HISSY FIT
Something called the Religious Coalition for Baby-Killing Reproductive Choice is just a bit cranky about the recent US election:
At a press conference organized by the pro-abortion Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice (RCRC), representatives of the Religious Left expressed deep angst about the recent
“The leaders of the Religious Coalition are outraged at the underlying message of the election story—that religion and morals are the exclusive property of social conservatives,” exclaimed RCRC president Carlton Veazey. RCRC, founded 30 years ago, is a coalition of mostly mainline church agencies that lobby against all potential restrictions on abortion.
Democracy blows, doesn't it, Veaze? Particularly when you represent such a vast number of people:
Other participants in the November 9 press conference were from the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, Catholics for a Free Choice, the Unitarian Universalist Association, and Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
So I don't care how many votes George Bush got and I don't care how few members we have. The stupid Nazi bigot should listen to us:
“We will not be defined or confined by narrow ideologies and fear-mongering politicians,” Veazey warned. He urged the Bush Administration to be open to religious groups that support “reproductive choice.”
There was a lot of Christian love in that room. Jim Winkler of the Methodists got this racist blast in:
Jim Winkler of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society condemned the “Religious Right” for siding with the Republican Party and for being “overwhelmingly white.” Winkler said, in contrast, that “we” represent diverse
Pot, kettle, kettle, pot:
It is not clear whom he meant by “we,” but the
Barry Lynn was as hysterical as he usually is:
Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State was more outspoken. “The culture war is real, and it’s about to go nuclear,” he declared. He insisted that most voters did not support “banning abortion, gay bashing and tearing down the church-state wall.” But the Religious Right was creating this false impression, and the “Republican power structure in Washington” will “declare a culture war” whether the voters want it or not.
While ECUSA's Katherine Ragsdale foamed at the mouth:
Episcopal priest Katherine Ragsdale, former chair of RCRC, regretted that the “radical right” had been successful in their “long-running attempt to highjack and trivialize the language” of faith commitment. She condemned “wars of aggression, crony capitalism, and callous restrictions on medical procedures that protect…women’s rights,” as well as “abstinence-only education” and other forms of “lies, half-truths and manipulation.”
Easy, Kate. Frank said that we in the ECUSA are supposed to be honoring our differences these days.
Ragsdale said that the “mainstream religious community,” in contrast to the “perversions of the Right,” will lift up a vision in which women can not only seek abortions that are “safe and affordable and accessible and legal” but will be “respected” and “honored” for their struggle.
Nice to know that the religious left still has one sacrament. But cut Katie Rags some slack. It's not easy to go through life constantly haunted by the fear that someone somewhere isn't getting an abortion.
Thanks to Andy at Rest Across the River.

Submitted by PJL
at 11/15/2004 7:10:40 PM| It's like being snuggled in a flannel wrap before a fire on a cold winter's day with a mug of hot cocoa with marshmallows to read how the Moloch Brigade is foaming at the mouth. Maybe with any luck they will overload their circuits and blow their collective fuses. One can pray, one can hope and one can dream. |

Submitted by Katherine
at 11/15/2004 7:11:27 PM| The horror! Pornography might be restricted! Everyone knows that the American Founders insisted on the First Amendment so people could be sure to have pictures of people having sex, and women's body parts, because, after all, that's how we "respect" and "honor" women's struggles.
Not this woman, thanks. |

Submitted by Christopher Culver
at 11/15/2004 8:24:01 PM| Katherine, I'd be willing to bet that there are just as many conservative middle-aged males who view pornography as liberals. Pornography is much more widespread in our society than is visible on the surface. While I hope that this conservative administration will at least work to limit abortion, I frankly don't expect much at all to be done about pornography. |

Submitted by Allen Lewis
at 11/15/2004 10:00:24 PM| Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State was more outspoken. “The culture war is real, and it’s about to go nuclear,” he declared.
Ah, that would be nukelar, Barry! Speaking of America's "religious mosaic", the last time I looked Chrisianity was a part of that. Where is the respect for Christian values, Barry? True, Christianity is not really a religion, but is that any reason not to respect those who have scruples about wholesale slaughter of innocnets? As for Kathy Rags: so this is the way we "honor" women? By allowing them to be irresponsible with their reproductive capabilities and then compound that by allowing them to callously suck down the sink the result of that irresponsibility? That is real honor! |

Submitted by James P
at 11/16/2004 1:06:05 AM| Chris Culver is unfortunately correct. Pornography is a problem in this country, nearly as much in christian circles as non-christian ones. A sad commentary on our society. |

Submitted by John
at 11/16/2004 2:11:02 AM| Oh, come now! You guys are worse than liberal feminists. There's nothing wrong with a little porn every now and again. |

Submitted by Christopher Culver
at 11/16/2004 3:38:40 AM| "Oh, come now! You guys are worse than liberal feminists. There's nothing wrong with a little porn every now and again"
I'm afraid a great number of pastors with disagree with you there. |

Submitted by Christopher Culver
at 11/16/2004 3:38:53 AM| "Oh, come now! You guys are worse than liberal feminists. There's nothing wrong with a little porn every now and again"
I'm afraid a great number of pastors will disagree with you there. |

Submitted by jude+
at 11/16/2004 6:09:55 AM| I only hope that 'W' will appoint pro-life Supreme Court Justices. If the Christian community doesn't see some changes in the Judicial system, I'm afraid that the Republican Party will lose 'our' support. And certainly, if a 'pro choice' Republican is nominated in '08, s/he will NOT be getting my vote. |

Submitted by Gayle
at 11/16/2004 9:06:47 AM| I really like the sound of Lynn's "theocracy lite".
Ah....prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and restrictions on pornography....the good old days, when this country produced common men and women of value instead of Jerry Springer. Why does the media always trot out the Spongs and the Lynns and the Falwells and Robertson to represent Christianity in this society? |

Submitted by Bill Sanderson
at 11/16/2004 11:40:31 AM| The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was looking for a "religious" perspective on the US election and called up Bill Clinton's former confessor, an Episcopal priest who now teaches in Colorado. It was full-blown Griz-speak, including an apology that "moderate" Christians did not agree with the "fundamentalists". If complaining to the CBC ever did any good, I would have, but they are looking for people who will support the culture that they advocate, whether or not they are conscious of it.
It is that unconsciousness of bias that is the main problem. All reporters have a network of contacts; it take great courage to phone someone with whom you disagree and listen to them politely. As we all know, the Adversary has his agenda, and he accomplishes it best by minor perversions of the truth until being gay is "normal". Big evils, like 9/11, are easy to spot, but the small corrosive evil of corruption can lay buried for years until an event like Krystalnacht happens in Nazi Germany. It is the small evils that true prophets warn us against. Unfortunately, the media dismisses them as cranks, eccentrics or quaint. As a complete aside, the separation of Church and State originally was meant to deny the establishment of a national religion; states were free to choose as they wished. This is yet another fundamental change wrought by the courts; witness the brouhaha over the 10 commandments in the courthouse. |

Submitted by Paul
at 11/16/2004 12:15:48 PM| The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was looking for a "religious" perspective on the US election and called up Bill Clinton's former confessor, an Episcopal priest who now teaches in Colorado.
Not that it matters too much, but WJC's former "confessor" is a Methodist minister, the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, formerly of Foundry UMC here in DC. |

Submitted by Patrick
at 11/16/2004 1:48:51 PM| Sounds like Katie R. and Barry Lynn are running scared. Not to mention whipping their check-writing regulars into a frenzy. I think they're scared the Dems. might actually listen to reason and toss 'em to the sharks. Ya know, sacrifice some of the lunatic left fringe in a well-timed Sister Souljah moment. And Hillary is just mendacious and calculating enough to pull it off perfectly. She's already tacking right in her God-talk offensive. She might just start with the "abortion any time, anywhere, for any reason 'cuz it's my constitutional right" crowd. |

Submitted by Servant of St. Michael
at 11/16/2004 2:21:50 PM| To the pro-Gene Robinson foes in ECUSA and the Anglican Communion, I can grant "stupid, mistaken, but probably still okay people" status. However, to people like this, who use their status as pastors and priests of God as some sort of credibility enhancer to call for the perverse killing of unborn children, I can only only ascribe to them the status of EVIL! We are hearing Lucifer speak on this one through his lackey's. |

Submitted by Katherine
at 11/16/2004 4:37:10 PM| I don't really care if it's "conservative" or "liberal" guys who are spending all this money on pornography. Or even if it's women. It is possible the second Bush administration won't do much about it, but we can hope.
What I don't understand is why people who call themselves religious, whether left or right, would be defending pornography. What does this have to to with dogma, science or the Constitution? |

Submitted by craig
at 11/16/2004 5:39:47 PM| Katherine writes, "What I don't understand is why people who call themselves religious, whether left or right, would be defending pornography. What does this have to to with dogma, science or the Constitution?"
It has to do with the secular dogma that sexuality is --first, last, and always -- about getting off. The catholic Christian doctrine is that while pleasure is a welcome fringe benefit, the purpose of sexuality is intrinsically procreative and because of that also relational. Since Lambeth 1930 and Griswold drained the procreative content from the act, the relational purpose has slowly been swept away in its wake. Pornography is simply the training program for relationship-free sex. Masturbation is its endgame. |

Submitted by Eddie
at 11/16/2004 6:31:27 PM| "Pseudo" Catholics for a Free Choice are SAD about Bush re-election?
Good news!!! A Roman Catholic |

Submitted by Ken
at 11/17/2004 9:08:23 AM| Mr. Sanderson nails the media issues, I think. For myself, I was hoping the election would be a clear message to the U.S. alphabet news sources (CBS,ABC,NBC,CNN) that they are dinosaurs on the verge of extinction. It was too close to make that point clear, but maybe we made some headway. |

Submitted by Bill Sanderson
at 11/17/2004 11:07:48 AM| My apologies. It was indeed J. Phillip Wogaman that was interviewed on CBC. He is the current interim President of Iliff. I thought he said he was ordained in the Episcopal Church, but it doesn't say so in his bio.
The titles of his books sound good, but the interview was full of new age dreck. (btw new age rhymes with sewage.) |

Submitted by PJL
at 11/18/2004 8:44:21 AM| Oh, come now! You guys are worse than liberal feminists. There's nothing wrong with a little porn every now and again"
Porn denies our personhood and dignity. Made in the image of God we are whole beings with body, mind and spirit. With porn the man, woman child is no longer a person but an object. An object which has the sole purpose of creating lust. Porn separates sexual arousal from the context in which God meant it to be fullfilled. Within matrimony it is an instrument of life giving and affirming love. Outside of matrimony it becomes a corrupt caricature of one of God's greatest gifts. Christians must be able to distinguish between lust after an object and love for a fellow person. |











I had my ICBM fueled a long way back.