Archive for July, 2012

WE’D LIKE TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS

Tuesday, July 31st, 2012 | Uncategorized | 26 Comments

Welcome to Barack Obama’s second term:

A pro-life legal group has issued a letter to the FBI asking officials to quit harassing a peaceful pro-life advocate who is only expressing his First Amendment free speech rights by protesting outside abortion facilities.

The Life Legal Defense Foundation (LLDF) sent a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) because they threatened and questioned pro-life advocate Andrew Moore at his home in Dallas, Texas on July 13. The FBI agents talked to Moore for over an hour about his peaceful free speech activities that take place on public sidewalks outside of Southwestern Abortion Clinic in Dallas. The letter demands that the FBI stop the harassment.

Although the FBI has no evidence Moore had ever violated any law, the agents referenced his wife and newborn son , commenting that he would not want to be separated from his family, and suggesting that a felony conviction could get Moore deported back to New Zealand, where he originally hails.

The agents also asked Moore  about his employment, how he met his wife, who his friends are, where they attend church, why he has certain political views, and why he engages in particular activities in the community.

RAMA LAMA DING DONG?

Tuesday, July 31st, 2012 | Uncategorized | 7 Comments

I guess you don’t have any political aspirations beyond running that kleptocracy you’re currently in charge of but if you do, this is not a good headline:

Rahm Emanuel, Ahmadinejad Attack Romney’s Israel Visit

AND NOW…IDIOTS

Tuesday, July 31st, 2012 | Uncategorized | 18 Comments

Why do I believe that Barack Obama is headed toward a catastrophic defeat this fall?  Because the leader of the Senate Democrats not only libelled Obama’s opponent but also worked in that opponent’s dead father in order to do so:

In an interview with the liberal Huffington Post, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid alleged that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for more than a decade—and that his father, the long deceased George Romney, would be embarrassed by his own son.

The unsubstantiated allegation about Romney’s taxes was based on what Reid described as the recollection of an unnamed Bain investor. Reid admitted he did not know if the claim was true, but aired it anyway.

“He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” Reid told the Huffington Post. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?”

Reid went on, “His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” referring to George Romney’s decision to release 12 years of tax returns during his run for president.

Although he claims to be a Mormon, Harry Reid has a shrine to Molech in his house.  Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain.

Harry Reid once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die.  Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain.

Harry Reid boinks various animals on a regular basis.  Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain.

A year ago, Harry Reid had a torrid extramarital affair with Miley Cyrus. Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain.

When he watches World War II documentaries, Harry Reid roots for the Nazis. Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain.

It’s a fun game.  Try it some time.

ADVENTURES IN MISSING THE POINT

Tuesday, July 31st, 2012 | Uncategorized | 31 Comments

Washington DC’s new Episcopal Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar NotChane, is a realist.  She knows as well as anyone that the Episcopal Organization is circling the drain:

And yet [Ross] Douthat’s question haunts me: can our church be saved? No matter how wonderful the Episcopal Church at its best can be and how many individual congregations are doing well, the harsh truth remains: we are a church whose vital signs hover somewhere, in Douthat’s words, between decline and collapse. The decline began in the 1960s and has accelerated precipitously in the last decade. Since 2003, we’ve lost 23 percent of our church attendance.

Not because of any of our innovations, mind you.

Why? Because we allow women to hold positions of authority, celebrate the full inclusion of gays and lesbians, have an expansive understanding of God, and value insights of other faiths? I don’t think so.

After all, we did the theology and stuff.

I’ve lived with the reality of decline all 25 years of my ordained life. I’ve heard all the reasons why those who disagree with recent positions we’ve taken cite for our demise, and I simply don’t see it. And even if it were true, it wasn’t as if we decided to make these changes on our own. Hard as it is for some to believe, we felt led by God to change, much the same way that others before us felt led by God to change their views on slavery or the subjugation of women, and more recently, on the prohibition of divorce, all of which have biblical justification.

What should the Episcopal Organization do to get people like me to start calling it a church again?  Basically, Bishop NotChane recommends that TEO keep doing what it’s been doing since the 1970′s but work in the terms “Jesus” and “Holy Spirit” more often.

In the Diocese of Washington we’re devoting time and resources to developing our spiritual lives. We’re encouraging people to participate in small group study, contemplative prayer, and spiritual retreats, and so far, they are responding. We talk freely now about how the power of God changes our lives, about the healing presence of Jesus and the movement of the Holy Spirit. We’re strengthening existing congregations and planning for new ones in immigrant communities and among university students and young adults. We’re engaged in the public arena not simply because we want to relevant, but because at our baptisms we promised, “to strive for justice and peace and respect the dignity of every human being.”

And for the love of Vague, Ambiguous, Infinitely-Malleable, Inclusive, Affirming, Open-Minded And Tolerant Deity Concept, liven things up a little.

Contrary to the conservative critique, it isn’t what we’ve changed that is weakening our congregations, but rather what we’ve been unwilling to change. For all our liberal theology and progressive politics, we’ve remained rather stodgy in worship, wedded to unwieldy structures, and resistant to growth. When I ask young people what keeps them from attending church, the answer, predictably, is that it’s boring. And they’re right! But we’re committed to changing that, both in the Diocese of Washington and across the country, so that all our congregations will be vital centers of Christian worship, learning, community, and service.

We’re done here.  Bishop NotChane may think that she’s come up with a new and innovative insight.  But anybody’s who’s been an Episcopalian for any length of time knows that there is no older or more futile idea in the Episcopal Organization.

For crying out loud, we had that conversation when I was in my teens and twenties.  How do we make church interesting and relevant for the Young PeopleTM who are the future and crap?

I think I mentioned a while back that my own parish, Emmanuel, Webster Groves, once went the guitar mass route.  My mom and I even sang in one of those choirs, knocking out Godspell songs and similar dreck(we never sang it but one book we used even had John Lennon’s “Imagine” in it; insert John Shelby Spong joke here).

That choir didn’t bump up our numbers and nobody was all that impressed anyway so we eventually dropped it and went back to being high-church Anglican.  Membership went up a good bit after that.  Know why I think that was, Bishop NotChane?

If you can think of a single instance when an attempt to make worship more interesting for the Young PeopleTM resulted in growth for any Christian church, I’d really like to know what it is.  Adopt that mindset and you will eventually run into one big-ass brick wall.

Young PeopleTM eventually become Old People.TM

I listened to a lot of rock and roll when I was a kid and scorned people like Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller and Louis Armstrong(I was, of course, a blithering idiot; a lot of the garbage I grew up loving bores the hell out of me today but if I had nothing but Louis Armstrong in my music collection, I’d be a happy man).

Age taught me that.  Age also made me realize that if my Episcopal parish had ever decided that “worshipping” to the music of Bachman-Turner Overdrive, REO Speedwagon or Pat Travers was a good idea, I might have enjoyed it for a while but I would have bailed out of the Episcopal Organization long before I eventually did.

I care about eternal things, Bishop NotChane.  Ephemeral things don’t interest me.

HOW TO RECOGNIZE A BAD TELEVISION NETWORK

Monday, July 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 10 Comments

When it does a “man on the street” interview with a former world heavyweight boxing champion but doesn’t realize it.

CURRENT TRENDS IN RACISM

Monday, July 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 19 Comments

In case you don’t realize what a bigoted piece of crap you are, New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait has discovered a nefarious activity that filthy racist bastards engage in all the time.  Verbatim quoting: 

Mitt Romney’s plan of blatantly lying about President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” speech is clearly drawing blood. But what makes the attack work so well is not so much the lie itself but the broader subtext of it.

The key thing is that Obama is angry, and he’s talking not in his normal voice but in a “black dialect.” This strikes at the core of Obama’s entire political identity: a soft-spoken, reasonable African-American with a Kansas accent. From the moment he stepped onto the national stage, Obama’s deepest political fear was being seen as a “traditional” black politician, one who was demanding redistribution from white America on behalf of his fellow African-Americans.

The entire key to the rise of the Republican Party from the mid-sixties through the nineties was that white Americans came to see the Democrats as taking money from the hard-working white middle class and giving it to a lazy black underclass. Reactivating that frame is still the most mortal threat to the Democrats and to Obama. That is why Obama is reacting so urgently to reestablish himself.

You’ve never actually spent any time in Kansas, have you, Jon?  Another great way to tell whether someone is a closet Klansperson is if he or she feels that people ought to be responsible for their own actions.

President Barack Obama is backing a controversial campaign by progressives to regulate schools’ disciplinary actions so that members of major racial and ethnic groups are penalized at equal rates, regardless of individuals’ behavior.

His July 26 executive order established a government panel to promote “a positive school climate that does not rely on methods that result in disparate use of disciplinary tools.”

“African Americans lack equal access to highly effective teachers and principals, safe schools, and challenging college-preparatory classes, and they disproportionately experience school discipline,” said the order, titled “White House Initiative On Educational Excellence.”

Because of those causes, the report suggests, “over a third of African American students do not graduate from high school on time with a regular high school diploma, and only four percent of African American high school graduates interested in college are college-ready across a range of subjects.”

“What this means is that whites and Asians will get suspended for things that blacks don’t get suspended for,” because school officials will try to level punishments despite groups’ different infraction rates, predicted Hans Bader, a counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Bader is a former official in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, and has sued and represented school districts and colleges in civil-rights cases.

Hope this helps.

SHORING UP THE BASE

Monday, July 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Barack Obama attempts to lock up the crucial Episcopalian vote:

In yet another bid to put social issues at the forefront of the November campaign, Democrats are very publicly adding a plank to their convention platform supporting gay marriage. They will also include language calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law passed during the Clinton Administration that defined marriage as the union between and man and a woman. What isn’t clear though, is what specific form the endorsement of gay marriage will take.

Claire McCaskill?  Are you comfortable down there under the bus?

This could complicate a number of campaigns, especially down-ballot. Democrats are engaged in tough Senate battles in Missouri, Virginia, Montana and West Virginia, where Democrat candidates may have to distance themselves from the new party stance. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan are home to loads of blue-collar Democrats who still “cling” to a traditional view of marriage. Hard to imagine Sen. Bob Casey championing the new position, for example. 

But Obama will still have the news media so no harm, no foul.

TALL AND TAN AND YOUNG AND LOVELY

Monday, July 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 8 Comments

The girl from Ipanema is fifty.

THE RIGHT WAY

Monday, July 30th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 19 Comments

Apparently it’s not just the Episcopalians who have only one sin left:

A national environmental advocacy group has sent a letter to the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina complaining about the diocese’s opposition to gay marriage and stating its intention to stop patronizing Camp St. Christopher, a Seabrook Island retreat center affiliated with the diocese.

The July 3 letter from the Sierra Club was sent to Bishop Mark Lawrence “on behalf of the 1.4 million members, supporters and staff of the Sierra Club.” The letter notes that the conference center has been used twice recently by the national organization and is occasionally patronized by the state chapter.

“Unfortunately we have learned that the owner of St. Christopher’s … has adopted positions regarding sexual orientation which do not reflect the values of our organization,” the letter states. “Given that the diocese holds views we find objectionable, … we must inform you that the Sierra Club will no longer patronize St. Christopher’s.”

Because if teh gheys are offended, you might as well not save the environment at all.

THE BEST POLICY

Sunday, July 29th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 15 Comments

Ross Douthat would REALLY love it if the left would stop lying to his face:

The words “freedom of belief” do not appear in the First Amendment. Nor do the words “freedom of worship.” Instead, the Bill of Rights guarantees Americans something that its authors called “the free exercise” of religion.

Contra those modernists who insist that the Founders were nothing more than a bunch of Enlightenment deists who got lucky, the people who started this country understood what religion really meant.

It’s a significant choice of words, because it suggests a recognition that religious faith cannot be reduced to a purely private or individual affair. Most religious communities conceive of themselves as peoples or families, and the requirements of most faiths extend well beyond attendance at a sabbath service — encompassing charity and activism, education and missionary efforts, and other “exercises” that any guarantee of religious freedom must protect.

But thanks to the Puritanism alluded to below, that’s all become a dead letter.

You can see this confusion at work in the Obama White House’s own Department of Health and Human Services, which created a religious exemption to its mandate requiring employers to pay for contraception, sterilization and the days-after pill that covers only churches, and treats religious hospitals, schools and charities as purely secular operations. The defenders of the H.H.S. mandate note that it protects freedom of worship, which indeed it does. But a genuine free exercise of religion, not so much.

A similar spirit was at work across the Atlantic last month, when a judge in Cologne, Germany, banned circumcision as a violation of a newborn’s human rights. Here again, defenders of the decision insisted that it didn’t trample on any Jew’s or Muslim’s freedom of belief. But of course to be an adult Jew in good standing, as The Washington Post’s Charles Lane pointed out, one must circumcise one’s son at 8 days old. So while the ruling would not technically outlaw Jewish theology or Jewish worship, it would effectively outlaw Judaism itself.

Now we have the great Chick-fil-A imbroglio, in which mayors and an alderman in several American cities threatened to prevent the delicious chicken chain from opening new outlets because its Christian president told an interviewer that he supports “the biblical definition of the family unit.” Their conceit seemed to be that the religious liberties afforded to congregations (no official, to my knowledge, has threatened to close down any Chicago churches) do not extend to religious businessmen. Or alternatively, it was that while a businessman may have the right to his private beliefs, the local zoning committee has veto power over how those beliefs are exercised and expressed.

Here’s the deal, says Douthat.  I don’t know who first actually said this but it’s true nonetheless.  Don’t piss on me and tell me that it’s raining.

It may seem strange that anyone could look around the pornography-saturated, fertility-challenged, family-breakdown-plagued West and see a society menaced by a repressive puritanism. But it’s clear that this perspective is widely and sincerely held.

It would be refreshing, though, if it were expressed honestly, without the “of course we respect religious freedom” facade.

If you want to fine Catholic hospitals for following Catholic teaching, or prevent Jewish parents from circumcising their sons, or ban Chick-fil-A in Boston, then don’t tell religious people that you respect our freedoms. Say what you really think: that the exercise of our religion threatens all that’s good and decent, and that you’re going to use the levers of power to bend us to your will.

There, didn’t that feel better?

Thanks to the MCJ Chairman-and-CEO.

THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIFE

Saturday, July 28th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 28 Comments

Far be it from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch to ever pick a religious quarrel with anyone.  Nevertheless, Tucker Boulevard’s religion obliges it to inform you that unless you place your absolute faith and trust in the Lord Barack Obama, you will be damned to hell for all eternity.  After citing what it says are statistics about the number of people who will die unless ObamaCare is implemented and claims about all the money ObamaCare will actually save the country in the long run, the Post wrote the following:

To quote that eminent expert on mass deaths, Josef Stalin, “When one man dies it is a tragedy, when thousands die it’s statistics.”

When politicians come before you this fall denouncing “Obamacare,” when Republican-dominated state legislatures — including Missouri’s — begin opting out of expanding Medicaid, this is what to ask:

So you’re OK with people suffering needlessly? And you’re OK with killing 17,000 people a year? Because if you are, admit it. Don’t hide behind “we can’t afford it.”

Sure, that’s a viable position. Darwinian, but viable. “Decrease the surplus population” is Scrooge-like, but viable. If you’d rather not raise taxes on the fortunate and on health care freeloaders, that’s a viable position. If you want to continue to allow people to be sick and to die needlessly, that’s a viable position.

But tell us face-to-face. Tell us they have to die because you just flat don’t care.

The other day, the always-interesting Walter Russell Mead wrote something that I’ve believed for a long time.  In this country, Puritans and Puritanism never actually disappeared but, at least on a religious level, radically changed.

President Obama’s vision of a strong central government leading the people along the paths of truth and righteousness has “New England” stamped all over it. Puritan Boston believed in a powerful government whose duty was to promote moral behavior and punish the immoral; by 1800 many of the Puritan descendants were turning Unitarian and modernist, but while they lost their love of Christian doctrine they never abandoned their faith in the Godly Commonwealth and the duty of the virtuous to make the rest of the world behave. The New England mind has been open to insights and ideas that come from the third world ever since Henry David Thoreau and his fellow Transcendentalists read the Hindu scriptures in translation, but Obama is no more of a Muslim or an African socialist than Ralph Waldo Emerson was a Hindu.

If you’re a Uni-Uni, all you have is politics.  The Affordable Care Act, apparently the holy scriptures of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and much of the left, is almost 3,000 pages long.  No one who voted for it and certainly no one at the Post knows what’s actually in the thing but since the messiah received it on stone tablets in the holy city of Washington, DC, that’s all any of them need or want to know.

As far as these people are concerned, Barack said it, they believe it and that settles it.

Consequently, any Anne Hutchinson who dissents from the official interpretation of the ACA is not just wrong but evil.  Any Roger Williams who suggests that there might be other and more cost-effective ways to provide more people with health care is not merely a tool of the devil Beelzebub Lucifer Satan the insurance companies but a heretic.

And I find it fascinating that a mindset that ordinarily spends its days trying to figure out who to give free money to is suddenly concerned about “freeloaders.”  But a foolish consistency has never been the hobgoblin of the leftist mind.

BROKEN CLOCKS

Friday, July 27th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 25 Comments

Remember where you were and what you were doing when you read this but the American Civil Liberties Union is exactly right:

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” said Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”

The ACLU “strongly supports” same-sex marriage, Schwartz said, but noted that if a government can exclude a business for being against same-sex marriage, it can also exclude a business for being in support of same-sex marriage.

“But we also support the First Amendment,” he said. “We don’t think the government should exclude Chick-fil-A because of the anti-LGBT message. We believe this is clear cut.”

Not that they ever would but if Chick-fil-A ever took these governments who wish to ban them to court, they’d have a really good chance of winning, believes George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, said Moreno’s intentions raises “serious” constitutional concerns.

“It’s also a very slippery slope,” Turley told FoxNews.com. “If a City Council started to punish companies because of the viewpoints of their chief operating officers, that would become a very long list of banned companies.”

If Moreno did indeed put such a plan into action, it would be “excessive and likely unconstitutional,” Turley said.

Not that any of that stopped this poser.

And in a letter dated Wednesday, Philadelphia City Councilman James Kenney wrote a letter to Cathy criticizing him for his comments.

“As an American you are legally entitled to your opinion, regardless of how insensitive and intolerant it may be, but as a fellow American and an elected member of Philadelphia City Council; I am entitled to express my opinion as well,” Kenney wrote. “So please – take a hike and take your intolerance with you. There is no place for this type of hate in our great City of Brotherly Love and Sisterly Affection.”

Two things, Jimmy.  Cheesesteak sammies are not all that so there’s really no reason for me or anybody else to visit your town any time soon.  And congratulations on how well the Phillies did last year because everybody knows remembers how great your team did in the World…OH, THAT’S RIGHT!!

DOWN GOES FRAZIER!! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!!

Friday, July 27th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 20 Comments

ABC’s Jake Tapper, the best American journalist around today, works out on his favorite speed bag, White House Student Council president Press Secretary Jay Carney:

TAPPER: You used the word “giveaway,” and President Obama, in his statement yesterday, used the word “giveaway,” referring to the extension of the Bush — lower — the lower Bush tax cut rates for the — I guess, the top 1 or 2 percent of the country, people making over $200,000 a year or couples making 250. What do you say to a small-business owner who says, that’s not a giveaway; that’s my money, and by the way, I’m going to need some of that money in order to help pay for health care of individuals that I’m now mandated to do; it’s not giving anything away; it’s allowing me to keep my money?

CARNEY: Well, the phrasing of the question leaves out a few things, which is, one, this tax cut that the Senate passed and that the president supports would go to 97 percent of small businesses in America, 97 percent. Further, this president has cut the taxes of small businesses in America 18 times, independent of this. So he’s — his focus on assisting small businesses, which he considers the engine of economic growth in this country, the engine of job creation in this country, has been intense and will continue to be.

 TAPPER: Yes, I left out people I wasn’t talking about.

CARNEY: Well, no, but I mean, your — but your question framed it around the — so you’re talking about the 3 percent here. And as we’ve noted, under the definition of small businesses that Republicans trot out when they’re insisting on these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires means that –

TAPPER: I’m not — the question is this: Why is it a “giveaway”? Why are you guys using — you and President Obama — using the term “giveaway” when even if you support the Senate Democrats’ bill, it’s not technically a giveaway; it is allowing people to keep the tax cut that they got in 2001 and 2002?

It’s like watching Mike Tyson in his prime blow through some stiff in a minute.

WHY DO YOU THINK I CALL THEM SQUISHOPS?

Thursday, July 26th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 15 Comments

It must be fun to be an Episcopal bishop.  You get to wear a miter and carry a crozier on the job so people think your church is “apostolic” and stuff.  Every three years, you get to meet in a big convention, have the national news media pay attention to you as if you still mattered in the slightest and vote on all kinds of Really Important Resolutions about this or that social matter or news item.

But eventually, unless you’re Gene Robinson, you have to return to your diocese and explain yourself to the folks in the pews.  Alabama’s Kee Sloan probably had a great time in Indy being all important since he voted for same-sex marriage in the Episcopal Organization but he’s back home in Birmingham now and you know how those necks are.  Anyhoo, Sloan is not going to allow it in the Diocese of Alabama:

Bishop Kee Sloan, the head of the Episcopal Diocese of Alabama, voted in favor of a new ritual of blessing for same-sex unions that the Episcopal Church approved July 10 during its General Convention.

But he won’t allow priests in the Diocese of Alabama to perform it, he said.

“For the time being, I will not give permission,” Sloan said in an interview.

The blessing of same-gender unions is still too divisive an issue for Alabama, he said. “It’s not good at this time in this place,” Sloan said. “I’m trying to avoid any further division.”

The Rev. Frank F. Limehouse III, dean of the 3,400-member Cathedral Church of the Advent, Birmingham’s largest Episcopal Church, posted a response on the church’s website, www.adventbirmingham.org.

“We at the Advent will do our best to remain true to the teachings of the Bible,” Limehouse wrote. “We cannot bless any sexual activity outside of a marriage between one man and one woman. The Bible is clear about this. If anyone who declares the Bible teaches otherwise, then I wouldn’t doubt his or her sincerity, but I would have to question their training in biblical interpretation.”

While many Episcopalians defected from the Episcopal Church after the approval in 2003 of the consecration of the first openly gay bishop in New Hampshire, Limehouse said he plans to stay in the denomination but remain opposed to blessing same-sex unions.

Advocates for same-sex blessings were puzzled that Sloan supported the rites, but won’t allow them in his diocese.

“All of us striving for full inclusion are disappointed that he’s not allowing Alabama to move forward with the national church,” said Brad LaMonte, former Southeast regional vice president of Integrity, which promotes gay rights in the church.

“He worked on the committee that developed the rite,” LaMonte said. “It’s bizarre that he’s not allowing it in Alabama.”

That it is, Brad.  A number of other Episcopal bishops have declared same-sex marriage dead-on-arrival in their diocese.  Western Louisiana’s newly-consecrated Jake Owensby was one.  Of the sitting bishops, Florida’s John Howard has said no while Georgia’s Scott Benhase gives a whole new depth of meaning to the term “Laodicean.”

Our Deputies already reported on the General Convention’s vote to authorize a provisional rite for the blessing of same-sex couples. In both orders our deputation voted 3-1 against the enabling resolution. As I explained before General Convention, I also voted against the resolution, not because I am opposed to a blessing rite for same-sex couples, but because the rite itself is problematic, poorly written, and confusing in terms of the Church’s teaching on Holy Matrimony. The rite, however, was approved by over 70% in both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.

What will this mean in the Diocese of Georgia? Frankly, I do not know. Since this is a provisional rite and the resolution gives the Diocesan Bishop sole authority to determine its use in his/her diocese, I need more time to consult with our General Convention Deputation, our Standing Committee, and the priests of the Diocese. I plan on doing just that over the next few months. The provisional rite is not officially authorized until Advent, so I have the time needed to consult, pray, and decide. I expect to issue my decision sometime after the fall clergy conference in October.

When Robbie got his pointy hat and hooked stick in 2003, the left threw around the word “honesty” a lot.  The Episcopal Organization has had LOTS of gay bishops, it was claimed, and at least Robbie is open about it.

There’s a lot to be said for that outlook.  I mean, which would you prefer?  Gene Robinson being open about who he likes to get it on with?  Or Kee Sloan voting for an idea but banning it in his diocese because he wants the angry phone calls and e-mails to stop?

SIEG HEIL

Wednesday, July 25th, 2012 | Uncategorized | 56 Comments

The speech Nazis reach the Windy City:

A Chicago alderman wants to kill Chick-fil-A’s plans to build a restaurant in his increasingly trendy Northwest Side ward because the fast-food chain’s top executive vocally opposes gay marriage.

Ald.Proco “Joe” Moreno announced this week that he will block Chick-fil-A’s effort to build its second Chicago store, which would be in the Logan Square neighborhood, following company President Dan Cathy’s remarks last week that he was “guilty as charged” for supporting the biblical definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

“If you are discriminating against a segment of the community, I don’t want you in the 1st Ward,” Moreno told the Tribune on Tuesday.

Moreno stated his position in strong terms, referring to Cathy’s “bigoted, homophobic comments” in a proposed opinion page piece that an aide also sent to Tribune reporters. “Because of this man’s ignorance, I will now be denying Chick-fil-A’s permit to open a restaurant in the 1st Ward.”

The alderman has the ideological support of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

“Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values,” the mayor said in a statement when asked about Moreno’s decision. “They disrespect our fellow neighbors and residents. This would be a bad investment, since it would be empty.”

Moreno is relying on a rarely violated Chicago tradition known as aldermanic privilege, which dictates that City Council members defer to the opinion of the ward alderman on local issues. Last year Moreno wielded that weapon to block plans for aWal-Martin his ward, saying he had issues with the property owner and thatWal-Martwas not “a perfect fit for the area.”

Rick Garcia, a longtime Illinois gay rights activist who is a policy adviser to The Civil Rights Agenda group that was working with Moreno and Chick-fil-A on LGBT issues, lauded Moreno’s decision.

“I think it’s important that the city sends a message that we want business here … but what we can’t have and don’t want are businesses that have discriminatory roles,” Garcia said, adding that he’s a defender of free speech.

My ass.

Moreno, meanwhile, said it will take “more than words” to get him to reverse course.

“They’d have to do a complete 180,” the alderman said. “They’d have to work with LGBT groups in terms of hiring, and there would have to be a public apology from (Cathy).”

So you want them to go to reeducation camp or something, Obergruppenführer?  Good to know that Chicago is so open-minded that it only allows one officially-approved opinion on things.  So I won’t spend any money in Chi-town until you apologize, tough guy.  But I haven’t had any dinner yet so if you guys will excuse me, I think I’ll pop out to a Chick-fil-A for a sandwich.  Back in a bit.

UPDATE:  Well that was good.  I’ll have to eat at Chick-fil-A a lot more often.  Those people make a damn fine chicken sandwich.

Support The MCJ

Search

Links

Meta