Feed on
Posts
Comments

Words that Inspire

Words are powerful. They can build up and they can tear down. Words can kill and words can give life. Words have been with us since all of time. In fact;

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (Jn 1:1 -thanks Sr. Giovanni!)

Since then the Word has continued his mission to bring life and light to the human race. “He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.

Since then, these men and women, children of God, have continued that mission and ”fought the good fight” for His glory and for our salvation in Christ Jesus.

In times past, and in our own present time, we are encouraged and inspired by the Word within them. Their words of conviction strengthen us and lead us in truth and wisdom.

One of those men, who is alive and spreading the Word with great zeal is Archbishop of Denver’s Charles J. Chaput’s. I only just discovered him through his book, Render unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life. I decided to take notes as I read his book so it took a while since everything in it is incredible. I will share quotes from the book here as I get them typed up and add them to the new Words that Inspire page. Here’s one for today from Bergson in the introduction of Chaput’s book:

“The motive power of democracy is love”  

I’d like to dedicate a (hopefully) at least weekly post to these Chaput quotes and other men and women with their words that inspire. Contact me through facebook (click on the facebook badge on the right sidebar) if you’d like to share a good quote pertaining to the Truth and how it applies to the issues of our times.

Share

My husband rightfully pointed out that there was a big thing missing from my Tea Party post: What is the basic mission of the Tea Party?

The Tea Party movement’s objectives according to the National Tea Party Federation and the Tea Party Patriots is:

Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, Free Markets

Simple, sweet, and to the point. What’s so violence-inciting and racist about those? If I go by those 3 basic objectives, I really have no good reason not to support the Tea Party movement. I see nothing in those basic goals that goes against my faith or the Social Doctrine of the  Catholic Church. In fact these basic objectives complement these teachings of the Church and the founding principles of our United States Constitution rather nicely.

Those 3 basic objectives of the Tea Party movement are good and worth fighting for. However, I have to say that I’m even more excited and inspired by the 9 principles and 12 values of the 912 Project.

Which are:

1. America is a good place, not perfect, but good.

2. I believe in God and He is the center of my life.

3. I must try to be a better, more honest person than I was yesterday.

4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority.

5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.

6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and not a guarantee of equal results.

7. I work hard for what I have. I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.

8. It is not un-American for me to disagree or share my personal opinion.

9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them. They answer to me.

12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude

Shouldn’t these objectives, principles, and values be integral and precious to all Americans, especially Catholic and Christian Americans? Imagine how much greater our country and world would be if everyone applied these values into every part of their life.

Share

On the same note as yesterday’s Tea Party post, a friend linked this article, Catholic Teaching on Subsidiarity should be Cornerstone of Tea Party Manifesto. It is right on line with what I’ve been feeling. It’s nice to see good Catholics talking about what Church social teaching really means and how it applies to the Tea Party movement.

This was one my favorite parts:
“In his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope… John Paul II warned us that the welfare state undermined this core principle of subsidiarity. The welfare state discourages human initiative and results in an excessive increase of public bureaucracies. This results in an enormous increase in spending by a government whose goal is to achieve its own statist agenda rather than to serve the public.”

Share

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month and Respect Life month so I’m hoping to focus on at least the latter issue a few times throughout the month.

A few posts back I brought up the issue of Susan G. Komen’s Race for the Cure and their connection with Planned Parenthood. Today I read an article that reinforces what I said but in a much more articulate and resourceful manner: Breast Cancer Awareness: An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure

If you get a chance to read the article, or at least skim it, you’ll learn about how a woman’s body is designed to protect itself from breast cancer through a full term pregnancy and exclusive and extended breastfeeding.

Some golden nuggets from the article:

“The risk of breast cancer in women having an abortion prior to a FFTP [first time full term pregnancy]ranges from 40% to 90% in most cases. In girls under the age of 18 with a family history of breast cancer, the risk becomes incalculably high.”

“It isn’t until the third trimester under the influence of the hormone human placental lactogen that the immature cells mature into cancer-resistant Type 3 and Type 4 cells.”

The article also points Dr. Louise Brinton’s sketchy science and lies that deny the possibility or existence of a causal link between abortion and breast cancer. 

“Dr. Louise Brinton of the National Cancer Institute whose own research through the years has shown the link between abortion and breast cancer, and who convened a panel in 2003 to deny the validity of fifty years of research showing that link. The full story on Brinton’s duplicity is here.”

Aside from the abortion link, Nadal also makes sure to bring up the facts about Oral Contraceptives and their blatant possible ties to breast cancer risks.

“Were all of that not enough, Susan G. Komen for the Cure has been donating millions of dollars to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions and OCs in the nation. Their claim is that PP provides mammograms (which aid in diagnostics but not the “Cure”). In funding PP, Komen is contributing to new cases of breast cancer, a fact they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge. The truth, however, is that PP dispenses OCs like candy. They encourage a lifestyle of delaying childbirth while pumping young girls and women full of the OCs that raise their risk of developing breast cancer.”

Those were just a few points, check out the full article when you get a chance.

Share

Please welcome Monica from Every Day is a Gift, as a guest blogger discussing the important bioethical issue of Stem Cells today.

“Stem cells.” It’s a buzz-word that I know conjures up different thoughts, ideas and feelings (or lack there-of) for different people, but it is a term that is becoming more and more prevalent in today’s society in reference to medical “advances”.  Five years ago, if someone had done the old “random association” game (listen to a word and write down what immediately pops into your mind) with me and said the word “stem cells,” I probably would have said something vague like “science” or “biology”.  Ask me again today and you will get an earful. 

As a Catholic mother living in today’s American Society, I have become increasingly more aware of my need to keep myself informed and up-to-date when it comes to the morality of practices that society deems to be good and common-place.   As Catholics, we should constantly strive to filter every issue – big or small – through the lens of Catholic moral teaching.  And the issue of ethical stem cell use is no small one.

 The stem cells used in most medical research and pharmaceutical development today are namely from two sources.

  1. Adult stem cells
  2. Embryonic stem cells

Looks pretty innocuous does it not?  Let us take a closer look.  First off, we will define the term “adult stem cells”. These are essentially stem cells that have undergone some degree of development, therefore while called “adult” cells; they can also be found in a child or even a fetus.  It has to do with the stage of development the cells have reached at the time they are gathered, not from whom they are gathered.  For instance, stem cells gathered from the umbilical cord soon after a child’s birth are considered adult stem cells just the same as those gathered from an adult’s bone marrow (a common place from which to obtain them).  You may also have heard the term iPSC’s (induced pluripotent stem cells).  These are adult stem cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to an embryonic (pluripotent) stem-cell state. (1)  Adult stem cells are, for all intents and purposes, considered to be obtained in an ethically acceptable manner.  Hmmm, you say?  Ethically acceptable??  Why would that even be an issue?  I mean, we have the CDC and the NIH, government and even tax payer dollars behind all this research and development.   All those people are certainly looking out for the best interests of the human race, right?  Why would ethics even be an issue?  Let’s go a bit further with our definitions.

Come with me as we define #2, the stem cells found in embryos.  First off, we will make sure we understand the definition of the word “embryo”.  An embryo is the young of a viviparous (bringing forth living young rather than eggs) animal, especially of a mammal, in the early stages of development within the womb, in humans up to the end of the second month. (2)  Embryonic stem cells are pluripotent, which means they can develop into almost any body tissue. Some medical researchers hope this means they can eventually be used in stem cell therapies for many different human conditions due to this versatility. Still sounds pretty harmless, even good, right?  So let’s make sure we’re all clear on just how exactly these embryonic stem cells are obtained.  Embryonic stem cells are obtained by killing the embryo. (3)  Wow.  Yes, you read that right.  But I’ll say it once more, for effect.  Embryonic stem cells are obtained by killing the embryo.  That sounds an awful lot like abortion to me.  And as a Catholic, I have been taught since I was a young child that abortion is wrong and that all human life is sacred from its very beginning – when the sperm and the egg meet and a soul is infused into that tiny, tiny being by our omnipotent God – until its natural end.  So how does all this jibe?  How do we rationalize this act in the name of good medicine?  Some would argue that these embryonic stem cells were obtained from elective or voluntary abortions. A very nice way of putting it, but seriously…over whose eyes are we trying to pull the wool?  I don’t know of any baby who has “elected” or “volunteered” to be aborted.  Whether the stem cells were aborted specifically for the purpose of science, or they were just “happened upon” conveniently, the ends do not justify the means, and two wrongs certainly can never make a right.  So whilst some may argue there have been amazing medical advances, treatments and drugs derived from these cell lines, I will argue back, “how can we claim such good has come from such horrific evil.”  It just cannot be so.  Especially when more and more studies are being done to show that iPSC’s can be just as effective as pluripotent (embryonic) cells, and without the risk of tissue rejection, which is another major mark against the use of embryonic stem cells that is being conveniently ignored by its proponents. (4) and (5)

You may still be wondering how all this affects me personally; why a Catholic mom who spends her days changing diapers, reading stories, and keeping house would feel so passionately about these big scientific issues.  The answer comes down to the one thing we have yet to address: the specific uses of these so-called electively obtained embryonic stem cells.  The two main places they are being used more and more frequently are 1.) some of the common vaccines we give our children and 2.) a growing number of pharmaceutical drugs on the market that are being developed to treat things like Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cystic Fibrosis among others. (6)  I am not here to start a debate about vaccines or ethical medical practices, but I am here to make you aware.  To get you thinking.  Because up until about a year-and-a-half ago, this was something I didn’t give a second thought.  Something about which I was “conveniently” ignorant, blissfully unaware.  And I believe that is too often the case among the general population and even, I dare say, many medical professionals out there.  People need to know what is going on.  People need to be aware.  People need to act.  If every Catholic person in our country – doctors, politicians, housewives, everyone! – were to express their repulsion over this abhorrence, then maybe some changes would be made.  But until then we continue down a twisting, winding path of unethical acts that are essentially swept under the proverbial rug, all in the name of scientific progress.  When will it end?  What will they think of next?  And the most important question, what do YOU intend to do about it?

(1)   http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics10.asp

(2)   http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/embryo

(3)   http://www.brighthub.com/science/medical/articles/27338.aspx

(4)   http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/stem_cell_research.html

(5)   http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/09/26/ethical-stem-cells-advancing/

(6)   http://www.cogforlife.org/vaxbrochure1109.pdf

 Monica is a Catholic wife and mother of two precious children.  Find her blogging about everyday life, Catholicism and her beloved family at http://www.livingeachdayasagift.blogspot.com/

Share

My Quick Takes

Many times I read headlines or news/opinion articles and save the link hoping to blog about it later. Later doesn’t always happen and the link just gets lost in Draft land. So every now and then (maybe every Friday, we’ll see) I will just list some links and my quick 1-2 sentence responses to them.

My Quick Takes for Friday, September 24

1. GOP Pledge to America: I’m glad the GOP is listening to the real members of their party. Now hopefully they can walk the walk as well as they can talk the talk. Especially this part: “We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values.”

2. Women, Abortion, and the Brain: I haven’t read this yet but this excerpt caught my attention and I hope to read it later: “Women are hard-wired for relationships—and a woman’s relationship to her baby is one of the most powerful of all, whether she realizes it or not. The hard-wiring of the brain may explain many women’s disturbing post-abortion feelings.” 

3. Planned Parenthood Scared by Tea Party Success: They should be

4. Is the Tea Party a Religious Movement? This is one issue I really do hope to blog about soon. If you haven’t read any of Danielle Bean’s latest articles at the Washington Post you should! (yes there is a REAL Catholic writing for the Washington Post!

Share

I talked a few posts back about religious freedom and how far it should go. I liked the link Monica shared with us and I got an email forward I wanted to share here that is kind of on the same subject on religious freedom and religious ‘tolerance’ (issues I’m very interested in and have lots of blog posts in my head about!).

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession: 

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish.  And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees, Christmas trees…  I don’t feel threatened..  I don’t feel discriminated against.. That’s what they are, Christmas trees. 

It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, ‘Merry Christmas’ to me.  I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto.  In fact, I kind of like it.  It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu ..  If people want a crèche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away. 

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians.  I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.  I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country.  I can’t find it in the Constitution and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat. 

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him?  I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too.  But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. 

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different:  This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking. 

Bill y Graham’s daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her ‘How could God let something like this happen?’ (regarding Hurricane Katrina)..  Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response..  She said, ‘I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.  And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out.  How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?’ 

In light of recent events… terrorists attack, school shootings, etc..  I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.  Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school.  The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself.  And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide).  We said an expert should know what he’s talking about..  And we said okay..

Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out.  I think it has a great deal to do with ‘WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.’ 

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.  Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.  Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.  Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. 

Are you laughing yet? 

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. 

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. 

Pass it on if you think it has merit. 
  
If not, then just discard it… no one will know you did.  But, if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.  

My Best Regards,  Honestly and respectfully, 

Ben S

Share

Here’s a ‘fun’ topic that comes up at least once a year around this time: Susan G Komen’s Race for the Cure and it’s ties to Planned Parenthood. The question that comes up is this? Since Susan G. Komen gives $ to Planned Parenthood, should Catholics and those who are opposed to abortions still suppor Komen and participate in the Race?   

It’s important to do a little research and understand the issue before making that decision.   

First, here is the statement from Susan G. Komen and message points concerning their connecting with Planned Parenthood. You should read all of those in their entirety but here are some excerpts:   

“…Komen Affiliates provide funds to pay for screening, education and treatment programs in dozens of communities, in some areas, the only place that poor, uninsured, or under-insured women can receive these services are through programs run by Planned Parenthood.”   

They continue to explain how they monitor the use of their funds to PP:   

“…we monitor our grantees twice a year to be sure they are spending the money in line with our agreements, and we are assured that Planned Parenthood uses these funds only for breast health education, screening and treatment programs.”   

It is true that non-profit companies that receive grant money are supposed to use it according to an agreement or contract between the parties (Komen and PP in this case). And they may very well do just that. (However, I can’t help but have my doubts on that account).    

The Susan G. Komen statement also quotes the opinion of two Catholic ethicists on the ethics of being involved with Susan G. Komen and other such philantrophic organizations that have connections with Planned Parenthood.   

In How to Assess the Moral Permissibility of a Catholic Health Care Organization’s Involvement, Dr. Hamel, senior director of ethics at the Catholic Health Association, and Dr. Panicola, corporate vice president of ethics, SSM Health Care, they wrote:   

The principle of cooperation is a time-honored principle in the Catholic moral tradition used to assess the moral permissibility of one party’s involvement or cooperation (the cooperator) with another party engaged in serious wrongdoing (the principal agent). In this context, “wrongdoing” refers to various actions prohibited by the church as those outlined above. Some types of cooperation are morally permissible when there is sufficient moral distance and serious enough reasons, while others are not…when using the principle of cooperation in assessing a CHCO’s [Catholic Health Care Organization] cooperation with a PO [Philantrophic Organization], it is necessary to address two levels of concern: whether the PO is cooperating in the wrongdoing of another organization, and, if so, how and to what extent; and whether the CHCO’s cooperation with the PO is morally acceptable…” 

   

That’s all a little hard to follow but to sum it up, these ethicits conclude by saying:  

“The fact that some Komen affiliates, at times, provide funding to Planned Parenthood specifically and solely for breast health services cannot on the face of it [be] construed as wrongdoing. This is all the more true in those cities where the local Komen affiliate has not funded and does not fund Planned Parenthood projects. If there is any cooperation at all (and we do not believe there is), at most, it would be remote material cooperation which, as the Catholic tradition teaches, can be justified for a proportionate reason. The good that Komen does and the harm that would come to so many women if Komen ceased to exist or ceased to be funded would seem to be a sufficiently proportionate reason.”  
Ok now I’m no ethicst but here is my opinion nonetheless. I’ve heard this logic before and I understand it but I don’t 100% agree with it.   In fact, I see a lot of flaws with it personally. But you know, I’m just a simple mama.

Like I said, it is possible that PP only uses Komen money for breast health. And so it is possible that by giving Komen my money I am not paying indirectly for any abortions that Planned Parenthood might pay for. However, I would still be indirectly giving some of my money to Planned Parenthood. And I want absolutely nothing to do with them at all. I was taught, and I believe, that 2 wrongs or any wrongs never can make a right. Sure it may be right and good for Planned Parenthood to help women receive breast health treatment that otherwise wouldn’t, but it doesn’t excuse or diminish their direct involvement in the sin of abortion. (yes, people abortion is still a sin).   

I know that I can’t control where every little penny of mine goes but when I can, I will.  

Besides all that chewy ethical stuff, others still question whether Komen’s grants to PP are just kicking themselves in the behind due to the possible link between abortions and breast cancer. I’m no researcher so I can’t say, as a matter of fact, whether there is or is not a direct or indirect link between abortions and breast cancer. However, I believe there is a very good reason to think that there might be. I also think the chances of a link existing between forced abortions and breast cancer are higher than the chances of a link existing between unintentional miscarriage and breast cancer. A miscarriage usually happens by itself, that is, without a forced intervention. Because of this, the body is able to go through its own natural healing process, though still a very difficult and sorrowful one. With a forced abortion, the biological processes that are going on in the woman’s pregnant body are interrupted. The woman’s body is going about its own business, growing a baby and then suddenly, BAM! No more baby. But what about all those shattered hormones left in the wreckage? They don’t just disappear. Some may eventually find their way out as the woman’s body purges itself from the trauma. But, some will stay and accumulate…and what happens when high amounts of unused hormones accumulate and have nowhere to go?   

CANCER  

So like I said, I’m not saying abortion does or does not cause breast cancer any type of cancer. But it isn’t outside of the realm of scientific possibility. Aside from abortion, we can’t forget about Planned Parenthood’s other little ‘gift’ to women in the form of a little pill. Now if they start painting those pink and Komen starts passing those out during the races, then we’ll definitely have something to talk about. If a pill like that is strong enough to make a woman stop ovulating, then it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think of what else it could do to a woman’s body. Once again…when you purposfully force an unnatural change in a woman’s body, there will be consequences.  

Now from here we could go on and talk about the safety of mammograms. Or even about the dangers of plastic bottles for a woman’s breast health or any other number of other connections between Komen grantees and breast cancer. But that would just open up a whole new can of worms. And they’re not very pretty.   

 So I’m not going to tell anyone whether they should or should not participate in the Race. I know it makes a lot of women feel like they are a part of something big and important. It can a be a lot fun and those who do run do it with the best of intentions. 

It’s one thing to boycott something, but it’s another thing to come up with a replacement or alternative at least. So I was more than thrilled and impressed when I heard that some people in their local area got together and organized their own informal race to benefit a local pregnancy crisis center. You can join their efforts or start one of your own if you are so inspired. Check it out here: 

Everyone has to make their own decision. For me, I have decided not to support them or participate in the Race and I try and avoid any and all other associations with Komen and the Race for the Cure because of what i’ve already said.

      

   
   

 

 

 

Share

All the above are not illegal. They all have the ‘right’ to do all that. But is a right always right? 

And if it’s not right, do people have a right to protest it? 

Does the government have a right to interfere or stop any of those above activities? If so, why or why not? Should they?

And here’s an even better question I’d thought of and heard today:

When people decide to defend any of the above’s ‘rights’, do they do this out of true respect for the respective groups or is it out of fear?

Those against the Islamic ‘mosque’/Cordoba House argue it is insensitive to families and memories of Sept. 11 victims to build a mosque so close to where Islamic extremists flew planes into the World Trade Center and killed nearly 2,800 people.

Then there are those who support the project as a reflection of religious freedom and diversity and say hatred of Muslims is fueling the opposition. But Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf in The New York Times called his Cordoba House a bridge.

“We are proceeding with the community center, Cordoba House….I am convinced that it is the right thing to do for many reasons…

Our broader mission — to strengthen relations between the Western and Muslim worlds and to help counter radical ideology — lies not in skirting the margins of issues that have polarized relations within the Muslim world and between non-Muslimsand Muslims. It lies in confronting them as a joint multifaith, multinational effort.”

Obama supports ‘the right’ for ground zero mosque

“Speaking to a gathering at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, Obama said that he believes “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country.”

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

National Catholic Register’s Steven D. GreydanusCordoba House: A Closer Look, Part 6 offers a Catholic perspective on the Cordoba House with a deeper explanation of the Carmelite nuns at Auschwitz analogy.

“All analogies limp, but one analogy—despite differences and difficulties—does deserve a second look: the Carmelite nuns at Auschwitz. In 1984, Carmelite nuns opened a monastery close enough to Auschwitz to be seen from the camp. When Jewish groups protested, the Vatican ordered the nuns to leave, which they eventually did. However, the cross that they left behind remained a point of controversy for many years.

What gives this analogy some traction? The sponsors of Cordoba House say that their project, which is not at Ground Zero but a short distance away, is intended not as a provocation or celebration of 9/11, but to promote Muslim-West relations and to marginalize extremism. Likewise, the Carmelite convent, which was not on the camp grounds at Auschwitz but a short distance outside the camp, was not intended to celebrate Auschwitz or the Holocaust, but to offer prayers and reparation. The Cordoba House sponsors say that Islam per se had nothing to do with 9/11, and indeed many Muslim victims lost their lives in the attacks. Likewise, the Catholic Church had nothing to do with the atrocities carried out at Auschwitz, and indeed many Catholic victims, such as St. Maximilian Kolbe, lost their lives at Auschwitz.

Nevertheless, the presence of the Carmelite convent was reasonably considered (by both Jewish groups and the Vatican) an affront, just as it seems a majority of New Yorkers and Americans consider the Cordoba House project an affront.”

And then came this crazy lunatic  no-where-close-to-real-Christianity-Pastor in Florida…Pastor cancels Quran-burning, then reconsiders. (I’m kind of wondering if he’s just trying to make an example showing that a right is not always right. Even if, it’s a horribly stupid way to go about it)

“An anti-Islamic preacher backed off and then threatened to reconsider burning the Quran on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, angrily accusing a Muslim leader of lying to him Thursday with a promise to move an Islamic center and mosque away from New York’s ground zero. The imam planning the center denied there was ever such a deal.

President Barack Obama urged him to listen to “those better angels” and give up his “stunt,” saying it would endanger U.S. troops and give Islamic terrorists a recruiting tool. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took the extraordinary step of calling Jones personally.”

Real Christians around the country and world and the President found themselves on common ground on this issue. The Vatican council calls planned Koran burning ceremony ‘outrageous’

And here’s what the Oklahoma city leaders said..or didn’t say…about the “public excorsism”

“Even McClintock admitted she was surprised to see “Satanic exorcism” on the church’s city permit, which cost $260. She visited the church’s MySpace page to learn more and found a description matching what Hale described — a chance to cast out other religious influences.

She and other city leaders are keeping a close eye on blogs, message boards and social media sites and are prepared to take any threat relating to this event seriously, even the most thinly veiled.

“Obviously our first priority is the safety of any of our patrons,” she said. “Unless a specific threat were to come forward, we’re looking at this as any other event on our calendar.”

Share

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »