HE SAID WHAT?

Pope WTF? He warned his followers to turn away from “having a personal relationship with Jesus ... Pope Francis has made some public statements recently that have Catholics and Christians alike very worried. He warned his followers to turn away from “having a personal relationship with Jesus,” adding that it “is dangerous and very harmful.” The speech has people worried that the Pope is fulfilling terrible fantasies. Speaking in front of a crowd of over 33,000 Christians in Rome, the Pope warned that a “personal, direct, immediate relationship with Jesus must be avoided at all costs.” He then followed up with a statement that may shed some light on this situation, he said that no Catholic can truly be a follower of God on his or her own, they need the help of the Church for salvation. Of course they do. Pope Francis also recently made some interesting remarks that U.S. citizens must be subjected to a one world government “for their own good.” He continued to argue that only a “political authority” would be able to combat “climate change” and other global issues. It makes sense that Pope Francis would be so in tune with the climate considering his multiple degrees in science and climatology from esteemed universities.. The Pope seems more interested in pushing the policy of global leaders than preaching the word of God, because he also recently said he believes more power should be in the hands of the U.N. over individual countries. The Pope clearly has another agenda, what it is, we don’t know, but preaching that you can’t have a personal relationship with God and that you need the Church, and also stating that humanity is better off in the hands of one overarching global power, it seems he may have other ambitions than the spiritual health of his followers. A personal relationship with the Savior is the foundational principle of Christianity. The Pope’s remarks seem contradictory at best. At worst, they appear to come straight from John’s revelation, which is bad news for all. Bottom Line .... The Catholic Church has survived some pretty bad Popes; it will survive Francis.  Wait.  I'm not saying Pope Francis is a bad pope just because he's steeped in leftist politics, and takes money from George Solos, and counsels with Barry Obama—the most despicable President of all time.  I'm just saying that on the off chance he's as bad as many Cardinals fear (re: Doctrine of the Faith), the faithful will pay him scant attention.  BTW, my confessor and I are at loggerheads over the efficacy of certain positions this Pope has taken, without any penance imposed so far.

FATIMA

We need to infiltrate—redefine— and destroy .. the Catholic Church

John Podesta

The Miracle of the Sun (Portuguese: O milagre do sol), also known as the Miracle of Fátima, refers to an event that allegedly occurred on 13 October 1917 above a large crowd who had gathered near Fátima, Portugal, in response to a prophecy made by three shepherd children. The prophecy was that the Virgin Mary (referred to as Our Lady of Fatima), would appear and perform miracles on that date. Newspapers published testimony from reporters and other people who claimed to have witnessed extraordinary solar activity, such as the sun appearing to "dance" or zig-zag in the sky, careen towards the earth, or emit multicolored light and radiant colors. According to these reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes. [Wikipedia] Front Page News: The Miracle of the Sun | Anti-Clerical Press newspaper reported Last week marked the 100th anniversary of the Fatima "Miracle of the Sun." This is all I'll say about it. !n 1917 Portugal was governed by an overtly secular government that had clamped down on religion.  Specifically, the Catholic Church.  Here's what's important about it.  When the Blessed Mother first appeared before the three children, in the small town of Fatima (a place that was still steadfastly Catholic), it created quite a stir.  The government reacted by threatening the children with being thrown into a vat of boiling oil if they didn't recant.  They refused, and their notoriety only grew.   That said, the fulmination of Mary's appearances before the kids was when she told them she would appear before any who cared, on a date and time certain.  The event drew thousand of believers—and skeptics.  They gathered during the night,  enduring a cold pouring rain.  The secular press was well represented; their aim: to finally debunk this talk of "miracles."  The rest is history.  Not only did Mary appear, she announced she would make the sun dance.  And it did. The rain soaked ground, and  wet clothing were dried. Newspaper reports, by a decidedly leftist press, grudgingly reported the miracle factually. It happened. It was well documented.  It as real.  For what it's worth.

and Science says ...

Richard Dawkins On Stage . 1. Two computer scientists say they proved that there is a holy supreme force after confirming the equations. 2 "God and Science" I haven't yet listened to all of "Two computer scientists ...," but I have listened to Robert Spitzer's God and Science several times. Since most of the atheists I know seem to be scientifically gifted (I am not), I suspect they'll find more in this than I.  BTW, Fr. Spitzer appears to be blind, but carries on quite well.

Were the founding Fathers Religious?

Hey There!

Religious shit

Religious Shit

Catholicism:
Shit happens because you're bad.

Protestantism:
Shit happens because you don't work hard enough.

Taoism:
Shit happens.

Buddhism:
If shit happens, it's not really shit.

Islam:
If shit happens, it's the will of Allah.

Judaism:
Why does this shit always happen to us?

Hinduism:
This shit happened before.

Hare Krishna:
Shit happens rama rama.

T.V. Evangelism:
Send more shit.

Jehova's Witness:
Knock knock, shit happens.

Hedonism:
There's nothing like a good shit happening.

Christian Science:
Shit happens in your mind.

Agnosticism:
Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't.

Rastafarianism:
Let's smoke this shit.

Existentialism:
What is shit anyway?

Stoicism:
This shit doesn't bother me.

No shit.
If there was no God there would be no athiests

(95% via Stu Tarlowe; 5% via GK Chesterton)

Dinesh D'Souza: *****

Mental Gymnastics 101 https://youtu.be/1Ien2Ah3lEY From my perspective, it's unfortunate that this Dinesh D'Souza  tour de force  is labeled "How Do I Know God Exists,"  because it so limits his audience.  It would more aptly be called "The politicization of atheism."  Or, "Stuff you didn't know that older civilizations knew." Or, "Lenin, Hitler and Islam." Most of all, it is a marvelous example of debating skill.

FATIMA

Not the Blessed Mother on Toast THIS        Today is Holy Thursday, commemorating for Christians the day Jesus Christ was arrested and condemned to death.  In various Gospel accounts he had, several times, alluded to his resurrection three days after "the temple was destroyed"  His disciples did not understand what he meant until the third day after his crucification. Whether you are a believer is moot here. This is. There has been, to my knowledge, just been one other instance in history where a forthcoming miracle was foretold, and that is Fatima.  If you've a mind to debunk Fatima, you may want to begin with Debunking the Sun Miracle Skeptics.  Peace. A brief chronology via Wiki Portugal was undergoing tensions between the secularizing Republican government and more conservative elements in society. The Catholic opposition compared the actions of the Portuguese government to the contemporary actions of the Russian Bolsheviks On May 13, 1917, the children purportedly saw a lady "brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal goblet filled with the most sparkling water and pierced by the burning rays of the sun". The woman wore a white mantle edged with gold and held a rosary in her hand. Her disbelieving mother told neighbors as a joke, and within a day the whole village knew.[4] On August 13, 1917, the provincial administrator Artur Santos[7] (no relation to Lúcia Santos), believing that the events were politically disruptive, intercepted and jailed the children before they could reach the Cova da Iria. The administrator interrogated and threatened the children (with being  boiled in oil) to get them to divulge the contents of the secrets. Lúcia offered to ask the Lady for permission to tell the Administrator the secrets.[1] That month, instead of the usual apparition in the Cova da Iria on the 13th, the children reported that they saw the Virgin Mary on 15 August, the Feast of the Assumption, at nearby Valinhos.[4] As early as July 1917 it was claimed that the Virgin Mary had promised a miracle for the last of her apparitions on October 13, so that all would believe. What happened then became known as the "Miracle of the Sun". A huge crowd, variously estimated between 30,000 and 100,000,[8][9] including newspaper reporters and photographers, gathered at the Cova da Iria. The incessant rain had ceased and there was a thin layer of cloud. Lúcia, seeing light rising from the lady's hands and the sun appearing as a silver disk, called out "look at the sun". She later had no memory of saying this.[4] Witnesses later spoke of the sun appearing to change colors and rotate like a wheel.[10] Witnesses gave widely varying descriptions of the "sun's dance". Poet Afonso Lopes Vieira and schoolteacher Delfina Lopes (with her students and other witnesses in the town of Alburita), reported that the solar phenomenon was visible up to forty kilometers away.[10] However, the phenomenon was not visible in other parts of the globe. No movement or other phenomenon of the sun was recorded by scientists at the time.[4] Not all witnesses reported seeing the sun "dance". Some people only saw the radiant colors, and others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[11][12]  (taken from Wikipedia) jmj

stuff I think about

This will be of interest to people who believe in God.  But, let me restate; I have nothing against atheists, save for professional atheists (see right), but I can't begin to grasp the concept of "it just happened."  The universe had no beginning (even science acknowledges the probability of a "pre-Big Bang".  Just so. There cannot be a beginning; nor an end for that matter. Whatever entity  engineered creation is God.  It's a hard concept to grasp, that.  It took Aquinas years before he could stop trying to put a face on "God," and I'm no Aquinas. I just watched this video — Latest Scientific Evidence for God's Existence - Hugh Ross, PhD — who debated atheists from the International Skeptic Society.  After the debate they told him; "Dr.Ross, it's not that we hate the  God of the Bible; it's that we despise His followers (clip). I laughed out loud; I can at least understand that.  Here's a recent video (Patterns of Evidence); a first class documentary that tackles a major atheist debate point; the Exodus. The full video is on NetFlix—and trust me here—it's Five Star compelling. TRAILER  And this: THE EXODUS REVEALED brings to light the first significant archaeological "find" of the 21st century... the precise route they may have followed to freedom; their crossing site on the shore of the Red Sea; and the location of Mt. Sinai; Egyptian chariot and war artifacts litter the seabed . Say Amen

Ash Wednesday-LENT

Black Spots

Deep Dark Fears

HARK the Angel Herald Sings

ARK, ARK!

My Thoughts on Exodus: Gods and Kings

“ If you were an atheist who wanted to ride the Bible movie craze and did not really care about the material or the beliefs of a few billion people, you’d make Darren Aronofsky’s Noah movie. If you were an atheist who wanted to ride the Bible movie craze and thought it necessary to be respectful of the beliefs of a few billion people, you’d make Ridley Scott’s Exodus. The movie is not without its faults. But I enjoyed it and came away a bit disappointed from a faith perspective, but entertained and not insulted as a movie goer. To understand why requires some mild spoilers. If you were an atheist, or at least not a person of faith, and wanted to do a movie about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, your movie would look a lot like Ridley Scott’s movie. In other words, you could not avoid God, but you’d minimize him and play up natural phenomena as explanations for the plagues as best you could. And that’s where the movie is interesting. In Noah, the lead character is a psychopath and the deity is a delusion and dream. In Exodus, the lead character is a psychopath too and God comes in the form of a boy first seen in a delusion following a rock slide on a mountain. But they cannot stop there. God could be a delusion for Noah, but he cannot for Moses because of the ongoing interaction. He is minimized, but is not the bit player as in Noah. God appears throughout the movie as a boy. The effect is to make Him seem both juvenile and prone to tantrum. At least that is how it starts. But God’s hand is always present in the movie. God may not always be seen, and he may be an abstraction, but he is there. The Passover is, for instance, given short shrift, but it is clearly the work of a Deity and that is not minimized. When Pharaoh confronts Moses while carrying his dead child, he yells that only fanatics could worship a god who kills kids. You get the sense that both actors — Joel Edgerton as Pharaoh and Christian Bale as Moses — really believed that. But then Moses says no Hebrew children died. And the God who’d been being built up as some tantrum prone, vengeful child suddenly looks like a real god worth worshipping. I have to tell you that I was starting to check out of the movie. It disappointed me from a faith perspective and seemed to really get stuff wrong. But there was a moment that changed my mind. Moses laying on the beach is the scene. I finally realized that what I liked least about the movie was its twist on an old tale. This is not a movie about breaking Pharaoh. This is a movie about breaking Moses. The Prince of Egypt who believes in no god must be broken to the point he must rely on the one true God. That moment on the beach when Moses finally realizes God is really real and really knows what he is doing sealed the deal for me. I could buy in, then, to the unbelievers who made the movie using natural forces to part the red sea because I, like Moses, had by then bought into it being God using those natural forces. The movie certainly left me with a sense of disappointment. God was so much more in the real life version than He is in this movie. Moses’s family too played a bigger role in reality than in the movie. Some of the miracles were miracles that could not be explained by natural forces, but Ridley Scott tried to squeeze them into that —- a person of shallow or no faith trying to make sense of it all. And I have to respect that because he tried very hard to not disrespect my faith. Stepping back from the religious aspect, I think John Turturro as Seti was terribly cast. He, the great Seti, seemed always on the verge of a Monty Python skit breaking out. Sigourney Weaver was completely underused. It was flat out disappointing in how little she was used. [Full article] ”

HAND OF GOD SUDDENLY REVEALED?

It's Scientific  Gary Larsen

“ 'Everything we think we know about our universe is wrong?' In the late 1800s, Albert A. Michelson, the first American to win the Nobel Prize in the sciences, devised an experiment to prove the Earth is moving through space, through a medium for bearing light called the “aether.” If he could show that light was slowed down by being fired into an aether headwind, like a swimmer swimming against a stream, Michelson reasoned, it would prove the Earth’s motion through space. But the experiment didn’t work the way he expected. In fact, it proved the opposite. The world of science was baffled. Was the Earth not moving? Eventually, however, another Albert, with the last name of Einstein, developed a theory called special relativity to explain Michelson’s results. It wouldn’t be the last time, a startling new documentary called “The Principle” suggests, that scientists had to scramble to make their theories about space fit observable facts and experiments that didn’t jive with their prevalent understandings. Increasingly, bizarre and unproven theories such as the mysterious “dark matter,” “dark energy,” “multiverses” and the creation of “everything from nothing,” the moviemakers claim, have been thought up to try to make the hard data fit with an underlying assumption science has accepted since the 16th century. But what if instead of dreaming up wild theories to explain away inconsistencies, the moviemakers suggest, scientists allowed the facts to challenge the underlying assumption itself? What if everything science believes about space … is wrong? “The Principle,” which is opening now in select cities around the U.S., boldly challenges the widely accepted Copernican Principle, named after Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus. He famously argued Earth revolves around the sun and went further to suggest Earth is in no central or favored place in the universe. We inhabit, in famous cosmologist Carl Sagan’s words, “an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.” Hogwash, the makers of “The Principle” say. “Everything we think we know about our universe is wrong,” the movie’s trailer asserts. Citing Isaac Newton, various current astronomers, Einstein himself and even defenders of the Copernican Principle, the documentary makes the case that the data science is discovering indicate the entire known universe is pointing directly at Earth. “We are in a special place,” argues one of the voices quoted in the documentary. “I do believe that the universe was created by God.” Rick DeLano, writer and producer of “The Principle,” declares the “question of our place in the cosmos is the greatest scientific detective story in all of history.” “The world has been shaped by two great assertions: One places us in the center of it all, and the other one relegates us to utter insignificance. Amazingly, ‘The Principle’ is the first documentary to examine this persistent puzzle at the heart of modern science.” The film traces the “persistent puzzle” from the ancient astronomer Ptolemy, centuries before Copernicus, to today. But rather than assuming science is at odds with religious faith, as in Galileo’s day, “The Principle” assumes the two dovetail. “I have great respect for science,” DeLano said. “Where I become offended is when people ignore the evidence. They haven’t proven that something can come from nothing. “Strong evidence shows there is a special direction in the cosmos, and it points toward Earth. This is a serious claim that could indicate that perhaps the Bible was true in its account of creation … and they’re ignoring it,” he continued. “Experimentation is supposed to be the acid test of an assumption. Experiment trumps all. In the universe, we are told there are no special places – no up, no down, no left, no right. But every experiment tells us we are indeed in a special place, which the scientific community sees as impossible. “For them to even remotely consider that the Bible could be true is a laughable joke. It’s beyond ignorant,” DeLano said. “The arrogance of the scientific atheist is unbelievable. But as the Bible says, ‘Pride [goeth] before a fall.’ “What they don’t understand is that science and theology have the same author: ‘In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth,’” DeLano concluded. “We have the distinct advantage of having the truth on our side.” “The Principle” opened Oct. 24 in select theaters in Chicago with plans to expand to Los Angeles and then to various theaters around the country. Those interested in the film can learn more at its website, ThePrincipleMovie.com. WND Your mileage may differ, but I've long felt that the nutrition, earth and cosmos sciences are like women's fashion; changing with the weather.  Plus, I believe in God.  ”

Soul Reasons

“ Agnus Dei POPE FRANCIS: 'PAGAN' CHRISTIANS 'IN NAME ONLY' ARE 'ENEMIES OF THE CROSS' Not all those who claim to be Christians really are, said Pope Francis Friday morning. Some are Christians “in name only,” he said. “They bear the name of Christians but live a life of pagans.” In his homily at Mass, the Pope that there have always been two types of Christian, those who truly followed Christ and those who only pretended to. At the time of Saint Paul, there were “worldly Christians, Christians in name only, with two or three Christian features, but nothing more.” The Pope called this sort of people “Pagan Christians,” whom St. Paul called “enemies of the cross of Christ.” In Paul’s time, the Pope said, the two groups of Christians “were in church together, went to Mass on Sunday, praised the Lord, and were called Christians.” So what was the difference? He asked. The second were “enemies of the cross of Christ.” The Pope went on to say that “even today there are many! We must be careful not to slip into the way of pagan Christians.” These are the ones, he said, who are “pagans painted over with two brush strokes of Christianity, so they look like Christians, but are really pagans.” (continued) *gulp*  CARDINAL BURKE: CHURCH RISKS SERIOUS TENSIONS IN MONTHS AHEAD Burke has been one of the most outspoken opponents of Kasper’s proposal, saying it is not Catholic, threatens the indissolubility of marriage, and is therefore unacceptable. “The Church must do everything she can when, once again, the integrity of marriage is under attack,” he told the Viennese audience. The Vatican prelate was speaking in Vienna Tuesday, at the launch of the German translation of Remaining in the Truth of Christ, a book to which he contributed. The work is a response to Cardinal Walter Kasper’s proposal to allow some remarried divorcees to have access to holy Communion. The Catholic Church has always barred such a possibility, based on Christ’s teaching that remarrying after divorce constitutes adultery. He said he “often heard” prelates at last month’s two-week Synod on the Family in Rome say that because the culture has changed “so radically,” the Church “cannot teach as we had in the past.” But Burke responded by saying such a view betrays a “loss of hope in Jesus Christ, Who alone is the salvation of the world.” He acknowledged that the culture is “very corrupt” but added that doesn’t mean “we go chasing after it, but rather bring to the culture that which will save it and be full of hope.” Talk of possible schism has increased in the Catholic Church after the recent synod appeared to be leading the Church in a more “progressive” direction on moral issues. A controversial document issued by bishops midway through the meeting (which Burke called a “total disaster”) pointed to radical changes in the area of homosexuals, divorce, and remarriage among other things, but the proposals were largely toned down or failed to reach a consensus in the final report. Questioned about whether there is a genuine risk the Church might split, Burke said if, in the runup to a second synod on the family next October, bishops are seen to move “contrary to the constant teaching and practice of the Church, there is a risk because these are unchanging and unchangeable truths.” He also pointed out that the head of the synod of bishops, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, has “identified himself very strongly” with Kasper’s thesis and “subscribes to that school.” Warning that this battle will continue, he called on Catholics to “speak up and act.” [Full] The Catholic Church's guiding principle may be summed up, I think, with this.  Jesus Christ said what he meant and meant what he said.  POPE  REMOVES CARDNAL BURKE FROM VATICAN POST JMJ. Posted without further comment. ”

You will be made to care

“ You Will Be Made to Care Vanderbilt University has decided student groups on campus cannot determine their own leadership. Consequently, a muslim can run the Christian group, a global warming skeptic can run the Earth First group, a Republican can run the College Democrats, etc. You get the idea. The rule came in part because, as you will not be surprised to learn, a Christian fraternity “had expelled several students for violating their behavior policy. One student said he was ousted You will be made to care. You’ll be made to care about gay marriage. You’ll be made to care about killing kids. You’ll be made to care about the influence of a secular culture on your children as they grow. You’ll be made to care about a host of issues. because he is gay.” Tish Harrison Warren wrote about this at Christianity Today. Her Christian group allowed anyone to be a member, “but it asks key student leaders—the executive council and small group leaders—to affirm its doctrinal statement, which outlines broad Christian orthodoxy and does not mention sexual conduct specifically. But the university saw belief statements themselves as suspect.” The first bit of Tish Harrison Warren’s column is really the most relevant part for my purposes here. I thought I was an acceptable kind of evangelical. I’m not a fundamentalist. My friends and I enjoy art, alcohol, and cultural engagement. We avoid spiritual clichés and buzzwords. We value authenticity, study, racial reconciliation, and social and environmental justice. A lot of Christians have long thought they could sit on the sidelines. Only the icky evangelicals they don’t much care for and the creepily committed Catholics would have to deal with these issues and the people who hate those deeply committed to their faith. They, on the other hand, could sit on the sidelines, roll their eyes, and tell everyone that they didn’t think it was that big a deal. They were, after all, on birth control or watching whatever trendy HBO series is on or having a cocktail or perfectly willing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Nonetheless, the secularists at Vanderbilt kicked her Christian group off campus “for being the wrong kind of Christians.” My friend Matthew Lee Anderson has some thoughts on it. In part he writes, “if we do not grasp the joy of the martyrs, we do not understand them at all.” I tweeted out Matt’s post yesterday, but was reminded of it again today by my friend Nick. He sent me Rod Dreher’s piece on the whole thing. Folks, this is precisely why I started the saying “You will be made to care.” It all stemmed from a diarist here at RedState who took the position that gay marriage did not affect him, he did not care about it, and he would never care about. But, of course, you will be made to care. It is a larger issue than just gay marriage and many comfortably naive, living at the margins of faith, Christians, think they have a comfortable path through life in the United States. Put bluntly: if you do have a comfortable path through life with no fears at all of persecution, you probably are not a Christian. Islam may be about submission, but Christianity is about suffering.1 The suffering may not be major. It may be an accumulation of small sleights over time. It may be the loss of a friend or just the expulsion of your Christian group from your private school. But Christianity is a religion of suffering and persecution.  You may think you can sit on the sidelines. You may think you can opt-out of the culture war. You may think you can hide behind your trendy naked Leena Dunham t-shirt while you sip trendy drinks talking about trendy shows and writing columns demanding Christians be forced by the state to bake cakes, provide flowers and farms, and offer up photographs of gay weddings. But not only will you one day be called to account to your God for how you advanced his kingdom, but on this Earth you will be made to care. That does not mean you have license to be bitter or angry or hateful. You should love others and help others. Just do not expect anything in return. [Full Article] This blog is, and has been for 12 years, about whatever I'm into at the moment.  Politics mostly.  I've eschewed discussing religion except to ponder things like, "who do atheist turn to ... " sort of thing.   Now, I have been made to look deeper into the state or our culture, and the reasons why ... why all of it?   I won't evangelize, but it has become impossible for me to ignore.  Metzger summarized nicely with  "I'm not a practicing Christian, but ... as a strong believer in custom and tradition and ritual as the glue that keeps a culture intact .."  With the loss of those guardrails came this, today. Ten million words will not beging to summraize.  But, you know; you feel. War is declared against the Judeo-Christain ethic. Monsters have been embraced. Last week the ubiquitous "Anonymous" challenged a Tailgunner Dick comment with,   "But if you want to prove Mr. Dawkins is wrong it's necessary to prove that God does exist (which no-one has managed to do to date). I responded, but quicky deleted; it was the stuff of a range war.  On reflection though, my answer is that I am proven that God exists.  My suggestion to Anonymous would be to read ( to make it easier) Saint Thomas Aquinas's  Shorter Summa (or the even the more concise pony), and we can take it from there. But it's a sterile challenge,  for the same reason it's impossible to discuss, say, the 984 outrages against our rule of law perpetrated by this Liberal/Obama government:  Obamunists have their own media, their own history, their own wise men, and most importantly, their own statist religion and pope.  By the by, if Anonymous, or anyone else,  would like to know why I know God exists, I will be happy to answer  via e-mail,  for whatever that's worth.  I am of average intellect, and no match for the godless philosophers that  Dawkin's camp will utilize,like, say, Friedrich Nietzsche. “ After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands. Friedrich Nietzsche The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it. Friedrich Nietzsche ” Huh? JMJ ”

Buying Parochial Schools on the Cheap

Liberal Plantation                        De Blasio’s Prekindergarten Expansion Collides With Church-State Divide                                                         “ [...] The biblical story of Noah’s Ark will be taught, without mention of who told Noah to build it. Challah, the Jewish bread eaten on the Sabbath, will be baked, but no blessings said over it. Some crucifixes will be removed, but others left hanging. These are the kinds of church-state gymnastics that New York City and some religious schools are performing as Mayor Bill de Blasio expands government-funded prekindergarten. Because of inadequate public school capacity, the de Blasio administration has been urging religious schools and community organizations to consider hosting the added programs. But the push is raising fresh questions for civil libertarians concerned about church-state issues, and for the schools themselves, which want to help the city and qualify for its roughly $10,000-per-student tuition payments while preserving some of the faith-based elements that attract their main clientele. The city is now asking those schools to consider converting their government-subsidized programs to a full day, or six hours 20 minutes, of secular instruction. Richard R. Buery Jr., the deputy mayor in charge of the prekindergarten expansion, said the shift was part of the mayor’s push “to create a single, unified, high-quality system.” The concerns crystallized in a one-page document the city issued in May to religious schools weighing whether to host full-day prekindergarten classes. Rather than state simply, as other municipalities have, that all religious instruction is prohibited, the city’s guidelines say that religious texts may be taught if they are “presented objectively as part of a secular program of instruction.” Learning about one’s culture is permitted, city officials say, but religious instruction is not. [....] Religious symbols are not permitted in areas used by city-funded prekindergarten students. A mezuza on a doorway would generally be allowed, but if it had a Jewish star on the outside, it would have to be evaluated in context: If it was small, it would probably be fine, said Maya Wiley, the counsel to the mayor who helped develop the guidelines. City officials point out that there is nothing new about religious organizations’ housing publicly funded prekindergarten programs; Catholic schools and other faith-based organizations already host half-day versions. But those programs present fewer potential legal problems, because the schools can deliver secular education during one half of the day and religious instruction during the other, when parents, not the city, are paying. The city is now asking those schools to consider converting their government-subsidized programs to a full day, or six hours 20 minutes, of secular instruction. Richard R. Buery Jr., the deputy mayor in charge of the prekindergarten expansion, said the shift was part of the mayor’s push “to create a single, unified, high-quality system.” [Full] According to data, New York spent $19,076 per student in the 2011 fiscal year, as compared to the national average of $10,560. Washington, D.C., spent the second-most per pupil ($18,475), and Utah spent the least ($6,212).  Bishop of Statist Church of St. Marx, de Blasio,  sees a Honey Trap  opportunity ...  ”

Can Christ Not Spare One Man?

“ Can Christ Not Spare One Man? I like Ann Coulter. There is no “but” after that. I like Ann Coulter, period. There are many people reacting with hostility and anger toward her over her latest column about the doctors in Atlanta who are infected with Ebola. In her column, Ann asks, “What was the point?” She goes on to write Your country is like your family. We’re supposed to take care of our own first. The same Bible that commands us to “go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel” also says: “For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’” Right there in Texas, near where Dr. Brantly left his wife and children to fly to Liberia and get Ebola, is one of the poorest counties in the nation, Zavala County — where he wouldn’t have risked making his wife a widow and his children fatherless. I am neither angry nor outraged by Ann Coulter’s column. I have written several times that American Christians have a mission field in their own backyard that too many are ignoring. Too many Christians send their kids on church run beach trips to Mexico where they hammer nails for a few days while working on their tan. I think Protestants should be pouring money into building church run schools that the poor can go to for free or at great discounts, emulating the Catholic Church. I think Christians should take up the cross in inner cities where too many liberal Christians preach a body nourishing social gospel that never feeds their soul. I also think had St. Thomas stayed in Jerusalem instead of journeying to India, many Indians would have never found salvation through Christ. Had Paul stayed in Tarsus instead of going on his missionary journeys, we would not have his contribution to the body of faith or the churches he planted along the way. I also think that American Christians can do more than just domestic missions. It should not be a binary decision. We should emulate the apostles who went into all the world to share the gospel instead of only focusing on our own. Christianity has been a stabilizing influence around the world. Had Christian missionaries stayed in their home countries, the world would be worse off. Is the faith so small that Christ cannot spare one doctor to Liberia? Should Jim Elliott have never gone into the jungle? He was savagely killed there. His death inspired countless Christians to follow in his footsteps delivering the gospel to places it had not been delivered. Not every Christian survives. Many are martyred. We, as Christians, (Red State cont) "I have no reservations or caveats in liking Ann Coulter. She is a warm, kind, and generous person. I know this from my own experience. I must, however, disagree with her in this."  Erick Erickson Me too. I also subscribe to this Tocqueville observation about the guard rails religious faith provides to society as a whole. Americans, however, derive their obligations not from government mandate but from religious morality and social pressure. There are innumerable religious sects in America, but “all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God.” Moreover, religion balances entrepreneurial striving: the latter teaches how to better yourself, for your own good, while the former teaches obligations to others, for the good of the community. Therefore, quite apart from its theological function, Tocqueville writes that for Americans religion “must be regarded as the first of their political institutions.” ”