It's a Sad Day...

When the President of the United States going to church is a news item.

It's Christmastime, Which Means It Must Be Time for the Anti-Religionists To Come Out of the Woodwork

It never fails that once December hits, stories of atheists struttin' their stuff come out of the woodwork.

We've already had the atheist ads on the buses here in Fort Worth that created such a stir.

Then there's this I'm too cool to believe in God so I elevate science to the same status idiocy from Ricky Gervais. I'm sure Ricky would be insulted if you pointed out that the same awed tones he used about science are exactly the tones used by the "religionists" he despises. Vox Populi has a great takedown (can you really blame God for this?) for Ricky:

Gervais is not so much incorrect as completely incoherent when he says that science "bases its conclusions and beliefs on hard evidence". First, he reveals the usual atheist's inability to distinguish between "evidence" and "scientific evidence". Second, science does not possess either conclusions or beliefs and it does not base them or anything else upon evidence; Gervais clearly doesn't understand how the scientific method works because it is used to produce evidence (of the scientific variety), it is not based upon evidence of any kind. Third, his example is spectacularly ignorant, as science not only did not develop penicillin, but the parochial arrogance of scientists actually retarded the development of the effective medical application of what had been the very sort of traditional medieval practice that Gervais disdains for decades. His knowledge doesn't even rise to the level of Wikipedia: see the story of Ernest Duchesne and his 1897 paper that was ignored by the Institut Pasteur.

I continue my traditional eyerolling at rude atheist behavior towards religious believers, specifically Christians. As a Presbyterian, I believe God doesn't need my help pointing out man's stupidity and hubris. He's a big boy and will take care of all this anyway. But as a woman who's given birth to three healthy babies, I find it stunningly stupid for anyone to blandly lecture me that evolution over a million years (or a billion or zillion, or however many science has now decided it takes to explain away humanity) caused a single cell to become a 9-pound baby boy. And every so-called advancement of science--whether in medicine or chemistry or astronomy--only further convinces me that God is both Great and Good.

I don't bother arguing these things with those who don't believe because I still think that's between them and God (or them and themselves, I suppose). Just don't be a sanctimonious jerk in the process.

Finally, for our anti-religious trifecta, we have Michelle Malkin's column on the ACLU's campaign to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. I was cruising Pandagon yesterday, and in my best Amanda Marcotte imitation, I'd say that the ACLU is just preventing Catholics from hating women and trying to stop them from having sex. Of course, none of that is true; the Catholic church likes women to have sex, just keep it inside marriage and don't kill your inconvenient offspring.

But the ACLU, in the interest of baby-killing equality, can't stand the idea that there's a hospital somewhere that won't allow a 38-week pregnant woman to yawn and decide it's just a 20-minute procedure (see earlier Pandagon posts).

As the Washington-based Becket Fund, a public interest law firm that defends the free expression of all religious traditions, pointed out to the feds: "The ACLU has no business radically re-defining the meaning of emergency health care,' just as it has no business demanding that religious doctors and nurses violate their faith by performing a procedure they believe is tantamount to murder. Forcing religious hospitals to perform abortions not only undermines this nation's integral commitment to conscience rights, it violates the numerous federal laws that recognize and protect those rights."

Of course, there are always other non-Catholic hospitals an abortion seeker could go to, but that's not the point, is it? This is about attacking Catholicism on one of its basic tenets. Which is a great way to celebrate Christmas.

Free Speech in Fort Worth

The atheist bus ads have finally caught the attention of the New York Times. This story has been floating around Fort Worth for a month now, which is why, I suppose some Christian groups have had time to organize a protest.

A public bus rolls by with an atheist message on its side: “Millions of people are good without God.” Seconds later, a van follows bearing a riposte: “I still love you. — God,” with another line that says, “2.1 billion Christians are good with God.”

A clash of beliefs has rattled this city ever since atheists bought ad space on four city buses to reach out to nonbelievers who might feel isolated during the Christmas season. After all, Fort Worth is a place where residents commonly ask people they have just met where they worship and many encounters end with, “Have a blessed day.”

"We want to tell people they are not alone," said Terry McDonald, the chairman of Metroplex Atheists, part of the Dallas-Fort Worth Coalition of Reason, which paid for the atheist ads. "People don’t realize there are other atheists. All you hear around here is, ‘Where do you go to church?’"

I don't know where McDonald hangs out to be asked constantly about his church affiliation, but as a lifelong Fort Worth resident, I'll tell you it isn't something that comes up constantly in my conversations. Maybe that's because I'm Presbyterian and I figure your unbelief is between you and God. But the idea that atheists are "lonely" because during the celebration of Christ's birth people talk about their faith strikes me as just so much whining for nothing. Vox Populi sums up my feelings:

And thus are all the claims that their various ad campaigns are about anything but annoying Christians at Christmastime belied. Can you even imagine how upset Jews would be if Christians began running ads directly attacking Jewish beliefs during the high holidays in a similar manner? Or how ballistic Muslims would go if similarly attacked during Ramadan? Atheists constantly attempt to portray the public celebrations and positive assertions of Christian belief as some sort of attack on their non-belief, but that is nothing more than absurd and juvenile drama-queening.

I think the people complaining about the ads are giving these clowns more attention than they deserve, which is, of course, why the ads are being run on buses to get high exposure.

If you're an atheist during Christmas, suck it up. You don't have to celebrate any more than you celebrate Independence Day or New Year's. There's no Christmas police forcing you to attend Christmas Eve mass or anything. This "lonely" atheist whining is just an excuse to be obnoxious and rude.

Yodeling? Offensive?

I was going to say something truly crass in response to the news that you can't yodel while mowing your grass anymore because it may offend your neighboring Muslim, but I decided against it. The ridiculousness of the story, coming on the heels of this post on the acceptability of offending Christians, does a better job than I ever could.

IOKTIC

That's my new acronym for It's OK to Insult Christians. Not that insulting Christians is anything new, mind you (remember the taxpayer-funded Robert Mapplethorpe art?). Apparently, we have yet another taxpayer-funded art exhibit with images designed to anger Christians, among others. The exhibit is at the Smithsonian Institute, and has given incoming House Speaker John Bohner and soon-to-be Majority Leader Eric Cantor reason to threaten spending for the institution.

The exhibit, “Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture,” includes video images of an ant-covered Jesus on a crucifix, male genitals, naked brothers kissing, men in chains, Ellen DeGeneres grabbing her breasts, and a painting the Smithsonian itself describes in the show's catalog as "homoerotic."

It is being presented at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, where it opened on Oct. 30 and is set to run throughout the Christmas Season before closing on Feb. 13

David C. Ward, a National Portrait Gallery historian who is the co-curator of the exhibit, told CNSNews.com: “This is an exhibition that displays masterpieces of American portraiture and we wanted to illustrate how questions of biography and identity went into the making of images that are canonical.”

Ants crawling in Jesus' belly is "canonical"? Who okays this stuff? I'm not for suppressing the arts, but is this really the best use of taxpayer money right now? Moreover, why is it that the only art considered "important" these days seems to be art designed to offend Christians specifically and conservatives in general? Why can't artists find another religion to offend (like, I dunno, Islam or something?)?

But that's just in Washington, D.C. Closer to home, atheists are buying ads on the T, the Fort Worth bus system.

"We're not trying to convert anybody," coordinator Terry McDonald said in a phone interview. "There's so much religion in this area, and it's so visible, we're just trying to let people who are not believers know that there's a lot of people like them."

Really? Is this a big problem? Don't atheists already know there are a lot of people like them? All they have to do is watch a couple of episodes of Glee to discover that Christians are scummy hypocrites and religion sucks.

What it really comes down to is that Christianity is a great religion to bash because you won't get stabbed or stoned or blown up for bashing it. The worst you're going to get is Pat Robertson condemning you on a program that only 4 people watch (that's one more than the number watching MSNBC). Plus, if you do something nasty to Jesus and Christians object, you (a) get lots of media attention for your talentless "work" and (b) you can feel holier-than-thou (do atheists feel holier-than-thou?) and call anyone offended "intolerant." That's a double scoop of goodness for lefties.

The Silver Lining in All the Concern about "Islamic Hate Crimes"

There's always an underlying bigotry involved any time liberals decide to defend a religion (except Christianity--Christianity is never defensible). In this case, it involves the amazing double standard concerning recent events involving Muslims and ancient events involving Christians.

How many times have you had a discussion about the radical sects of Islam and their penchant for killing bystanders when a liberal decides to discuss the Crusades? I'd say this canard comes up in most conversations where someone rationally argues against, say, mosques that recruit people for jihad. But these arguments are ridiculous for a comparison of religion. After all, the complaints against Islam aren't about events from a thousand years ago. We're typically talking about the worst event on American soil since Pearl Harbor, and it hasn't even been 10 years yet.

The same people howling about how we can't tar all Muslims with the jihadi brush constantly accuse all pro-lifers of supporting the murder of abortion doctors or all Christians of endorsing Timothy McVeigh (who wasn't even a Christian...but he was a white guy!). Don't let them get away with it, particularly when they're spinning and deceiving like crazy.

Why Marriage?

Interesting discussion about Prop 8 on Hugh Hewitt's show, highlighting the unintended consequences and unprecedented attack on religion inherent in the decision. Judge Walker's decision hinged on the idea that religion and religious views are inherently irrational and no basis for law. This is offensive at least and a blatant attack on Constitutional rights at worst.

Disagreeing with Conservative Majority Opinions

It's been one of those weeks for me, where I've spent a lot of time disagreeing with folks I normally agree with and agreeing with folks I usually don't. Here's the list:

1. I don't like building a mosque at Ground Zero for all the dhimmitude reasons around, but I don't oppose it, since I happen to think freedom of religion (even when I disagree with it) is pretty important.

2. I'm pretty unhappy with the way anti-Prop 8 advocates (like liberals in general since the 1960s) are hellbent on cramming gay marriage down the collective gullet of an unwilling public through the court systems rather than going the Constitutional route. But having said that, the thread at this post on Volokh Conspiracy provided (for me) the best arguments I've heard for gay marriage, and it's got me thinking it may be time. Granted, a lot of it is still anecdotal, and we won't know for decades how this affects other family relationships, but still.

3. Calls to alter birthright citizenship is nuts. And a sure loser at the polls. Do Republicans just want permanent minority status?

Ok, flog me.

Daily KOS: Take Out Organized Religion

Oh, dear. The philosophy of tolerance has none for organized religion, especially Christianity (also known as "chirstianity" by the author).

It is time to stop taking all this sitting down. It is time to begin working actively to bring about the end of organized religion. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is a wonder that a group of ignorant, bigoted and hateful men (yes, mostly men) can preach against scientific progress and try to take this country and the world a few centuries back. It is time to face the truth -- THERE IS NO GOD. I don't begrudge the faith to those who believe -- but I am not out there trying to impose vegetarianism or red uniforms on anyone. So, please, keep your religion out of my face. Humanity may have needed to believe in rocks or celestial bodies when we barely could walk upright. At the beginning of the 21st century, it is finally time to dispense with the crutch. Religion in general and chirstianity sic) in particular are EVIL.

It's always lovely to see the mask slip from the diversity and tolerance crowd. Forget the massive good Christianity (in particular) does and has done through the years, taking care of the poor and infirm, leading calls for civil rights for blacks and women, and so on. Forget the massive aid Christians give to organizations that help victims of natural disasters or despotic regimes. No, the fact that the Church is made of humans with human failings makes it, somehow, intolerable.

Forget about the Constitutional implications here (the author uses a lot of double speak about "freedom to believe what you want" while discussing tearing down churches). This is the sort of thing liberals do best. Call it more of the "for your own good" syndrome. Hey, we know that faith in God typically makes people happier, healthier, more generous and better citizens, but religion is just baaaad for you. Besides, if we manage to get rid of the Catholic church, there won't ever be any pedophiles again!

The fact is that evil exists. Period. If you take away one's freedom of religion, you won't have less evil, but more evil. Look at what happened in both the Soviet Union and China, where organized religion was basically outlawed. More people died as a result of communism than Christianity (and please don't be stupid and call Hitler a Christian), so it's really quite difficult to take seriously any liberal who supports the tenets of socialism and communism saying the problem is praying to God.

Hypocrisy from the Left: Who Would Jesus Abort?

Coffee spewer of the day: Nancy Pelosi claims she has to craft public policy that conforms to her Catholic faith, or something, which is a weird argument to make if you are a leftwinger. I mean, I thought liberals hate letting values affect one's vote. Not that any person with 2 brain cells believes Pelosi lets her WWJD bracelet change her mind about issues like, say, partial-birth abortion.

From Hot Air:

When conservatives talk about religious values informing public policy goals, the Left shrieks about the separation of church and state and usually refers to the Right as an American Taliban. Pelosi will get a pass, however, because she uses the religious language to argue for their pet causes. It’s a good idea to capture this moment anyway, for the next time someone argues that “Christianists” are attempting a theocratic takeover of America.

We have a word for this: Democrisy.

Georgia Seniors Told Not to Pray Before Meals?

The story is somewhat different from the headline.

Senior Citizens Inc. officials said Friday the meals they are contracted by the city to provide to Ed Young (Senior Center) visitors are mostly covered with federal money, which ushers in the burden of separating church and state.

On Thursday, the usual open prayer before meals at the center was traded in for a moment of silence.

It seems to me that if 50 people decided to pray outloud over their meals that there wouldn't be anything the "providers" could do about it, could they? And it certainly wouldn't amount to an "endorsement of religion" that so frightens those making their bucks off the senior meals.

Preacher Arrested for Calling Homosexuality a Sin

My good friend Dana over at Common Sense Political Thought has often argued that once homosexual marriage is permitted throughout the U.S., the Catholic church (among others) will then be targeted if they won't perform weddings for gay couples in their churches. Leftwingers, naturally, pooh-pooh this as just so much fear-mongering, but when you read stories about what is happening elsewhere, you have to ask yourself if it wouldn't happen here, too.

Christian preacher arrested for saying homosexuality is a sin

Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Regardless of how you feel about Christians quoting the Bible selectively, it seems to me that free speech allows a street preacher to, well, preach the Bible as he interprets it and let the listener make up his/her mind about the subject.

Couldn't happen here, right?

Where Diversity Leads

Students want ‘Our Lord' phrase off diplomas

A group of students at Trinity University is lobbying trustees to drop a reference to “Our Lord” on their diplomas, arguing it does not respect the diversity of religions on campus.

“A diploma is a very personal item, and people want to proudly display it in their offices and homes,” said Sidra Qureshi, president of Trinity Diversity Connection. “By having the phrase ‘In the Year of Our Lord,' it is directly referencing Jesus Christ, and not everyone believes in Jesus Christ.”

Qureshi, who is Muslim, has led the charge to tweak the wording, winning support from student government and a campus commencement committee. Trustees are expected to consider the students' request at a May board meeting.

Trinity University was founded by the Presbyterians in 1869. Maybe "Our Lord" can come off the diplomas when the Saudis accept plurality.

Don't Talk to Me About the Crusades

Nigerian Muslims Hack 500 Christian Villagers to Death With Machetes – Babies Scalped
When you want to claim that all religions are the same, try to find an example of Christian atrocity more recent than 1200.

Pandagon Watch: The Unbelievably Stupid Jesse Taylor Editon

God bless Chuck Serio for monitoring Pandagon for me (since Amanda Marcotte not only doesn't want me commenting on her site; she blocked my IP address so I can't even see it), because without him, we wouldn't get to see the naked stupidity and unbelievable callousness of jerks like Jesse Taylor.

Apparently, Jesse's wound up because Tim Tebow is making a commercial with a pro-life message, and the commercial will air during the Super Bowl.

The former Florida quarterback and his mother will appear in a 30-second commercial during the Super Bowl next month. The Christian group Focus on the Family says the Tebows will share a personal story centering on the theme “Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life.”

The group isn’t releasing details, but the commercial is likely to be an anti-abortion message chronicling Pam Tebow’s 1987 pregnancy. After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim.

Jesse's enraged that the football star and his mother actually think not killing your babies is a good thing! Can you imagine?! The doctors told this woman she would die if she had the baby...and she selfishly didn't die but gave birth to a healthy baby who then went on to do wonderful things and have a great life! How utterly selfish of her!

Jesse's upset that Pam and Bob Tebow (a) didn't do what the doctors told them to do and (b) actually found a doctor who agreed to care for her so she wouldn't die (that selfish bitch!) and that the baby wouldn't die (that more selfish bitch!)

What this teaches us is that abortion is evil, so long as you have around the clock medical care and are lucky enough to defy the odds, not die and not have your baby come out stillborn. That’s the major problem with us pro-choicers: we keep forcing women to make hard moral choices like “Do I want to chance my own death?” rather than just telling them to suck it up and face it like a man. Well, if a man was about to potentially pass a lump of dead biological matter through their nonexistent vaginas and potentially die in the process.

Yeah, Jesse. That's the message. It couldn't be a message more along the lines of, Lots of people will pressure a pregnant woman to do what they've decided is the best thing for her and kill her baby, because making her own choice--which is what they spend so much time telling us they are for--is evil. These people always support a woman choosing to kill her own child for any reason whatsoever. But risking one's life for one's children is just plain stupid, vile and, yes, morally wrong.
Here's Jesse's flippant response to my argument:

Pam Tebow made a decision based on her circumstances. She chose to take a risk, and it worked out. Good for her, she should have had that choice. But there’s a rare breed of woman, called “most of them”, who might not have an all-day, every-day doctor on call, or who might be in more danger than Pam Tebow, or who make a different calculation and don’t want to run the risk of being the dead mother of a dead baby. Fie on their monstrous asses, though. Fie!

See, the problem isn't that Pam Tebow defied her doctor, risked her life, and loved her child more than herself. It's that she and her husband sought and found medical care to help her. Oh, and she didn't die like she should have.

But wait, there's more! Most people won't have famous and athletic children, and you won't know anyway, so it's ok to kill your babies (not just the ones that are medically risky but the ones you decide you don't want just cuz).

There’s also the teensy problem of the presumption that every woman having an abortion is somehow ending the life of Football Jesus. You will never know who 99.99% of people in this world are. You won’t read the novels they don’t write, you won’t listen to the music they don’t produce. This is not to say that human life isn’t valuable. This is to say that if your case against abortion is that your future child could be a one in a several hundred million talent, you need a better case.

Of course, Tim Tebow is about to fail miserably in the NFL like most of the rest of us six billion-plus schmucks would, so maybe this is a better ad than I thought...

I'm not surprised in the least that Jesse Taylor put together such an outrageously insensitve and stupid post. Like Amanda, women having abortions to prove that they have a "choice" is far more important than women actually making principled choices that have longer term consequences. So-called pro-choicers like Jesse and Amanda let the mask slip every time they write things like this, because it shows that they don't support women's choices; they only support women having abortions. Because choosing to have medically risky babies or financially risky babies or life-altering, career-changing babies is just plain stupid or, at best, simply unnecessary risky behavior.

Obama's EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals

Another "moderate" Obama nominee expresses outrageous opinions that could have the effect of law if their appointment stands.

Chai Feldblum, the Georgetown University law professor nominated by President Obama to serve on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, has written that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, that may negatively affect homosexual “equality.”

Feldblum, whose nomination was advanced in a closed session of the Senate Health Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on December 12, published an article entitled “Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion” in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006...

“For those who believe that a homosexual or bisexual orientation is not morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual orientation is acting in a sinful or harmful manner (to himself or herself and to others), it is problematic when the government passes a law that gives such individuals equal access to all societal institutions,” Feldblum wrote.

“Conversely, for those who believe that any sexual orientation, including a homosexual or bisexual orientation, is morally neutral, and that an individual who acts on his or her homosexual or bisexual orientation acts in an honest and good manner, it is problematic when the government fails to pass laws providing equality to such individuals.”

Feldblum argues that in order for “gay rights” to triumph in this “zero-sum game,” the constitutional rights of all Americans should be placed on a “spectrum” so they can be balanced against legitimate government duties.

The least Obama could do is pick people who had actually read the Constitution before expounding on it.

Pandagon Watch: They Don't Get Christianity

Thanks to Chuck Serio for the latest Pandagon tip.

Pam Spaulding displays her ignorance of Christianity in this post, discussing Brit Hume's statement that Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity in order to receive true redemption. Hume's statement:

Buddhism is inferior to Christianity when it comes to forgiveness of sins, according to Fox News pundit Brit Hume. Tiger Woods should turn his back on Buddhism and become a Christian to be forgiven for cheating on his wife, Hume told Fox News Chris Wallace Sunday.

The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith, said Hume. He is said to be a Buddhist. I dont think that faith offers the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.

Spaulding's response:

How does this prescription for redemption explain Ted Haggard, Mark Sanford, John Ensign and all of the rest of the Christian GOP sexual hypocrites?

I always have to remind myself that Pandagonistas are willfully ignorant about the basic tenets of Christianity, including redemption. The commenters continue the ignorance:

--"Buddhism, at least the Mahayana sects, typically emphasize making up for your sins after you sin, to correct your personal karma and avoid reincarnation as a hungry ghost, or somebody’s dairy cow."

--"Gotta love that “get out of jail free” card. It just takes timing. Don’t yell, “God damn it!” if you’re about to get hit by the bus—eternal damnation for that. But you can eat a boiled baby every day, and so long as you have the good sense to die of something lingering, like cancer, you can pray your sins away, and get into heaven.

So if I’m Woods, I keep sleeping with every man and woman alive, until the syphilis gets bad enough, and then convert.

Unfortunately, it will turn out that the Greeks were right after all. Alas!"

--"So, basically, if you’re a Christian all you have to do is apologize to God and you’re off the hook? Sounds like a great racket to me. Unfortunately, as a Buddhist, I have to acknowledge my mistakes and deal with the consequences. It’s a little rougher, but considerably more adult, IMHO.
(BTW: I’m talking not about the Christian tradition in its entirety, but the mind-numbingly simplistic take on it these folx seem to have...)"

Christian redemption isn't the idea that you can do whatever you want, ask for forgiveness, then go out and do it some more. It's the idea that, as humans, we are sinful by nature, whether we cheat on our wives, curse out the guy that cuts us off in traffic, or envy someone else's garden furniture. And because we are sinful, we needed Christ to die for our sins so that we could have fellowship with God. IOW, unlike Buddhism, which relies on the idea (as one person put it) of recognizing your grievances, correcting them and "living with the consequences," Christianity shows that we personally cannot save ourselves and must rely on Christ's sinless life, death and resurrection for salvation.

It's somewhat more humbling.

None of this, of course, negates the effects here on earth of our sins. Christians still "live with the consequences" of our actions, regardless of whether God has forgiven us or not. After all, we still have to live with and deal with those we've wronged, even if God forgives us.

One commenter stated, "What would make an impression would be if Christians could be statistically demonstrated to behave better as a group than non-Christians.

So, Christians, feel free to conduct population studies that show Christians are less likely to receive speeding tickets, have their taxes audited, get divorced, wind up on child-abuse lists, &c;. It should be relatively easy to provide clear documentation of a behavioral effect...or of its lack."

But, in fact, Christians are happier (or at least, profess happiness) than other groups and those who attend church regularly are less likely to get divorced than those who rarely go to church or those who never attend. We also have evidence that Christians are more generous with their own money and time (especially conservative Christians), and less likely to participate in anti-social behavior.

This doesn't mean you won't find Ted Haggards, Mark Sanfords or John Ensigns among Christians. It just makes it more rare. And more newsworthy when it happens.

UPDATE: Ann Coulter has a nice column on this subject.

Unintended Consequences: Same Sex Marriage Mandates Could Harm Charities

Forcing churches to accept homosexual couples and treat them like heterosexual ones could cause many churches to simply stop participating in certain services for the poor and needy.

Refusing to include robust religious liberty protections in the bill that has just been approved by a Council subcommittee, the City appears poised to impose requirements that will drastically cut social services for some of the city’s most hard-pressed residents. The impact will be severest on food pantries, health care providers, services for the homeless and adoption and foster care assistance.

The conflict focuses on the scope of the religious liberty exemption included in the bill the D.C. City Council could pass as early as December 1 to replace its traditional marriage law with a regime that allows same-sex unions. In testimony before the Council late last month, both the American Civil Liberties Union and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, which disagree fundamentally on public policy that approves same-sex marriage, testified that the original draft religious liberty exemption in the bill was far too narrow. The draft bill not only put social services to the needy at risk, but it also would have required churches that operate facilities like reception halls to make them available to same-sex couples regardless of the churches’ religious teachings and practice.
The version of the bill the Council subcommittee approved this week relented on the issue of reception halls, allowing churches to decline to make them available for same-sex marriages and other unions to which they might object. However, the bill did not exempt churches from obligations it would impose that would, for example, require the churches to provide marriage benefits to same-sex couples who work for them. As a result, and because D.C. contracts for social services will require compliance with the city’s non-discrimination laws, the longstanding agreements with service providers like the Archdiocese will end. An analogous impasse occurred in Boston in 2006, where Catholic Charities was unable to obtain a state license because of its views on traditional marriage and was forced to shutter its adoption services for hard-to-place children.

It's more important to be politically correct than to feed the poor.

Christ, Christianity, Politics and Liberal Idiocy

That's quite an all-encompassing headline for a post that started with this Alan Colmes's post that led to this post which bashes both the GOP and Christianity quite effectively. Well, not quite.

A couple of weeks ago, I went to a conference for my church and picked up a book titled They Like Jesus but Not the Church. I haven't gotten into it very far yet (had other things I needed to read first), but the basic premise is that we live in a post-Christian society which looks very disfavorably upon Christianity and is openly hostile to it. At the same time, more people look favorably upon Jesus. These two ideas sound like they would create some cognitive dissonance, but the fact of the matter is that we live in a culture (of which both posts are examples) that is contemptuous of Christianity and has lots of misconceptions and mischaracterizations about Christians.

From the Wolfrum post:

For years, Jesus Christ had kept quiet while his “followers” had killed and committed horrendous acts of intolerance in his name. They were the “birth pangs” of a new religion, his surrogates would say. One day he would be accepted by all as a liberator.

But in an announcement that has left his followers shaken, the Christ himself has come forward to announce that he is leaving Christianity, effective immediately. The reasoning: The 2008 Republican Platform. Reached for comment at a West Hollywood coffee shop, Christ said that he couldn’t deal with a world that so misinterpreted his words and actions.

“They mention the word ‘faith’ 12 times in their platform,” said Christ. “Do they think we’re idiots or something?”

Christ went on to say that he had grown tired of being portrayed as a “marauding archangel of vengeance,” and that he held out little hope that the world would ever accept his message of peace.

Not only does this pervert what Jesus actually said (and didn't say), but it manages to tie the basest of smears to the GOP as though the Republican platform itself is the measure of Christianity. Why not bring up the Democratic Party platform, which also discussed faith?

Of course, the point of such slams is not to understand who Christ is, what his mission for the church is and has been or protecting the freedom to worship Him in private and in public. It's really just another way of bashing the GOP and Christians--two groups the left hates--with one blow.

Biggest Churches are Evangelical and Contemporary

And use drums.

The study was conducted by a multi-faith coalition hosted by the Hartford Seminary's Hartford Institute for Religion Research in Hartford, Conn. Institute Director David Roozen sees a "slow downward trickle" in measures of "spiritual vitality" such as participation in devotional practices, church attendance and satisfaction with the quality of worship.

The congregations that do well, Roozen says, are participatory, involve lay leadership, and have a "strong, clear sense of their purpose."

And drums. Churches with contemporary worship music grew while those with traditional music stalled.

My church has a traditional service Sunday mornings and a contemporary service Saturday evenings. I've been advocating a switch to 8:30 a.m. traditional and 11 a.m. contemporary services on Sunday. Maybe a Saturday evening service if they wish. But since survival and growth of the church is dependent on attracting enough young people, churches have to provide attractive bonuses--like music with drums--to get them to come.