Why is it that a Muslim cabdriver can refuse a fare carrying alcohol, but Catholic pharmacists can't refuse a customer who wants birth control, or refuse to carry birth control? I am duly annoyed at this double-standard.
I'll bet Muslim shopkeepers can refuse to carry alcohol, too.
Unmoved by clear references to "bride" and "groom" in the law, a judge has ruled that Rhode Island does not expressly prohibit same-sex marriage and so couples there can get married in Massachusetts. I would argue that if they can't get married in Rhode Island, then Rhode Island prohibits same-sex marriage.
I wonder if that "expressly" proviso is "expressly" in the 1913 law that governs the situation.
This is just ridiculous if you ask me ... of course, you can't argue that RI didn't have enough time to head such a move off at the pass.
What a crying shame. Statism at its worst. Reported by the Family Research Council:
Government School Indoctrination Declared European "Human Right"
The European Court of Human Rights recently upheld a German government decision to bar Christian parents from homeschooling their children. Although European countries have differing policies toward homeschoolers, Germany forbids parents to practice it for religious reasons. After losing in the German courts, Fritz and Marianna Konrad appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. Despite explicit language in international law declaring that "the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure...education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions," the court ruled, ironically, that "pluralism" required the government "to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions." Apparently only a monolithic, state-run "pluralism" is allowed. This incident shows why many Americans worry about judges in this country citing foreign and international law in their decisions, rather than relying on our own laws and Constitution, to which they have sworn their loyalty. Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor yesterday warned in a Wall Street Journal op-ed against harsh criticism of judges—for relying on international law and for other forms of judicial activism—as a "threat to judicial independence." The case of Konrad v. Germany is an illustration of why we—not judges—should fear for our independence.
Radical overturns of traditional morality and culture occur so frequently nowadays that it's easy to become inured to them. Another one is threatening to happen in Canada, with a case where a lesbian is petitioning to be named a child's third parent, even though Canada only recognizes two parents. Apparently, the child was born with the help of "assisted human reproduction", whatever that means.
The Canadian courts seem to be saner than ours, since one court actually ruled that it did not have the authority to make the decision. Can you imagine one of our courts ruling that?
Now I consider this whole situation to be deplorable. But it seems to me that if you're going to use "assisted human reproduction", e.g. if the child was conceived by IVF by a contract of some sort, the father should by definition give up his paternal rights. Of course, if it was by turkey baster with a contribution from some friend or relative without a written agreement, one can see why there would be a problem.
But back to the whole parent thing, are we going to reach a point where a child can have an arbitrary number of parents? How about a whole commune raising the kid? It boggles the mind ...
Oh, this is too precious. Shocking what they were doing!
Now there is a headline.
I know I've been covering this a lot but I felt it was important after wondering aloud why no Muslims have condemned the recent violence in connection with the Pope's statement to report when Muslims actually do condemn the violence. Admittedly it's a modest effort. But symbolically it's very important, and I applaud it.
There have actually been a few good articles on the Pope/Islam thing. Rick Moran RealClearPolitics.com had the first media article I've seen that is largely sympathetic to Benedict. He says "both his words and intent were twisted by the fanatics in order to gin up the emotions of their ignorant followers." The gist of his article? "The Pope seeks a higher plane in the conflict. By risking offense, he goes beyond the superficial dialogue between Christian and Muslims of the past and begins a conversation where it should have been all along; on the nature and practice of Islam in the modern world and how that religion can co-exist with a west infused with Christian values."
Sen. Clinton (!) and Newt Gingrich both defend the pope. William F. Buckley weighs in too. He points out that "[s]ubstantially lost in the caterwauling was the pope's objective in his speech, which was to bemoan the dissipation of faith and efforts to separate it from reason." The Pope has some things worth listening to, he says. The Popes critics speak as if it were obvious that they disavow conversion by the sword, but this is not at all clear, especially with so many advocating the destruction of Israel (a call that would elicit outraged condemnation if a Western Christian leader made it). Finally, he points out the elephant in the middle of the room: There is no one who can authoritatively interpret for Islam, so anyone can take the Koran and interpret it however they see fit, violently or no.
All articles worth reading.
At the same time Muslim anger is easing.
The pope issued a rare (perhaps unprecedented) apology for his remarks, strongly distancing himself from the assertion of Byzantine Emperor Michael Paleologos whom he was quoting. Muslim reaction subsided little, however.
Questions have been raised about, ironically, whether his speeches are properly vetted. As an academic, the Pope, who wrote this speech himself and writes much of his own material, is accustomed to writing freely rather than diplomatically. Now he must write diplomatically, which may mean consulting his advisors first.
Imagine that — the pope having to get his own speeches approved by someone else!
Should be interesting to see whether this will patch things up or whether Muslims will continue to use it as a pretext for hatred.
Pope Benedict outraged Muslims by implicitly labeling Islam violent, prompting demands for apologies and recalls of ambassadors. He quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Frankly I am quite surprised Benedict would make such a statement. Benedict is not dumb. Nor is he known for being rash. He knew what effect what he said would have. The statement does not mince words. To me it seems no less than an attack on Islam. (I mean, in essence he attributes to Mohammed what is evil and inhuman.) It's quite understandable that they are outraged. I would be shocked if they were not.
I can only conclude that Benedict has no immediate plans to make peace with the Muslims.
It is not a statement that I would make; it would seem to me to be unnecessarily provocative. But in response to the Muslim reaction, if I were Pope, I'd say the following.
It is true that Christianity has a lamentable history of violence. However, Christians committing violence are misguided souls that do so not out of any fundamental requirement or call of Christianity, but in spite of the many exhortations to peace which Jesus gave us. In other words, no Christian was following Christ, or the words of Christ, or even the doctrines of Christianity, in committing violence.
Every belief with enough adherents has been subject to violence on behalf of that belief. It is human nature. The belief is not to be blamed for that violence unless it expressly calls for it.
This is the case we have with Islam, where the Koran expressly instructs its followers to commit acts of violence. "IX. 5-6: Kill those who join other gods with God wherever you may find them." "4.89 : They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper." "9.5: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." "Fight in the way of Allah." (2:190, 2:244) "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.)" (2:191-2A) "Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars." (4:74) A Christian is not being a faithful Christian in committing violence. But a Muslim is being a faithful Muslim in committing violence. That is the difference.
The student newspaper at the University of Virginia recently ran some controversial comics that have elicited thousands of letters of protest. One depicts Christ crucified on a Cartesian coordinate plane (with a parabola traversing his arms superimposed), and one involves a discussion between Mary and Joseph about an "immaculately transmitted rash".
Sophomoric stuff, if you ask me. Stupid stuff you expect from college students. I suppose if it wasn't such a slow news day I'd figure why give this guy attention. :-)
Not surprisingly the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights is getting involved. Making a mountain out of a molehill and embarassing me as usual. Sometimes I wish they'd just shut up.
Scientists were surprised to find signs of awareness in a patient diagnosed with "persistent vegetative state". In particular they did an fMRI and gave instructions to the woman to think about certain things, and the brain scan showed activity consistent with someone thinking about those things.
This however would not have affected Terri Schiavo, who was brain-damaged beyond recovery.
Still, it underscores the fact that doctors can make serious errors in diagnosis, and someone they declare to be unrecoverable may, in fact, in some (though not all) circumstances, recover. The fact that Schiavo turned out to be irreversible shouldn't deter us for fighting for the rights of those diagnosed with PVS. And, as we know, even people who won't recover need to be treated with dignity.
News Of The Weird published the following interesting news today:
The Christian Retail Show in Denver in August demonstrated, said a Los Angeles Times report, nearly a parallel commercial universe, with hundreds of "Christian" versions of products and services, such as sweatbands, pajamas, dolls, health clubs, insurance agencies, tree trimmers and fragrances ("Virtuous Woman" perfume). One Retail Show visitor, though, was dismayed at the efforts to just "slap Jesus on (merchandise)." (Among the tougher sells would appear to be Book22.com, a Christian sex-toy Web site that sells condoms, vibrators and lubricants to married couples, but stocks no pornography or toys that encourage multiple-partner scenes.) [Los Angeles Times, 8-5-06; Toronto Star, 7-8-06]
This certainly seems like much to me. Reminds me of a few songs:
So you need a new car? Let your fingers take a walk through the business guide for the "born again" flock. You'll be keeping all your money in the kingdom now and you'll only drink milk from a Christian cow. Don't you go casting your bread to keep the heathen well-fed. Line Christian pockets instead — avoid temptation: Guilty by association! (Steve Taylor, Guilty by Association)
Taylor here is lampooning those who only do business with other Christians, which seems to be the motive for this convention: If you can buy it from Christians, why by it from heathens? Geoff Moore (Go to the Moon) starts off talking about some boy sharing with his friends his plan if the Russians nuke us — pack up your friends and family and "go to the moon". He takes a slightly different tack: criticizing the sense of escapism and isolation (a Code-A-Phone is a brand of answering machine):
When I heard those boys talking it reminded me of a conversation I had more recently. This guy was saying Hey, there's something I want you to know, I'm a Christian from a Christian home. I'm in a Christian club, a Christian school, got a Christian Code-A-Phone, and if people don't like they can just leave me alone. You see he's afraid the world is rubbin' off on him, when all this time I thought we should be rubbin' off on them.
So I'm not sure we need all this Christian merchandise. Often such merchandise tends to be of the poorer quality and sometimes Christ's name gets dragged through the mud, which is not good.
Several atheists are going on the attack against religion, even against moderate agnostics. Sam Harris argues that if history shows that men are slaughtered in the name of religion, perhaps the problem is religion itself. However he seems to conveniently ignore the fact that most of last century's slaughters were committed in the name of atheism.
The article comments, "[Richard] Dawkins and Harris are not writing polite demurrals to the time-honored beliefs of billions; they are not issuing pleas for tolerance or moderation, but bone-rattling attacks on what they regard as a pernicious and outdated superstition." This is "highly inflammatory material".
Not surprisingly they bring up the usual question of the existence of evil, a concept known as theodicy. The problem lies in someone who believes his own judgement or reason is superior to that of God's. Just because you can't understand it is no proof God doesn't exist. They also bring up the subject of slavery, which seems to be a favorite for anti-religious types. (I tend to address that issue by framing it in terms of tolerance — God didn't prefer slavery but he tolerated it for a time as a cultural and/or economic necessity.)
Most amazing are those who want to invent a scientific cult that satisfies people's desire for community, ceremony, and a sense of awe. "Imagine congregations raising their voices in tribute to gravity, the force that binds us all to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, and the Sun to the Milky Way." Whoa.
I wonder where this will go. Looks like we have only to look forward to more sparks.
But they are doing their best to explain traditional religious arguments in an evolutionary and atheistic way, such as impulses such as empathy, charity and pity.
Pope Benedict has been seen sporting another traditional hat, this time a Saturno or cappello romano.
I can see the appeal of the hats though. I sat down and thought about it, and realized that I have at least four fashionable hats (a regular fedora, an Australian outback-type fedora, a ushanka, and a diplomat hat), and have just bought a fifth (a coonskin hat). They just kind of snuck up on me.
Here is an update on that Polish soccer player who blessed himself on the field and was subsequently criminally "cautioned". Crown Office prosecutors issued a statement on the affair: "Just prior to the start of the second half of a Celtic v Rangers football game, Artur Boruc, the Celtic goalkeeper, was seen by members of the public and police officers to bless himself. Witnesses describe him smiling or laughing at a Rangers section of the crowd and making 'come on' gestures. This action appeared to incense a section of the crowd to react in such a way that police officers and security personnel had to become involved to calm the situation. The police have reported it took ten minutes to restore normality in the crowd." It added the charge "did not in any way refer to the act of blessing himself. We would wish to make it absolutely clear that the prosecution service in Scotland fully respects religious belief and practices and would not countenance formal action against individuals for acts of religious observance, but we would equally make clear that the police and prosecutors cannot ignore conduct which appears to be inciting disorder." (Source: Edinburgh Scotsman, 29 August)
L'Osservatore Romano has placed its digital photo archive online, with papal photos back to 1930. It includes 1,000 photos of Pope John Paul II from his childhood, youth, and ministry before becoming Pope. Most of the photos were taken during his pontificate.
