8/19/2004 4:20:41 PM
EPISCO-BULL Los Angeles Episcopal Bishop J. Jon Bruno responds to the secession of two churches from his diocese. We know this is an emergency because this is a "pastoral letter" and J. Jon wants it read in all LA Episcopal churches this Sunday:
The Reverends Praveen Bunyan, William Thompson and Richard Menees, priests, and the Rev. Kathleen Adams, deacon, all of whom are clergy of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America and canonically resident in this Diocese, have therefore abandoned the communion of this Church. I temporarily inhibited these clergy immediately and requested that the two rectors of the congregations meet with me to rescind their decision. They refused this invitation. Subsequently, I called for an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee and, in accordance with the canons of this church, the Standing Committee has informed me in writing that there is sufficient evidence that these clergy have abandoned the communion and I have responded by inhibiting them from the exercise of the ordained ministry. Should they wish to return to the communion of this Church during this period, a process of restoration will take place. Should they not change their minds, they will be deposed. My sincere hope for these clergy and vestries is that they will reconsider their decision and return to full communion with me, the Episcopal Church and indeed with the Anglican Communion.
Entirely expected, as are J. Jon's prostrations before the canons:
Our Constitution and Canons help to bring order to our common life in the Episcopal Church. Recall that much of our current crisis arose after the General Convention of the Church last summer. The decision to assent to the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire was made, in large part, because that diocese duly elected a bishop in accordance with the canons of this Church. Both the House of Bishops and House of Deputies attested to the authority of that diocese to elect its own bishop, that it had been done appropriately and that their decision was based on the quality of Bishop Robinson’s life and experience.
Debatable, insofar as Gene Robinson would probably never have gotten the job if he'd "amicably" dumped his wife and kids and moved in with a 22-year-old female church secretary who he hadn't bothered to marry, the "quality" of Robbie's "life and experience" notwithstanding. Probably.
As a Church, we seek, whenever possible, to allow autonomy in decision-making to individual dioceses. Each Bishop in every diocese has authority over the life and work of that diocese, its congregations and clergy. The Bishop’s ministry is based in our belief that in any given place, there is one Bishop, who continues the work of the holy apostles and is the chief priest, pastor and teacher in that diocese.
We'll pause briefly to allow any Roman Catholics reading this to clean the coffee, tea, Diet Coke or beer off their monitors. You guys all set? Then let's continue:
Priests exercise their ministry on behalf of their Bishop and only under the Bishop’s authority. No bishop outside the diocese has the jurisdiction to oversee ministry within that geographical diocese. The fact that a bishop from another autonomous church within the Anglican Communion has chosen to exercise oversight in this diocese flies in the face of our ethos as Anglicans and of the catholic unity of the Church. It is a clear statement that the Diocese of Luwero and its Bishop and the Province of Uganda and its Primate have broken with the established historic authority of the Anglican Communion.
Consecrating a practicing and unrepentant homosexual in breezy indifference to "the established historic authority of the Anglican Communion" and "our ethos as Anglicans" was no big deal at all. But freelance bishopping is heresy and Lambeth ought to come down on these two like a ton of '79 BCP's.
Moreover, I have attempted to honor the congregations and clergy who have dissented from the decisions of General Convention and even offered them the oversight of a bishop of our Church whose opinions on these issues are more in keeping with theirs. The rectors of these congregations did not avail themselves of this opportunity and even up to two weeks ago affirmed their love and loyalty to me as their Bishop. How distressing their recent decision has been to me.
I just can't for the life of me understand why they would object to an entirely temporary oversight solution that I can terminate pretty much whenever the mood strikes me.
It is both my pastoral and fiduciary responsibility as your Bishop, in concert with the Standing Committee, to protect and preserve the properties of these congregations as part of the Diocese of Los Angeles. The consecrated buildings of each of our congregations rightfully belong to the Episcopal Church in this Diocese and in the USA. I also have a pastoral responsibility to all those of Christ’s flock entrusted to my care and am developing plans for the pastoral care of those members of our Church in these congregations who seek to maintain their loyalty to this Church.
The real estate question would appear to be up in the air at the moment, Double J.
Finally, apart from the issue of sexuality, these clergy have also framed their leaving in terms I find unfair and false. They have stated that this Church is not orthodox biblically or theologically. How wrong they are. I want you to know as your Bishop that I continue to uphold the vows I made on the day of my consecration “to guard the faith, unity and discipline of the Church.” I believe today as I did when I was first ordained that the Scriptures contain all things necessary to salvation.
If the words "Plano West" inexplicably popped into your head just now, here's why:
The Episcopal bishop of Los Angeles was forbidden from delivering a welcoming speech at a regional meeting of conservative Episcopalians that opened Thursday in Long Beach because he refused to sign a statement declaring that belief in Jesus as savior was the only way to get to heaven.
The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno's presence would "create a sense of discomfort," said the Rev. William Thompson, an official of the American Anglican Council and rector of All Saints Episcopal Church in Long Beach.
The sentence that gave Bruno problems declared: "I believe in and accept Jesus as Savior and Lord and that He is the only way into the heavenly kingdom." Conference organizers said the requirement to sign the faith statement was set before Bruno asked to attend.
Bruno said that line "basically excludes all people of Judaism, Islam and Buddhism as being within the love of God. I'm not willing to say that God has made that decision. I know that Christianity is the way for me, that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. But I cannot say that God will make that decision on the last day. I don't know what God's decision will be..."
Back to Double J's letter:
Yet I will not let the Holy Scriptures be compromised by those who seek to make their literalist and simplistic interpretation the only legitimate one. Further, I uphold the orthodox faith given to us by the apostles in all the essentials laid down in the historic creeds of the Church. In these necessary things there must be unity of faith, but in other things there may be diversity within this roomy house we call the Anglican Communion.
In other words, their orthodoxy is too orthodox. Like most of his contemporaries, Tautologies 'R' Us has no interest in what you believe as long as he's the only person who gets to wear a pointy hat in your building. Which is the reason these two churches withdrew from his "stewardship." They actually believe Something and they've reached the point where they can't make themselves compromise any longer.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 14 comments
8/18/2004 8:11:35 PM
OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE IS OVER - Americans will always remember where they were and what they were doing when they heard this great news.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 5 comments
8/18/2004 5:54:11 PM
TOUCHY-FEELY USELESSNESS Several days ago, a horrific attack took place at a United Nations refugee camp in Burundi:
Dozens of attackers raided a United Nations refugee camp in western Burundi, shooting and hacking to death at least 180 people, witnesses and officials said Saturday.
A Burundian Hutu rebel faction, the National Liberation Forces, claimed responsibility for the attack late Friday near the border with Congo, saying that its fighters were pursuing Burundian soldiers who fled to the camp from a nearby military position. The camp sheltered ethnic Tutsi refugees from Congo known as the Banyamulenge, who had fled the fighting in Congo's troubled border province of South Kivu.
President Domitien Ndayizeye of Burundi visited the camp on Saturday and described the massacre as "a shame" and asked the Congolese government to assist in investigations. "What I can say is that it is Burundi which has been attacked," he said. "The attackers killed innocent refugees who sought refuge in Burundi.
The rebels, he said, "declared that they attacked a military camp and that the soldiers fled in this camp, but I saw no soldier's body except those of young children, women and old persons."
A renegade Congolese Army commander, whose troops briefly seized Bukavu in June over complaints that Banyamulenge kinsmen were singled out by Congolese authorities, said the attack in Burundi proved his charges. But he stopped short of threatening retaliation.
The commander, Brig. Gen. Laurent Nkunda, accused the Congolese Army of letting attackers of the Burundi operate in its zone unchallenged. "This event proves me right," he said by telephone. "This confirms that there's an extermination plan against the Banyamulenge."
And for the 779,893rd time, the United Nations demonstrates that its continued existence is an obscenity:
The United Nations peacekeeping missions in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are concerned about rising tensions along the border since the massacre of over 150 DRC ethnic Tutsi refugees in a Burundi camp late last week and the subsequent claim of responsibility by a Hutu rebel group operating in that country.
With only 3,100 of the promised 5,600 troops on the ground, the peacekeeping UN Operation in Burundi (UNOB) has redeployed troops in the area of the Gatumba refugee camp in Bujumbura Rurale province where the murders took place, UNOB spokeswoman Isabelle Abric told UN Radio from the Burundian capital, Bujumbura.
Assume that the "dozens" in the Times story meant twelve which gives approximately 150 Hutus against 3,000 UN troops in the country. Granted, they were not all in the neighborhood but Burundi's not that big and the UN knew that this faction was there(see below). All of which brings up a question: do United Nations massacre watchers peacekeepers ever fire guns at people? And if not, why not? I guess they figured why bother? The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Burundi was in town:
Burundi's Hutu rebel National Forces of Liberation (FNL), which said it had carried out the attack, had been involved in talks with the Government, facilitated by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) for Burundi and UNOB chief, Carolyn McAskie. "Things were moving on actually until Friday morning (and) we were pretty hopeful that we were getting somewhere," Ms. Abric said.
The UN figures it can always get nasty:
"The hour calls for intensive diplomatic activity, as witnessed by the meeting today in Tanzania of six African heads of State, including Presidents Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, Joseph Kabila of the DRC and Domitien Ndayizeye of Burundi."
As part of the diplomatic response, South African Deputy President Jacob Zuma, the mediator for the 2000 Arusha peace accord which the FNL has not signed, and Ms. McAskie were also attending the Tanzania meeting. The 20th meeting of the Arusha Accord implementation group also took place on Monday and Tuesday.
Let's see. There was this steaming pile of UN diplomacy that a group that murdered 180 people never signed on to. 180 men, women and children were murdered by that group at a UN refugee camp in a country with 3,000 UN massacre watchers peacekeepers on the ground. So what is obviously required is more UN diplomacy. But pray to God that the UN doesn't have to go to its doomsday scenario:
At the UN headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, five experts on human rights issued a statement condemning the massacre and calling attention to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibiting racial discrimination in all its forms, saying "no one shall be deprived of his life."
Special Rapporteur on Racism Doudou Diene, independent expert on human rights in Burundi Akich Okola, Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Ambeyi Ligabo, Special Rapporteur on violence against women Yakin Ertürk, and the Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on Genocide Juan Méndez called for a prompt investigation and said the perpetrators should be held accountable to international standards.
In other words, if someone had only told the Hutus about "the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibiting racial discrimination in all its forms," this horrible incident would never have happened.
Please don't go on about UNESCO, the World Health Organization and all the other "worthwhile" United Nations sub-groups. Whatever good these groups do is more than cancelled out by the number of genocides that the UN hasn't prevented or the continually-growing mound of corpses that Turtle Bay has done little more than condemn. It won't happen any time soon but it is long past time for this country to say to the United Nations what Cromwell is supposed to have said to the Long Parliament:
You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 10 comments
8/18/2004 1:16:19 PM
THE FAITH WHICH WAS ONCE DELIVERED - This testimony by retired Colorado Episcopal Bishop William Frey is either one of the most encouraging things you will ever read or, considering the current state of the ECUSA, one of most depressing.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 6 comments
8/17/2004 5:38:09 PM
WRENCH IN THE WORKS Catholic attorney Peter Sean Bradley may just have helped make the Episcopal Church's life considerably more difficult:
Just off the wire - The California Court of Appeals holds that an incorporated local church can terminate a trust in favor of the Methodist denomination.
What this means is that the "barrier to exit" - the forfeiture of the real and personal property that the members of the church have donated for generations - for churches that are unhappy with the leftward tilt of their denomination has been essentially vaporized in California (and in other states with statutory schemes similar to those in California). What it may mean, further, is that the traditional mainstream denominations that organize themselves in quasi-hiearchical or connectional polities will find it necessary to start paying attention to their moderate congregations, lest those congregations "vote with their feet."
Here's some noteworthy language from the decision:
Although the hierarchical theory has supposedly been rejected in California, it will nevertheless live on under the label of "neutral principles of law" if a church's own rules are viewed as trumping state statutes.
The complete decision can be found here and makes fascinating reading. I found this paragraph particularly interesting:
The Book of Discipline did not, by itself, "create" the trust. The trial court found that the local church’s articles of incorporation, and the presence of trust language on five of the nine deeds, demonstrated an intent to be bound by the rules of the Book of Discipline, i.e., an intent to hold the property in trust for the benefit of both the local church and the United Methodist Church. Thus if the trust in favor of the United Methodist Church was a trust "created by paragraph (2) of subdivision (c)" (Corp. Code, § 9142, subd. (d)), that trust could be amended or dissolved by amending the St. Luke’s articles of incorporation to expressly state that St. Luke’s would not be "affiliated with" or "subject … to the … discipline … of the United Methodist Church," and that it would hold property "in trust for the sole benefit of this Corporation." That is exactly what St. Luke’s did.
This decision will no doubt be appealed so drawing conclusions at this point would be premature. And I am no lawyer so I don't know if it has any applicability to the ECUSA's Dennis Canon or not. But the decision suggests that on the question of non-doctrinal matters like trusts and real estate, courts will not necessarily defer to arrangements made or canons passed by national churches if they are seen as violating state statutes.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 18 comments
8/17/2004 3:06:38 PM
HMMM...DONUTS - Somebody at District of Columbia's Department of Health really might want to rethink the department's logo(to the right). This doesn't seem to be the sort of message most people would enjoy getting from a government bureaucracy. UPDATE: To be fair to DC, I guess this happens a lot.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 3 comments
8/17/2004 1:36:57 PM
MOVE ALONG, NOTHING TO SEE HERE The ECUSA's slow-motion split continues. From Kendall Harmon, dated today:
All Saints’ Church, a biblically orthodox church since 1926, affirms its membership in the Anglican Communion and will no longer be affiliated with the Episcopal Church USA or the Diocese of Los Angeles.
All Saints’ Church is now under the jurisdiction oversight of the Anglican Province of Uganda in the Diocese of Luweero, which is a member of the mainstream of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
Despite trends to the contrary within the Episcopal Church USA, the members of All Saints’ have steadfastly remained loyal in their commitment to the Holy Scripture, the historic teachings of Christianity and the Anglican Communion for almost 80 years. However, the Episcopal Church USA has chosen a path that no longer reflects the membership’s steadfast faith.
“Holy Scripture remains a constant in our lives,” said Senior Warden David Thornburg. “It holds authority over us and inspiration for us. As we watch the Episcopal Church USA move away from this authority, we remain convinced of its truth. Therefore, our prayerful decision is to continue in that scriptural authority with the vast majority of our fellow Anglicans around the world.”
The members and board of directors (called the vestry) of All Saints’ made this decision with the support of The Rev. William Thompson, reflecting the desire of the church to stand firm on its religious convictions.
“This has not been an easy decision for us,” said Rev. Thompson, the rector of All Saints’ Church for 29 years. “We have struggled with this for a number of years. It is with great regret we have realized that if we are going to be able to focus our attention on the call that our Lord has placed upon us, we must move beyond this distraction so that we can focus all of our energies on being faithful to God.
“The members of All Saints’ realize we now must move beyond this issue, so that we can concentrate on our core mission: To know Christ and to make Him known to others,” concluded Rev. Thompson.
The worldwide Anglican Communion has churches in 164 countries with about 77 million members. The Episcopal Church USA represents 2.5 million members both here and abroad, which is only three percent of the Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Province of Uganda represents eight million Anglicans, more than three times the membership in the entire Episcopal Church USA. All Saints’ has a close and longstanding relationship with the Province of Uganda and the Diocese of Luweero, where many of its missionaries have served.
All Saints’ will continue to hold worship services in the same location where it was incorporated in 1926 and carry on with its usual programs and activities. All Saints’ is a self-supported, growing church with more than 450 members.
And then there's this:
St. James Church, a biblically orthodox church since 1949, affirms its membership in the Anglican Communion and will no longer be affiliated with the Episcopal Church USA or the Diocese of Los Angeles.
St. James is now under the jurisdiction oversight of the Anglican Province of Uganda in the Diocese of Luweero, which is a member of the mainstream of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
The members of St. James have remained steadfast and loyal in their commitment to the Holy Scripture, the historic teachings of Christianity and the Anglican Communion for 55 years. However, the Episcopal Church USA has chosen a path that no longer reflects the membership’s steadfast faith.
“St. James is a biblically orthodox church that accepts Jesus Christ as the One and Only Lord and Savior, and acknowledges the authority of the Holy Scripture as the Word of God,” said Senior Warden Jim Dale. “Our devotion is to God, not a particular institution. When an institution no longer represents our understanding of God’s Word and His Will, we must have the courage and faith to stand by our convictions.”
The members and board of directors (called the vestry) of St. James made this decision with the support of The Rev. Praveen Bunyan, reflecting the desire of the church to stand firm on its religious convictions.
“We at St. James have prayed and struggled with this decision for many years,” said Rev. Bunyan, the rector of St. James Church. “It is after much deliberation that we came to this conclusion, but it is our only recourse if we are to stay true to the historic faith and teachings of the church.
“St. James worked very hard for many years to reconcile our differences with the Episcopal Church USA and the Diocese of Los Angeles, both in our own hearts and through extensive dialogue. However, that effort has brought no comfort to ease our pain.
“The members of St. James wish to move beyond this issue, so we can concentrate on our core mission: To glorify God, uphold the Holy Scripture, raise our children to love and serve Jesus Christ and share the Gospel with the world,” concluded Rev. Bunyan.
The worldwide Anglican Communion has churches in 164 countries with about 77 million members. The Episcopal Church USA represents 2.5 million members both here and abroad, which is only three percent of the Anglican Communion.
The Anglican Province of Uganda represents eight million Anglicans, more than three times the membership in the entire Episcopal Church USA. St. James has a close and longstanding relationship with the Province of Uganda and the Diocese of Luweero, where many of its missionaries have served.
St. James will continue to hold worship services in the same location where it was incorporated in 1949 and carry on with its usual programs and activities. St. James is a self-supported, growing church with more than 1,200 members.
Two churches and more than 1,650 members in one day. Good thing there's absolutely nothing even remotely wrong with the Episcopal Church, which came through the Robinson controversy totally unscathed and not harmed in any way, or LA Bishop J. Jon Bruno would have something to worry about.
UPDATE: Here's the Los Angeles Times story.
UPDATE: Here's J. Jon's statement.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 12 comments
8/16/2004 7:11:47 PM
SCHADENFREUDE Germany is home to some of the most virulent European anti-Americanism. Witness the adulation Mike Moore receives whenever he tours there. So it is with a certain amusement that I learn that the Germans are extremely worried about President Bush's proposal to move 70,000 American troops stationed in Germany home to the United States:
German officials voiced concern Monday that their country has the most to lose with President Bush's announcement that tens of thousands of troops will return to the United States over the next decade.
"Base closures would hit us very hard," said city spokesman Ole Kruse in the Bavarian city of Wuerzburg, home of the U.S. Army's 1st Infantry Division.
Apparently, some Germans think that one of the purposes of the United States Armed Forces is to prop up the German economy:
But for places like Baumholder, a town in rural western Germany with a U.S. military training area, that spells problems.
Some 11,500 residents are matched by a U.S. military community of the same size, and the local economy would lose $150 million a year if the Americans left, Mayor Volkmar Pees told The Associated Press.
In Bamberg, officials said the local utility company could lose a major customer and that real estate prices would decline if the U.S. military leaves.
"We view this with great concern," city spokesman Steffen Schuetzewohl said.
To say the least, none of this troubles Stephen Green much:
For almost the entire 20th Century, the American foreign policy experience was defined by Europe. When the Anglo-French alliance couldn't force the Germans back, we stepped in. When almost the entire continent was under Nazi rule, we stepped in. When Soviet tanks and intentions were both poised to turn all of Europe into Stalinland, we manned the barricades – and stayed there for fifty years. When no one could get a handle on the ethnic slaughter in the Balkans, we stepped in.
We've bled for Europe. We put Europe under our nuclear umbrella, claiming we'd allow our own cities to be destroyed, if the Soviets ever threatened Paris or Bonn. American dollars paid for Europe's postwar reconstruction.
Yet when we were attacked on 9/11, all we got in return for our troubles was a linen hanky pressed to a dry eye. France even went so far as to scuttle NATO or even UN involvement in Iraqi peacekeeping.
I don't know what big crisis France or Germany may someday face. But if they find they can't handle it, and they come running to us for help. . .
. . .if we tell them to get lost, will they have anyone to blame but themselves?
The only objection I have to this plan is that it should have been undertaken a long time ago. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of communism, there hasn't been a good reason for this country to maintain the number of troops in western Europe that we currently maintain and reductions are in order.
Besides, the European Union has made noises about wanting to become a major player in world affairs and this will give them their chance. They'll have to explain to average Europeans that the considerable reductions in social services are necessary in order to pay for a military worthy of a great power but I'm sure European politicians will come up with something that will smooth things over with the electorate there.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 18 comments
8/16/2004 5:46:44 PM
WIIIIIIIIIITH...A HERRING!! The Coolest Country in the World That's Not the United States, Australia or Great Britain may soon have a war on its hands over a vital natural resource:
Iceland and Norway are on the brink of a herring war, a dispute over fishing rights in the icy Arctic seas around Svalbard.
At issue is an 80,000-ton annual quota for the area that Norway says was set by the 1933 Svalbard Treaty. Norway has ordered Iceland to stop all herring fishing in the Svalbard Zone at midnight Sunday, the Oslo newspaper Aftenposten reports.
Reykyavik's not going to let Oslo push it around:
Iceland, which fought a non-violent cod war with the British in the 1970s over fishing within 200 miles of its shores, disputes the quota and Norway's right to set it. Icelandic officials say they support the rights of their fishermen and promise to retaliate if the Norwegian Coast Guard interferes with them.
With a surname like mine, I've got Viking ancestors back along the line somewhere(this list of Icelandic emigrants to North Dakota is crawling with Jónssons). So I, for one, will do everything I can to help Iceland stand up to Norwegian oppression.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 7 comments
8/16/2004 12:19:54 PM
THOSE PEOPLE The Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal, gives me another reason to run away from Anglicanism as fast as I possibly can. Seems that he believes that Israel needs to stop making Jerusalem so...Jewish:
Bishop of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem Revd. Riah Hanna Abu El-Assal warned against Israel's continued Judization of the holy city of Jerusalem.
The Bishop said in an interview published Sunday in the Kuwait daily Al-Seyassah that Israeli authorities and settlers confiscate by force a lot of Palestinian lands as part of a plot to Judaize the city of Jerusalem and al-Aqsa Mosque.
The clergyman also condemned Israel's building of the racial separation wall despite the ruling by the International Court of Justice on its illegality.
Bishop Abu El-Assal called on the international community to face up to Israeli practices and help establish just and comprehensive peace in the region and secure Palestinian people's legitimate rights to an independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.
"A plot to Judaize the city of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount." A "Christian" leader thinks the world needs to stop Israel from making the most Jewish thing there is into something Jewish. Some mainline Christian denominations have recently expressed concern over the declining numbers of Christians in the Holy Land and the condition of those who still live there. But this interview is one of the reasons why that is not a major concern of mine. For Abu El-Assal's attitude, which is not unique to him, can only be descibed as the basest anti-Semitism.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 39 comments
8/15/2004 2:18:49 PM
COOTIES Iranian Olympian Arash Miresmaeili refuses to compete against an Israeli and provides me with one more reason to ignore that pompous waste of money and time:
Iran's world judo champion Arash Miresmaeili refused to compete against an Israeli Sunday, triggering a fresh crisis at the Olympic Games where race, creed or color are barred from interfering in sport.
The International Judo Federation (IJF) failed to agree how to deal with the politically explosive issue at an emergency meeting and said it would hold further talks Monday.
The burning issue was whether any penalty would hit Miresmaeili alone or the entire Iranian team, as the intrusion of the Middle East's bitter politics threatened to fly in the face of the Olympic ideal.
Officials tried some inept spin:
The official reason at the Games for Miresmaeili's non-appearance was failure to make the weight but judo chiefs questioned how a seasoned athlete, who carried Iran's flag at Friday's opening ceremony, would have made such a basic error.
Which was contradicted by Iran and by Miresmaeili himself:
But in Tehran, the Iranian National Olympic Committee said in a statement: "This is a general policy of our country to refrain from competing against athletes of the Zionist regime and Arash Miresmaeili has observed this policy."
"Although I have trained for months and am in shape I refused to face my Israeli rival in sympathy with the oppressed Palestinian people," said Miresmaeili, 66 kg world champion in 2001 and 2003. "I am not upset about the decision I have made."
Dan Wetzel at Yahoo! Sports thinks the entire Iranian Olympic team should be thrown out of the Games:
And now the International Olympic Committee, backed by the civilized world, should make its statement loud and clear: Toss Iran out of the Athens Games.
Immediately.
Disqualify the entire Iranian delegation, send them home and hold them up to international scrutiny and ridicule. Anything less is to look away, to tacitly approve, to take the conciliatory path, to allow xenophobia, racism and religious persecution to thrive.
Anything less is to allow the Games to become a global stage for radical political statements.
Anything less is to spit in the eye of the Olympic ideal that the spirit of competition can bridge differences and bring people of all backgrounds together.
It is one thing if this were one man acting on his own. If Iran came out and condemned the closed-mindedness of its own athlete the issue would be over before it started
But Iran, which does not recognize Israel's existence and bans contact with the nation, is complicit.
So far, the International Olympic Committee has said nothing at all:
Yet as of Sunday afternoon here, the IOC had no announced plans to do anything to Iran. It had made no comment at all. No response.
It is a craven and damning silence.
That it most certainly is. I would like to think that the IOC would do the right thing and expel the entire Iranian delegation. Were it up to me, I would also ban Iran from all future Olympics until such time as they agreed to allow their athletes to compete against anyone.
But since an Israeli is involved and the IOC is largely run by Europeans, I don't expect the IOC to do much more than slap Iran on the wrist, if they even do that. I would love to be wrong here but I don't expect to be.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 13 comments
8/14/2004 1:06:43 PM
EPISCOPAL CLUELESSNESS WATCH Catherine Waynick, the Episcopal Bishop of Indianapolis, knows just what the ECUSA needs to do about the Current Unpleasantness. Surprisingly, it involves lots and lots of talking:
Waynick believes the Episcopal Church and all religious denominations have to improve their efforts to talk about sexuality with their congregations.
"The church as a whole has not done an adequate job of talking with members about sexuality in general, let alone homosexuality," she says. "We need to put some effort into discussing the place of sexuality in human life, its meaning and purpose -- and come to some clarity about what it means to us."
Sue Reid, rector of St. Alban's in Indianapolis, thinks that's a nifty idea:
The Rev. Sue Reid of St. Alban's Episcopal Church in Indianapolis says her church hasn't suffered any drop in turnout or offerings. The St. Alban's rector believes the church has survived the controversy because human sexuality has been discussed there through the years.
"We have several openly gay members in our congregation," Reid says. "Some congregations have discussed it openly for a good number of years. Those who have not are having the greater level of difficulty."
I was under the impression that the reason why I haven't been inside of an ECUSA church in over a year had something to do with that denomination's eagerness to trample on the Word of God for a cheap civil-rights liberal high. But as it turns out, that had nothing to do with it at all.
The reason I'm angry is that I have no idea whatsoever about "the place of sexuality in human life, its meaning and purpose" because my parish never ever discussed these issues. And I'd still be attending church there and tripling my pledge and everything would be fine if only they had. I guess I'm well rid of that place.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 19 comments
8/13/2004 9:06:51 PM
CHASM The five retired bishops scheduled to meet with Frank Griswold's Council of Advice over their "irregular" Ohio confirmations have cancelled the meeting. Seems Frank didn't want any outsiders to attend and the five bishops don't much care for star chambers:
Friday, August 13, 2004
Dear Bishop Griswold:
We, the undersigned bishops, regret that the meeting we had jointly arranged with the Council of Advice, to take place on 13 August, is not possible due to your refusal to have this be an open meeting with a small number of non-participating observers present. We feel strongly that a meeting of this importance should not be held in secret. There is a history of closed door meetings in the House of Bishops. Our distrust of closed meetings on vital issues, as well as our assessment of the gravity of the current crisis in this Church, compelled us to insist that our meeting with your Council of Advice include non-participating observers. We believe this planned meeting was a significant opportunity to establish clarity on core issues which are dividing our Church. We deeply regret that this meeting now will not take place.
We had hoped for an opportunity at this meeting to discuss the radical departures of the Episcopal Church from the Faith and Practice of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We have tried fervently for many years to have an open and honest discussion in the House of Bishops about these departures from our historic Faith and Practice, but to no avail.
We regard these departures from the Faith, and their ramifications in the life of this Church we love, to have culminated in the actions of the General Convention of 2003. The most serious departure from the Faith at this recent Convention occurred when the House of Bishops refused to affirm the historic Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral of 1886, 1888, in a motion that was put forward to encourage the faithful members of this Church. We felt that it was imperative that the people of this Church be reassured that we the leaders of the Episcopal Church still believe:
(a) The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as “containing all things necessary to salvation,” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of the faith.
(b) The Apostle’s Creed, as the Baptismal Symbol; and the Nicene Creed, as the sufficient statement of the Christian faith.
(c) The two Sacraments ordained by Christ Himself - Baptism and the Supper of the Lord - ministered with unfailing use of Christ’s words of institution, and of the elements ordained by Him.
(d) The Historic Episcopate, locally adapted in the methods of its administration to the varying needs of the nations and peoples called of God into the unity of His Church.
(Quoted from pages 877 & 878 of the Book of Common Prayer)
Sadly, this resolution (B001) to affirm this historic statement of our Faith and Practice lost on a vote in the House of Bishops: 84 - No, 65 - Yes, 8 Abstentions. It is difficult to understand how bishops could vote against the faith they swore to uphold at their consecration. It has been reported that bishops did this for political reasons. If this is true, then this is in pitiful contrast to our predecessors who stood for the Faith, even in the face of death.
As a consequence of this action, as well as others at the 2003 Convention, along with other departures from the Faith in recent years, there is confusion and dismay among many faithful Episcopalians. The Episcopal Church has been declared out of Communion or in impaired Communion with the majority of our Anglican family. Thousands of people feel they are “like sheep without a shepherd”. Large numbers of clergy, congregations, and individuals have felt compelled by their conscience to leave the Episcopal Church. Still others remain but find themselves unable in good conscience to accept the pastoral care and Episcopal ministry of their diocesan bishops.
And yet, many bishops seem more concerned about Canons than about the Faith of the Church. Many bishops are taking stringent actions to punish clergy and congregations for being loyal to the faith in which they were nurtured for many years. We do certainly believe that Faith and Order are integral parts of one reality. However, the role of Order is to preserve, protect and defend the Faith of the Church, not just the territory and increasingly arbitrary actions of bishops. May the Lord have mercy on us!
We earnestly believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is calling the Episcopal Church to repent for abandoning much of the Faith “once delivered to the saints”. We pray that you, as our Presiding Bishop, will lead us all by your own repentance, as called for by most of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, so that this Church will repent and return to the Lord.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
The Rt. Rev. C. FitzSimons Allison
The Rt. Rev. Maurice M. Benitez
The Rt. Rev. William J. Cox
The Rt. Rev. Alex D. Dickson
The Rt. Rev. William C. Wantland
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 25 comments
8/12/2004 5:19:08 PM
GO EASY ON THE NEW GUY Doug Giles just got added to the links here. This is why:
Did you see how Kerry held his Wendy’s hamburger? He looked and handled that Single with cheese like a beaker of someone else’s urine. Hey, Mr. Kerry, we might earn less in a year than the one of the bathrooms in your four mansions cost, but that doesn’t make us blonde.
Evidently, not too many people fell under their overly orchestrated spell at the convention in Boston, at least not too many newcomers. The projected Kerry/Edwards post-convention spring in the polls had all the bounce of an 87 year old Sumo wrestler with a bad hip.
Take John Edwards, for instance: no real person smiles that much. Middle Americans don’t beam that bountifully. Neither Jesus nor kids stoned on expensive weed grin that much. Only avaricious ambulance chasing lawyers, running for vice president and trying to off set their Lurch-like presidential running mate, smile that much. This grinning Edwards reminds me of the overly gleeful guy who sold me a ’75 Firebird back in ’79, which turned out to be a complete piece of crap. And be sure of this: John Edwards is to Dick Cheney what Potsie was to the Fonz. The debates should prove interesting.
Then we have Kerry’s esposa, Maria Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry. Her name alone screams Middle America doesn’t it? The guy who convinced Kerry to prop up his wife at the DNC should be simultaneously slapped by the Democrats and celebrated by the Republicans. Watching and hearing Teresa ooze made me think I was at the Whiskey a Go-Go in the late ‘60’s listening to the front poet before Grace Slick took the stage. Is it possible Jim Morrison had a secret sister?
Read the whole thing.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 8 comments
8/12/2004 5:04:02 PM
SEE NO EVIL? There is a case to be made against George W. Bush on the issue of terrorism if John Kerry has the courage to make it:
Two senators chairing committees with direct oversight of intelligence and terrorist-related issues have asked the chief internal watchdog at the Department of Homeland Security to investigate the appointment of a top director at the agency and his brief suspension from it.
Faisal Gill was forced to take a few days off in March after sources close to the FBI raised flags about Gill's former position as spokesman for the now-defunct American Muslim Council. He was then reinstated, and Republican Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Jon Kyl of Arizona want to know why. They also are questioning why Gill is at DHS in the first place.
Seems this Gill never told anyone about his association with the American Muslim Council:
Aside from questioning whether this connection raised concerns among officials before Gill was hired, the letter draws attention to reports that Gill had omitted his affiliation with the AMC when he filed his employment application and requisite security clearances at the agency.
"Questions have been raised about Mr. Gill’s previous associations with groups and individuals who are known or suspected to be involved with terrorism financing," the letter reads.
"Mr. Gill is reportedly director of intelligence policy in the Department’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection (IAIP) directorate," the senators wrote. "A person in such a position would likely have access to highly sensitive information about vulnerabilities in the nation’s critical infrastructure."
The senators then ask: "What is the department’s policy for employees who omit information, especially information considered important or material, from their security clearance background forms?
The American Muslim Council was no mere cultural organization:
"What are the Department’s general policies and procedures for considering employment of a person with previous links or associations to individuals or groups who are investigated or prosecuted for suspected crimes, especially terrorism matters or, who provides services to such individuals or groups?"
Meanwhile, AMC’s founder, Abdurahaman Alamoudi, pleaded guilty in a U.S. federal court in July to charges ranging from illegally receiving cash from Libyan sources to tax evasion and passport fraud. He also admitted to being part of a Libyan plot to kill Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.
Court documents call Alamoudi an active supporter of Hamas, which the U.S. State Department has deemed a terrorist organization.
Was this a case of overly-excessive sensitivity trumping national security?
Reports about Gill have invigorated a smoldering debate among Republicans, some who say the administration has been too accepting of certain representatives of Muslim groups with dubious ties to terror funding and anti-American sympathies. Others say going after Muslims like Gill is akin to a political witch hunt.
It may well have been since one civil-liberties group has already begun tossing terms like "racist" and "anti-Muslim" around:
"I don’t think working for an organization like the AMC in of itself is a bad thing," said Kit Gage, president of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom, whose founder, Sami Al-Arian is awaiting trial on charges he was a prime fundraiser for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, an accusation he vehemently denies. Gage said the group has distanced itself from Al-Arian.
"There are always going to be people who are racist, who are anti-Muslim and feel threatened by groups like ours who do coalition work, because we stand up for groups that have taken on unpopular positions," she added.
I don't see Kerry doing much with this story or this whole idea. For to do so, he would have to declare at the very least that it might not have been that smart of an idea to employ people like Gill in sensitive government positions, which would open him up to charges of "racism." And no Democrat can tolerate that.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 8 comments
8/12/2004 2:33:57 PM
SLAM DUNK The Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, Anglican bishop of the Diocese of Hulme in Great Britain, closes the case for the disestablishment of the Church of England and demonstrates once again that western liberal Anglicans are not morally or intellectually serious people:
A Church of England bishop has called on churches to ban the singing of I Vow to Thee, My Country, one of the best known hymns, because he says it is heretical and has racist overtones.
Racist? Golly.
The Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, said the hymn's popularity was a symptom of a "dangerous" increase in English nationalism which had parallels with the rise of Nazism.
Liberal Anglican logic par excellence. You love your country and think very highly of it. Germans in the 1930's loved their country and thought very highly of it. QED, you're a Nazi.
The bishop said the words, written by Sir Cecil Spring-Rice in 1918, were "totally heretical" because they suggested that people should pledge their allegiance to their country before God.
"My country, right or wrong is not an appropriate sentiment for Christians to uphold," he said.
He had no objection to the second verse but would not allow the first to be sung at any of his services and urged clergy to think "long and hard" before permitting it.
"I quoted it as one example of my concerns about growing nationalism," he told the Telegraph. "While I am proud to be English, it is dangerous for a nation to suggest that our culture is somehow superior to others."
The lyrics to this hymn run as follows:
I vow to thee, my country—all earthly things above—
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.
And there’s another country, I’ve heard of long ago—
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.
I know of no passage in Scripture that precludes love of country; indeed, quite the contrary. Intensely patriotic places like the United States and Britain excel the world in love of their fellow men wherever they live. Who has sent more aid to more places or spent more lives for less of a return? Whose citizens criticize their government's errors more freely or more passionately? For Lowe to assert that loving one's country is somehow dangerous for the world is one of the most astonishingly idiotic statements ever written or uttered by anyone.
And I don't know how Steve understands the verses of this hymn but if one reads them together, which most intelligent people do, it is quite clear that the author believes that the second "country" is infinitely preferable to the first("most dear...most great...soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase"). But for someone like Stephen Lowe, who is apparently counting on the United Nations to usher in the Kingdom of God, I guess that first verse would be heretical.
Lowe may think he's zealous for the cause of Christ. But that didn't stop this bishop of an allegedly-Christian church from writing this about the United States in a recent diocesan newsletter:
There can be little doubt that the Bush administration sees itself as the upholder of world order and that its value system and way of life should be imposed, if necessary, by economic or even military means upon the rest of the world.
I gather that on one section of the Great Wall of China there is now an enormous plastic statue of Colonel Sanders, the founder of Kentucky Fried Chicken, whose contribution to American obesity is only challenged by Macdonald’s. I find this uncritical sense of superiority coming from the United States about its values and way of life one of the most frightening aspects of global life.
A nation that has so much power over world order and yet threatens the future of the world by its gas-guzzling attack on the world environment seems to lack a moral conscience, yet proclaims its own rightness in all things with pride that borders on arrogance. And sadly elements of the conservative Christian right seem to support this world view by the misuse of biblical material and an apparent lack of any understanding of Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God.
Whatever, pointy-hat. Apparently, the US is going to send the army in here and there and force-march everybody into a McDonald's. But let's see. The United States, according to Steve Lowe, believes that its "value system and way of life should be imposed, if necessary, by economic or even military means upon the rest of the world." We have an "uncritical sense of superiority" over here, we seem "to lack a moral conscience," and we proclaim our "own rightness in all things with pride that borders on arrogance."
Lowe can't be bothered to back any of this up. Every leftist and atheist liberal Anglican in Europe knows all this is true(Mike Moore said so and he's an American) so why worry about ascertaining facts when it's so much easier to mindlessly regurgitate Guardian editorials? I guess that the Diocese of Manchester, in which Lowe is a suffragan, believes that proper use of "biblical material" means that we don't need to trouble ourselves about Exodus 20:16 anymore.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 15 comments
8/11/2004 7:16:27 PM
THE ANGLITARIANS WEIGH IN Anglicanism's crypto-atheist wing sends a letter to the Lambeth Commission:
The Modern Churchpeople’s Union believes it would be a major error to apply any sanctions with respect to the appointment of a gay bishop or the approval of same-sex marriages.
We concur with the view, already expressed in other submissions, that the Anglican view of authority is best described as a balance between Scripture, reason and tradition. The MCU was founded in 1898 largely to defend this theological tradition, and has now had just over a century’s experience of promoting it in debates over a wide variety of issues.
The famous three-legged stool. Do go on
In our experience the value of this approach has been proved in the way contentious issues have, in fact, been resolved. Time after time, when new ideas have been promoted, their opponents have appealed to biblical proof texts or elements of the church’s tradition in order to defend the status quo. Far from being sufficient to conclude the debate, however, these appeals have contributed to it, alongside other considerations such as new knowledge and concern for human well-being.
Let's see now. We of the MCU claim to believe that "the Anglican view of authority" rests on "a balance between Scripture, reason and tradition." But the appeals by conservatives to Scripture or tradition did not conclude the "debate" because they didn't take into account "new knowledge and concern for human well-being." Seems like it would be awfully hard to sit on that stool.
Satisfactory resolutions have, in practice, resulted from periods of open debate in which different sources of authority are compared and weighed.
Resolutions? Of what?
Examples are numerous. When the MCU was founded the dominant issues were the theory of evolution and literary-historical studies of the bible. Since then many of our members have taken leading roles in a variety of debates including women in the ordained ministry, remarriage after divorce, capital punishment and contraception. In each of these issues the majority Anglican view has changed. In each case the process of change took time. The time was made available because church members, including bishops, had the freedom to express views at variancewith the inherited position. Nor is this true only of the twentieth century; further back in time one might instance the debate about the slave trade, where again supporters of the status quo had biblical texts on their side but nevertheless a Christian consensus against it emerged.
A couple of things. I've said many times before and I will no doubt say many, many more times that I will listen to the slavery analogy in this particular situation when someone shows me a Biblical verse commanding the children of Israel to own slaves. Not before. And I was not aware when the "majority Anglican view" on these other issues was officially established and how it was calculated. I would think it would be tough to do considering that Anglican numbers have been dropping like a brick for at least the last thirty years.
We believe that this granting of time and freedom, within which a consensus can slowly arise or change, is justified by the Anglican understanding of authority. Central to the traditional balance of Scripture, reason and tradition is the recognition that no single authority is infallible and we therefore need them all to balance each other.
As the MCU officially explodes the notion that it is a Christian organization. If Scripture is not infallible and tradition is, as the MCU indicated above, also insufficient, then reason is the only leg left on that stool. And there's a word for people who desperately need to get Scripture and tradition out of reason's way.
This makes Anglican theology open, in the sense that every age has the potential to discover new insights. The methodology is inductive rather than deductive; absolute certainty is not given to us, so theological reflection should be done with humility and creativity. Within the church divergent voices need to be heard, or our ears will be blocked; churches at their best are inclusive.
Told you. Translation: we really hate it when people expect us to have consistent morals and to seriously believe stuff. We'd much rather let the secular culture determine what we think is wrong. It's a lot less work and people don't get mad at us.
We recognize that many are attracted by a contrasting approach which appeals to a single source of authority and employs deductive processes to establish doctrines.
They're called people who take the Gospel seriously.
Such an approach offers a greater sense of certainty and is closed in the sense that it provides no place for new insights.
Once you get past the whole dying-on-the-cross-for-the-sins-of-the-world thing, I'm not really sure what "new insights" are required.
However, churches in this tradition characteristically become closed in the sense that it provides no place for new insights. exclusive by, for example, excluding from teaching or leadership roles those who deviate from their inherited teaching.
Did I just read that? Did I just read that a group of "modern churchpeople" actually thinks that it's a bad thing for churches to exclude "from teaching or leadership roles" those people who don't believe what the church believes? No, it's not possible. I couldn't possibly have read anything so mind-bendingly boneheaded.
When such exclusions fail to resolve differences of opinion, the history of modern western Christianity illustrates all too amply how easily splits occur and sectarianism develops. We would not wish this to be the fate of Anglicanism.
Too late, sunshine. That train's left the station.
The view that the Communion should refuse to acknowledge Bishop Robinson’s status as a bishop, because his stance disagrees with inherited Anglican teaching, implies that currently inherited doctrine is the only legitimate position and that diversity of opinion among the Communion’s leadership is not acceptable
Well...um...that's because it isn't acceptable. That's kind of what this whole dispute has been about since last August. Does anyone at the MCU read newspapers?
We understand this to be an example of an exclusive ecclesiology based on a closed theology, and therefore inappropriate to Anglicanism. To impose sanctions on ECUSA, or Bishop Robinson, or priests who wish to be open about their gay or lesbian sexualities, would suppress the debate and constitute a major change in Anglicanism’s decision-making processes.
Which it desperately needs. As the engineers say, that's not a bug, that's a feature. Anyway, it seems to me that leaving Robinson in place would do far more to "suppress the debate" than any sanctions ever could. After all, what's the point of having a "debate" about homosexuality if a real live homosexual bishop is allowed to keep his pointy hat?
We see no reason why Anglicanism should not remain united while disagreeing about the ethics of homosexuality.
We, on the other hand, don't much like lying to ourselves so we "see no reason" why we should stick around a "church" that is so fundamentally dishonest.
More on the Modern Churchpeople's Union here.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 16 comments
8/11/2004 1:59:17 PM
UNSOLICITED TESTIMONIAL - If you don't read Jeff Goldstein on a fairly regular basis, begin doing so at once. You'll be awfully glad you did.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 2 comments
8/10/2004 7:25:34 PM
HELL IN A HANDBASKET HBO has a new series coming out:
Think Tony Soprano, but without all the violence or swearing — and with a wife who doesn’t care if he sleeps with other women.
That’s the star of HBO’s new original drama series, the Tom Hanks-produced “Big Love,” about a polygamous, fictional Utah family living in the present day.
The "family" isn't going to be Mormon though:
HBO spokeswoman Mara Mikialian said she hadn’t seen the pilot, so she couldn’t provide many specifics about the show. She said the family would not be Mormon, and the show would be shot in California — not Utah. It’s scheduled to premiere in 2005.
Mind if I take a stab at it? This "family" will be portrayed as perfectly normal and this series will have a kind of "Heather Has Two Mommies and One Daddy" tone. There will, of course, be minor arguments, mostly revolving around who sleeps with who when and who sits where in the restaurant. The appropriateness of three-ways will be a recurring comedic topic. But these people will "love" each other and be portrayed as "good" people doing the best they can.
The only serious conflict in this series will come from the family's "bigoted" conservative Protestant neighbors who will carry Bibles everywhere they go and quote Genesis 2:24 to the good guys a lot. But one of the bad guys, probably someone's daughter, will eventually see how noble and decent the polygamists are, become "enlightened," run away from her repressive religious home, move to the big city and become some man's concubine. Critics will love this show, saluting its "courage," while suggestions made here and there across the country that HBO should be dropped from local cable packages for showing this program will be called "censorship" and will be greeted with feigned horror and revulsion by the left.
Thanks to Ecumenical Insanity.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 12 comments
8/10/2004 5:06:43 PM
MARK YOUR CALENDARS Hmmm. I may have to lop off some vacation days in November and do a little live or at least on-site blogging because it says here that the National Council of Churches Nobody Goes To Anymore will be in town:
The 2004 National Council of Churches/Church World Service General Assembly will meet November 9-11, 2004, at the Sheraton St. Louis City Center in St. Louis, Missouri. St. Louis is an exciting and attractive city on the banks of the Mississippi River making it the center of the westward growth of our country, religion, commerce, sports, music and art over the last 150 years.
St. Louis is "the center of the westward growth of our country, religion, commerce, sports, music and art over the last 150 years?!" I love this area as much as anyone and I would never make such an idiotically extravagant statement. But we do have a very nice and very large non-sectarian chapel near the convention site where visitors will be able to worship after a hard day's work of passing resolutions declaring the intense, unspeakable, darn-near Nazi-like evil of the United States and Israel:
Public worship Tuesday evening at Christ Church Episcopal Cathedral, about six blocks from the hotel.
And I'm sure that there will be someone there who will be more than happy to provide free math tutoring:
Getting to General Assembly is as easy as 1-2-3:
1. Click here to register on-line
3. Follow the instructions below to make your hotel reservations
Although as soon as someone tells the NCCNGTA that Missouri's state constitutional amendment barring homosexual marriage passed with over 70% of the vote, they'll declare us homophobic bigots, announce a boycott of the state and go someplace else. So I guess I won't bother.
Posted by Christopher S. Johnson - 1 comments