County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies

The Issue

A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.

Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"

The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

"For churches and religious assemblies there's big parking concerns, there's environmental impact concerns when you have hundreds or thousands of people gathering. But this is a different situation, and we believe that the application of the religious assembly principles to this Bible study is certainly misplaced," said Broyles.

News of the case has rapidly spread across Internet blogs and has spurred various reactions.

Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

Broyles also said this case has broader implications.

"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked.

Broyles and his clients plan to give the County their demand letter this week.

If the County refuses to release the pastor and his wife from obtaining the permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court. –San Diego News, May 25/09

To watch this video click here.

My Issue

This is simply WRONG! This is a blatant violation of the families First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion. It must be stopped!

Please sign the petition supporting this families right to hold a Bible study in their home. To sign the petition click here.

Prop 8-The Musical

"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from Jack Black

Note: When Ad pops up click on it
then close it for better viewing.

The Bible and Same-Gender Marriage

"Entreat me not to leave you or to return from following you; wherever you go I will go, and wherever you lodge I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God; where you die I will die, and there will I be buried. May the Lord do so to me and more also if even death parts me from you." (Ruth 1:16-17)

I am sure that everyone here has heard these beautiful words from the book of Ruth in the Old Testament. Most of you, indeed, have probably heard these words most often during marriage ceremonies or weddings, since those are the settings in which this passage is typically read in Protestant churches. Marriage seems the perfect setting for this passage from Ruth because the words underscore the intimacy, fidelity, commitment, and deep affectional connection that primarily define modern conceptions of marriage. Yet, in the book of Ruth itself, these passionate words of affection, intimacy, faithfulness, and commitment unto death are spoken by one woman to another woman. It is profoundly ironic that words describing the depth and breadth of a biblical same gender relationship are now most commonly employed by the church in blessing legal marriage, an institution from which, sadly, same gender couples today in the state of Wisconsin and 48 other states are barred.

Moreover, the Wisconsin State Legislature is presently considering a constitutional amendment that would not only prohibit same gender couples from marrying, a right they do not even have at the present time, but would also destroy whatever minor protections some same gender couples have been able to find through domestic partnership agreements at their businesses and in some localities. This constitutional amendment is, on the one hand, completely unnecessary and, on the other hand, profoundly mean-spirited. While setting out to harass and imperil the families of some citizens of this state is bad enough, what distresses me as a Christian so deeply is the enlistment of the Bible as one of the major excuses some people use to justify such an outrageous and unprovoked attack on the security and welfare of their neighbors.

Let's be very clear about this: nowhere in the Bible is same gender marriage prohibited, or even mentioned, for that matter. In order to argue that the Bible prohibits civil recognition of same gender relationships, one is reduced to arguing from silence. But we also need to be clear about another fact: the traditions of marriage actually found in the Bible, the ones the Bible does talk about, bear little or no resemblance to what modern Western people understand marriage to do and be today. Marriage between one man and one woman as envisioned by people today was never the ideal relationship in the Bible. Moreover, marriage is not, as some commentators, politicians, and even religious leaders, have recently contended, an "unchanging tradition of thousands of years." Rather, marriage, like all other social institutions is quite variable and has gone through many different forms over the course of history and across many cultures.

For the ancient Mediterranean world from which the Bible came the primary purpose of marriage was the production of legitimate heirs and the management of the household. Sexual compatibility, mutuality, intimacy, and certainly sexual faithfulness, at least for men, were neither values nor concerns of ancient marriage. In the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible polygyny, the presence of multiple women in the family, was the most common pattern of marriage. Whether we look at patriarchs like Jacob or religious leaders like Moses or kings like David, we have ample evidence for a common pattern of multiple wives. The most formidable example of this pattern can be found in Solomon, David's son, who had, so the Bible tells us, 700 wives and 300 concubines. While concubines were not the same as wives, who produced legitimate heirs for their husband, concubines were officially connected to the husband usually by family contract and were often treated in much the same way as wives.

In addition to all of these legitimate wives and concubines, ancient males both in Israel and Judah and in later Greco-Roman times had plentiful access to other sexual workers including slaves and prostitutes. As the famous quotation from Greek writer Demosthenes makes clear: "This is what it means to be married: to have sons one can introduce to the family and the neighbors, and to have daughters of one's own to give to husbands. For we have courtesans for pleasure, concubines to attend to our daily bodily needs, and wives to bear children legitimately and to be faithful wards of our homes." This multi-leveled sexual arrangement hardly describes the current state of marriage in America, as I think most people would agree.

Today, mutuality, intimacy, life-long companionship, shared economics, and sexual pleasure are generally listed as central values for marital relationships. Even the creation of progeny is not as high a value in many discussions-especially Protestant discussions-of contemporary marriage as mutuality and intimacy have become. Because some married couples in our seriously over-populated world have made the moral choice to forgo childbearing and because marriage between people incapable of childbearing, like the elderly or impotent, is still valued and encouraged, the production of offspring as the sine qua non of marriage has dropped out of many discussions of contemporary marital values, even Christian marital values. However, the production of legitimate heirs within a decorously ordered household was the most important function of marriage in antiquity.

Early Christianity actually deviated remarkably from this general cultural understanding of marriage as the production of heirs to bring greater status to the family. Indeed the earliest Christians, especially Jesus and Paul, being themselves unmarried men, as the Bible portrays them, tended to reject marriage in favor of celibacy and especially later, virginity. After all, in the gospel of Matthew (19:10-12) when the disciples object to Jesus' teaching forbidding divorce and re-marriage (a teaching many Christians today skim over without serious notice), Jesus recommends that the best option for life, though few may be able to adopt it, is to become eunuchs for the kingdom of God. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 suggests that while marriage is not a sin, it is better for Christians not to be married.

For Paul, marriage and family brought with them the complications of the world, distracting Christians from their primary duty of living in Christ. Since Paul and many other early Christians expected the return of Jesus on the clouds of glory at any moment, the production of offspring or the concerns with family honor and wealth were of little importance or value. Paul did, however, recognize one possible reason for marriage among Christians: it was better, he said, to marry than to burn with passion. For those Christians whose passions were too strong (1 Corinthians 7:36) for their own will to control, marriage was an acceptable path for channeling and ultimately, perhaps, destroying passion.

In other words, for Paul marriage became a kind of remedy for lust. This suggestion makes more sense than might at first appear. As we have already noted, in the first century Mediterranean world, free men of some means married primarily for lineage and offspring, not for passion. They were completely free to satisfy their passions and desires outside of marriage with prostitutes, courtesans, mistresses, and all the other classes of available sexual laborers, slave and free, male and female. To limit passion and desire only to the one marriage partner was for a man a severe sexual curtailment, which might well result in the eroding of passion altogether. And the eroding of passion was exactly what Paul and other early Christian writers had in mind. For many early Christians only marriage as a discipline of chastity, denying all passion and sexual pleasure, was acceptable in a Christian context. St. Jerome famously said that any man who loved his own wife too much was in fact guilty of adultery. Jerome came to this conclusion by interpreting the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew that anyone who lusted in his heart was already an adulterer.

Passion and lust, whether outside the context of marriage or even within it, were the deadly sins which concerned the church. The corollary to this negative view of passion and pleasure was the position that the only moral sexual act was a passionless one for the purpose of procreation alone; sexuality out of passion or for pleasure was deemed profoundly immoral. Since procreation was most responsibly undertaken in the context of a secure marriage, the logic that only sexual acts within marriage for the purpose of procreation could be morally acceptable became the argument of the church for much of Christian history. At the heart of this argument lies a mighty affirmation of chastity and an equally strong rejection of pleasure, two views at complete odds from most of contemporary U.S. society.

Indeed marriage itself as an institution was of little consequence to the Christian church during its first 1000 years. Perhaps the focus on chastity, celibacy and monasticism, which only grew in fervor as the expected return of Jesus was continually delayed, encouraged the church to downplay the importance of marriage and family. Whatever the reason, marriage did not become an official sacrament of the church until the early 12th century C.E.. Interestingly and ironically given our current debate, the early Puritan settlers in this country had a similar perspective on marriage to that of the early church. The free church Protestant ministers of the 17th and 18th centuries generally refused to attend, much less perform, marriages (or for that matter funerals). The Puritans, who were the first East Coast settlers in this country from Western Europe, saw no biblical warrant for performing marriages of any kind, and in Roger Williams's colony of Rhode Island, clergy were actually forbidden by law from performing marriage ceremonies, since marriage was viewed as much too worldly an institution for the church to be involved with.

In these early Puritan and Anabaptist colonies marriage was left in the hands of civil authorities. Of course, marriage in this country is still in the hands of civil authorities rather than the church, even though many Americans may not actually realize that fact. It is the civil government that determines who can marry and who cannot, as lesbian and gay people know only too well and the proposed constitutional amendment in the legislature confirms; it is the government that decides under what conditions marriages may be ended and who must pay what to whom. Members of the clergy who perform weddings actually become agents of the state when they sign a marriage certificate, and other people bonded by the state who are not members of the clergy are equally empowered to perform weddings. In fact, though many gay and lesbian couples in Wisconsin have been married in church services over the past 30 years, none of those marriages is deemed legal under state law. It is the state and not the action of churches that determines who is and who is not married in this country. Yet even with that reality, most of the arguments used to support this present mean-spirited effort to harass legislatively the gay and lesbian citizens of Wisconsin use religion, and especially Christianity, to rationalize their attack.

If neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament contain much support for the contemporary understanding of marriage in US society, and neither say anything about same-gender marriage, positively or negatively, where does all this biblical witness against same-gender relationships come from? That is a very good question. As many of you may know, the Bible actually has very little to say about homoeroticism or same-gender sexuality of any kind, and what little it does say in a couple of verses in Leviticus or Romans, for example, is fraught with ambiguity and cultural particularities. For instance, if Lev. 18:22, which apparently prohibits anal intercourse ("you shall not lie with a male the lying of a wife"), is to be taken over as a moral law in contemporary culture, why would we not also as a culture take over "kosher" eating practices, since much longer sections of both Lev 17 and 19 prohibit eating the "blood" of any animal? If we are as a society perfectly content to let those people who wish to keep kosher as a religious practice, do so but not to force everyone to abide by these Levitical rules, on what grounds do we single out one verse of the passage for universal obedience, outside of any particular religious context?

The religious particularity of the Levitical rules is matched by the strong cultural and historical conditioning that gave rise to them. The truth of the matter is that equal and loving relationships between same-gender people as we know them today did not exist in the same way in the cultures of Mediterranean antiquity. The single most important concept that defined sexuality in the ancient Mediterranean world, whether we are talking about the kingdoms of Egypt or of Assyria or whether we are talking about the later kingdoms of Greece and Rome, was that approved sexual acts never occurred between social equals; it was not a matter of gender choice but instead a matter of social class. Sexuality, by definition in ancient societies required the combination of dominance and submission. This crucial social and political root metaphor of dominance and submission as the definition of sexuality rested upon a physical basis that assumed every sex act required a penetrator and someone who was penetrated. Needless to say, this definition of sexuality was entirely male-not surprising in the heavily patriarchal societies of the ancient Mediterranean. Nevertheless this assumption that the difference in status between the dominant penetrator and the submissive penetratee was essential to all sexual behavior was prevalent in most sources from at least the Egyptian empires of the Second Millennium BCE all the way through the late Roman Empire and beyond. Of course, we must recognize that the vast majority of the laws and other texts from antiquity that give us some insight into sexual roles were written by elite men. Whether or not the convention of dominance and submission as the defining aspect of sexuality was actually embodied in all sexual acts across these societies and not just in the writing about all sexual acts remains unknown. Our knowledge is constrained, as always in history, by our sources.

Because sexual acts were defined as the combination of dominance and submission, sexual acts between men could have and often did have strongly political overtones. For example, the early Egyptian legend of the relations between the gods Horus and Seth demonstrate the political use of anal intercourse as a way of embarrassing a rival political power. Horus, as you may remember, was the son of Isis and Osiris, and Osiris had been murdered by his brother Seth. So, now, Horus and Seth were contenders for supremacy among the gods. One of the episodes in the myth relates the time when Seth invited Horus to his home for what appeared to be a conciliatory meal. However, the real purpose of the meal was to further Seth's royal aims by providing him with a situation in which he could anally rape Horus while he was sleeping after dinner. Seth's sexual dominance over Horus would prove to all the gods that Horus was unworthy to be supreme among them and that Seth was the truly superior one. While this particular stratagem did not work out to Seth's advantage in this myth because of the fortuitous intervention of Isis to protect her son, the story does demonstrate what became a very common usage for male/male sexual intercourse in the ancient Mesopotamian world particularly, that is, the demonstration of the political dominance of one group over another.

In a similar vein from Greek culture there is a famous picture that celebrates the victory of the Athenians over the Persians in 460 BCE. In the picture a Greek soldier with erect penis in hand approaches from the rear a distressed, defeated Persian soldier who is bent over waiting to be raped by the Greek. The picture is not pornography but politics because it was intended to show, through the imagery of male-male sexual intercourse, that the Greeks now dominate the submissive Persians. In myth, law, treaties, monuments, and pottery decorations, political and military domination was often conventionally symbolized by sexual domination of one man over another. It was one way in which individual men and nations could prove their dominance and claim to honor over their foes or competitors. Indeed, one biblical scholar has suggested that the Levitical prohibition against anal intercourse was actually intended to prohibit the use of this kind of sexual struggle for dominance and honor among Hebrew men, eliminating one potential area of division and friction within the nation in order to preserve social harmony. Hebrew males were not to dishonor other Hebrew males by treating them like wives.

The underside of this law, of course, is that wives were normally and naturally to be dishonored, or perhaps, better said, that passivity, which was dishonorable for a man, was assumed to be the natural condition of women. Whatever the rationale behind the prohibition, it arises from and speaks to a particular social and cultural situation very different from our own-and a social and cultural situation, it should be pointed out, which treated women and especially wives as solely male possessions.

Given the significant historical and cultural problems with the Bible's very few comments related to same-gender relationships and its complete lack of comment on same-gender marriage, how can some Christians argue that the Bible prohibits such marriage? It turns out that most of the Christian advocates for heterosexual privilege in marriage law rest their case for the importance and exclusivity of heterosexual marriage today on just two verses from the creation stories: Gen. 1:27 and Gen 2:24, verses, which Jesus also quotes in his argument with the Pharisees over divorce and re-marriage in Mark 10:6-8 and Matt 19:4-5. The part of Gen 1:27 that Jesus quotes says, "he [meaning God] made them male and female." For some conservative commentators, just the fact that God, according to the Genesis creations accounts, created two genders, male and female, is sufficient to rule out same-gender relationships.

The logic of that conclusion, however, is very peculiar. After all, most same-gender relationships are just as dependent as opposite gender relationships on the presence of two genders, males and females. The simple fact that God in Genesis 1 is said to have created males and females does not in any way rule out love between two males or two females; indeed for many same-gender couples the distinctions between men and women are precisely what attracts them to people of the same gender in the first place. If Gen 1:27 does nothing to strengthen the argument against same gender relationships, what about Gen. 2:24? Gen 2:24 says that "a man shall leave (or abandon-a strong verb in Hebrew) his father and his mother and cling to his woman and they shall become one flesh."

This verse in Genesis immediately follows, as its conclusion a verse in which the man recognizes the newly created woman with the words, "She is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman for from man she was taken." Since in other places in the Old Testament the concept of being the same bones and flesh of someone else is a common metaphor for kinship (for example, later in Genesis 29:14, Laban greets his nephew Jacob as "my bones and flesh"; and in 2 Samuel 19:12-13, David greets some of the men of Judah as "my brothers, my bone and my flesh"; see also, Judges 9:2; 2 Sam 5:1; 1 Chr 11:1), Jesus uses this verse from Genesis in his argument with the Pharisees about divorce to evoke similar kinship ties for marriage. Basically Jesus is saying that divorce is impossible because marriage is less a legal commitment than a kinship or "blood" relationship. Since uncles cannot divorce their nephews and sisters cannot divorce their brothers, husbands also cannot divorce their wives. Only death can break kinship bonds; no writ of divorce can do it.

While Jesus' use of Gen 2:24 does seem to imply that he thinks the verse describes marriage, Paul also quotes this same verse from Genesis when he is trying to persuade the men of the Corinthian community to stop visiting prostitutes; Paul says, "Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, 'The two shall become one flesh'" (1 Cor 6:16). Rather plainly for Paul in this case, Gen 2:24 does not refer to marriage or any kind of kinship relationship but instead to sexual intercourse itself. Moreover, when Paul quotes Jesus' views forbidding divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11), he does not cite Gen 2:24 as a supporting argument. Thus, Paul explicitly uses Gen 2:24 in describing prostitution but avoids using it when discussing marriage, divorce, or remarriage. Evidently, for him marriage is not what Gen 2:24 concerns.

If we look at the verse in its own context in Genesis, marriage is also rather clearly not what it is about. Now, how do I know that? Well, the verse says that a man will abandon his father and mother and cling to his woman, and that pattern is the exact opposite of what happened in marriage in antiquity. Marriage in Israel and beyond was exogamous and patrilocal, that is, the wife left her family/tribe and joined that of her husband. While Western society is no longer strictly-speaking patrilocal, the practice of wives taking on the last names of their husbands is a remnant of this older patrilocal custom. If you heard today that a man had totally abandoned the name of his father and mother and taken on the name of his woman (not a hyphenated name or some third name), you would not assume that a typical marriage arrangement was being described (you might assume that this indicates some serious break between the man and his blood family).

Similarly, for an ancient audience, the statement that a man abandons his father and mother and clings to his woman would not suggest marriage or any kind of typical familial relationship. Many scholars have struggled with the meaning of this verse in Genesis and most of them have concluded that it cannot be a reference to marriage, since it was unheard of for the husband to leave his family and join that of the wife. So, in the end if we really pay close attention to what the Bible actually says, even this one verse upon which the case for exclusively heterosexual marriage is primarily built proves also to be a problematic and crumbling foundation.

Let me return to what I said at the beginning: there is no prohibition in the Bible against same-sex marriage. The arguments marshaled to try to make the case from the Bible must rely either on a few problematic verses that seem to prohibit or demean homoeroticism, as it was understood in the ancient world, or on a verse drawn out of the Genesis creation accounts that current advocates for heterosexual-only marriage want to make a universal definition of marriage, when it was clearly not even the definition of marriage prevalent in the ancient Mediterranean world itself. Consequently, all of these attempts, when examined carefully fail to persuade.

Unfortunately, not many people examine them carefully. While I fully believe that many Christians (and non-Christians) love the Bible, I also believe that not many of them actually read it. So, claiming the support of the Bible, even with very weak arguments, can be influential for many people who hold the Bible in reverence but never really bother to study what it says. But the problem is more serious than that: I think, and history supports me on this, that you can prove pretty much anything you want from the Bible, if you are sufficiently creative and willing to take material out of context and read the present into it. I actually learned this truth about the Bible very early in my life. When I was about nine, a friend came to me to tell me that the Bible proved that women could smoke. I said, "no, I don't think the Bible says anything about smoking." "Yes," she said, "it does"; and she opened her Bible (KJV) and pointed to a verse in Genesis, which read, "And Rachel lit up upon her camel." So, at a very early age, I learned a very important lesson about the Bible: it is a powerful book that can be made to prove anything, if one is sufficiently bold and creative.

Maybe because of that early lesson, I am more likely to apply as normative to my life only those parts of the Bible that have extensive support and clear universal applications. For example, when Jesus says in the gospels that all the law and the prophets can be summed up in two commandments, love of God and love of neighbor, I take those commandments very seriously indeed. When I read in Micah the words, "What does the Lord require of you? But to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God" I take those words very seriously. When I read Amos calling out on God's behalf to "let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever flowing stream," I take that imperative very seriously as well. I believe that loving God and neighbor, working for justice, loving mercy, speaking and walking in humility, and never treating others in ways I would not myself like to be treated create a powerful moral direction for Christian life in this world.

You know, Jesus, in rejecting purity regulations concerning food in the Gospel of Mark (7:14-23), makes a very important point that all Christians in the U.S. today would do well to reflect upon. He says that nothing outside of people by going into them can defile them; only the things that come out of people, out of their hearts, can defile them. On the same principle, I believe that no loving, consensual, mutual sexual act, whether between people of the same sex or people of the opposite sex, is in itself defiling or evil. However, what comes out of the heart in the demeaning of others, in slander about other people's lives, in mean-spirited actions to destroy those you don't like and often don't even know, in dehumanizing those you create into your enemies, those things do indeed defile a person and twist and distort their soul.

Christianity, for me, is not about purity; it is not even about piety. It is about love, God's love for us and our love for God and our neighbors, whoever they may be. Moreover, working for justice and spreading compassion and mercy are the natural outcomes of that love. And it is a love that can drive out fear, fear of difference, fear of the unknown, fear of the other. If what your religion brings out of you is only hate and fear, it is not a religion worthy of God-nor is it a religion worthy of the Bible. I have faith in a God who calls us all to a future of justice, mercy, compassion, and most of all love. I invite all of you to work with me for that future here in Wisconsin and across the country. What is at stake here is not simply the lives and families of lesbians and gay men, bisexuals and transgender people, as vitally and irreplaceably important as they are, but what is at stake in these battles is also the very soul of Christianity itself. Will it be known as a religion of hate, fear, and repression or will it be known as a religion of love, justice, and mercy? What we do now may well determine Christianity's future for years to come.

This article can be found on-line at the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies of the Pacific School of Religion … Click here.

by Mary A. Tolbert

Church Signs

Mom Will Allow Son Chemotherapy

Issue:

A 13-year-old cancer patient and his mother who last week fled their rural home in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, rather than undergo chemotherapy returned voluntarily Monday and will accept whatever course of treatment a court may order, their lawyer said.

Colleen Hauser is prepared to allow her son Daniel to undergo chemotherapy, defense lawyer Jennifer Keller said.

"My understanding is that Colleen intends to abide by whatever orders the court makes and that she wants to put her best case forward for her son to have a chance at alternative treatment," Keller told CNN. "But if the court overrules that, she will abide by the orders of the court. We were very clear on that. That certainly is my advice."

The case raises questions about individuals' rights in deciding medical care for their children when their decisions go against the advice of medical professionals.

Monday's homecoming came a day after Keller, an Orange County, California, attorney representing the pair, called the Brown County Sheriff's Office and told authorities that Colleen Hauser wanted to bring her son home.

"I think they wanted to come back home. They wanted to get together with their family and they were ready to be home," Brown County Sheriff Rich Hoffmann told reporters. "It all turned out for the good."

Keller said she met Sunday with Hauser and her son in her office in Irvine after talking with them a couple of days earlier by telephone.

"He did not appear in pain. He was tired and anxious to get home," Keller said. "He didn't appear to be in any acute distress. He misses his home, he misses his family and he wanted to see his dad."

Late last week, authorities said they thought the mother and son were near Los Angeles, California, and may have been planning to travel to Mexico for a holistic treatment.

Daniel and Colleen Hauser had last been reported seen in Minnesota on May 18, a day after a doctor said the boy's Hodgkin's lymphoma was worsening. The family rejected standard treatment, opting instead for a holistic medical treatment based on Native American healing practices called Nemenhah.

Asked where the boy and his mother had been during their week on the run, the lawyer said, "I didn't ask. My only goal was to help her get Danny back to Minnesota."

Keller said it is her understanding that legal custody has been taken by the court, but that there were no plans to remove Daniel from his mother's care "as long as she was cooperative with the court."

Colleen Hauser and her son arrived in Minnesota at 3 a.m. on a chartered flight paid for by Asgaard Media of Corona, California, Hoffmann said. The company describes itself on its Web site as "founded and advised by a group of forward-thinking, positive-minded individuals wanting to make a difference not only in their environment but in both the world of entertainment and the world around them."

No one from the company responded immediately to an e-mail seeking comment, and the company's telephone answering machine was full.

Upon arrival in Minnesota, Daniel was taken to a hospital, where his medical condition was evaluated, said the sheriff. He said he could not comment on the findings.

Keller, who did not charge for her services, said the charter flight was arranged so the boy's return would not become a media event.

"We wanted him to be able to come back quietly, not have cameras in his face, not have people shouting questions at him, allow him to get back to the farm and his father and his siblings and some sense of a normal life," she said.

"He's a nice boy but he's been through a lot. He really deserves a chance at this point to get some rest and peace and quiet."

Brown County District Judge John R. Rodenberg issued an arrest warrant for Colleen Hauser last Tuesday, when she and her son failed to show up for a court hearing. Rodenberg, who said the boy's "best interests" require he receive conventional medical care, issued a contempt order for the mother and ordered Daniel placed in the custody of the Brown County Family Services agency.

But Hoffmann said Monday that the court, noting the return was voluntary, quashed the warrant for the mother's arrest. A federal fugitive warrant will also be dropped, he said.

In February, the boy's cancer responded to an initial round of chemotherapy. But the treatment's side effects concerned the boy's parents, who opted not to pursue further chemotherapy and solicited other medical opinions.

Daniel's symptoms of persistent cough, fatigue and swollen lymph nodes were diagnosed in January as Hodgkin's lymphoma. Court documents show doctors estimated the boy's chance of five-year remission with more chemotherapy, and possibly radiation, at 80 to 95 percent.

Philip Elbert, Daniel's court-appointed attorney, said he considers his client to have a "diminished capacity" because of his age and the illness, and said he believes Daniel should be treated by a cancer specialist. –CNN

My Issue:

I’m glad that there has been a change of heart and Daniel’s mother, Colleen, will allow her son to undergo chemotherapy for Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. Yes, the treatments will be rough on Daniel … chemotherapy is no picnic! But if the treatments work then Daniel will be able to live a healthy and productive life. If, on the other hand, the treatments fail then I would fully support the families choice to withdraw from therapy and allow their son to live the remainder of his life as normal as possible.

I still believe that both alternative and conventional medicine, including prayer should be a part of Daniel’s treatment. It is inconceivable that we are not allowed complete access to all forms of medicine and treatment. Thanks to health insurance companies, including doctor’s who are narrow minded and care more about the almighty dollar than an individuals healing, we are limited to what our choices are and this is terribly wrong. Nonetheless, with all that is available, at least Daniel’s on his way, hopefully into remission.

I ask each of you to please hold Daniel and his family up to God in your daily prayer’s.

To read my previous post Chemo vs. Faith click here.

05/31/09-Follow up story click here.

The Bible Bill?

The Issue:

When the clock strikes midnight on Dec. 31, 2009, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) hopes you’ll be ringing in “the Year of the Bible.”

It’s probably just wishful thinking.

Broun’s simple congressional resolution aimed at honoring the Good Book has produced a push-back of biblical proportion in the blogosphere, with critics dismissing it as either unconstitutional or a waste of time. Jews in Congress and atheist activists are dismissing the resolution, while none of the many Democrats in Congress who are Christian have bothered to sign on as co-sponsors.

According to GovTrak.us, the resolution is among the most-blogged-about pieces of legislation, with most posts less than complimentary in nature.

“Does that mean 2009 is not the year of the Bible?” mocked Rep. Barney Frank ­(D-Mass.), who is Jewish. “What is 2012 the year of? The Quran?”

“That’s an endorsement of religion by the federal government, and we shouldn’t be doing that,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), even though he has introduced his own legislation dealing with religion.

“Republican lawmakers with apparently too much time on their hands and no solutions to offer the country are pushing a resolution that will not address the nation’s problems or advance prosperity or even untangle their previous governing mistakes,” blogged the Progressive Puppy.
Broun rejects the critiques leveled at this effort.

“This doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity,” he said in an interview with POLITICO. Rather, he says, it seeks to recognize that the Bible played an integral role in the building of the United States, including providing the basis for our freedom of religion that allows Muslims, Hindus and even atheists to vocalize their own beliefs.

And even as Nadler criticized Broun, he has done his own share of mixing religion and legislation.

Last year, he introduced a bill that would overturn a federal appeals court ruling — an “idiot” decision, he says — that a condominium board in Chicago had the right to ban Jews from installing mezuzahs, which consist of a piece of parchment inscribed with a specific religious text put inside a case and hung on a door frame.
Condo boards shouldn’t be able to interfere in an individual’s right to practice his or her religion, Nadler said.

But he himself declined to install a mezuzah on his congressional office door when asked by a rabbi, even though he does so at home.

“That’s my religious symbol, and the office does not belong to me; it belongs to the people of the congressional district, and no one should feel uncomfortable walking into the office if it’s not their religion,” Nadler said, describing his feelings on religion and Congress.

“Same thing with the Bible. ... It’s not everybody’s religion. And the federal government should not be imposing religious viewpoints.”

Atheists, who might feel themselves a particular target with the declaration of a biblical year, aren’t even worried about Broun’s effort.

“Right now, we’re seeing atheism on such a rise,” said David Silverman, vice president and national spokesman of American Atheists, a group dedicated to fighting for the civil rights of atheists.

“We are seeing Christianity on such a dramatic decline that we’re not particularly worried about it. We’re thinking that this kind of old-style George W. Bush Republicanism is about to go away,” Silverman said, referring to the latest Pew Forum survey of American religious life, which showed nonreligious Americans as the fastest-growing group.

And it may be the best-selling book of all time, as Broun’s resolution points out, but the Bible isn’t such a popular legislative topic.

A search of Thomas, the online congressional database, for “Bible” yields just one other bill: a resolution to have the “Lincoln-Obama Bible” on permanent display in the Capitol Visitor Center.

The resolution specifically asks the president “to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of government.”

As for the economy, health care, global warming and all the other issues on Congress’ plate? “While we must focus on fiscal policies that provide relief to families during these tough economic times, an endeavor I have been working tirelessly towards in this Congress, we must also not forget to protect and celebrate our fundamental freedoms that the Bible has influenced,” Broun said.

Broun has gathered 15 co-sponsors, all Republicans, but says he’s looking for more and hopes Democrats will sign on, as well.

“This is not a partisan issue,” he said. “I want it to be bipartisan.”

Whether he’s successful or not — the same measure didn’t go anywhere last year — at least Broun and his fellow supporters can take heart in one fact: They already had a “year of the Bible.”

Ronald Reagan designated 1983 as one, with Congress’ blessing. –Yahoo News

My Issue:

Politics and religion is like mixing water with oil … they simply doesn’t mix. Though our country was founded on religious principles and has played a role in the shaping of our nation, I do believe in the separation of church and state. No government should be in the business of establishing or recognizing any one particular religion. If you’re going to do so, then it must be all inclusive. The problem in establishing a state church or religion, authoritarian rule becomes the norm. This why our forefather's made sure that there be a complete separation of powers.

My reasoning is based on what recent history is teaching us. Though some may say my reasoning may be far fetched, the possibility is very real.

I have never read nor do I have any desire to read the Koran. Nonetheless, the Taliban has hijacked the Koran and has twisted its verses to suit their own political agenda … remember 9/11? I believe the same could happen should our government establish a one religion rule. I mean, though the probability of this ever happening may be none, if you follow world events, the Taliban is bent on Koran rule for Europe and America.

Without a doubt, there are those political and religious leaders who are so fanatical that if given a chance Bible rule would become a reality. For example, should Bible rule become law, women would become second class citizens, stoning would become our countries form of punishment for whatever reason (there’s a lot of does and don’ts in the Bible for which most American’s would be stoned), gays and lesbians would be killed, divorce would be illegal, and those religions who are not of the same mindset would be abolished. Shoot, conservatively 50% of our citizens would be in concentration camps or reprogramming facilities. The government needs to stay out of and away from religious affairs and not waist its time with legislating matters like Bible of Year.

Now if the religious community wants to establish 2010 as the year of the Bible I have no problems with that. Go for it! I would support such a recognition. But as for our government to do so, I have a big problem with it, only because if we allow the one then we may have to allow the recognition of other beliefs. And with a liberal Supreme Court, we just might be celebrating the year of the Koran … god help us if this ever came about.

Chemo vs. Faith

The Issue:

A 13-year-old Minnesota boy whose family has rejected chemotherapy to treat his cancer is near Los Angeles, California, with his mother, and the pair may be planning to travel to Mexico, authorities said Thursday.

Brown County, Minnesota, Sheriff Rich Offmann cited "reliable information" in making the announcement to reporters, adding that Colleen Hauser may be seeking treatment for her son's lymphoma in Mexico, just south of San Diego, California.

"I'm confident we will find them," Offmann said. "I'm hoping for Daniel's sake, we will find them."

Anthony Hauser, Colleen's husband and the boy's father, has been cooperating with law enforcement, Offmann said.

Family spokesman Dan Zwakman told CNN Thursday that Anthony Hauser was not aware that his wife was taking the child.

"From all appearances," Zwakman said, "it was a case of her decision by herself."

The boy's father and mother have not been in contact since she left, the spokesman said. -CNN

My Issue:

Daniel Hauser lives with Hodgkin's lymphoma. After one chemo treatment it was decided to discontinue further treatment based on their religious convictions.

Honestly, this is a tricky situation and unfortunately, no matter how the outcome, no one is going to come out a winner.

Yes, as American’s we have the right to our own religious beliefs and no state or government has the right to deny this right. But the question comes into being, when does one’s right begin and end. And in this case where do we draw the line or can we?

My personal belief is that every option should be explored. Why not include alternative medicine alongside conventional medicine. What will it hurt? At least the treatments will be done with the careful eye of a physician. If one or the other or both works then at least every attempt has been explored and the right form of treatment can be established that will best benefit the sick.

Hodgkin's lymphoma is treatable. As to how it’s treatable may be harsh, but at least it’s treatable and those with Hodgkin’s lymphoma can live healthy productive lives. In light of this fact, I believe that the parents must allow their child a chance to live a healthy productive life. The road to getting there may be harsh, but at least the child will survive. By not allowing treatment they are committing their son to death and I believe this is wrong. On the other hand, should their son have an incurable disease for which any kind of treatment would be in vain, then I could fully support their decision to not proceed with treatment and allow the son to live as happy of a life he can while he is here on earth. Like I said; no matter how the outcome, no one is going to come out a winner.

Honesty, the best thing we can do is pray for the right outcome.

Scientists Piece Together Human Ancestry?

The Issue:

Scientists hailed Tuesday a 47-million-year-old fossil of an ancient "small cat"-sized primate as a possible common ancestor of monkeys, humans and other primates.

Scientists say the fossil, dubbed "Ida," is a transitional species, living around the time the primate lineage split into two groups: A line that would eventually produce humans and monkeys, and another that would give rise to primates such as lemurs.

The fossil was formally named Darwinius masillae, in honor of the anniversary of Charles Darwin's 200th birthday.

"This is the most complete primate fossil before human burial," said Dr. Jorn Hurum, of the Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo, who led the study of the fossil, a young female primate.

"And it's not a few million years old; it's 47 million years old," Hurum said, speaking at a news conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

The fossil was discovered in 1983 in the Messel Pit, Germany, near Frankfurt, and had been until recently in private collections, according to an article published Tuesday in the scientific journal PLoS ONE, a publication of the Public Library of Science. Read the report from PLoS ONE -CNN

My Issue:

Ok, with a whole lot of imagination I can see how mankind might resemble some species. But that’s with a whole lot of imagination. On the other side of the coin, I do admit that most individuals behavior does resemble some animalistic tendencies … after all, human’s are one step above the animals. However, to say that I’m a descendant of some species, hm!, having a hard time with this one.

Now I wasn’t there when so call time began. Some say it began sum fifty million years ago. The widely accepted time frame is some six or seven thousand years ago. Honestly, I don’t think anyone really knows. The only recorded information as to when time began is what we read in the opening statement of the Bible … “In the beginning …”. Gen 1:1. Other than that, who knows!

What I find funny about evolutionists is that every time some fossil are discovered and if it walked on, not all fours, but upright they assume that it’s our missing or lost link … that we must be a direct descendant. I’m sorry, but my brain simply cannot accept this concept, let alone its theory.

When I look around this world it’s difficult for me to even imagine that all I see in it simply appeared as a result of some big bang theory or that I evolved from tadpoles. Life as we know it is way to complex and I don’t see myself as some bi-product of man’s theory of evolution. The only sane and acceptable answer for me is creation. All that is about our world and known universe was created by God … it’s the only sensible and logical answer that makes any kind of sense. Why? Because man’s theory of evolution is inconsistent with itself … its theory continually evolves. Creation, on the other hand, is consistent … it hasn’t changed since the beginning of time.

Though I welcome “Ida” into our limited knowledge of the past, I have to decline the idea that she is my ancestor. Sorry! It just doesn’t fit. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1 NIV). Once the heavens and earth was formed, God painted it with all that is life. Yes, the original creation is lost and “Ida” is but a glimpse of what was, but even though it’s only a glimpse, it still reveals to us today that it was God that brought all that we are into being.

Gay Marriage & Rights

The institution of marriage is the foundation of society and alterations to its definitions shouldn't be lightly undertaken. It has always been defined as the legal union of a man and a woman, and it's understandable that many Americans are apprehensive about making a definitional change to so profoundly an important institution. But it is a tradition, not a creed, or, at least, not a national creed. It is not how we define ourselves as Americans. And while we shouldn't carelessly dismiss the importance of enduring traditions, we should understand that traditions do change over time in every society. And as long as those changes do not conflict with the tenets of our national creed then they can, and inevitably will, be modified by a society that has come to view them as inequitable.

Our national creed is a declaration of natural rights not a compact for the preservation of social customs, as important as many of those customs are. It was precisely and elegantly defined 233 years ago as adherence to certain self-evident truths. All are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Americans' fidelity to that creed ended the tradition of slavery because it was understood that slavery denied to the slave the universal rights America was founded in blood to protect. Women were constitutionally disenfranchised. But in time that injustice was rectified because the nation realized such discrimination violated our national creed.

The argument of the pro-life community acquires its moral force because it holds that the life of the unborn is not distinct in its dignity from the life of the born, and, thus, possesses a God-given right to be protected. The same protection cannot be argued to extend to the institutional definition of marriage as exclusively the union of persons of the opposite sex.

It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence - liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.

I know mine is a minority view among Republicans, and I don't honestly expect our party will reverse in the very near term its opposition to same sex marriage. Nor do I yet see support for it from a strong majority of the general public. And, I do believe that such a highly charged political question such as this should be settled by the freely expressed will of the people, and not by the courts. That doesn't relieve advocates of the responsibility to make their case urgently. I understand how tired many Americans are of being admonished to be patient to right what they believe is an injustice. But I'm confident American public opinion will continue to move on the question toward majority support, and sooner or later the Republican Party will catch up to it. And I believe the nation's acceptance of same sex unions as lawful marriage would provide a far more secure guarantee that the change made to this profoundly important social institution will be permanent than would judicial fiat.

If we cannot achieve a consensus today on recognizing the marriages of gay couples, surely, in simple justice, we can respect their human dignity by protecting their rights to assign unique privileges and responsibilities to another person. Whether you are for or against same sex marriages, every Republican ought to value the right of people to make such personal decisions for themselves. As former Vice President Cheney observed, freedom means freedom for everybody. And I think Republicans should always be on the side of freedom and equal rights.

I, and I believe most people, believe you are born with your sexuality. It is not a choice. It should offend us as Republicans and Americans when gays are denigrated as degenerates or un-American or undeserving of the government's protection of their rights. And the Republican Party should give voice to genuine outrage when anyone belittles the humanity of another person. It is offensive in the extreme to the values of this nation, and we should be in the forefront of rejecting such truly un-American prejudice. Moreover, if you believe we are born with our sexual orientation, it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not.

Even though a majority of Republicans remain opposed to it, we must respect dissent on the subject within the party and encourage debate over it, and should not reject out of hand and on specious grounds the question that the party might be in the wrong on the question. We should publicly affirm that gays are entitled to the same respect and protections we accord heterosexuals to be secure from discrimination in their employment and the places they choose to live; to enter into contractual relationships with another person that grant them the same benefits and privileges allowed married couples, such as tax advantages accorded married couples or the responsibilities to make end of life decisions for one another.

There's nothing inherently objectionable about debating whether same sex marriage would undermine the institution and, by extension, society. Some people believe strongly that it would. I argue that it wouldn't. But that debate should be conducted with respect for the dignity of all parties involved. Opponents to giving women the vote argued such a change would undermine marriage and other social institutions. I think the institution would be strengthened by the inclusion of more couples who are genuinely committed to each other. But even if you believe marriage would be changed for the worse by same sex unions, I'm not sure it's a compelling argument for their exclusion. We don't forbid divorce, a more proven and prevalent threat to the health of our society.

As I said, I respect the opinions of Americans who oppose marriage for gay couples on religious grounds. I may disagree, but if you sincerely believe God's revealed truth objects to it then it is perfectly honorable to oppose it. But those are not the grounds on which a political party should take or argue a position. If you put public policy issues to a religious test you risk becoming a religious party, and in a free country, a political party cannot remain viable in the long term if it is seen as sectarian.

Last February, an opponent of same sex marriage, David Blankenhorn, and an advocate, Jonathan Rauch, suggested in a New York Times op-ed a compromise that could serve the interests and values of both. They wrote that Congress should grant federal civil union status to same sex marriages and civil unions licensed at the state level as long as those states recognized religious conscience exceptions for religious organizations that do not want to recognize same sex unions.

I think that idea makes a lot sense. While it might not satisfy either side completely, it respects and values the rights of both, and would go a long way to correct the existing inequality.

Some Republicans believe the period of self-examination within the party necessitated by the loss of our majority status is mostly a question of whether the party should become more moderate or conservative. I think that's a false choice. We need to grow our coalition, but as I said, that's hard to do if we lose some votes while gaining others.

There is a sound conservative argument to be made for same sex marriage. I believe conservatives, more than liberals, insist that rights come with responsibilities. No other exercise of one's liberty comes with greater responsibilities than marriage. In a marriage, two people are completely responsible to and for each other. If you are not willing to accept and faithfully discharge those responsibilities, you shouldn't enter the state of matrimony, and

it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if you're straight or gay. It is a responsibility like no other, which can and should make marriage an association between two human beings more fulfilling than any other.

Many studies have shown that married people are generally happier than unmarried people. Marriage gives greater purpose to life, and, to borrow from Pastor Warren, the more purpose driven your life is, the happier it is. Marriage does not or should not depend on transitory emotions. It is a partnership in all aspects of life that changes the way not just society, but the individual perceives him or herself, and gives greater incentive to an individual to live a good and virtuous life because the happiness, not just momentary pleasure, but the lasting happiness, of others depends on it. Marriage can be a profoundly gratifying state that strengthens the virtue of individuals and societies, and increases the measure and quality of the happiness we enjoy. It seems to me a terrible inequity that any person should be denied that responsibility, and the emotional enrichment it can provide. And I cannot in good conscience exclude anyone who is prepared for such a commitment from the prospect of such happiness. –Yes On Gay Marriage

Steven Schmidt is the former Campaign Manager for John McCain.

To read the entire speech click here.

Celibacy Should Be Rethought

The Issue:

It's an issue that simply won't go away. In spite of signals from the Vatican discouraging even discussions of obligatory celibacy for Catholic priests, the almost 1,000-year-old rule is under the microscope. And it will be for decades to come. Here's why.

In the Catholic tradition, even though sex is cast as sinful unless expressed in the conjugal embrace of husband and wife, it is held as fundamentally good, a part of God's creation.

The church even holds that marriage (including spousal lovemaking) is a sacrament -- something sacred that contributes to the sanctity of husbands and wives. In light of this official teaching, it is dawning on many Catholics that mandatory celibacy for priests, a canonically imposed discipline of the church, is precisely that -- a discipline.

They are asking, "How is it that a discipline of the church has been allowed to trump a sacrament of the church?" In effect, the church is saying that should God call a man to the priesthood, God will not, at the same time, call that individual to the sacrament of marriage. It's right to ask, how does the church know this?

Public opinion surveys indicate that most Catholics, priests included, believe the discipline of celibacy needs a serious review. Recently the retired archbishop of New York, Cardinal Edward Egan, observed that obligatory celibacy is open for discussion. It is not, Egan noted, a matter of dogma.

For decades now, bishops from Asia, Europe and the Americas have asked Vatican officials to consider optional celibacy for priests. The church's official response is consistent and succinct: As a precious gift from God, the discipline of celibacy for priests will remain in place.

This, in spite of the inherent paradox lying just below the claim that the gift of celibacy is a precious gift of God to the priesthood and the church: How can a gift be legislated? The church answers that if a man is called to the priesthood, God will grant him the gift of celibacy. Many priests today wonder how church leaders know this. Reading the mind of God in this matter -- in any matter of church discipline -- is risky business.

More and more Catholics today are coming to understand that celibacy as a universal law for priests had its origins in the 12th century and that during the church's first millennium, priests and bishops -- and at least thirty-nine popes -- were married.

Still, most well-read cradle Catholics are surprised to learn that St. Anastasius, pope from 399 to 401, was succeeded by his son, Pope St. Innocent I, and that a century later Pope St. Hormisdas' son, St. Silverius, also was elected to the papacy.

Even in our secular world, it's common to speak of church-based ministry as a calling, a vocation. Isn't it possible that God would call an individual to the priesthood and to the sacrament of marriage? God apparently did so for more than half the church's history. How do we know that God isn't doing so today?

For some years now I've been teaching in the religious studies department at John Carroll University in Cleveland. I've asked dozens of serious, healthy young students if they have given any thought to being a priest. They seem flattered by the question. With only one exception, each has answered, "Yes, I've thought about being a priest, but I want a family."

There are, of course, other factors, urgent and pressing, that will keep the celibacy issue alive. The Catholic priesthood is aging. The average age of active priests hovers at 60, and if retired priests are factored in, it is considerably higher. Moreover, Catholic seminaries are lucky to be half full.

Parish staffing challenges alone will press for a review of the celibacy rule. Catholic bishops simply do not have enough priests to meet the pastoral and sacramental needs of the Catholic faithful. Closing and merging parishes may offer some temporary relief for overworked priests, but the shortfall of priests will continue to challenge the vitality of Catholic parishes and the health of Catholic clergy for decades to come.

But the most human, existential factor that should keep the celibacy issue on the table is the spiritual and emotional health of priests. Celibacy really isn't the issue -- mandatory or obligatory celibacy is.

There are many priests who do possess the gift of celibacy -- it is their "truth" so to speak -- and their humanity, warmth and pastoral effectiveness give abundant evidence of their authentic celibate lives. But there remain other priests who believe deep down they are called to the priesthood but not to celibacy. And for these men, the burden of mandated celibacy threatens their spiritual and emotional well-being. The priesthood may be their "truth," but mandated celibacy wraps them in a cloak of loneliness and struggle.

I don't know Father Alberto Cutie. He appears to have touched the lives of many and preached the gospel with power and conviction. I suspect he feels called by God to be a priest, but not a celibate priest.

Surely he knows that Easter Rite Catholic priests are allowed to marry and that the church welcomes into the priesthood married convert ministers from other Christian denominations. Surely he knows that in many parts of the Catholic world, clerical celibacy is openly flouted, and church authorities choose not to notice.

I wonder if church officials understand the burden they place on the shoulders of a man who believes he is called to priestly ministry but not to celibacy. Certainly, a married priesthood will have burdens of its own and, sadly, scandals of its own -- infidelity and abuse among others. But it should be left to the individual priest and seminarian to determine whether or not he is blessed with the gift of celibacy.

A mandated "gift," after all, is really no gift at all.

The Rev. Donald Cozzens is writer in residence and adjunct professor of theology at John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. A priest of the Diocese of Cleveland with a doctoral degree, he is the author of several books on the Catholic Church, including "Sacred Silence: Denial and the Crisis in the Church" and "Freeing Celibacy," both published by Liturgical Press. For another view on this topic, read here. –CNN

To read more about this issue click here

My Issue:

Personally speaking, celibacy ain’t my cup of tea, therefore becoming a priest is not an option for me. On the other hand, those who choose to be celibate, hats off to them.

As far as celibacy is concerned, I don’t believe that a church has the right to demand its observance. Celibacy should be a choice. Just as being married is a choice. With this said, I do believe that those who choose one or the other should remain faithful to their calling.

Yes, we have the right to change our minds and I believe that God is all understanding. But should one decide that neither celibacy or marriage isn’t working for them, instead of secretly violating their commitment, one should be open and honest about their change of heart and mind.

Today, it is all to fashionable and acceptable for individuals to live a double standard to the point where honesty is no longer a cherished ideal. This is not to say that there are not justified reasons for not being up front. The rush to judgment and punishment can often be harsh and unbearable before the facts are fully understood. Course, by this time you might as well have continued living a lie. Nonetheless, no matter what, honesty is still the best policy.

In the case of Rev. Donald Cozzen, there is no doubt that he was living a lie and understandably. Why? Because one can’t help with whom they fall in love. Falling in love is one of God’s greatest gifts and is part of our DNA … we were created with the desire to be loved. Obviously, the Reverend did exactly what comes naturally. Obviously, he knew his love affair could cost him his position thus it was hidden. But is it the churches place to condemn and punish him. No!

Though it may have been wrong for the Reverend to live a lie, I think it’s important to look at the whole story ... the Reverends character. He loved the church. He was faithful to his calling for the exception of falling in love. It’s not like he was molesting children. It’s not like he was having a fling with whatever or whoever. By all accounts the Reverend lived a good and healthy life. Therefore, to rush judgment should be reserved between God and Reverend. And the church needs to address this issue of celibacy realistically. If a priest chooses celibacy or marriage the church should honor that choice and be open to allow change that will not cause those who have a change of heart to live in the shadows of dishonesty.

"Hard To Believe"
by VOTA

Need Washing?

A little girl had been shopping with her Mom in Target . She must have been 6 years old, this beautiful red haired, freckle faced image of innocence. It was pouring outside. The kind of rain that gushes over the top of rain gutters, so much in a hurry to hit the earth it has no time to flow down the spout. We all stood there under the awning and just inside the door of the Target.

We waited, some patiently, others irritated because nature messed up their hurried day. I am always mesmerized by rainfall. I got lost in the sound and sight of the heavens washing away the dirt and dust of the world. Memories of running, splashing so carefree as a child came pouring in as a welcome reprieve from the worries of my day.

The little voice was so sweet as it broke the hypnotic trance we were all caught in 'Mom let's run through the rain,' she said.

'What?' Mom asked.

'Lets run through the rain!' She repeated.

'No, honey. We'll wait until it slows down a bit.' Mom replied.

This young child waited about another minute and repeated: 'Mom, let's run through the rain.'

' We'll get soaked if we do,' Mom said.

'No, we won't, Mom. That's not what you said this morning,' the young girl said as she tugged at her Mom's arm.

This morning? When did I say we could run through the rain and not get wet?

'Don't you remember? When you were talking to Daddy about his cancer, you said, 'If God can get us through this, he can get us through anything!'

The entire crowd stopped dead silent. I swear you couldn't hear anything but the rain.. We all stood silently. No one came or left in the next few minutes.

Mom paused and thought for a moment about what she would say. Now some would laugh it off and scold her for being silly. Some might even ignore what was said. But this was a moment of affirmation in a young child's life. A time when innocent trust can be nurtured so that it will bloom into faith.

'Honey, you are absolutely right. Let's run through the rain. If GOD let's us get wet, well maybe we just needed washing,' Mom said.

Then off they ran. We all stood watching, smiling and laughing as they darted past the cars and yes, through the puddles. They held their shopping bags over their heads just in case. They got soaked. But they were followed by a few who screamed and laughed like children all the way to their cars.

And yes, I did. I ran. I got wet. I needed washing.

Circumstances or people can take away your material possessions, they can take away your money, and they can take away your health. But no one can ever take away your precious memories...So, don't forget to make time and take the opportunities to make memories everyday. To everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven.

They say it takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, but then an entire life to forget them.

Take the time to live!!!

Keep in touch with your friends, you never know when you'll need each other -- and don't forget to run in the rain!

Author Unknown

"Lose My Soul"
by Toby Mac

Pat Robertson: Gay Marriage Equals Bestiality

"You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent."

Taken out of context, a reader of this statement may interpret it to refer to something repugnant, like genocide in Rwanda or mass murder in Sri Lanka. Something so horrible that it's actions cause us to act out, raise our voices, implore our government to step in and do something.

Most people wouldn't read this sentence and think it referred to the act of two people wanting to commit to each other and dedicate their lives to each other through love.

But sadly, that's what it refers to. Pat Robertson, that bastion of great, white hope who upholds all this pure and Christian in our country, the staunch right-winger and close-minded preacher said that to validate same-sex marriage and make it legal would only lead our country on a path to ultimately legalizing bestiality, polygamy, child molestation and pedophilia.

What Robertson, and so many bigots like himself, doesn't realize is that these things occur regardless if our government gives gay people the right to marry. What he fails to recognize is that any person—gay or straight, married or unwed—can commit those acts. One does not have to want to be in a legally committed relationship to want to screw a goat or inappropriately touch a child (the latter group should be put away and in the case of men doing it, castrated. But that's just my opinion).

Wanting to marry someone you love, whether they are of the same or opposite sex, hopefully shows a person's ability to make rational, adult decisions. This shows a commitment to love and the future. How many people do you know that get married do so for the sole reason to marry more and more people or get off on images of children?

It's time for the religious right to stop hiding behind these ridiculous claims that gay people are deviants and that giving us the right to marry someone we love we lead to the downfall of society as we know it. Mr. Robertson, how many people do you think you've encountered in your many years that have cheated on a spouse, lied to a friend, sought out the pleasures of a dominatrix or took an oath before god as a Catholic priest only to ruin countless children's lives? Probably more than you care to claim. If you were brave enough, you'd admit that you're simply pandering to a bunch of lemmings who will follow your every word, that you've conned them into believing that it's the "word of the lord" simply to line your pockets and keep your name in the public arena. Who's molesting who now?

Mr. Robertson, isn't it time for you to take out the false teeth, put them into a glass on the bathroom sink and shut up? Either that, or start telling the truth about loving thy brother. That is the Christian way, after all. –PlanetOut

Spiritual Fraud

Was going through my emails this morning and the email below was sitting in my inbox. I tell you, I could sure use Ten Million Pounds … USD $13,516,252.49. If I was ignorant of scams like this, being in the financial position I am today, I would definitely fall for the offer. Heck, who could use Thirteen Million Dollars? I sure could that’s for sure. But being that I realize the sender is doing nothing more than trying to scam me, unfortunately I have to pass the offer up.

The sad part about the email below is: 1) someone will fall for it; 2) the story itself.

Though the writer has an almost convincing story, it’s so terribly sad and disgusting that they would use illness, charity and God to lure victims by preying on their emotions and compassion for their own deceitful greed. Individuals like this, have they no conscience? Obviously, the answer is no. Anyway, I just wanted to share this with you cause I don’t want you to get financially ambushed through a scheme that is unconscionably too good to be true.

<><><><><><><><><>

Dearly Beloved,

Here writes Madam Rita Osborne, suffering from cancerous ailment. I am married to Sir Williams Osborne an English man who is dead. When my late husband was alive he deposited the sum of Ten Million Pounds (10,000,000.00 Million Great Britain Pounds Sterling) which were derived his vast estates and investment in capital market with his bank here in UK. Recently, my Doctor told me that I have limited days to live due to the cancerous problems I am suffering from.

Though what bothers me most is the stroke that I have in addition to the cancer. With this hard reality that has befallen my family, I have decided to donate this fund to you, I do hope you would be able to utilize this money for the said purpose just as I am going to instruct herein. I want you to utilize the funds by creating a charity foundation called WILLIAM OSBORNE
FOUNDATION to assist widows and help accident victims worldwide.

Contact our family lawyer with this specified email address
Barrister Teddy Williams (ESQ)
Email:barrteddywilliamsesq@yahoo.co.uk

Tell him that I have WILLED £10,000,000 to you by quoting my personal
reference number Law/chamber/solicitors/rt/osb/WILL/9834520012.

Remain blessed.
Your Sister,
Madam. Rita Osborne

"If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar.
For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen,
cannot love God, whom he has not seen."

I John 4:20 NIV

Chocolate Sings

One day I had a date for lunch with friends. Mae, a little old 'blue hair' about 80 years old, came along with them---all in all, a pleasant bunch. When the menus were presented, we ordered salads, sandwiches, and soups, except for Mae who said, 'Ice Cream, please. Two scoops, chocolate.'

I wasn't sure my ears heard right, and the others were aghast. 'Along with heated apple pie,' Mae added, completely unabashed. We tried to act quite nonchalant, as if people did this all the time. But when our orders were brought out, I didn't enjoy mine. I couldn't take my eyes off Mae as her pie a-la-mode went down. The other ladies showed dismay. They ate their lunches silently and frowned.

The next time I went out to eat, I called and invited Mae. I lunched on white meat tuna. She ordered a parfait. I smiled. She asked if she amused me. I answered, 'Yes, you do, but also you confuse me. How come you order rich desserts, while I feel I must be sensible?
She laughed and said, with wanton mirth, 'I'm tasting all that is Possible.

I try to eat the food I need, and do the things I should. But life's so short, my friend, I hate missing out on something good. This year I realized how old I was. (She grinned) I haven't been this old before.' 'So, before I die, I've got to try those things that for years I had ignored. I haven't smelled all the flowers yet. There are too many books I haven't read. There's more fudge sundaes to wolf down and kites to be flown overhead.

There are many malls I haven't shopped. I've not laughed at all the jokes. I've missed a lot of Broadway hits and potato chips and cokes. I want to wade again in water and feel ocean spray on my face. I want to sit in a country church once more and thank God for His grace. I want peanut butter every day spread on my morning toast. I want un-timed long distance calls to the folks I love the most.

I haven't cried at all the movies yet, or walked in the morning rain. I need to feel wind in my hair. I want to fall in love again. So, if I choose to have dessert, instead of having dinner,
then should I die before night fall, I'd say I died a winner, because I missed out on nothing. I filled my heart's desire. I had that final chocolate mousse before my life expired.'

With that, I called the waitress over.. 'I've changed my mind, ' I said. 'I want what she is having, only add some more whipped cream!'

This is my gift to you - Live well, love much & laugh often - Be happy.

Be mindful that happiness isn't based on possessions, power, or prestige, but on relationships with people we love and respect. Remember that while money talks, CHOCOLATE SINGS!

Author Unknown

Are You An Angel?

I was driving home from one winter evening when I got stuck in rush hour traffic, and of all things, my car started to choke, sputter, and then eventually die. The engine wouldn't turn over at all, and yet the car is less than a couple of years old. Fortunately, I managed to coast into a nearby Arco gas station, and glad that I would not be blocking traffic. Also, I would have a nice, warm spot to wait for the AAA tow truck. Before I could make the emergency call, I saw a young woman walking out of the AM/PM Arco Mini-Mart, and it looked like she slipped on some ice and fell against a gas pump. So I got out of my car to see if she was hurt. When I got to her, it looked more like she had been overcome by sobs than having fallen; she looked really haggard with dark circles under her eyes. She dropped something as I helped her up, and I picked it up and gave it to her. It was a nickel.

At that moment, everything came into focus for me: the crying woman, the old station wagon crammed almost to the roof with household goods, and 3 small kids in the back---one was in a car seat, and the gas pump which read $4.95.

I asked her if she was o.k. and if she needed help, but she just kept saying "I don't want my kids to see me crying!" So we stood on the other side of the pump---away from the kids' view.
She began to tell me that things had become very hard for her. I asked her if she had prayed about her problem. That made her back away from me, but I assured her that I was neither one of those religious freaks nor was I crazy. Anyway, I heard myself telling her: "God heard you, and He sent me." After regaining her confidence and trust, I then asked her a few more questions to see how I could further help her.

She then told me her name; that she lived in Kansas City; her boyfriend had left her; and she had been having a really rough time trying to make ends meet. She knew she wouldn't have money to pay rent come January 1, and so finally, in desperation, she called her parents, with whom she had not spoken in about five years. They lived in California and they told her that she could come stay with them and they'll try to help her get back on her feet. So she packed up everything she and her kids owned into the old wagon. She told the kids they were going to California to visit Grandpa and Grandma for Christmas.

Again, like some strange force had taken over me, I took out my credit card and swiped it through the gas pump's credit card scanner, and I started to fill up her tank with gas. While it was refueling, the same strange force directed me to walk to the McDonald's next door where I bought two big bags of food, a big cup of coffee, and some McDonald's gift certificates for the young family to use later. When I returned, I handed her the bags of food and the other purchases. She gave the hamburgers and fries to the kids, who attacked them like hungry wolves, while we stood by the pump eating fries and continued to talk.

After the gas tank was filled, I gave her my gloves, said a quick prayer for her and her kids' safety on the road, and gave her a hug. As I turned to go to my car, she asked, "So, are you an angel or something?"

For some reason, I felt a lump in my throat and tears started to well up in my eyes as I told her, "Sweetie, at this time of year angels are really busy, so sometimes God sends ordinary people like me." I don't know where the words came from, but I said them. We gave each other another hug, and I hurriedly turned around to go to my car not wanting to look back and show the tears now streaming freely down my cheeks.

It was so incredible to be a part of someone else's miracle. And of course, as you might have already guessed, when I got into my car, somehow it started immediately, and I got home without any problem. But just for my own peace of mind, I decided to take my car to the dealer the next day to make sure everything is check all right. Besides, it was still under full warranty. But deep within me, I suspected that the mechanic won't find anything wrong.

<><><><><><><><><><><>

Sometimes the angels fly close enough
that the flutter of their wings can be heard.

'Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall sustain thee.
He shall never suffer the righteous to be moved'