Ecumenical Insanity

Friday, September 24th

Paganism and Methodism mix in Austin

Every now and then, a story comes along that simply leaves one speechless. Such is the story from Austin about the Wiccan and the Methodists:

It's almost 9 a.m. at Trinity United Methodist Church on Sunday, and Tom Davis, a Wiccan, is looking for the sun. In a few moments, he will cast the circle, pointing to each direction and invoking the four elements: earth, air, fire and water. He starts by facing east.

"By the earth that is her body," Davis declares as light pours through a stained-glass window behind him. "By the air that is her breath. By the fire of her bright spirit. By the waters of her living womb."

For the congregation of the church, at 600 E. 50th St., a witch leading worship isn't scandalous. It isn't even that unusual.

Trinity members have hosted American Indian shamans, Buddhist priests and other faith leaders, including Wiccans, before. They even practice their own pagan-inspired rituals at services.

"It's not my way or hell," said Trinity member Linda Eldredge. "All are welcome here. Everybody's got something to offer."

But for Davis and the Live Oak Local Council of the Covenant of the Goddess he represents, Sunday marked an important, albeit small, step toward inclusion as new members of Austin Area Interreligious Ministries, an interfaith group that voted this year to accept Wiccans.

Demythologizing Wicca at Trinity isn't Davis' greatest challenge. But Trinity's pastor, the Rev. Sid Hall, said Wiccans' participation in the interfaith community may "open up the dialogue to see how Christianity has walked a very tight line with both diminishing pagan roots and Celtic roots and yet incorporating (them) when it was convenient."

Of course, it's not real surprising that Trinity UMC would find this kind of "worship" acceptable, given their support of "creation spirituality," some of the principles of which include:

6. Everyone and everything expresses divinity. All humans are all children of God; therefore, we have Divine blood in our veins and the Divine breath in our lungs; and the basic work of God is Compassion.

7. Divinity is as much Mother as Father, as much Child as Parent, as much Godhead [mystery] as God [history], as much beyond all beings as in all beings.

8. We experience the Divine in all things and all things are in the Divine. This mystical experience supplants the experience of the Divine as separate and unattainable.

Gnosticism, Wicca, creation spirituality–it's all part of the noxious brew that is religiosity at one Methodist church in Austin.

(Thanks to CaNN for the link.)
Athanasius on 09.24.04 @ 07:23 PM EST [link]

Mainliners, human rights, and questions of prejudice

Later today, the Institute on Religion and Democracy will be holding a press conference and releasing the results of a study of mainline church human rights advocacy that is most revealing. I received a copy of the press release prior to the news conference (it's up at the IRD site now), and will take a look at the full report when it's released. In the meantime, here's what IRD found:

The report examines resolutions passed by the highest governing bodies of four denominations–the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), United Methodist Church, and Evangelical Lutheran Church in America–between 2000 and 2003. It also covers resolutions, press releases, and articles during that same period from the U.S. National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. The IRD report scrutinizes the churches' choice of the nations at which they aim their human rights criticisms. It uses as a yardstick the assessments of civil and political freedoms around the world compiled by the human rights group Freedom House.

Freedom House is generally considered one of the most accurate and genuinely non-partisan of human rights organizations, refusing to give breaks to regimes of either left or right. Their annual chart of the status of freedom in the world's nations has been an essential tool for human rights watchers for years.

The results showed that over one-third of all church criticisms of human rights abuses were aimed at a single small nation: Israel. Slightly less than one-third were aimed at the United States, and the rest were distributed among twenty other nations. Only 19 percent of the church criticisms were aimed at nations deemed "not free" in the 2004 Freedom House assessments. Many of the countries rated lowest by Freedom House–such as China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia–were not criticized even once. Of the fifteen worst human rights abusers listed by Freedom House, only five received any criticism during the four years studied.

(In fact, it is far more likely that one of the Big Four would have something supportive to say. For example, in their overview of the situation in Burma, the Anglican Peace and Justice Network had this to say about the relationship between a brutal military government and a Nobel Peace Prize winner:

The international lobbying community should realize that giving backing to Daw Aung San Su Kyi, and her NLD Party, and praising whatever she does, while at the same time criticizing and downgrading all the actions of the military government, is a dead end. Myanmar's history is not that clear-cut and simple.

Both the NLD and the military government should realize that the destiny of their nation and people depends on their critical collaboration. They need to do their own homework. Outside people can only advise. Until and unless they learn to work together, there seems to be no hope at all.

That's an unusually, even excessively, even-handed approach that is rarely applied to Israel and never to the Palestinian Authority.)

"Israel is certainly responsible for some human rights abuses, as are all nations," said IRD President Diane Knippers. "But an extreme focus on Israel, while ignoring major human rights violators, seriously distorts the churches' message on universal human rights. We cannot find a rational explanation for the imbalance. We are forced to ask: Is there an anti-Jewish animus, conscious or unconscious, that drives this drumbeat of criticism against the world's only Jewish state?"

"Explicit criticism of Israel was completely out of proportion, in volume and in severity of tone, with church criticism of more notable human rights abusers," said IRD Research Assistant Erik Nelson, the primary researcher for the report. "That excessive criticism, paired with the fact that none of the churches or groups that we studied criticized human rights violations by the Palestinian Authority or other neighboring governments, certainly raises concerns about a prejudiced double standard. Mainline churches need to face frankly the possibility of anti-Semitism among 'our kind of people.'"

I think raising the question of motivation is entirely appropriate. The peace-and-justice types at the Big Four may or may not be anti-Semites, but they still have to account for the gross imbalance. For that matter, so do church assemblies. For instance, why did the PCUSA single out Israel for divestment this summer, and have not one word to say about Saudi Arabia, one of the world's most repressive countries?

Harsh mainline criticisms of Israel have already raised alarms in the Jewish community. A September 28 meeting in New York between top officials of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and leaders in the Reform and Conservative Jewish movements will address these issues, among others. IRD Vice President Alan Wisdom, co-author with Nelson of the report, commented: "I hope that leaders in my denomination [the PCUSA] will see this situation as more than a public relations problem with an external group [the Jewish community] that needs to be mollified. I hope that they will take this opportunity for some serious introspection, asking whether we Presbyterians have been faithful to our own Christian commitment to value equally the human rights of all peoples."

Knippers expressed her concern for the future of human rights advocacy in the mainline: "After the Cold War, some church leaders apologized for ignoring human rights abuses behind the Iron Curtain. Today the churches seem to be ignoring human rights abuses in other parts of the world, most notably the Arab world. Did these churches really learn anything from their failures during the Cold War? We need an entirely different approach for the 21st century."

An excellent question from Dr. Knippers. Check back for further information about what the IRD found.

UPDATE: The IRD press conference will actually be Monday, which is when the report will be released. More then.
Athanasius on 09.24.04 @ 01:00 PM EST [link]

Thursday, September 23rd

The limits of pluriformity

Duke professor David Steinmetz does a great job of blowing away Frank Griswold's infinite-diversity approach to the faith of the Church:

In the midst of this increasingly chaotic situation, Archbishop Williams appointed in 2003 an internationally representative body of prominent Anglicans to see whether what remains of the unity of the Anglican Communion might be preserved. The report of the so-called Lambeth Commission will be released on Oct. 18. Both the London Times and the Telegraph predict it will recommend that the Episcopal Church be disciplined.

The most likely form of discipline would involve suspension of liberal bishops from the international councils of the Anglican Communion, at least until they "repent" and modify their policies. If so, Presiding Bishop Griswold would suffer the humiliation of not being invited to meetings of the primates of the Anglican Communion.

Griswold clearly regards such a proposed course of action as monstrously unfair and in violation of the spirit of "classical Anglicanism." Classical Anglicanism, in his view, involves unity in baptism, prayer and the celebration of the eucharist. It does not involve doctrinal uniformity and is deeply suspicious of overly literal readings of Scripture. Moreover, it tolerates theological diversity, not out of weakness or indifference, but out of a deep conviction that evangelicals, liberals and Anglo-Catholics need each other in order to be as much as possible a self-correcting church of Christ.

The question Griswold does not answer in his spirited defense of classical Anglicanism is where legitimate boundaries lie. At what point does diversity become incoherence?

After all, what is usually called heresy is not simply a "divergent opinion" that can readily be tolerated. Heresy is the rejection of a fundamental principle that has hitherto defined a group. The Sierra Club would undoubtedly be more inclusive if it accepted members who were eager to drill in the Alaskan wilderness, but it would not be more coherent. Not drilling in the Alaskan wilderness is part of a fundamental set of principles that defines the Sierra Club and makes it what it is.

Which means diversity has its limits, even in the admirably tolerant world of classical Anglicanism. The question for liberals and conservatives alike is where to draw the line, not whether.

Read it all.
Athanasius on 09.23.04 @ 07:03 PM EST [link]

Why we are in Iraq

Andrew C. McCarthy, who led the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center terrorists, has written an important piece for NRO on the rationale for the war in Iraq. Here's an excerpt:

"War on terror," as previously argued here, is an ill-conceived and vaporous term. "Terrorism" surely is not our enemy. It cannot be an enemy because it is not an entity, it is a method. But even if one entertained the possibility that we could be at war with "terrorism"—loosely construing it as shorthand for "terrorists"—the phrase still fails. We are not even pretending to be fighting all terrorists. The Basques, the Tamil Tigers, and the many other regional groups that practice terrorism but do not target the United States are objects of our disdain, but they are certainly not our adversaries in this war. Indeed, if they are, we should stop now because it is then true, as the critics bray, that this war can never be ended or won.

No, we are fighting a very particular enemy: militant Islam. It is a global network of identifiable militias, as well as their state and non-state sponsors, who espouse and support an interpretation of Islam that calls for violent jihad against the United States and our allies. In the short term, that enemy seeks to alter American policy; in the long term, it would supplant our constitutional order with a caliphate that accords with Wahhabist principles. That is the enemy.

The forces who adhere to the enemy's creed and its imperatives, moreover, have demonstrated themselves incorrigibly dedicated to our destruction. They are thus not to be cultivated, co-opted, or otherwise negotiated with. They must be eliminated, as the Nazis and other totalitarian regimes have had to be defeated utterly—until they were no longer a dire threat.

If the foregoing description of the actual enemy is true, that ineluctably has certain consequences for the conduct of the ongoing war. By avoiding clarity to serve political correctness, by speaking vapidly about "terror" when we really mean Islamic militants, we disserve those ends.

For starters, having a just war against militant Islam means there must be some clear, comprehensible nexus between the operations of militant Islam and the opening of any front in the war. Afghanistan was an easy case—so manifest no effort was required to make it: The al Qaeda network orchestrated the 9/11 attacks (as well as others) and Afghanistan was where al Qaeda was given safe harbor. Q.E.D.

Iraq, on the other hand, was a tough case—as the cases against the worst bad guys usually are. Senator Kerry's "diversion" argument is wrong because there was a rich connection between Saddam Hussein's heinous regime and militant Islam—which fully explains why al Qaeda and its affiliated groups were in such a superb position to align with their Baathist confederates and spearhead the vigorous resistance still confronting our forces. But such a case has to be publicly made, its components marshaled with conviction.

This is an argument to be thought over long and hard. I'm still chewing on it, but I think McCarthy is really on to something. Read it all.
Athanasius on 09.23.04 @ 04:12 PM EST [link]

Anglicans take sides in Middle East

Hard on the heels of the Presbyterian Church USA, Episcopalians have decided to dive into the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the side of the suicide bombers:

"We will return home and recommend that the Anglican Consultative Council [the church's decision-making body] adopt a resolution calling for divestment from Israel, and if our delegation is representative of the larger Anglican sentiment, then I'd say we're in good shape," Dr. Jenny Te Paa, who led the APJN delegation, told Haaretz yesterday.

I'd say there's a good possibility that their delegation is not representative of Anglican sentiment, but since when did that ever stop church bureaucrats in the pursuit of a political objective?

The delegation, which arrived here last week, toured extensively in the West Bank, and met yesterday with Yasir Arafat in Ramallah. Delegates insisted that they made sure to schedule time with Israeli leadership as well, and pointed to a meeting with MK Azmi Bishara last Wednesday.

This is a joke, right? To my knowledge, no one has ever use the name "Azmi Bishara" and the expression "Israeli leadership" in the same sentence before, at least not as a way of indicating a connection between the two. For one thing, he's Arab, and the leading voice of the intifada in the Knesset. (Isn't it interesting that Arabs who speak for Israel's enemies can get elected to the country's parliament, while the PA doesn't want Jews even living on the West Bank?) For another, he's the leader of the Hadash (Communist) Party, which is not exactly a powerful voice in Israeli society. Translation: the Anglicans were carefully to meet only with people who would not confuse their minds with the facts of life in the Jewish state, since they were already made up.

"The word draconian barely even begins to describe what we saw," Reverend Brian J. Greives, who represents the U.S. church, said of his experience.

Like others in his delegation, Greives intends to recommend that the church adopt divestment "to bring an end to the conflict."

Yes, I'm sure Ariel Sharon is petrified at the prospect that the ECUSA will divest, and is already planning on presenting Tel Aviv to Yasser Arafat on a platter to mollify the denizens of the Episcopal Church Center.

By the way, Rev. Greives, while you were examining the "draconian" conditions, did you and your party take time to ride the public busses in Jerusalem? Visit a pizza parlor or outdoor café? Talk to the families of suicide bombing victims? Or would those place and conversations have been a little too dangerous for you and your assumptions?
Athanasius on 09.23.04 @ 11:59 AM EST [link]

Wednesday, September 22nd

We're not in Kansas any more–it's more like Beijing

According to the Wichita Eagle, a group of self-appointed snoops from the Mainstream Coalition/Interfaith Alliance are spying on conservative churches in Kansas, ready to denounce them to the ~~KGB~~ IRS if they don't toe the snoops' self-defined church-state line:

A plan to monitor the political activism of Wichita's conservative churches began this weekend with two people reviewing a morning worship service at the city's largest congregation.

Rose Rosenwach and Susan Kadison of Mainstream Coalition/The Interfaith Alliance Wichita were the group's first "assessment team" to conduct a review, visiting a morning service at Central Christian Church, 2900 N. Rock Road. They are watching for infractions of a law that bans tax-exempt churches from endorsing political candidates.

Rosenwach and Kadison sat, stood and applauded with the congregation, citing a need to blend in. They also took notes and listened intently to speakers during the 90-minute service.

The group is a nonprofit organization of clergy and lay people who seek political neutrality in houses of worship during this year's election season.

They are not, however, checking up on any Unitarian, UCC, or Metropolitan Community churches as part of their intimidation gig.

The group tends to support issues such as gay rights and objects to overt attempts by any religious group to convert someone to another faith.

Among the group's complaints is the way dozens of conservative churches in Wichita lobbied state officials earlier this year to ban gay marriages in the Kansas Constitution.

Because as anyone reading the First Amendment knows, only left-wing churches such as New York's Riverside Church have the right to lobby the government.

The group, affiliated with the national Interfaith Alliance and its "One Nation Many Faiths Vote 2004" initiative, is in the process of issuing letters of caution to local congregations.

This being in the same state as Dodge City, I can only assume they've been deputized by the IRS to send out threatening letters to people whose politics they don't like.

The coalition in Wichita has about 24 people lined up to make visits over the next few weeks, [the Rev. Connie Pace Adair of the Unity Church of Wichita, the group's chairwoman,] said.

So far, no church has blatantly violated the law, she said, but there are some "real on-the-line kinds of things" going on.

And she undoubtedly knows that because training to be a Unity minister includes a crash-course in the IRS Code.

So this is what some liberal Christians have been reduced to: unable to sell their moral agenda to a public that knows better, they have to send junior G-men into worship services to rat out the opposition to the government for doing stuff that they, the rats, do all the time. (See here for one just one of countless examples.) Sounds like the practices of the Cultural Revolution are being imported into America' heartland. Pathetic.
Athanasius on 09.22.04 @ 11:06 PM EST [link]

Tuesday, September 21st

Thank you, sister in Christ!

I love Kathy Shaidle. Every time she links to me at her award-winning blog, relapsed catholic, my hits go through the roof (relatively speaking, of course–even with the help, no one's confusing EI with Instapundit). She's got one of the "best spiritual blogs" according to Beliefnet.com, so do the righteous thing and visit her on a regular basis. You'll be glad you did.
Athanasius on 09.21.04 @ 09:46 PM EST [link]

Talk, talk, talk

Kofi Annan takes the bull by the horns:

With terrorist acts on the rise, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned world leaders Tuesday that basic laws to protect civilians are being "shamelessly disregarded" around the globe.

In a somber speech before presidents, prime ministers and ministers from 191 nations, Annan said the prevalence of massacres, hostage-takings, attacks against children and cold-blooded murders puts us to shame and reflects "our collective failure to uphold the rule of law."

To restore respect for laws that protect the poor and keep the strong from oppressing the weak, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection," Annan said. "Every nation that proclaims the rule of law at home must respect it abroad, and every nation that insists on it abroad must enforce it at home."

In keeping with this bold vision of international leadership and law, Annan is appointing a commission to determine whether acts of genocide have been committed in the Sudan. Then he and the coalition of the spineless/heartless/brainless that have blocked effective action being taken in the Security Council can get on with the job of saving the victims. Those that are still alive, anyway.

FECKLESSNESS ALERT: At the luncheon that was part of today's festivities at the UN, President Bush offer this toast: "Mr. Secretary-General, with admiration for your leadership and with confidence in this organization, I offer a toast to you and your service and to the United Nations."

Please pardon me while I go lose my lunch.
Athanasius on 09.21.04 @ 09:24 PM EST [link]

Monday, September 20th

The mitred mob

Left-wing American Episcopal bishops must have been inspired by The Sopranos taking home a bagful of Emmys last night:

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is being warned that North American bishops will cut off funds from the Anglican church in Africa if they are disciplined for supporting the election of a gay bishop, in a row which threatens to split the worldwide church.

The latest warning, from a senior North American bishop, means both sides in the row are now threatening to split the 77 million-strong church unless they get their way....

...[T]he North American bishop, who is one of those who may be disciplined after the commission report, said that the American church, which underwrites the funding of many dioceses in the developing world, might then cease paying for the rest of the communion.

So here's the deal: lay down your Bibles, or we blow the kneecaps off your bank accounts. Talk about an offer the Africans can refuse. These are men who have been threatened, and in some cases physically brutalized, by some of the biggest thugs on their continent, all the while maintaining the integrity of their witness to the gospel. Does this junior-league gangster really think they're going to buckle under to a bunch of people in pointy hats waving around checkbooks?

(Thanks to Chris Johnson for the link.)
Athanasius on 09.20.04 @ 10:07 PM EST [link]

The career dissipation light just went on

Okay, I have to admit that I'm baffled. Why exactly would a CBS news producer–no, make that the CBS news producer, you know, Dan Rather's on 60 Minutes II–be giving out tips to a guy like this:

At the behest of CBS, an adviser to John Kerry said he talked to a central figure in the controversy over President Bush's National Guard service shortly before disputed documents were released.

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes.

Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

Is there any angle from which this isn't a total disaster for CBS? Mapes comes across as a hired hand of the Kerry campaign, and the 60 Minutes broadcast looks like an illegal campaign advertisement. There can only be one explanation for such a completely moronic breach of both journalistic ethics and common sense: Mapes must be a Republican plant.

Yeah, that's the ticket.
Athanasius on 09.20.04 @ 09:55 PM EST [link]

Sunday, September 19th

Sex for pre-teens, Canadian-style

Parents of children in the Annapolis Valley of Nova Scotia are up in arms over a sex manual that public schools plan on using with seventh graders and higher. (The manual itself can be accessed here.) To give you an idea of what the administrators at the Annapolis Valley Regional School Board think is appropriate for 12-year-olds, as well as something of the ideology that lies behind the manual, here are some selections:

Sexuality is about feelings and desires. It's about finding your own way to juggle feelings that are confusing and scary and exciting—all at the same time. Sexuality includes sexual feelings and the decisions you make about how you act on those feelings....Healthy sexual choices are choices you can feel good about. (p. 5–if you've got "feelings and desires," what more do you need?)

There is more than one kind of sexuality. As sexuality develops, some people discover that they are attracted to people of the same gender. They may be gayor lesbian. Some people are attracted to both genders. They may be bisexual. Some people feel that they are in the wrong body—that is, a girl feels as if she ought to have been a boy or a boy feels as if he ought to have been a girl. They may be transgendered. People who are attracted to the opposite sex are heterosexual or straight. (p. 8–got to get this out right at the beginning)

If you think you are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered: •You are not alone! There are other youth and adults who have felt the same way. There are people out there you can talk to. •It’s okay to be yourself. What you are feeling is natural and normal for you. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people can have healthy relationships and lead happy, fulfilling lives with family, friends, and community. •Only you will know if you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. You are who you are, and in time you will know for sure. You don’t have to come out and tell people until you are ready. •You don’t have to have sex to tell whether you are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered is about feelings, relationships, and attraction, not just about sex. (p. 9–again, despite the very small percentages of such folks in the typical population, they have to put this right up front, and keep in mind that it's now against Canadian hate crime law to suggest that this is less than entirely factual)

Check it out! Sexual activities are ways to physically express sexual or romantic feelings and to give and receive pleasure. Sexual activities include: •Kissing •Hugging •Masturbation •Making out (is that a technical term? what does it mean?) •Touching, feeling •Oral sex •Vaginal intercourse •Anal intercourse (p. 11–note the complete lack of context, such as marriage or even "committed, monogamous relationship" for any of this)

One "high risk sexual activity" is sharing sex toys (p. 15–Nova Scotia must be a wilder place than I thought if 12-year-olds can get sex toys)

Relationships can be healthy or unhealthy. Whether or not you feel happy and comfortable with any kind of sexual activity—from kissing to having sex—depends on whether you feel happy and comfortable with your partner. (p. 16–again, the utter lack of context, like sex is something you do for the fun of it, just as long as it's with something you feel "happy and comfortable" with)

You MAY be ready [to have sex] when: •You have information about your choices and you understand the risks. •You’ve thought about it and you know what sex means to you, what you want, what you don’t want, and what’s important to you. You’re comfortable with the idea of a sexual relationship. •You can talk to your partner about sex. You and your partner trust each other, listen to each other, and respect each other’s beliefs and choices. •You and your partner are ready, willing, and able to protect yourselves—from STIs and from pregnancy. This means using condoms and birth control. •You’re sure this is the right thing for you to do. You feel good about yourself and about the choices you’re making. (p. 21–love, commitment, fidelity–who needs any of that stuff as long as you've got a condom?)

Caution! There is no "right age" for having sex. But one important thing to consider when making your decision is that having vaginal sex before age 18 is risky for a girl. This is because the cells of the cervix are still developing and are more easily damaged. This puts girls at higher risk for cervical cancer. (p. 22–the only risk to sex for 12-year-olds they can think of is cervical cancer?)

The legal ageof sexual consent in Nova Scotia is 14. The exception to this is that a person who is 12 or 13 can consent to sexual activity but only with a person who is less than 2 years older than he or she is. This means, for example, that a 13-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a 15-year-old, but sexual activity between a 13-year-old and a 16-year-old is illegal. (p. 36–thank you for explaining to my 12-year-old who she can have sex with; parents across the province will sleep better knowing their seventh grader draws the line at 14-year-olds)

You get the point. But I can't leave this without one more quote:

Sexuality is about what feels right to you. It’s not about living up to someone else’s ideal or image. Your differences make you unique. They make you special. (p. 91)

Isn't that just extra special?

Parents in Annapolis Valley are organizing to fight the introduction of this manual (here's their site), and have until September 30 to change the school board's mind. The manual is called "Sex? A Healthy Sexuality Resource." Be on the lookout in your community. For that matter, if you're the parent of any public school child, you should be checking out any sex ed materials being used. Just to be on the "safer" side.

(Hat tip: Binky.)
Athanasius on 09.19.04 @ 04:33 PM EST [link]