have our loved ones been taken? Where are they being held? Under what conditions? How are they? Will they be released? When?

With Tom’s death, we felt the grief of losing a beloved friend. Today, we rejoice in the release of our friends Harmeet, Jim and Norman. We continue to pray for a swift and joyful homecoming for the many Iraqis and internationals who long to be reunited with their families. We renew our commitment to work for an end to the war and the occupation of Iraq as a way to continue the witness of Tom Fox. We trust in God’s compassionate love to show us the way.

Living through the many emotions of this day, we remain committed to the words of Jim Loney, who wrote:

"With God’s abiding kindness, we will love even our enemies.
With the love of Christ, we will resist all evil.
With God’s unending faithfulness, we will work to build the beloved community."

This is amazing. No mention of RESCUE. At least they recognize that the hostage-takers are enemies in that they are committed to praying for and loving their enemies. No mention of rescue as a hope or even a consideration while they were still held captive. No mention of the rescue, no thanks to the liberators (they would call them occupiers) who made it possible.. No "thanks"!!!!!! Astounding.

I wonder what Dr. Sanity has to say about this. She hasn't posted on it. Will link when she does.

Why can't they love Americans and British special forces with the same fervor--if they are the enemy, too? They don't even get a mention, as if they are so evil as to not exist in their eyes.

Sad.

If the MSM ran the United States

Ben Shapiro muses about what would happen if the mainstream media ran the country:


March 21, 2006, WASHINGTON -- Today, after six years of unending attacks on the honor and credibility of his administration, President Bush called for a constitutional amendment to hand over the reins of American governance to members of the mainstream press. "It has been my privilege to work for the American people," Bush stated, "but I now realize that I can never satisfy the requirements of this office. In my opinion, only one person can meet the challenges we face today: respected journalist Helen Thomas.

-snip-

*****
April 1, 2006, WASHINGTON -- Helen Thomas took her oath of office today, officially becoming the 44th president of the United States. In her inaugural address, President Thomas announced the guiding policy for her administration: "We will seek to ensure the security of our citizens without bloodshed and without compromising the values that make America great. We will pull our troops out of Iraq. We will pull our troops out of Afghanistan. We will immediately shut down Guantanamo Bay and release the prisoners of war being held without charge there; we will compensate them for their unjustified detention. We will end warrantless wiretapping, and we will end the torture of terrorists for information. We will shut down the racist vigilante group now patrolling our border with Mexico. I pledge not to threaten or cajole any country into adopting values in concert with those of the United States -- we must earn respect by deference to the values of others. Let us end the War on Terror; let us begin the War for Peace."

-snip-
*****
April 2, 2006, WASHINGTON -- -snip-

Secretary of Defense Moore was optimistic about the new administration: "We're going to let the freedom fighters have their freedom. We're going to bring the baby-killers home. We're going to force business owners to hire more workers at bayonet point. And we're going to put George W. Bush on trial for war crimes." NSA Maureen Dowd issued the following statement: "Bush and Rummy are gone; the big, burly rough-guys with their impetuously masculine attitude are outta here. -Snip-

Read the whole thing. It starts out amusing, but ends darkly. Let's just hope those folks are never in charge. They do enough damage where they are.

Some second thoughts on the Missouri resolution

From the Centre for Cultural Renewal and Iain Benson's Centreblog:

A recent measure in the Missouri house introduced by Republican Representative David Sater calls for that State to officially recognize “a Christian God” and though, apparently, the measure has no legal effect it has been supported by many people as recognition of the fact that the Founders of the United States of America were overwhelmingly Christians and, so the reasoning goes, the majority of citizens of the State remain Christians today.

-snip-

The Missouri issue shows very different approaches to the role of the state in relation to religion. How many Christians, supportive of the “Word” could deny, if they considered the matter, that the God of Abraham is also the God of Jesus? Why then the exclusive language affirmation? Is this just bad theology or bad politics, or both, or neither? Why do certain kinds of Christians seem to feel they need Caesar to affirm God?

Whatever the answers, the Missouri initiative and much other recent commentary shows that the nature of faiths in relation to politics is a serious issue for America; a country that has never really managed to get its population, and many of its politicians and religious leaders, to understand the nature and limits of theocracy. Some are suggesting that this now poses a serious threat to the United States.

-snip-

It is with the second of these that I am concerned here; “the ominous intrusion of radical Christianity into politics and government.” Much turns, of course, on what we deem “radical Christianity” to be and how we view the appropriate relationship between religious beliefs and government.

Two things are necessary to state up front. First that government now as always must be concerned with beliefs. These beliefs may be religious, non-religious or, as is most likely in the contemporary West, a combination of the two. Second, every set of beliefs, except those established with a proper understanding of the role of freedom in relation to governance, has the likelihood of over-extending itself in relation to power. I have mentioned before French philosopher Jacques Maritain’s useful creation of the term “theocratic atheism” (Evans and Ward eds. The Social and Political Philosophy of Jacques Maritain (New York: Scribner, 1955, 248). Atheists and agnostics have shown themselves just as capable of erecting totalitarian systems; worse, they tend to have no “internal” critique of such a strategy as communists and certain socialists have shown throughout history by their perpetual justification of the suspension of liberties for some in the goal of ultimate liberation (so they argue) for all – those fortunate ones in the future.

The central question for belief systems of all kinds is: “what is the proper role and extent of the state?” Theocracy is defined as follows:

A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom,
these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission; also, a state so governed: especially applied to the commonwealth of Israel from the exodus to the election of Saul as king.
Oxford English Dictionary (Compact Edition, Vol. II, p. 3282).

Theocracies attempt to use the beliefs of some (perhaps a majority of citizens as in the Missouri example) to first affirm principles that others (whether minority or not) do not support. Then, as history shows, they move to suppress the appropriate freedoms of others. Both aspects are a problem.

-snip-

It is not the fact that governance is rooted in beliefs or what motivates them per se, that causes the problem, however, but in the sphere of action of the beliefs. Theocracies go too far with governance. They claim to have powers over things they should be leaving alone. They attempt to make Caesar into God and God into Caesar. Either way they make an idol of the state.

Christian beliefs are no more dangerous here than any other beliefs and, in fact, because the Christian religion at its most mature recognizes a limited confidence in the role of the “church” in relation to governance (and vice versa), it could be argued that recognizing limits on the role of “Casear” provides a guideline that other belief systems do not have.

There's a lot more, so read the whole thing.

Startling increase in anti-Semitism in Canada

The League of Human Rights for B'nai Brith Canada released its annual audit of anti-Semitism in Canada for the year 2005 and, while there was a slight decrease over the previous year, the number of reported incidents "has increased almost three-fold since 2001."

All in all there were 829 incidents that included death threats, bomb threats against synagogues, and 113 targeted at individual Jewish homes.

The elderly and school children were also disproportionately targeted.

Executive Vice President Dr. Frank Dimant asked why there was a double-standard in the treatment of the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, which were widely condemned not only by Muslims, but Jewish and Christian organizations and editorials in Western media. Why the silence over the constant barrage of anti-Semitic cartoons and propaganda in the Islamic world? Good question.

Dimant held up a sample of anti-Jewish cartoons that the MSM is greeting, imo, with a huge yawn.

The group also warned about the proliferation of hate on the Internet, and how formerly groups had to hold a rally or a meeting in order to disseminate hate, now they can enter into "directly into your child's computer."

Alain Goldschlager, the director of the Holocaust Literature Research Institute also condemned the rise of anti-Semitism on university campuses, noting that it is often from professors and cloaked in anti-Zionism and comparisons of the way the Nazis treated the Jews to the way the Jews treat the Palestinians.

They dedicated the news conference to Ilan Halimi, who was tortured to death during a kidnapping in France.

Most mainstream news media reports, especially initial stories, refused to say there was any religious motive in his horrific death, nor did they mention the religious affliation of the gang that murdered him and had tried to lure other Jews.

It's sad to say that the news conference in Ottawa was sparsely attended, maybe a dozen or so journalists. Not quite enough to be an embarrassment, but still an indication that the media is a bit ho-hum about what I see as an alarming and growing problem since 9-11.

The group said the rise of anti-Semitic hatred and propaganda is reminiscent of what happened during the Nazi era prior to World War II.

"It's like a wildfire at the moment and we need a lot of dedicated people to put out that wildfire," Dimant said.

Canada's Prime Minister calls Afghanistan

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper may among the first western leaders to have telephoned Afghan President Karzai to express concern over the plight of Abdul Rahman, the Afghani man who converted to Christianity 16 years ago and now faces a possible death sentence for refusing to return to Islam.

Let's hope the assurances Karzai apparently made hold true.

Here's what the Prime Minister's Office released in a statement today:

Statement by the Prime Minister on the Raham case and freedom of religion in Afghanistan


March 22, 2006
Ottawa, Ontario

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today issued the following statement after the conclusion of his telephone call to Afghanistan President Karzai.

“I called President Karzai today to express my deep concerns regarding the Raham case and the issue of freedom of religion in Afghanistan.

President Karzai listened to my concerns and we had a productive and informative exchange of views.

Upon the conclusion of the call, he assured me that respect for human and religious rights will be fully upheld in this case.”

According to Michelle Malkin, CAIR has also asked for Rahman's release. That's good news.

Michelle has assembled a great list of responses and links on this.

Voice of the Martyrs is also calling for Rahman's release:

As troops from around the world, including Canada, seek to defend the freedoms of Afghanistan's citizens, one of those citizens could be facing the death penalty for rejecting Islam. Sixteen years ago, Abdul Rahman converted from Islam to Christianity while working in Pakistan. Rahman (41) is separated from his wife. He was arrested last month after his family, who is fighting him over custody of his children, denounced him for being a convert. He was found with a Bible when arrested and accused of rejecting Islam.

The prosecutor, Abdul Wasi, is seeking the death penalty. He has offered to drop all charges if Rahman would return to Islam but the offer has been refused. Judge Ansarullah Mawlavezada has called Rahman's conversion to Christianity "an attack on Islam." "If he doesn't regret his conversion, the punishment will be enforced on him," the judge said. "And the punishment is death." The verdict will be handed down within two months. Rahman is not represented by a lawyer and has no support from his family.

In an open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Harper, VOMC spokesman Glenn Penner wrote, "That this man is being prosecuted for exercising a basic human right is completely unacceptable and a violation of why we sent our troops to Afghanistan." Penner encourages Canadian Christians to contact the Prime Minister, asking him to pressure the Afghan president to respect the rights of all of the citizens of Afghanistan, including Christians.

Looks like Harper "got the memo."

First Muhammed, now Jesus can't be portrayed

I was wondering when this would happen. A Sunni Leader in Egypt has issued a fatwa against a film about Jesus.

During the Danish cartoon controversy, it was said that depiction of Mohammed was blasphemy. However, in Islam, the depiction of any of the prophets, including Jesus is also prohibited. In fact, the depiction of the human figure is also against the religion. That's why Islamic art has tended to non-representational, decorative motifs. That's one of the reasons why the Taliban destroyed the ancient statues of Buddha in Afghanistan.

(Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the link.)

Sunni authority objects to Jesus film in Egypt

CAIRO - A film due to be shot in Egypt on the life of Jesus Christ has stirred protests from the highest authority in Sunni Islam, the Al-Azhar institution in Cairo.

Abdel Mooti Bayumi, an Al-Azhar professor, noted Monday that the institution had issued fatwas, or religious edicts, against any "depiction of the prophets" - which is the way Jesus is regarded in Islam.

"Al-Azhar rejects the depiction of Jesus in a film because Christ is not only the prophet of the Christians but also present in Islam," he said.

BTW, I attended a gathering Monday evening and brought along a copy of the Western Standard, one of the only Canadian publications, and I believe the only national one, to print the Danish cartoons.

None of the people attending that party had seen them before! That astonished me, since I have become so accustomed to augmenting my MSM lack of coverage with news from the blogosphere. The average age of this crowd was around 60, but probably most had computers, were well-educated and well-informed. One man said to me he wouldn't know where to look.

The dilemma posed by Abdul Rahman

Abdul Rahman is the Afghan man who may soon be condemned to death for converting to Christianity 16 years ago.

Just as the Christian faith is a sign and contradiction to the beliefs of the world, Abdul Rahman is a sign and contradiction to everything we believe about the so-called War on Terror.

He also runs the risk of becoming a political football, as those who secretly or openly hope the United States loses and would otherwise have no use for a man who would rather die than renounce Jesus Christ, are using him as a pretext to criticize U.S. President George W. Bush and his efforts to bring democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why would Rahman pop onto the world stage now? What does his so-called 15 minutes of fame mean to us? How does his plight and how we choose to respond to it reflect on us?

What are the strategic implications?

I don't believe there is any random coincidence in the timing of this. This is one of those defining moments brought us to us by an Unseen Hand.

It is one of those choices that seem to be between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, because insisting on a Western (aka. Judeo-Christian) notion of religious freedom can be seen as contradictory to democracy. It can bee seen as the Americans and their coalition partners forcing their values on Afghanistan, as David Warren writes in today's Ottawa Citizen.

Christian organizations in the U.S. are already demanding that President Bush intervene to save the life of this Afghan Christian. And Mr Bush might well be able to intercede. If he does, he passes over the line, from eliminating Afghanistan as an external threat, to telling Afghans how to live in their own country. If he doesn’t, what have we achieved?

Any way you look at it, the “democratization” project asks Muslims to cease to think as Muslims, and think as post-Christian “seculars” instead. This was the project Kemal Ataturk embarked upon, in trying to modernize Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. In Turkey, it involved the suppression of nearly every visible manifestation of Islam in public life -- and it worked, for a while. Turkey became modern. But now, nearly a century later, Islam is visibly resurgent even there.

You know what? I think it is time to tell Afghans and Iraqis how to live in their own country. I am not interested in seeing American or Canadian lives lost for a slightly less virulent theocracy than that of the Taliban. It is time to demand the same rights for religious freedom in those countries as we offer Muslims. But then, on second thought, let's pause a moment and be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. I believe there is always a supernatural God-inspired choice that is not either the devil or the deep blue sea, but one that parts the sea and offers a way forward that no one thought of before. Let's pray that our leaders will be on their knees trying to discern that God-given answer.

Michelle Malkin has this to say on the subject:

This is a watershed moment in the post-Sept. 11 world. The Taliban are out of power. And yet today, an innocent man sits in the jail of a "moderate" Muslim nation praying for his life because he owned a Bible and refuses to renounce his Christian faith. Rahman, who converted many years ago while working for a Christian aid agency in Germany, "is standing by his words," fellow jail inmate Sayad Miakel told Canada's Globe and Mail. Another cellmate, Khalylullah Safi, reported: "He keeps looking up to the sky, to God."

As of Tuesday afternoon, left-wing Amnesty International had nothing to say about the case. But neither did President Bush, a man of faith and a Christian brother. During his extensive White House press conference on the War on Terror and the defense of freedom overseas, Bush spent plenty of time describing what life was like for Afghanis before Operation Enduring Freedom:

"There was no such thing as religious freedom. There was no such thing as being able to express yourself in the public square. There was no such thing as press conferences like this. They were totalitarian in their view. And that would be -- I'm referring to the Taliban, of course. And that's how they would like to run government. They rule by intimidation and fear, by death and destruction. And the United States of America must take this threat seriously and must not -- must never forget the natural rights that formed our country."

President Bush, who will defend Abdul Rahman's natural rights from being usurped and terminated by Afghanistan's Islamic executioners?

Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council raises the unpleasant question Bush evaded and no one in the White House press corps bothered to ask: "How can we congratulate ourselves for liberating Afghanistan from the rule of jihadists only to be ruled by Islamists who kill Christians? . . . President Bush should immediately send Vice President Cheney or Secretary Rice to Kabul to read [Afghan President] Hamid Karzai's government the riot act. Americans will not give their blood and treasure to prop up new Islamic fundamentalist regimes. Democracy is more than purple thumbs."

Embarrassingly, the governments of Italy and Germany have already stepped forward to make direct appeals to Karzai to save Rahman's life. Hamid Karzai has ducked the issue so far. Our feckless State Department is "monitoring" the situation.

If we sit on the sidelines and watch this man "cut into little pieces" for his love of Christ, we do not deserve the legacy of liberty our Founding Fathers left us.

Canadian politicians are also dithering on this.


Reporters' questions to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mr. MacKay were referred to bureaucrats at the Department of Foreign Affairs, which issued a seven-point statement.

"This case is of concern," the statement read. "We are currently attempting to ascertain additional facts."

The statement noted that Afghanistan is a signatory to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which enshrines freedom of religion, and that "Canada will continue to encourage the Afghan government to adhere to its human-rights obligations."

Asked whether the Canadian government would pressure the Afghan government to secure Mr. Rahman's release, Dan Dugas, a spokesman for Mr. MacKay, said, "We haven't reached that point yet."

The problem is, however, that if the U.S.-led coalition does abandon these two countries, we will be moving ever closer to what various columnists have described as a wholesale confrontation of all of us--i.e. those who hold to Western values against all of Islam. That leads to the question that some have been asking---is Islam itself incompatible with the West? Or are we only dealing with Islamofacism, a minority few that is fueling terrorism.

It will be interesting to see where the Muslim groups that were so eager to get out into the streets to protest Danish cartoons will be on the life of Rahman. Will they protest against his execution?

I sure hope they do.

Pray for our leaders. Pray that they will have wisdom and courage.

Spong John Square Pantheist lashes out at Scripture

Find Spong John Square Pantheist here. Then read John Makujina's review of "Bishop" John Shelby Spong's latest book "The Sins of Scripture" from Christianity Today's website.

Christians who have come to expect stiff opposition from outsiders may be surprised when criticism comes from within—unless, of course, it originates in the study of John Shelby Spong. The author of the highly provocative Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism (1992) attempts once again to expose the errors of orthodoxy in his latest and heavily publicized book, The Sins of Scripture.

Spong contends not simply that conservative interpretations of the Bible have produced patriarchy and homophobia. He insists that the Bible itself contains "terrible texts" and "horror stories," employing contemporary ethics and popular conceptions of God as yardsticks to measure the moral worthiness of various biblical passages. He thus exchanges one ultimate authority (the Bible) for another (the modern consciousness).

Spong writes that "the new consciousness of today collides with the old and dying definitions of the past. There is no doubt about how this debate will come out: The new consciousness will not be defeated." Here and elsewhere, Spong assumes that the modern consciousness is superior simply because it is modern.

Moreover, because his moral vision reflects modern Western values, Spong falls prey to vices he reprehends in others: cultural imperialism and Eurocentrism.

-snip-

Just as troubling is Spong's revisionist history, most notably his assertions that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and that the apostle Paul was a homosexual. Each argument succeeds by free association and selective reading, propelled by a fertile imagination and deeply seated presuppositions. For instance, Spong argues for Paul's homosexuality by claiming that Paul was struggling with his sexual identity, just like a legalistic clergyman Spong knew who likewise suppressed his homosexuality. He then invokes passages where Paul admits he struggles with the flesh as an indication of Paul's homosexual urges. Evidence to the contrary is quickly dismissed or rendered as not authentically Pauline.

-snip-

Overall, The Sins of Scripture comes across as little more than a series of pontifications and ultimatums supported by reasoning that sometimes decays into the platitudes of a village atheist: "It appears to be in the nature of religion itself to be prejudiced against those who are different. … Violence is almost always the result of such prejudice."

One might be tempted to simply dismiss this volume, but Spong's books sell well (which can be the only reason an otherwise reputable publishing house like HarperSanFrancisco would publish something so crude and naïve). And if comments on Amazon.com are any sign, Spong still retains a loyal following. This suggests that Spong's worldview—which amounts to the modern consciousness as the ultimate rule of faith and practice—and his hostility to Christian orthodoxy remain a force for the faithful to contend with.

Very sad but true.

Why Islamism is the least of France's problems

Thanks to Dr. Sanity for the link to this Dennis Prager post:

Throughout much of last week, hundreds of thousands of students in France were angrily protesting.

They have been joined by the major French labor unions, which are threatening a general strike.

And what is this all about?

It is all about a new law in France that allows a company to fire a person under the age of 26, without cause, within two years of being hired.

Wow. Imagine that. You might get fired from your first job.

As it happens, the whole point of the law was to encourage companies to hire young people. The unemployment rate among young people in France is 23 percent. And in many suburbs, it is double that. Meanwhile, French companies are understandably loath to hire 22-year-olds when they cannot fire them except "for cause," which under union rules means something like committing mass murder in the workplace.

What these massive demonstrations reveal is the narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility inculcated by socialist societies.

Enough generations of socialist policies have now passed for us to judge their effects. They are bleak. Socialism undermines the character of a nation and of its citizens. In simpler words, socialism makes people worse.

These young people in France really believe that they should be able to be hired at their tender ages and that a company must not be allowed to fire them from their first day at work (except "for cause," which, as we are learning in America, is increasingly difficult to establish). In America, most of us would call the French young people's attitudes "spoiled."

Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.

Christopher Hitchens on how the Iraq war should have gone

Thanks to Dr. Sanity, this link to Christopher Hitchens' take on U.S. President George W. Bush's 2002 speech on the Iraq war.

So, now I come at last to my ideal war. Let us start with President Bush's speech to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002, which I recommend that you read. Contrary to innumerable sneers, he did not speak only about WMD and terrorism, important though those considerations were. He presented an argument for regime change and democracy in Iraq and said, in effect, that the international community had tolerated Saddam's deadly system for far too long. Who could disagree with that? Here's what should have happened. The other member states of the United Nations should have said: Mr. President, in principle you are correct. The list of flouted U.N. resolutions is disgracefully long. Law has been broken, genocide has been committed, other member-states have been invaded, and our own weapons inspectors insulted and coerced and cheated. Let us all collectively decide how to move long-suffering Iraq into the post-Saddam era. We shall need to consider how much to set aside to rebuild the Iraqi economy, how to sponsor free elections, how to recuperate the devastated areas of the marshes and Kurdistan, how to try the war criminals, and how many multinational forces to ready for this task. In the meantime—this is of special importance—all governments will make it unmistakably plain to Saddam Hussein that he can count on nobody to save him. All Iraqi diplomats outside the country, and all officers and officials within it, will receive the single message that it is time for them to switch sides or face the consequences. Then, when we are ready, we shall issue a unanimous ultimatum backed by the threat of overwhelming force. We call on all democratic forces in all countries to prepare to lend a hand to the Iraqi people and assist them in recovering from more than three decades of fascism and war.

Not a huge amount to ask, when you think about it. But what did the president get instead? The threat of unilateral veto from Paris, Moscow, and Beijing. Private assurances to Saddam Hussein from members of the U.N. Security Council. Pharisaic fatuities from the United Nations' secretary-general, who had never had a single problem wheeling and dealing with Baghdad. The refusal to reappoint Rolf Ekeus—the only serious man in the U.N. inspectorate—to the job of invigilation. A tirade of opprobrium, accusing Bush of everything from an oil grab to a vendetta on behalf of his father to a secret subordination to a Jewish cabal. Platforms set up in major cities so that crowds could be harangued by hardened supporters of Milosevic and Saddam, some of them paid out of the oil-for-food bordello.

Well, if everyone else is allowed to rewind the tape and replay it, so can I. We could have been living in a different world, and so could the people of Iraq, and I shall go on keeping score about this until the last phony pacifist has been strangled with the entrails of the last suicide-murderer.

Mrs. G. helping children become acquainted with the Bible

I dropped in this morning to attend the breakfast seminar at Fathers and Sons tavern near the University of Ottawa. I used to attend regularly back in the 1990s, and am grateful for the wonderful continuing education my association with this group of professors, graduate students and interested friends has given me.

In this tavern about ten years ago, these Christian professors from various faith traditions sketched out on a napkin their ideas for a college that would ground students in the foundations of Western civilization. Not long after that Augustine College was born, a labor of love on the part of these professors, and a blessing to the students who've attended this one year program.

Yesterday at the Master's Artist, I blogged on a talk that David Lyle Jeffrey gave as the Augustine College annual Weston lecture about Bible literacy. David was the first president of Augustine College. Since then he's moved on to Baylor University in Texas. He was there today at the seminar, so I made a point of visiting, even though Tuesday is one of my heavy writing days for my journalism contract

In my blog post, I asked people to take a quiz over at Dr. John Patrick's website that tests their knowledge of Biblical metaphors. John is now president of Augustine College in addition to traveling around the world speaking mostly to medical students about the myth of moral neutrality among other things.

When I mentioned to the group that I had lamented about the loss of Biblical literacy, John told me about A Visit with Mrs. G, and how her renditions of Bible stories are making them come alive for a new generation of children. He said her stories have been used in China to teach English because her diction is so wonderful.

I have looked on her site for where one might purchase copies of her broadcasts. There isn't anything I could find, but I've made a request for information. Will post it when I have it. In the meantime, there is a list of cities across North America where she can be heard. Wish I could tune in!

How Biblical is your worldview?

As I posted over at The Master's Artist today, I have discovered my Biblical worldview needs some remedial help.

If you'd like to join me as I repair mine, join me in doing the Daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer according to the Book of Common Prayer. You'll find links to the prayers and Bible readings at The Daily Offices.

Civil War in Iraq? Think again.

The two newspapers that arrived on my doorstep this morning, the Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail, both had big stories perpetuating the meme of civil war in Iraq.

If people only read the MSM, no wonder they're confidence in the war effort has tanked.

Gateway Pundit had some good analysis over the weekend that puts many of the casualty figures into perspective and shows how many fewer "average deaths per day" are occuring in the sectarian violence and terrorist attacks than occurred under Saddam Hussein's murderous regime.

The harsh truth: Before the War in Iraq, Saddam was filling his mass graves and keeping state hired rapists on his payroll. In those 20 years about 5% of the people of Iraq were killed or mysteriously disappeared. The red area in the graph above shows the estimated average deaths in Iraq under Saddam Hussein from 36 average deaths per day from mass grave discoveries, to 137 deaths per day from a different source. The yellow area shows estimated total fatalities since the beginning of the War in Iraq from Iraq Body Count, an antiwar website.

Go check out the graphs.

Also, the Globe did have a report over the weekend that had a poll showing that 77 per cent of Iraqis believe that everything has happened since Saddam Hussein was deposed is worth it. Can't find a link to the poll, alas.

Then check out this analysis by Wretchard over at The Belmont Club. (Thanks to Dr. Sanity)

Dr. Sanity sums it up here:

Some day in the future after events have unfolded; and after all intended and unintended consequences have played themselves out; the spineless traitors and apologists of the left, who have done nothing to advance the cause of freedom and democracy in Iraq--or in the world, for that matter--and instead have actively and enthusiastically supported the enemy's psychological operations and become their propaganda outlets, will be finally subjected to evaluation by history; and their true psychological motivations will not be in doubt.

Because, however events turn out in Iraq--for good or ill, and there is certainly no guarantee that what is right and good always overcome-- the underlying motivations of the left (and all those who proclaim themselves to be the champions of the little guy, and yet for some reason always end up defending the Milosovics and Saddams of the world; always enabling the Hitlers and Bin Ladens) are perfectly clear to anyone who will look.

The vast majority of individuals who remain committed to the left's communist, socialist and/or marxist agenda are simple dupes, without any appreciable psychological insight which might make them even question their masters, let alone history and the tragic legacy left by their ideology. They will neither look too closely at history, nor will they search too closely in their own souls to understand why they believe as religiously as they do. They don't want to know the truth.

Reading The Defilers backwards

I just received a PDF of The Defilers typesetting. Today I am reading the printed off version backwards to catch any typos, since I tend to get engrossed in the story and miss mistakes if I go from front to back.

I'm told the book will be released in mid-April. I hope to have a launch in Ottawa some time in May.

Sorry if blogging is light. Visit Relapsed Catholic, Dr. Sanity or Gateway Pundit if you need a fix.

Misconceptions about Hollywood and Christians

The worst misconception Christians have about Hollywood is that it is basically a monolithic, antireligious legion of people that hate Christians and the Church. It’s just not true. Nine out of 10 people in Hollywood may be liberal Democrats, but their agenda is not politics. It’s art - creativity and entertainment. They want you to laugh much more than they care about how you vote.

The problem is, the 10 percent left in the business - the ones who do have an anti-religious bias - tend to also be the people with the most power. Is there is a single head of a studio or network or top agency that is not a fervent secular humanist? I don’t know a single one. Certainly few of the most powerful folks in entertainment go to church or temple with any regularity. The secular humanist philosophy is very homogenous in the top levels of the business. And these are the folks who can ultimately say thumbs up or thumbs down to a project going ahead.

So, what do we do about that? We work our way up, we persevere and we get some clout and influence the way that anybody gets influence in Hollywood: money and talent. Then we will have the powerful chairs and you will start seeing a lot more of the things we want green lit–and things not being green lit that should never be made.

The misconception that people in Hollywood have about the Church is the same–that we are monolithic and fit a certain caricature as fetus-loving, Bush-supporting, homosexual hating, uncreative fascists who have no use for science or reason. Right after the re-election of George W. Bush, there was a sci-fi writer giving a talk in a bookstore in northern California and she was raging against the Christian Right that had put George Bush in office. Her speech was transcribed and got circulated to a lot of Hollywood writers. At one point in her diatribe she said, “Christians can never understand what we (literary people) are doing here because they have no sense of art or beauty. Christians could never make anything beautiful because they are so full of fear and anger.”

Vote "no" at the box office against The Da Vinci Code

On May 19th, you should go to the movies.

Just go to another movie.[Not the Da Vinci Code!]

Save the date now. May 19th, or May 20th. No later than Sunday, May 21st -- that's the day the ballot box closes. You'll get a vote, the only vote Hollywood recognizes: The power of cold hard cash laid down on a box office window on opening weekend.

Use your vote. Don't throw it away. Vote for a movie other than DVC. If enough people do it, the powers that be will notice. They won't have a choice.

The major studio movie scheduled for release against DVC is the DreamWorks animated feature Over the Hedge. The trailers look fun, and you can take your kids. And your friends. And their friends. In fact, let's all go see it.

Let's rock the box office in a way no one expects -- without protests, without boycotts, without arguments, without rancor. Let's show up at the box office ballot box and cast our votes. And buy some popcorn, too.

May 19th. Mark your calendars now: Over the Hedge's opening weekend. Buy a ticket.

And spread the word. Forward this e-mail to all the Christians in your address book. Post it on your blogs. Talk about it to your churches. And let's all go to the movies.

Read the reasons why your box office ballot means more than protests, or reasoned arguments at Church of the Masses.

Spread the word.

Never, ever forget

Go see this post over at Michelle Malkin's and remember.

Sonia Mikich feels offended

An excerpt from an essay by German writer Sonia Mikich follows. As much as I find it amusing, I detect a taint of secularism in it. Sonia would probably lump Christians into the same category as Islamofascists, though she does note that Christians did not burn down embassies or behead people over the Life of Brian.

And what does she mean by "traditional values"? Where does she think the notion of human rights and the liberty she values as the highest good comes from? Could it possibly be from the Judeo-Christian underpinning of Western Civilization? Equality for human beings is a pretty hard thing to come to by reason alone, unless one starts with the a priori assumption that all human beings are made in the image and likeness of God, and are endowed by Him with inalienable rights to life and liberty. And liberty is much more than just the right to say and do what you please, though that is part of it. It is the ability, through God's help, to live up to one's full human potential. That doesn't mean becoming a slave to one's earthly passions or lonely individualism that tramples on the common good.

This article, by Sonia Mikich, originally appeared in the German Die Tageszeitung February 6th 2006. It´s a good read, so keep on:

"What next, bearded one?"
Our traditional values have been trampled on and we are offended. A wake-up call. By Sonia Mikich

I feel offended.

Zealots are nailing veils onto the faces of my sisters in Afghanistan and Pakistan and are busy hanging women, homosexuals, adulterers and non-believers. But human rights, women's rights and the right to liberty are the most exalted in the history of humanity; this is the tradition in which I was raised. Values that make the world better and more peaceful.

I demand that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Indonesia and Egypt apologise to me. Otherwise I am unfortunately forced to threaten, beat up, kidnap or behead their citizens. Because I am somewhat sensitive about my cultural identity.

I feel offended.

-snip-

Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the link to Sugerio, where this has been translated.

Secularism is also raising its ugly head out in British Columbia.

Despite concerns about possibly trampling on religious freedoms, B.C.’s public school teachers want the province to stop funding all faith-based independent schools that teach religious intolerance, the Vancouver Sun reported Monday.

A resolution to that effect was passed by the approximately 700 delegates attending the B.C. Teachers’ Federation annual meeting.

“All we’re saying is that the provincial government has to enact what it says it will do through the Independent Schools Act,” Vancouver teacher Jane MacEwan, who introduced the resolution, told the Sun. “And it clearly states that schools teaching religious superiority or racial superiority cannot receive [public] funding.”

Thanks to Today's Family News from Focus on the Family for the link.

Sorry, folks, I'm going to exercise my freedom here while I can to say that I not only think Christianity is superior to other religions, I don't even think it is a religion. I think it tells the Truth about the human story. But while I believe in absolute Truth with a capital "T" I am not an absolutist. I can tolerate people who disagree with me and treat them with civility and respect because I really do believe other humans are created in God's image. Alas, I hope the Sonia's of this world can tolerate me! It is having a critical mass of people like me in a society that guarantees that Sonia can think and do as she pleases and say so publicly. I know the Islamofascists won't tolerate either of us.

Tom Fox vs. Wafa Sultan

Thanks to Kathy Shaidle over at Relapsed Catholic this morning, I read this post over at The Belmont Club contrasting kidnapped and murdered Christian peacekeeper Tom Fox and Wafa Sultan, the courageous Syrian-born psychiatrist who denounced terrorism in a debate on Al Jazeera.

From the Belmont Club:

To Tom Fox's question "How do you stand firm against a car-bomber or a kidnapper?" -- a question to which he never provided an answer except to say it was not fighting -- Wafa Sultan's answer is that you start by denouncing it. You begin by intellectually opposing the ideology that drives it; that legitimizes it; that portrays it as attractive to children from their cradle. The CPT website, on the other hand, says that denunciation is part of the problem, because it dehumanizes the denounced; hides our Western guilt; and shows a lack of tolerance and respect for Islam. On the Jyllands-Posten cartoon controversy, the CPT says:

We, the members of the Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraq, are disturbed by anti-Muslim cartoons from twelve different artists published in September by Denmark's daily paper the Jyllands-Posten. The publisher claims the freedom of speech to publish the cartoons, but we believe they are only spreading hate and bigotry. To those who believe and act as if terrorism is an essential part of the Islamic faith, we say No! Stop! We cannot stand by and remain silent when our gracious Muslim brothers and sisters are being defamed.

I think this captures my problem with the Christian Peacekeepers. They bend over backwards, it seems, not to allow their Muslim brothers and sisters to be defamed, even to the point of blaming beheadings and kidnappings on the American occupation.

Instead they denounce and defame Americans as if they are the only problem on this planet, the only devils in whom one cannot find the image of God.

Thus, they enable and encourage the enemy. I hope I'm wrong. It would be nice to believe these guys are truly equal opportunity defenders of God's peace, offering conviction under God's Holy Spirit to all of us. But I'm afraid they excuse their Islamofascist captors by blaming the U.S.

Recently Dr. Sanity wrote:

The tragedy and irony of Mr. Fox's death at the hands of terrorists is, in my mind anyway, overridden by the tragic and misguided mentality that sees no moral difference between people who deliberately commit unspeakable evil and those whose role is to protect innocents from unspeakable evil.

-snip-

What you should not do is to make excuses for evil. What you should not do is to compromise with it. What is completely outrageous and morally indefensible is this statement made by Fox's organization explaining his death at the hands of conscienceless, murderous thugs:

"We believe that the root cause of the abduction of our colleagues is the U.S.- and British-led invasion and occupation of Iraq."

In my professional opinion, the people who could write such a perverted statement desperately need to have their heads examined and obtain professional help. They themselves are the "root cause"--the enablers and apologists extraordinaire--who permit and encourage evil to flourish in today's world.

One person like Wafa Sultan does more to further the cause of peace, justice, and human dignity than do legions of these so-called "peace" activists.

I can see that there could be a role for Christian peacekeepers if they showed love and charity to both sides. I can also see that it takes courage to be willing to die for one's commitment to pacificism. But the Tom Fox's of this world do not have the right to make that choice for me. That's why I find some of the arguments that I've heard pacificists employ that President George W. Bush should be a good Christian and turn the other cheek after 9-11. George W. Bush has the right to personally give up his life and turn the other cheek, but as the head of state, he has no right to turn all the cheeks of defenseless American civilians on our behalf. It is unjust NOT to defend us, it is unChristian to allow "evildoers" as Bush describes them to destroy innocent people.

Would a pacifist stop a murderer and rapist from killing defenceless women and children?

David Warren writes in his most recent column:

Innumerable protestations of “respect for Islam”, and denunciations of Bush and Danish cartoonists, did not prevent Tom Fox’s body being dumped on a side road in Iraq. He was a sincere, if deluded, Christian activist, who according to his group, Christian Peacemaker Teams, “combined a lightness of spirit, a firm opposition to all oppression, and the recognition of God in everyone”. The group claims not to demonize anyone, and yet they vilify people like me. But let me say: to look into the eyes of the devil, and see God, is not what Christ taught. He taught, “Get thee behind me.” He taught forgiveness, not facilitating evil. The three hostages taken with Tom Fox are Canadians, and we can only pray for them now.

I don't entirely agree with Warren here, except insofar as we never facilitate evil.

Christ taught us to pray for our enemies. And that all are created in the image of God, even the ones who behave in the most evil fashion. We must be careful not to demonize even our enemies, but not demonizing does not mean excusing, enabling, or identifying with the wrong our enemies do. It means being able to look unflinchingly at what the devil is doing through human beings, including what he is doing through ourselves. And one can only do that with the help of God Almighty. We war not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual forces, principalities, unseen evil operating through people. (Again I repeat, we are not exempt from being pawns of these forces and must stand firm moment by moment against them, even in small things. Especially in small things.) We must make an effort to love even the Bin Ladens of this world by not falling into the demonic trap of hating him, fearing him, or resenting him. Fear belongs only to God. But that doesn't mean we might not, with love, dispatch Bin Laden and his ilk to meet their Maker.

I think one of the prime things that many avowed pacifists do not understand is the difference between force and violence. Violence is motivated by rage and hatred. Force is not. It is motivated by justice and is a measured response to prevent evil.

Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson on Islam

— The Rev. Franklin Graham, who outraged Muslims in 2001 when he said that Islam "is a very evil and wicked religion," told an interviewer for Wednesday's edition of ABC News "Nightline" that he hasn't changed his mind about the faith.

Asked by ABC correspondent John Donvan whether Muslim groups had succeeded in altering his outlook about Islam, Graham said "No."

"Do they want to indoctrinate me? Yes. I know about Islam. I don't need an education from Islam," he said. "If people think Islam is such a wonderful religion, just go to Saudi Arabia and make it your home. Just live there. If you think Islam is such a wonderful religion, I mean, go and live under the Taliban somewhere. I mean, you're free to do that."

-snip-

In a subsequent Wall Street Journal piece, Graham wrote that he doesn't think Muslim believers "are evil people because of their faith. But I decry the evil that has been done in the name of Islam, or any other faith _ including Christianity."

That article said "the persecution or elimination of non-Muslims has been a cornerstone of Islamic conquests and rule for centuries." Graham said the Quran "provides ample evidence that Islam encourages violence in order to win converts and to reach the ultimate goal of an Islamic world."

And Pat Robertson? He goes even further. And is now the subject of this report from Al Jazeera Info, where Islamic leaders are asking U.S. politicians to "repudiate" his remarks.

A prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group today called on mainstream American political and religious leaders to repudiate the most recent Islamophibic remarks by televangelist Pat Robertson, who claimed yesterday that the goal of Islam "is world domination."

The Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) says Robertson made that claim and other anti-Muslim remarks on his Christian Broadcasting Network "700 Club" program. He told his audience: "Islam is not a religion of peace," and "The goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen whether you like it or not, is world domination." He also referred to some Muslims as being motivated by "demonic power."

In the past, Robertson has repeatedly defamed Islam and Muslims on the "700 Club" program. He called Islam the "religion of the slavers" and said Americans who converted to Islam exhibited "insanity." Robertson once said he would be wary of appointing Muslims to positions in the U.S. government, including judgeships.

During a 2002 appearance on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes" program, Robertson smeared both Islam and the Prophet Muhammad. About Muhammad, Robertson said: "This man was an absolute wild-eyed fanatic. He was a robber and a brigand. And to say that these terrorists distort Islam, they're carrying out Islam. . .I mean, this man (Muhammad) was a killer. And to think that this is a peaceful religion is fraudulent." Robertson also called Islam "a monumental scam."

"The failure by mainstream religious and political leaders to challenge Mr. Robertson's Islamophobic remarks will send the false message to Muslims worldwide that the majority of Americans agree with his hate-filled views," said CAIR executive Director Nihad Awad.

The Al Jazeera site also has this story about some attacks on Muslim women at the University of Toronto.

The conflict between Muslim and anti-Islamic factions on campus escalated to physical violence last week, when what appears to be a series of anti-Islamic attacks took place on campus, including the assault on Tuesday of a female Muslim student at Hart House.

The student, who did not wish to be named, was followed into a washroom by a female assailant. The woman shoved a flyer into the student's chest, pushing her back, while saying, "You need this, you're a Muslim." The flyer advertised a rally supporting Denmark over last month's controversial Danish cartoon of Mohammad.

After the student threw the flyer away, the assailant asked her why she had discarded it, and began yelling at her and her friend to "go back to [their] f*****g country and bomb it."

"She just kept yelling, 'F*****g Muslim terrorists,'" said the student, who is in her fourth year at UTM. The woman, as well as a friend who was with her, looked to be in their thirties.

The two assailants disappeared when the student and her friend ran to the porter's desk. A joint investigation by campus police, the Office of Community Safety, and the Office of Anti-Racism is ongoing.

"We're taking it quite seriously," said Staff Sergeant Steve Cox yesterday. "We have a description [of the suspects]."

The attack was only the most serious in a recent string of incidents contributing to what SAC VP Equity Shaila Kibria calls the "volatile atmosphere on campus against Muslims." On Wednesday morning, a group of Muslim women led by Kibria had eggs thrown at them by a group of people as they attempted to tell other students about Tuesday's attack, while passing out flyers for International Women's Day.

"When I heard what happened [to the student on Tuesday], it enraged me," said Kibria yesterday, who explained that she had wanted to inform other students. Although the motive for the egging attack is still not clear, two of the women pelted, including Kibria, were wearing hijabs, or Islamic religious headgear.

No way do I approve of this kind of harrassment or egg throwing. But no way do I approve of this, either. Watch the video. It is chilling. And only five of these London demonstrators have been imprisoned. Just as egg throwing, assault and intimidation are unacceptable in a free and democratic society, so is this kind of hate-mongering, anti-Semitism and incitement to violence and jihad. If the Muslims are wondering where the Pat Robertsons of this world get their ideas about their faith, maybe they would do better to silence the London demonstrators and their ilk rather than Robertson.

Islamophobe. The new word to silence critics of Islam.

Was Tom Fox a Christian martyr?

There's an interesting discussion over at Mark Shea's Catholic and Enjoying blog that includes some comments from one of my favorite bloggers Kathy Shaidle of Relapsed Catholic.

Mark Shea writes:

A Christian Lefty in the mold of Dorothy Day puts the rest of us to shame in obedience to Jesus' beatitude "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God":

Kathy writes:

Where was Tom Fox when people were being tortured by Saddam? I don't think it is all about power; it is all about hating America.

That is just a wee sample of the exchange.

I find it all most interesting. I sure hope he died a Christian martyr and not a victim of Stockholm syndrome or a terrible form of denial and displacement that made him deem America more evil than Saddam Hussein and Islamist terrorists. No matter what his internal motivation, he didn't deserve to be tortured and shot.


And I lift up the other hostages in prayer, the two Canadians and the Brit.

Battling the lies in the Da Vinci Code

As I reported below, about 200 theatregoers applauded after the DVC movie trailer, according to an email posted at Church of the Masses. Troubling.

Here are some links to sites combatting the lies in Dan Brown's bestseller The Da Vinci Code in advance of the May 19 release of the movie based on the book:

Jesus Decoded, the DVC-debunking site put up by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

Opus Dei has this site, but expect more in the days to come.

Faith Today, the magazine of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, has this site.

The Da Vinci Outreach initiative is another. This is where Catholic blogger Mark Shea is making frequent contributions.

Apparently Sony has a site for Christians to debunk the movie, where pastors are encouraging members of their flock to see it to increase opportunities for "teaching moments" with their non-Christian friends.

Barbara Nicolosi had this to say:

I just read a ludicrous statement by some Christian pastor, calling for all Christians to go to see The Da Vinci Code when it opens. His statement was something to the effect of "Every Christian needs to see this film!" I beg to differ.

No. We don't need to see this film. We all know what is in it. (Especially me, as I have read the screenplay.) It is a movie which begins from the point that Jesus was a fraud. He was not only not Divine, he was less than a man. And His Church is a sham association of meglomaniacal conspirators whose unifying principles are in the oppression of women.

-snip-

Folks, there is no dialogue here. The dialogue which might have happened involved Sony and Imagen making changes in the story, that would have reflected some kind of fidelity to history or fairness. They didn't make those changes. Basically because they wanted to bash Christians.

-snip-

Secondly, I don't agree that "everybody" is going to see this film. I found the script somewhere between idiotic and way too cute. I didn't find it half as clever as National Treasure....and that wasn't exactly a work of cinematic genius. As 80% of America is Christian, if they don't get us in, the movie basically tanks. And most of us probably weren't going to be going -- until we were told "Every Christian must!!!" All in the name of "dialogue."

Take Barbara Nicolosi's advice. Go to the movies on May 19 opening weekend. See anything but DVC. Spread the word. Take your family and friends.

Master's Artist Donna Shepherd featured for children's books

Donna Shepherd, a fellow Master's Artist, is featured at InspiredMoms.com.

Congratulations, Donna!

Audience claps after Da Vinci Code trailer

This email from Matt Pinto has been posted at Barbara Nicolosi's Church of the Masses site:

My co-worker Lisa sat with her husband, Tim, at the theatre. They were out on one of their "date nights" to see the new film, Firewall. As the spots for upcoming movie releases began to roll, they were about to be stunned. The preview for The Da Vinci Code came on, and moviegoers were treated to a fast-paced, heart-pumping two minutes of excitement and suspense. The preview, which included scenes of a murder and an Opus Dei "monk" whipping and cutting himself, ended with the phrase, "Seek the Truth."

But what came next was totally unexpected: A rousing applause from perhaps 200 people in the audience. A few people even stood up. I'm not sure about you, but I've never seen anyone stand up and applaud a movie preview.

This is not good news.

An estimated one in three adult Americans have read The Da Vinci Code, according to Outreach Magazine (March/April, 2006). More than 40 million copies have sold in 44 languages. It's been on the New York Times Best Seller List for nearly three years. Untold damage has been done to the faith of millions.

Pinto urges Catholics to rally to defend their faith and points to the DaVinci Outreach initiative.

Evangelicals have already been out there actively debunking the film. Mark D. Roberts is doing a series on the film.

Please take Barbara Nicolosi's advice and go to the movies on DVC's opening weekend--TO SEE ANYTHING ELSE!!!!! I'll be there.

Ontario Catholic teachers invite dissident to give keynote speech

From LifeSiteNews.com:

The Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) has distinguished itself for many years as being anything but Catholic. The organization's annual general meeting which took place over the weekend, ending yesterday, was no exception to the anti-Catholic trend.

In previous years the organization has proposed a resolution backing homosexual 'marriage' (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/feb/04021904.html ), and even proposed to intervene on behalf of a male high school student who was suing his Catholic school to be permitted to bring his homosexual 'boyfriend' to the school prom (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/may/02050606.html ).

At the opening of the OECTA AGM on Friday, attendees heard a keynote address from well-known anti-Catholic activist Joanna Manning. Manning, who supports Catholics for a Free Choice and penned the book 'Is the Pope Catholic', has specialized in attacking the Catholic Church particularly in areas of sexual morality.

Manning didn't disappoint her fans in her OECTA address. She went so far as to associate Christianity with radical Islam saying: "Religious fundamentalism in both Islam and Christianity threatens to plunge the world into a new age of war."

A story like this makes me ask: What is a Catholic? Is a Catholic someone who is born to and baptized into the Church? Or is a Catholic someone who believes the Catholic faith? There is a mystery here that goes right to the bottom of the meaning of The Church and the Body of Christ and what happens in baptism.

Years ago, when I first started learning about the Roman Catholic Church, it puzzled me why people who were so unhappy with the Pope and the hierarchy remained Catholics. Why not become Protestants if you want women's ordination? Why not join the Metropolitan Community Church or a United Church if you want gay marriage? Why not join the Quakers if you want total equality among all participants? To me, it seemed a given, even from my outsiders vantage point, that the Catholic Church was not a democracy, that its hierarchy was inseparable from what she is.

Today I thank God that it isn't a democracy. I am so thankful that the Pope and the hierarchy are keeping the Apostolic Catholic faith whole and entire despite all the buffeting and attacks from within and without, and despite the human failures found from time to time among members of that hierarchy. A bishop I spoke to last week in an interview concerning a letter from the Canadian Religious Conference critical of the Church reminded me that these critics are the Church also.

Yet what a gift a Catholic faith is. What freedom and joy there is in it. It is sad to me that so many who were born into such richness are seeking truth in teachings that oppose that faith.

Once upon a time I was attracted to dissident views. I was a typical Gnostic, a cafeteria Christian, who chose only what I liked from Scripture and doctrine and ignored or interpreted to my liking the rest. I was my own mini-Magisterium.

I can understand the appeal entertaining contrarian opinions, the little burst of pleasure that comes from making new discoveries and looking at the world through new paradigms. But what a loss of faith that leads to. What a barren wilderness. And without believing the Truth, sanctification is impossible. We cannot perfect ourselves through trying to obey the law on our own. (Galatians 3)

What can we do about dissidents? Bless them and pray for them. Make sure that our faith makes our lives shine with love and joy and thanksgiving. Coming down on the Joanna Mannings of this world for their views will only drive them further away. She is a lively, attractive woman, obviously intelligent and passionately engaged with the world. If those who hold to the Church's teachings are grumpy, repressed and angry, they drive others over to her camp.

But on reading this story, I understand why there is a move among Catholic parents to start private classical schools where those in authority are formed in the faith. They realize what a gift that faith is and know that it can't be taught, it must be modeled and passed on like a mantle. And it must be kept entire.

Check out Maryvale Academy and St. Timothy's.

What are you willing to sacrifice?

Interesting post and challenging questions from Celestial Junk in the post excerpted below. (Thanks to Small Dead Animals for the link.)

In a time of urgent crisis what would you give? What’s worth fighting for?

-snip-

In Afghanistan, the going is tough, and sure to get tougher. With Islamists just across the boarder posturing and posing and giving every inclination that they want a war, things could yet get very much worse. With funds from Iran and Pakistan available to fanatics, the risk to Canadians is not going away any time soon. A democratic Afghanistan needs our help to shake off its local fanatics, yet global events threaten to engulf the comparatively minor happenstance of tribal Afghanistan and turn it into something much bigger, and much bloodier.

All of this raises the question; what are you willing to give for the cause? Is the cause worth it? Is any cause worth it? Hell, do you even believe in "the cause?" Are you in the 18-30 bracket and have you ever honestly considered joining the military? Would that be too much sacrifice for you? Try this then; what government handouts or percent of your paycheck are you willing to part with in order to ensure that those who fight in your name do so with the deadliest and best possible weapons and equipment in hand? These questions may seem obvious, but I can’t help but feel that few have taken the time to seriously ponder them.

In a recent speech, the incisive Victor Davis Hanson noted that empires do not often fall from squalor, rather they succumb in moments of greatness.

Read the whole thing.

Something to think about from Daniel Pipes

Note that Pipe says Islamists, not Muslims. Islamists or Islamofascists are totalitarian extremists. Not all Muslims are Islamists.

“Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers.” I wrote those words days after 9/11 and have been criticized for them ever since. But an incident on March 3 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill suggests I did not go far enough.

That was when a just-graduated student named Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, 22, and an Iranian immigrant, drove a sport utility vehicle into a crowded pedestrian zone. He struck nine people but, fortunately, none were severely injured.

-snip-

In fact, no one who knew him said a bad word about him, which is important, for it signals that he is not some low-life, not homicidal, not psychotic, but a conscientious student and amiable person. Which raises the obvious question: why would a regular person try to kill a random assortment of students? Taheri-azar’s post-arrest remarks offer some clues.

* He told the 911 dispatcher that he wanted to “punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world.”
* He explained to a detective that “people all over the world are being killed in war and now it is the people in the United States[’] turn to be killed.”
* He said he acted to “avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world.”
* He portrayed his actions as “an eye for an eye.”
* A police affidavit notes that “Taheri-azar repeatedly said that the United States Government had been killing his people across the sea and that he decided to attack.”
* He told a judge, “I’m thankful you’re here to give me this trial and to learn more about the will of Allah.”

In brief, Taheri-azar represents the ultimate Islamist nightmare: a seemingly well-adjusted Muslim whose religion inspires him, out of the blue, to murder non-Muslims. Taheri-azar acknowledged planning his jihad for over two years, or during his university sojourn.

Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code "woes"

From today's Globe and Mail:

LONDON — Almost three years to the day that The Da Vinci Code was first published, American author Dan Brown found himself on a witness stand in courtroom 61 of London's High Court on Monday, denying accusations he copied from others to produce his huge bestseller.

-snip-

If the writers succeed in securing an injunction to bar the use of their material, they could hold up the scheduled May 19 release of The Da Vinci Code film starring Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen.

-snip-

In a witness statement released Monday as Brown took the stand, the writer said it was "absurd to suggest that I have organized and presented my novel in accordance with the same general principles" as the earlier book.

Responding to questions from the plaintiffs' attorney, Brown said much of the research for the book was done by his wife, Blythe.

"She was deeply passionate about the sacred feminine," Brown said.

The dogs and the children's bread

In Matthew 15, Jesus tells a Canaanite woman who had begged him to heal her daughter: "It is not right to take the children's bread and to cast it to dogs."

If you have ever found that statement troubling, I have a remedy for you.

Fr. Carl Reid preached on that passage for Lent II on Sunday. I have posted the sermon over at The Daily Offices, where I also post the readings for Morning and Evening Prayer, old Book of Common Prayer, Traditional Anglican-style.

I especially loved this part of Fr. Carl's sermon:

So, in the eyes of a Jew, the Canaanite woman, one quite outside of the covenant between God and His chosen people, is as far as possible from having any claim upon the “children’s bread.” Yet, nevertheless, she comes in humility and trust: “The little dogs,” she says, those who have no claim neither by covenant nor by simple basic rights of any sort, “The little dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their master’s table.” She came to our Lord as an outsider, not trusting that whatever faith she might have had was worth anything, but rather placing all of her faith in Him. She could not plead any merit, let alone any right; and the grace of God is not withheld: “O woman, great is thy faith; be it unto thee as thou wilt.” This Canaanite woman is the symbol of all of us, who have no natural claims upon God’s favour. Jesus’ gift to her stands for the free, unmerited grace of God.
It has been observed that, aside from earlier medieval Collects, this episode, along with the healing of the centurion’s servant, were the source for the first half of Thomas Cranmer’s Prayer of Humble Access which we pray just before we receive the precious Body and Blood, before we partake of that heavenly Food from the Lord’s Table. “We do not presume to come to this thy table … we are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy table.”
How many of us, perhaps indignantly, would reply quite differently than the woman if someone, even our Lord, were to call us a dog, or even a puppy? Rather than saying that she is not, as any of us might in the same situation, she agrees, “Yes I am a dog; I have no rights, I am not worthy, but might I, like a dog, at least eat some of the crumbs from your Table?”

If you'd like to see the whole Prayer of Humble Access, here it is.

Zenit interview on the Crusades

Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch has been interviewed by the Zenit news agency from Rome on what really happened in the Crusades.

Spencer, who has written the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades among other books, has posted the interview here.

Here's a small portion. Read the whole thing.

Q: The Crusades are often portrayed as a militarily offensive venture. Were they?

Spencer: No. Pope Urban II, who called for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont in 1095, was calling for a defensive action -- one that was long overdue.

As he explained, he was calling the Crusade because without any defensive action, "the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked" by the Turks and other Muslim forces.

"For, as most of you have heard, the Turks and Arabs have attacked them and have conquered the territory of Romania [the Greek empire] as far west as the shore of the Mediterranean and the Hellespont, which is called the Arm of St. George," Pope Urban II said in his address. "They have occupied more and more of the lands of those Christians, and have overcome them in seven battles. They have killed and captured many, and have destroyed the churches and devastated the empire.

"If you permit them to continue thus for a while with impunity, the faithful of God will be much more widely attacked by them."

He was right. Jihad warfare had from the seventh century to the time of Pope Urban conquered and Islamized what had been over half of Christendom. There had been no response from the Christian world until the Crusades.

Q: What are some popular misconceptions about the Crusades?

Spencer: One of the most common is the idea that the Crusades were an unprovoked attack by Europe against the Islamic world.

In fact, the conquest of Jerusalem in 638 stood at the beginning of centuries of Muslim aggression, and Christians in the Holy Land faced an escalating spiral of persecution.

More on the cartoon saga

A Muslim imam failed to get criminal charges laid under hate crimes laws against the Western Standard for reprinting the Danish cartoons, so now he is going the human rights tribunal route.

Publisher Ezra Levant responds:

One of the strategies of radical Islam is to use the tools of the liberal West against itself -- to use freedom to undermine freedom.

-snip-

I have noticed a similar streak in my own little battle: Namely, the response to the reprinting of the Danish cartoons in the Western Standard, the magazine I publish.

I debated various Islamic leaders. That's the court of public opinion -- a Western, liberal concept that values diversity of opinion, and the cut-and-thrust of the clash of ideas.

One of my debate opponents wasn't satisfied. Syed Soharwardy, a Calgary imam I debated on CBC radio, thought he'd "appeal" our debate to the government.

Soharwardy went to the police and asked them to arrest me. The police politely threw him out of their offices. Peacefully disagreeing about contentious matters such as politics and religion is not a crime in Canada.

So then Soharwardy went to a less liberal institution: The Alberta Human Rights Commission. Unlike real courts, the human rights commission doesn't follow rules of evidence. Unlike real courts, it is often packed with activists, not neutral judges. And the government pays for the inquisition -- unlike civil courts, where a complainant has to pay for his own lawyer.

Human rights commissions were created to help people denied an apartment because of their race, or fired from a job because of their religion. Today they're about political correctness and ideological engineering.

-snip-

The most delicious part is his complaint that I dared to justify publishing the cartoons. Not only does he think publishing the cartoons should be illegal, but he thinks arguing for the right to publish them should be illegal, too!

Read the whole thing. If you have not seen the cartoons yet, go here.

Film showing men kissing designed to test Dutch immigrants

The Dutch solution to the problem of unassimilated Muslim immigrants is to test newcomers by having them watch a film that features, among other things, two men kissing.

AMSTERDAM: Two men kissing in a park and a topless female bather are featured in a film that will be shown to would-be immigrants to The Netherlands.

The reactions of applicants will be examined to see whether they are able to accept the country's liberal attitudes.

-snip-

Muslim leaders in Holland say the film is offensive.

"It really is a provocation aimed to limit immigration. It has nothing to do with the rights of homosexuals. Even Dutch people don't want to see that," said Abdou Menebhi, the Moroccan-born director of Emcemo, an organisation that helps immigrants to settle.

-snip-

Famile Arslan, 34, an immigration lawyer of Turkish origin, agreed. "I have lived here for 30 years and have never been witness to two men kissing in the park. So why are they confronting people with that?" she said.

She accused the Government of preaching tolerance about civil rights while targeting non-Westerners with harsh and discriminatory immigration curbs.

I was treated to a picture from the film of the two men kissing when my Ottawa Citizen ran the story this weekend. That brought back memories of a similar photo the Citizen ran above the fold under the masthead, occupying most of the top of the front page after the Supreme Court of Canada marriage reference in which the court said same-sex marriage was consistent with the Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I personally am desensitized to such displays. In the late 60s and 70s I often visited Provincetown, the gay Mecca of Massachusetts and had gone dancing with friends at Boston gay clubs back when gays and lesbians lived in an underground subculture. I do, however, remember feeling hurt by the front page photo after the 2004 marriage reference, because, well, there was something so "in your face" about the photo as if the editorial staff were saying "nyah, nyah, you lost, we're here, get used to it you religious fundamentalists."

It hurt because while the gays were increasingly coming out of the closet, I felt myself and people like me being shoved into one, increasingly marginalized, demonized as intolerant and told tacitly by photos like that in the Citizen and explicitly by a proliferation of human rights charges gainst Christians that there's a new religion in town. And that religion as a sexual dogma that is going to be shoved down our throats and woe to the heretics who dissent and say, wait a minute, marriage is a heterosexual social institution to best guarantee that children are born to and raised by their biological parents, and the best guarantee of the survival of future generations.

So when I read about the Dutch solution to its immigrant woes, I felt sad that the government is opting for the sexual dogma of secularism as a solution, one that might also have as deleterious effect on prospective Christian immigrants.

Kathy Shaidle over at Relapsed Catholic has a link to the story in the Australian, and considerable commentary about a book by a gay man about what is really going on in Europe.

Shaidle writes:

Bruce Bawer writes about this film in While Europe Sleptbruce bawer europe islam. I finally finished reading it -- it was so infuriating I could only read a few pages at a time.

For those who don't know the story: Bawer's research on Christian fundamentalism convinced him that the US was on the cusp of theocracy, so he moved to Europe. Within a week, all the "cute" temperamental traits that had charmed him about Europeans during brief visits (the lack of "swagger", the relaxed attitudes about work, even their supposed multi-lingualism) started to drive him nuts.

More importantly, he realized that he, a gay man, had just moved closer to a real theocracy. Everywhere, unassimilated Muslim immigrants were running little lawless fiefdoms, collecting thousands in welfare while loudly threatening their timid hosts -- who regarded the Muslims in their midst as merely "colourful" additions to their own bland culture, certainly no threat. Only a few bold voices are raised, then famously silenced -- first by the politically correct academic/political/media complex, then by assassins.

While Europe Slept is, as I've said, a difficult read, a litany of awfulness; Bawer and his boyfriend escape a couple of beatings, this or that popular politician is assassinated or goes into hiding, honour killings happen with alarming regularity -- and even more aggravating is the European response: a shrug followed by cowardly silence or calls for "dialogue" and "understanding".

-snip-

His solution to the Muslim Problem (assuming it's as bad as Bawer makes it out to be) is, not surprisingly, more liberalism -- which some of us feel is actually the cause of the problem, not the fix -- the value-free vacuum that radical Islam has willingly filled. Gee, Amsterdam was so cool with its pot cafes and gay hookers and addicts shooting up in the park -- then those uptight Muslims came along and ruined everything...

But if the Europe of nude beaches and cradle to grave welfare is so damn wonderful, why aren't its citizens rising up to save it from ruin? The question answers itself: ennui breeds ennui. Never mind Katrina: 20,000 old French people died in a heatwave -- in the 21st century, mind -- because their relatives couldn't bring themselves to cut short their 6 week vacations to check on them. Is anybody, European or not, really prepared to take up arms or even risk a cushy media or teaching job to defend... the Red Light District?

Amen!

I don't want to see gays and lesbians shoved back into the closet. I'm all for living and letting live. But just as non-religious people should not have to have religious dogma from one denomination or faith imposed upon them in public, I believe my future grandchildren should not have gay and lesbian propaganda forced on them in public schools. I don't think human rights tribunals should be fining those who for reasons of belief and conscience speak up in opposition to that propaganda.

And I think it is a tragic mistake to assume that a secularist, decadent, libertine fundamentalism is any kind of freedom at all. It is a psychological slavery to fleshly impulses and cravings that kill true love, commitment, relationships and the desire to reproduce.

That's why I see this is a three-way battle, not just secularists against the Muslim faith.

The third choice is genuine pluralism rooted in Judeo-Christian principles and a transcendent notion of rights as God-given rather than bestowed by the state. That pluralistic vision holds to a rule of law that is grounded in transcendent principles of justice, but not wedded to any institutional church. That way, gays and lesbians will be free to pursue their lifestyles, but not have the right to force their lifestyles and morality on the rest of us. And religious freedom will flourish as will freedom of speech, but without devolving into the silliness of multicultural moral relativism.

Toronto demo in support of Denmark and free speech

Some pictures are up now up here showing the rally in support of Denmark and freedom of speech in Toronto yesterday.

Kathy Shaidle of Relapsed Catholic was there.

And Gateway Pundit was one of the first to report on yesterday's demo.

Mark Steyn gets dropped in Britain

Mark Steyn has been dropped from syndication in Britain. That means one of the few mainstream media voices that is alert to the threats faced by the West has been silenced in the major ally in the misnamed War on Terror.

Lionel Shriver writes in the Guardian:

Lastly, let me rue the passing of Mark Steyn's syndication in Britain, for his column has now been dropped by both the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator. I don't know the inside story, so I can't be certain that the jettisoning of this notoriously conservative Canadian constitutes political self-censorship.

Thus my indignation is solely on account of my own entertainment. Fair enough, few Guardian readers would share his hard-right views. I don't always agree with him either, but I love Mark Steyn. Even though I write them, I cannot bear most columns, which when light-hearted usually err on the trivial, and when serious usually err on the po-faced. But however you may deplore his opinions, Steyn is funny.

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for that link, as well as to Steyn's latest Chicago Sun-Times column in which he excoriates the New York Times for its refusal to name the religion of the student who rented an SUV and plowed it into students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Steyn writes:

A fellow called Mohammed mows down a bunch of students? Just one of those things -- like a gran'ma in my neck of the woods a couple of years back who hit the wrong pedal in the parking lot and ploughed through a McDonald's, leaving the place a hideous tangle of crumbled drywall, splattered patties and incendiary hot apple-pie filling. Yet, according to his own statements, Taheri-azar committed an act of ideological domestic terrorism, which he'd planned for two months. He told police he was more disappointed more students in his path weren't struck and that he'd rented the biggest vehicle the agency had in order to do as much damage to as many people as possible. The Persian car pet may have been flooring it, but the media are idling in neutral, if not actively reversing away from the story as fast as they can.

Steyn also comments on a survey that shows an increasing number of Americans have negative attitudes towards Muslims, though, frankly, I was surprised when I first read about this poll earlier in the week at Jihad Watch, that the number was so low even after 9/11, after the Bali, Madrid and London Bombings, the constant mayhem in the Middle East and the violent reaction to the contrived cartoon controversy.

The Washington Post reported:

As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.

As I thought about the numbers cited in that story, I wondered whether they reflected the basic benign nature of the American people, a reluctance perhaps to honestly state their negative views, or simply the fact that the MSM and the U.S. government are bending over backwards to describe Islam as a religion of peace. The religion of peace mantra and the failure to allow the public to connect various dots concerning freelance Islamic terrorists in our midst is creating a cognitive dissonance that must be either driving people to the blogosphere or to escapist entertainment so they can remain in total denial of the threats we face, not from all Muslims, of course, but from a dangerously large minority of that worldwide religion who want us dead.


Dr. Sanity has a chilling post today where she pulls together some of her earlier posts and some more recent commentary by others, including Warren, about whether the problem is with Islam itself or a malignant fascistic form of it.

Sorry to ruin your Sunday afternoon, but this is the kind of thing that in earlier times would have made people tear their clothes, don sackcloth and cover their heads with ashes. We are going to need repentance, fasting and prayer, a nation on its knees, not in subservience or dhimmitude as the terrorist quoted in this horrifying report from MEMRI intends to see, but to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God who sent His Son into the world to redeem us.

Another defeat for free speech

A Canadian human rights tribunal has found not only two white supremists, but also their Internet Service Providers liable for spreading hate over the Internet and has leveled fines totalling $13,000.

Now, if this pair was inciting violence, then I'm all for shutting them down, but making their ISP liable for their hate is like making the telephone company responsible for the content of their phone calls. It is one thing for individuals to file complaints to the ISP and have consumer pressure make them act, and quite another for a government agency to start breathing down their necks with heavy fines. The next thing we know is that the blogosphere that we know will be shut down.

According to the Canwest article on the story:

Warren Kinsella, a Toronto lawyer and author of Web of Hate, called the decision historic because it makes clear that an Internet provider will be held accountable for the hateful words and images it hosts for others.

The decision "effectively refutes the CRTC's cowardly 1998 non-decision that the Internet should be a regulation-free zone, where haters can say whatever they want," said Mr. Kinsella, who also writes a media column for the National Post. "Canada has taken far too long to respond to the Internet hate threat -- but the tribunal's historic ruling signals that we may finally be confronting this significant problem."

It's a funny thing about defamation though. What might be considered hatred and defamation by one group, might be considered satire and humor by another.

During the 2000 election, Warren Kinsella was in the Liberal war room which launched the worst anti-Christian attacks I have ever seen in Canada. During this election even a Liberal cabinet minister accused the Canadian Alliance as full of holocaust deniers and racists. Others accused the party of being dangerous to women's rights because there were more practising Christians in their ranks.

Kinsella did more than anyone to hold up to ridicule Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day, a Christian who happens to believe the Biblical account of creation
, by pulling a stuffed purple Barney dinosaur out during a political panel. So funny I forgot to laugh.

Unfortunately, human rights tribunals don't work for Christians. First of all, Christians are more likely to respect freedom of religion and speech and are therefore less likely to file complaints. And when the odd one does file a complaint (sometimes to show the absurdity of these tribunals) they almost invariably lose.

Now Gateway Pundit reports Turkey's urging the EU to adopt tougher anti-defamation laws to protect Islam.

He writes:

This is frightening!...
Turkey suggests EU should strengthen anti-defamation laws

Turkey, a country that has witnessed nearly 1,200 deaths from honor killings and family feuds in the last five years, has voluteered and is doing a terrific job mediating between the EU and the Muslim World.

Today Agora reports that Turkey is asking the EU to examine its legislation.

Agora also has a report that the EU is considering the Arab demands!

Sure Enough! Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul has called upon EU states to extend their anti-defamation laws to ensure respect for Islam:

Now no one wants to see anyone inciting violence against any identifiable group, but when a group is bent on violence against the West, it is in every citizen's interest to know the facts, even if they do not paint a flattering picture.

The first thing to get surpressed when freedom of speech is truncated is the ability to speak the truth. And usually the first truths that get surpressed in a tyranny are the rights to preach the Gospel without fear of violence or repurcussions.

David Warren on the crisis of faith

Almost three years ago, I heard a lecture by Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren and wrote the following article, which I believe appeared in Christian Current, an Ottawa monthly newspaper.

David Warren sounds alarm about crisis of faith
By Deborah Gyapong

OTTAWA—When the terrorists hit the twin towers in New York, David Warren wrote the Greek words for “Lord, have mercy upon us” in his journal.
“The threat of terrorism is real,” Mr. Warren said, “But the de-Christianization of our society is an even bigger threat. The Christian faith is under direct and unspeakable attack here.”
Speaking at a public lecture sponsored by the Ottawa Summer School of Biblical and Theological Studies, the Ottawa Citizen columnist said that attack on Christianity is taking place in the courts, in the marketplace and will soon become “the new/old paganism, hunting us down for failing to worship at the altar of multi-culturalism.”
Mr. Warren said that in the end, Christians might find they have more in common with their Muslim brothers and sisters than they do with the godless, amoral society around them.
The Muslim faith is a rival to the Christian faith, he said. It is like the rivalry of brothers, because much is shared in common. “Like all serious religions, it is founded in truths beyond human perception.” He pointed to the power over the centuries the Muslim religion nourished civilizations.
Like the crisis of faith in the West, leading to a de-Christianization, Mr. Warren believes that the Islamist terrorist represents a crisis of faith in the Muslim world. “Christianity is no more responsible for the decadent post-Christian nihilism of the West than Islam is responsible for the violent nihilistic manifestation of terrorism.”
“Cheap materialism is ascendant everywhere,” he warned. “The West may be ahead of the Muslim world in the un-learning curve.”
Mr. Warren sees the extremist and terrorist brand of Islam as a result of the failure of secular and socialist attempts to modernize the Arab world leading many educated people there to turn to religion in despair. Playing on the old adage of patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel, Mr. Warren said that fanaticism is an even more degenerate refuge. While many individual terrorist may be sincere in their beliefs, however truncated and false, Mr. Warren pointed out that those who manipulate them are more often like Saddam Hussein, who uses Islam for his own ends.
Mr. Warren believes that the same process that creates a caricature of Islam in the form of terrorists, has created a counterpart caricature of Christianity in the West.
“Instead of jihad, they seek peace at any price, they engage in civil disobedience instead of martyrdom in a self-righteous parade of causes.” This, Mr. Warren says is the post modern parallel.
“Christianity and Islam are rivals for the spiritual allegiance of the world,” he said. “Both are proselytizing faiths, both claim universality. They have the same goals: the salvation of mankind, and doing the will of God.”
Mr. Warren said that it has been said that in order to understand a sin, one must first understand something of its allure. He applied a similar principle to the assertions of the Muslim faith. “The theological simplicity of Islam is part of its allure,” he said.
“We differ over Christ.” He noted that Islam from its very origin declared war on Christianity by saying “God has no Son.” It contradicts the orthodox Christian theology of the divinity of Christ and the Trinity.
“Islam declares that there is one God and Mohammed is its prophet. That simplicity cuts like a knife.”
As a Christian, Mr.Warren says he believes Islam’s weakness is that it is false. “But it is splendidly false,” he said.
Mr. Warren said, “We must prepare for the worst. In the longer term, our self preservation requires that we recover our own militant Christian faith.”
Pointing to the genuine achievements of Muslim and Arab Civilization, Mr. Warren points out that there is no provision for the separation of church and state in the Islamic faith. Unlike the development of thought in Christianity back to St. Augustine’s “City of God” where a distinction was made between the holy, heavenly Jerusalem and the temporal, worldly city, no such tradition exists in Islam.
Only through a sound basis in Christian principles, can a society be genuinely pluralistic, tolerant and provide for religious freedom through separation of church and state, he warned.
David Warren was one of three speakers at public lectures sponsored by the Ottawa Summer School of Biblical and Theological Studies, now in it’s 15th year.

I thought the lecture was prophetic when I heard it in July 2003. And I think his description of the kind of Christianity that seeks peace at any price (which I have put in bold above) is an apt description of Christian peacemakers who think those who kidnap and torture to death innocent people bear no moral responsibility for their behavior.

Warren has a column today that signals his thought may be shifting.

But Mr Bush was staking his bet on the assumption that the Islamists were not speaking for Islam; that the world’s Muslims long for modernity; that they are themselves repelled by the violence of the terrorists; that, most significantly, Islam is in its nature a religion that can be “internalized”, like the world’s other great religions, and that the traditional Islamic aspiration to conjoin worldly political with otherworldly spiritual authority had somehow gone away. It didn’t help that Mr Bush took for his advisers on the nature of Islam, the paid operatives of Washington’s Council on American-Islamic Relations, the happyface pseudo-scholar Karen Armstrong, or the profoundly learned but terminally vain Bernard Lewis. Each, in a different way, assured him that Islam and modernity were potentially compatible.

The question, “But what if they are not?” was never seriously raised, because it could not be raised behind the mud curtain of political correctness that has descended over the Western academy and intelligentsia. The idea that others see the world in a way that is not only incompatible with, but utterly opposed to, the way we see it, is the thorn ever-present in the rose bushes of multiculturalism. “Ideas have consequences”, and the idea that Islam imagines itself in a fundamental, physical conflict with everything outside of itself, is an idea with which people in the contemporary West are morally and intellectually incapable of coming to terms. Hence our continuing surprise at everything from bar-bombings in Bali, to riots in France, to the Danish cartoon apoplexy.

My own views on the issue have been aloof. More precisely, they have been infected with cowardice. I am so “post-modern” myself that I, too, find it almost impossible to think through the corollaries from our world’s hardest fact. And that fact is: the post-Christian West is out of its depth with Islam.

Note Warren is saying the post-Christian West. The collapse of faith here remains the biggest problem.

How do we get it back? First of all, for those of us who are Christians, we must become formed in our faith. We must know it and let it shape our characters. Then we must help others in their faith and character formation. We must be God's love letters to the world, love letters expressing not the peace-at-any-price kind of love, but the unfailing love of God who convicts us of sin, and offers redemption to those who turn away from it through belief in Jesus Christ's saving work on the Cross.

American Christian peacemaker found dead

Three more Christian peacemakers remain in captivity.

Right Wing Nut has assembled some stories with the details of Tom Fox's death. (Thanks to Kathy Shaidle at Relapsed Catholic for the link.)

Right Wing Nut links to this Washington Post story:

In a statement released last night, Christian Peacemaker Teams said the group mourned Fox, who combined "a lightness of spirit, a firm opposition to all oppression and the recognition of God in everyone." It said his death "pierces us with pain."

After the airing of the video of the three hostages this week, a spokeswoman for Christian Peacemaker Teams, Jessica Phillips, expressed satisfaction at seeing three of the four hostages alive but added, "We do not know what to make of Tom Fox's absence from this video."

The statement added, "We believe that the root cause of the abduction of our colleagues is the U.S.- and British-led invasion and occupation of Iraq."

While my heart goes out to Fox's family and friends, and to those of the remaining hostages, I find the group's blame on the U.S. and British invasion of Iraq a breathtaking example of Stockholm syndrome.

Does it not occur to them that the root cause of the Iraq invasion is the very barbaric behavior that has resulted in Fox's kidnapping, torture and death? A root cause found in the slaughter of innocents in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the gassing of thousands of Iraqi Kurds and other atrocities of Saddam Hussein's regime, the Iraqi support of suicide bombers in Israel and the disputed territories?

It is so sad. What will it take for people to wake up? Even a graphic confrontation with the evil isn't enough.

'Escaped Prisoner: When God is a monster' working title of Dr. Sultan's book

If you have not seen Dr. Wafa Sultan's interview on Al-Jazeera, please take a look at it. And take a moment to pray for her safety and thank God for her courage. And, I have to give credit to Al-Jazeera for bringing her on the air. Maybe the Qatar-based station is not merely a propaganda organ. Be sure to watch the clip and the dismissive attitude of her opponent, who calls her a blasphemer and in effect issues a fatwa on her.

Thanks to Dr. Sanity, I was led to this story in the New York Times about a woman whose February television debate has reverberated around the world.

Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.

"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.

-snip-

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

-snip-

"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."

And, take a trip on over to MEMRI (The Middle East Research Institute), the organization that provided the translation for this clip. MEMRI regularly surveys and translates the media in the Islamic world.

Here are some of their latest offerings:

Mar 10 SD# 1112 - Purported "Al-Qaeda Undercover Soldier, U.S.A": Last Warning to American People - Two Operations Will Occur; Your Homeland Security Agency Must Surrender; States Far Away From Washington, D.C. Such as Arizona Will Be Hit; We Await Orders From Our Commander Osama Bin Laden; America Will Be Brought to its Knees

Mar 10 SD# 1111 - Palestinian Legislative Council Member "Umm Nidal" on Saudi Iqra TV: A Muslim Mother Should Raise Her Children for Jihad; Interviewer Iqra TV Director-General Critical of Arab TV Channels That Don't Support Martyrdom Operations

Mar 10 SD# 1110 - Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood MPs: The Koran Encourages Terrorism; "Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri and Al-Zarqawi are Not Terrorists in the Sense Accepted by Some"

Mar 09 SD# 1109 - Hamas Leader Khaled Mash'al on Arab TV: "There Will Be No Concessions"; "…The Demand to Disarm and …to Turn Hamas …Into Political Parties is Unrealistic"

Mar 08 SD# 1108 - New Footage of Iran Nuclear Facilities on Hizbullah Al-Manar TV

This is chilling stuff.

Greatest Canadian supported eugenics

This is something you'll not hear about when the founder of Canadian Medicare is lauded in a documentary on Canada's public broadcaster Sunday and Monday.

Ted Byfield writes:

But the truth is that "the Greatest Canadian," up to his mid-30s, like many others of the Canadian and American left, was a passionate believer in eugenics. After Hitler showed the world how eugenics would work out in practice, the left made a panic-stricken flight from the cause, often adopting new organizational names, such as eugenicist Margaret Sanger's "Planned Parenthood of America."

However, some were unfortunate enough to leave inextinguishable tracks behind them, and one of these was the CBC's "Greatest Canadian." Douglas's thesis for a master's degree in sociology at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, published in 1933, the year of his 30th birthday, reads like something out of "Mein Kampf."

Applying good eugenics doctrine to his chosen land, the Scottish-born Douglas described at length and in painful detail his solution for Canada's economic problems. Canadians must be bred scientifically, he said. People of lesser intelligence or deficient morality – natives, criminals, adulterers are specifically designated – should be sterilized. Homosexuals who persist in their perverse conduct should be incarcerated in insane asylums.

On and on it went, and 11 years after it was published its author headed in the province of Saskatchewan North America's first socialist government. All of this embarrassing past, judging from the reviews, was delicately omitted from the CBC's panegyric.

Yet here was an opportunity to raise several interesting questions. For one, why were so many people drawn into the eugenics movement, in fact still are drawn into it? Because, of course, it appears to have the indispensable (if unauthentic) ratification of "science." After all, we breed plants and livestock to achieve satisfactory results. Why not breed people in the same way?

Why not?

If you believe the West's humanist story of ever-evolving mankind, then why not hasten the process?

If you shudder to think of these consequences, then find yourself in the other great Story of creation, fall, and redemption found in the Bible. Byfield points out the Catholic Church was staunchly opposed to eugenics. Thank God for the Holy Catholic Church.

Why "from sea to sea to sea" doesn't cut it

Ottawa Citizen columnist John Robson in full satirical flight over the latest move by some politicians to change Canada's motto "from sea to sea" to "from sea to sea to sea" to recognize contributions of the Arctic, and I dunno, maybe note that Global warming has turned the ice cap into a sea along our northern border:

The Citizen series on how the Arctic is still quite cold says Canada needs a new motto. Satirists of the world unite. After all, we are funny in both senses. But given our equally famous passion for the bronze, let me try to come up with something worse.

Like “Canada: It’s Not So Bad.” Bashful, yet smug. (That’s good too.) Or “Nice Unlike Those Awful Americans.” Looking outward, “The Duty to Protect... Except in Darfur.” Or “We Won’t Fund Hamas... Except with Money.” Or “Afghanistan Is Dangerous?” Or “Just Enough Backbone to Posture.” Or “Vichy, Vimy, Invade Norway” which as a bonus is easy to chant.

-snip-

Our actual slogan, thanks to a 1921 order-in-council, is “A mari usque ad mare” which means “From sea to sea” or “D’un ocean a l’autre.” E pluribus drivel. The northern premiers want a motto recognizing that Canada goes all the way to the Arctic Ocean even if most citizens don’t. (Go to the Arctic Ocean, I mean, though given modern education methods they may also not know about it.) The Yukon premier said “a north-south perspective along with an east-west perspective ... is vital to our future as a federation.” Canada: Where Mush and Hyperbole Meet. His Northwest Territories colleague said “This would be a signal both to Canada and the rest of the world. ... The U.S. doesn’t accept that the Arctic waters are Canada’s waters. And we need to reinforce that they are.” Canada: Where Rhetoric is Reinforcement. Or Jack Layton’s contribution: “Symbolism is very important.”

-snip-

The difficulty, beyond the cacophony (Hail ad mare ad mare, lacking grace) is that the original comes from (gasp) the Bible. Before the psychedelic flood the Dominion of Canada had Dominion Day and a motto from Psalm 72 about Solomon’s dominion from sea to sea. Why rewrite Psalms? Let’s substitute something from The Origin of Species or Thus Spake Zarathustra or a post-modern autobiographical novel about the hero’s harrowing, albeit invented, struggles with addiction.

Recovering the Biblical story

The Work Research Foundation's new ezine Comment Magazine landed in my email box today with an interesting cover article by Dr. Michael Goheen entitled Human life is shaped by some story.

Goheen quotes Lesslie Newbiggin in this summation of the two competing stories in the West:

In our contemporary culture . . . two quite different stories are told. One is the story of evolution, of the development of species through the survival of the strong, and the story of the rise of civilization, our type of civilization, and its success in giving humankind mastery of nature. The other story is the one embodied in the Bible, the story of creation and fall, of God's election of a people to be the bearers of his purpose for humankind, and of the coming of the one in whom that purpose is to be fulfilled. These are two different and incompatible stories.

Goheen writes:

When we speak of the biblical story as a narrative we are making a normative claim: it is public truth. It is a claim that this is the way God created the world. The story of the Bible tells us the way the world really is. It is, in the language of postmodernism, a "metanarrative" or, in the language of Hegel, "universal history." Thus, the biblical story is not to be understood simply as a local tale about a certain ethnic group or religion. It makes a comprehensive claim about the world: it is public truth for all people and all of human life. It begins with the creation of all things and ends with the renewal of all things. In between, it offers an interpretation of the meaning of cosmic history. Therefore, it makes a comprehensive claim. Our stories, our reality must find a place in this story.

Goheen goes on to lament the fact that churches these days are not doing a great job of grounding people in that story.

We have fragmented the Bible into bits—moral bits, systematic-theological bits, devotional bits, historical-critical bits, narrative bits, and homiletical bits. When the Bible is broken up in this way there is no comprehensive, grand narrative to withstand the power of the comprehensive, humanist narrative that shapes our culture. The Bible-bits are accommodated to the more all-embracing cultural story, and it becomes that story—the humanist story—that shapes our lives.

One of the reasons why I'm grateful to Traditional Anglicanism, with its daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer, is that I have a program for living within that Christian narrative all the year long. I am steeped in it. It feeds my imagination, my mind, my soul, my spirit. Not only are we going through the Old Testament once a year, the New Testament twice a year, the Book of Common Prayer will juxtapose readings that resonate with each other, where prophecies or types and shadows of the Old are fulfilled in the New.

Our adherence to the Church calendar means that throughout the year, we are living through the story of our Lord's life on earth. Not only do we commemorate Christmas and Easter, but the Annunciation, the Visitation, the Presentation, Christ's Baptism, the Beheading of John the Baptist, you name it, and whole seasons like Advent and Lent, Epiphany and Ascensiontide.

I agree wholeheartedly with Goheen's premise that we are shaped by the story we believe and its clash with humanism and I'm grateful for the way the old-fashioned approach helps me be shaped by the Biblical story.

Goheen writes:

The Bible tells one story about the world and human life while another equally all-embracive story shapes our culture. Christian discipleship always takes cultural shape. So in the life of the Christian community there will be an encounter between two equally comprehensive stories. When the church really believes that its story is true and shapes their lives by it, the foundational idolatrous faith, assumed in the cultural story, will be challenged. Thus, it offers a credible alternative; it calls for conversion.

One of the problems in the Church today though was highlighted in a noon hour talk I attended given by Rev. George Sinclair, who is head of the Essentials movement in the Anglican Church in Canada.

He talked about sin and redemption and how rare it is to hear that language used in churches he visits. Instead we are hearing about inclusion, acceptance and unconditional love.

Sinclair said unconditional love is really a humanist term, introduced by psychologist Carl Rogers and the proper term for God's love is unfailing love, not unconditional.

At a recent meeting with a young couple doing ministry at the University of Waterloo, one of them said that students today have lost any understanding of the concept of sin. Well, that figures. If you live inside the humanist story, you are evolving and improving and sin is a structural problem that you can blame on the government or the system that is somehow corrupting your innocent, ever improving nature.

Sinclair's talk reminded me of one that New Testament Scholar Edith Humphrey gave last February in Ottawa.

I wrote back then:

OTTAWA—New Testament Scholar Edith Humphrey says the debate over homosexual eroticism—which threatens to divide the Anglican Church--is the “tip of the iceberg” already scraping the hull of the whole Christian Church

She says the next debate will be about the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world.

Under the surface are deep divisions over the authority of Scripture, the Church’s traditional interpretation of the Bible, the role of reason and of human experience, the associate professor of theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary told hundreds of concerned Anglicans who packed a downtown Ottawa church Feb. 11.

Revisionist theologians are talking about experience as if it trumps Scripture and everything else, she said.

They’re heeding other sources rather than the Bible and assuming that they know more about human sexuality than those who wrote the New Testament, she said.

Humphrey warned that what’s being preached is a new gospel of “inclusivity and welcome” instead of the “Gospel of redemption, transformation and healing.”

While the new gospel involves a “vague idea of acceptance,” the traditional Christian Gospel demands repentance and obedience, she said.

Humphrey, a Canadian who obtained her doctorate at McGill, says the problems facing the Anglican Church cut across denominational lines and the side effect might be to force faithful remnants in each group closer together.

“The time is coming when it’s not going to be comfortable to be a Christian,” she said. “God has ways of bringing about unity, but it will not be comfortable.”

The idolatrous, humanist story of our culture is inside the church, complete with the pop culture references, the MBA business models, and the feel-good bits cherrypicked from the Scripture. All that inconvenient, uncomfortable stuff about sin, the need for repentance, and the price Jesus paid to redeem us all, is increasingly pushed aside.

While I get a steady diet of it whenever I go to my little cathedral, it was bracing to hear Sinclair today so on fire for the true Gospel. And great to see the Comment Magazine tackle these conflicting stories head on.

Men's groups seeks rights to opt out of child support

NEW YORK - Contending that women have more options than they do in the event of an unintended pregnancy, men's rights activists are mounting a long shot legal campaign aimed at giving them the chance to opt out of financial responsibility for raising a child.


The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit — nicknamed
Roe v. Wade for Men — to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter. The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.

The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood. The activists involved hope to spark discussion even if they lose.

Thanks to Texas Rainmaker for the link. He has done some interesting analysis of this question here.

Christian persecution and prayer alert

Here are the latest grim stories about Christian persecution from Voice of the Martyrs.

Church attendance rises in Pakistan after attacks

From Aid to the Church in Need's website:

Königstein/Ts. – Sukkur. Mass attendance has doubled in the weeks since a church in south-east Pakistan became the latest target of violence by angry protestors bent on revenge. Defiant in the face of an upsurge of intimidation, more than 1,000 faithful have been flocking weekly to St Mary’s Catholic Church, Sukkur, which on Feb. 19 was reduced to a charred wreck, along with parish classrooms.

A mob of thousands armed with explosives and petrol bombs descended on the town in the Sindh province before breaking down the parish gates and setting fire to almost everything in sight. The attackers made for St Mary’s after gutting St Saviour’s, Sukkur’s main Protestant church, which was reduced to a smouldering ruin. Both St. Saviour’s and St Mary’s have reported significant increase in church attendance since the attacks, with the Catholic congregation meeting in a half-built school hall in the absence of their church.

It was standing room only in the hall last Sunday (March 5), when the local Catholic Bishop, Mgr Max Rodrigues of Hyderabad, praised the parishioners for their courage and faith. Speaking to Aid to the Church in Need (ACN) staff after the Mass, Bishop Rodrigues said: “What is happening here in Sukkur really does show how true it is that the blood of martyrs is the seed which leads to the flowering of faith.” He went on to explain: “This is a time of persecution for the Church and the Christians of Sukkur are sending out an important signal that they are going to hold true to their faith in spite of violence and intimidation.”

The attacks in Sukkur were sparked by a family dispute in which a man who had converted from Christianity to Islam accused his father-in-law of having burned pages of the Koran in a desperate bid to seize a house. When reports about the issue were broadcast, Muslim anger spread fast, exacerbated by the newspaper cartoon controversy. The government has pledged to compensate Christians for the loss of St Mary’s and St Saviour’s and have already made an initial payment to cover basic emergency costs.

I also received this from the group via email:

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Nigeria views with grave concern the unwarranted killing of scores of Christians, including a Catholic priest, Rev. Fr. Michael Gajere, and the wanton destruction of many Christian Churches, homes and business premises in Maiduguri on Saturday February 18, 2006, allegedly following a public protest over an offensive cartoon that was published in a Newspaper in far-away Denmark, in September 2005. Reports reaching us show that when, after several hours, the ominous dust settled over Maiduguri, as many as 50 Christians had been murdered in cold blood, hundreds had been wounded or maimed, 40 Church buildings had been razed, and several hundreds of homes and business premises belonging to Christians, had been destroyed. Included in the destruction spree were the residence of the Catholic Bishop of Maiduguri, and at least six Catholic parish premises. As has now become usual, these reprehensible acts of savagery that were perpetuated in Maiduguri, as well as the reprisal killings witnessed in Onitsha and elsewhere in the country, have been blamed on faceless hoodlums and extremists. Even that does not make the tragic incidents any less condemnable.

It seems to us that the Nigerian state has once again failed to secure the lives and properties of innocent citizens against the criminally minded in the society. The Police in Maiduguri seem to have been taken totally unaware even when our antecedents should have informed them that in the prevailing circumstances such an attack on Christians was an imminent possibility in the major cities of Northern Nigeria. Or are we to conclude that they simply looked the other way while the carnage lasted for several hours? Indeed many surviving Christians in Maiduguri are already expressing their suspicion that the Security Agencies in that State were engaged in a criminal conspiracy with the murderers and arsonists. This is not good for our country.

What is even more disturbing to us is that nearly one week after such a tragic event that challenges the very basis of our corporate existence, with potentially destabilizing effects on our nation state, the Federal Government has not yet deemed it fit to address the nation on this tragedy.

Here are excerpts from a report from Voice of the Martyrs:

As Muslims demonstrated against the Mohammed cartoons first published in Denmark, they turned their anger toward local Christians. The demonstrators began destroying shops and homes owned by Christians and burned at least thirty church buildings. Many of those who were killed were beaten to death in the streets of the city. The Nigerian newspaper, "The Daily Sun" recounted the story of Joseph Tukwa who watched helplessly as six of his children were burnt to ashes. Father Matthew Gajere was killed in St Rita's Catholic Church after heroically saving the lives of the altar boys who were present.

-snip-

On February 20, other riots erupted in the city of Bauchi, unconnected to the Danish cartoons. They began after a teacher tried to confiscate a Quran from a student who was reading it during class. Word got out alleging that the teacher had desecrated the Quran. Muslim youths retaliated by setting fire to two churches and to several vehicles on the streets. Police responded with tear gas. When this failed to restore order, they opened fire with live bullets. At least ten people were killed and over one hundred were treated for injuries.

Three charged in string of Alabama church fires . . .

But they say it started as a lark, but subsequent fires were set to throw off investigators.

UPI reports:

BIRMNGHAM, AL, United States (UPI) -- Three Alabama college students were held Thursday in a string of nine rural church fires that struck southwest of Birmingham last month.

One of the suspects was quoted as saying the fires began as 'a joke and it got out of hand,' CNN reported.

-snip-

They admitted involvement, authorities said. No one was injured in any of the blazes.

'We believe this is an isolated instance,' Alabama Gov. Bob Riley said. 'We don`t think that there is any type of conspiracy against organized religion.'

All nine fires occurred in rural counties southwest of Birmingham on Feb. 3 and Feb. 7. Five of the churches had predominantly black congregations, four mostly white members.

What are they teaching university students these days?

Mark Bertrand on the Oscars

My fellow Masters Artist Mark Bertrand has a post up on the Oscars that links to an interesting criticism of Crash, one of the few contenders I saw, and a movie that I liked.

Dave Taylor writes:

That CRASH movie is Leftist Fundamentalist Melodrama
I can't believe they won. It's not like I was rooting for Brokeback Mountain, but on craftsmanship alone BMN romped all over CRASH (hm, pun not intended). As the LA Times film critic Carina Chocano put it, CRASH was a "grim, histrionic experiment in vehicular metaphor slaughter." Case in point, the following line of bad, bad, bad dialogue:

"I think we miss that sense of touch so much, we crash into each other just to feel something."

Ba-dum. That's about as good Omega Code material, maybe a teeny bit worse. Watching the movie, I couldn't escape the feeling that I was an outsider to the ideology inspiring the whole project. What seemed to writer-director Paul Haggis so perfectly justified and passionate, to me looked like a bunch of portentous ironies and contrived coincidences. See here for examples.

As I see it, there is one major problem and one curiosity. The problem is a failure of allusivity. The script, not so much the acting, neither hinted nor suggested nor gave us the possibility of genuine ambiguity. Instead it pummeled us with the believers-only message: I'm a racist, you're a racist, we're all a racist all the time and in the same darn ways. CRASH was no MAGNOLIA , no SHORT CUTS.

Mark responds:

Why does this resonate with me? Probably because I've spent more time than I'd like to admit cutting all the elbow nudges out of my novel. There's always that temptation to make sure readers "get it," and the only way to be certain is to beat them over the head. Again and again. I worry sometimes that my fiction will turn out like one of those seventeenth century portraits where the sitter is pointing cryptically to a line of text in a book. "Look! Right there! Get out your highlighters. It's the hidden meaning."

-snip-

Folks who see art as a means of disseminating hidden and not-so-hidden messages don't like all this talk about "ambiguity." Why would you want to handle the truth ambiguously? I agree there are times when an unambiguous approach is best -- no sense in making mysteries of what is plain -- but the emphasis on ambiguity isn't just a tribute to the virtues of uncertainty. It's about preserving for the reader an essential task of reading: interpretation. Allusivity is about making connections possible, about giving readers something to ponder. I want to write books that lend themselves to interpretation. Not because I don't have a perspective I'd like to share, but because part of my perspective is beyond my ability to share, and in sketching something larger than I can comprehend, I hope to make it possible to go farther in my fiction than even I was able to go in my thought.

This may not be the approach for everyone. The success of Crash may demonstrate yet again that it's possible to ignore such considerations and thrive. But speaking for myself, the disappointing aspects of my own work are the ones that can be reduced to their "issues" or "meanings" without further need for the story itself. When your ideas can be communicated more clearly outside of fiction, maybe fiction isn't what you should be writing.

Interesting.

I didn't experience Crash as quite so didactic as Taylor seems to have. I also think that it is possible to have a clear message on the surface that also has layers and meanings that are open to deeper interpretation and meaning.

In recent years, there has been an attempt among some in CBA circles, to move away from preachy, didactic fiction where the "take-away message" is not hammered into the readers' heads. That has meant stripping a lot of overt religious content.

However, I don't think that stripping religious content and preachiness are necessarily the same thing. For example, Marilynne Robinson's Gilead is chock full of religious content, but as far as I know people are not complaining about its being preachy.

I also think it has layers of meaning.

While I understand what Mark is driving at---that somehow you write fiction because you don't know the answers and hope that in striving for understanding through working out the art, you will come to something deeper that your finite intellect cannot quite comprehend--I fear that sometimes the reverence for mystery has meant a reduction in clarity, an avoidance of anything with any taint of dogma, and thus only leaves people confused rather than confronted with something greater than what they comprehended before.

I guess I say this because The Defilers is explicitly religious and I did definitely have something I wanted to say that I hope I said without getting preachy. But the novel also explores areas that are a mystery to me, that I'm still working out, so I hope it also has some deeper levels, too. One of the most gratifying things that ever happened to me was having a reader tell me something about my main character that I myself hadn't realized.

He said he though Linda's regimented schedule was an effort to compensate for the fact she had no center. Right on! I would never have put it that way, but his insight made me see my own main character in a new light.

More hawkish approach to Islam expected

Another story of mine published in the Western Catholic Reporter this week:

Predictions are Benedict will take a hawkish approach to Islam

Pope Benedict XVI is expected to take a "more hawkish" approach to Islam than his predecessor, says Vatican analyst John Allen.

Speaking at a March 2 seminar at McGill University's Newman Centre, the correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter said the pope is more likely to demand reciprocity on religious freedom and the protection of religious minorities within Muslim countries.

Allen explained, however, there have been two schools in the Vatican on how to deal with Islam.

One approach has been dovish, and featured attempts to reach out to Muslims and address the social justice issues at the root of any grievances, he said. That view believes the Muslim world "needed patience."

Pope John Paul II's reaching out to both Jews and Muslims revolutionized the Church's relationships with these faiths, but Allen pointed out the "go easy, be patient" approach has always been the subject of "dissent and resentment."

The big issue is that of reciprocity on religious freedom. Allen said that Saudi Arabia financed the building of the largest mosque in Europe in the shadow of the Vatican, yet Saudi Arabia allows no churches at all. It doesn't even allow Bibles.

The one million Catholics on the Arabian Peninsula risk arrest by the religious police if they worship even privately off the foreigner compounds, he said.

Pope stands up for objective truth

As I reported earlier, I attended a seminar by Vatican analyst John Allen that provided me with material for a couple of stories that have been picked up by the Western Catholic Reporter. Here they are:


The Pope targets relativism

Vatican correspondent and author John Allen jokes that many North Americans expected a "great flushing sound of dissidents" being washed out of the Catholic Church when Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became pope.

Instead, the new pope's first year has been full of surprises.

Author of The Rise of Benedict XVI: the Inside Story of How the Pope Was Elected and Where He Will Take the Catholic Church, Allen told a seminar at McGill University's Newman Centre March 2 the pope has no specific reflections on the Canadian Church, but lumps it in with the West and the developed world.
The agenda

"For the developed world, the pope does have an agenda," he said, one he described as an "attempt to reverse the dominant views that shaped the last five centuries."

First on his agenda is to "challenge the dictatorship of relativism" and bring people back to an appreciation of objective truth. Allen said the pope recognizes people have a great fear of those who proclaim absolute truth. The Nazis claimed to have it, and brought about the Second World War and the Holocaust. The Soviet Union proclaimed it, and millions died as a consequence.

"Now young Muslim men will strap dynamite on and blow up supermarkets in the name of absolute truth," he said.

"The sophisticated response seems to be relativism."

This enshrining of diversity, however, has led to the abandonment of the idea of objective truth and the inviolability of human dignity, he said, placing the most vulnerable in society at risk.

Second on his agenda will be to challenge the libertarian idea of freedom, which the pope sees as a "tremendously impoverished view."

Allen says in Benedict's view, true freedom comes in finding one's "whole human potential" and becoming "who God wants you to be."

The pope's view is not about limiting behaviour, "it's about opening a door to walk through to open up full human potential."

Benedict's first encyclical Deus Caritas Est - God is Love - is meant to combat the notion that the Church is "about control, about a power-hungry Church afraid of the modern world." Instead, the encyclical is about a "love affair with Christ.

"At least he seems to have people's attention," Allen said. "Church insiders have been absolutely dazzled by what they've seen from this pope."

"He is simply the most intellectually profound global leader on the stage today."

Kirpan decision divides Canadians

In Quebec, the Supreme Court of Canada decision overturning a Quebec court decision upholding a school council's ban on Kirpans from public schools has resulted in much dismay. The highest court said in this case that religious belief and conduct cannot be separated in this case, as baptized Sikh males are required to carry one at all times, even when sleeping.

Constitutional lawyers who have intervened on religious freedom issues applaud the decision. As I wrote this week, in a story carried in this week's Western Catholic Reporter:

Lawyers say the recent Supreme Court of Canada (SCOC) decision upholding the right of a Sikh student to wear a kirpan to a Quebec public school is a positive affirmation of religious freedom.

"It is gesture in favour of pluralism and accommodation of religious differences," says constitutional lawyer Peter Lauwers, who has intervened on behalf of religious groups on a variety of religious freedom issues before the courts.
Rights violated

In the March 2 unanimous decision, the SCOC ruled the public school's kirpan ban violated the student's rights under the charter.

"The interference with G's freedom of religion is neither trivial nor insignificant, as it has deprived him of his right to attend a public school," says the decision written by Justice Louise Charron. The school commissioners had prohibited kirpans for safety reasons after the dagger fell out of then 17-year-old Gurbaj Singh Multani's clothes four years ago.

Lauwers says outward signs of the religion have to be tolerated and would extend to crosses, stars of David and other religious symbols.

The court did say the school could place restrictions on the kirpan for safety reasons, for example making sure it is blunt, sheathed and sewn inside the boy's clothing.

Lauwers sees the decision as beneficial for Catholics attending public schools because it would make it difficult for the school to prohibit religious symbols or T-shirts.

If a restriction on religious practice has the effect of driving someone out of the public schools, the court has said in this case it's an infringement of Section 2 (a) of the charter, he said.

The decision has been highly controversial, especially in Quebec, where the majority population tends to be more secularist.

Quebec writer Brigitte Pellerin in a March 7 Ottawa Citizen column describes Quebec reaction to the ruling as "overwhelmingly negative."
Quebec reaction

"Outside Quebec, Canadian society is so worried about, in the words of the Supreme Court, 'showing respect to its minorities' that it's forgetting what made Canada Canadian," she writes.

Brigitte Pellerin has written her second Ottawa Citizen column on the Kirpan decision and applauds the Quebec reaction, saying it stems not from xenophobia but the idea that Quebec is a melting pot rather than a cultural mosaic as the Rest of Canada (ROC) sees it.

It's not xenophobia, let alone racism. It's a clear, widespread rejection of multiculturalism in favour of a Quebecois version of the American melting pot. As Premier Jean Charest explained last spring when the National Assembly passed a unanimous, bipartisan resolution opposing shariah in Quebec and in Canada, "we are very much an inclusive society, but a society that will govern itself by one set of rules." Those who don't like it are free to run for office and try changing the rules, or go live someplace else.

There are things I dislike about the Quebec model. But I agree with Quebecers' belief in one law for all, and admire their willingness to stand up for it without embarrassment.

While I am much more in favor of the melting pot model than the mosaic model, I have deep concerns for the right to practice my Christian faith in public in Canada, so I'm grateful for the affirmation of religious freedom in the Supreme Court decision.

What the lawyers who have been intervening on a variety of religious freedom cases realize but the rest of Canada does not, is that Canada no longer has a majoritarian Christian consensus. Christians, at least those who are serious about their faith, not nominal Christians who don't believe, realize they are not only a minority, but an increasingly marginalized group that is often the brunt of smears and outright demonization.

They fear that a new majoritarian consensus--a one size-fits-all notion--of liberalism will descend that will be rabidly secularist and intolerant of any views that disagree with it. I agree with them.

Yet I am not with the multiculturalists either, who view every part of the cultural mosaic as equal, and all truth as relative, regardless of what that group believes and practices.

Yeah, maybe I yearn for the days when Christians were the majority in the West, but I am realistic about the fact that those days are long gone. All we can hope for is to protect religious freedom in general, within some reasonable confines of natural law and the common good, so that Christians can still have a voice at the table in a pluralistic society. And I hope that the secular, pluralistic society will recognize and cultivate its rootedness in the Judeo-Christian and natural law traditions of Western Civilization.

So...melting pot, yes, recognition that that melting pot has swirled into it some different strains and flavors that are like a sweet and sour soup and that the public square must accommodate genuine differences of opinion and public practice on a range of things within a rule of law that applies equally to everyone.

Anti-Bush films got the most Oscar nominations

Peter Howell writes in the Toronto Star:

David Cronenberg says his critically acclaimed A History of Violence was snubbed for major Oscar glory because Hollywood's "anti-Bush, anti-conservative" elements felt the film's message was too subtle.

He's also upset with fellow Canadian filmmaker Paul Haggis for using the title Crash for the movie that won Best Picture on Sunday night, since that was the title of Cronenberg's award-winning 1996 movie.

Opening up yesterday for the first time about his frustrations with the Oscar nominations and awards process, the veteran Toronto director said he believes politics were at play. Any film that didn't directly challenge the policies of President George W. Bush wasn't going to gain Academy favour this year.

"I have a feeling there is a lot of `anti-Bushness' in those nominations, for which I can blame nobody because I would be that way, too," Cronenberg told the Star.

"And those movies that were nominated in many ways had a much more obvious anti-Bush, anti-conservative bent to them. Maybe my movie was too ambiguous and disturbing in terms of accepting the sort of exhilaration aspect of violence that is there in us as well. It's hard for me to feel that they didn't get it. Maybe they did get it and they didn't like what they got, you know?"

A History of Violence shows the insidious nature of violence, and graphically illustrates the folly of trying to solve problems at the end of a gun. But it also shows how satisfying violence can be to those who feel retribution is necessary, as demonstrated by how audiences frequently broke into applause at scenes in which star Viggo Mortensen took the law into his own hands.

And while we're on the subject of the Oscar's, Peggy Noonan uses her Wall Street Journal Column to talk about why Americans are turning away from Hollywood.

But there's another challenge, an obvious one, and in the long term a bigger one. You don't have to be a genius to figure out that viewership of the Oscars is down because movie attendance itself is down, and that movie attendance is down because Hollywood isn't making the kind of movies that compel people to leave their homes and go to the multiplex.

There are those who think Hollywood hates America, and they have reason to think it. Hollywood does, as host Jon Stewart suggested, seem detached from the country it seeks to entertain. It is politically and culturally to the left of America, and it often seems disdainful of or oblivious to its assumptions and traditions.

I don't think it is true that studio executives and producers hate America. They are too confused, ambivalent and personally anxious to sit around hating their audience. I think they wish they understood America. I think they feel nostalgic for what they remember of it. I think they find it hard to find America, in a way.

I also think that it's not true that they're motivated only by money. Would that they were! They'd be more market-oriented if they cared only about money. What they care about a great deal is status, and in their community status is bestowed by the cultural left. This is an old story. But it seems only to get worse, not better.

If a lot of the American audience, certainly the red-state audience, assumes Hollywood hates them, they won't go as often to the movies as they used to. If you thought Wal-Mart hated you, would you shop there?

Thanks to Kathy Shaidle at Relapsed Catholic for the Noonan link, and for one to this column by Ann Coulter.

I believe this marks the first time in Oscars history that an award recipient shouted, "Thank you, Jesus!" upon receiving his award. Admittedly, this was the only part of the speech that didn't have to be bleeped and it was for a song titled, "It's Hard Out Here for a Pimp," but it's still a step forward.

And speaking of how hard it is out there for Pimps, Dr. Sanity has re-written the Oscar winning song.

IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A WIMP

You know it's hard out here for a wimp (you ain't knowin)
When he's dancin like a Soros pimp (you ain't knowin)
All the principles and vote money spent (you ain't knowin)
Just to let a lot of lunatics vent (you ain't knowin)

In my eyes I done seen some crazy thangs in the House
Its my job however no matter what to grouse
How we love to play the lefty game even tho' it ain't the same
As when Bill did the Oval Office; just this po' mouse
Done seen Joseph rant, done seen Chuckie lie
Done seen Nancy, Ted and Barbara cry
I've sucked up the big bucks, but that's just how it is
It might be new to you, but it's been like this for years
It's blood sweat and tears when it come down to fightin' Bush
And the outrage du jour always gives me such a rush
I'm tryin to be a leader but it's hard fo' a wimp
'Cuz it takes balls and I already walk with a moral limp, yeah

Church accused of intransigence and rigidity on moral issues

The national organization that represents 230 congregations of Catholic religious priests, men and women has sent a document critical of the Catholic hierarchy both in Rome and in Canada. Here's a round up of some of the coverage, including my own.

In Catholic Online: Canadian religious criticize church on sexual rigidity, gays, women, clericalism

OTTAWA, Canada – Representatives of more than 200 Canadian religious orders have written the Canadian bishops, criticizing the church for being rigid and intransigent on sexual morals and unwelcoming to homosexuals, having a "clerical mentality" and being unwilling to give women decision-making roles.

The 26-page letter from the Canadian Religious Conference addressed to the Canadian bishops also said it regretted the bishops' lack of independence from the Vatican.

"We hope that our church will position itself closer to the major issues of the world: impoverishment, inequalities, rights and roles of women, defense of the disenfranchised, respect for the environment and the safeguarding of humanity," the religious said in the letter, written in advance of the bishops' "ad limina" visits to the Vatican this year. Heads of diocese makes such visits every five years to report on the status of their dioceses.

In the Western Catholic Reporter: Religious orders knock 'intransigent' Church

Compassion must be balanced with the high ideals of Church teaching, otherwise the Church risks putting aside the Gospel.

That's how the president of the Assembly of Quebec Catholic Bishops responded to a controversial letter from the Canadian Religious Conference (CRC) criticizing the Catholic Church.

The letter says the Church is rigid and intransigent on sexual morals, unwelcoming to homosexuals, has a "clerical mentality," and is unwilling to give women decision-making roles.

-snip-

In a March 6 telephone interview Saint-Jerome, Que., Bishop Gilles Cazabon stressed that the Church must be compassionate, but added: "If we put aside these high ideals, we put aside the Gospel, basically."

"If we push aside the Gospel, well what are we going to become? We are going to become a people gathered around a very vague doctrine, with no specific identity, and I would say with no impact on humanity as such."

LifeSiteNews.Com: Organization Representing Canadian Religious Orders in Open, Major Public Dissent from Rome

The Canadian Religious Conference (CRC), the official organization representing the over 200 religious congregations in Canada (groups of monks, nuns and priests organized into religious orders), has publicly voiced dissent to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The controversial statements come in a letter and document written by Alain Ambeault C.S.V., the President of the Canadian Religious Conference, which intends to make suggestions to Canadian bishops as they go for their once-every-five-year visit with the Pope in the coming months.

"Today, I speak for the 230 religious congregations (sisters, brothers, priests) that live in this country," writes Ambeault in an intro letter to the document outlining concerns sent to the bishops.

The document takes issue with Church teaching on divorce, contraception, condoms and even assisted suicide. "We regret," says the CRC, "In terms of ethics and bioethics, the holding up of an ideal that leaves little room for advancement and progress; the defence of principles that do not reflect human experience (divorce, contraception, protection against AIDS, alleviation of suffering at the end of life)."

The document further laments Church teaching against homosexuality. "We regret," the document says, "The legalistic image of the Catholic Church - and of our Canadian Church - its rigidity and its intransigent stands on sexual morals; its lack of openness regarding access to the sacraments for divorced and remarried Catholics, its lack of compassion for them; its unwelcoming attitude towards homosexuals."

John Allen reported on the document in The Word From Rome last week.

Since the 1960s, the French-speaking church in Quebec has acquired a reputation as among the most left-leaning in the world, and two events this week offered vivid reminders of the point.

He goes into detail about the CRC letter and a recent letter by 19 Quebec priests.

He writes:

Canadian sources told NCR that the 19 priests are generally known in Quebec as liberal critics of church leaders on many issues.

Here is the story I did on the priest's letter, as published in Western Catholic Reporter.

Harry Potter leads Episcopal priest to Wicca

I'm so glad I'm a Traditional Anglican and not part of the Canterbury Communion when I read stories like this. (Thanks to LifeSiteNews.com for the link.)

Q: How long have you been a part of Wicca? "I left the Episcopal priesthood in 1997. My sense is that the strain of leading a Christian flock while not fully being able to believe the message I was preaching finally dropped me into what might be called a very early mid-life crisis. I went through a couple of years of therapy and soul-searching — one of those times when a person really asks what she/he is about, what she/he believes, what life holds. I had always been interested in spiritualities of most any kind.

"During that time I read the Harry Potter books along with my children. My curiosity about the world of Harry Potter led me to do an Internet search on magic, which led me to Wicca. Online, I became acquainted with people from a Wiccan group in Flint. Eventually my wife and I went there and immediately felt we had finally found our spiritual home."

I've been following with interest the controversy over Harry Potter, and this article seems to give credence to the contention of people like Michael D. O'Brien who have argued the Potter books are spiritually dangerous.

O'Brien gives some nuanced and spiritually discerning reasons to be cautious about the books.

Like O'Brien, however, I'm not in the Potter book burning camp either. I just agree spiritual discernment needs to be exercised. I hate book burnings, flag burnings, and effigy burnings.

Is it a war against terrorism? Islamofascism? Or Islam?

I happen to be in the 'it is a war again Islamofascism' camp. I imagine (and hope)there are sincere Muslims who abide by the strictures of their faith, who understand jihad as a personal spiritual struggle and not a physical battle against the infidel and who pose no threat to the West. I resist efforts to demonize non-violent Muslims or lump them in with the Islamofascists. I understand their hurt when they are, because I don't like the way Christians are frequently demonized.

The problem is, however, there are so many Islamofascists and their power and reach seems to be growing worldwide. And while people focus on the war on terror and on certain key individuals, the pernicious jihad-based ideology continues to grow, fueled by money and support of the very governments that are allegedly allies.

Here's a sobering comment on Pakistan from Hugh Fitzgerald at Jihadwatch.

The government of Pakistan does nothing to prevent jihad from being jihad -- that is, it does nothing to prevent the widespread dissemination of hostility and hate toward Infidels.
No state that fails to change, or even to attempt to change, that ideology, can be called an "ally" or a "key ally."

Pakistan is neither. It is a country filled with people hostile to Infidels They vary mainly in the degree of that hostility, and in their willingness to carry out acts of aggression against those Infidels. Pakistan is not a "key ally." It is not an "ally." It is, and permanently will be, a menace to all Infidels. Though Mohammed Ali Jinnah himself was relaxed, drank wine, and did not foresee quite the Islam-only state that Pakistan became, he was, being a worldly and less fanatical Muslim, one more of those fooled by the power of Islam itself. In this respect Jinnah was like those Iraqis in exile who forgot what Islam was like. He forgot, just as they have now, the seething resentments, irrationality, inability to control rumor and conspiracy theories, and inshallah-fatalism in both economics and politics that it has inspired. It was no accident that the first response of the Iraqis to the coming of American troops was not to pitch in to rebuild their country, but to exhibit a "wake me when it's over attitude" toward the Americans -- as if those Americans did not do enough in upending Saddam Hussein, but now must turn Iraq, and pronto, into New York and Los Angeles.

This perspective seems to fall into the "Islam is the problem" camp.
However, Muslims in the West have concerns about what's happening to their young people.

Check out this story from a U.S. Arabic newspaper about dangerous efforts to indoctrinate dissaffected Muslim teens, often turning them into a terror against their own parents. Read all the excerpts over at Christians Under Attack.

In an article published in the London Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Dr. Muhriz Al-Husseini, director of the Center for Dialogue and Research and editor of the U.S.-published newspaper Al-Minassa Al-'Arabiya, warns that religious extremism and ignorance are spreading among the young generation of Muslims in the U.S
The following are excerpts from the article: [1] Adolescents and Plant Bogus Ideas About Islam in Their Minds

"At a time when Arab and Islamic leaders and organizations are investing great efforts and large amounts of money and time in order to improve the image of Islam and of the Muslims, some imams are working in an organized manner to brainwash adolescents in the Muslim community and to plant bogus ideas in their minds concerning Islam, jihad, takfir [accusing other Muslims of apostasy], heresy and the way [Muslim] society has strayed from the right path. They give them interpretations of Koranic verses that have been [deliberately] chosen so as to lead them to rebel against their parents, their families, and even against the society in which they live.

"[The youths] neglect their studies and spend their time watching videotapes and listening to audio tapes - most of which are given to them for free - on ways to train Muslim youth in military and ideological jihad, along with reports on the suffering of Muslims in some Muslim countries, as well as Koranic verses and sermons that encourage jihad, martyrdom, self-sacrifice, and the striking of terror into the hearts of the enemy."


"Many Muslims Families are at Risk of Falling Apart"

"The natural consequence of these misleading actions is that many Muslim families are at risk of falling apart because of the wrong turn that their children's religious thinking has taken. Some of these youths - victims [of religious brainwashing] - are awaiting trial, and some are serving time in juvenile prisons or are under close and continuous security surveillance, since they relate to others with aggression and are trying to spread [Islam] through violence and calls to jihad...

"There are agents of various nationalities - both Arab and non-Arab - who mingle with these adolescents and choose from among them individuals with specific traits that make them susceptible to brainwashing - young people who have a natural tendency for misbehavior and who accept violence as a means of imposing their views and their way."

Christians Under Attack is going to be a regular stop for me.

I recall reading somewhere during the car-burnings and riots among "youths" in France last December that a father told a reporter that he had no control over his son, a 14-year old, who had pulled a knife on him. My heart goes out to parents who came to the West hoping for a better life, who work hard, practice their faith and mind their own business, who find the pernicious combination of gangsta underclass culture, the welfare state and its promotion of perpetual victimhood, along with the most virulent aspects of Islamofascism turning their children into monsters they hardly recognize. Monsters as dangerous to them in their moderation as they are to anyone else.

Theodore Dalrymple has some of the best observations about how many of these so-called Muslim youth know extremely little about their faith, and are as much products of modernity and the West as their religion. In fact, the disciplines of the faith are not part of their repertoire, except they adopt the worst aspects of subjugation of women and hatred of the infidel.

But among the third of the population of the cités that is of North African Muslim descent, there is an option that the French, and not only the French, fear. For imagine yourself a youth in Les Tarterets or Les Musiciens, intellectually alert but not well educated, believing yourself to be despised because of your origins by the larger society that you were born into, permanently condemned to unemployment by the system that contemptuously feeds and clothes you, and surrounded by a contemptible nihilistic culture of despair, violence, and crime. Is it not possible that you would seek a doctrine that would simultaneously explain your predicament, justify your wrath, point the way toward your revenge, and guarantee your salvation, especially if you were imprisoned? Would you not seek a “worthwhile” direction for the energy, hatred, and violence seething within you, a direction that would enable you to do evil in the name of ultimate good? It would require only a relatively few of like mind to cause havoc. Islamist proselytism flourishes in the prisons of France (where 60 percent of the inmates are of immigrant origin), as it does in British prisons; and it takes only a handful of Zacharias Moussaouis to start a conflagration.

Note what Dalrymple says about the poor parents of some of these kids.

But human society, like nature, abhors a vacuum, and so authority of a kind, with its own set of values, occupies the space where law and order should be—the authority and brutal values of psychopathic criminals and drug dealers. The absence of a real economy and of law means, in practice, an economy and an informal legal system based on theft and drug-trafficking. In Les Tarterets, for example, I observed two dealers openly distributing drugs and collecting money while driving around in their highly conspicuous BMW convertible, clearly the monarchs of all they surveyed. Both of northwest African descent, one wore a scarlet baseball cap backward, while the other had dyed blond hair, contrasting dramatically with his complexion. Their faces were as immobile as those of potentates receiving tribute from conquered tribes. They drove everywhere at maximum speed in low gear and high noise: they could hardly have drawn more attention to themselves if they tried. They didn’t fear the law: rather, the law feared them.

I watched their proceedings in the company of old immigrants from Algeria and Morocco, who had come to France in the early 1960s. They too lived in Les Tarterets and had witnessed its descent into a state of low-level insurgency. They were so horrified by daily life that they were trying to leave, to escape their own children and grandchildren: but once having fallen into the clutches of the system of public housing, they were trapped. They wanted to transfer to a cité, if such existed, where the new generation did not rule: but they were without leverage—or piston—in the giant system of patronage that is the French state. And so they had to stay put, puzzled, alarmed, incredulous, and bitter at what their own offspring had become, so very different from what they had hoped and expected. They were better Frenchmen than either their children or grandchildren: they would never have whistled and booed at the Marseillaise, as their descendants did before the soccer match between France and Algeria in 2001, alerting the rest of France to the terrible canker in its midst.

Those excerpts come from Dalrymple's prophetic 2002 essay Barbarians at the Gates of Paris.


We need to wake up here in the West. We need to clean up our own act, because we are partly responsible for this mess. It is not just the West against a religion that "never went through the Reformation" and is "still stuck in the dark ages." It is a malignant combination of the worst features of Western society and the worst features of Islam, an entirely modern entity. Becoming more secularist is not going to save the West. Reviving our Judeo-Christian roots, finding faith in what is good, true, just and loving, and becoming fruitful and multiplying because we know the Truth, is the only means of salvation.

Something wrong with the blog on Explorer

I have been using Mozilla Firefox as a browser, so I didn't realize something had gone screwy with this blog on Explorer. I'm trying to get the problem fixed soon! It still looks fine via Mozilla.

If you click on the "continue reading" link at the bottom of any post you want to read, the blog restores to its proper formatting and you'll find the post easier to read.

Sorry!

Brokeback Mountain helps release man from his past

Great article over at Christianity Today by Dennis Belkofer about his dirty former little secret.

Perhaps if I had known what Brokeback Mountain was about, I would have reacted differently to its preview. During those five short minutes, I unexpectedly relived the bumper-car ride that had been my own secret struggle with homosexuality. That angered me. But I also identified with the bond between Ennis and Jack that seemed to defy who they really were. I, too, had known the forbidden fruit of a secret homosexual relationship when I was in my early 20s. It was a relationship driven by desires, feelings, and emotions I didn't understand or want. Yet they were there. Watching Ennis and Jack took me back to my own Brokeback Mountain, which made me curious to learn more about Jack and Ennis's relationship. That curiosity made me feel guilty. Fully aware of my past, I knew going to see Brokeback Mountain could be risky business.

I wish I could say that I prayed to get God's okay to see the movie, but I didn't. Against my better judgment and what the Lord may have thought, I went. I entered the theater one afternoon on a day I took off from work to go Christmas shopping. I hoped to avoid running into someone I knew. But there was one person I couldn't avoid—God. He knew I was there in the dark, buried in my seat. And I was about to learn in a new way just how far his grace can extend.

Read the whole thing. It is honest and beautiful.

I boycotted the Academy Awards and awoke this morning to find . . .

Crash won for Best Picture!

Mark D. Roberts has this to say:

Crash made me think, about our society, and about myself. Crash made me look at myself in the uncomfortable mirror of excellent art. In his acceptance speech for the Original Screenplay Oscar, Paul Haggis said that art isn't a mirror in which society sees itself, but rather a hammer by which to mold society. Whether you agree with this idea or not, Crash takes a few whacks, not only at racism, but at the superficial way in which racism is often portrayed. Crash demands that we all look into our own hearts, whether we're privileged Anglos or underprivileged Blacks, whether we're up-and-coming Hispanics or struggling Asians.

Mark D. Roberts is one of the best contemporary apologists for the Christian faith out there. Sign up for his email alerts for his excellent series on myriad topics. He writes like an angel.

Brussels Journal on the 3-way culture war

Paul Belien at Brussels Journal has some great analysis of the three-way culture war going on in Europe, as debated recently in the Dutch Parliament.

That battle is going on in North America as well--the secularists vs. the Islamists vs. the Christians and their allies of other faiths, including Muslims and Jews, who don't like Islamofascism but they don't think secularist fundamentalism that would banish all religion from the public square is the answer.

Belien nails a particular weakness among some otherwise sound positions taken by a Dutch Christian Democrat: appeasement.

The hodgepodge list of Mrs Van Ardenne’s four “radical secularists” indicates that her analysis, though partly right, is partly flawed as well. In an appeasing fashion she denies that there is a clash of civilisations going on between the West and the Islamic world on the one hand, and stresses the clash between the secular and the non-secular world on the other hand. In reality (as was pointed out in an earlier article on The Brussels Journal about the call for an EU “clampdown on homophobia”) a three-way culture war is raging in Europe between secularists, Christians and Muslims. On some issues Christians and secularists team up against Muslims, on others issue secularists fight Christians and Muslims alike.

There are two circumstances under which a culture war becomes highly problematic, namely when certain parties, such as the radical Islamists, do not shun violence in order to impose their views, or when certain parties abuse the power of the state to impose their views on others. The latter is what is happening in the EU, where radical secularists are restricting the freedom of speech, and even the right to conscientious objection of religious people because, as Mrs Van Ardenne correctly points out, they regard religion as a dangerous relic of an “un-enlightened” past.

If one is to maintain a peaceful, tolerant multicultural society, two prerequisites must be met. First, no matter which of the three sides (secular, Christian or Muslim) one belongs to, violent extremists must be fought, also by people from their own side. This means that moderate Muslims must oppose the Jihadist Islamists as vigorously as Christians and secularists do, and that non-Muslims must support the moderate Muslims against the extremists. Second, it is essential that freedom of expression and the right to conscientious objection is guaranteed for everyone, no matter how “un-enlightened,” “backward,” “offensive” or “downright stupid” they may be. Here Mrs Van Ardenne is wrong and her critics are right: this is, indeed, a matter of principle. But the same principle implies that people who do not wish to be confronted with certain expressions are not pestered with them, let alone forced to pay for them.

I agree with Belien, especially the part I put in bold. Many religious leaders have come out in Canada speaking of the need for responsibility to be exercised with freedom of speech. I agree. Freedom of speech is not an end in itself, it exists so that the truth can be spoken and published. One might discipline oneself and show restraint for the benefit of the common good. But I am totally against government imposed censorship, because truth is often the first thing suppressed when governments get involved.

By the way....whatever happened as a follow up to that Manifesto against Islamism?
Was there any reaction when it was actually published?

The Toronto Star had this story March 1.

In the story written by Francine Kopun, one of the Manifesto signers Irshad Manjii is quoted as saying:

"I decided to do it because it's important for the public to know that even a faithful Muslim can — and does — support free expression," Manji wrote in response to questions emailed to her by the Star. "Tolerance of intolerance is a betrayal of our basic and shared humanity."

She said she's anticipating hostile reaction from Muslims like the one who said to her last week: "You and that bastard partner Rushdie ..." but says she's received lots of support from younger Muslims especially, who want to reconcile religious belief to free expression.

She calls that good news. "Only five years ago, such a statement would have been almost universally condemned by Muslims. Now, more and more reform-minded Muslims are discovering their voices."

While it is good news that younger Muslims want to reconcile religious belief and freedom of expression, the article goes on to show some other reaction against the Manifesto:

Some Canadian Muslims deplored the manifesto.

"It's quite a childish kind of ranting of these people. I also note a kind of desperation in their tone," said Zafar Bangash, President of the Islamic Society of York Region. He said some of the signatories are lapsed Muslims, including Rushdie. "All of these people are misfits as far as Muslims are concerned. What they are saying is quite racist and is Islamophobic."

The manifesto will serve only to increase Islamophobia, which is already on the rise, said Jamal Badawi, professor emeritus at St. Mary's University in Halifax. Depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist in the cartoons, which were reprinted in Europe, the U.S., and three publications in Canada, implied that he preached terrorism. The cartoons fostered the idea that Muslims who follow his path are terrorists who should be subjected to mockery, hate and violence, he said.

Muslims in Denmark were also critical of the manifesto, according to a news story to appear in Jyllands-Posten today, said the paper's night editor Steen Hansen. "They think it's too confrontational, too right-wing extremist."

Profile of some Eygptian bloggers

One of them is Egyptian Sandmonkey, who told the blogosphere the Danish cartoons had been printed in an Egyptian daily during Ramadan last October with no riots.

A visit to his site tonight pointed me to this story in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

CAIRO, Egypt - The young Egyptian sitting in the garden of a T.G.I. Friday's restaurant here, smoking a hookah and talking politics, is known to most people as an investment banker.

His other life is carefully concealed, even from family. Only trusted friends know his secret identity.

He's "Sandmonkey," the Web blogger.

The name is meant to mock a slur against Arabs, adopted when he started his blog a year ago. With a warning to readers that he is "extremely cynical ... pro-U.S., secular, libertarian, disgruntled," the blog challenges the appeal of Islamic terrorists and the misperception of a solidly anti-American Middle East.



"The view they (Americans) are getting from the Arab world, which is one-sided, is that everyone hates them, which isn't necessarily true," he said.

Many Arabs are free only to "scream and rant" against Israel and America, he said. Yet "ask any one of those protesters if they want a green card" enabling them to live and work in the United States, and "they would be all over you."

That should tell you something.

The Lovesong of J. Alfred Kerry by Dr. Sanity

For lovers of T.S. Eliot and those who experience an involuntary gag reflex whenever having to watch or hear Senator John Kerry, Dr. Sanity has done a brilliant rendition of the Lovesong of J. Alfred Kerry.

It is brilliant, laugh out loud funny. Please do read the whole thing. Here is a peek.

Let him speak then, far and wide,
As politics becomes a great divide
Like some senator etherised upon a table;
Let him speak, in Democratic whining,
The sorrowful opining
Of restless nights in swift boats of the past
And a Christmas in Cambodia that didn't last:
A voice that monologues like a tedious argument
Of insidious intent
To lead you to an overwhelming question
Oh, do not ask, “Why is he running?”
Let us just assume he's funning.

In the room Teresa comes and goes
Buying Michelangelos.

And while you're over at Dr. Sanity's site, check out her Carnival of the Insanities.

Muslims could get upset about this cartoon, too---

Wouldn't if be ironic if the Saskatchewan student newspaper that refused to reprint the Danish cartoons "out of respect for Islam" gets a fatwa against them because it prints a disgusting, hurtful cartoon of Jesus. After all, Jesus, too, is revered as a prophet in Islam. However, the Christian response is to pray for the cartoonist and the editor and other staffers who are so lost as to think something like this is funny.

Lost Budgie, who has been following this story with many updates, says:

What Do I Want from the University of Saskatchewan? Just the truth...

Publish the Mohammed Cartoons - or admit that the refusal to publish the cartoons is based upon fear of Muslim Violence rather than "respect" for religion.

Or, simply admit that the University of Saskatchewan respects Islam but not Christianity.

Just the truth. That's all.

The cartoon is so disgusting that I can't even describe it here. If you want to see more about it, visit Lost Budgie or Small Dead Animals, were I found the first link to the story.


While I won't republish the cartoon here, I defend the rights of bloggers to reprint them, and even the right of the foolish paper to print it for the first time, too. Lost Budgie has a good explanation for his rationale for republishing it.

Lost Budgie has also printed a list of advertising sponsors of that paper, and as I go pick up my Danish grocery items this week, or plan to fly anywhere, I will keep those sponsors in mind when I make my choices.

Kate also has a link to another hurtful anti-Christian cartoon.


Now there are some other Jesus cartoons that some Christians might find offensive, but I don't. The Christ on Campus 'toons lack the hatred and defamation of the "not enough lions" cartoon, and they lack the obscene profanation of the sacred in the Saskatchewan cartoon. Well, having had another look, not all of them lack that. Some are pretty offensive.

And I found this satire of Evangelical language that I have been known at times to use myself funny, but maybe other Christians would find it offensive.

I also haven't minded the lampooning of Christians that I've seen in the Simpsons.

Does Writers' Edge get you beyond the slush pile?

Not if your manuscript belongs there, I say.

Terry Pilcher interviewed me for this article:

The overall opinion of 1st Edition and the Writer’s Edge by writers in online groups is that these companies aren’t scams, and the reason they don’t work is that most writers who use them aren't yet ready for publication. Deborah Gyapong submitted a proposal to the Writer's Edge several years ago and received a request from an editor for the completed manuscript. Although no contract resulted from the experience, she says, "While many may argue that it's extremely rare for anyone to see a contract come out of Writer's Edge, I would say it's probably more due to people like myself who think they're ready long before they even realize how much more work is needed on the manuscript."

Terry Whalin, fiction editor at Howard Publishing, does look at the Writer’s Edge listings each month. “I did request several entries at my previous publisher and tried in a couple of cases to pitch the books but never contracted a single one.” Like Deborah Gyapong, he thinks the problem with slush piles, electronic or printed, is, “the large volume of poor submissions.” His suggestion is to, “produce quality submissions for publishers and your material will stand out.”

If you think your proposal is ready for publication, go back and edit it again using books about book proposals to find new things to add. “Book Proposals that Sell” by Terry Whalin is a great choice for non-fiction authors. Fiction authors should buy “Self-Editing for Fiction Writers” by Browne and King. While polishing your proposal, make sure you’re doing everything you can to market yourself as a reputable writer on the book’s topic. Then, send your book proposal to a manuscript critique service. Find publishers who print books like yours and accept unagented proposals, tailor your proposal to their guidelines, and start sending it out. Submit your proposal to the Writer’s Edge or 1 st Edition if you feel confident that their service is for you.

Seven years after Deborah Gyapong unsuccessfully submitted her novel, “The Defilers” to the Writer’s Edge, she won the 2005 Best New Canadian Christian Author Award for the same novel. Augsburg Fortress is publishing it in Spring 2006. “I’ve spent hours and hours on it since then,” she says. “The basic story is the same, just far more polished.”

You may not sell your first book, but if you keep working and improving your skills, you, like Deborah Gyapong, will reach your goal of publication.

I confess, the novelty of seeing my name in print, whether it is in an article or as a byline, still hasn't faded away.

Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide

I have been thinking of the words to this hymn often since the Danish cartoon controversy exploded. I've been thinking of it in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan as the citizens of those countries must choose between a pluralistic democracy and theocratic Islamofascist terror.

I've been thinking about it in relation to moderate Muslims all over the world who need to do more to stake out their opposition to the fanatics who are ruining the image of their religion. And who must do so even at the risk of their lives.

So, seeing pictures of this massive rally against terrorism in Bahrain is heartening. (Thanks to Gateway Pundit for the links.)

We in the West need to think about these words also. Fence-sitting is not an option. Do we stand up for truth against falsehood, good against evil? Can we please pull ourselves out of the mire of political correctness and moral relativism and wake up?

Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.

Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

On the march in support of Denmark

Whether you agreed with the publishing of the cartoons or not, that a whole country should be punished with boycotts, embassy burnings, and fatwas forcing cartoonists into hiding because a newspaper exercised freedom of the press is unconscionable.

One of our basic freedoms is at stake in the West.

A rally is planned for Toronto next Saturday to show support for Denmark in the wake of the cartoon controversy. Other cities have rallies planned.

I also believe our basic freedoms are also at stake from the inroads of secularlists who would lump all religions in with Islamofacism and who like to exercise freedom of speech to attack Islam or Christianity, but would put dissenters from their secular fundamentalist creed in front of a human rights tribunal on hate crimes charges for advocating heterosexual marriage.

I also think there is a difference between putting up an anti-religious cartoon on the editorial page so it becomes equivalent to a newspaper editorial---opinion supported by the newspaper--and running pictures of the cartoons to show what the controversy is about. That's what the Western Standard did. It is outrageous that Indhimmigo-Chapters (to coin a phrase from Mark Steyn), Canada's big box bookstore chain, refused to carry the magazine for running the cartoons.

Thanks to Kate McMillan at Small Dead Animals for the link.

When history comes a-calling . . . .

Mark Steyn in an interview with Hugh Hewitt:

When history comes a-calling, you never have a choice between good or bad options. They're only between bad and much, much worse options. And the reality of today is that we're dealing with problems that could have been, would have been easier to settle twenty years ago. If we don't settle them now, they'll be much more difficult, if not impossible to settle in ten years time.

It is not just us vs. the Islamofascists. . . .

In the West, those of us who care about preserving our rich heritage fight a battle on our own turf, and how that battle plays out will determine how we fare ultimately against Islamofacism.

We also fight against secularists, who would lump Christians into the same camp as the Taliban.

Secularists believe the state grants human rights. They think rights exist in the American Bill of Rights or Canada's Charter or in some UN document, and are subject to evolution as the times change. They believe in a one-size-fits all conception of liberal democracy that evolves like a living tree and political correctness is their primary tool of suppressing dissent. In Canada they like human rights tribunals. They have their own brands of fundamentalism. It is a form of faith or belief, though non-religious.

Classical liberals and traditional conservatives believe that God grants every human being inalienable rights by virtue of the fact that each one of us is created in the image of God. The first and foremost right is our right to life. States only recognize rights human beings only have, and governments exist to protect those rights. Governments have to answer to an objective, transcendent truth and concept of justice. That truth curbs power.

Now the Missouri Legislature is looking recognizing its Christian heritage in a resolution that reads:

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

As Gateway Pundit aptly points out:

Unfortunately, the media has not been honest in its reporting on this story and the raging left is going nuts!

He pointed me to Another Rovian Conspiracy, who contrasts the actual resolution with news coverage about it.

It's clear that the purpose of this resolution isn't the establishment of Christianity as an official religion of the State of Missouri... rather, its purpose is to express the sentiment of the Missouri House that voluntary prayer in schools and religious displays on public property should be allowed. Keep in mind that this is NOT a bill... it's a resolution.

Are KMOV and Atrios (by extension) being disingenuous? Could they (and should they) have provided the full text of the resolution to their readers?
Clearly.

Is this the "Taliban wing of the Missouri Republican party imposing its will on the people?
No.

I say it's about time resolutions like this were passed. Far from being a theocratic document that imposes a state religion, it recognizes the fact that the rights and freedoms we cherish in a pluralistic West are based on something, rooted in something that happens to be the Christian faith.

We are greatly, greatly weakened by the secularists in our midst.

As Christopher Hitchens said in an interview with Hugh Hewitt recently, some not only sympathize with the other side. They are on the other side.

CH: Well, there are people on that fringe, and on the left, Michael Moore fringe as well, who I think, in fact, I would say I knew, because I know some of these people, either have declared themselves to be on the other side, in other words, they support, they think of as liberators, the Islamist Salafist beheaders and bombers. They think of them as a third world guerilla force, right?

HH: Right.

CH: The people who are actually like that, they're not appeasing at all. They're simply flat out on the other side. And there are those who I think just wish it could go away. In the whole of Mr. Fukuyama's very plaintive and mediocre essay, all I could find was a kind of nostalgia. He wants the simple world back, where people like Henry Kissinger were considered experts in statecraft. This is a much tougher world, and I'm very glad to find that we're training a battle-hardened army to confront what's clearly going to be a very long civilizational conflict.

Now, Hitchens is great when it comes to Islamofascism. But he, too, is a secularist who will find the Missouri resolution appalling, I would imagine.

Now...if I have to have a choice, I could chose secularism over Islamism.

But the West will not survive unless we revive its Judeo-Christian roots. Otherwise, we will have nothing but decadence to pass onto our grandchildren.

Why shouldn't they be allowed this?

Since November 2002 when plans for the new Catholic university were first announced, Monaghan has spoken unapologetically throughout Southwest Florida about his desire for the campus and the town to be free of topless bars, strip clubs and adult bookstores.

As Kathy Shaidle points out at Relapsed Catholic, the article shows the intitial media spin on this story--that the Catholic town would impose its values on residents--was false. No, there are hopes merely of attracting likeminded people.

Yet why shouldn't a community--whether it is predominantly Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness or a combination thereof be allowed to choose not to have topless bars, strip clubs and adult bookstores?

Why shouldn't it be allowed to tell hotels in their community they can't offer porn channels? Censorship you say? Well, those who feel their rights are being squeezed can go to New Orleans or the red light district of some other big city where this kind of sleaze used to be segregated from the lives of ordinary families trying to bring up their children. When one frequented the peep shows and porn stores of these districts, usually wearing a raincoat, one was considered a dirty old man. Now most of us are bombarded with badly spelled email invitations to view things even the dirty old man of the 1950s might find appalling.

I'm all for intentional communities being able to set their own rules--within bounds of criminal law, i.e. I'm not for female circumcision or multiple wives under any circumstances. In fact, intentional communities might be the only way to save our civilization from the darkness that is coming.

What about my rights not to have to have pornography, anti-family establishments and anti-Christian propaganda shoved into my face every time I turn around?

Now you can have an XXX video store across the street from a Baptist church, a strip club looming over a small farming community, and a club offering lap dancing within walking distance of my condo, to say nothing about what's on my TV on the public airwaves after 10 p.m.

I wonder....if a group of gays and lesbians who wanted to form an intentional community where they were free of any moralizing from Christian churches about their lifestyle, banned Christian bookstores, and banned ISPs from carrying Christian websites that spoke of deliverance from the gay lifestyle, would we hear one peep from the MSM? I doubt it. They would probably do center page spreads on what a great idea it is.

When Vatican reporter John Allen spoke in Montreal earlier this week, he stressed how Pope Benedict's first encyclical Deus Caritas Est was meant to challenge the view that the Church is a power-hungry, rules-based institution that just wants to exercise control over people. That latter view is rampant. And, in my opinion, it is a smear. The Pope wrote about how God is love and the freedom that comes from being in love with God and finding one's whole human potential. Allen says that's the message the Pope wants to get across. And that has been my experience as a Christian. I've tested the so-called freedom of doing whatever pleases me. I discovered that what I thought was freedom ended in slavery to the very behaviors that I thought liberated me. Only through Christ could I get free. And n Him is joy, peace and love like nothing the world can give.

Take one small example. Cigarette smoking. Back in my late teens, I chose to smoke a cigarette now and then with friends. Soon I was hooked. Smoking became compulsive. Even if I was able to quit for short periods, the craving remained, and so did the thought patterns making me constantly think about cigarettes. Even if we can stop smoking on our own power, usually something else replaces it, like overeating. As Jesus said, we sin and we become slaves of sin. Through prayer and counting on Christ's power, I found freedom. We can either be slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness.

Those who think the constant bombardment of sex, violence and the occult does not have a negative impact on our freedom are only running away from their enslavement. They are like the drunks who surround themselves with drinking buddies so they don't have to admit they have a problem.

Morning prayer readings posted

The readings for Morning Prayer have been posted at the Daily Offices. I'm trying to post them every day. Join me if you want to add some extra Bible-reading and prayer to your Lenten observances.

No media show up to cover rally in support of Denmark

A noon rally took place in New York City today in support of Denmark, and, according to Atlas Shrugs, no media were there.

There was no media. NONE. Imagine if it were a Muslim rally.

Go on over and take a look at the pictures. Buy Danish.

Thanks to Jihad Watch for the link.

The enemies within

No wonder Islamist countries think the West is decadent and weak. Our ranks are rife with sympathizers to their position.

We don't have to look any further than Hollywood.

Take a look at some of these posts about the Oscar nominations.


Little Green Footballs turned me onto this link to an interview with the director of a film glorifying a suicide bomber.

And Dr. Sanity led me to this column by Charles Krauthammer:

In my naivete, I used to think that Hollywood had achieved its nadir with Oliver Stone's ``JFK,'' a film that taught a generation of Americans that President Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA and the FBI in collaboration with Lyndon Johnson. But at least it was for domestic consumption, an internal affair of only marginal interest to other countries. ``Syriana,'' however, is meant for export, carrying the most vicious and pernicious mendacities about America to a receptive world.

Most liberalism is angst- and guilt-ridden, seeing moral equivalence everywhere. ``Syriana'' is of a different species entirely -- a pathological variety that burns with the certainty of its malign anti-Americanism. Osama bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction.

What "the latest real Jesus" tells us about ourselves

Mark Shea has an interesting post on The Da Vinci Code and what views of "the latest Jesus" say about us:

Thanks to Kathy Shaidle over at Relapsed Catholic for the link.

He writes:

The basic rule of thumb to use whenever one encounters a brand new "real Jesus" who is trendy yet radically at odds with the ordinary teaching of the Church is this: Every new "real Jesus" reveals far more about us than it does about Him.

-snip-

In the 1960s and 1970s, Jesus morphed into a Flower Child in Godspell and a Rock God in Jesus Christ Superstar. In the 1980s, New Age "prophets" discovered a "real Jesus" who offered the same sort of "get rich and heal your inner child" twaddle they offered. In the 1990s, gay rights advocates suddenly found a homosexual Jesus in the blasphemous play Corpus Christi.

In our time, we live in a popular, celebrity-obsessed culture that's fascinated with the sex lives (real and imagined) of the rich and famous. We also live in an age that has seen the rise of feminism and that prizes something called "spirituality"—an amorphous New Age benevolence that affirms us in our "okayness."

Quebec still has a spiritual pulse

SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATE

I spent the day in Montreal yesterday, attending a lunch hour seminar by Vatican journalist John Allen on Pope Benedict XVI and his agenda for the North American Church, and and evening lecture with Allen and Canada's Catholic Primate Cardinal Marc Ouellet also on Benedict and their personal reflections concerning what kind of papacy he'll have.

Will blog more on this later, but during the evening event I was struck by the packed auditorium at McGill University--they had to turn people away--and the expressions of love on the faces, young and old.

John Allen was funny, wise and thought-provoking. And Cardinal Ouellet radiates holiness. What a blessing to Canada that man is. His humility and depth and the joy on his face communicates the message that Benedict XVI has on his agenda--to proclaim that God is love and His service is perfect freedom.

Quebec is the most secularist province in a country that is already farther down this road of secularism and political correctness than the U.S.. During the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, Quebec's churches emptied.

Far more children are born out of wedlock in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. The power of the Church was overthrown. Perhaps it had too much political power and the pendulum swung back too far in the other direction. I don't know enough about the history to make that assessment, though that's the prevailing spin.

From what I saw last night, the Church is very much alive in Quebec, alive in a good way.

John Allen writes about Cardinal Ouellet and last night's talk in The Word from Rome at the National Catholic Reporter.

He writes:

In the run-up to the 2005 conclave, some people (myself included) saw Ouellet as a candidate for the papacy. Just 61, he may well have another bite at the apple before his career is over.

Ouellet is multi-lingual and multi-cultural; he lived and taught in Bogotá, Colombia, wrote his dissertation in German on Hans Urs von Balthasar, and speaks Italian and English in addition to French, German and Spanish. A Sulpician priest, he's a former secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. He drew high marks during his tenure in the Curia and is well regarded in Rome. He is associated with the Communio school, and is a devotee of von Balthasar, whom he knew personally. He's strong on Catholic identity, including passions for Eucharistic adoration and Gregorian chant. He has also been critical of the 1960s "Quiet Revolution" in Quebec, which he believes promoted a kind of cultural relativism. People who have worked with Ouellet describe him as friendly, humble, and flexible.

Read it all. Allen has some excellent observations about the Church in Quebec.

The picture shows Cardinal Marc Ouellet and John Allen. One of Allen's lenses is frosted up as he just stepped into the auditorium from outside.

I was going to go to the gym but . . .

I found this great stuff on the web:

Mark Steyn on Brokeback Mountain:

Well, each to her own. I saw Brokeback in Montreal and Stephen Harper was the furthest thing from my mind. At the moment of "struggle and surrender between the two men," I don't recall looking at Jake Gyllenhaall and thinking, "The West wants in." But to Ms. Langlois the scene underlined the impotence of Stephen Harper. Not compared to being taken in the manly arms of Heath Ledger, I hasten to add, but his broader socio-politico-cultural impotence. "I came out of the cinema," wrote Ms. Langlois, "and thought of Harper because I realized how truly powerless he is--no matter that he now holds the so-called reins of power--against the rising tide of cultural acceptance for gays."

Read the whole thing. It's really about how another danger looms on the horizon that could end cultural acceptance for gays, but despite my support for traditional heterosexual marriage I definitely do not want to see Mark's prophetic glimpse come to pass.

Hugh Hewitt on the Da Vinci Code.

This is his contribution to the site Sony has set up to allow Christians to rebut its own movie! And some Christians are encouraging people to see the movie in order to use it as an apologetics moment. As I posted earlier, I will probably be taking Barbara Nicolosi's advice and going to the movies on opening day of DVC to see anything else. But...Hugh's advice is good in general for sound reasoning and gentle responses to people led astray by the book, movie or the culture in general.

Dr. Sanity has a great post with good links on what's really happening in Iraq. I tell you, it's one reason why I no longer rely on any but a few columnists in the MSM anymore.

Oh, back to Hugh Hewitt again. This post would have blown the top of my head off in annoyance if I weren't all prayed up thanks to Ash Wednesday.

I detest the moral equivalence of the MSM.

So glad I'm not working inside it anymore and having to call terrorists insurgents or militants.

Mastering the art of blogging

I asked Google a question on how to use trackback links and came across this site.

Video demonstration and everything!

However, I'm not sure I successfully installed Haloscan. If it pops up for this post, maybe I have done so.

Let's see.

Well...the only thing that seems to have worked is that I have the Haloscan logo on my page, but no comment section.

Sigh. My brain is full. I'm going to take a break.

Ash Wednesday

David Warren has a wonderful Lenten meditation here.

The Anchoress has some reading suggestions for Lent.


And, if you want to know what the readings are for Mass and Evening Prayer from the Book of Common Prayer, follow the links to The Daily Offices.

We must not forget Ilan Halimi's persecution

This is a horrible story but we need to look at it, absorb it, and do something about it.

Thank you Gateway Pundit for reminding us. He also reports that rights groups are silent about it. Mark Steyn has reported that the MSM has neglected to mention the torturers religious affiliation.

When the MSM broadcasts over and over pictures of American soldiers using nakedness, humiliation and scare tactics against Abu Ghraib prisoners but neglects to show Saddam's shredder, the gassing of whole villages, the beheadings out of respect for not going beyond the bounds of good taste, then no wonder people are falling for the paralyzing lie of moral equivalence.

Powerful images of Western wrong contrasted against the odd paragraph here and there to describe far worse atrocities, then no wonder people think Bush is worse than Hitler.

Open your eyes folks. This is what you're up against.

And what should you do about it?

If you have a Christian faith, stop being lukewarm about it.

Let your faith remove fear and paralysis.

Be fruitful and multiply. Bring up your children to love and serve God and love their neighbor. Bring them up to be virtuous. If the West doesn't reproduce itself, or only produces selfish libertarians with one designer child, then no manifesto will save our grandchildren.

If you can't do that yourself, support those who do. How about providing a scholarship so a family with lots of children can send their kids to a private school featuring a classical education?

Help revive the roots of Western civilization. Educate yourself. Encourage those who are trying to do that too.

Find the perfect love that casts out fear. Abide in the peace that passes understanding. Put on the armor of God. And get out there and fight the good fight!

This is the manifesto I can sign onto

But it is not the one many of my favorite bloggers, like Gateway Pundit and Dr. Sanity support.

Another favorite, Relapsed Catholic, shares my reservations. And so does Reliapundit, who comments on Dr. Sanity's site.

UPDATE: Brussel's Journal also has reservations. (Link thanks to Michelle Malkin)

If I'm going to stand shoulder to shoulder with Europeans, this is the manifesto I have signed onto. I hope it gets more play:


The West is in crisis. Attacked externally by fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism, it is not able to rise to the challenge. Undermined internally by a moral and spiritual crisis, it can't seem to find the courage to react. Our affluence makes us feel guilty and we are ashamed of our traditions. Terrorism is seen as a reaction to our errors, whereas it is nothing less than an act of aggression against our civilization and against all human kind.

Europe is at a standstill. Its foreign policy lacks unity, its birth rate is declining and so is its competitive edge in the world market. Europe hides and denies its own identity, and so fails to gain popular support when called to adopt a constitution. It hops on the anti-American bandwagon and drives a wedge between itself and the United States.

Our traditions are questioned. Our heritage, dating back thousands of years, is denied in the name of secularism and progressivism, thus impoverishing the values of life, of the person, of marriage and of the family. It is affirmed that all cultures are equally valid. The integration of immigrants has been left rudderless and without rules.

As Benedict XVI said, nowadays "The West doesn't love itself any longer". To overcome this crisis, we need to increase our commitment and show more courage when dealing with issues regarding our civilization.

The West

We are committed, in the name of a shared historical and cultural tradition, to reaffirming the value of Western Civilization as a source of universal and inalienable principles, and to opposing any attempt to place Europe as alternative or antagonistic to the United States.
Europe

We are committed to founding anew a fresh European spirit that seeks inspiration from the founding fathers of European unity, wherein lies Europe's true identity and strength, enabling it to speak to the hearts of its citizens.

Security

We are committed to dealing with terrorism anywhere, considering it a crime against humanity. We will undertake to deprive it of every justification and support, to isolate all organizations that threaten the life of civilians, and to counter all those who preach hatred. We are committed to give full support to our soldiers and to our security forces who safeguard us both at home and abroad.
Integration

We are committed to promoting the integration of immigrants in the name of shared values and the principles of our Constitution, without, in any way, accepting that the rights of any one group should prevail on those of its individuals.

Life

We are committed to supporting the right to life, from conception to natural death, and to considering the unborn child as "someone" whose rights must be balanced against others, and never as "something" easily to be sacrificed to other goals.
Subsidiarity

We are committed to supporting the principle of "as much liberty as possible, as much State as is necessary". This underscore the Christian and liberal primacy of the person and of intermediate bodies of civil society, and highlights the role of political power as an instrument for assisting the free initiative of individuals, families, associations, businesses and volunteerism.
The Family

We are committed to affirming the value of the family as a natural partnership based on marriage, which needs to be protected as distinct from any other kind of union or bond.

Liberty

We are committed to spreading liberty and democracy as universal values held to be true just as much as in the West, East, North or South. A privileged few may not live at the expense of the slavery of many.

Religion

We are committed to reaffirming the distinction between Church and State, without giving in to the secular temptation of relegating the religious dimension solely to the individual sphere.

Education

We are committed to defending and promoting freedom of education without denying the public function of instruction. We therefore intend to establish full equality and recognition for both state and private schools, applying the general principle of subsidiarity in this sector as well.

Italy

We are committed to making our homeland even stronger and to highlighting the values of conservative liberalism so that the growth of public and individual freedom may develop at the same rate as the preservation of our common heritage. People who forget their roots can be neither free nor respected.

The West is life. The West is civilization. The West is freedom.

Ash Wednesday

It's first thing in the morning and I'm about to do Morning Prayer, old-fashioned Anglican style.

If you'd like to join me, I have put the pattern from the Book of Common Prayer along with today's readings here at The Daily Offices.

Join me on my Lenten journey.