eChurch Blog

Comment Is Free Watch

Lies, Big Lies and Comment is Free

Associated Baptist Press By Bob Allen

Black Baptist group elects new leader

MONTCLAIR, N.J. (ABP) — A New Jersey pastor who formerly worked for American Baptist Churches USA has been chosen to lead one of America’s largest black Baptist denominations.

Walter Parrish III, senior pastor of Union Baptist Church in Montclair, N.J., was elected general secretary of the Progressive National Baptist Convention at the group’s recent annual meeting in Louisville, Ky.

Parrish, 50, will succeed Tyrone Pitts, general secretary of the PNBC since 1989, who is retiring. Parrish is scheduled to take over the job Jan. 1 and will continue as senior pastor of the Montclair church in addition to his role with the PNBC, according to an announcement on the church website.

Before moving to the historic African-American congregation, which is affiliated with both the PNBC and ABC, Parrish worked 12 years for American Baptists’ Ministers and Missionaries Benefits Board. He went to Montclair in March 2002, first as interim pastor, and then was called as the church’s eighth permanent pastor that May.

Claiming 2.5 million members around the world and 1.5 million in the United States, the PNBC is the third-largest African-American Baptist convention. It formed in 1961 out of a power struggle between younger ministers in the National Baptist Convention U.S.A., Inc., who wanted to move the denomination to the forefront of the Civil Rights Movement and the established leadership that desired to keep politics out of the convention and focus on worship and ecclesiastical concerns.

The PNBC was spiritual home for many of the period’s most celebrated civil-rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr. Over the decades since, the denomination has continued to emphasize social justice.

In a hallway interview at the August annual meeting posted on YouTube, Parrish urged younger pastors to involve themselves in the PNBC as a way to “speak truth to power, to talk about prophetic preaching and to talk about social-justice issues that even with a black president we still need to wrestle with and grapple with.”

“We want this convention to be one that resources pastors and one where pastors can resource each other,” Parrish said.

The son of a Baptist preacher — his father, Walter Parrish II, has been executive minister of American Baptist Churches of the South since 1979 — Parrish is a native of Lynchburg, Va. He grew up there and in Baltimore and Columbia, Md., before heading off to Morehouse College in Atlanta, where he earned an accounting degree in 1981.

While working as a computer analyst, he worshiped at Atlanta’s historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he was licensed to preach.

From there Parrish left Atlanta to further his ministerial training at Union Theological Seminary in New York City, where he earned the master of divinity degree in 1987. While in New York he was pastor of Devoe Street (formerly the First Italian) Baptist Church in Brooklyn and was ordained to the ministry by the American Baptist Churches of Metropolitan New York.

Parrish went to the MMBB in 1990 and served there in a number of capacities. His last position was associate executive director with responsibility for directing the agency’s initiative to provide benefits and services to denominations and denominational groups outside the ABC, including the National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.; the National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc., and the PNBC.

Parrish’s wife, Felicia, is also an ordained minister. They have two sons.

ABC General Secretary Roy Medley offered congratulations to both Parrish and the PNBC. “Walter is well-respected within ABC life where he has served for years, and we know he will bring excellent leadership to PNBC,” Medley said.

Medley also praised Parrish’s predecessor, Tyrone Pitts. “Dr. Pitts has been known internationally for his prophetic ministry, and we wish him God’s blessings in his upcoming retirement,” Medley said.

Before coming to the PNBC in 1989, Pitts worked nine years as director for racial justice with the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. He is an ordained minister in the PNBC.

My goodness just when you think this world can’t get any worse.

A Gruesome Harvest Aborted Fetuses and Their Organs
By Chuck Colson – Christian Post Guest Columnist

For years, scientists and celebrities supporting embryo-destructive stem cell research have used two arguments. First-blind to the destruction of the embryo itself-they argue embryonic stem cell research will save lives. Second, they maintain that embryos leftover from fertility treatments will otherwise be wasted.

Now, one stem-cell expert is using these same arguments to promote harvesting organs from aborted fetuses.

Speaking at a conference in March, Oxford University stem-cell expert Sir Richard Gardner commented that he was surprised the possibility had not been considered, and that experiments in mice have shown that fetal kidneys grow extremely quickly when transplanted to adult animals

As reported in the UK’s Daily Mail, Sir Richard, an advisor to Britain’s Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority sees this ghastly practice as a potential solution to the shortage of donated organs-and to what we are learning about the ineffectiveness of embryonic stem cells.

While advocates of using embryonic stem cells have long hailed them as the El Dorado of disease prevention, they’re not. Sir Richard calls the creation of fully functioning organs from embryonic stem cells “remote.”

Gardner isn’t a lone voice in this ethical wasteland. King’s College professor Stuart Campbell did not object. Speaking of the many babies aborted late in term, he said, “If they are going to be terminated, it is a shame to waste their organs.” He added, “I am sure very few of those on the transplant list would rather die than accept an organ from an aborted fetus.”

Here in the United States, bioethicist Jacob Appel, writing on the subject in the Huffington Post, states, “The first striking feature of fetal organs is that their supply…is unlimited…pregnant women who provide fetal kidneys could do so repeatedly.”

Appel grants that abortions would likely rise as a result, but even so, he believes we have “a moral duty” to legalize the marketing of fetal organs. How nice, too, he says, that poor women could benefit by selling the organs of their aborted children.

And then, Appel dreams of a day that “scientific research may make possible farms of artificial ‘wombs’ breeding fetuses for their organs.”

Unimaginable as it may seem to some of us, there are scientists and so-called ethicists perfectly willing to carry their utilitarian thinking to its freakishly cruel, murderous extreme.

But while the U.S. has laws in place-at least for now-to prevent the harvesting of aborted fetuses, who knows what will happen if other countries begins selling fetal organs.

That day may not be far off. In 2003, Chinese doctor Wang Tong reported successfully growing an in vitro human heart for 13 days. Where did that embryonic heart come from? From an aborted 7-week-old fetus

All of this amplifies the need for Christians to boldly and steadfastly defend the sanctity and inviolability of human life from conception through natural death.

Because as medical technology advances and ethical standards crumble, the stakes only grow higher.

Hooray, finally its been said. I mean how would we react to other nations dictating what we can and can’t do on our our own land…oh sorry….yes of course…the European Union.

Haaretz by Barak Ravid

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Israel and the United States are nearing a compromise that would allow for the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians as well as “normal life” for Jewish settlers in the West Bank.

During a joint press conference with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street in London, Netanyahu also held firm on his stance that Israel will not limit Jewish construction in East Jerusalem.

The settlers need kindergartens and homes for their families, the Israeli premier said, adding that this does not mean that this would necessitate expropriating more land in the West Bank.

“Jerusalem is not a settlement, and Israel will not accept limits on its sovereignty there,” Netanyahu said.

Brown reiterated his government’s position that continued construction in settlements poses an obstacle to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, though he added that there appears to be progress on the issue.

The British prime minister said a freeze on settlement construction is likely to pave the way for normalization gestures by Arab states toward Israel.

Netanyahu says Israel had taken steps in easing Palestinian movement in the West Bank by lifting roadblocks and showed its willingness to make peace by expressing support for a Palestinian state. The Israeli leader said it was now incumbent on the Palestinians to demonstrate “courageous leadership.”

Netanyahu added that he was disappointed by statements made by Fatah officials during the party conference in Bethlehem earlier this month. Fatah, the premier said, should have adopted an unequivocal position that it was ready for an end to the conflict with Israel and an end to all claims.

On the issue of Iran’s drive for nuclear weapons, Brown said the UN should consider tightening sanctions in the event Tehran refuses to engage in dialogue.

“If there is no further progress immediately then I believe the world will have to look at stepping up sanctions against Iran as a matter of priority,” Brown said.

Asked about the prospect of Iran developing nuclear arms, Netanyahu said: “Time is running out, it is late in the day, but it is not too late.”

Iranian officials have repeatedly refused to curb the nuclear program despite the threat of sanctions.

The International Atomic Energy Agency is due to release a report on Iran this week which is likely to strongly influence the international response.

Relations between Britain and Iran worsened after Iran’s June presidential election. Brown accused Iran of “repression and brutality” in crushing protests against the re-election of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called Britain “the most treacherous” of Iran’s enemies.

After holding talks with Brown, Netanyahu is due to meet U.S. envoy George Mitchell in London on Wednesday.

American Magazine

Editors’ note: Archbishop Quinn originally prepared these observations for consideration at the June meeting of the American bishops. Circumstances did not make that possible at the time. He has submitted them to America as a contribution to the debate on the role of bishops in dealing with public issues.

The right to life is a paramount and pre-eminent moral issue of our time. The Catholic bishops have borne a consistent and prophetic witness to the truth that all other rights are anchored in the right to life. When Roe v. Wade was handed down in 1973, this conference was nearly alone among institutional voices pointing out the defects and dangers of this decision and calling for its reversal.

Our witness to the sanctity of human life cannot diminish and our effort cannot cease. We must continue to enlist new vehicles of communication to highlight the grave moral evil inherent in abortion. We have to design effective and imaginative strategies to help people see that the choice for life is the most compassionate choice. And we have to speak with courtesy and clarity about why the protection of the unborn is a requirement of human rights and not their diminishment.

There is no disagreement within this conference about the moral evil of abortion, its assault upon the dignity of the human person, or the moral imperative of enacting laws that prohibit abortion in American society.

But there is deep and troubled disagreement among us on the issue of how we as bishops should witness concerning this most searing and volatile issue in American public life. And this disagreement has now become a serious and increasing impediment to our ability to teach effectively in our own community and in the wider American society.

The bishops’ voice has been most credible in the cause of life when we have addressed this issue as witnesses and teachers of a great moral tradition, and not as actors in the political arena. Coming out of the Catholic moral tradition, this conference has defended human life in the context of the pursuit of justice, covering the whole continuum of life from its beginning in the mother’s womb to its natural end. The Second Vatican Council rightly described abortion and infanticide as “unspeakable crimes.” But the council did not stop there. In a coherent moral logic, the council exhorted bishops to be faithful to their duty of teaching and witnessing concerning “the most serious questions concerning the ownership, increase, and just distribution of material goods, peace and war, and brotherly relations among all countries” (“Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the Church,” No. 12). The more recent “Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” proposes an equally broad spectrum of concerns. This consistent focus over nearly 50 years, as well as the teaching of the popes, including Pope Benedict XVI, underline that neither the bishop nor the Catholic Church can confine itself to one single issue of concern in human society. If we proclaim that the right to life is necessary for the exercise of all other rights, then we must also address and defend those other rights as well.

Consequently, the Catholic Church brings to the defense of life and the pursuit of justice in this world the vision of faith and a living hope that transcends the limitations of what can be accomplished in this world. This comprehensive and transcendent vision must provide the benchmark in weighing proposed pathways through the thicket of public policy choices that confront us. This traditional benchmark provides a challenge to us bishops today in evaluating our future approach to those who disagree with us on issues of fundamental importance.

The dilemma that confronts us today is whether the church’s vision is best realized on the issue of abortion by focusing our witness on the clear moral teaching about abortion and public law, or whether it is preferable or obligatory to add to that teaching role the additional role of directly sanctioning public officials through sustained, personally focused criticism, the denial of honors or even excommunication.

This dilemma has troubled us for many years now, but it has been crystallized in the controversy over the decision of the University of Notre Dame to award an honorary degree in May of this year to the president of the United States. This is the first time in the history of this conference that a large number of bishops of the United States have publicly condemned honoring a sitting president, and this condemnation has further ramifications due to the fact that this president is the first African-American to hold that high office.
False Messages

The case for sanctioning President Obama by declaring him ineligible to receive a Catholic university degree is rooted in a powerful truth: The president has supported virtually every proposed legal right to abortion in his public career, and abortion constitutes the pre-eminent moral issue in American government today.

Notwithstanding this fact, the case against a strategy of such sanctions and personal condemnations is rooted in a more fundamental truth: Such a strategy of condemnation undermines the church’s transcendent role in the American political order. For the Obama controversy, in concert with a series of candidate-related condemnations during the 2008 election, has communicated several false and unintended messages to much of American society. There are four such messages that call for our serious consideration today.

1. The message that the Catholic bishops of the United States function as partisan political actors in American life. The great tragedy of American politics from a Catholic perspective is that party structures in the United States bisect the social teachings of the church, thus making it impossible for most citizens to identify and vote for a candidate who adequately embraces the spectrum of Catholic teaching on the common good. For instance, Republican candidates are, in general, more supportive of the church’s position on abortion and euthanasia, while Democratic candidates are generally stronger advocates for the Catholic vision on issues of poverty and world peace.

For most of our history, the American bishops have assiduously sought to avoid being identified with either political party and have made a conscious effort to be seen as transcending party considerations in the formulation of their teachings. The condemnation of President Obama and the wider policy shift that represents signal to many thoughtful persons that the bishops have now come down firmly on the Republican side in American politics. The bishops are believed to communicate that for all the promise the Obama administration has on issues of health care, immigration reform, global poverty and war and peace, the leadership of the church in the United States has strategically tilted in favor of an ongoing alliance with the Republican Party. A sign of this stance is seen to be the adoption of a policy of confrontation rather than a policy of engagement with the Obama administration.

Such a message is alienating to many in the Catholic community, especially those among the poor and the marginalized who feel that they do not have supportive representation within the Republican Party. The perception of partisanship on the part of the church is disturbing to many Catholics given the charge of Gaudium et Spes that the church must transcend every political structure and cannot sacrifice that transcendence, and the perception of transcendence, no matter how important the cause.

2. The message that the bishops are ratifying the “culture war mentality,” which corrodes debate both in American politics and in the internal life of the church. Both poles of the American political spectrum see our society as enmeshed in a culture war over the issues of abortion, marriage, immigration rights and the death penalty. In such a war, they argue, the demonization of alternative viewpoints and of opposing leaders is not merely acceptable, but required. More intense tactics and language are automatically seen as more effective, as necessary and more in keeping with the importance of the issues being debated. The “culture war mentality” has also seeped into the life of the church, distorting the debate on vital issues and leading to campaigns against bishops for their efforts to proclaim the Gospel with charity rather than with antagonism.

The movement toward sanctions against public officials will be seen as ratifying this trajectory in our political, cultural and ecclesial life. Whatever our intention may be, the acceptance and employment of a strategy that deliberately moves beyond teaching and pointing up the moral dimensions of public issues to labeling those with whom we disagree, will inevitably embolden those who de-Christianize our public debate both within and outside the church.

3. The message that the bishops are effectively indifferent to all grave evils other than abortion. Perhaps the most difficult task we face, as teachers on the moral dimensions of public policy in the United States today, is emphasizing the pre-eminence of abortion as a moral issue while defending a holistic view of the rights intrinsic to the defense of the dignity of the human person. This task of balancing arises not only in the formulation of our policy statements, but also in the steps we as bishops take to achieve justice in the political order. The pathway of sanctions and personal condemnation will open every bishop to the charge that if we do not use the tactic of sanctions and condemnations on issues such as war and peace or global poverty, we are tacitly relegating those issues to a level of unimportance. And it would indeed be difficult to explain how it is appropriate for a Catholic university to honor those who authorize torture or initiate an unjust war or cut assistance to the world’s poor. To assert on the one hand that the tactics of sanction and personal condemnation are legitimate tools for episcopal action in the public order, while on the other hand refusing to employ those tactics for any issue other than abortion will only deepen the suspicions of those in American society who believe that we bishops of the church in the United States are myopic in our approach to Catholic social teaching.

4. The message that the bishops are insensitive to the heritage and the continuing existence of racism in America. The election of Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States in November 2008 was a unique and signal moment in the history of racial solidarity in the United States. L‘Osservatore Romano compared it to the fall of the Berlin Wall. All over the world the election was hailed as ushering in a new chapter in the rejection of racial stereotypes and the enhancement of international relations.

Yet here in the United States, there has been the perception that we bishops did not grasp the immense significance of the moment. African-American priests, religious and lay persons have related that they felt they had to mute their jubilation at the election of an African-American president, and that we bishops did not share their jubilation. Some have expressed deep hurt over this, precisely because they respect the bishops and they love the church.

Added to this, the spirited condemnation of the president’s visit and degree at Notre Dame last May have reinforced for many African-American Catholics those feelings of hurt and alienation. It is not that African-American Catholics do not understand that the church must oppose abortion, or that they themselves personally believe that the bishops are acting out of racist motivations. It is rather that when the church embraces a new level of confrontation when an African-American is involved, this readily raises widespread questions about our racial sensitivity. And these questions will only continue to be raised more forcefully if we continue to walk down the path of confrontation with this administration.
A Policy of Cordiality

As we confront the admittedly difficult task of balancing the need to uphold the sanctity of human life while avoiding the enormously destructive consequences of the strategy of sanction and condemnation, we bishops could profitably look to the example of the Holy See, which wrestles with these same complex issues of integrity of witness, fidelity to truth, civility in discourse, and political, national and racial sensitivities every day.

The approach of the Holy See might justly be characterized as a policy of cordiality. It proceeds from the conviction that the integrity of Catholic teaching can never be sacrificed. It reflects a deep desire to enshrine comity at the center of public discourse and relations with public officials. It is willing to speak the truth directly to earthly power.

Yet the Holy See shows great reluctance to publicly personalize disagreements with public officials on elements of church teaching. And the approach of the Holy See consistently favors engagement over confrontation. As Pope John Paul II put it, “The goal of the Church is to make of the adversary a brother.”

These principles of cordiality will not make our task as bishops in the public square an easy one. But they do provide the best anchor for insuring that our actions and statements remain faithful to the comprehensive and transcendent mission of the church, our ultimate mandate. Much of this is summed up in the council’s decree on bishops, Christus Dominus (No. 13):

The Church has to be on speaking terms with the human society in which it lives. It is therefore the duty of bishops especially to make an approach to people, seeking and promoting dialog with them. If truth is constantly to be accompanied by charity and understanding by love, in such salutary discussions they should present their positions in clear language, unagressively and diplomatically. Likewise they should show prudence combined with confidence, for this is what brings about union of minds by encouraging friendship.

Most Rev. John R. Quinn is archbishop emeritus of San Francisco. He served as president of the U.S. Catholic Conference and National Conference of Catholic Bishops from 1977 to 1980.

There are plenty of ways one can assess the health or otherwise of a nation, or people, or continent. There are numerous measures: economic, social, political, ideological, cultural, demographic, and so on. But on top of all these is one more which is the most important. People of faith will also gauge the spiritual condition of a people or nation.

My recent trip to Europe has reminded me of this. Only my second time there since living in Europe over 25 years ago, there have certainly been many changes which have occurred on the continent. Some are changes for the better, and some for the worse. Many of these demographic, moral, political and social changes I have documented elsewhere.

But here I wish to briefly address the spiritual state of Europe. It has long been realised that Europe has become the most secular and the least Christian continent on earth. It has seemed to be all one way traffic there, with the Christian faith slowly but surely dying out in most European nations.

Spiritual demographers have also noted that while Europe and the West as a whole are floundering when it comes to Christianity, God has not abandoned planet earth. Indeed, great things are still happening in the world, but not in places where we have tended to expect to see God at work.

We have known for some time now that the spiritual centre of gravity has moved south. Books like The Next Christendom by Philip Jenkins (OUP, 2002), have chronicled this shift. Places like Africa, Asia and Latin America are the new hot spots when it comes to church growth. Marvellous things are taking place there, and the Kingdom of God is far from finished on planet earth.

But many have wondered about the West in general and Europe in particular. Has God abandoned the West? Are the days of God’s grace upon Europe over? Many might conclude that the church has indeed died or is near death throughout Europe.

Yet even in the short quarter century since I last lived in Europe, one can clearly see that God is not at all finished with Europe yet. Many exciting moves of God are taking place in Europe. Often the mainstream media is not reporting these activities, but they are occurring nonetheless.

Consider the nation of Holland, where I lived and worked so many years ago. There are clear signs of God at work. Holland at the moment is actually being run by a coalition of Christian political parties, and the Prime Minister is a Christian.

Some of the famous Dutch liberalism and tolerance has been tightened up a bit. The once ubiquitous drug dealers around Amsterdam’s central district and the sprawling red light districts have both been cleaned up and curtailed. Even some of the drug cafes have been restricted in number and scope.

But it is the revitalisation of the church in the nation that is especially intriguing. There are now numerous evangelical churches in Holland with large and thriving congregations. One church in Amsterdam has over 2000 members. Such numbers were unheard of a few decades ago.

And the amazing thing is, many of these large and spiritually vital churches are led by migrants who have come to Holland. The large Amsterdam church has as its head pastor an African. Indeed, many of these big churches are being led by Nigerians and Ghanaians.

Missionaries and church planters from places such as South Korea, Brazil and Uganda are doing great works for God in the Netherlands and throughout Europe. Indeed, when I was staying at a Youth With a Mission base in Amsterdam just the other week, a large South Korean disciple training school was in full swing.

Many commentators have rightly warned about the huge influx of Muslim migrants into Europe, and how the demographic picture in Europe is changing considerably as a result. I too have written much about these trends. But it is vital to realise that the migrants are not just those from Muslim nations. Many non-Muslim migrants are arriving in Europe as well.

Indeed, many of these are Christian migrants, of various stripes. So God is at work even in the changing European demographics. Of course the threats of Islamic jihad and terrorism, and concerns about the spread of sharia law cannot be discounted, and we must remain vigilant about such trends.

But nonetheless God has not abandoned Europe. Back in 2004 YWAM Europe Director Jeff Fountain wrote a book about the spiritual scene in Europe, and what God was doing there. Entitled Living as People of Hope, he noted that while the rise of secularism, Islam and a new paganism is a very real concern indeed in Europe, there is still cause for hope.

He notes the whole new move of God in Europe: the various prayer initiatives, church planting movements, Alpha courses, youth events, and so on. He notes how denominational barriers are breaking down, as believers of differing backgrounds realise the importance of working together for the cause of Christ.

He concludes his book with a scene from The Lord of the Rings. Theoden, king of Rohan, has been bound by dark spirits for years, and is really no king at all. Gandalf enters the Golden Hall, and breaks the spell that his counsellor Wormtongue has put on him.

Says Gandalf, “I bid you come out before your doors and look abroad. Too long have you sat in shadows and trusted in twisted tales and crooked promptings”. Once the dark spell is broken, Theoden stands to his feet, proud and tall, ready to rightfully resume his reign.

So too Europe. God is not finished yet. The good thing he has started he will bring to completion. These are indeed exciting times: times of challenge and opportunity. But the promises of God remain: “He who has begun a good work in you will carry it on to completion” as Paul tells us in Phil. 1:6.

When King Theoden was set free, he summoned his army and went forth into battle. As Jeff Fountain asks, “What is the state of the church in our nation? Still bent and crouched, listening to Wormtongue’s twisted tales? or standing tall and straight, reaching out to grasp her long-disused weaponry?”

On the surface Europe is not looking very good right now. But God is often at work inside, where those without spiritual vision cannot see. But God is working nonetheless, and if he can awaken a comatose Europe, there is tremendous hope for the rest of the world as well.

I’m not actually putting this article on the blog to explore the rights and wrongs of the BNP frankly, but to sound a warning to any who will listen.

Firstly, this is as Simon Darby states, “A government quango using the judicial process to try to nobble a political opponent”, but it will not stop there.

Harriet Harman, the Equalities Minister, will go on to use the Equality and Human Rights Commission to attack the Christian world. They are merely starting with the BNP because they believe the BNP will not garner much sympathy with the masses and with the purpose of creating legal precedent.

Once successful, this commission will focus on “faith schools” and Christian employment policies, which currently legally favour those from a Christian background…and that will be just the beginning…you have been warned.

Please see previous posts on “equality”

Equalities minister Harriet Harman has defended the head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, (EHRC) Trevor Phillips.

Bloated The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) quango accused of wasting money

The spate of resignations at the UK’s “equalities” watchdog (EHRC – Equality and Human Rights Commission) is not the fault of under-fire chairman Trevor Phillips, his deputy has told the BBC

The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales as well as the Scottish Bishops’ Conference have submitted a joint response to an EU proposal for an Equal Treatment Directive. The bishops voiced “serious concerns” that the proposal—which covers religion, belief, disability, age and sexual orientation—could be used by “pressure groups” to limit the freedom of Catholics.

Equalities watchdog takes BNP to court

By Michael Savage, Political Correspondent – The Independent

The British National Party is to be taken to court by the Government’s equalities watchdog for refusing to change rules that bar membership to blacks, Asians and Jews.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission launched the legal action because it suspects that the BNP’s constitution and membership criteria, which limits membership to ethnic groups emanating from the “indigenous Caucasian” race, break the Race Relations Act.

The BNP leader, Nick Griffin, and two other party officials are named in the county court proceedings, which begin in London next week. Harriet Harman, the Equalities Minister, welcomed the legal action, saying: “No party should be allowed to have an apartheid constitution in 21st- century Britain.”

The commission wrote to the BNP two months ago, raising its concerns about the potential legal breaches and stating that it believed the BNP’s rules would “continue to discriminate against potential or actual members on racial grounds”, despite a pledge from the party to clarify the word “white” on its website.

“The BNP has said it is not willing to amend its membership criteria, which we believe are discriminatory and unlawful,” said John Wadham, the head of the commission’s legal team. “The commission has a statutory duty to use its regulatory powers to enforce compliance with the law, so we have today issued county court proceedings against the BNP. However, the party still has an opportunity to resolve this quickly by giving the undertaking on its membership criteria that the commission requires.”

The deputy BNP leader, Simon Darby, said last night that the action was politically motivated. “This is a Government quango using the judicial process to try to nobble a political opponent,” he added. “We have just won two MEPs. We have operated for years without any kind of problem. Now all of a sudden we have this.

“They cannot beat us through the democratic process, so they are trying the legal process as an alternative.”

Mr Darby said the party leadership could not change the rules without the consent of its members, who overwhelmingly wanted the current restrictions to stay in place.

How true is this! I read on another blog recently that the UK is not yet a police state (although they did concede that we were heading there, as we have more government surveillance than China now) and I had to take them to task on this comment, as it was obvious to me that they had not recently experienced first hand, the heavy handed policing methods employed for any peaceful protest that is any way critical of the government.

Not a nice experience!

People put off by heavy handed policing at protests

The poll was conducted by YouGov to coincide with the launch of the charity’s new campaigning action, the Mass Visual Trespass, which is encouraging people to upload a photograph or short video of themselves holding a climate justice message directed at Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Of the more than 2,100 surveyed, ninety-three per cent agreed that everyone in the UK should have the right to peaceful protest while 18 per cent said they would think twice about taking part in a protest in the future as a result of the skirmishes between police and protesters during the recent G20 summit in London.

One third – 33 per cent – of respondents said that the filming of protesters by police made them feel like criminals, that it was an invasion of privacy and another example of a ‘Big Brother’ society.

Images uploaded for the Mass Visual Trespass are to be projected by Christian Aid onto British landmarks in the run up to the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen in December, allowing people to protest virtually from the comfort of their own homes.

Paul Brannen, head of campaigns at Christian Aid said: “Campaigning on issues such as climate change and how it affects the poor is a vital part of Christian Aid’s work.

“It is very important we give people the opportunity to protest peacefully about issues that matter to them and help the public to hold the government to account.

“It’s worrying that recent incidents involving the police at peaceful protests have made members of the public think twice about taking part in future peaceful demonstrations.”

American Thinker by Pamela Geller

Media Lies About Rifqa Bary

The court ruling on Friday that allowed Rifqa Bary, the teenager who converted from Islam to Christianity and fled from her Muslim family in fear for her life, to stay in Florida rather than return to her parents, was unexpected. The media shills and Islamic machinery in the U.S. never expected that G-d, Rifqa and the people would prevail upon the powers that be in Florida. So now they are in overdrive.

One egregious example is an almost incomprehensible, misogynist column at the Orlando Sentinel. It is so inaccurate, so misinformed, and so dangerous, that if Rifqa Bary is harmed, “columnist” Mike Thomas could rightly be charged with incitement to violent honor killing. Thomas got nothing right. Not one detail. Further, at no point did he consider Rifqa’s testimony. At no point did he consider the consequences of Rifqa’s testimony. At no point did he consider the risk to Rifqa’s life.

Thomas says, “Left unanswered is what business Florida has involving itself in this matter. The people best suited to determine the threat level to Rifqa are the cops and social workers in Ohio familiar with the Bary family and the Muslim community.”

Why does Florida need to be involved? The Sentinel reported Friday: “There is no evidence, according to Columbus-area authorities that her father poses any threat.” But a police officer from Columbus who involved in Rifqa’s case told a source close to the case that he had talked to 20 people who knew Rifqa, and almost all 20 said she was in fear for her life. And one of Rifqa’s teachers said she knew Rifqa’s life was in danger, but became very frightened when told by the school to “stay out of this.”

Thomas observes that Rifqa was a cheerleader and says: “Somehow I can’t imagine a Muslim extremist allowing his daughter to wear short skirts and shake pompoms in front of a crowd of infidels.”

Thomas knows nothing of honor killings in the West. Victims are generally beautiful, Westernized, and dressed in a manner that perhaps Thomas would term “provocative.” Muslim girls who live in the West lead two lives. Amina and Sarah Said, murdered by their father in Texas on New Year’s Day 2008 for having non-Muslim boyfriends, were honor students, star athletes, soccer players, tennis players, etc. Rifqa was the same way in Ohio before she fled. These girls led double lives.

The murder always happens when the family sees they have lost control of the child. In the case of Amina and Sarah, the girls ran away. The mother lured them back, and they were both dead less than 24 hours later. Canadian honor killing victim Aqsa Parvez also left her home and was staying with friends when she too was lured back, only to be murdered by her father for refusing to wear the Islamic headscarf.

The fathers cleanse the family of the dishonor of their daughter’s un-Islamic behavior. But Thomas also adds: “I could go through the Old Testament and cherry-pick any number of quotes demanding death for nonbelievers, nonvirgin brides and blasphemers. No Christian I know endorses that, yet it seems every Muslim abides by the darker writings in the faith.” But what difference does that make? Christian and Jews are not killing their daughters and wives to restore their honor these days. Muslims are.

Most outrageously of all, Thomas decries an “anti-Muslim” bias in the media coverage of Rifqa’s case. In fact, there was an anti-Christian bias. The mainstream media vilified the good Christians who provided sanctuary to Rifqa, who sought only to escape her father’s threat to kill her. The media reported only the parents’ Islamist narrative — giving Rifqa’s story no air time or ink. They repeated the lies over and over again. Folks had to go to YouTube to hear Rifqa in her own words.

Why didn’t one media outlet have on an expert or scholar on apostasy in Islam? Why wasn’t Ibn Warraq or Wafa Sultan called? Robert Spencer was nowhere to be seen. Fox called on political pundits and others to explain Rifqa’s case, and they got it wrong. The only responsible expert who weighed in was Frank Gaffney here.

Anti-Muslim bias? Officials of the un-indicted co-conspirator and terror-linked group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) handed out copies of another anti-Rifqa Orlando Sentinel article and want supporters to push the meme that Christians have brainwashed and abducted this gullible teenage girl.

Rifqa Bary is the cross to CAIR’s Dracula — I expect they’ll create a huge negative campaign to destroy this child. For Rifqa’s testimony validates what so-called “Islamophobes” and “anti-Muslim bigots” who write of the violent ideology have been aying. CAIR must destroy this young girl, as she has destroyed them with her words of truth and of… Christ.

Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Geert Wilders: these truth tellers live under 24-hour guard because of Islamic death threats against them, which they received because they spoke the truth about Islam. Rifqa Bary has committed a far worse crime from the Islamic perspective: the crime of apostasy. Her testimony is far more dangerous to the stealth jihadists in America.

Rifqa Bary is the highest value target in America. She should be under 24-hour guard. And she should be given a fair shake in the media.

Pamela Geller is the editor and publisher of the Atlas Shrugs Web site and former associate publisher of the New York Observer.  Blessings

Jerusalem Post

Vatican stays out of ‘mission’ conflict

The Vatican said last week that it would not interfere in a conflict that has flared up between US Catholic bishops and leading Jewish groups over Catholic proselytizing.

Cardinal William Levada, the president of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (formerly the Holy Office of the Inquisition), said the Vatican would leave the issue in the hands of the US Catholic Church to resolve, according to Rabbi David Rosen, director of the American Jewish Committee’s Department for Interreligious Affairs.

Rosen, who met with Levada in Rome last Wednesday, said on Monday that the Vatican’s decision not to get involved in the conflict was connected to the trend toward decentralization in the Church that began after the Second Vatican Council of 1962-1965.

Relations between Jews and Catholics in the US have dampened after the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which represents the Church in the US, said in an official statement that interfaith dialogue with Jews should be used to invite Jews to become Catholics.

The statement fueling the tension was issued by the bishops in June to clarify a 2002 document called “Covenant and Mission.”

The bishops said that the earlier document mistakenly played down the importance of sharing their beliefs and was therefore misleading.

“While the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Jewish people, neither does she fail to witness to them her faith in Christ, nor to welcome them to share in that same faith whenever appropriate,” said Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Connecticut, chairman of a bishops committee on doctrine. He had said the revisions affirmed statements from the Vatican.

Jewish groups issued a response on August 18. They said that while they “pose no objection” to Christians sharing their faith, dialogue with Jews becomes “untenable” if the goal is to persuade Jews to accept Jesus as their savior.

“A declaration of this sort is antithetical to the very essence of Jewish-Christian dialogue as we have understood it,” Jewish leaders said in a letter to the Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The signers were the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee and rabbis representing the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform movements.

Levada, who replaced Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger after he became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, is responsible for elucidating the Church’s theology.

According to Rosen, Levada made it clear that there was intrinsic value in conducting interfaith dialogue with Jews even without any ulterior motives of proselytizing.

He also made a clear distinction between “witnessing,” or sharing the New Testament, and proselytizing, which was wrong.

The tensions between Jews and Catholics are rooted in a complex theological debate about salvation for those outside the Catholic Church.

As a result of reforms in the Catholic Church begun during the Second Vatican Conference, Catholicism’s theology vis-à-vis Judaism changed. The Jews were seen to have an eternal covenant with God.

“There were those in the Church who interpreted this to mean that Jews did not need to embrace faith in Jesus as savior to be redeemed,” explained Rosen. “Therefore, they did not need to hear the Christian message.”

However, others in the Church adopted a different understanding of this eternal covenant, he added.

“Some saw it as one of God’s secrets that would be revealed at some time in the future. And I believe that is the position of the pope.

“But many saw no contradiction between affirming this eternal covenant between the Jews and God while at the same time adhering to the position that Jews need to accept Jesus as savior.”