eChurch Christian Blog

From Catholic Culture

The Vatican’s representative at UN headquarters in New York pressed the argument for reform of the international body in a speech to the General Assembly. Archbishop Celestino Migliore said that a revitalized UN should be “capable of responding to the obstacles and increasing complexity of relations between peoples and nations.”

Although he did not spell out the reforms that would be necessary, Archbishop Migliore suggested that the conduct of the UN should be more clearly in line with the organization’s founding charter. He argued: “The United Nations will advance toward the formation of a true family of nations to the extent that it assumes the truth of the inevitable interdependence among peoples, and to the extent that it takes up the truth about the human person, in accordance with its Charter.” The archbishop went on to say that international development efforts should respect the both the needs of the recipient nations and their fundamental dignity. In that context the Vatican’s permanent observer at the UN was critical of foreign-aid program that stress aggressive family-planning ventures. “Unfortunately,” he said, “in some parts of the world today, development aid seems to be tied rather to the recipient countries’ willingness to adopt programs which discourage demographic growth of certain populations by methods and practices disrespectful of human dignity and rights.” Such efforts are unworthy of the UN, he said, because their approach is “not one of reciprocity but imposition, and to predicate the decision to give development aid on the acceptance of such policies constitutes an abuse of power.”

Archbishop Migliore reiterated another observation that has been frequently made by Vatican officials: that justice in a global economy requires “the equity of the international commercial system and world financial architecture.” He urged efforts to make credit and capital available to developing nations, and provide the world’s poor with access to education and the means of communication.

Blog Post from the excellent Biased BBC. I like this because it doesn’t matter what you think of the BNP, what right do the Labour party have saying that certain professions should not be allowed to recruit members from another legal UK political party. How long until a government says that certain professions should not employ people that are orthodox Christians, because they may hold political views that are “unacceptable”?

Have you been following BBC coverage of Labour’s farewell conference today? If I understand what they are saying correctly the fact that The Sun has come out unambiguously in favour of Cameron is a matter of little import. I recall when the same newspaper came out in favour of Blair from 1997 to 2005 this was trailed by the BBC as having significant impact, but no longer, for some reason.

What IS important, as a representative of the NASUWT put it on the..ahem… delightful PM programme, is that the evil BNP must not under any circumstances be allowed to have members employed in the Teaching profession. Naturally the BNP were not permitted to respond to the Nulabour position espoused at conference by Mr Balls today. The BBC could have enquired of the NASUWT spokesperson why some legal political parties are more equal than others and on what legal basis was it right to discriminate against the BNP but of course that is never going to happen. To be clear; I have no time for the BNP but I do believe that it should be treated the same as every other legally constituted political party in the UK and the fact that the radical Socialists in power and the courtiers in the teaching unions think otherwise should not be adopted as the BBC default position.

The ideology of the likes of RESPECT and the SWP are just as repulsive as the BNP but they get a free pass from the BBC and are never brought into these discussions. Indeed the entire multiculti welfare loving leftist agenda of Nulabour is considered pretty obscene by many people so maybe individuals holding those political views should also be banned from holding employment in the teaching ranks?

By Barry Rubin

There’s a little fable that’s often used to explain the Middle East. You’ve probably heard it but for those of you who haven’t I’ll tell it briefly and then analyze it in detail to explain better about this most perplexing yet highly important part of the world.

First, the story:

One day, a frog and a scorpion are standing by the river bank. They both want to get across to the other side. The frog can swim; the scorpion can’t. So the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across.

“But,” protests the frog, “if I let you on my back you’ll sting me!”

“Don’t worry,” answers the scorpion. “Why would I do that since if I sting you I’ll drown?”

This makes sense to the frog. He lets the scorpion climb aboard, jumps into the water, and starts swimming. In the middle of the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, paralyzing him. And as they sink down into the depth, the frog speaks his last words: “Why did you do that! Now we’ll both die!”

The scorpion shrugs his carapace and says, “Oh well, after all this is the Middle East. Glub. Glub. Gl….”

What I’ve never liked about this story is that the scorpion’s action seems to be irrational and is clearly suicidal. But what if the scorpion has good reason for acting as he does and isn’t just committing suicide? I’ll come back to this point in a few sentences.

Before that, though, let’s consider some scenarios.

Scenario One: The nice, pragmatic scorpion.

Assume a rational Western policymaker who thinks that everyone in the world thinks and acts pretty much the same because they have the same goals. In his other experiences handling domestic issues or with friendly foreign powers, he knows that if you make concessions to reach a deal, the other side will do so as well. Everybody seeks to arrive at a mutually beneficial solution.

Or, in Obama’s words: “I’m not interested in victory. I’m interested in resolving the problem.”

So in that sense, the frog is dealing with a ”scorpion” he can trust—say Canada, Britain, Israel, Colombia, Botswana, or Japan.

Scorpion and frog want to get to other side, scorpion and frog cooperate (the scorpion will even put his claws into the water and paddle since he’s interested in success), problem solved.

Scenario Two: The nasty but rational scorpion.

But the policymaker isn’t so naïve. He knows there are some real differences, but he chalks these down to misunderstandings. Perhaps previous frogs haven’t treated the scorpion properly. If he apologizes and shows he’s a different kind of frog than the scorpion won’t sting him but will be one over by his charm and willingness to compromise.

So he makes a speech: Scorpions have a long and proud history. Frogs have often been arrogant in their treatment of scorpions. Let’s be friends.

You don’t have to assume blindly good will on the scorpion’s side. You will give more than the scorpion in terms of concessions but in the end the scorpion will give something because it has an interest in making the arrangement work.

So the frog jumps in with the scorpion on its back, the scorpion lets the frog do all the work, demands refreshments, and doesn’t say “thank you” at the end. But at least it doesn’t sting the scorpion. The other bank is reached; peace and quiet is achieved.

Perhaps this can be said to characterize places like Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. They put a higher value on getting along but will give the absolute minimum in exchange no matter how much they get from America and Europe.

Scenario Three: The Radical Frog-Hating Scorpion That Wants to Rule the Habitat

Here is where our problem is today. Briefly, the radical scorpions of the world—which include in alphabetical order: Cuba, Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and some others that could be mentioned don’t want to compromise and be friends.

Unlike the pragmatic scorpion, they won’t give a lot; unlike the nasty but pragmatic scorpion, they won’t give a little. They will take everything they can get and give nothing in return.

Does this make them irrational? No, because if they believe they can win by this strategy then it is quite a rational one to follow. And if you give them reason to think you are weak, stupid, naïve, or sympathetic enough to give them everything in exchange for nothing then you have persuaded them of that fact.

But now I have to redeem my promise about explaining why the scorpion isn’t committing suicide. In effect, answering this question has been one of my main efforts for 30 years now.

Briefly, the scorpion has good reason to think he is more likely to die if he doesn’t sting the frog.

Let’s put it this way: the scorpion stings the frog, the frog dies but becomes like a boat that the scorpion can use to stay afloat and to paddle wherever he wants. By using his stinger, the scorpion improves his situation.

Or to elucidate:
–Radical regimes use anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Israel doctrine and conflicts as rationales for their many failures. Support your dictator; don’t complain about low living standards or lack of freedom because I’m saving you from the imperialist-Zionist-infidel plots against you.

–By stinging, radical regimes show how tough they are, thus pleasing and intimidating their own people and outdoing their rivals at home and competitors abroad.

–Not stinging is more dangerous than stinging. After all, if radical dictators had good relations with the Western democracies they could more easily influence the dictatorship’s society by opening up its economy and society more. The dictator will forego benefits in order to sustain his rule.

–They believe in their ideology. The scorpion must sting or he isn’t a scorpion. Iran’s leaders really believe what they say, as did Saddam Hussein or Yasir Arafat or Fidel Castro. Down with the frogs! Long live the scorpions!

–Finally, these regimes are ambitious. They want to rule their region and know that the West truly is an adversary. It isn’t a friend to be hugged or a limited rival with which you make a deal after tough bargaining, but rather an enemy to be defeated.

So it doesn’t matter whether Obama wears an “I love Scorpions” T-shirt, or speaks at the Scorpions’ Club (I mean the UN), or apologizes for previous frogs croaking too loud.

To the scorpions of the world, though, he’s making America look like a plate of frogs’ legs.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

By Hilary White

LONDON, September 30, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With the announcement this week by the Vatican that Pope Benedict XVI will visit Britain next year, the heavily secularized country’s anti-Christian activists, left-leaning media and homosexualist lobbyists have gone into a pre-emptive frenzy of Catholic-bashing, largely based upon the Church’s teachings on the life and family issues.

John Smeaton, the director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), wrote last week that the Britain Pope Benedict will be visiting is in ”the valley of the culture of death,” an observation that is receiving support from the vicious nature of the backlash against the announced visit of the Catholic pontiff.

Tanya Gold, a columnist for the Guardian, wrote that she is “repelled” by the idea of a papal visit to Britain. “In his actions on child abuse and Aids, Joseph Ratzinger has colluded in the protection of paedophiles and the deaths of millions of Africans,” she wrote.

Calling the Catholic objection to the use of condoms in the fight against AIDS in Africa “the church’s own holocaust,” Gold wrote, “Condoms can protect Africans from Aids. But who can protect them from Ratzinger?”

“Some local priests in Africa counsel contraception, because they care about their parishioners. But the Vatican, on its Roman cloud, disagrees,” she continued.

Gold went on to derogate Catholic dogmatic theology, calling belief in the Virgin Birth a “fantasy” and “magical, mystical nonsense.” She went on to disparage the Catholic teaching on the reservation of ordination to men, and complained that the Church “demands the criminilisation [sic] of abortion even for women who have been raped or are very sick…”

“Gin and wire coathangers, anyone?” she said. She concluded by ironically welcoming Benedict with a final blast, “Don’t tread on the corpses.”

Terry Sanderson, head of the virulently anti-Christian National Secular Society, said the pope’s visit was “dismal news,” called Benedict a “ghastly man” and said that the NSS will be “joining other groups” in protest. Sanderson reiterated the media’s usual roster of anti-Catholic accusations, saying “Why Britain should seek to laud such a nasty extremist is beyond me. We should not forget that his ‘teachings’ have resulted in the banning of condoms in developing countries where HIV is decimating the populations. He encourages population growth in places where starvation is common. He persecutes homosexuals, treats women as second class citizens, has colluded in the large-scale cover up of child abuse.

“His Church interferes illegitimately in politics and undermines democracy. It siphons huge amounts of money out of poverty-stricken economies – what is there to celebrate about such a bigot?”

The NSS is a close collaborator with the various homosexualist groups who are working with government to eradicate all input into public life by religious people, particularly Christians, in Britain. In 2007, the Labour government’s education minister pledged to the NSS and a coalition of homosexualist groups to “compel” religious schools to comply with their agenda of the normalization of homosexuality. The NSS was instrumental in orchestrating the closure and secularisation of several Catholic adoption agencies after the passage of Labour’s Sexual Orientation Regulations.

A related group, the Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association (GALHA) staged a protest today against the Pope’s visit outside the Labour Party Conference, listing among their objections Catholic opposition to abortion, condoms in AIDS prevention as well as to artificial contraception in general. GALHA objects also to the existence of Catholic schools, saying they cause “social division.”

GALHA Secretary David Christmas said, “The idea that [the pope] should be feted and lauded as some kind of hero is a direct insult to all of those people whose lives have been blighted by his extreme doctrinal positions.”

Anthony Ozimic of the UK-based Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) told LifeSiteNews.com, “The number of rabidly anti-life columnists writing for the Guardian makes it the de facto house journal of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF).

“Tanya Gold and her ilk are clearly rattled that even anti-life political leaders respect the Pope’s moral leadership. The anti-life lobby are also embarrassed by the total flop of its campaign to kick the Holy See out of the UN. The Catholic Church’s pro-life mission will outlast Ms. Gold and her false accusations.”

Damian Thompson, editor of the Catholic Herald and the Blogs Editor of the Daily Telegraph called Gold’s “the most poisonously anti-Catholic article to have appeared in the mainstream media for decades” and said that Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger will regret having published it.

“When Gold accuses the Pope of colluding in the protection of paedophiles she is making an accusation that requires a pretty high level of proof. Which she doesn’t have,” Thompson wrote.

The popular pseudonymous blogger and Catholic commentator “Diogenes” wrote at Catholic Culture, “This sort of column would be classified as ‘hate speech’ if it were aimed at any target other than the Catholic Church. Then again, if it had any other target the column wouldn’t be published in the Guardian.”

John Smeaton, the director of SPUC, saying Britain is in the “valley of the culture of death,” wrote last week that: “In Britain, the government organises secret abortions on schoolgirls behind parents’ backs. The chief prosecutor has today issued rules tolerating assisted suicide, under which the disabled will be treated as second-class citizens. The leaders of the major political parties all voted for sinister destructive experiments on embryonic children.

“I hope that Pope Benedict will issue stern reminders to church leaders and Catholic parliamentarians of their absolute duty to place the right to life from conception to natural death at the top of Britain’s moral and political agenda.”

While the largest group of respondents to British religion surveys remains Christians, the secularization of the country has become axiomatic. A 2007 survey found that 71.6 per cent of the population said they were Christian, but a poll by British Election Studies found that only 31 per cent of people who say they belong to a religion attend services regularly, down from 74 per cent in 1964.

A survey taken in 2006 by Tearfund found that 66 per cent of the population, 32.2 million, have no connection with any religion or church. Tearfund said of the secular majority, “Most of them – 29.3 million – are unreceptive and closed to attending church; churchgoing is simply not on their agenda.” A 2007 Mori poll commissioned by the British Library found that nearly half of teenagers in Britain are atheists.

This post is from the John Piper blog and I am sure that many orthodox Lutheran churches will follow suit.

Previous recent related post:-

Lutheran ‘reformers’ decide to wait a year – Group opposed to ELCA’s policies on gays will work on a recommendation; others ready to split from church now

A few blocks from my home Roland Wells, a courageous and compassionate Lutheran pastor who has served over twenty faithful years in our inner-city neighborhood, announced today that the church he leads, St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church, will leave the ELCA because of the recent decision of the Churchwide Asssembly concerning the ordination of those practicing homosexual behaviors.

This is not an easy thing to do. Nor was it done precipitously. I point to it for the sake of prayer, repentance, and hope. Here is the press release that Roland sent out today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

FIRST TWIN CITY CONGREGATION VOTES TO LEAVE ELCA

A 96 percent majority of the members of St. Paul’s Evangelical Lutheran Church in Minneapolis voted on Sunday, September 27, to leave the ELCA.  Due to the outcome of the recent ELCA Churchwide Assembly decisions regarding the role of Scripture and the ordination of practicing homosexual and lesbian persons, St. Paul’s was forced to act.

Back in October of 1990, the congregation’s Council set a policy that if the ELCA ever moved to allow such ordinations, the congregation would immediately begin the process to leave.  ”We feel quite affirmed by the hundreds of congregations who are contemplating the same move.” said St. Paul’s Senior Pastor, Rev. Roland J. Wells, Jr.  ”Since the ELCA vote, the reaction across the country has been swift and overwhelming.  I have received phone calls from all over the country from pastors and members of congregations who are withholding funds from the national church, and are preparing to move to a newly forming Lutheran denomination, the LCMC.  The phone at the LCMC office in Michigan has been ringing off the hook.”   In a separate action, over 1,200 ELCA leaders met last week in Indiana to begin work on another breakaway synod.

“When the ELCA took actions that even the liberal United Methodist and Presbyterian Church USA have repeatedly rejected, the sign was clear that the stranglehold of the activist fringe have taken control of the leadership of the church.  Those of us in the center, representing over 80% of ELCA Lutherans in the pew, can see that it’s time to form a new church body.  It’s time to build a positive, grace-filled, missional church- the ELCA that could have been.”  According to its process, St. Paul’s congregation will now go through a process of consultation with the local ELCA bishop, and then hold a second vote at least 90 days after the first, which must pass by two-thirds.

St. Paul’s is a legacy congregation in downtown Minneapolis. Founded by Norwegian immigrants in 1872, it was the fourth Lutheran congregation founded in the city.  Today it draws members from a 60-mile circle across the Twin Cities.  It is internationally recognized for its college-level programs of cross-cultural ministry education.