It’s a Sign! Christians Can Be Downright Nasty Around Christmas

Jesus and the Census

I always think of Monty Python’s Life Of Brian when I read about organizations getting charged with blasphemy.

Yes, blasphemy.

So I had to chuckle when I read Greg Tajeda’s latest at Chicago Argus. Greg reports that the Joliet Jackhammers have posted a sign that reads, “BUY JACKHAMMERS TICKETS TODAY! – God.”

That’s quite an endorsement.

As you can imagine, there are people who are quite offended by this specious use of the divine. The Jackhammers have a disclaimer on their Web page indicating “people who buy a season ticket package during the month of December can have the ballclub donate a portion of the purchase price to any church or religious organization the fan chooses,” according to Tajeda. The National Associaton of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO), however, seems to have taken things a step further with their call to participate in the 2010 census. After all, “This is how Jesus was born,” an ad from the group claims.

From Chicago Argus:

IN THE CASE of the NALEO, they are trying to encourage Latinos to realize they should take it seriously next year when the Census Bureau sends them a form so they can be included in the official population count. For the Jackhammers, they’re trying to sell season tickets for 2010.

How does religion get involved in either of these “causes?”

For NALEO, they cited portions of the New Testament that would indicate that Joseph and Mary were headed to Bethlehem so they could be included in something resembling a modern-day Census, which would mean the baby Jesus was born just in time to be counted.

Their advertisements literally tell us, “This is how JESUS was born,” and adds later, “Don’t be afraid.”

NALEO IS ONE of about 136,000 groups cooperating with the Census Bureau to try to get as accurate a count as possible in the Census, which officially records how many people are living in the United States on April 1, 2010.

I’m not going to parse this any further. I simply see too many Christians who get wildly offended at alleged attempts on the part of — you name it: society, the media, atheists, the Left, the Right, liberals, Hollywood, government (local and federal) — to take the CHRIST out of CHRISTMAS.

Hogwash.  Christmas is what happens when you and your family get together and celebrate.  It’s what happens when you and your family go to Church on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day.  Christmas is what happens when you and your family and friends exchange gifts, wish each other well, or pray for each other and help the less fortunate during this holiday season.

Sorry.  During this CHRISTmas season.

Nobody can steal your Christmas.  Nobody.  So get over it.

Some Christians can be downright rude during the Christmas season. Look, it’s not happening. There is no war on Christmas.

NALEO probably used bad judgment, but blasphemy?

I don’t think so.

Remember, this Christmas season (no, I’m not saying “holiday season” for a reason here), the big message is “Peace on Earth, good will to all.”

Please be sure to participate in the 2010 census. And the Joliet Jackhammers are awesome.

Merry Christmas.

Obama Will Win: Why and How His Critics from the Left and Right Will be Proven Wrong

Wise words from Frank Schaeffer.

I love Crazy for God. I intend to read Patience with God: Faith for People Who Don’t Like Religion (or Atheism).

I like Frank.

From The Brad Blog:

Before he’d served even one year President Obama lost the support of the easily distracted Left and engendered the white hot rage of the hate-filled Right. But some of us, from all walks of life and ideological backgrounds — including this white, straight, 57-year-old, former religious Rightwing agitator, now progressive writer and (given my background as the son of a famous evangelical leader) this unlikely Obama supporter — are sticking with our President. Why? Because he is succeeding.

We faithful Obama supporters still trust our initial impression of him as a great, good and uniquely qualified man to lead us.

Obama’s steady supporters will be proven right. Obama’s critics will be remembered as easily panicked and prematurely discouraged at best and shriveled hate mongers at worst…

Read the rest of the commentary here.

Evangelist Oral Roberts Dead At Age 91

From WTAE Pittsburgh:

Evangelist Oral Roberts, who rose from tent revivals to found a multimillion-dollar organization and an Oklahoma university bearing his name, has died. He was 91.

His spokesman A. Larry Ross said by phone from Carrollton, Texas, that Roberts died Tuesday of complications from pneumonia in Newport Beach, Calif. Roberts was hospitalized after a fall on Saturday. He had survived two heart attacks in the 1990s and a broken hip in 2006.

I still remember 1987, when Roberts claimed to have had a vision from a 900-foot-tall Jesus who told him that unless he raised $8 million by that March, God would "call him home," that God would kill him.

He got his money.

Read more here.

Naperville Park District Gives OK to Menorah Next to Christmas Display

From the Chicago Tribune:

A day before Hanukkah, the Naperville Park District agreed today to allow a local Jewish group to include a menorah alongside a Christmas display on the city’s Riverwalk after initially rejecting the request because it violated city ordinance.

Two weeks ago, the Chabad Jewish Center of Naperville asked to display the 6 feet, 4 inches tall menorah, but the park district turned down the request because it violated an ordinance preventing private entities from erecting or installing symbols or signs on the Riverwalk, said Park district attorney Derke Price.

So the group offered to comply with the ordinance by donating the menorah to the park district. On Thursday night, the park district accepted the menorah and Price said the city would erect it at the Riverwalk before sundown Friday, when Hanukkah begins.

Hats off (or yarmulkes…?) to Chabad Jewish Center for offering a creative solution, and to the Naperville Park District for accepting.

Lawsuit Against Chicago Archdiocese Charges Racial Discrimination in Sex Abuse Cases

From the Chicago Tribune:

A federal lawsuit has been filed against the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago alleging that church officials discriminated against African-American victims of sexual abuse by trying to silence their claims and proposing smaller settlements than those offered to white victims.

The suit, filed today in the Northern District of Illinois by Seattle attorney Phillip Aaron on behalf of 41 men and 8 women, seeks $98 million, accusing the archdiocese, Cardinal Francis George and retired Auxiliary Bishop Raymond Goedert of racial discrimination, breach of contract, infliction of emotional distress, fraud, conspiracy and racketeering.

"The defendants have acted intentionally to silence the voices of African American and minority victims while defendants distributed false and deceptive information to the public in an attempt to prevent the victims of clergy sexual abuse, their families and the African American and minority community from expressing and exposing racism and discrimination," the suit says.

As evidence that the church acted in bad faith, the suit points to a deposition by Goedert released by the archdiocese in July. In the deposition, the archdiocese’s second-highest-ranking bishop testified that he believed church law required him to keep clergy sex abuse confidential, even when most of the priests he confronted admitted to abusing minors.

The Archdiocese is standing by a report released to the public which found in an audit last month that the average settlement for African-American victims is more than 28 percent higher than settlements with white victims and 19 percent higher than the average of all settlements, the Tribune says.

How Richard Cohen’s Healing Homosexuality Teaching Inspire Uganda’s Gay-Killing Law

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Rachel Maddow has been following reporting on the passage of Uganda’s hateful new legislation which essentially makes homosexuality a capital offense. In the video above, she shows a connection between self-proclaimed ex-gay Richard Cohen’s "pray the gay away" teachings and the new laws.

From Salon.com:

Last night, Rachel Maddow continued her "Uganda Be Kidding Me" segment by identifying an important source of inspiration for the country’s "gay-killing" legislation: Richard Cohen, a self-proclaimed "ex-gay" turned homosexual "healer." A staff member from his organization, the International Healing Foundation, traveled to Uganda in March to lead a "pray the gay away" event and, soon after, Cohen’s book, "Coming Out Straight: Understanding and Healing Homosexuality," was used as the primary teaching material for the anti-gay workshop that is directly credited with bringing about this disturbing measure.

Longtime Salon readers might recognize the name: Mark Benjamin wrote about Cohen in his four-part series on "curing" same-sex desires. Cohen also stirred up quite the media storm a few years back with an appearance on CNN in which he demonstrated two therapies for homosexuality: Beating a pillow with a tennis racket and screaming at his mother until he was red in the face ("Mom! Mom! Mom! Mom! Why did you do that to me?") and cuddling a fully grown gay man in an attempt to simulate a healthy father-son relationship. If there is anything to be learned from the segment, it’s that Richard Cohen is a very unwell man in need of therapy — just not the kind he thinks.

Read more here.

Very disturbing.

Episcopal Church Elects Second Gay Bishop

Bishop V. Gene Robinson is no longer alone. The Episcopal Church has done it again, ordaining another gay bishop. And more power to them.

From the New York Times:

The Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles elected a lesbian as assistant bishop Saturday, the second openly gay bishop in the global Anglican fellowship, which is already deeply fractured over the first.

The Rev. Mary Glasspool of Baltimore needs approval from a majority of dioceses across the church before she can be consecrated as assistant bishop in the Los Angeles diocese.

Still, her victory underscored a continued Episcopal commitment to accepting same-sex relationships despite enormous pressure from other Anglicans to change their stand.

The head of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, is scheduled to consecrate Glasspool on May 15 in Los Angeles, if the church accepts the vote.

”Any group of people who have been oppressed because of any one, isolated aspect of their persons yearns for justice and equal rights,” Glasspool said in a statement, thanking the diocese for choosing her.

Some day things like this won’t seem so odd. Today, however, conservatives are livid.

Which is why I’m grateful Jesus is a Liberal.

Swiss Slam Islam, Vote to Ban New Minarets

Minarets

I just can’t wrap my head around this one.

The Swiss, who already guarantee freedom of religion in their constitution, passed a Constitutional ban on the construction of new minarets.

Somehow, some way, minarets were linked with political activism by the right wing in Switzerland.

From the New York Times:

In a vote that displayed a widespread anxiety about Islam and undermined the country’s reputation for religious tolerance, the Swiss on Sunday overwhelmingly imposed a national ban on the construction of minarets, the prayer towers of mosques, in a referendum drawn up by the far right and opposed by the government.

The referendum, which passed with a clear majority of 57.5 percent of the voters and in 22 of Switzerland’s 26 cantons, was a victory for the right. The vote against was 42.5 percent. Because the ban gained a majority of votes and passed in a majority of the cantons, it will be added to the Constitution.

The Swiss Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but the rightist Swiss People’s Party, or S.V.P., and a small religious party had proposed inserting a single sentence banning the construction of minarets, leading to the referendum.

The Swiss government said it would respect the vote and sought to reassure the Muslim population — mostly immigrants from other parts of Europe, like Kosovo and Turkey — that the minaret ban was “not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.”

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, the justice minister, said the result “reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies.”

While such concerns “have to be taken seriously,” she said in a statement, “The Federal Council takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies.”

The primary purpose of a minaret is "to provide a vantage point from which the call to prayer (adhan) is made," according to Wikipedia. "Minarets also function as air conditioning mechanisms: as the sun heats the dome, air is drawn in through open windows then up and out of the minaret, thereby providing natural ventilation."

Swiss Anti-Minaret Campaign Poster

The secret to the success of this vote is the trashy campaign waged by the Swiss weird right. According to the NYTimes:

Campaign posters depicting a Swiss flag sprouting black, missile-shaped minarets alongside a woman shrouded in a niqab, a head-to-toe veil that shows only the eyes, starkly illustrated the determination of the right to play on deep-rooted fears that Muslim immigration would lead to an erosion of Swiss values.

In a recent televised debate, Ulrich Schlüer, a member of Parliament from the S.V.P., said minarets were a symbol of “the political will to take power” and establish Shariah, or religious law.

He also claimed that Switzerland already suffered from thousands of forced marriages.

Some analysis from Al Jazeera:

Alan Fisher, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Bern, the Swiss capital, said: "There is concern in Switzerland undoubtedly about what is being seen as the spread of radical Islam, but the Muslim community here has always been regarded as fairly moderate.

"They were saying that they wanted to see this proposal defeated, so I’m sure it is a real shock to them that at the moment we are seeing that most of the people here have voted in favour of [the ban]."

After the official results were known, far-right politicians celebrated, while the government sought to assure the Muslim minority that a ban on minarets was "not a rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture".

Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, Switzerland’s justice minister, said the result "reflects fears among the population of Islamic fundamentalist tendencies".

"These concerns have to be taken seriously … However, the Federal Council takes the view that a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies," she said.

Farhad Afshar, who heads the Co-ordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland, said that "the most painful for us is not the minaret ban, but the symbol sent by this vote."

Supporters of the ban say minarets represent the growth of an alien ideology and legal system that have no place in the Swiss democracy.

"Forced marriages and other things like cemeteries separating the pure and impure – we don’t have that in Switzerland, and we do not want to introduce it," Ulrich Schlueer, co-president of the Initiative Committee to ban minarets, said.

Therefore, there’s no room for minarets in Switzerland."

But Switzerland’s Muslims have said that the referendum is fuelling [sic] anti-Islamic feeling in the country.

"The initiators have achieved something everyone wanted to prevent, and that is to influence and change the relations to Muslims and their social integration in a negative way," Taner Hatipoglu, the president of the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Zurich, said.

Muslims in Switzerland say they are frightened by the vote, and the apparent rise of anti-Islam hatred.

What would have happened if the Swiss had put a referendum on the ballot to ban the construction of new steeples for Christian churches? Imagine the outcry that would ensue if an anti-steeple initiative made it to ballot in the United States…

Irish Report Unambiguous: Catholic Church Covered Up Sexual Abuse of Children

The report concerning the alleged sexual abuse of children by clergy released today by the Department of Justice, Equality and Reform in Ireland is unequivocal in its conclusions: the Roman Catholic Church engaged in widespread cover-up.

From paragraph 1.10 of the report (emphasis added):

The Commission examined complaints in respect of over 320 children against the 46 priests in the representative sample. Substantially more of the complaints relate to boys – the ratio is 2.3 boys to 1 girl.

From paragraph 1.15 of the report:

The Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities. The Archdiocese did not implement its own canon law rules and did its best to avoid any application of the law of the State.

Regarding the alleged ignorance of child sexual abuse, paragraph 1.17:

The authorities in the Archdiocese of Dublin and the religious orders who were dealing with complaints of child sexual abuse were all very well educated people. Many had qualifications in canon law and quite a few also had qualifications in civil law. This makes their claims of ignorance very difficult to accept. Child sexual abuse did not start in the 20th century. Since time immemorial it has been a “delict” under canon law, a sin in ordinary religious terms and a crime in the law of the State. Ignorance of the law is not a defence under the law of the State. It is difficult for the Commission to accept that ignorance of either the canon law or the civil law can be a defence for officials of the Church.

Regarding the alleged failure by the Church to implement its own rules:

The Church authorities failed to implement most of their own canon law rules on dealing with clerical child sexual abuse. This was in spite of the fact that a number of them were qualified canon and civil lawyers. As is shown in Chapter 4, canon law appears to have fallen into disuse and disrespect during the mid 20th century. In particular, there was little or no experience of operating the penal (that is, the criminal) provisions of that law. The collapse of respect for the canon law in Archdiocesan circles is covered in some detail in Chapter 4. For many years offenders were neither prosecuted nor made accountable within the Church. Archbishop McQuaid was well aware of the canon law requirements and even set the processes in motion but did not complete them. Archbishops Ryan and McNamara do not seem to have ever applied the canon law.

Catholic Church policy is ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’:

The American phrase, “don’t ask, don’t tell” is appropriate to describe the attitude of the Dublin Archdiocese to clerical sex abuse for most of the period covered by the report. The problem as a whole never seems to have been discussed openly by the Archbishop and his auxiliaries, at least until the 1990s. Complainants were told as little as possible. The note “Gain his knowledge, tell him nothing” for dealing with complainants and witnesses, discussed in Chapter 4, typifies the attitudes of the Archdiocese.

The existence of a cover-up is clear, according to the report:

As can be seen clearly from the case histories, there is no doubt that the reaction of Church authorities to reports of clerical child sexual abuse in the early years of the Commission’s remit was to ensure that as few people as possible knew of the individual priest’s problem. There was little or no concern for the welfare of the abused child or for the welfare of other children who might come into contact with the priest. Complainants were often met with denial, arrogance and cover-up and with incompetence and incomprehension in some cases. Suspicions were rarely acted on. Typically complainants were not told that other instances of child sexual abuse by their abuser had been proved or admitted. The attitude to individual complainants was overbearing and in some cases underhand (see Chapter 58).

The report, released to the government in July but publicly released today, covers each case in detal.

How many other countries are doing similar investigations right now? This behavior is beyond damnable.

Dublin Catholic Diocesan Report Shows ‘Number of Errors’

Following up on the breaking story of a panel report which alleges the Catholic Church in Ireland covered up reports of child abuse in Ireland by clergy, a RTÉ report alleges issues over reports on abusers by the Granada Institute.

From RTÉ:

In one case of a priest named as Fr Terentius there were a number of errors in the report forwarded by the Institute.

It states that in the Granada report that the priest had not admitted to any allegations when in fact he had admitted to several incidents involving six young boys.

The Commission states that the report from the Granada Institute was ‘seriously deficient’.

The Granada report also states that two boys were 17 years of age at the time of abuse when according to the Commission they were 13 or 14 years of age.

Another claim in the report from Granada about Fr Terentius states that he is undergoing therapy on an individual basis

The Commission questions this as well as a number of other claims in the report.

Read more.