Ragbag Headliners

U.S. Muslim Groups Slam Radicalization Hearings

Leading American Muslims on Wednesday strongly criticized this week's planned congressional hearing into the alleged radicalization of members of their community, calling it an unfair attack on loyal citizens and a dangerous break from the traditional U.S. embrace of tolerance and pluralism.

Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, has said Thursday's hearing is necessary to explore the extent to which al Qaeda is trying to influence and indoctrinate U.S. Muslims, among other things. But his plans have created an uproar, with critics accusing Republican leaders of bigotry and comparing the hearings to Sen. Joseph McCarthy's allegations of Communist infiltration in the early years of the Cold War.

American Muslim leaders have also taken issue with King's assertion that they haven't sufficiently cooperated with law enforcement officials, and dismissed his claim that the overwhelming majority of mosques are run by extremist imams. Such claims are "demonstrably false," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

"Except for a tiny minority," extremists have found "no fertile ground in America," he said. He said King is engaged in "fear-mongering," and called the New York Republican "unfit" to head the Homeland Security Committee. –Read more at CNN Politics

Fibonacci numbers - The Fingerprint of God

Christianity Becomes A 'Qualified' Right

In a recent on-air debate I had with homosexual activist attorney Andrea Ritchie, I asked her whether, in her estimation, the demands being made by the homosexual lobby could peacefully coincide in our society with traditional, biblical morality.  After stating her opinion that there is no homosexual or transgender agenda, she explained that her understanding of Jesus' teachings was that we were to love and accept everyone.

When I responded by challenging that those of us who oppose the dangerous lifestyle of homosexuality do so out of a sense of love, she reminded me that when confronted with the woman caught in adultery (another form of sexual indiscretion), Jesus warned only those who are without sin should cast the first stone.  Tellingly, she decided to drop the period right in the middle of Jesus' sentence.  Conveniently missing from Ms. Ritchie's defense was what Jesus went on to lovingly say to the prostitute: "Go and sin no more."

And that was the heart of my question – is it possible for our society to satisfy the cries of "civil rights" for those practicing various forms of recreational sex while still providing for the rights of Christians to proclaim to those individuals, "go and sin no more?"

Though intentionally elusive and non-committal, her response contained enough substantive morsels to deduce the real answer: the two can coexist so long as Christians capitulate by neutering scripture and accepting sin.

This is the painful reality that our society can continue to ignore, but that will continue pressing uncomfortably against us until we acknowledge its nagging presence.  Our culture is being confronted with the choice of whether we will continue to protect the rights of conscience for Christians and other like-minded religious people, or if we will forsake those protections and instead create a right of sexual chaos where moral disapproval of any consensual sexual activity is forbidden.  We simply can't have both.

As evidence of this truth, consider a recent ruling from the United Kingdom's High Court.  At issue was the foster care parenting rights not of practicing homosexuals, but of practicing Christians.  Eunice and Owen Johns had applied to become foster parents, but were denied that right because of their religious conviction that homosexuality was deviant and immoral behavior.

The High Court saw this belief as discriminatory against homosexuals and thus deemed the Johns' home an improper environment for raising children.  This is the danger in elevating behavior to the status of identity.  By confusing homosexuality as who a person is rather than what a person does, moral disapproval of that behavior is removed from the concept of free opinion and placed in the category of condemnable hate.

The great irony, of course, is that by protecting practicing homosexuals from such discrimination, the High Court codified and condoned discrimination against practicing Christians.  While they acknowledged the European Convention granted individuals a right to conscience and religion, the judges decided the degree to which Christianity is protected can be "qualified."

Got that?  Religious rights now become "qualified" in order to allow for an unencumbered and unrestricted sexual license.  Despite being built upon the framework of Western-Christian thought dating back to leading legal authorities, like the scripturally devout Sir William Blackstone, the UK High Court exhibited no hesitation in choosing sides in this titanic struggle between the rights of conscience and the push for sexual anarchy.

They ruled, "While as between the protected rights concerning religion and sexual orientation there is no hierarchy of rights, there may, as this case shows, be a tension between equality provisions concerning religious discrimination and those concerning sexual orientation.  Where this is so...the National Minimum Standards for Fostering and the Statutory Guidance indicate that it must be taken into account and in this limited sense the equality provisions concerning sexual orientation should take precedence."

Sexual progressives 1, Christians 0.

Though we've seen this imminent face-off between the demands of the aggressive sexual anarchists of the left and Christian rights of conscience brewing for some time -- an Indianapolis cookie store threatened with eviction for declining to participate in a homosexual celebration, a New Mexico photography business fined for declining to take pictures of a homosexual "ring ceremony," San Diego doctors taken to court for not providing a lesbian couple with in vitro fertilization, evangelical dating site eHarmony.com bullied by the New Jersey Attorney General's Office into creating and operating a site for homosexuals -- this UK ruling is the most alarming development to date.

It indicates the uncompromisingly hostile position the left is taking towards traditional morality: one will win, the other will lose.  The fate of our civilization depends upon the right outcome.

By Peter Heck–One News Now

Proof Reading Gone Bad

Man Kills Self Before Shooting Wife and Daughter

This one I caught in the SGV Tribune the other day and called the Editorial Room and asked who wrote this. It took two or three readings before the editor realized that what he was reading was impossible! They put in a correction the next day.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I just couldn't help but sending this along. Too funny.

Something Went Wrong in Jet Crash, Expert Says

No crap, really? Ya think?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers

Now that's taking things a bit far!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Panda Mating Fails; Veterinarian Takes Over

What a guy!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Miners Refuse to Work after Death

No-good-for-nothing, lazy so-and-so's!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Juvenile Court to Try Shooting Defendant

See if that works any better than a fair trial!

-----------------------------------------------------------

War Dims Hope for Peace

I can see where it might have that effect!

If Strike Isn't Settled Quickly, It May Last Awhile

Ya think?!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures

Who would have thought!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Enfield ( London ) Couple Slain; Police Suspect Homicide

They may be on to something!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Red Tape Holds Up New Bridges

You mean there's something stronger than duct tape?

----------------------------------------------------------- 

Man Struck By Lightning: Faces Battery Charge

He probably IS the battery charge!

-----------------------------------------------------------

New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group

Weren't they fat enough?!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Astronaut Takes Blame for Gas in Spacecraft

That's what he gets for eating those beans!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Kids Make Nutritious Snacks

Do they taste like chicken?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half

Chainsaw Massacre all over again!

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hospitals are Sued by 7 Foot Doctors

Boy, are they tall!

-----------------------------------------------------------

And the winner is …

Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead

Did I read that right?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now that you've smiled at least once, it's your turn to spread the stupidity and send this to someone you want to bring a smile to (maybe even a chuckle). We all need a good laugh, at least once a day!

Gays Who Don't Want Gay Marriage

President Obama has declared the federal ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. But Natalie Neusch says what no one wants to talk about: a lot of gays just find gay marriage weird.

They cupped each other's hands and shifted their body weight ever-so-slightly. I had practiced the line a dozen times, but I couldn't believe what I was about to say: "By the power vested in me through the state of Massachusetts, I now pronounce you… married!" The room exploded with a cacophony of applause and clinking Champagne flutes. It was 2009, and I had just officiated the wedding of two of my gay friends.

But something felt off.

For a brief moment, as I stared out at this joyous crowd comprised of the brides' family members and friends, I had the sensation that I was at a rally—because it wasn't just a marriage that was happening here. It was a gay marriage. It was something ground-breaking, something to be celebrated, for sure. But as proud as I was to have played some part in these two women's legal union, I couldn't help but wonder, could I ever go through with this myself?

Last week, President Obama declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional and instructed the Department of Justice to stop enforcing it. It was a moment to exalt—the second such gay-rights milestone in only two months, coming on the heels of landmark legislation to repeal the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy. But lost in the euphoria was an awkward truth that gay people don't like to talk about: Gay marriage feels weird. In fact, many of us, myself included, don't feel very comfortable with it at all.

A few years ago, before California, before Iowa, when in early 2004 Massachusetts was all set to blaze this improbable trail, I had gay and straight friends congratulating me left and right. They all wanted to know how excited I was about the news. I could only shrug and reply, "That's great, but I don't think marriage is for me." People reacted to my ambivalence as if I had just burned an American flag. How could I turn my back on the centerpiece of the modern gay-rights movement? My personal relationship choice had suddenly become a political stand.

But it's not just me. For all the effort we've put into fighting for the right to do it, the dirty little secret is that many gays are simply not sure about same-sex marriage. Of course we believe in equality. But when it comes to marriage, our personal relationship with the idea is tenuous. Growing up in a society where most of the marriages around me failed bitterly or were one of multiple (because the only thing better than one "special day" is five), I'm turned off by the whole idea.

Dan Dinero, a PhD-candidate from New York City, has a partner who is a non-U.S. citizen. "The main thing for me is finding a way for Diego to live in the U.S. with me," he says. "I don't think we should have to get married to do that. And that is the problem with gay marriage: it forces queers to fit into a very straight-centered way of life in order to access basic rights."

The religious implications of marriage are one of the deterring issues for Meredith Cummings, a graduate student in environmental studies who has been in a domestic partnership for two years. "It really gets to me when gay couples try to have a traditional wedding, especially in a religion that doesn't support homosexuality," she says.

But there's a subtler, even more insidious anxiety lurking beneath the surface of our gay-marriage win. It's the unsettling possibility that we've spent the past couple of decades fighting to fit into an institution that doesn't necessarily fit us. I wouldn't be surprised to see someone wince if I referred to my partner as my wife. And I might wince a bit myself. We've been so focused on getting marriage "equality" that we've hardly stopped to think about how we'd feel about actually being married.

I don't bring up these concerns very often. Questioning the idea of gay marriage makes people think your goal is to subvert the whole gay-rights agenda—we need numbers, to be unified on this matter as our top concern. For gays to talk about not wanting to get married is taboo. By expressing my doubts, I am clearly a dissenter in this persistent force for progress. But getting married, gay or otherwise, doesn't seem like progress to me.

It seems like conformity, and a way to tame and appease the gay community so we'll go gently into that good night. Don't get me wrong, I am grateful to those who stand up for equality, whether on a senate floor, in a court house, or on a school playground, and I hope that all couples, regardless of gender, have the option to marry if they truly wish. But in terms of what is important for me as an individual, do I want gay marriage to be the be-all end-all? I don't.

By Natalie Neusch-The Daily Beast

Note: Natalie Neusch is the Assistant Managing Editor at Popular Mechanics magazine and a freelance writer. She previously worked as a copy editor and writer for Martha Stewart's Everyday Food.

Absolutely Incredible

Purkinje Neurons

Amazing photo as seen via an electron microscope. Incredible details of 1 to 5nm (nanometer) in size.

Of the 100 billion neurons in the human brain, the Purkinje (pronounced purr-kin-jee) neurons are some of the largest. Among other things, these cells are the masters of motor coordination in the cerebellar cortex. Toxic exposure such as alcohol and lithium, autoimmune diseases, genetic mutations including autism and neurodegenerative diseases can negatively affect human Purkinje cells.

Florida Judge Orders Muslims To Follow Sharia Law!

In Tampa, Florida, a dispute arose over who controls the funds a mosque received in 2008 from an eminent domain proceeding.

Former trustees of the mosque are claiming in court they have the right to the funds. Current mosque leaders are disputing that claim.

The current mosque leaders want the case decided according to secular, Florida civil law, and their attorney has been vigorously arguing the case accordingly.

The former trustees of the mosque want the case decided according to sharia law.

Here’s the kicker.

The judge recently ruled “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic law,” (sharia law), “pursuant to the Qur’an.”

You can read the judge’s ruling here.

Now it’s not unusual for a dispute to arise within a religious institution and for a court to order a mediation or arbitration, in order to resolve this without the court having to render its own judgment.

But what makes this case unusual, and highly troubling, is that a group of Muslim leaders—the CURRENT mosque leaders—who do NOT want to be subject to sharia law, are being compelled to do so by an American judge!

This is reminiscent of the 2009 New Jersey case, where a Muslim woman sought a restraining order, in civil court, against her Muslim husband, who was raping her several times a day. The judge denied the restraining order because, in his opinion, the husband did not commit a crime because he was following his Islamic beliefs.

In the New Jersey case, and now in this recent case in Tampa, Muslims found themselves being subjected to sharia law against their will.

Last October, ACT! for America aired a radio ad across Oklahoma in support of the referendum preventing Oklahoma judges from using sharia law in their decisions. The referendum won with 70% support.

The point we made then, which now bears repeating, is that such legislation protects non-Muslims AND Muslims alike from being subjected to sharia law.

When someone claims that opposition to sharia law in America is “anti-Muslim,” make sure you tell them about the New Jersey woman and the mosque leaders in Tampa.  -Act For America

This Weeks Sound Off

Our prayers go out to the people in Japan as the nation begins to come to terms with their future. May God be in their reach and bless them.

Amen

Ragbag Headliners

Hundreds Of Bodies Wash Ashore In Quake-Hit Japan

There are just too many bodies. Hundreds of dead have washed ashore on Japan's devastated northeast coast since last week's earthquake and tsunami. Others were dug out of the debris Monday by firefighters using pickaxes and chain saws.

Funeral homes and crematoriums are overwhelmed, and officials have run out of body bags and coffins.

Compounding the disaster, water levels dropped precipitously inside a Japanese nuclear reactor, twice leaving the uranium fuel rods completely exposed and raising the threat of a meltdown, hours after a hydrogen explosion tore through the building housing a different reactor.

On the economic front, Japan's stock market plunged over the likelihood of huge losses by Japanese industries including big names such as Toyota and Honda.

While the official death toll rose to nearly 1,900, the discovery of the washed-up bodies and other reports of deaths suggest the true number is much higher. In Miyagi, the police chief has estimated 10,000 deaths in his province alone.

Miyagi prefecture bore the full force of Friday's tsunami, and police said 1,000 bodies were found scattered across its coast. The Kyodo news agency reported that 2,000 bodies washed up on two shorelines in Miyagi.

Most Japanese opt to cremate their dead, and with so many bodies, the government on Monday waived a rule requiring permission first from local authorities before cremation or burial to speed up funerals, said Health Ministry official Yukio Okuda.

"The current situation is so extraordinary, and it is very likely that crematoriums are running beyond capacity," said Okuda. "This is an emergency measure. We want to help quake-hit people as much as we can."

The town of Soma has only one crematorium that can handle 18 bodies a day, said an official, Katsuhiko Abe.

"We are overwhelmed and are asking other cites to help us deal with bodies," Abe told The Associated Press. –Yahoo News 

<><><>*<><><>

Japan’s Earthquake Shifted Balance Of The Planet

Last week's devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan has actually moved the island closer to the United States and shifted the planet's axis.

The quake caused a rift 15 miles below the sea floor that stretched 186 miles long and 93 miles wide, according to the AP. The areas closest to the epicenter of the quake jumped a full 13 feet closer to the United States, geophysicist Ross Stein at the United States Geological Survey told The New York Times.

The world's fifth-largest, 8.9 magnitude quake was caused when the Pacific tectonic plate dove under the North American plate, which shifted Eastern Japan towards North America by about 13 feet (see NASA's before and after photos at right). The quake also shifted the earth's axis by 6.5 inches, shortened the day by 1.6 microseconds, and sank Japan downward by about two feet. As Japan's eastern coastline sunk, the tsunami's waves rolled in.

Why did the quake shorten the day?  The earth's mass shifted towards the center, spurring the planet to spin a bit faster. Last year's massive 8.8 magnitude earthquake in Chile also shortened the day, but by an even smaller fraction of a second. The 2004 Sumatra quake knocked a whopping 6.8 micro-seconds off the day.

After the country's 1995 earthquake, Japan placed high-tech sensors around the country to observe even the slightest movements, which is why scientists are able to calculate the quake's impact down to the inch. "This is overwhelmingly the best-recorded great earthquake ever," Lucy Jones, chief scientist for the Multi-Hazards project at the U.S. Geological Survey, told The Los Angeles Times.

The tsunami's waves necessitated life-saving evacuations as far away as Chile. Fisherman off the coast of Mexico reported a banner fishing day Friday, and speculated that the tsunami knocked sealife in their direction. –Yahoo News

March 11, 2011

Love Believes - The Best!

Today we're launching a brand new series called "Love Life." Do you love life? How is your love life? Is it rich? Is it full?

We're going to talk about our love lives based on 1 Corinthians 13, beginning with verse 7: "Love bears all things. Love believes all things. Love hopes all things. Love endures all things." In other words, love believes!

Let's juxtapose that with 1 John 4:18 that says, "Perfect love casts out all fear." Have any fear in your life? I'll bet you do. Struggle with fear? Fear of paying the mortgage, fear of keeping your job, fear of your relationship or your marriage falling apart. What are you afraid of today? "Perfect love casts out all fear," says 1 John 4:18.

The opposite of fear is faith. Everybody knows that. But this verse tells us that the opposite of love is fear. You cannot have love without faith. Love that casts out all fear is a love that believes. The question is: What do you believe in, whom do you believe in? Because, you see, everybody believes in something, even if it's nothing. Let me say that again. Everybody believes in something even if it's nothing. Because even a belief in nothing is still a belief.

So, we all believe in something, but what do you believe in? Whom do you believe in? The Bible verse says, "love believes," and I would ask love believes what? Do you believe the best or do you believe the worst? I trust that this passage is telling us that love believes the best. And we have a choice; you always have a choice as to what you will believe in, whom you will believe in. Love believes the best, St. Paul tells us, the best in others.

By Sheila Schuller Coleman

"Life is not about waiting on the storm to pass
but learning to dance in the rain.”
~ Author Unknown ~

No one believes seniors. Everyone thinks they are senile.

For instance. . .

After an elderly couple just celebrated their sixtieth anniversary---(they were childhood sweethearts), they moved back to their old neighborhood after they retired. Holding hands, they walked back to their old school. It was not locked, so they entered, and found the old desk they'd shared where Andy had carved "I love you, Sally".

On their way back home, a bag of money fell out of an armored car, practically landing at their feet. Sally quickly picked it up and, not sure what to do with it, they took it home. There, she counted the money - $50,000.00!

Andy said, "We've got to give it back."

Sally said, "Finders keepers."

She put the money back in the bag and hid it in their attic.

The next day, two police officers canvassed the neighborhood looking for the money, and knocked on their door. "Pardon me, did either of you find a bag that fell out of an armored car yesterday?"

Sally immediately said, "No".

Andy blurted, "She's lying. She hid it up in the attic"

Sally said, "Don't believe him, he's getting senile"

The officers turned to Andy and began to question him. One of them said: "Tell us the story from the beginning."

And Andy said, "Well, when Sally and I were walking home from school yesterday..."

The police officer turned to his partner and said, "We're outta here!"

And finally ...

Two elderly gentlemen sat in their favorite bench---their usual meeting place in the local park to discuss various topics, when one of them said: "God must really be the greatest Creator and the best Inventor. Just imagine, out of just one of Adam's ribs, He created not only a woman but also a loudspeaker!"

And then, there were ...

Earl and Bubba who quietly sat in a boat fishing, chewing tobacco and drinking beer, when suddenly Bubba said, "I think I'm gonna divorce my wife. She ain't spoke to me in over two months."

Earl spat overboard, took a long, slow sip of beer and said, "Better think it over, Bubba, women like that are hard to find." -Author Unknown

The Domination of Islam

Are we going to allow this to happen here? If we do, then welcome to the new America if we don't take a stand for our way of life.

This Weeks Sound Off

Funeral Protest Ruling Painful But Right
he Supreme Court ruled that a Kansas church whose members travel the country to protest at military funerals, holding signs that say "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "God blew up the troops," has a right to continue such demonstrations.

The case was brought by Albert Snyder, whose 20-year-old son, Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq in 2006. The family-dominated Westboro Baptist Church, run by Fred Phelps, protested at Matthew Snyder's funeral to spread their opinion that American deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are God's punishment for U.S. immorality and tolerance of homosexuality and abortion.

CNN.com talked to CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin about Snyder v. Phelps, which pitted the right of families to grieve in privacy against the First Amendment right to free expression.

CNN.com: What do you make of the Supreme Court ruling?

Jeffrey Toobin: This is a very painful, difficult legal case, but the fact that it's an 8-to-1 Supreme Court ruling illustrates that the result was not particularly controversial, when you consider the protest did not disrupt the funeral at all.

That the protests couldn't be heard or seen from the funeral was important -- the First Amendment allows what's known as "time, place and manner." You can't exercise your First Amendment right by using a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood at 3 in the morning, but free expression has to be allowed in public spaces with impunity if it does not disrupt the community.

CNN: Is it a consideration that the protests harassed the mourners or disrupted the funeral?

Toobin: That's not what happened here. This was a considerable distance away.

What's interesting is only the press coverage hurt people. According to the testimony of the family, they saw the protest as they were driving by. Only after they saw the press coverage did they realize how ugly the protests were.

Unfortunately, this is one of the issues we've struggled with at CNN, how to cover these stories. We are in the news business, for better or for worse, we are human beings who don't want to compound the suffering of other people. But we have the obligation to cover the news.

CNN.com: We often hear of hate groups that get First Amendment protection.

Toobin: Yes, it's painful and your heart goes out to the family -- but the First Amendment is often called freedom for the thought that we hate.

This is similar to protection of Nazi groups. If you look at the history of the First Amendment, the cases that test the limits of freedom of speech almost always involve unpopular political groups, or those outside mainstream expression. Democrats and Republicans don't really need the First Amendment.

I think that this is the only decision the court could have made.

CNN.com: Is there anywhere else this can go? Can states challenge this?

Toobin: No, this is the end of it. By the way, to call this group a church is really an insult to religions everywhere. It's the Phelps family. To their credit, a member of the Phelps family, [Fred's daughter Margie Phelps], was the lawyer who argued the case for them to demonstrate. And you know, she did a very good job.

Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is a senior legal analyst for CNN and a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine, where he covers legal affairs. –CNN Opinion

Ragbag Headliners

Protesters Rally In NY Ahead Of Hearings On Radical Islam

Religious leaders, community members and activists took to the streets Sunday in New York to protest upcoming congressional hearings, convened by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, on "the radicalization of American Muslims."

Demonstrators stood underneath umbrellas in a cold, sideways rain as speakers in Times Square addressed the crowd. Many said the hearings unfairly target Islam and warned they could stoke fear and fuel violence against the wider Muslim community.

Congress is scheduled to begin the hearings this week under the direction of King, R-New York.

"Congressman's King's hearings have the danger of portraying all Muslims and Islam as the enemy. And this is absolutely wrong and false. Our common enemy is extremism," said Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, one of the organizers of the rally. –Read more at CNN Belief Blog 

<><><>*<><><>

Catholic Pakistani Minister Killed For Protecting Christians

Christians, government officials and secular groups have condemned the brutal assassination of Shahbaz Bhatti, the young Catholic minister in charge of minority affairs in Pakistan’s federal cabinet.

Bhatti, 42, was shot by unidentified gunmen who pumped bullets into his car from automatic weapons as he was being driven from his residence to his office in Islamabad this morning.

Bhatti, bleeding profusely, was rushed to a nearby hospital by his driver in the same car. He was pronounced dead at the hospital.

He had been facing public death threats from Muslim fundamentalists in recent weeks.

“Bhatti’s assassination underlines the issue of protection of religious minorities, life and liberty,” Pakistani churches said in a statement after an emergency condolence meeting in Lahore, which was presided over by Archbishop Lawrence Saldana, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Pakistan.

“The government needs to go beyond the rhetoric of ‘minorities enjoying all the rights in the country’ and take practical steps to curb extremism in Pakistan,” the statement said.

“We pay our salute to the courage of Shahbaz, who knowingly put his life in danger by speaking up boldly against the blasphemy law,” Archbishop Saldana said after the ecumenical meeting.

An outspoken critic of Pakistan’s draconian blasphemy law, as the federal minister in charge of minority affairs, Bhatti had been trying to build public opinion against the abuse of the law that provides a mandatory death sentence for even unintentional blasphemy cases. –Read more at National Catholic Register 

<><><>*<><><>

Fallen Marine's Father Says Anti-gay Pickets Will Draw Gunfire

A day after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed Westboro Baptist Church's right to protest against homosexuality at military funerals, the fallen Marine's father, who unsuccessfully sued the controversial Kansas congregation, warned that the church's protests will eventually spark violence.

"Something is going to happen," Albert Snyder told CNN Thursday. "Somebody is going to get hurt."

"You have too many soldiers and Marines coming back with post-traumatic stress syndrome, and they (the Westboro protesters) are going to go to the wrong funeral and the guns are going to go off."

"And when it does," Snyder said. "I just hope it doesn't hit the mother that's burying her child or the little girl that's burying her father or mother. It's inevitable."

In an 8-1 decision, the high court ruled Wednesday that Westboro Baptist Church has a First Amendment right to picket military funerals, no matter how "hurtful" the message may be. The decision ended Snyder's five-year court fight on behalf of his late son, Matthew, a Marine lance corporal killed in Iraq, whose funeral was picketed by Westboro church members.

Albert Snyder again slammed the high court justices for not having "the common sense that God gave a goat."  -Read more at CNN U.S.

John Barrowman—Part II

The Making of Me 2/6

Your Take: Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?

There were thousands of comments on Thursday's Belief Blog post arguing that the Bible condemns homosexuality, a response to another guest post arguing that the Bible is much more ambiguous on homosexuality than previously thought.

Most of the comments appear to doubt the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality - or challenge the wisdom looking to the Bible for guidance on such matters. And, as usual, we're struck by all the atheist comments. They seem to far outnumber believers' comments.

Josei

Interesting that gay is a sin. However, I never see the "correct" religious people fighting to save families and male-female marriages. Are you out there condemning those "straight" couples who cheat, beat and abuse one another, then flee a marriage? No, you don't. But, yet I see you "correct" religious people fighting to keep gay couples from being married in even a civil union when straight marriages are trashed every day.

Neutralizer

Why does my son have to learn at school that being gay is cool and OK? Tell you what, no praying in school and no brainwashing our kids that being gay or transgender is acceptable?

Kcv

As a Christian, I know the No. 1 rule is to not to play God ... which means not judging! We all have our prejudices, which is human nature, but I try very hard to not judge. Here's a very simple rule that makes it easy:

You can look at your neighbor and decide that you would NEVER do, act, or speak things that they will do, act, or speak ... but they are looking at you thinking the same! None of us are perfect, and we ALL do things the Bible says not to do (including abominations like eating pork, shellfish, gold, etc..)!

Salvatore

Like Sirena I have read the Bible multiple times. I was raised Catholic, parents were religious educators and lectures ... I think reading the Bible, front to back, and not just the little snippets you get on Sunday, would turn most reasonable people away. It is so full of contradiction you have to suspend belief to believe. How can you take one "instruction manual" and wind up with so many "products"? It's ridiculous.

John

I've read the Bible many times since I became an adult in the early '80s. I grew up a Catholic, later was a "born again," then still later was a member of another Protestant church. My conclusion after thoughtful reading, prayer, meditation, and living life: It's well-written fiction; it has some good rules to live by (much of the New Testament) and some that are so heinously dated (most of the Old Testament) that they should be illegal. This thing, as a whole, was not written by the hand of any God I want to worship. –CNN Belief Blog

“Our God Is Greater”

by Chris Tomlin

~ My Message To Islam ~

My Take: There’s No Such Thing As The Bible And Never Has Been

When things get messy, when the ground drops out from under us, we conjure myths of pristine and happy origins.

Unemployed, we might find ourselves longing for that former job as though it had been ideal, a time of complete self-fulfillment, forgetting how we dragged ourselves there some mornings, hoping for something better to come up.

In the middle of an ugly divorce, we might find ourselves longing for the early years of the relationship as though that had been our time in Eden, forgetting the stresses of money, unreliable used cars, in-laws and learning to live together.

These Edenic myths are illusions whose power lies not in their real presence but in their expression of what we really, really wish were true. But they also have the power to remove us from full, mindful living in the present, which is messy, unstable and insecure.

And that’s the stuff that opens us up to others, making us vulnerable to the real-life risks of relationship.

So too with the life of faith. We may long for an original, solid rock, a foundation that will not falter in the storm. For many, that rock is the Bible. But that, too, is an illusion.

Ronald Reagan once said that if he were shipwrecked on a desert island and could have only one book to read for the rest of his life, it would be the Bible.

I wish someone would’ve asked, which one? Which version? Protestant? Jewish? Catholic? Orthodox? Syriac? Each has a different table of contents.

The Jewish one obviously doesn’t include the New Testament, but it also has a different order, beginning with the Torah, considered the core of scriptures, then the Nevi’im, or “prophets,” then the Ketuvim, or “writings.”

The Catholic Bible includes all of the Protestant Bible plus seven additional books, known as the Apocrypha, as well as significantly different versions of and additions to the books of Esther and Daniel.

Different Orthodox Bibles (Greek, Ethiopian, Slavonic, etc.) include those plus other apocryphal books as well as a collection of poems known as the Book of Odes. So does the traditional Syriac Bible, but it does not include Revelation and four other New Testament books found in other canons.

And which translation would he bring? There are dozens available, and they vary widely in both style and theology. Many of the most popular ones today are highly interpretive “meaning-driven” versions in which translators don’t translate word-for-word but instead write what they believe conveys the equivalent meaning of larger blocks of text.

So “my cup runneth over” might become “you blow me away.” Or a passage buried in Leviticus that prohibits a man from lying with another man as though with a woman (other no-no’s in this list include adultery, sex with a woman on her period, and marrying a divorcee or a brother’s widow) becomes a universal ban on homosexuality. Put two translations side-by-side, and you may find yourself hard pressed to know if they’re even translating the same passage.

And which edition would he bring? A good old-fashioned floppy black leather one? Or a niche-market edition like "The Golfer’s Bible," loaded with full-color pictures and “inspirational messages teed up to reach the golfer’s heart.”

Then again, depending on the terrain and climate of his island, "The Waterproof Bible: Sportsman’s Edition" might be a more practical choice. How about one of the many Manga Bibles on the market? Or a Biblezine, a Bible in magazine form filled with jump-off-the-page callouts and graphic features on balancing work and play, shopping, healthy eating, and finding love? Or one of the thousands of study Bibles loaded with notes and commentaries telling you what it means according this or that (usually conservative) viewpoint?

These various Bibles are not only different in physical form, but their value-adding content is also values-adding, steering readers toward theological, moral, and political views.

You get the point.

There is no “the Bible,” no book that is the one and only Bible. There are lots and lots of Bibles. They come in many different physical and digital forms with a great variety of content – different canons, translations, notes, commentaries, pictures, and so on.

Don’t believe me? Next time you’re in a big box bookstore, check out its huge Bible section, or just type “Bible” in the search box of an online store, and prepare to be overwhelmed. The Bible business sells more than 6,000 different products for over $800 million a year – all sold as “the Bible.” It’s a flood of biblical proportions.

“Hold up!” some will say. “Stop the madness! We’ve got to save the Bible! We’ve got to get back its original, pure, unadulterated Word, before there’s no turning back the tide.” An understandable response to this alarming scene of biblical liquidation.

In my new book, "The Rise and Fall of the Bible," I say, OK, let’s try that. What we discover is even more surprising than all the diversity of Bibles on the market today. Here’s the thing: Not only is there no such thing as the Bible now; there never has been.

There is no pure original, no Adam from which all Bibles have descended. During the time of Jesus, there were many different versions of Scriptures in circulation, and no central publishing house or religious authority to standardize the process.

Same with the early Christian movement. Indeed, it wasn’t until the 4th century that there was even an official canon of Christian Scriptures. Even then, moreover, there were lots of unofficial varieties. The “story of the Book” is a fascinating one, with many surprising turns, but the upshot is that the further we go back in history, the more biblical variety we discover. “That old time religion” is an illusion.

For many of us, it’s more than a little disconcerting to realize that there’s no pristine original Bible to recover, that it’s messy and plural all the way back to the beginning. But is it not also a very familiar feeling?

Trying to save the Bible by recovering the Adam of all Bibles is as futile as trying to save the marriage by recovering the Eden of married life. There’s no such thing, so there’s no going back. Our desire for a pure, unadulterated, original Bible, “in the beginning,” is an illusion that shields and distracts us from the real, unstable, often terrifyingly ambiguous relationship with another that is the life of faith.

Life is crazy uncertain, so it’s understandable that many of us want religion and especially the Bible to offer deliverance from it. But it doesn’t. It’s not a rock but a river, not a book of answers but a library of questions. When we take it seriously, and soberly, it calls us deeper into the wilderness – away from the sunny shoreline of the island and toward the uncharted interior.

That wilderness, like the ones in which the Israelites wandered and Jesus was tested, can be a place of danger and disorientation, but also of renewal and reawakening.

Editors note: Timothy Beal is the author of "The Rise and Fall of the Bible: The Unexpected History of an Accidental Book." He is a Florence Harkness Professor of Religion at Case Western Reserve University.  -CNN Belief Blog

Log Cabin Republicans DOMA

Muslim Women Who Wear The Hijab and Niqab Explain Their Choice

When you look at Aliya Naim or Nadia, they don’t want you to see objects of beauty, nor do they want you to see women constrained by societal standards.

Instead, they say, they want to be judged by their intellect and personalities. They say it’s the reason they don’t show too much more.

Both Muslim American women cover themselves from head to toe in adherence to their faith’s promotion of modesty and humility. Like most Muslim women who cover, they do so only in front of men who are not in their immediate family.

Aliya, a 20-year-old student at the University of Georgia, wears the hijab, or headscarf. She also wears clothes that cover everything but her face and hands, attire that is also referred to as hijab.

“You often see in many societies women being objectified because of how they look or being disrespected,” she says. The hijab, she says, helps “force people who may be otherwise unwilling to take the focus off of our physical appearance.”

Nadia (who asked that her last name not be given) similarly covers most of her body and goes a step further by covering her face—excluding her eyes—with a piece of fabric known as the niqab.

The 25-year-old mother of two doesn’t believe it’s a practice that Islam mandates, but that it draws her closer to God.

“When you love someone, you want to be more pleasing to them,” she says. “…You want to do anything you can and constantly talk to them and know more about them, and that’s how I feel also with my creator.”

While the number of Muslim women in America who wear the hijab or niqab has never been recorded, some suggest that there was an increase in Muslim women covering after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, as many wished to express their identities in the wake of anti-Muslim sentiment.

After the attacks, says Georgetown University Professor Yvonne Haddad, more Muslim women became spokespeople for their religion.

“The women have sort of become the banner of Islam,” said Haddad, co-author of Muslim Women in America: The Challenge of Islamic Identity Today. “The little scarf is saying, ‘I am Muslim, and I have a presence here.’”
Aliya, whose Muslim parents taught her that covering was part of Islam, began wearing the hijab when she was 12. But she says it was her choice.

She says it protected her from focusing intensely on her weight and appearance, as her friends did. At her small all-girls middle and high schools, her peers didn’t give her much trouble about it.

It was also shortly after the attacks on 9/11 and she, too, felt a need to express her identity and combat Muslim stereotypes.

Nadia, on the other hand, did not cover for most of her life. She said she first started wearing the hijab in college after studying Islam more closely and growing closer to her faith.

She added the niqab to her wardrobe after about a year. She says the decision came after a conversation with other Muslim women who covered.

“When I actually got to know them [the women], I understood that they were intelligent people still and they were still full of life and had their own character,” she said. “It didn’t take away from them. But what it added to them, to me, was this increased love for the creator.”

She says that, contrary to the common misconception of Muslim women being forced to cover, her husband, who’d converted to Islam, had nothing to do with her decision. In fact, it came as a surprise to him, though he supported the move.

Bans and backlash

Last month, France’s lower house of parliament passed a ban on wearing any veils that cover the face, including the niqab and burqa—a similar covering that additionally conceals the eyes with a mesh panel—in public.

A short time later, Syria’s minister of higher education issued a ruling outlawing the niqab in universities across the Muslim-majority country.

There have also been bans on the hijab over the years.

Turkey first banned the headscarf in universities and public buildings in the 1980’s, however the law was not strictly enforced until 1997.

In 2004, France banned religious symbols, including the wearing of the hijab, in public primary and secondary schools.

Although the United States is not expected to follow suit, Nadia feels she has already begun to experience the effects of anti-covering sentiment spreading in her home of Lilburn, Georgia.

She says she has been denied entry into grocery stores and has been verbally harassed by strangers. Once, when she was at a gas station, she says a man a man pulled off of the road, swerved his truck in front of her pump, and took a close-up picture.

She watched him speed back out of the station and saw a large sign on the side of his vehicle advertising a website called trickledownterrorism.com. “I was so disturbed and I cried, and I couldn’t understand it. I just felt like, why would he do this?” Nadia said.

She often encounters people who tell her that her way of dress is something that Americans don’t do, that she should leave her foreign beliefs behind. As an African-American born and raised in the United States, such statements are often difficult to hear.

“I’ve already told someone in a store, ‘I’m from the nation’s capital, lady. I’m sorry to put it that way but please stop telling me we don’t do that here because I’m from here, and I am here. My family’s raised here, I live here...You might not do it here, but I do it here.’”

While Aliya still experiences frequent stares and often feels misunderstood by the general public, she says that wearing the hijab has also brought positive experiences, including opportunities to explain her religion and answer humorous questions.

“I think the one that always makes me laugh is, ‘Do you shower in that?’ And I always say to that, well, do you shower in your clothes? There’s your answer.”

Once, a young boy at a national park approached her and told her that she looked like the character Padme from Star Wars. She still laughs about that one.

Misconceptions

Aliya and Nadia feel that the biggest hardship they face is others’ assumptions about their beliefs.

Both say that the most common misconception about Muslim women is that they are oppressed, and that their religion views them as inferior to men. For instance, French President Nicolas Sarkozy referred to the burqa as “a sign of subservience… a sign of lowering,” earlier this year.

Nadia disagrees.

“I’ve never seen anybody interview a Muslim woman and ask her if she’s oppressed. Or if she feels oppressed for wearing what she wears, or if she’s oppressed in her home,” said Nadia.

Aliya says that if women are oppressed, it is the fault of people and culture, not Islam.

“There’s a saying by the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, that women are the equal halves of men. And from what I’ve read and studied about Islam, that’s very much how Islam views women,” she added.

Aliya says that she has never met an American Muslim woman who was forced to wear the hijab or niqab.

“I actually know more people who wear it against their parents’ wishes than unwillingly in compliance with their wishes,” she said.

To be sure, there are countries that require women to cover. Iranian law says women have to wear a hijab in public, while Saudi Arabia requires Muslim women to wear the hijab.

Moving forward

Despite some hurtful experiences in public, Nadia is content with her decision to wear niqab and says she feels a distinct difference in how men respect her now as opposed to her earlier days of low-cut shirts and formfitting pants.

Aliya also feels a joy in wearing the hijab, she says.

“And I think that definitely what’s in the heart is most important,” she said. “And your outward appearance should be a manifestation of that, not something to disguise what you really think or feel or believe.” -CNN Belief Blog

This Weeks Sound Off

Supreme Court upholds Westboro Baptist Church's right to stage anti-gay protests at funerals of U.S. troops. –CNN Reports

In a free society, hatred is protected ... To some degree this is unfortunate. However, what's sadder is that these "people" label themselves Christian's. And they wonder why the world thinks less of them, let alone Christianity. I for one believe they are Satanic in spirit and shouldn't be even labeled Christian ... Christian meaning; Christ Like. Yeah, they're not Christian.

Ragbag Headliners

House Republican Leaders Vow To Defend Defense Of Marriage Act
House Republican leaders say they will decide by the end of the week how to proceed in defending the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Both House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor expressed disappointment that the Obama administration decided to stop defending the law in court and said House Republicans are weighing their options.

"I'd be very surprised if the House didn't decide that they were going to defend law," Boehner told the Christian Broadcast Network.

"If the president won't lead, if the president won't defend DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), then you'll see the House of Representatives defend our actions in passing a bill that frankly passed overwhelmingly," he said.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced in a letter to members of Congress last week that the administration was reversing course and directing the Justice Department to no longer defend the law as they had during the president's first two years in office. Holder said they now believe a key part of the law, signed by then-President Bill Clinton, is unconstitutional.

Cantor told reporters that the president's position is that "he is not defending the law of the land is something very troubling I think to most members of the House."

There are two cases relating to the Defense of Marriage Act pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. There is a March 11 deadline for Congress to notify the court if it intends to act in the cases. –CNN Politics

Work like you don’t need the money,
Love like you’ve never been hurt,
Sing as if no one can hear you,
and Dance like no one’s watching.

~ Author Unknown ~

Cultish Christian Leader Teaches Women Should Submit To Husbands

The cultish Evangelical leader Bill Gothard espouses a theology that tells men to rule over their families, and for wives and kids to submit entirely, no matter the circumstances.

Bill Gothard is intent on defending himself. He’s speaking with me by telephone from the Northwoods Conference Center in Watersmeet, Michigan, where he spends every January “for study and writing and reflecting and fasting.” The controversial 76-year-old evangelist wants to explain away the “distortions” of his critics, and why, he insists, that widely-discussed “Taliban Dan” ad had it all wrong.

In the ad (run last fall by congressional candidate Daniel Webster’s Democratic opponent), the Florida Republican is shown speaking at an Advanced Training Institute conference -- part of Gothard’s Institute in Basic Life Principles, the $95 million nonprofit the evangelist founded in 1965 that boasts it has educated millions, including public officials, around the world at its conferences, in homeschool curricula, and in prisons. Webster is shown saying, “wives submit yourselves to your own husband” and “she should submit to me, that’s in the Bible.”

After the ad ran, Webster countered -- and watchdogs and the media largely accepted -- that Grayson had taken his words out of context and distorted their meaning. Still, though, Webster never denied that he believed wives should submit to the spiritual authority of their husbands. That there is a “chain of command” that families must obey has been at the core of Gothard’s teachings for decades.

Gothard insisted to me (in direct contradiction to materials on his own website) that he does not teach submission. When I asked Gothard whether he teaches that wives should submit to their husbands’ authority, he laughed, answering, “no, no,” adding, that Jesus taught “he who is the greatest among you be the servant of all. That makes the woman the greatest of all because she has served every single person in the world by being in her womb.”

Gothard’s effort to soft-pedal his teachings -- by portraying women as venerated objects, and by saying that “authority” is simply “love” and “love” is “freedom” -- flies in the face of his critics’ descriptions of the impact of his authoritarian teachings on their lives. In interviews, former adherents to Gothard’s teachings, disillusioned former members of “ATI families,” and an evangelical critic told me that his unyielding theology, including “non-optional” compliance with seven “biblical” principles (the “basic” life principles), compliance with 49 “character traits,” and other periodic Gothard revelations, are contrary to the Bible and have wreaked havoc on their emotional and spiritual lives and those of their families.

Gothard doesn’t deny he teaches adherence to what he calls “the commands of Christ.” And even though he has developed his own highly unusual interpretation of the Bible, he insists he’s not demanding that his followers obey him, but that they obey God (or how he singularly has interpreted God’s word). Following this path, he tells me cheerfully, will bring one “success and health and happiness and joy.”

“Laws in Harmony with the Laws of God”

In a video of Webster’s appearance at a 2003 Advanced Training Institute (ATI) seminar, for sale at the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) website, Webster described how making a “commitment” to Gothard’s teachings “absolutely changed my life.” Those commitments, he went on, “are the basis for everything I do today.”

Webster isn’t the only member of Congress with deep connections to Gothard. Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), who just became chair of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee, is the chair of the board of directors of the IBLP. Other politicians, like Texas Governor Rick Perry, have spoken at IBLP conferences, and Mike Huckabee is fan. And many others, such as Sarah Palin, as mayor of Wasilla, have attended his ostensibly secular (but not) International Association of Character Cities (IACC) conferences, based on his 49 character traits, and declared their municipalities “Cities of Character.” The supposedly secularized version of Gothard’s “character traits” have been taught in public schools. –AlterNet

John Barrowman — Part I

The Making of Me 1/6

Polish Sausage

A customer asked a store clerk, "In what aisle could I find Polish sausage?"

The clerk looked at him somewhat curiously and asked, "Are you Polish?"

Surprised by the question, the customer replied, "Well, yes I am."

"That explains it."

"And what do you mean by that?" the customer asked somewhat miffed at the clerk's answer.

"Oh, nothing. . ."

The customer, not satisfied with the brush off, countered, "Wait a minute here. . .your original comment sounded like there's a lot more to it. . .Let me ask you something. If I had asked for lasagna, would you have asked me if I was Italian? Or German if I had asked for bratwurst? Or Jew if I asked for kosher hot dog? Or Mexican if I had asked for taco?

"No, I probably wouldn't!"

The customer now obviously irked and with indignation in his voice, queried, "Well then, why did you ask me if I'm Polish because I asked for Polish sausage?"

The clerk replied, "Because you're in Home Depot."

Author Unknown

Jesus Is Lord

"God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." -John 3:16

When you allow Jesus Christ to come into sharp focus in the core of your mind, a fire ignites - the fire of the Holy Spirit of the living God. You are turned from negative to positive, and that's exciting!

The positive idea that Jesus expressed as He sat to eat with His disciples is so simple that we often are inclined to ignore it. It's as revolutionary as tomorrow! The idea is the powerful, positive idea of love, love, LOVE!

What gets me so excited is that, until the coming of Jesus Christ, there was no form of worship or religion centered in love. The Old Covenant in the Old Testament was centered on the law. The emphasis was on obedience and regular blood sacrifices for the atonement of sin. It was not love, even though it was very loving.

But Jesus said He marked the beginning of the New Covenant. And the New Covenant of Love answers the two most important questions any person can ask:

What can I expect from God?

What does God expect from me?

And the answer to both questions is the same - LOVE! God's grace is so great that He loves me even when I don't deserve it. Moreover, everything leading up to the cross and the crucifixion is the evidence of God's unfailing, unlimited, and sacrificial love for you and me! That's the message of the New Covenant!

Prayer:

Dear Lord, I invite Your transforming love to do its work in me. Thank You for being so clear in Your Word, the Holy Bible, about how You want me to live, and how You will help me along life's journey. Amen.

By Robert H. Schuller

What The Popes Really Say About Socialism

"Hideous", "destructive", "wicked", and "perverted" are only some of the adjectives used by the Popes to describe socialism.  From Pius IX to Benedict XVI, the popes have thoroughly and consistently condemned socialism.  Given the advance of socialism in America, TFP Student Action is glad to offer its readers a brief selection of thought-provoking quotes from the Popes on the topic.

^^*^^

PIUS IX (1846-1878)

The Overthrow of Order

"You are aware indeed, that the goal of this most iniquitous plot is to drive people to overthrow the entire order of human affairs and to draw them over to the wicked theories of this Socialism and Communism, by confusing them with perverted teachings." (Encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, December 8, 1849)

^^*^^

LEO XIII (1878-1903)

Overthrow is Deliberately Planned

"... For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists." (Encyclical Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, n. 27)

Debasing the Natural Union of Man and Woman

"They [socialists, communists, or nihilists] debase the natural union of man and woman, which is held sacred even among barbarous peoples; and its bond, by which the family is chiefly held together, they weaken, or even deliver up to lust." (Encyclical Quod Apostolici Muneris, December 28, 1878, n. 1)

The Harvest of Misery

"...there is need for a union of brave minds with all the resources they can command. The harvest of misery is before our eyes, and the dreadful projects of the most disastrous national upheavals are threatening us from the growing power of the socialistic movement." (Encyclical Graves de Communi Re, January 18, 1901, n. 21)

^^*^^

SAINT PIUS X (1903-1914)

The Dream of Re-Shaping Society will Bring Socialism

"But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, 'the reign of love and justice' ... What are they going to produce? ... A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train."
(Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique ["Our Apostolic Mandate"] to the French Bishops, August 15, 1910, condemning the movement Le Sillon)

^^*^^

BENEDICT XV (1914-1922)

Never Forget the Condemnation of Socialism

"It is not our intention here to repeat the arguments which clearly expose the errors of Socialism and of similar doctrines. Our predecessor, Leo XIII, most wisely did so in truly memorable Encyclicals; and you, Venerable Brethren, will take the greatest care that those grave precepts are never forgotten, but that whenever circumstances call for it, they should be clearly expounded and inculcated in Catholic associations and congresses, in sermons and in the Catholic press." (Encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914, n. 13)

^^*^^

PIUS XI (1922-1939)

Socialism Cannot Be Reconciled with Catholic Doctrine

"We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth." (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, n. 117)

Catholic Socialism is a Contradiction

"[Socialism] is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist." (Ibid. n. 120) 

^^*^^

PIUS XII (1939-1958)

The Church Will Fight Socialism to the End

"[The Church undertook] the protection of the individual and the family against a current threatening to bring about a total socialization which in the end would make the specter of the 'Leviathan' become a shocking reality. The Church will fight this battle to the end, for it is a question of supreme values: the dignity of man and the salvation of souls." ("Radio message to the Katholikentag of Vienna," September 14, 1952 in Discorsi e Radiomessaggi, vol. XIV, p. 314)

The All-Powerful State Harms True Prosperity

"To consider the State as something ultimate to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations." (Encyclical Summi Pontificatus, October 20, 1939, n. 60) 

^^*^^

JOHN XXIII (1958-1963)

"No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate socialism"

"Pope Pius XI further emphasized the fundamental opposition between Communism and Christianity, and made it clear that no Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism. The reason is that Socialism is founded on a doctrine of human society which is bounded by time and takes no account of any objective other than that of material well-being. Since, therefore, it proposes a form of social organization which aims solely at production; it places too severe a restraint on human liberty, at the same time flouting the true notion of social authority." (Encyclical Mater et Magistra, May 15, 1961, n. 34) 

^^*^^

PAUL VI (1963-1978)

Christians Tend to Idealize Socialism

"Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated." (Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, May 14, 1971, n. 31) 

^^*^^

JOHN PAUL II (1978-2005)

Socialism: Danger of a "simple and radical solution"

"It may seem surprising that 'socialism' appeared at the beginning of the Pope's critique of solutions to the 'question of the working class' at a time when 'socialism' was not yet in the form of a strong and powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to the 'question of the working class.'" (Encyclical Centesimus Annus - On the 100th anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 1, 1991, n. 12) 

^^*^^

BENEDICT XVI (2005 - present)

We do not Need a State which Controls Everything

"The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person - every person - needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live 'by bread alone' (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3) - a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human." (Encyclical Deus Caritas Est, December 25, 2005, n. 28)