Ecumenical Insanity

Saturday, May 8th

Bang a gong! We are on!

This was inevitable. Those of you who, like me, are fans of the over-the-top Japanese cooking show Iron Chef (also known as Pro Wrestling flambée or Roller Derby à l'orange) will want to know that the Chairman has brought his unique genius to the Internet. Ready or not, it's Iron Blog!

Ten days ago, a man's fantasy became reality in a form never before seen, Iron Blog, a giant debating battlefield.

The motivation for spending his fortune to create Iron Blog was to encounter new, original thought, which could be called true, artistic creations.

To realize his dream, he started choosing the top bloggers of various schools of thought. And he named his choices the Iron Bloggers, the invincible bloggers of debating skill.

Iron Blogger Democrat is Jay Bullock; Iron Blogger Green is R.G. "Robin" Pratt; Iron Blogger Libertarian is Vinod Valloppillil; and Rosemary Esmay is Iron Blogger Republican.

Iron Blog is the battlefield where the Iron Bloggers await the challenges of master bloggers from all over the blogosphere.

Both the Iron Blogger and the Challenger have twenty-four hours to first tackle the theme topic of the day. Using all their senses, skills and creativity, they're prepared to present intelligent arguements never heard before.

And if ever a challenger wins over the Iron Bloggers, he or she will gain the people's ovation and fame forever.

Check it out, it's a scream. Oh, and if you've never seen Iron Chef, you can find it on the Food Network every weekend. Watch it before you go to Iron Blog, or a lot of the humor will be lost (of course, it might be lost on you anyway...).

(Thanks to LGF for the link.)
Athanasius on 05.08.04 @ 10:16 PM EST [link]

Abu Ghraib: another view

Think all Muslims, all Middle Easterners, or all Iraqis feel the same way about the photos from Abu Ghraib? Not so, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which interviewed some local Iraqi immigrants:

"It's a terrible thing and it adds more wood to the fire," said Hussein Al-Muhanna, who came to the United States in 1993. "(But) to me, it's not the issue I have to worry about. To me, the main issue is Iraq's future."

Imad al-Turfy, another Everett resident, shows no sympathy for the prisoners, saying their treatment paled when compared with the horrors inflicted under Saddam Hussein's regime.

"They raped our women. They killed our kids. So there's hatred between us, the people here, and the people in Iraq," he said, referring to the Shiite Muslims who emigrated and the Sunni Muslims who ruled Iraq under Saddam.

"Anything coming to them would make me happy."

Mosafer Al-Yaseri, a Lynnwood resident, said that the abuse by some soldiers should not taint the overall efforts of the U.S. Army.

"(The Iraqis) feel soldiers come from good families. Over there, there are 135,000 soldiers. Out of that, 10 people are bad," he said.

And as for Arab media showing the photos over and over again:

Mosifer Al-Yaseri said that while the Arab TV network al-Jazeera has repeatedly shown photos of the Iraqi prisoners, it did not report about abuses under Saddam.

"If there's a good story about how Iraq has changed, they never show it," he said. "They never showed a bad thing about Saddam Hussein."

This doesn't mitigate anyone's guilt, of course, nor is it meant to imply that Arab outrage is any less real. Just pointing out that things aren't as black-and-white as they seem.
Athanasius on 05.08.04 @ 09:54 PM EST [link]

Take that, varmint!

ECUSA Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold recently wrote a letter to his fellow primates (found here) that I didn't bother reviewing because it was simply standard Griswoldian boilerplate. Not so the reply Griswold received from Archbishop Greg Venables, Primate of the Southern Cone in South America:

You speak with clarity about your grief over the pain your actions have caused and yet you proceed with your relentless agenda. Do you not see that there is an enormous contradiction here?...

You indicate that the action of the General Convention was constitutional. Of course I am not an expert in the Constitution and Canons of ECUSA, but I do remember the commitment of your General Convention to initiate an "inter-Anglican and ecumenical dialogue on human sexuality issues which should not be resolved by the Episcopal Church on its own (B-020)." (A ten minute search of internet archives shows that!) Many colleagues have also reminded me that you were clear that the official position of ECUSA was parallel to that of Lambeth I. 10 at a number of Primates meetings. When was that changed, or was it just ignored? Of course there is pain when you moved ahead in violation of your own Convention decisions. In addition, I saw the broadcast of objections to Gene Robinson's consecration which were simply and totally ignored....

You have insisted on autonomy from the Lambeth resolutions, from the Archbishop of Canterbury's plea, from the ACC, and from the Primates to pursue an agenda that is absolutely scandalous to most Christians. That view of autonomy is the opposite of everything Anglicanism has always stood for. Why would you still want to call yourself Anglican? May I urge you either to live as an Anglican conforming to Anglican norms or admit that you have left us and closed the door behind you.

Venables speaks for most of the leaders of world-wide Anglicanism in this letter. Suppose Griswold has gotten the message yet?
Athanasius on 05.08.04 @ 09:40 PM EST [link]

Friday, May 7th

**Where was the outrage?**

The Religion News Service opens a story on Muslim reaction to the horrible events at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad this way:

As soon as Ingrid Mattson [professor of Islamic studies at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut] saw the photo of the smiling American soldier, cigarette dangling from her lips, pointing at the genitals of a hooded, naked Iraqi prisoner, she knew this would touch a deep, inner chord in Muslims, no matter where they are. Indeed, as that image and others like it are published and broadcast around the world, they assault on a visceral level, core Islamic values such as modesty and dignity and honor, say Mattson and other scholars of Islam. If one image could amplify the hurt and anger and mistrust and fuel the rage of the next generation of violent radicals, then the sexual abuse of prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison might be it.

Should Muslims be outraged by what happened at Abu Ghraib? Sure. So are Americans, which is why the perpetrators are going to pay severely for their crimes. What I'd like to know is why Muslims evinced no discernible outrage (or even concern) about the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib when Saddam was running it. Is it because the prisoners our soldiers abused were men, while Saddam's torturers specialized in sexual abuse of women? Or is it because of some perverse notion that Muslims shouldn't point out human rights abuses committed by Muslims, only those committed by non-Muslims? One might start by asking the Saudis, who are worked up in such a lather about the photos from the prison, but who have worse stuff going on in their own prisons.

Athanasius on 05.07.04 @ 05:21 PM EST [link]

So many questions...

Catch the tone of the lead paragraph in Kevin Eckstrom's Religion News Service story headlines, "Are Methodists Headed for a Conservative Takeover?":

The United Methodist Church, with congregations in all but 133 of the nation's 3,350 counties, prides itself as the quintessential American church. Its 10 million members are black and white, north and south, George W. Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton. As someone once said, if you want to find out what America is thinking, start by asking the Methodists. But now, some in the nation's second-largest Protestant church say conservatives have planted the seeds for a hostile takeover that would move the solidly middle-America church hard to the right. It is, they say, eerily familiar to the conservative resurgence that began in the Southern Baptist Convention exactly 25 years ago.

Why do writers like Eckstrom think that liberals have a divine right to run mainline denominations? Why do writers like Eckstrom think that "conservatives" in mainline churches are the same as "conservatives" in the Southern Baptist Convention? Why do writers like Eckstrom think that the voice of the bulk of the membership in essentially representative democratic churches like the UMC is not being heard in votes taken at events like General Conference? Why do writers like Eckstrom think that there is something conspiratorial going on in the UMC? Why do writers like Eckstrom think that returning a mainline church to its historic and biblical roots is moving it "hard to the right?" Why do writers like Eckstrom think that the membership of a "solidly middle-America church" like the UMC is not evangelical, no matter what Jim Winkler of Church & Society or Bishop Joe Sprague might say?
Athanasius on 05.07.04 @ 05:12 PM EST [link]

Thursday, May 6th

Gee, that didn't take long

According to Christianity Today, the United Methodist bishop who heads up Rev. Karen Dammann's conference is preparing even before the end of the General Conference to do what it's clear the denomination doesn't want him to do:

Troubles over homosexuality are continuing to cause division in the United Methodist Church. Bishop Elias Galvan, head of the Pacific-Northwest Conference, said yesterday that if Karen Dammann, an openly practicing homosexual, seeks a clergy appointment within the denomination, he would likely reappoint her.

Meeting in Pittsburgh this week during the United Methodist Church's General Conference, the Judicial Council, the supreme court of global Methodism, ruled Tuesday that individuals, found at church trial to be active homosexuals, may not be appointed to clergy positions within the denomination. The Book of Discipline says that the "practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." The court also noted, however, that it does not have the right to reverse or reexamine the findings of the Dammann church trial, saying, the prohibition "does not address the case of the Reverend Karen T. Dammann" and shall be applied only "prospectively."

In March, a Washington state church jury determined that Dammann, 47, is a "self-avowed, practicing homosexual" but declared that this practice did not violate the denomination's laws regarding homosexual practice.

Galvan said the second portion of the ruling applies only to future cases. "If I am rendering the decision correctly, she is appointable," Galvan said. "She is in good standing. Because she is in good standing, the Book of Discipline requires that she get an appointment," he said.

Not so fast, says an episcopal colleague:

In a press conference following the ruling Tuesday, Bishop Joseph Yeakel, interpreting the decision on behalf of the Methodist Council of Bishops, said Galvan would be "subject to trial" if he seeks to reappoint Dammann.

And evangelicals made clear that they would raise the roof as well.

Do bishops like Glavan have any idea how stuff like this is heard? Does he have any consideration at all for the opinion of his brethren? Does he care about anything other than making political points? Or is he just another clueless guy in a fancy stole?

Athanasius on 05.06.04 @ 10:48 PM EST [link]

Moravians: check the archives

For those who would like to continue the discussion about recent events in the Moravian Church, I invite you to go to the sidebar and click on "Archives." Then click on the entry, "Another one bites the dust." I'll continue to check it for personal attack comments, but the thread will be open as long as people want to read it.
Athanasius on 05.06.04 @ 09:45 PM EST [link]

They mean what they say

Just in case there are still some in Methodism who don't understand the meaning of the word "no":

In a vote of 455-445, the delegates changed Paragraph 2702 to state: "A bishop, clergy member of an annual conference, local pastor, clergy on honorable or administrative location, or diaconal minister may choose a trial when charged (subject to the statute of limitations in 2702.4) with one or more of the following offenses: a) immorality, including but not limited to, not being celibate in singleness or not being faithful in a heterosexual marriage; b) practices declared by the United Methodist Church to be incompatible with Christian teaching, including but not limited to: being a self-avowed practicing homosexual; or conducting ceremonies which celebrate homosexual unions; or performing same-sex wedding ceremonies."

The closeness of the vote was an indication that at least some people who object to the UMC approving homosexual practice were also wary of being too explicit, or too unequivocal. But a majority is a majority, and this should pretty well shut the door. Of course, there will still be those who will maintain that "not" means "may," or "incompatible" means "disputed" or whatever. But there will be no doubt whatsoever (if there ever really was) about their refusal to abide by the law of the church.
Athanasius on 05.06.04 @ 04:58 PM EST [link]

Soulforce plans UMGC disruption

According to a letter from the Methodist evangelical caucus Good News, this morning was supposed to see some fireworks at General Conference:

As you all know, the General Conference will be disrupted this morning by Mel White's Soulforce, a "national interfaith organization committed to ending spiritual violence perpetuated by religious policies and teachings against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) people."

As you remember, they are the ones that sent a letter to General Conference delegates stating that "Soulforce will publicly hold delegates of the UMC accountable in a non-violent act of civil disobedience" if delegates fail to vote in a way that Soulforce approves of on the issue of homosexuality.

Last night, Soulforce held their training to prepare the protesters for this morning’s disruption of the General Conference. It was there that the Rev. Phil Lawson equated the struggle for African-American civil rights with gay activism. He stated that the intent of those who would deny full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons is to completely destroy them.

In a fit of feverswamp reasoning, he continued by saying that after the gays and lesbians were gone, then people of color and women would be chased off. He then claimed that Central Conference delegates would be eliminated next.

Lawson told the protesters that those who support the UM stance on homosexuality are motivated by the same spirit that energized the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Apparently, delegates will hear a muted drum beat and the protesters will be wearing black arm bands to signify the "death" of hope for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons. A woman will carry a three-foot high rainbow hued candle and place it on the altar. Then Soulforce and allies will leave the Convention Center as a symbol of the light and spirit leaving the UM Church.

The letter added, "Thankfully, the light and spirit that we depend upon is not subject to the whims of protesters." I'll let you know if they went through with it, and what the reaction was.

The letter also makes reference to an incident on the floor yesterday, in which a gay-rights protester smashed a Communion chalice belonging to a young female seminarian in a fit of self-righteous pique over losing so many votes. Good to know that Mel White's folks are consistently non-violent, or someone could get hurt.

(Hat tip: Carl)
Athanasius on 05.06.04 @ 04:41 PM EST [link]

No rules, just right

This is a hoot. The good Father was clearly fast asleep during his seminary classes on New Testament, theology, and ethics, not to mention the one where they taught you to think before you speak:

GOOD NEWS: NO RULES. Fr. Edward Holterhoff, scripture scholar and parish administrator at St Timothy's Catholic Church in Morro Bay, [CA,] composed a meditation on "contemporary morality" that appeared in the September 21, 2003 edition of the parish bulletin. Quoting the Dalai Lama, as his authority Holterhoff stated, "we must 'find a way to serve all humanity without appealing to religious faith.' It is imperative, therefore, to develop a basic moral consensus on which everyone can agree if we hope to promote a universal ethical approach to living. Individual faith communities certainly will be able to affect this agenda but not dominate it."

Father Holterhoff seemed to attack the concept of moral standards. He wrote, "from a Christian point of view, Jesus had no interest in rules, and, in fact, is seen as consistently breaking them. Thus, there is no theological foundation for a rule-based morality in Christianity." Addressing the question of the inherent moral quality of our actions, Holterhoff went on to say, "should we use terms such as wrong, bad, evil? Are not categories like 'harmful or helpful' more simple and inclusive?" Near the end, Holterhoff stated for his readers what he thinks should be the purpose of the Catholic Church. "The mission of Jesus, simply described," wrote Holterhoff, "was to foster happiness and to minimize suffering." Holterhoff justified the last statement saying it is in perfect accord with Sermon on the Mount.

No, "take up your cross," eh, Father? No, "whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me," right? No, "you should have done the one (justice and mercy) without neglecting the other (tithing)," jah? Those are just legalistic interpolations in an otherwise suffering-free, commandment-free text. Father Holterhoff just knows it must be so, because great revelators like John Spong and Robert Funk (currently on Jesus Seminar tour duty together–"Abbott and Costello Meet Whats-His-Name from Nazareth" movie material, clearly) told him so. Or maybe he just made it all up.

(Thanks to Mark Shea for the link.)
Athanasius on 05.06.04 @ 04:32 PM EST [link]

Wednesday, May 5th

Orthodox ethics win again at UMGC

Delegates to the United Methodist General Conference have closed a linguistic loophole invented by the Karen Dammann jury that seemed to allow actively gay pastors to stay in office:

Delegates to the United Methodist Church’s top legislative body continued the church prohibition of self-avowed practicing homosexuals being involved in ordained ministry.

Within the qualifications for ordaining ministers in the United Methodist Church is a statement that says, "Since the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as ministers or appointed" in the church.

The delegates to the 2004 General Conference removed the word "since" and made a declaratory statement on May 4 that says, "The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching." After the word "teaching," delegates added the word "therefore" and made a second sentence. The adopted language now reads: "The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore, self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be accepted as candidates, ordained as ministers or appointed to serve in the United Methodist Church."

Following much debate, the delegates defeated a minority report that would have given each annual conference or central conference–regional units of the church–the responsibility of determining how it will approach homosexuality as it relates to a person’s fitness for ministry.

I have no doubt that the Humpty-Dumptys that want to force Methodists to change their stance on homosexual behavior will find some clever and disingenuous way to parse these sentences. But at this point, there really isn't any doubt about what the will of the General Conference delegates is with regard to gay issues. Maybe it's time for a realignment: gay activists in the UMC can join the ECUSA, and gay opponents from ECUSA can join the UMC.
Athanasius on 05.05.04 @ 03:19 PM EST [link]

Tuesday, May 4th

Please let the UN run Iraq!

The UN again shows what it's made of:

Sudan won re-election to the United Nations main human rights watchdog on Tuesday, prompting the United States to walk out because of ethnic cleansing in the country's Darfur region.

Sudan's envoy immediately accused the U.S. delegation of "shedding crocodile tears," and said the United States had turned a blind eye as Iraqi prisoners were mistreated and civilians were harmed in battle.

Fourteen seats were filled on Tuesday for the 53-nation U.N. Human Rights Commission based in Geneva. Many were decided by regional groups before Tuesday's voting in the Economic and Social Council in New York.

In the African regional group, Sudan, Guinea, Togo and Kenya, were chosen for three-year terms on the commission, beginning in January.

Sichan Siv, the U.S. delegate to the council, accused Sudan of having no right to sit on the rights commission because of ethnic cleansing in Darfur where government troops are accused of backing Arab militia which pillage black Africa villages, raping and killing. The Khartoum government denies it is involved in ethnic cleansing.

"The United States will not participate in this absurdity," said Siv before briefly walking out of council chambers. "Our delegation will absent itself from the meeting rather than lend support to Sudan's candidacy."

He also walked out a year ago when Cuba won a seat on the commission.

Sudan's deputy U.N. ambassador, Omar Bashir Mohamed Manis, said the United States had no right to accuse anyone of human rights violations after the allegations of mistreatment of Iraqis held in U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.

The US mistreats a small number of Iraqi prisoners (actions for which the soldiers in question will undoubtedly be severely punished, and changes made in the way said prisoners are handled). The Sudanese government kills or permits to be enslaved almost two million of its non-Muslim citizens over the course of a decade-plus civil war. I can see why Manis would think those were morally equivalent actions–if he were a conscienceless psychopath.
Athanasius on 05.04.04 @ 08:50 PM EST [link]

Free speech, freedom of religion, under fire in Canada

Canada's parliament passed a bill last week that amended the country's hate crimes law to include "sexual orientation" as a protected category. I don't have any use for hate crimes laws anyway (using motivation to prove a crime if one thing; using it to increase the punishment is contrary to all traditions of Anglo-American law, which says you don't punish a person for their thoughts), but this one promises to be a grave threat to free speech and freedom of religion. Don't believe me? Check out this from LifeSiteNews.com, a pro-life, traditional values news outlet in the Frozen North:

Since the passage into Canadian law last week of the homosexual hate crime Bill C-250, LifeSiteNews.com and other pro-family groups in Canada have been subject to some intimidating communications from homosexual activists. The emails, and ones received over the last few years from other activists bear a similar slant, all suggesting LifeSiteNews.com, by reporting news on the homosexual issue that balances the mainstream media’s bias, is "hateful" and out of touch with the rest of the world. The tactic is a well known psychological warfare technique known as "jamming."

One email received the day C-250 was passed into law, was sent to homosexual activist leaders in Canada and purposely forwarded to LifeSiteNews.com, Focus on the Family Canada, and REAL Women Canada. In it Mark Hanlon, Director, External Issues at the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgendered group at the Memorial University of Newfoundland, wrote:

"These right winged, conservatives are teaching these same messages to their children for the good of society and for the good of morals and ethics. Let's get this one thing straight to all you Conservative groups–your children's attitudes, if they inherit these beliefs from you, will be in a minority down the road. You are setting them on a dangerous path of intolerance and hate. Stop this path–before the world of tomorrow judges them and, thanks to this bill, prisons or fines them. Crimes of hate against the LBGT community will be treated equally with anti-semitism, and anti-african canadian hate crimes."

There will be more of this sort of thing–a lot more–in the months to come. I give it no more than eight weeks before the first person or organization is hauled into court on a charge of inciting "hatred" against gays for nothing more than saying homosexual behavior is wrong.
Athanasius on 05.04.04 @ 08:05 PM EST [link]

Methodists reject change on homosexuality

The United Methodist General Conference today rejected an attempt to change the denomination's Social Principles in a way that would open the door for further questions about the UM stance on homosexual behavior:

United Methodists affirmed their church's condemnation of homosexuality Tuesday by rejecting a measure that would have officially acknowledged that Christians disagree on the issue.

Liberals had proposed adding a phrase to the Methodist Social Principles that said, "We recognize that Christians disagree on the compatibility of homosexual practice with Christian teaching."

Conservatives argued that adding any language about the Methodists' internal rift would give the impression that the church might diverge from Christianity's traditional prohibition against gay relationships.

Delegates agreed, rejecting the liberal proposal on a 527-423 vote, with four abstentions.

Methodists have made a smart move, one that indicates they've learned from the sad experiences of other mainline churches. Making an official statement like this allows gay advocates to claim, "since we don't agree, everyone should be free to follow and act on his or her own conscience." Once again, Methodists have shut the door on approval of homosexual behavior. I don't know how many other attempts to muddy the water will be made at GC, but it looks very much like we're seeing a trend that will result in the defeat of any other efforts.
Athanasius on 05.04.04 @ 05:16 PM EST [link]

Monday, May 3rd

Um, er...

The IRD quote of the week is from U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters of California. Speaking at last week's March for ~~Dead Babies~~ Women's Lives, she said:

"I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion."

Whatever you say, Maxine.
Athanasius on 05.03.04 @ 09:02 PM EST [link]

Methodists oppose gay marriage

I didn't see this in any major media report on Saturday's events at the UMC General Conference. But it's sure to put Bob Edgar and the folks at Riverside Drive (not to mention plenty of United Methodist big shots) in a lather:

On Saturday, May 1, the General Conference of the United Methodist Church voted to add language to the denomination's Social Principles endorsing "laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman." The vote was 625 to 184 among the delegates from around the world, who meet every 4 years to establish the 10 million-member denomination's policies.

Mark Tooley, director of the UM Action Committee of the Institute on Religion and Democracy thanked the General Conference for opposing same-sex "marriage" in civil law.

It is perhaps the first instance of a mainline Protestant denomination in the U.S. taking a specific position on this issue, as Americans debate a proposed constitutional amendment and other responses to court demands in Massachusetts and elsewhere to legalize same-sex "marriage." (From IRD.)

It isn't exactly the first time, since the Executive Council of the United Church of Christ put out a statement last week calling for the defeat of a federal marriage amendment or state amendments, as well as the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act and all similar state statutes. It is, however, the first time that I know of that a mainline denomination has taken the stand the UMC has approved. Many thanks to Tooley, the sponsor of the language, and to the overwhelming majority of GC delegates for taking this stand.
Athanasius on 05.03.04 @ 08:58 PM EST [link]

Sunday, May 2nd

And now...Passion humor!

From the Passion of the Christ blooper reel:

Jesus carries a heavy wooden cross through Jerusalem, assisted by Simon (Jarreth Merz).

Jesus: Wait a second. [puts down cross]

Off Camera: What is it?

Jesus: [wipes right eye] There's something in my eye.

Simon: Oh my God, it’s a mote.

Off Camera: [laughter]

Check out the rest from The New Pantagruel. It's a scream. I don't know if these "outtakes" are real or a put-on, but they're hilarious in any case.

(Thanks to Kathy Shaidle for the link.)
Athanasius on 05.02.04 @ 07:49 PM EST [link]

The heart of the Methodist matter

The Rev. Scott N. Field, who has been coordinating evangelical groups at the United Methodist General Conference, put his finger on the problem facing the UMC in talking to the Washington Post:

The Rev. Scott N. Field, the conference coordinator for a coalition of conservative and evangelical Methodist groups, said the Judicial Council [below] rejected the jury's "novel interpretation" of church law.

But he said that "it does not end the debate because people of conscience who disagree with the church's current stand will continue acts of noncompliance, and therefore the real issue before the denomination is whether we can enforce the covenant within the clergy, and that will require additional legislation."

Not everyone, however, gets it:

The Rev. Troy Plummer, executive director of the Reconciling Ministries Network, which favors allowing openly gay clergy, said that "the issue is: Can we have different opinions and still be family?"

Plummer accused conservatives of using the example of the Episcopal Church as a "scare tactic" at the convention.

The issue is most definitely not, "can we have different opinion and still be family?" The issue is, what should we do? A married couple can have different opinions about how to spend the household income and have no problems living together. If one of them decides, without consulting his wife, that he's entitled to go out and spend the mortgage payment betting the ponies, then their marriage is going to be in trouble. It's one thing for people like Plummer to advocate changes in the Book of Discipline. Perfectly fine. It's another entirely for bishops and pastors to start ordaining gays and conducting same-sex union blessings when those are explicitly prohibited by the law of the church.

As for the use of the ECUSA as a cautionary example, that's hardly a stretch. Bishops in the UMC appoint pastors, and can if they choose ignore congregational objections to gay pastors. The truth is that if Plummer gets his ways, churches in the UMC will actually wind up worse off than Episcopal churches. Who'd have thought that was possible?

(Hat tip: Hampton)
Athanasius on 05.02.04 @ 04:26 PM EST [link]

Cowardly beasts strike again

Hamas has again demonstrated what it's made of. In what it says was a response to the assassinations of former leaders Yassin and Rantisi, it went right for the heart of the enemy:

A pregnant mother and her four daughters were shot dead Sunday after two terrorists opened fire at Israeli cars traveling near the Kissufim Crossing at the entrance to the Gush Katif settlement bloc in the Gaza Strip.

The dead were identified as Tali Hatuel, 34, eight months pregnant and her daughters Hila, 11, Hadar, 9, Roni, 7, Merav, 2 all from the settlement of Katif. The five were laid to rest 6.30 pm on Sunday at the new cemetery in Ashkelon. Tali's husband David, a school principal in Ashkelon, was not with the family at the time and is left on his own.

The Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and Popular Resistance Committees claimed joint responsibility for the attack, saying it was to avenge the assassinations of Hamas leaders Sheikh Yassin and Rantisi. The 'Resistance Committees' is a group associated with PA Chairman Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. There has been no statement from the Palestinian Authority regarding the attack.

Damian Penny comments on this and nails it:

Six weeks ago, Israel launched a fatal missile strike against the "spiritual leader" of Hamas, Sheikh Yassin, and the world recoiled in horror. "War crime!" people cried. "Murder! The cowardly killing of an old blind man in a wheelchair!"

Today, gunmen from Hamas and Islamic Jihad walked up to a car containing a mother and her four daughters, aged 2 to 11, and shot them all dead at close range.

And you know the same people who were so shocked and outraged by the assasination of Yassin are already working on excuses. They were "settlers". The mother had a bumper sticker on her car speaking out against Sharon's plan to evacuate Gaza (a plan Israel's opponents also oppose, of course, because it doesn't involve the complete liquidation of the Jewish state). They had a nice car while Palestinians live in poverty. The children would have been conscripted someday, so they weren't really civilians. It's a Zionist conspiracy to make sure Likud members vote down the Sharon plan. The attack wasn't carried out by a state, so it wasn't really a war crime (never mind the well-documented rhetorical, political and financial support Arafat has given to these groups, of course).

And above all, they were Jews. And Jews aren't really human.
Athanasius on 05.02.04 @ 01:52 PM EST [link]