Archbishop Donald Wuerl - right or wrong?

This does not come under the heading of "news," for everyone already knows that Roman Catholic archbishops pretend to share the mind of god and thus know the difference between right and wrong.

And that's just what Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, D. C. said in an address on April 4 at Rome's Pontifical University of St. Thomas Acquinas. Cindy Wooden of Catholic News Service restated the archbishop's words thusly:

"The moral values taught by the world's main religions form the only ethical code with enough depth to help people judge what is right and wrong in a modern, increasingly technological society."

Religion, says Wuerl according to Wooden, "has been a key source guiding people to act righteously and promote the common good. ... more and more people are realizing that 'purely secular philosophy cannot offer the answers; it cannot provide a foundation deep enough' to respond to questions about right and wrong in an increasingly technological world."

One must accept "enduring moral values," said the archbishop, "which are both reasonable and confirmed by the constant teaching of the world's religions, or else 'personal preference becomes normative.'"

I suppose the archbishop is rather worried about the decline of the Roman Church, and the fact that the Muslims are now number one in the world and how a whole lot of the Roman Catholic faithful ignore much of what their church teaches because they know from experience it is neither moral nor ethical. Those may be the ones he's talking about for whom "personal preference becomes normative." They probably skip confession and Mass, too.

We are not told by the archbishop which of the world's religion's moral values we should accept, although he does mention Christians, Muslims and Jews. But what about the other religions of the world? Or are their moral values unworthy?

And which moral values taught by the world's religions should we be concerned with? The archbishop doesn't say.

So we are left with platitudes which will probably send folks off into the night shaking their heads in agreement because what the archbishop proposed sounds so good even though it is essentially empty of meaning and is, in truth, quite wrong.


Anyone with a smidgen of knowledge about the history of the world knows that the greatest perpetrators of hatred, violence and death and destruction have been the world's major religions. This is all detailed in the holy books subscribed to by these faith groups, and also by secular documents available for all to peruse and reflect upon.

On the other hand, it is also true that much hatred, violence, death and destruction has been thrust upon the earth's inhabitants by non-religious people. The "faithful" usually point to Stalin and/or Hitler, and of late, Saddam Hussein, as examples. Stalin, although he was raised in the Russian Orthodox tradition, did not show many religious tendencies when in power. Hitler, a Roman Catholic until the end, was a religious person and had an ongoing relationship with the Roman church and even invoked the Lutheran "saint," Martin Luther, as one who blessed his Nazi horrors.


Now if the archbishop is speaking of moral values, such as do not kill, or do not steal, or do not bear false witness, he need not go to religion to find them. The Ten Commandments, which so many people like to claim an affinity for, were not original with the Israelites, but a reworking of other ancient codes of law, such as the Code of Hammurabi (who, like Moses, believed God had chosen him to deliver the law to his people.) Perhaps Hammurabi was religious in his own way, but I don't think Archbishop Wuerl would accept that as "true" religion nor would he accept Hammurabi's moral values.


Furthermore, I'm afraid that some of those moral values that the archbishop refers to are values specific to the Roman Church. I think he is saying that a true moralist would be against all abortions, all family planning, anything that would contradict Catholic doctrine, and against the notion of separation of church and state.

In fact, he did mention the latter when he said that we need greater dialogue to defend "the essential role of faith in public life and human affairs."

Unfortunately, he left us out in the cold here, too, never bothering to explain the meaning of the phrase, "essential role of faith in public life and human affairs." We've got one home-grown example of how this might work, though. George W. Bush heard from god and god told him to invade Iraq. So much for faith in American public life and Iraqi human affairs!

Furthermore, if we look back through history to those days of yore when the Roman church actually did exercise its faith in public life and human affairs and all the hell on earth that caused, we'd probably suggest the archbishop was full of gas.


The truth is that Archbishop Wuerl's arguments have been dismantled over and over again by numerous philosophers and theologians. One can certainly defend one's religion as providing its adherents with a moral and ethical code. But it doesn't necessarily follow that it is the best or even a good moral and ethical code. Nor can one conclude that people without a religion are incapable of coming up with a moral and ethical code just as valid or even more valid than one based on a religion.

I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs from Sam Harris. He may be an atheist, but Sam has a better handle on right and wrong than does Archbishop Wuerl:

"If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran -- as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness. ...

"We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery -- and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture -- like the golden rule -- can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe."

I would add that in order to devise a proper moral and ethical code, one must of necessity ignore much of what is written in the holy books; which is exactly what religious people do, even the Christian fundamentalists who like to believe the Bible is the "inerrant" word of God!


However...with some deeply religious people flying airplanes into New York City skyscrapers and others working day and night to impose their beliefs upon our system of government, and true believers bombing the hell out of each other all over the world, it would seem that religion might be the last place one would go to find a workable moral and ethical system.

And that suggests that just because you're an archbishop doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're talking about.

Anti-Semitism in New York Radio?

According to David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee, the New York-based radio station, WQXR-FM, refused to air a 60-second advertisement dealing with the terror experienced by the residents of the Israeli town of Sderot.

WQXR-FM is owned by The New York Times.

Mr. Harris explained that the station's general manager, Tom Bartunek, said "several elements of the spot are outside our bounds of acceptability," whatever that means.

Bartunek further said that the ad "runs the risk of raising anxiety in a misleading way." He believes that to say, as the ad does, that rockets fall on Sderot "day or night" might be "misleading, at least to the degree that reasonable people might be troubled by the absence of any acknowledgement of reciprocal Israeli military actions."

In addition, Bartunek claimed the ad did not live up to the station's "guidelines! for decorum."

Let's see if we can figure this out. Hamas shoots rockets at any time, day or night, into the town of Sderot. The people of Sderot live in constant fear and often have only seconds to find shelter before a rocket destroys a home or school, or child, or ...

Mr. Bartunek, who is also the president of New York Times radio, thinks it is misleading to air an ad that says that. He thinks that because the ad does not explain how Israel sometimes fights back, it is "outside ... [the] bounds of acceptability." And it somehow disturbs the station's "decorum."

Methinks Mr. Bartunek is full of it and trying to cover up, with truly a truly pitiful rationale, his own anti-Semitism.

Not a hell of a lot changes over the years.

Rabbi Yoffie's a liar, says Hagee

Actually Hagee put it this way: Eric Yoffie, the leader of Reform Judaism has a "troubling disrespect for the truth."

You will remember we wrote a few days ago about Rabbi Yoffie's call for Jews to disassociate themselves from Hagee and his Christians United for Israel group. Yoffie said that Hagee was not a real friend to Israel and rejected a two-state solution and Hagee's attitude toward territorial concessions "would mean disaster for Israel, and would lead to diplomatic isolation, increased violence and the loss of Israel's Jewish majority."

At the time, I thought it interesting and unfortunate that Rabbi Yoffie did not deal with Hagee's end-times views which involves a nuclear war with Iran leading to the battle of Armageddon and the Rapture, all of which will ensure the slaughter of every Jew who has not accepted Jesus as his/her "Lord and Savior."

The wrong Rev. Hagee is a bit miffed at Rabbi Yoffie and claims that Yoffie misrepresented his views. Actually Hagee claims a lot of people misrepresent his views. The trouble is that his views have been noted and recorded for a number of years, so even though he claims he didn't say thus and so, it isn't difficult to point to chapter and verse and show him for the liar he is.

Hagee whined that "Rabbi Yoffie's speech demonstrates not only a lack of respect for me but a troubling lack of respect for the truth."

But why should anyone "respect" Hagee, a demagogue, a charlatan, a biblical terrorist, a man who strives to incite a final, cataclysmic conflagration that would literally destroy the earth?

Yoffie was right, even if he didn't cover all the bases. He could have and should have said a lot more about Hagee and his so-called "love" for the Jews. Rabbi Yoffie should have said Hagee is simply using the Jewish people and the land of Israel to bring about his insane visions derived from so-called biblical prophecies.

Israel needs all the help it can get. Israel does not need help from Hagee!

The Reincarnation of Durga

'Tis an unfortunate story: a little girl with two faces was born in a village in northern India. Each of her facial features are duplicated, except for her ears. This is a very rare condition called craniofacial duplication (naturally). She is reported to be doing just fine.

But in the village of Saini Sunpura, a very "religious" place, little Lali with two faces, is causing quite a stir. According to her father, she is being worshipped as a reincarnation of Durga, the Hindu goddess of valor, "a fiery deity traditionally depicted with three eyes and many arms."

The village chief intends to build a temple to Durga in the village. A member of the village council said that "Lali is God's gift to us. She has brought fame to our village." The same person said that every day about 100 people visit Lali in her home. They show their respect by touching her feet, and offer money and receive blessings.

Well, why not? Who's to say that these people are wrong? Who can prove that Lali is not really Durga come back?

What's unfortunate about this, however, is that no one seems to be very concerned about this little girl's future. Most little girls with two faces don't have one.

Isn't religion fun?

Blue & White Mosque?

Next month Israel celebrates its 60th anniversary.

Some people are thrilled. Others not so.

The "not so's" include many folks of the Arab persuasion, not a few of which intend to boycott any birthday celebrations.. But not all! The Israeli-Arabs living in the Galilee village of A-Taibeh near the Gilboa not only intend to join in the celebrations but have painted the dome of their mosque with Israel's national blue and white colors in honor of the anniversary!

About 2,000 people live in A-Taibeh. A village elder, HIsham Zouabi, said that "We are citizens of the State of Israel. For us religion encourages us to bring nations together. The goal is simple: coexistence. A Jew who comes here should not feel that the place is hostile but like home."

Wow! Too often we hear that Israel has no right to exist and must be pushed into the sea until the Jews are gone forever.

Maybe there is hope. Here's a glimmer, anyway.

[Thanks to JTA and Haaretz.com for this story.]

Ultra-Orthodox riot in righteousness!

[Photo of Haredi man in Jerusalem - by Lisa Katz]

Fanaticism comes in a variety of forms. Fanaticism in religion is
often called fundamentalism.

There are fundamentalists in most religions, including Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. These share certain characteristics: they are "true believers" in the sense written of by Eric Hoffer in his famous work, The True Believer -- that is, they are so committed to a cause they will die for it; they are undemocratic, often slavishly following a charismatic leader and obedient to what they consider a higher "truth;" they tend to group together in common cause, and isolate themselves from society which they see as a threat to their purity; they are uncompromising, and insist that they are the righteous and the rest of the world must acquiesce to their way of thinking.

We are quite familiar with Christian fundamentalism and its various forms in the United States. Unfortunately, and much to our dismay, we have also become familiar with Islamic fundamentalism these past several decades. But I would guess most Americans are less familiar with Jewish fundamentalism.

The Haredi are "ultra-Orthodox" Jews (although some think the term "ultra-Orthodox" is demeaning) who believe that God wrote the Torah, strictly observe halacha (Jewish law), limit their contact with the world outside of their group and consider other Jews "unathentic."

The Haredi derive from an extremely conservative group of 18th century Eastern European Jews who fought all attempts to modernize Judaism and open Judaism up to new opportunities outside of the ghettos.

Today, the Haredi live in insular communities and their lives revolve around Torah study, prayer and family. By and large, TV, movies, secular writings, and the Internet are banned. The Haredi take care of each other and thus have little reason to depend upon the usual societal organizations. They are exempt from military service in Israel.

They also dress distinctively, much like their ancestors in the 18th and 19th centuries. Men typically wear black suits and white shirts and cover their heads with wide-brimmed black hats, under which they wear a kippah. Usually they also sport a beard and sidelocks. Women tend to wear long skirts and shirts with high necklines and long sleeves. Once a woman is married, she will cover her head with a scarf, hat, or wig.


The Haredi are rightly considered Jewish fundamentalists, as they are fanatical in their approach to religion and to life. Except for differences in religious beliefs, they are very similar to fundamentalist Christian groups around the world.

Self-righteous people, however, have a problem. They tend to think they are better than other people, and that their needs and desires should take precedence over the needs and desires of other people, and they sometimes try to impose their particular beliefs and way of life on other people. In extreme cases, they resort to violence to get their way, to protest, or to exact revenge for real or imagined slights to their righteousness.


Here's how one such event unfolded. A group of Haredi men, on an El Al flight from Israel to Kiev, started rioting because a movie was shown on board the plane. The Haredi claim that the airline had promised not to show a move during the flight. [Why El Al would agree to such a thing, though, is hard to understand.]

The Haredi were on their way to visit the gravesite of a Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav. When the movie screens began to come down, the Haredi went "wild." Others on the plane said the men started shouting and tried to physically stop the screens from dropping into place. I'm not sure how the situation was resolved.

Such craziness happened before on a 2002 El Al flight flying from Israel to Britain. An ultra-Orthodox man tried to wrap himself in plastic bags because he was a Cohen (a priest) and was afraid the plane would pass over the Holon cemetery and he would become impure. He had been warned of this by a Haredi rabbi from Lithuania. Later that rabbi said if one could wrap himself in thick plastic bags as the plane passed over the cemetery and avoid impurity. The plane's stewards unwrapped him and the plane returned to Ben Gurion Airport where the man was removed.


What does one do about this kind of fanatical behavior? How do we defend an open society, democracy, and secularism? As we've mentioned before Islamic fundamentalists in numerous countries are calling on the governments of those countries to acquiesce to their religious demands to not only teach Islamic doctrine in public schools, but to build schools just for the Islamists.

In the United States, we are assaulted daily by Christian fundamentalists who demand they be allowed to re-order society according to their god-given beliefs, thus allowing Christian prayer in public schools, posting copies of the ten commandments in public buildings (that I've never understood!), disallowing abortion and gay marriage, etc.

How does one combat true believers? Hoffer warns against rising up in hatred, because "We pay for it [hatred] by losing all or many of the values we have set out to defend." Rather, "The best way to fight is to encourage individualism, contrary thinking and a disinclination to follow blindly the teachings of any leaders, no matter how seemingly benign." (from a paper by Dr. Tim Madigan.)

I would add that any behavior that is unlawful, hurtful, deprecating to other people, be halted, forcibly if necessary, and the offenders arrested and brought to justice. No one is above the law, not even the most self-righteous! In the United States and in other democratic countries, no one can impose their religious beliefs onto others. As the saying goes, "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."

The Haredi on that El Al flight should have been arrested, charged appropriately for their offenses and brought to justice. They had no right to impose their beliefs on the other passengers. They could read the Torah rather than watch the movie. They could sleep. They could talk to themselves. They could talk to their god.

And the next time they decide to visit the rabbi's grave, walk!

Evangelicals tell the Jews they're going to hell

A few days ago, The New York Times carried an advertisement of sorts, sponsored by the World Evangelical Alliance. The advertisement was titled, "The Gospel and the Jewish People - An Evangelical Statement."

This "statement" was signed by a number of "evangelical" leaders and would-be leaders around the world, such as Lon Allison, the director of the Billy Graham Center; Mark Bailey, president of the Dallas Theological Seminary; D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; Chuck Colson, of the Prison Fellowship; Stan Guthrie of Christianity Today; Harold Hoehner, a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary; Jerry Jenkins, of the ChristianWriters Guild; Lon Solomon, pastor of the McLean Bible Church, McLean, Virginia; and many more.

This advertisement for "evangelicalism" starts out by professing love for the Jewish people, and a recognition that the church has been responsible for "anti-Semitic words and deeds." It pledges "commitment to be loving friends and to stand against such injustice in our generation."

BUT..."...we want to be transparent in affirming that we believe the most loving and Scriptural expression of our friendship toward Jewish people ... is to forthrightly share the love of God in the person of Jesus Christ."

It gets worse! These evangelicals of the world, great friends to the Jewish people, just also happen to believe that if Jews don't accept Jesus as their personal savior, they will burn forever in hell!

"We believe that it is only through Jesus that all people can receive eternal life. If Jesus is not the Messiah of the Jewish people, He cannot be the Savior of the World."

Oh boy...Contrary to what the "evangelicals" would like to believe, the fact is that the Messiah anticipated by the Jews in the first century was a kingly figure who was to conquer the world and rule the world from Jerusalem. Jesus was not the messiah of the Jews. In fact, Jesus did not claim to be the messiah.

Now, the final put-down: "It is out of our profound respect for Jewish people that we seek to share the good news of Jesus Christ with them, and encourage others to do the same, for we believe that salvation is found in Jesus, the Messiah of Israel and Savior of the World."

You just can't get much more arrogant than that! You can't get much more condescending than that! You really can't insult a group of people in a worse manner than that! And you can't find a better venue to show the world how stupendously ignorant you are than running an ad like this in The New York Times!

Friendship? Profound respect? I don't think so. If this is the essence of friendship and profound respect, who needs or wants it?

Here's a statement to the World Evangelical Alliance: Go study Torah!

Iraq becoming normal, says John McCain

It's all right, America, John McCain has given his blessing on the occupation of Iraq and the killing of American soldiers there, because "We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat."

The wonderful "surge" brought about by our great warrior prezident has, according to Mr. McCain, brought about "something approaching normal" in the Mesopotamian capital.

How does Mr. McCain know all of this? Perhaps his expertise comes from the couple of days he recently spent hiding out in the Green Zone? Or maybe the Iraqi Prime Minister so informed him? Or, perhaps it was King George who presented him with these indelible facts?

But isn't it interesting that in spite of what McCain calls "The dramatic reduction in violence..." in Iraq, 2007 - the year of the surge, was the deadliest yet? The latest American soldier death toll is 4020, with three being killed in Baghdad wiithin the past couple of days.

McCain believes we'll have to provide Iraq even more help in the next year and a half as Iraq conducts a variety of elections. One can't establish a democracy without a strong military to keep the people in line, you know. McCain has further determined the U.S. will need to pour additional funds into the country to pay for reconstruction of all the stuff we and the insurgents have blown up.

I guess four thousand plus Americans dead, thousands more wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and hundreds of thousands more left with nothing but ruined lives, just isn't enough for American warmongers.

It's been five long, deadly, godawful years thus far. But not even all that death and destruction can deter real warriors like Bush and Cheney and McCain. After five years one would think we would have made a little progress -- toward what I don't know -- but that hasn't happened. So, we're still spending $12 billion a month to occupy and stabilize this pile of Middle Eastern sand.

Someone needs to tell McCain to shut up. He's singing the same song we've heard over and over again - "Mission accomplished." The situation is under control. Democracy is coming to Iraq. The people love us because we got rid of Saddam. Any year now Iraq will have electricity and water again. The insurgents are losing. The battle is won.

We don't need McCain to add to that chorus of bullshit. We don't need to hear that finally "something approaching normal" is happening in Iraq. We don't need to hear "We are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat."

Tell that to the families of the 4,000 plus who have died and to all the Iraqis who have been murdered or exiled or find their lives destroyed beyond repair.

McCain also said that "If we [American imperialists] are honest about the opportunities and the risks, I believe they [the American people] will have the patience to allow us the time necessary to obtain our objectives."

I wonder who wrote that for him? American militarists have never been "honest" about anything related to Iraq. And why, after five years of the same bullshit, should the American people be asked to be patient?

But the big kicker is that neither McCain nor any other American politico can even define "our objectives."

Perhaps the American people might consider allowing additional time to "obtain our objectives," if, first of all, those objectives were made clear to all and made some sort of sense; and secondly, if every member of of the Bush administration who pushed for the invasion of Iraq, and every member of Congress who voted for this unbelievably stupid "war," put on a uniform and shipped out to Iraq to serve as foot soldiers in the various "combat" zones.

Pat Robertson, Insanity, and Faith-Based Initiatives

[The following is from the article, "The Christian with Four Aces," by Bill Sizemore.]

Things became bloody and genocidal in Rwanda in 1994. But Pat Robertson and his international charity, Operation Blessing, were ready to help. Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) "launched a media blitz, pleading for donations to send medical teams and win two million souls for Christ..."

Mr. Robertson informed his suckers, oops, viewers that Operation Blessing needed a Lockheed L-1011 jumbo jet which would be transformed into a "Flying Hospital." People sent him money. The jet cost $25 million. The jet was too big for the remote areas it was supposed to serve. And it was too expensive to run. "By 2001, it was sitting unused in the Arizona desert."

Then Robertson got on TV and told his viewers that he'd obtained some cargo planes, and indicated they'd be used to bring doctors and medical supplies to Zaire's refugee camps. Wasn't it wonderful that they would have a chance to contribute to the success of this ministry? He even showed a photo of an airstrip which he claimed the natives had hacked out of the jungle.

"What Robertson didn't tell viewers was ... [that] The airstrip was actually built so the planes could bring in equipment to dredge diamonds from a remote jungle riverbed for the African Development Company, a for-profit owned by Robertson and registered in Bermuda, where there is no corporate income tax and business regulations are lax. The three planes, two of which were registered to Operation Blessing, were used almost exclusively for a mine deep in the jungle...Only one or two of more than forty flights were charitable."

After Robertson became intricately involved with the notorious and brutal Zairean dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, things began to come apart. Mobutu had granted Robertson a mining concession in Zaire in exchange for Robertson's lobbying to reverse U.S. sanctions against Mobutu's travel to America.

Janet Howell, a Virginia State Senator, realized all was not on the up-and-up at the Robertson show, and suggested the attorney general investigate the possibility that Robertson might be using charitable contributions for other, less charitable causes - like lining his own pockets.

An investigation discovered evidence that Mr. Pat had "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements and other implications..." But the investigation was impeded by the fact that Operation Blessing did not respond promptly to requests for materials and when they did send materials the latter were often incomplete and confusing. Lawyers involved in the investigation thought that Robertson had made false claims but didn't think they could prove "he intended to defraud donors."

In the end, Robertson was not indicted, but he did reimburse Operation Blessing $400,000 for use of the planes and agreed to make some changes in the way Operation Blessing worked.

Later, Robertson cozied up to the bloodied Liberian madman president, Charles Taylor. In 1999, Robertson, under the name of Freedom Gold, a for-profit company, signed a mineral development deal with Taylor.

Taylor is not a nice man and his climb to power involved much brutality and viciousness -- including "forced labor, torture, and executions. In order to obtain diamonds for funding his enterprise, Taylor gave weapons and support to Sierra Leone rebels who were noted for "hacking limbs off civilians and slicing open the bellies of pregnant women."

The U.N. "slapped Liberia with an arms embargo, a travel ban on government officials, and a prohibition on diamond exports.

"Robertson lobbied vigorously to get the sanctions lifted."

"In 2002, Taylor was the star attraction at a three-day 'Liberia for Jesus' rally, which Robertson helped organize and covered on The 700 Club. ... Taylor stepped down in 2003 ... and is now on trial for war crimes in The Hague.

At last report, Robertson's gold-mining venture, which had been disrupted by the factional fighting, had resumed operations."


If you have followed the career of Marion Gordon "Pat" Robertson, you will remember how he has claimed many times that God speaks to him and through him; that God instructed him to run for president in 1988, and that he has healed many thousands of sick people, that he has turned hurricanes aside, that he has personally fought Satan "and the demons at his command," that God told him we are in the last days and that Jesus will return soon ... and that he will be present when that happens.

Robertson claims that God gave him the job to usher in the 2nd coming of His son...which will happen on Jerusalem's Mount of Olives. At one point after Robertson had obtained METV (Middle East Television), CBN officials put together a detailed plan as to how to televise Christ's return. "We even discussed how Jesus' radiance might be too bright for the cameras and how we would have to make adjustments for that problem," said one of the men involved.

You may also remember how in January of 2007, Robertson said that God had "personally warned him of a major terrorist attack, 'perhaps nuclear,' that would occur before year's end." That "prophecy" made Robertson look like a fool, but most of his viewers don't seem to care.


There's a lot more to say. But this is enough to declare that, like John Hagee, Pat Robertson is a certified lunatic! In a semi-perfect world, we would carry him off in a white jacket and put him in a room where he wouldn't hurt himself and then, using the latest therapies and drugs, try to help him become sane.

The evidence shows clearly that Pat Robertson is insane!


Maybe that's what it takes to succeed in our world today. Consider this: When prezident George W. Bush, by executive order, channeled billions of federal dollars through his Faith-Based Initiative to religious groups and groupies, Operation Blessing, in 2005, received $14 million of your tax money and my tax money!

Fourteen million taxpayer dollars!!! So who's crazy now?

Jeff Sharlet, The Family, & Faith-Based Initiatives

Jeff Sharlet's new book, The Family - The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, will become available next month.

Mr. Sharlet has spent years researching the ultra-secretive sect known as The Family or The Fellowship. The Family is a thriving, pulsating virus striking at the very heart of constitutional government in this country.

The following comes from the bookjacket:

The Family represents "fundamentalism's avant-garde, waging spiritual war in the halls of American power and around the globe. They consider themselves the new chosen, congressmen, generals and foreign dictators who meet in confidential cells, to pray and plan for a 'leadership led by God,' to be won not by force but through 'quiet diplomacy.' Their base is a leafy estate overlooking the Potomac in Arlington, Virginia, and Jeff Sharlet is the only journalist known to have written from inside its walls.

"The Family is about the other half of American fundamentallist power--not its angry masses, but its sophisticated elites. Sharlet follows the story back to Abraham Vereide, an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a 'family' that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of 'biblical capitalism,' military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, the Family's leader declares, 'We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."


I was most surprised to learn that Hillary Clinton joined a Bible study group with The Family in 1993 and has spoken of its leader as a source of spiritual insight.

For additional information click here.


John Gorenfield, writing for "Talk 2 Action," reported that on Friday, April 4, Mr. Sharlet "dropped an amazing tidbit. Seems that the Faith-Based initiative--the Bush plan to send billions of tax dollars hurtling to religious groups--was dreamed up by the geniuses at The Family, the District of Columbia's spiritual mafia and no fans of the Establishment Clause."

Gorenfield goes on to describe an amusing, if ultimately frightening, series of events he was involved in some six years ago. "Way back in 2002," he says, "below the radar, a bunch of God-oriented offices sprang up within the Department of Labor and other secular agencies. The idea was to grease the path of dollar bills from the U.S. government to social programs inspired by one deity or another."

That prodded Gorenfield to get his hand in to see what he could pull out. He got "in touch on behalf of a controversial faith--the fictitious congregation from H.P. Lovecraft's classic horror stories, about a terrifying fiend from the deep." He wrote to the Department of Labor as a representative of the Church of Cthulhu, "a.k.a. 'the thing that cannot be described.'"

The Department of Labor responded by sending him a letter "Announcing Grant Opportunities," and a pamphlet with a god-awful picture of a burning bush, containing the caption "Not everyone has a burning bush to tell them their life's calling."

Gorenfield received other mail from the DOL, but he can't find it. That mail came addressed to his "fictitious Church of the Robot."


How many billions of dollars has the Bush administration wasted on this unconstitutional and illegal scheme? We'll probably never know. Another important question is "What will happen to the Faith-Based Initiative" when Bush and cronies leave office?

Last month, Bill Berkowitz, at Media Transparency, noted that none of the current presidential candidates have provided any specifics as to how FBI will be implemented or not-implemented during their tenure, but each of them has, according to Christianity Today, "voiced support for federal funding of faith-based social services."

Obama said he wants to look at the program in detail to see "how monies have been allocated ... before I make a firm commitment ..."

Clinton actually has a "director of faith-based outreach," not a good sign. His name is Burns Strider and he indicated that she could continue funding the organizations "but would seek to maintain an appropriate boundary between church and state." [There is no "appropriate boundary." The boundary has been torn down!]

A spokesman for McCain promised that McCain would essentially keep things going the way they are. Of course he would.

Berkowitz notes that Bush, in his last State of the Union speech said he wants "to make his faith-based agenda a permanent part of the federal government." Well, we've known for seven years that George neither understands the U.S. Constitution nor feels bound by it. So that's no surprise.

Bush said, "Our government should not fear the influence of faith in our society." Which faith? Any faith? From what I've read, monies distributed through this faith-based scam have gone almost entirely to fundamentalist Christian groups. Not too much has found its way to social programs sponsored by Muslims.

But Bush doesn't even understand the problem. Again, he has twisted things around to suit his own misguided view of government. The problem isn't that government "fears" the influence of faith in our society. The problem is that the government wants to define that faith and impose the strictures of fundamentalist Christianity upon the population. What he meant and would have said, if he had been truthful, is that we have nothing to "fear" from a government that's tied to faith.

That's the con, and that, of course, is precisely what we should fear the most, because historically, every time a government and a religion have joined as one, the result has been an unmitigated disaster!

Bush's current "faith-based czar," Jay Hein, submitted a "seven-year progress report," detailing the "successes" of the Faith-Based and Community Initiative. Bushites promote the report as evidence that they were right all along as it "makes ... clear that, contrary to the imaginings of some critics, this is a serious, substantive, careful, and significant effort to improve social services, make government collaboration with grassroots and faith-based groups more fruitful, and better follow the constitutional mandate to protect religious freedom and ensure equal treatment of all."

What a crock! There is nothing "serious" or "substantive" about it! The Bush Administration set up this program as a sop to the Righteous Right, and also because it falls in line with neocon thinking that the government should rid itself of providing social services. Let the churches do the social stuff, is the official line. In neocon thinking, government is bad and thus as many government services as possible should be shuffled off to other, non-governmental groups.

Furthermore, the constitutional mandate is not "to protect religious freedom and ensure equal treatment of all." The constitutional mandate is simply that the United States government shall establish no religion and that there shall be no religious test to hold office in the U.S. political establishment.

What the Bushites have done is broken down that wall of separation of church and state precisely by establishing religious groups to do government work with taypayer dollars! And, as has become clear, the religious groups which are being established have, for the most part, a fundamentalist Christian identity.

Even a number of conservative politicians and leaders have criticised the program. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, for example, were afraid that bad groups related to Scientology and Krishna would get taypayer bucks. Not entirely irrational.

But a major problem has been the lack of oversight which allows religious groups to discriminate and/or indoctrinate, and the lack of fiscal responsibility. Furthermore, as Berkowitz says, "there are still no adequate measures in place to gauge whether religious organizations providing social services outperform -- or even perform equally as well -- as their secular counterparts. In addition, the initiative has been used as a religious patronage system to recruit minority religious officials and bolster Bush's conservative evangelical constituency."


Let's see now: Seven years ago, at the instigation and with the support of The Family, the Bush administration rammed through [see below] a faith-based program to fund religious organizations providing social services. While the Bushites claim this is in line with the U.S. Constitution, many believe it to actually be in direct violation of the Constitution.

At the end of these seven years the FBI has turned out to be exactly what many of us thought it was when first announced -- a transparent effort to shunt mega-bucks to right-wing fundamentalist organizations to build up that part of Bush's political base - without which he'd still be back shoveling shit in Crawford.

At the end of seven years and billions of dollars of taxpayer money gone up in holy smoke, no adequate evaluation as to the program's effectiveness has been undertaken, especially as it relates to other, non-religious programs. The program continues to lack proper controls to ensure that these religious providers do not discriminate or proselytize.

What we do have at the end of seven years is a proliferation and expansion of the program. The Bush administration claims that "some 35 governors and 100 mayors have established faith-based offices; opened the doors for more religious organizations to be eligible to receive government grants; doled several billion dollars to (mostly) constituent religious groups; and overcame political opposition by [the] issuing of several significant executive orders to move the project forward."


Greed rules. Greed rules everywhere. Greed rules religion and religious institutions.

Perhaps you would like to join my new religion, the Church of Haysus Mexicano. We are going to apply for a grant to provide assistance to illegals who need shopping bags to pick up aluminun cans along the highway. Everyone wanting a shopping bag would, of course, need to attend a series of "workshops" titled "Haysus Mexicano can help you find a can." We wouldn't force them to join our church, but we could imply they'd find a lot more cans if they did, and that would mean they'd earn more income.

I figure our operating expenses for the first year would run about $2 million. Seems I've lost the address for the Department of Labor, however. If you know what it is, please send an email and we'll put you on our mailing list. Oops! Mailing lists are expensive. I'd better bump our application to $2.5 million.

Republican Offenders

Tommy Korioth, from Austin, Texas who is responsible for the delightful blog, Basket of Puppies, has a wonderful post dealing with "the Republican Culture of Corruption..."

He has spent many hours documenting Republican offenders, and has now completed the task and produced a list of 272 offenders, 60 of which are pedophiles.

Click here to go the the Republican Offenders site.

[The seal on the right is from Tommy, too.]

Yoffie to Hagee - "Get Lost!"

In 1914, the talk was of Armageddon; "...military recruiting posters showed St. George, St. Michael, angels and even Christ in the background."

The British spoke of Kaiser Wilhelm as a threat to world civilization, "against which God had marshaled his chosen island people [the English]. The most extreme blessing of the cannons came from the bishop of London, A. F. Winnington-Ingram, who called the war 'a great crusade--we cannot deny it--to kill Germans.' He advised The Guardian that 'you ask for my advice in a sentence as to what the church is to do. I answer MOBILIZE THE NATION FOR A HOLY WAR.'"

"But when the Armageddon of 1914-1918 brought forty million deaths instead of Christ's return, the embarrassment was not limited to flag-bedecked Anglican churches or nonconformist chapels that had joined in the parade. Religion in general seemed to have failed, and British church attendance shrank - and then shrank again.

"It is not hard to imagine something similar happening in the United States by 2030 or 2040 as two or three decades of cynicism claim religious as well as economic and political victims. Evangelicalism under George W. Bush probably expanded to levels of adherence and belief that it will be unable to sustain much further into the twenty-first century. However that will certainly not happen overnight, because the end-times imagery of the early twenty-first century--from tsunamis and terrible hurricanes and the AIDS crisis to the rise of Iraq, followed by China, the trauma of oil, and even financial panic--lends itself too well to religious end-times explanation to dissipate in the face of anything much less than a World War I equivalent."

-- from American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips


If John Hagee has his way, we will not become enmeshed in anything so mild as a World War I equivalent, but a nuclear horror that is simply unimaginable, that can not be contained or sustained by the human mind. Unless you're crazy, like Hagee.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, said something the other day that has long needed saying. Thank god, someone finally had enough temerity and courage to spit it out:

He essentially told John Hagee to "get lost!"

At a convention of Reform rabbis in Cincinnati, Yoffie said that Jewish groups need to disassociate themselves from Hagee's CUFI (Christians United For Israel) because of Hagee's extremist views. Yoffie said Jews should avoid Hagee's "Nights to Honor Israel" because Hagee is opposed to a two-state solution and his expressed disdain for Roman Catholics and Muslims.

"...I cannot accept the argument from Jewish leaders that they can endorse CUFI events, appear as speakers at these events, accept CUFI money and still distance themselves from the positions that CUFI embraces," said Yoffie.

Furthermore, Yoffie noted that CUFI "rejects a two-state solution, rejects the possibility of a democractic Israel, and supports the permanent occupation of all Arab lands now controlled by Israel."


Rabbi Yoffie hit a few raw nerves and there was the expected backlash. I have heard the rationale numerous times that Israel needs all the help it can get and should take all the help it is offered no matter the source. That to me is morally repugnant. You are what you eat, so to speak. If you keep feeding your face with tainted food, you will get sick. Money from Hagee and the CUFI is tainted - tainted by hatred, by bigotry, by terrorizing millions of people all over the world with end-times nonsense, and, yes, even with anti-Semitism.

Yoffie is right, but there is so much more! Hagee is not the "friend" that Israel needs. We've gone over some of this before, but it evidently needs repeating. In his book, Jerusalem Countdown: A Prelude to War, Hagee wrote that the Jews brought the Holocaust upon themselves by rebelling against God. Furthermore, the Holocaust was the method God used to force Jews to move to Palestine.

According to Hagee's view of the Christian Bible, most of the Jews in Palestine will be killed in the apocalyptic battle which Hagee's group is trying to make happen because it is a precondition for the "Rapture" which will swoop Christians bodily up into Heaven. Jews, unfortunately, will not be "raptured."

Hagee, like so many TV evangelists, talks out of both sides of his mouth (that's a nice way of saying he's a liar). CUFI would like everyone to believe that it seeks peace and a strong Israel and is committed to Israel's defense. But less than two years ago, at a CUFI's inaugural, Hagee said,

"The United States must join Israel in a pre-emptive military strike against Iran to fulfill God's plan for both Israel and the West...a biblically prophesied end-time confrontation with Iran, which will lead to the Rapture, Tribulation [...] and [the] Second Coming of Christ."

Later, in a editorial for Charisma Magazine, Hagee said this preemptive attack should use nuclear weapons.


Ladies and gentlemen: These are not the words of a sane man. They are the words of a lunatic, a madman, an insane person!


How can Jews cozy up to such a person who claims to love them, but says this:

"It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews, God's chosen people, to their covenantal responsibility to serve only the one true God, Jehovah, that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day...

"Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come ...it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people."?


Hagee at times has been said to believe in a "dual covenant" theology which means simply that because of God's covenant with Israel, Jews do not need to accept Christ to be saved.

Hagee has more or less refuted that, but seems to want to take away the sting by proposing that maybe, perhaps, some Jews will be saved - if they follow the Torah.


Finally, Hagee is not a friend to the Jews. He will befriend the Jews because of their role in his fantastical end-times schema. But that's where it ends. The Jews are all going to die a horrible death unless they confess that Jesus is Lord.

And after the great battle of Armageddon, Jesus will rule the world from a throne on the Temple Mount. Hagee has said over and over again that this all is going to happen soon, that many people alive now will experience the Rapture. ... "when you see what's happening in America and the world it doesn't take long to realize that God is proclaiming through the voice of nature that we are approaching the coming of Jesus Christ in the clouds of heaven."

Hagee has also said that World War III has begun ... "the final countdown has begun."


Once again, the man is insane. But to Joe Lieberman, he's quite a guy. Lieberman said CUFI is "miraculous" and thinks he can "see God's hand" working through it. Lieberman would put Hagee right up there with Moses, a "man of God" -- who has become a "leader of a mighty multitude."

And John McCain, poor John, who now is so sorry he voted against establishing a national day of honor for Martin Luther King, Jr., thanked John Hagee for his spiritual guidance, because, said McCain, "it's hard to do the Lord's work in the city of Satan."

Hmmm... Hagee said God took out New Orleans with Katrina because New Orleans was full of queers. Why in the world would God mess around with a sinking city full or queers when he just as easily could have done away with McCain's "city of Satan" -- Washington, D.C.?


Thank God for Yoffie. Finally. He got it. Show Hagee the door. He's not a friend. His money is tainted. He is crazy!

Florida's Religious Right Wants Taxpayer Money

The constitution of the State of Florida contains this provision:

"No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."

Sounds good to me.

Jeb Bush, who like his brother George, flaunts the law when it serves his purpose, was successful in getting a school voucher plan passed a few years back when he was governor of Florida. It allowed students in failing schools the option of transferring to private (religious) schools on the taxpayer's dime.

The Florida Supreme Court rightly shot down that voucher plan, which on its face was unconstitutional. Jeb knew that, of course, but thought he could pull one over on the Florida yokels. I mean, his brother finagled the presidency twice, which obviously proves you can fool the people big time, over and over again!

Some years ago, the Religious Right, as it took the shape of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition and Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority announced explicitly that they intended to take over the government of the United States, change that damn constitutional provision about separation of church and state and establish a Christian government.

They said they would do it this way: They were going to elect their people to positions of power at every level of government - city councils, school boards, county commissions, state legislatures and state commissions, governorships, national representatives and senators, and eventually the White House itself.

Unfortunately, they've achieved a certain amount of success. George W. was their biggest prize, not because he was particularly religious, but because he was dumb enough to be molded by right-wing pressure and could easily be directed to do the will of the Christian nationalists, and/or dominionists.


Some pundits claim that the Religious Right is in retreat, humbled in defeat and is no longer a threat. So-called Christian "evangelicals" are looking for a new and different approach to dealing with the problems of the nation and the world.

Don't believe that for a minute.

There are two attributes most descriptive of the Religious Right - tenacity and deceitfulness.

[Please understand that I'm trying not to use the term Christian Right - for a couple of reasons. One is that the Religious Right includes a lot of people on the fringe of religion, not necessarily Christian. Karl Rove, for example, is not noted for his religious faith or practice, but he is still a prominent player in the Religious Right.

Secondly, many people in the Religious Right who claim to be Christians or even "super" Christian, do not fit my definition of Christianity. You can call them pious, prayerful, pitiful, fraudulent, freaky fundamentalists, but, in my opinion, you can't call them "Christian."]

The Religious Right in Florida is both tenacious and deceitful - they have a tendency, like a bad penny, to turn up again and again. Defeated in one area on one issue, they regroup, metastasize, and slither unnoticed into an issue to work their nastiness.

We wrote a few days ago about the current session of Florida's Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, a group that meets every 20 years. At that time it appeared they had the votes to put the school voucher business on the November ballot, but that didn't happen; the motion failed by one vote.

Here's where the tenaciousness comes in: [Note that for a Commission motion to pass, it must get 17 votes.] The voucher thing failed. The Religious Right came right back with another motion. The Commission voted 17-7 (!) to replace the Constitution's "no-aid" provision (mentioned above) with this:

"Individuals or entities may not be barred from participating in public programs because of religion."

That's the deceit part. How many Florida voters are going to understand that convoluted, innocuous sentence? It sounds like the state will set up programs and you can't be turned away because of your religion.

But that's not what it's all about. It means that the state will be allowed to fund, with taxpayer money, religious groups doing their thing in the state of Florida!

The Commissioner raising the most hell and the one who sponsored the above motion is Patricia Levesque, a religious rightist who formerly served as Jeb Bush's education advisor. She cries that unless this is passed, all kinds of good programs will be wiped out! "...millions of dollars of public programs are at risk," she warns.

In other words, let's use Florida tax money to establish and propagate "faith-based" providers of services.


Where does this notion come from? Since when does any state in the United States of America have the right to fund "faith-based" providers?

It is said that the Constitutional provision that forbids using tax money for religious institutions was the result of anti-Catholic bias. That may well be the case, because I would guess the provision was put into the Constitution to protect public money from the greedy hands of the priests. The Roman Catholic Church has historically believed that it should be supported by whatever state it finds itself in and invariably lobbies for public funding.

So, that's a non-issue. Today, we have not only the Catholic Church, but Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod institutions, all kinds of independent, fundamentalist, sectarian groups trying to dip their hands in the till.

None of them - not one - deserves a single penny of taxpayer money for any purpose!

The idea that so-called "faith-based" institutions can do a better job than the government in terms of providing services is nonsense and based upon not one iota of evidence, but upon a theology that believes the church should be part of the government and should receive support from the government.


Let's throw a log on the fire. This assumption is always, in a right-wing "Christian" state like Florida, that we're talking primarily about "Christian" institutions when we talk about providing monies to "faith-based" groups. There's a good reason for that - the huge majority of these "faith-based" groups have some connection to the name, Christian.

For example. with regard to the vouchers that let students in failing schools transfer to private schools - 80% of the private schools to which students transferred were Christian institutions.

I have a feeling, however, that if you asked Ms. Levesque, whether or not she thought other religious groups, such as Jews or Hindus or Wiccans, or Muslims would be considered "faith-based" and eligible for state money, she would turn pale in horror.

From what I have read about other countries--Sweden, France, and England, specifically-- Muslim communities, as they grow in size and strength, demand they receive special treatment from the government. They demand they be able to teach their version of creation, their version of law; they demand they be able to wear their religious garb; they demand the state provide special schools for their children so they won't be tainted by non-Muslims.

That would be no problem under the constitutional revision proposed by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission! "Individuals or entities may not be barred from participating in public programs because of their religion."

What a mess!

Hopefully, the good voters of the State of Florida will be wise enough to send this provision to the dumpster where it belongs!

The title of Christopher Hitchens book comes to mind, though I'd revise it like this: "Too often religion poisons everything."

Women Priests - Sometimes you have to rewrite the rules

Many of Christianity's problems arise from the fact that it is patriarchal, hierarchical and juridical.

While those attributes are descriptive of Roman Catholicism, many other Christian sects share them to some degree.

In Roman Catholic Christianity, males rule the roost; the established hierarchy, unopposed, runs the machinery; and church law defines what is required, allowed, and demanded of adherents. It is not possible for a group of Catholic lay people or clergy to gather together, discuss issues, and make decisions, unless those decisions are approved by the male hierarchy and are in line with the laws laid down by male hierarchs or their predecessors.

To become a member of the Roman Church or to remain a member in good standing of the Roman Church, you must agree to accept the structure of the institution and to obey the laws of the institution and to affirm your faith in all of the religious precepts of the institution.

Other, more democratic church organizations, would seem to allow more freedom, but that may be illusory. For example, if a group of lay people and clergy from the Southern Baptist Convention gathered together to discuss the issue of abortion and concluded that the state has no innate authority to deprive women of the right to an abortion, it is likely that the group would be asked to modify their views so they are more in line with Southern Baptist teaching or find another church home.

In recent years, an increasing number of Christian churches have decided that women are real people and should have all the rights and privileges of other people (e.g. males) in their organizational structure. Women now serve as pastors and priests and bishops in several Protestant church organizations. The wall of male hierarchical authority has been breached - not universally, of course, but sufficiently so there will be no turning back.


It is very difficult for Christian churches, of whatever persuasion, to make fundamental changes in either belief or structure. That in spite of the fact that the Christian creedal formulations and basic ecclesiastical ideas were in process over a period of many years and during those years there were literally hundreds of Christian groups who held a variety of beliefs about Jesus and about God.

As the so-called orthodox gained power, however, and as a church institution began to take shape, Christians increasingly were defined, not so much by their actions, but by their beliefs. "Orthodoxy" gained the upper hand, and other views were declared heretical.

Orthodoxy insisted that to be accepted into the Christian community you had to confess that Jesus Christ had been crucified (to save you from your sins), buried and raised from the dead by his Father God, etc. The specifics varied from place to place, and time to time, but the expectation remained the same - you were a Christian if you believed certain doctrines about the heavingly redeermer, Jesus Christ.

Gradually, the Jewish Jesus (Yeshua) of the Synoptic Gospels, who lived for the Torah, was forgotten and disappeared from view, replaced by Jesus Christ, a mythical heavenly redeemer.

Paul and his followers proclaimed that the old Covenant between Yahweh and the Jewish people had been abrogated and that God, the father of the Lord Jesus Christ, had established a new covenant for all people (not just Jews); one which demanded faith, not obedience; belief, not works. This new covenant proclaimed that God the Father (a much different god than the Yahweh of the old Covenant) offered salvation, i.e., eternal life (which the old Yahweh never offered) to those who professed that God the father killed his son on a cross as a sacrifice for sin, (Yahweh, of course, abhorred child sacrifice!) then resurrected the son, and in the final act took the son up into heaven to rule with him forever and ever.


Obviously, I'm making a number of points here. The one I want to stress, though, is that Christianity, by stressing the importance of faith, or belief, soon established specific matters of faith and specific items of belief as fundamental to the new religion. And before long, they were set in stone, no longer to be denied or modified.

One of those beliefs was the dogma still held today by the Roman Church that only males are qualified to be priests and bishops. The qualification is a matter of genitalia. The rationale goes like this: Jesus was a male and had a penis. All of his disciples were male and had penises. Priests and bishops for 2,000 years have been males with penises. Ergo, God hath ordained that only males (with their penises) can attach to the holier than thou class of clergy within the domain of the Roman organization.

[Please note that this rationale ignores the evidence that in many places during the first years of the church's existence, women did play important and significant roles within the church. Paul calls women his "co-workers," and one of them he refers to as a deaconness, and another an apostle. In the very early years, Christians met in homes owned by women which likely signifies they held some position within the group. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene describes a Christian community in which Mary Magdalene is regarded as a disciple, a leader and a teacher. By way of a negative reference, Tertullian, an early church father in Africa, became very upset at a woman he called "that viper," because she baptized. He said "These heretical women, how audacious they are. I mean they, they teach, they baptize, they preach, they do all kinds of things they shouldn't do. It's horrible, in short." By the 2nd century, however, at least in more orthodox circles, women were ostracized from leadership positions, probably because they were much too threatening to good order, e.g., male domination and power.]


Authority, ultimately, yields to power, the power of those under the authority. Authority is a gift, which means it can be rescinded. Authority can be coerced or extorted, of course, but that is not real authority. Real authority derives from the power of the giver. I have known sports coaches who were aghast when their players revolted and refused the coaches' instruction. The players took back or rescinded the authority they had given the coach. The coach could coerce that authority by threats and intimidation, but even if he won, he lost, for he regained not authority, but power, and was all the more hated for it.

Sometimes you will hear people speak of the authority of an "office" or a position. The person occupying the Oval Office has a certain authority by virtue of her office as president. That is true only to a point. If a president abuses or misuses her authority, the people rescind her authority and, divorced from the office, she loses her authority. The people no longer respect her, or obey her, or heed her instructions.

In the Roman Catholic Church power resides with the clergy, in particular the bishops, and preeminently, the bishop of Rome.

Many millions of the Catholic faithful grant to their clerical leaders, authority. These faithful will listen to the hierarchy and will believe the hierarchy as if their word was the word of god itself, and they will obey the hierarchy. The faithful thus transmit authority to the bishops and by so doing validate their power.

However, this arrangement is becoming more and more unsatisfactory as millions of other Catholics have withdrawn the authority they had given their clerics and that effectively relieves the clerics of their power. When the priests and bishops pronounce abortion to be a mortal sin, they shrug. When the priests and bishops claim that the use of condoms is wrong, they roll their eyes and go about their business. When the priests and bishops insist that clergy must be unmarried, they walk on, unbelieving. They may have deep affection for the Roman Catholic Church but have concluded that the patriarchal, hierarchical, juridical structure has failed and is no longer valid (if it ever was) for the times in which we live.


Meet the women of the Roman Catholic Church who have taken back the authority and thus the power they once gave to the bishops to determine who is eligible to attain the priesthood. Meet the women who, realizing the bishops were more about abuse of power than the sharing of the gospel, retracted their grant of authority to the hierarchy which shifted the power in new and different direction.

Before we go further, we must note the consequences of such actions. The bishops, perhaps not realizing they no longer have authority or power, may very well issue threats of excommunication and eternal damnation in an attempt to bring these women back in line. They may very well damn all those who assist these women or receive the sacraments from their hands.

In fact, the bishops have already done so. But it's too late. Their authority has no teeth.

The women are the women of The Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement. It began in 2002, on a boat in the Danube River, when seven women were ordained as Roman Catholic priests. Since then, it has grown steadily. Fifty people, including six men, have been ordained, 37 from the United States. Another 100 or so have signed up for the formal "pre-ordination" training.

Here is the mission statement of the North American contingent: "Roman Catholic Womenpriests is an international initiative within the Roman Catholic Church. The mission of Roman Catholic Womenpriests North America is to spiritually prepare, ordain and support women and men from all states of life, who are theologically qualified, who are committed to an inclusive model of church, and who are called by the Holy Spirit and their communities to minister within the Roman Catholic Church."

Last November 11, Patricia Fresen, one of the four bishops of the movement, ordained two women at a synagogue in St. Louis. Fresen was for 45 years a Dominican nun, and a former seminary professor in South Africa. She expresses surprise at the numbers of interested people. "We have a lot of new applicants," she said. "I now have five assistant program coordinators, and we can barely keep up. It has amazed me."

Many of the women involved have long histories of service within the church, serving in parishes, archdiocesan offices, health care organizations or educational institutions. Most of them are older and have felt for a long time they were called to the ministry. As the years have passed, they've concluded that the patriarchal, hierarchical, juridical model of the church is not going to change, so they have acted, giving themselves authority and empowering themselves to do what they believe is most representative of Christianity.

One particular incident provides insight into the kinds of religious communities women priests might create. About seven years ago, the Spiritus Christi Catholic community in Rochester, New York ordained a woman, Mary Ramerman. Spiritus Christi not only supports priestly roles for women, but celebrates gay unions and offers Holy Communion to non-Catholics, which is a juridical issue (i.e., Church law forbids non-Catholics received Holy Communion in Catholic Churches.) Generally, the Women Priest Movement also discourages titles for priests and bishops and requires no vow of obedience!


Church "authorities," failing to realize they were bereft of power as their authority had been rescinded, formally excommunicated the seven women ordained on the Danube River. The decree was signed by none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now better known as Pope Benedict XVI.

The Vatican has not responded to more recent ordinations, but Archbishop Raymond L. Burke in St. Louis formally warned two women planning to be ordained which meant that if they went ahead with their plans they could be cast out of the church. [Update: He has since carried out that threat.]

No matter, for his authority and power are compromised: As Gerry Rauch, a resident of St. Louis said when told of Burke's threat, "Burke is a paper tiger."

Opposition to the WomenPriests is expected from the hierarchy as well as many of the laity. Yet the women report that they have received support from many male priests and that three bishops in good standing have ordained women bishops. Bishop Fresen notes that her own ordination "was duly documented and notarized, with a record of those present, along with copies of the three bishops' apostolic successions (with her name at the end) signed and sealed in a bank vault whose location ... is known only to a few."

While women priests cannot serve in most Catholic churches, many see themselves as serving "people on the margins." Fresen notes these are those many Catholics who, according to church law are barred from receiving the sacraments: those who have divorced and remarried without obtaining an annulment by the church; gays and lesbians living with partners; those who have had an abortion or supported abortion rights; couples who use contraceptives in open defiance of the church's ban.

Whether this movement continues to grow and develop is still to be determined. What it does indicate clearly, however, is that the patriarchal, hierarchical, and juridical model, if not under siege, is certainly under review. It may signify a breakthrough whereby more and more people will grant themselves the authority and power to rewrite the rules so they can better represent the faith they serve and the institution through which they serve.

In many ways, the Roman Catholic Church is dying: the sex-abuse scandals have rocked it to its foundations; fewer and fewer men are committing to the priesthood; and a growing number of the faithful are refusing to heed the authority or the dictates of the hierarchy.

There is a popular phrase that says "rules are made to be broken." I'm not sure that's true, but I don't believe that rules are necessarily sacrosanct, especially rules that were established eons ago in another time and another place.

Common sense seems to dictate that periodically we need to revisit our past in light of our present and our future, and realizing that the rules were written by people just like us, we take it upon ourselves to rewrite the rules!

[Thanks to the National Catholic Reporter for some of the information contained in this essay.]

For additional information go to: http://www.romancatholicwomenpriests.org/

A World Under Water, Already Drowned

"Jesus, even had he been Yahweh incarnate, could not have apprehended or comprehended a globe that might seem to him a world under water, already drowned, as if even Yahweh's first covenant, with Noah, had never been cut." ["Jesus and Yahweh - The Names Divine" by Harold Bloom.]


The following are just a few comments from readers of an AOL story on global warming:

Man made global warming is a myth created by marxist ecofreaks to bring down capitalism.

Dumb asses......this past winter one of coldest on record........!!!!!!!
Get a real job. Eleminate social programs and get this country back to work.
Stop Whining you frickin libs....

What a waste of time, seriously, if global warming is happening (hard to believe since this was the coldest and snowiest winter in 20 years) its not caused by humans. besides in the 60s and 70s they were predicting GLOBAL COOLING and said that the average temperature would DROP by a few degrees...make up your damn mind already you so called "scientists" or else just go back to making robot girlfriends and leave the way people run their lives alone.

DUH DUH DUH..... Last night Ted Turner said within thirty years we will become cannibals because of Global Warming...
When I hear people Like Ted Turner or Al Gore speak it makes me want to start my SUV and let it run in my driveway..
Perhaps if you find spokes people that are not insane, perhaps people like me might takeit seriously....

Hey, the founder of the Weather Channel - a noted meteorologist - rebukes the Global Warming scare... look it up!!! Global warming is not a new or 'emissions' related event. The Earth has many cycles of warming and cooling as natural occurrences. Right now, we are in COOLING! Greenland got it's name because it used to be ...well.... GREEN during the warming period of the 500-1000 AD. Do you homework people!


From the moronic quality of those comments, you would be hard-pressed to believe that their authors even read the article.

The story described how a group of state attorneys general are suing the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to force the EPA to obey a 2007 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supremes said that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are air pollutants as described under the Clean Air Act, and therefore the EPA must follow the procedures outlined in that act to reduce those pollutants.

In the court filing, 17 states said the EPA has done nothing to comply with the Supreme Court's order, and asks that the EPA be forced to take action within 60 days.

Amazingly, there are still people in the United States who believe global warming to be a myth or, if a problem, not a serious problem. From the comments noted above, it is likely that these are people who obtain their information from the Republican National Committee, Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh.

Consider, if you will, information related to global warming from real scientists.

National Geographic Magazine tells us that the Arctic sea ice is melting at a record rate. As of September of 2007, the ice cover had shrunken from its previous low in 2005, "by an area larger than Texas and California combined, opening sea routes usually limited to ice breakers. In 1979, September ice extended 2.78 million square miles; last year it was 1.65 million.

Up until just recently, scientists believed that global warming would melt the year-round polar ice cap by late in this century. New studies indicate the meltdown is coming much sooner, and that the polar region could be open water by the summer of 2030. Another oceanographer, using another model, claims the Arctic as we know it will end in 2013.

AOL noted that a record amount of Greenland's ice sheet melted this summer -- 19 billion tons more than the previous high mark. And for the first time on record, the Northwest Passage was open to navigation.

Here are other prognostications from that report as to what the future holds:

* A climate change report from earlier in 2007 predicts that sea levels will increase seven to 23 inches by 2100, speeding erosion and threatening coastal land. We will discuss this as it affects Florida a bit later.

* A U.N. report also estimates that global warming will cause a temperature increase between 3.6 and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, with the best estimate around 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

* Uncommonly warm winter weather will play havoc with many European ski resorts. A University of Innsbruck study suggests that due to an average 3 percent decrease in Alpine ice, glaciers in the Alps will melt away by 2050.

* Britain's Meteorological Office reported in January that 2007 is likely to end up the warmest year ever recorded to date. El Nino and high levels of greenhouse gasses have raised global temperatures enough to break the record set in 1998.

* More than 100 cold-dependent species are in trouble. Polar bears have started dropping in numbers and weight and emperor penguin populations have shrunk by a factor of 30 in some areas.

* Central American harlequin frogs have lost 67 percent of their population in the last 20 to 30 years. Their warming environment has become a breeding ground for a fungus that is deadly to the frogs.

* One study says that the average global temperature has risen to the warmest level of the past 12,000 years. Temperatures are only 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit below the maximum temperature of the past million years.

* Two studies released in March 2006 found that despite the increasing snowfall that comes with global warming, Antarctica's ice sheets are losing far more surface area than the snow is adding.

* The rate of ice melting doubled between 1996 and 2005.

* Some 4 million acres of mature trees in Alaska have been killed by spruce bark beetles. Scientists believe that warmer temperatures have allowed the beetles to breed and mature twice as fast as normal.

* Sugar maple trees are migrating farther north out of New England as temperatures rise, putting a dent in the maple syrup industry.

* Mosquitoes that carry malaria or dengue fever are moving into formerly inhospitable areas at higher elevations. Global warming is expected to increase the range of mosquitoes and the virulence of their diseases.

* More than 250 people died in a heat wave that baked much of the United States in 1999, and in 2003 extreme heat waves killed 20,000 people in Europe and 1,500 in India.

* Scientists believe global warming will increase the risk of wildfires, such as this 2003 California blaze that burned more than 300,000 acres, by raising temperatures and causing an earlier spring.

* Rising temperatures are to blame for increased rainfall and more extreme flooding. In the United States, annual precipitation has increased between 5 and 10 percent since the early 20th century.

* "Bleached" coral reefs that protect coastal areas and harbor some of the most colorful life on Earth are dying prematurely because of warming ocean waters and higher levels of carbon dioxide.


Back to rising sea levels. If you live in a coastal region, this information is not to be taken lightly. All indicators are that global warming is melting glacial and sea ice much more rapidly than previously thought, which is one reason the seas are rising to levels unprecendented in recent millenia. Thermal expansion plays a role also. Water expands as it warms. As the upper level of the ocean gains warmth, the sea level is pushed higher.

Along Florida's gulf coast these are some observable changes occurring now: In Levy County, at the Waccassassa State Park, palm trees are falling over dead due to rising saltwater. Near Naples, at the Rookery Bay Preserve, freshwater marshes have been invaded by salt-water mangroves. Inland marshes are being replaced by salt water ponds in the western part of Everglades National Park.

According to an article in the St. Petersburg Times, "...scientists studying the phenomenon see it as a harbinger for major changes in the state's geography submerging islands and turning swamps into open bays. Those changes alone can create a serious economic impact on businesses such as fishing."

The Tampa Bay area is also noticing a rapid increase in rising sea levels. Mike Savarese, a marine science professor at a Florida Gulf Coast University, says that the increase can be difficult to notice because of replenished beaches and sea walls. But the evidence is quite clear in wilderness areas such as state and national parks. Savarese said "...we're seeing some real indications of change out there."


It's time to sound the sirens! Those states with long coastal areas are going to be the most affected by climate change in the near future. As we've seen, the changes are ongoing at present and it appears they are increasing more rapidly previously believed.

Unlike the moron who thinks so little of Al Gore that if Al Gore talks about global warming he wants to go start up his SUV and let it run, there are things we can do, and we've heard about them a number of times. Besides our personal actions to use less fuel and conserve more energy, perhaps the most important thing is to elect people to our local, state and national offices who understand the problem and intend to take action to deal with the problem.

Al Gore is setting the pace for most of us. He is about to reveal a $300 million climate change program, known as "The Alliance for Climate Protection," which is a public advocacy thrust to get the facts to the people which will then lead to a push for national policy changes. At the moment, our elected officials are overcome with inertia, and appear incapable of and/or unwilling to deal effectively with the problem.

Gore is putting his money where his mouth is. He is donating all the proceeds "from the Oscar-winning documentary, 'An Inconvenient Truth,' the best-selling companion book, his salary from the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers and several international prizes, such as the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, which adds up to more than a (sic) 2.7 million. Paramount Classics, the documentary's distributor, has pledged 5 percent of the film's profits to the group, and some of the money raised through the 2007 Live Earth concerts will help the campaign, along with Gore's proceeds from an uncoming book on climate change."

Private donors have already come up with about half the money needed for the entire campaign.

It is distressing and sad that global warming, or climate change, has become a political issue. Instead of playing a leadership role in facing up to what is undoubtedly the greatest threat ever to the well-being of our planet, the Bush administration chose to not only deny the fact of global warming, but to actively hinder efforts to deal with it. The reason, of course, is that what is required, such as emission controls of greenhouse gasses, would have cut into the bottom line of Bush's corporate cronies!

Can you imagine what it would be like to have a president who received international acclaim and was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing to the world's attention the incipient threat of unmitigated disaster in the form of global warming?

Instead, we have a president who is a complete doofus, who has failed at every single thing he has tried, and instead of solving problems, has created new ones and who, instead of international acclaim, has become an international pariah, and deserves the only prize that accurately describes his tenure in the White House -- the Booby Prize!

One last thing: If you are planning to buy a home or condo along Florida's coastline, you may want to rethink that decision, for we are soon to be a "world under water, already drowned." You see, Yahweh may yet cancel the covenant with Noah.

The Holocaust Journal (Lest We Forget) - Finale

[Photo is the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Washington, D.C.]

In 1951, Israel's parliament, the Knesset, established Yom ha-Sho'ah on the 27th day of the month of Nisan.

Israel became a nation on May 14, 1948, thus celebrates its statehood, on Iyyar 5.

In Israel, at 8 A.M. on Yom ha-Sho'ah, sirens scream for two minutes. The Holocaust Chronicle explains it this way: "...the sirens sound multiple warnings: Be vigilant; do not take Israel's existence for granted. Be realistic; do not assume that the Holocaust will never be forgotten, let alone that genocide is a thing of the past. Be undeceived: do no suppose that Israel's existence 'makes up' for the Holocaust. Be careful: do not imagine, at least not easily, that the state of Israel reaffirms the covenant between God and the Jewish people. Be clearheaded: do not preempt the Holocaust by making its evil instrumental, the means that somehow produced a 'greater good.'"

* 1947 - The former prime minister of Slovakia, Jozef Tiso, an ally of Hitler, is tried and executed. According to a 1956 report, Raoul Wallenberg, the Swedish diplomat dies in a Soviet prison.

Throughout 1947 and following years, many trials are held for Nazi judges and officials and others allied with Nazism. Some are sentenced to death, some are imprisoned and some are acquitted. Too many escaped justice!

* September 8: British troops turn tear gas on Jewish refugees from the ship, Exodus.

* November 29 - The United Nations votes to partition Palestine to create a Jewish state. Palestinian Arabs are very much opposed.

* 1948 - Pope Pius XII suggests mercy for all Nazi war criminals condemned to death. General Lucius Clay rejects his suggestion.

* May 14 - The British mandate to rule Palestine expires. Palestine is divided into the state of Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan. Within hours, the United States grants recognition to Israel.

* May 15 - Egyptian and Jordanian forces invade Israel.

* December - The UN establishes a Genocide Convention which asks members of the UN to resist groups who seek to destroy people on racial, ethnic, religious or national grounds. The US refuses to sign, probably because of the forced segregation within the U.S.

* January 7, 1949 - A cease-fire is called in Israel and in the settlement that ensues, Israel gains 50 percent more territory.

* May 23, 1949 - The Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) is established.

Down through the years, many Nazis escaped justice and fled to other countries. A number went to South America, assisted by the Vatican. For example, about 60,000 Nazis made it to Argentina, at least 1,000 of which were members of the SS. Some came to the United States. The more notorious were hunted down and many were brought to justice. Others were never found, or died in exile.

In October of 1980, a law creating the United States Holocaust Memorial Council was passed unanimously by the U.S. Congress. This council sponsors fund-raising events for the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. The museum officially opened in April of 1993 in Washington, D.C.