Category Archives: Religion

Snopes says anti-God rumor is TRUE

Just got one of those e-mails that warn folks about some wicked, anti-Christian conspiracy out there, but this one was different. Often, I check such things out at Snopes.com, and send the debunking results back to the sender to prevent him/her from perpetuating the hoax any further.

This message, from a fellow parishioner at St. Peter’s, included its own link to Snopes, validating the rumor. The e-mail I received was along these lines:

You may already know about the kids movie
coming out in December starring Nicole Kidman. It’s called The Golden Compass,
and while it will be a watered down version, it is based on a series of
children’s books about killing God (It is the anti-Narnia). Please follow this
link and then pass it on. From what I understand, the hope is to get a lot of
kids to see the movie – which won’t seem too bad – and then get the parents to
buy the books for their kids for Christmas. The quotes from the author sum it
all up.

The books are written by one Philip Pullman, who according to Snope characterizes his books thusly: "My books are about killing God." Here’s the more complete quote, from the The Sydney Morning Herald:

"I’ve been surprised by how little criticism I’ve got. Harry Potter’s
been taking all the flak. I’m a great fan of J.K. Rowling, but the
people – mainly from America’s Bible Belt – who complain that Harry
Potter promotes Satanism or witchcraft obviously haven’t got enough in
their lives. Meanwhile, I’ve been flying under the radar, saying things
that are far more subversive than anything poor old Harry has said. My
books are about killing God."

So there you have it. Forget all those Dark Arts fears regarding Harry Potter; this guy’s the real deal. As rumors go, this one appears to me of the man-bites-dog variety.

There’s something refreshing about having a proper, no-bones-about-it villain for a change.

Running into Rabbi Marc

Last Shabbat, when I posted this, I completely forgot to mention that I ran into our old friend Rabbi Wilson_marc Marc Wilson, frequent contributor to The State‘s op-ed page.

It was after the lengthy service, when we celebrated my niece’s naming with food and drink in what, for
lack of knowledge of another term, I will call the synagogue‘s fellowship hall.

I kept thinking I knew that guy with the young-looking face behind the gray beard, so I went up and introduced myself. He had been thinking he knew me, too, but had been just as unsuccessful placing me. He said I looked like someone named Fred Tokars, and I wasn’t sure how to take that, although I think he meant it in a nice way.

Anyway, we had a fine time catching up, one pundit to another. Later, he e-mailed me as follows:

Whada kick to finally get to meet the celebrity behind the
haute-academia glasses.

Actually, more than Fred Tokars, you look like a rabbinical friend,
David Geffen, but to the best I know, he now lives in Jerusalem.

Re. your blog: Jews get it right . . . sometimes. Remember, we
were the ones who supported Napoleon and turned west, instead of east, where all
the oil is.

Hope all continues to be well with you and yours, and that happy
occasions keep bringing us together. The invitation to a weekend in Greenville
is sincere. Regards to our mutual friends, et al.

All my best,

Marc

I thought David Geffen produced records, or movies, or something. Anyway, if you’d like to read Rabbi Wilson’s latest, his blog is at Marc Musing on Blogspot. He also writes for the Atlanta Jewish Times, and the Judische Allgemeine in Germany. (Herb should enjoy reading that site.)

Anyway, the whole episode is yet another illustration of what a small town South Carolina is.

Last day of the fair

Yesterday, I mentioned something about having a religiously diverse family — Catholic, Jewish, evangelical and mainline protestant — but added "no Muslims yet, though."

That wasn’t exactly right. I had forgotten about the Bantu.

My wife was, before going up to Pennsylvania for the past year, the leader of our church’s team that worked with the Somali Bantu family that St. Peter’s sponsors. In those days, she spent a huge amount of time becoming as close to them as though they were family. Others took up that mantle while she was away, but she has started helping out again, tutoring one of the children during the week.

This morning, she and some other members of the volunteer team took several of the children to the Fair. I joined them in the afternoon, after Mass (my wife had gone to an earlier service).

After rides and pizza, I proposed we go check out the livestock. I thought they would get into that, because I knew how much their mother prized goat as an cherished part of their diet (my wife used to regularly score them a goat from a local butcher) — and there were some big ones to be seen. I thought vaguely that it would be an echo of their people’s pastoral past — which is another way of saying I wasn’t thinking. America changes immigrants, and in any case, these kids were far too young to remember any semblance of normal life before the refugee camps. You know what they seemed to dig the most? The heavy machinery from Joe Blanchard’s company that was on display out toward the horse show arena. The little boys especially, but also the one young girl in her robes and headscarf, really enjoyed climbing up and pretending to operate them.

For my part, I got what I go to the Fair for — Fiske fries, and a bag of cotton candy. Not exactly health food, but it only comes round once a year.

Jews know what they’re about

As a Roman Catholic, I’ve got to tell you that the Jews have got it going on. We should be so focused on what we’re supposed to be about.

Today we ran up to Greenville for a naming ceremony for my young niece at a local synagogue (I have a diverse family — Catholic, Jewish, evangelical protestant, mainline protestant — no Muslims yet, though). Anyway, during the two-hour Shabbat service, we heard a couple of times about the fact that this was a special weekend in which synagogues and churches across the country are focusing on children’s health care.

And when I say focus, I mean focus. No vague platitudes. The rabbi stepped aside so that a local pediatrician could give the homily. He addressed himself to the kids in the congregation, and explained to them why it was important to make sure all children had access to health care. But he and other speakers went beyond that — they explained why the S-CHIP bill veto should have been overridden, and made sure everyone know that their congressman (Bob Inglis) and both U.S. senators had voted with the president. He told the kids it was their responsibility to urge their parents to vote for officeholders who cared more than that about children’s health.

Why? He told them three reasons why: Because their own children might someday not be able to afford health care. Because they had friends in school who had no coverage. And finally, the best reason of all:

"Because you’re Jews." In other words, because you believe in doing the right thing by other people.

He explained to them that the Jews had been blessed by having been enslaved in Egypt. It taught them what it was like to be without the basic necessities of life, and served as a lasting lesson that they should always care about people who were deprived of such fundamental things.

So why should they care about the 10 million kids whose moms and dads can’t afford to take them to the doctor when they have a sore throat? "Because you’re Jews."

We Christians could definitely do with such straightforward, blunt reminders of what we’re supposed to believe in.

Damned if you do

Within minutes of each other, I got this laudatory release from the Christian Coalition…

Washington D.C. — Christian Coalition of America blogger, Jim Backlin, comments about Senator John McCain’s "America is a Christian nation" remarks:
In a Christian Coalition of America blog entry entitled: "McCain’s ‘America is a Christian Nation’ Comments Might Make Him President," Jim Backlin said: “Comments like ‘America was founded on Christian principles’ by Senator John McCain just might make him president. In an interview last Saturday with a Christian-oriented webset called Beliefnet, Senator McCain stated that "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I would prefer someone who has a grounding in my faith." The fact that the left-wing Muslim groups vociferously reacted against McCain’s remarks, just added validity to his comments, and indeed value for his presidential nomination hopes….

… just minutes after I received this one from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR):

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/1/07) – The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called on presidential candidate Sen. John McCain to appoint a Muslim campaign advisor and a Muslim White House aide if elected in 2008.
CAIR’s request came following McCain’s remarks that America is a "Christian" nation and that he would not be comfortable with a Muslim in the White House.
In response to a question from Beliefnet.com about the possibility of a Muslim presidential candidate, the Arizona senator said: "I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, that’s a decision the American people would have to make, but personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith."…

Both dealt with John McCain’s statement that we are "a Christian nation."

One of the vagaries of being a newsman who doesn’t watch TV is that I frequently hear about "news" developments (and I put "news" in quotes to denote those items that everybody who watches TV hears about, but those of us who read The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal only see if we look really hard) first from groups that are spinning the developments to suit their aims. It can be weird, not hearing these things straight the first time. But you know, if enough blind men describe the elephant, you might get an idea what it looks like, if you’re the strongly intuitive type.

Anyway, when I hear from B’nai B’rith on the subject, I’ll let you know.

Slap 55 mph on our ‘friends’ the Saudis

My friend and sometime Energy Party think-tanker Samuel Tenenbaum sees justification for a true, enforced, 55-mph speed limit in many things — including this latest outrage from Saudi Arabia: The Jerusalem Post reports that our good friends over at the house of Saud are threatening to confiscate Christian and Jewish tourists’ Bibles.

Quoth Samuel:

Now why are we sending hundred of millions of dollars to them when they have no respect for any of us? Time for 55mph and deny them petrodollars to teach hate, fund terrorists, and deny all of humanity our equality! Wake up !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Let’s stop all the other bromides that much of our establishment is putting out about the war on terror and energy conservation !We are funding our own executioners. Lenin said we would sell the rope that they would hang us with. He is right but he was with the wrong crowd ! Do we have any organization that will stand up? Do we have any leaders out there? Are they so afraid of their own shadow? I am one disgusted human being!

Samuel Tenenbaum

He gets like that, and it’s one of the things I like about the guy.

Touchy Catholics

We generally don’t run letters from non-readers, from out-of-state, or from professional advocates. But if any of the above is outweighed by good reasons to run it, any or all can be overcome. This is intentional. I think it’s stupid to have a rule that "we will never" run a letter that has this or that characteristic. You can end up poorly serving readers.

So sometimes the colleague who sifts through letter submissions asks me about one that has two or even three strikes against it. That happened today, with this one:

Do we want to consider this as a letter to the editor?

—–Original Message—–
From: Ken Foye [mailto:dn@catholicleague.org]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 3:51 PM
To: StateEditor, Columbia
Subject: Robert Ariail cartoon June 19

Dear Editor,
Criticizing the Catholic Church in the wake of the recent sex-abuse settlement in Los Angeles is fair game. But associating the sacrament of reconciliation with this sordid scandal, as Robert Ariail did in his July 19 cartoon, is out of bounds.

This sacrament is a key element of our faith, administered by a group of fine men whose rate of sexual abuse of minors is no higher than that of the general population. There are legitimate ways to object to the Church’s handling of sexual misconduct by priests, but demeaning and trivializing one of our sacraments is not one of them.

Ken Foye
Senior Editor
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
450 Seventh Ave.
New York, NY 10123

The answer for me was pretty easy:

No.

But I could say more. The person double-checking with me is Catholic, as am I. I haven’t asked why she asked, but I know why I would have: The tendency with me would be to want to ditch such a letter, so I would want somebody to back me up on the fact there it was out of bounds on the basis of several objective criteria. In other words, when there’s a letter you don’t like, and you know you don’t like it on personal grounds, and you know you could bend over backwards and run it if you really wanted to stretch the boundaries, do you make yourself go through those gymnastics, or just do the normal thing and ditch it?

This is what it’s really like in this world. I know all you cynics out there think it’s just the opposite of that, that we twist and manipulate things to advance personal agendas, yadda-yadda. But the truth is that we are so obsessive about avoiding even the appearance of doing that that we often hesitate to make the simplest, most open-and-shut decisions. And of course, no one can obsess like a Catholic.

It helps to pretend to be someone who doesn’t have a conflict or the appearance of a conflict, and act accordingly. And move on, because you have lots of tougher decisions to make today… In this case, it’s fairly easy for me to pretend I’m a Protestant editor, because once upon a time I was a Protestant editor. And that Protestant editor says, "Aw, come on. Talk about your oversensitive mackerel-snappers. If this were one of our readers, that’s one thing. But this professional complainer? Are you kidding me?"

But since I’m no longer a Protestant editor (and haven’t been for about 26 years), there’s an emotional response I have to set aside: As a Catholic, this people who go around looking to be offended as Catholics really gripe me. I don’t feel like a member of an aggrieved group, and I think the Catholics who do — especially when they form associations that exist just to gripe about being aggrieved — are a pain. They give me the dry gripes. To start with, I’ve got that sort of general White Guy sense of discomfort with the whole Identity Politics thing to start with; I certainly don’t want anybody being all whiny on behalf of any group I belong to, or am perceived as belonging to.

But never mind that. This letter does not offer reasons to run it that make it worth ditching a perfectly in-bounds letter from an actual reader expressing his actual opinion that he’s not paid to have. And that’s the choice for us. We can’t run them all, so we have guidelines to give a leg up to our actual readers.

So I ditch the one from the guy who says I ran a cartoon that mocks the sacrament (which I don’t think it does). My question is, do I have to go to confession about this? Or does this post count? As a convert, I’m still not clear on a lot of stuff like that.

McAlister won’t throw stones at Ravenel

Bob McAlister sent me this heads-up about an entry on his blog:

Brad: I hope that my latest post on Ravenel (Leave the stones on the ground) gets passed around somehow for one reason: I want Ravenel to see it. You never know what God will do with something as innocuous
as a blog.

While I urge you to go to his blog and read it there and comment, for you slackers, here’s the full text of the post:

Leave the stones on the ground
They’re picking up the stones.
Now that The State has confirmed Thomas Ravenel is entering a drug treatment
program, bloggers and partisan alike will be aiming for his head. Count me out. I did not support him and do not know him, but I’m not fit to condemn him. Neither is anyone else.
Condemn his actions? Yes. Express outrage that he violated a public trust? Yes. But condemn a fallen man? No. Every individual is capable of doing terrible things.
If he is an addict and did what he is accused of, he should resign from office and take his punishment. But he should also understand that God’s grace and forgiveness await him if only he accepts it, and that a new life filled with infinite possibilities can be his future.
That’s my hope and prayer for him. As for the stone throwers, Jesus has a message for you (John 8:7). Look it up.

I agree. Thomas Ravenel seeks healing, and may God grant it to him. In the meantime, the criminal justice system should grind on, and should deal with him as it would with anyone.

And yes, most certainly, now that he has made this acknowledgment, he should resign so that a permanent treasurer can take his place.

Methodist ministers

We were way busy last week and I failed to comment on this, but it’s never too late on a 45-year issue.

I was pleased to hear from Methodist preacher friend that he and some fellow clergy were going to pray at the Confederate flagpole, with the object of their prayers being much the same as mine:

By RODDIE A. BURRIS
rburris@thestate.com
A group of 30 to 40 people prayed
and held Communion Tuesday on the State House
grounds in protest of the
Confederate flag flying there.
The group, led by ministers from area United Methodist churches, had Communion at the State House’s African-American monument.
Afterward,
they turned and marched 150 yards to the Confederate Soldier’s
Monument. There, the group prayed, asking that the flag be removed from
State House grounds…
“We hope that now people will start
bringing their churches down here and having service,” said the Rev.
John Wesley Culp, pastor of Virginia Wingard Memorial United Methodist
Church, on Broad River Road.

Randy and I need to bring this idea up to our pastor. Whaddaya think, Randy? With a Legislature like ours ("The protest drew little attention inside the State House as legislators
began their six-week countdown to the end of the 2007 session"), I think it would be wise for people of good will to appeal to the Higher Power.

In any case, this development was encouraging, because it was the first step beyond Coach Spurrier’s comments, in terms of assembling a coalition of mainstream forces to press our lawmakers to do the right thing — however reluctant they are even to speak of it.

We get this a LOT

A missive came to us labeled "Letter to the editor," but it also shouted "NOT FOR PUBLICATION." So we’ll compromise. I’ll put it on the blog, but without attribution:

Warren Bolton’s religious opinions ("Why seek ye the living among the dead?") belong in the religion section, not on the editorial page. While I respect his right to practice Christianity, his religious beliefs do not interest me. Frankly, I’m surprised The State feels they belong in the main part of the paper.
However, may he keep beating up on payday lenders. Good job!

My colleague Warren puts folks who despise both religion and predatory lenders in a tough spot; they don’t know whether to spit or cheer.

For my part, I just cheer.

Long before Stephen Carter put out The Culture of Disbelief in 1994, I wondered why we in the press regarded religion as off-limits. Newspapers could deal with people’s views about politics, sports, sex, food, popular culture, health issues, and pretty much anything else, but God needed to be neatly walled off, confined to a page that was the personal domain of a less-than-favored reporter whose job it was to have lunch with preachers to keep them from bothering editors.

It was as though the Fourth Estate had misread the First Amendment, confusing a couple of the clauses:

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press, so long as the press makes no articles respecting religion, or the free exercise thereof …

But don’t just blame the press. A lot of readers seemed to buy into the same premise. Still do.

I had noticed that editorial pages ditched letters that quoted Scripture routinely — sometimes as a matter of rigid policy. I always thought this was utterly ridiculous. Still do. What do you think?

Who you gonna believe? This …

More confusion on the rally.

First, The Associated Press said:

Hundreds of people, including many school children who arrived by the
busload, gathered at the Statehouse on Tuesday, rallying for
legislation that would help parents send their young ones to private
schools.

Later in the day, The Associated Press said:

Thousands of people, including many private school children who arrived
by the busload, gathered at the Statehouse on Tuesday, rallying for
legislation that would help parents send their young ones to private
schools.

Maybe the busloads of "private school children" arrived after the first version was filed. I don’t know. Note the AP picture above, which was taken from a rather different angle from mine. And possibly at a different time; I don’t know.

Anyway, remember — for the truth, in all its infinite variety, come to Brad Warthen’s Blog, which is always first with the burst.

… or your own lyin’ eyes?

OK, so maybe there weren’t any official estimates. But if you want to estimate how many people were at Rally4
the "gimme some money for sending my kid to private school" rally today at the State House, you can look at the image at right.

I know; it’s pretty low-res. I didn’t have my camera, and shot this with my phone. But I think you can tell, at the very least, that the "organizers" who estimated the crowd at 4,000 were evidently a little, shall we say, overly enthused. I’ve seen a lot of crowds at the capitol, and this looks a good bit short of that figure to me.

You’d think they could have pulled more together, especially in light of reports that (to my sorrow as a Catholic), St. Joseph’s school gave kids the day off to attend. That’s what I by a parent and a grandparent associated with the school. If that’s correct, this is pretty anemic turnout.

I shot this from across the street, where I was having lunch with the governor’s chief of staff. Maybe I saw it before the crowd had fully assembled or after it had dissipated. But the governor’s man saw what I saw, and did not suggest anything of the kind.

What do you mean by ‘choice?’

So you’re for ‘school choice.’
What do you mean by that?

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
EVERYBODY likes “school choice,” it seems. S.C. Superintendent of Education Jim Rex is for it. Gov. Mark Sanford is for it.
Even my bishop, Robert Baker of the Diocese of Charleston, favors it, as he said in a letter
that Bishop
appeared in our bulletin at St. Peter’s Catholic Church 14 days ago.
But look just a bit closer at what “school choice” means to each of them, and you find profound differences.
Personally, I’m suspicious when any policy issue is summed up as a matter of “choice.” It often means that the people advocating the given position can’t sell it on its merits. They may be avoiding less palatable, but more descriptive, terms such as “abortion,” or “public subsidies for private schools.”
But not always.
Of course, the governor is pushing public subsidies for private schools.
Mr. Rex seems to be clothing his proposed liberalization of school attendance rules in the “choice” mantle, at least in part, in order to head off the folks on the governor’s side.
In last year’s election, he essentially said to the school privatization crowd: You want choice? I got your choice right here, in the public schools.
Then, he trotted out his proposals in a press conference the day before the usual crowd unveiled its usual private-school-subsidy plan last week.
Not that I don’t think Mr. Rex is sincere. He really does want to make it possible for parents to send their kids to the public schools of their choice. It’s an attractive idea.
But the idea has its limitations. Richland District 2 — which already has a generous intradistrict “choice” policy — can’t make enough room when every child in Fairfield County wants to come on down. How will the state pay to transport those children, when — as is too often the case — their families can’t afford a car?
The other side has the same problems. Even if we fantasize that an excellent, welcoming private school even exists in a poor, rural child’s county, and has space for him and his voucher — how’s he going to travel the 10 miles each day?
I know Mr. Rex has thought about those things, by contrast with the private-school choice advocates. We’ll see how well he addresses them.
The governor is sincere, too. He really does want to use tax money to pay people to desert public schools.
I know my bishop is sincere. He believes parents should determine what sort of education their children receive, and that it’s important to provide an option for them that teaches Christian values. I agree completely.
Where we differ is on whether it’s right to ask state taxpayers to subsidize Catholic education. I say no. We shouldn’t do that any more than we should ask the state to fund a new steeple for us.
The bishop’s letter pretty much freaked me out, because it used rhetoric of the more extreme advocates of privatization. Worse, it urged Catholics to attend a rally those folks are holding at the State House on Tuesday.
Since then, the bishop has assured me that he did not mean to back any movement that criticized or attacked public schools. And while he’s not withdrawing his support for the Catholic “choice,” you won’t see him at that rally.
“I apologize for the tone of my letter,” he said, referring to portions that repeated the “South Carolinians for Responsible Government” mantra that “most of our children are not receiving a sound education” from public schools. “I would reword it” if he had it to do over, he told me Friday. He “would like to be seen as a respectful partner in dialogue” with public educators.
He just wants people to be able to afford the Catholic option. The diocese closed a number of schools that served poor and minority communities back before he became bishop, and he’d like to reverse that trend.
He would only seek state subsidies “for the working poor and people who are economically at the poverty level.” That’s just what Mark Sanford said he wanted when he ran for governor in 2002. But when out-of-state libertarian extremists started funneling vast sums of money into the state, he embraced their far more radical agenda, which has its roots in the notion that “government schools” are essentially a bad idea.
My bishop doesn’t embrace that. Of course, I oppose even the more limited funding of Catholic schools with public money. If we Catholics want to provide education to the less fortunate — which we should do — we need to dig into our pockets and pay for that ministry ourselves.
Jesus didn’t fund his ministry with the money St. Matthew had squeezed from the public as a tax collector. He didn’t take from the world; he gave. He told us to do likewise. We Catholics are far too stingy when the collection basket comes around, and that should change. We shouldn’t force Baptists, Jews, agnostics or anyone else to make up for our failing.
Uh-oh; I’m preaching again.
Another eminent Charlestonian told me he was concerned about the bishop’s letter, and kept meaning to say something to him, but hesitated because of his reluctance as a lifelong Catholic to tell his bishop what he ought to do.
As a convert baptized at Thomas Memorial Baptist Church in Bennettsville, I was not so inhibited. I sort of went all Martin Luther on the bishop. That’s OK, he said: “You’re free to say you disagree.” Which I do. But not entirely. I’m glad we spoke.
Bottom line: When somebody says they’re for “school choice,” ask for details. The differences are huge, and of critical importance to what kind of state we’re all going to live in.

For the bishop’s letter, my letter to him, and more, go to http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

S.C. portrayed as hurdle to Mormon Romney

NPR this morning portrayed Mitt Romney’s Mormonism as an obstacle to his candidacy, and presented South Carolina as just the sort of place where it would pose a problem.

The setup included the words, "Romney’s traveling to places where people aren’t entirely receptive to a Mormon president." We then find ourselves "at a Rotary Club luncheon in Aiken, South Carolina." In case you are not familiar with the Palmetto State, you are informed that "its voters include lots of fundamentalist Christians."

The segment describes the candidate’s speech, then acknowledges that "There wasn’t a single mention of religion until Romney faced reporters outside." You hear him being questioned on the subject by a reporter with an accent that definitely did not come out of South Carolina. The reporter, to his credit, asks whether this is only an obsession of the press. Romney responds that he does hear about it from regular folks — apparently, just not at the Rotary in Aiken.

Not to say the producers couldn’t persuade a South Carolinian to support their thesis. Rep. Gloria Haskins of Greenville obliged them by saying:

I think as an evangelical Christian, it is a big thing for me, yes, because again, his faith is
inconsistent with my faith. His faith is consistent with the Book of
Mormon. My faith is consistent with God’s Word, the Bible, and they’re
not compatible.

So did NPR set up South Carolina unfairly as a symbol of narrow-minded prejudice threatening an otherwise-viable candidacy? I don’t know.

Personally, I don’t think it’s narrow-minded or stupid or intolerant to consider whether a candidate shares your most fundamental beliefs regarding the way this whole thing called existence is set up. It’s infinitely more important than party label, much less whether Mr. Romney is a sufficiently pure "conservative" for the party’s right wing to stomach — the point that actually seems to be giving him more trouble than how he prays.

Where prejudice is a problem is when false and even absurd assumptions come into play — such as the widespread suspicion that JFK would be taking his marching orders as commander in chief from the Pope. (Something about the Pope just seems to freak out a lot of protestants. I used to be a protestant myself, but don’t ask me to explain it.)

I suspect that among most who vote in the GOP primary here, a more likely question will be: Why should I vote for this guy rather than John McCain? That’s who has gone the farthest in sewing up S.C. support at this point.

For some on the party’s ideological extreme, of course, almost anyone is preferable to the man from Arizona. He’s just too reasonable for them. But those hunting for their pure knight of conservatism seem unlikely to dub Mitt "I was for gay marriage before I was against it" Romney. (Fair or not, that’s the rep he’s having to live down.)

McCain’s still the man to beat, and that’s not a theological issue.

Romneyaiken2

Diocese settles sex abuse claims

This afternoon was so busy, I was letting the machine get the phone, and I missed a call from the Bishop giving me a heads-up on the following news, which I will now share with you:

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) – The Roman Catholic Diocese of Charleston
announced Friday it will settle child sex abuse claims in South
Carolina, designating as much as $12 million for damages.

"It
is my fervent hope that this settlement will allow us, as the Catholic
community of faith in South Carolina, to bring closure to an ugly
period in our history," Bishop Robert Baker said.

The
class-action settlement has been given initial approval by a state
judge, said Larry Richter, an attorney for four victims whose claims
were settled last summer.

Peter Shahid Jr., an attorney
representing the diocese, said the church knows of at least eight other
victims although others may come forward.

Under the settlement, abuse victims could get anywhere from $10,000 to $200,000 while spouses and parents would receive $20,000.

Since
1950, there have been 50 abuse claims involving 28 clergy or others
diocesan employees settled for almost $3 million, Shahid said. Those
claims were not apart of the new settlement.

Richter, himself a Roman Catholic, said it is unclear how many other victims may come forward.

"What
you find in this area is people can’t just be molested and the next day
step up to the plate and say ‘I’m a victim,’" he said. "It’s often
after a very painful time in life."

Baker said in a letter
published in the diocesan newspaper on Friday that he deeply regrets
"the anguish of any individual who has suffered the scourge of
childhood abuse and I am firmly committed to a just resolution of any
instance in which a person who holds the responsibility of a protector
has become a predator."

The settlement allows compensation for sexual abuse victims born before August 30, 1980, and their spouses and parents.

The
attorneys said the 1980 date was negotiated generally to assure the
settlement would cover victims who otherwise could not sue because the
statute of limitations would have expired.

The agreement sets up an initial pool of $5 million. If $4 million of that is paid, a second pool of $7 million will be added.

Richter
said they arrived at the $12 million figure by reviewing settlements
throughout the country. An arbitrator will validate claims and
determine the amount of compensation, according to the statement.

The diocese said it was encouraging anyone who was a victim to contact Richter.

John
Barker, chief financial officer for the diocese, said the money would
come from insurance, interest on investments and, if needed, selling
church property.

"There have been dioceses that have declared
bankruptcy," Shahid said. "The faithful should understand … we have
capped our liability at $12 million. Those (other) dioceses were faced
with huge debts as a result of claims and were forced into bankruptcy."

Diocese
officials in South Carolina have said the incidence of child abuse has
been lower here than the national average during the past half century.

Statistics
released by the church three years ago show that between 1950 and 2002
about 4 percent of all American Catholic clerics were accused of abuse
compared with 2.7 percent of the clergy in South Carolina.

A
former South Carolina priest who pleaded guilty last year to assault
and battery of a high and aggravated nature in the sexual abuse of two
boys 30 years ago was the seventh former priest, coach or teacher in
the diocese to plead guilty to abuse charges.

There are about
158,000 Catholics in South Carolina, almost four percent of the state
population, according to the diocesan Web site.

A final hearing on the settlement will be held in early March.

This, I can safely delegate

It’s part of my job description to be a watchdog, but we watchdogs have to sort of triage the threats and make smart determinations as to which threats deserve the most attention.

Here’s one I’m more than happy to delegate to someone else, and focus all my alertness elsewhere. I refer you to a letter on today’s editorial page:

Keep eye on Bible as Literature class
The “Bible as Literature” class being taught at Batesburg-Leesville High School is no doubt an excellent resource for students to learn about a book that informs so much of our Western culture, literature and history. I applaud Rev. Teddy Higgins’ method of separating the study of literature and culture from religious indoctrination. However, parents and citizens must be aware of the source of the curriculum.
Your article stated, “The class uses a curriculum created by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a group that aims to make state-certified Bible electives the norm nationwide.” The NCBCPS states that it is in cooperation with the American Family Association and the Center For Reclaiming America For Christ. People For The American Way lists the American Family Association in its “Right Wing Watch.”
Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, founder of the Center For Reclaiming America For Christ, makes this scary statement: “Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors — in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.”
President Elizabeth Ridenour states that she is a member of the Council For National Policy, founded by Left Behind series author Tim LaHaye. The New York Times has described it is a “little-known group of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country,” that meets behind closed doors at undisclosed locations. Membership is by invitation only, and is kept secret. The NCBCPS Web site further lists endorsements by numerous ultra-conservative individuals and organizations. Many of them want to move children from public to Christian schools and actively work for an American theocracy.
Our Founding Fathers and mothers were clear in their intent to establish separation of church and state because they had seen the horrors of state religion and theocracy in Europe.
Perhaps in the near future students will also have the options of studying the timeless Bhagavad-Gita, the beautiful poetry of the Sufis, our great American Theosophical heritage, or the ancient Hermetica, which strongly influenced great leaders, such as Sir Isaac Newton, Thomas More, Leonardo da Vinci and Milton. Until then, I will be watching Bible As Literature classes carefully.

HOLLI S. EMORE
Columbia

You go right ahead and do that, Holli. I can assure you that I won’t be sitting up nights worrying about it. One of the reasons I don’t worry about civil liberties in the United States is that I know there are so many people out there — possibly constituting a majority of my fellow citizens — WAY more concerned about them than I am. They are inclined to whoop and holler bloody murder over the slightest suggestion that anyone, anywhere, might be about to contemplate tiptoeing within a light year of a slippery slope. It’s an extremely efficient warning system, as this letter confirms, and I have complete confidence in it.

Take note, I am in NO way suggesting that Ms. Emore’s is an extreme view. It’s fairly close to the mainstream. That’s why I don’t have to worry. If her attention wanders, there are plenty of others who will be watching with all their might, with one hand poised to break the glass on the alarm.

But as for their studying the Bhagavad-Gita in the "near future," don’t hold your breath. One of the main points of studying the Bible is, as you say, "a book that informs so much of our Western culture, literature and history." That’s why you are willing to accept the idea.

What on Earth would be the excuse for their studying something as esoteric as the Bhagavad-Gita? Sure, it’s educational, but as a relevant priority I’d put it somewhere behind their mastering neo-Boulean math, or brain surgery, or early German literature.

Hail Mary (Rosh)

I‘m going to have to go to confession to this one, but I was much intrigued by something Doug Ross’ said. After ironically noting that he had "sinned" against Randy Ewart, he announced that "As penance, I shall say 10 Hail Mary Rosh’s."

Well, that got me to thinking. If I decide I need to amend my new civility policy, that might be a suitable punishment for transgressors that would fall short of deletion or banishment. Say, if someone who uses his or her full name goes a bit too far in exercising the license that identification allows, we could assign 10 Mary Roshes as a penance, after which blogsolution would be granted.

As a serious Catholic myself, I’m not sure how awful it is to be publishing this. But the fact is, my brain started working on it right away at Doug "The Serpent" Ross’ prompting, and I did "entertain" the thought. So I suppose that sharing it here is my way of confessing to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault, through what I have done, and what I have failed to do (my work). If my fellow Catholics out there think it’s just too awful (maybe somebody should run this by Andrew Sullivan), I’ll take it down.

Anyway, here is how I think one would say a "Hail Mary Rosh:"

Hail Mary, full of Rosh, the bile is with thee;
angry art thou among women (?),
and worthless is the fruit of thy rant, Venom.

Pseudo Mary, mother of trolls,
prey on us retards now,
and call us garbage with thy breath,
Oh, men!

Reflections on letters

Some reflections on letters in Saturday’s paper.

First, there was the one headlined, Grand Old Party is losing its way. My thoughts on it:
A person whose identity as a Republican reaches back to 1932 is bound to feel a bit lost, for a number of reasons. It is now the majority — or perhaps I should say, the plurality, party. (There are enough of us independents to keep either from being a majority, but I suppose you could say the Republicans are the majority among partisans, certainly here in South Carolina.) That means it has had to expand its membership beyond what it once encompassed. The letter mentions Glenn McConnell (unfavorably) and Mark Sanford (favorably). The two men are very different from each other, but united in two facts: They are both very libertarian, and it’s hard to imagine either of them fitting in with, say, Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon. Actually, it’s a bit hard to imagine Ike and Nixon being in the same administration. Anyway, my point is that people looking for consistency and reassurance in a party large enough to win elections are almost certain to be disappointed.

Here-and-now issues should determine vote:
This letter is related to the first, in that it illustrates the way that many Democrats are determined to keep their party the minority among partisans by rejecting certain lines of thought. Take for instance the writer’s dismissal the idea that ideals, or faith, might outweigh material considerations. Or at least, that they should not do so among practical, right-thinking individuals. But that’s not the really telling bit. What really points to the main fallacy among many (but not all) Democrats is the suggestion that right-thinking (i.e., socially concerned or liberal people) cannot choose the "moral path" of their fathers. Why on earth would concern about the direction of the country or current events be inconsistent with faith or a "belief system." Why can’t a person who is concerned about the future still embrace the faith of his fathers? This writer seems to assume that traditional morality is utterly inconsistent with moving forward. Why so closed-minded? As long as supposed liberals think this way, they are doomed to failure.

Townsend did what he thought was right:
This writer says "Ronny Townsend worked tirelessly for the people he represented, for conservative values and for bettering public education." Exactly. A person who embraces conservative values would certainly be committed to serving and improving public education. It is a fundamental institution of our society, and one that is essential to building the kind of future that those who went before us envisioned. Anyone who would dismantle it, rather than protecting, strengthening and improving it, is a radical, leaning toward anarchy — anything but conservative.

Liberators not always what they seem:
Why would this writer believe that the idea that "there has always been a thin line between ‘invader/occupier’ and ‘liberator’ … was not considered three years ago?" It was and is to be expected that there is a delicate balance to be struck between such concepts. I certainly considered it, worried about it — still do. This is a short missive. Is the writer suggesting that those of us who favored the invasion must not have seen the inherent risks? Is he suggesting further that if anyone had seen the risks, the endeavor would not/should not have been undertaken? If so, I couldn’t disagree more. Those are merely reasons to proceed wisely — which certainly hasn’t always been done in this enterprise. I believe concern over that fact underlies this letter. But if leads the writer to conclude that it should not have been undertaken to begin with, or should be abandoned now, I have to disagree.

Feting Bernanke may be premature:
Why? So we don’t know whether he is a Greenspan or not? Why wouldn’t homefolks celebrate the fact that one of their own is the Fed Chairman. Seems sort of like a big deal in and of itself to me.

Accepting differences leads to better world:
One would be puzzled why someone would be compelled to write that "I am of the belief that God doesn’t hate." I mean, who isn’t? One would be further puzzled to read, "One day, I hope to find a community of faith that believes in love,
tolerance and acceptance. Maybe that is too much to hope for…" All true communities of faith believe in those things. They welcome sinners, and invite them to be penitent. The problem is that some do not wish to be penitent, and choose to characterize any suggestion that they should be as "hate." This is an obvious fallacy for anyone seeking a community of faith. It’s astounding how many people fail — or refuse — to see that.

Finally, Tests give teachers too little to go on:
OK, if you’re going to insist on standards being taught, why would you let teachers know what questions will be on the test that will measure whether they are teaching the standards. If you let them know the test, they would be able to — as many claim they already do — "teach to the test." It’s not about you improving test scores. It’s about teaching the standards. If test scores do improve, we’ll know how successfully you’re doing that. The letter presents one real reason for concern, when it suggests that students have seen "subject matter on tests that was not included in the standards." If so, something should be done about it. Of course, if the standard were not taught properly, the student would find the measuring test unfamiliar. So it’s difficult to tell from this missive where the fault lies.

But he’s not all that into it

Chavezpope1
You know, some people are so desperate to make conversation during an awkward meeting that they’ll say any foolish thing in an attempt to establish something in common with the other person. I knew that was true. I just didn’t know that Hugo "The-Hell-With-You-I’m-a-Maoist" Chavez was one of them:

{Chavez says non-believing Castro is a Christian — in the social} sense

ROME (AP) — Fidel Castro may not be a believer, but he’s a Christian in a certain sense, according to his close friend, Venezuela’s leftist President Hugo Chavez.

"I have a friend who isn’t Christian, but who recently said he is Christian in the social sense: His name is Fidel Castro," Chavez said after arriving in Rome Wednesday to meet with Pope Benedict XVI at the start of a five-nation European and North African tour.

"I talk to him a lot about Christ each time we see each other, and he told me recently, ‘Chavez, I’m Christian in the social sense,"’ Chavez told reporters.

Judas’ ‘good news’ is no news

So where’s the news in this
alleged ‘good news’ from Judas?

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
AS A CHILD, I used to wonder why we made such a big, happy deal about Easter. Why celebrate the death of Jesus? Didn’t we like him?
Adults hastened to explain that Easter wasn’t about His death, but about the Resurrection.
OK, I got that. But didn’t he have to be crucified to rise? And wasn’t that a horrible, undeserved death? Wouldn’t he have been just as alive on Sunday if Pilate had let him go Friday?
I had a lot of questions. (Don’t even get me started on what the Bunny and the eggs have to do with it.) Maybe my failure to get over the link between Good Friday and Easter helps explain why I became a Catholic. The basis of our faith is the Resurrection, but we never forget to “preach Christ crucified.” Paul said that was “foolishness” to outsiders. It was also pretty confusing to a little Protestant kid, looking at an empty cross and holding a basket full of candy eggs and plastic grass.
But that’s not what I’m writing about today. I’m writing about the new “Gospel of Judas.” The above was just an excuse to bring it up today. No crucifixion, no resurrection. No Judas, no crucifixion.
What do we get from this “new” rendition? Why the fuss? Sure, it’s got some freaky stuff — it claims Jesus wasn’t the son of the God we know and love, but of another entity, and that he was pure spirit, and not a man at all. Freaky, but not new. It was all dismissed as heresy long ago.
Now let’s examine the supposed “insights” into Judas. From what I’ve seen, this piece of papyrus simply restates things we already knew, or guessed, about the man from Kerioth:

Rather than being a spoiler who betrayed the divine plan, Judas was a special part of it. So? I just said that. No Judas, no crucifixion. The authorities might have grabbed Jesus without a mole — he was out in public all day — but that presented a political problem. Better to grab him at night. But apparently, he had no local address, and stayed on the move. They needed inside intel, in real time. Well worth 30 pieces of silver.
Judas wasn’t all that bad. Well, we already knew (from the real Gospels) that when he found out Jesus had been killed as a result of his actions, he was filled with remorse unto despair. A thoroughly evil man would have taken the money and celebrated. Judas tossed the coins and hanged himself. Sounds like a man with a conscience. Judas wasn’t so much bad as he was weak, faithless and easily duped.
Jesus knew what Judas was going to do. Duh. We knew that already, from the Rabbi’s actions and words during the Seder in the upper room. He said someone was going to betray him, then let John know who it was, then told Judas to get it over with. (How did the rest of the apostles miss what was going on? Why did John just sit there? Hush, child.)
Jesus wanted him to do it. OK, this one does get confusing. To say he wanted to die on the cross is stretching the point — as evidence, I submit his sweating blood at Gethsemane. It was God’s idea, not his. Of course, he was God as well as man, which makes that whole conversation explicable only as a mystery, and the concept of what Jesus as a human individual wanted is therefore beyond us. He understood the necessity; he explained that to his followers repeatedly, slow as they were to get it. But want to? He wouldn’t have been human to want that, just as he wouldn’t have been God not to.
Judas and Jesus were close. I had sort of gathered that. Jesus had let him hold the money. Not that the Lord cared much about money, but it was still a big responsibility. I always wondered why that task wasn’t entrusted to Matthew, given his background. (I suppose an anti-tax activist could explain that to me.)
Jesus told Judas things he didn’t tell the others. Take that one with a big grain of the salt of the earth. John’s Gospel makes a similar claim, and more credibly.

Besides, a lot of us augment our impression of figures in the Bible from traditions and even popular culture. Talk about the closeness of Jesus and Judas, and I think of the relationship depicted in “Jesus Christ Superstar.” Not exactly divine revelation, but it shows that somebody — agnostic composers at that — thought of the two men as close friends more than a generation before National Geographic finished its “Judas” project. And Webber and Rice were not the only dramatizers to have assumed that Judas thought he was helping Jesus — getting him put away for a few days until things cooled down.
Then there’s the thing about how this is good news for Jews, and a real settler for anti-Semites. Once again, I don’t see how. If you’re stupid enough to come away from reading the New Testament hating Jews, the “revelation” that Judas wasn’t all that bad isn’t going to stop you. So he was a Jew? So were all the good guys — including the main one. And what’s helpful about a text that absurdly claims Jews worshipped the wrong God?
This new “Gospel” is a bunch of hype, based partly in the fact that National Geographic paid a fortune for it, and has to play it for all it’s worth. (It’s already available in bookstores, by the way.) True, I’m not qualified to judge, not being fluent in Coptic. I’m pretty content to leave that up to experts. We Catholics are happy (sometimes, too happy) to delegate. To my knowledge, the committee that passes judgment on stuff like that hasn’t met in centuries, and I’m not a member of it anyway.
Legit or not, it doesn’t do much for me. “Gospel” means “good news.” But where’s the news in this one?

bradwarthen.com

All The News That Gives You Fits