The Manhattan Declaration: Hypocrites United

The Christian Right has arrogantly come up with their own Nicene Creed. However, the Nicene Creed only states a belief of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, while the Manhattan Declaration states a whole host of beliefs not the least of which is that the holiest of all actions is hypocrisy. I'm certain that better writers and more intelligent people have attacked it by now as a blathering piece of BFD. So this post is, by its timing, anti-climactic.

But it is this kind of bloviating sanctimoniousness that drives people to respond anyway, because after reading it, one is prompted to react with "Do Something!"

So here is my take, such as it is. Sorry about the length, but when dealing enormous amounts of hot air, it takes an equal length of writing to respond to them.

Preamble

Christians are heirs of a 2,000-year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering.

While fully acknowledging the imperfections and shortcomings of Christian institutions and communities in all ages [In other words, they don’t intend to address the topic of pedophile priests or ministers], we claim the heritage of those Christians who defended innocent life by rescuing discarded babies from trash heaps in Roman cities and publicly denouncing the Empire’s sanctioning of infanticide. We remember with reverence those believers who sacrificed their lives by remaining in Roman cities to tend the sick and dying during the plagues [Like the onslaught of AIDS?], and who died bravely in the coliseums rather than deny their Lord.

After the barbarian tribes overran Europe, Christian monasteries preserved not only the Bible but also the literature and art of Western culture. [And for almost 1000 years, kept them all for themselves.] It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade; evangelical Christians in England, led by John Wesley and William Wilberforce, put an end to the slave trade in that country. [American Christians, however, were rather split at the time, weren’t they?] Christians under Wilberforce’s leadership also formed hundreds of societies for helping the poor, the imprisoned, and child laborers chained to machines.

In Europe, Christians challenged the divine claims of kings and successfully fought to establish the rule of law and balance of governmental powers, which made modern democracy possible. [Of course, Christians allowed Europeans a breather after 782 wars in 800 years – all sanctioned by Christians] And in America, Christian women stood at the vanguard of the suffrage movement. [And that, my friends, is the last you will read about women's rights in this polemic] The great civil rights crusades of the 1950s and 60s were led by Christians claiming the Scriptures and asserting the glory of the image of God in every human being regardless of race, religion, age or class. [Take that, Southern Baptists!]

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination. [Their “devotion to human dignity” skipped 1981 to 1999 simply because people with AIDS were anathema. Period.]

Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.

Declaration

We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason [Quite a jump from Scripture to “natural human reason”] (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.

While the whole scope of Christian moral concern, including a special concern for the poor and vulnerable, claims our attention, we are especially troubled that in our nation today the lives of the unborn, the disabled, and the elderly are severely threatened; that the institution of marriage, already buffeted by promiscuity, infidelity and divorce, is in jeopardy of being redefined to accommodate fashionable ideologies: [Well, at least they admit we’re fashionable!] that freedom of religion and the rights of conscience are gravely jeopardized by those who would use the instruments of coercion to compel persons of faith to compromise their deepest convictions.

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image . [This means freedom to be Christian ONLY.]


We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences. to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. [“ecclesial differences” – Why is it that organized religion only bonds together when hey are AGAINST something? They can agree on base generalities like “peace,” but when dogma – the absolute heart of the church – is necessary, they agree to disagree – and hope that the bottom won’t fall out from underneath their congregation’s base.] We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty.

****

Life
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Genesis 1:27

I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10:10

Although public sentiment has moved in a pro-life direction, we note with sadness that pro-abortion ideology prevails today in our government. The present administration is led and staffed by those who want to make abortions legal at any stage of fetal development, and who want to provide abortions at taxpayer expense. [Whether or not they like it, people are paying for abortions through their insurance premiums. The “taxpayer expense” is really a singular jab at Planned Parenthood.] Majorities in both houses of Congress hold pro-abortion views. The Supreme Court, whose infamous 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade stripped the unborn of legal protection, continues to treat elective abortion as a fundamental constitutional right, though it has upheld as constitutionally permissible some limited restrictions on abortion. The President says that he wants to reduce the “need” for abortion—a commendable goal. But he has also pledged to make abortion more easily and widely available by eliminating laws prohibiting government funding, requiring waiting periods for women seeking abortions, and parental notification for abortions performed on minors. The elimination of these important and effective pro-life laws cannot reasonably be expected to do other than significantly increase the number of elective abortions by which the lives of countless children are snuffed out prior to birth. [“Pro-life” is a misnomer. It should be “pro-birth.” Would pro-lifers ever put their money where their mouth is and help to SUPPORT those children after birth? There are still a few “maternity hospitals” left (I was born in one), but they are not adequately supported by any faith-based organizations. One solution: provide a box to check on the taxpayer’s 1040 that states: “I stand pro-life. I want my tax return to benefit (fill in blank with name of legitimate social non-profit) so that a child may be fed, sheltered, clothed and educated according to the standards set by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.” ] Our commitment to the sanctity of life is not a matter of partisan loyalty, for we recognize that in the thirty-six years since Roe v. Wade, elected officials and appointees of both major political parties have been complicit in giving legal sanction to what Pope John Paul II described as “the culture of death.” We call on all officials in our country, elected and appointed, to protect and serve every member of our society, including the most marginalized, voiceless, and vulnerable among us.

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature or inconvenient are discardable.[ No such word, but it has probably been used time and again on “birther”\“teabagger” signs.] As predicted by many prescient persons, the cheapening of life that began with abortion has now metastasized. [Only recently did Christians value the life of a child born out of wedlock: it was until about 1920 that birth certificates of such children were stamped “illegitimate.”] For example, human embryo-destructive research and its public funding are promoted in the name of science and in the cause of developing treatments and cures for diseases and injuries. The President and many in Congress favor the expansion of embryo-research to include the taxpayer funding of so-called “therapeutic cloning.” This would result in the industrial mass production of human embryos to be killed for the purpose of producing genetically customized stem cell lines and tissues. [Now the conspiracy theories start. This statement is wild supposition of the Pat Robertson kind. And science fiction has absolutely no place in a manifesto such as this.] At the other end of life, an increasingly powerful movement to promote assisted suicide and “voluntary” euthanasia threatens the lives of vulnerable elderly and disabled persons. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. [This invites a wild analogy: so many of us have our pets “put to sleep” because we don’t want them to suffer anymore. Yet good “Christians” will force our loved ones to suffer and have no say at all about the continuance of their lives.] The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “liberty,” “autonomy,” and “choice.”

We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the abandonment of the unborn to abortion. We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to pregnant women in need . and to those who have been victimized by abortion, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of women to submit to the deliberate killing of their unborn children. [While the incident may have involved another country, I feel I must remind Chuck Colson that the last Magdalene Laundry was closed in the early 1990s. He’s portraying all Christians as self-effacing saints.] Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to problem pregnancies is for all of us to love and care for mother and child alike.

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. [Equating the Bible with reason?] We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. [You won’t do it with “abstinence only” programs.] We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.

Marriage


The man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, for she was taken out of man." For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Genesis 2:23-24

This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Ephesians 5:32-33

In Scripture, the creation of man and woman, and their one-flesh union as husband and wife, is the crowning achievement of God’s creation. In the transmission of life and the nurturing of children, men and women joined as spouses are given the great honor of being partners with God Himself. Marriage then, is the first institution of human society—indeed it is the institution on which all other human institutions have their foundation. In the Christian tradition we refer to marriage as “holy matrimony” to signal the fact that it is an institution ordained by God, and blessed by Christ in his participation at a wedding in Cana of Galilee. In the Bible, God Himself blesses and holds marriage in the highest esteem. Vast human experience confirms that marriage is the original and most important institution for sustaining the health, education, and welfare of all persons in a society. [Including everyone and every culture is totally false: out of 1300 cultures studied, only about 250 were based on one-man-one-woman marriage. The rest were polygamous. And only in the last 300 years or so has the idea of love as a basis for marriage been recognized. Past cultures almost exclusively supported arranged marriages based on money, property and other assets.] Where marriage is honored, and where there is a flourishing marriage culture, everyone benefits—the spouses themselves, their children, the communities and societies in which they live. Where the marriage culture begins to erode, social pathologies of every sort quickly manifest themselves. Unfortunately, we have witnessed over the course of the past several decades a serious erosion of the marriage culture in our own country. Perhaps the most telling—and alarming—indicator is the out-of-wedlock birth rate. Less than fifty years ago, it was under 5 percent. Today it is over 40 percent. Our society—and particularly its poorest and most vulnerable sectors, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is much higher even than the national average—is paying a huge price in delinquency, drug abuse, crime, incarceration, hopelessness, and despair. [Personal note: I was born in Chicago at St. Vincent’s Infant Asylum and Maternity Hospital and put up for adoption from birth. I was illegitimate. Ann Coulter(geist) has brazenly (and stupidly) characterized and generalized ALL children born out of wedlock as drug addicts and criminals. I must be the odd one out.] Other indicators are widespread non-marital sexual cohabitation and a devastatingly high rate of divorce.

We confess with sadness that Christians and our institutions have too often scandalously failed to uphold the institution of marriage and to model for the world the true meaning of marriage. Insofar as we have too easily embraced the culture of divorce and remained silent about social practices that undermine the dignity of marriage we repent, and call upon all Christians to do the same. [Too little, too late and too lame.]

To strengthen families, we must stop glamorizing promiscuity and infidelity and restore among our people a sense of the profound beauty, mystery, and holiness of faithful marital love. We must reform ill-advised policies that contribute to the weakening of the institution of marriage, including the discredited idea of unilateral divorce. [Tell that to battered wives. One in particular pleaded with Pastor Rick Warren to counsel her after a brutal beating. His answer: divorce is not an option – after all, “he only hit you once. Only after you can prove that he’s beating you consistently, after counseling, then you should just leave him. But no divorce.”] We must work in the legal, cultural, and religious domains to instill in young people a sound understanding of what marriage is, what it requires, and why it is worth the commitment and sacrifices that faithful spouses make.

The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. [There's a contradiction in there somewhere.] In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; [In a struggle to see their POV, I have come up numerous times frustrated and empty-handed as far as any kind of believability: their past behavior towards gays and lesbians shows them to have no respect and certainly no compassion. The Age of AIDS (1982-2002 – approx.) proved what harm hypocritical self-righteousness can do. True compassion existed only in pockets of the country and AIDS agencies were all (gasp!) secular.] and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. [This is, at best, disingenuous. The most radical idea Christ espoused was to love your enemies. He knew that this went against human nature. Most Christian preachers know that this sentiment will never be taken to heart, but they spout it occasionally to look benevolent.] For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual—on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation. [This is a grand attempt to make the institution of marriage holy, untouchable and mystical beyond which we mortals can comprehend. The union of two people in love and who fervently attempt to sustain that union with physical and emotional gestures are totally discounted because in the mind of a “true believer” the two people MUST be of the opposite sex and have the intention at all times of procreation. Anyone who thinks otherwise is also a sinner.]

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential. [To insinuate that a minority such a gays is “powerful and influential” is absurd: can societal outcasts – deemed outcasts because they are sinners – be “powerful and influential? And to infer that same-sex marriage is a slippery slope to polygamy and incest is sanctimonious demonizing.] No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. [Religious liberty is never compromised if that liberty does not demand that everyone else must have the same frame of mind.] Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. [Which rights would he rather abuse, the parent or child? Children have an intrinsic right to know that other philosophies and cultures exist and exactly what they are. If they are not given the entire spectrum of beliefs, they unnecessarily doomed to become bigots.] Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”) that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. [Mr. Colson assumes to speak for the rest of Christendom and that is a grave mistake. He is authorized to speak only for the ones who have signed the Declaration.] How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.

Religious Liberty

The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners. Isaiah 61:1

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. Matthew 22:21

The struggle for religious liberty across the centuries has been long and arduous, but it is not a novel idea or recent development. The nature of religious liberty is grounded in the character of God Himself, the God who is most fully known in the life and work of Jesus Christ. Determined to follow Jesus faithfully in life and death, the early Christians appealed to the manner in which the Incarnation had taken place: “Did God send Christ, as some suppose, as a tyrant brandishing fear and terror? Not so, but in gentleness and meekness..., for compulsion is no attribute of God” (Epistle to Diognetus 7.3-4). Thus the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the example of Christ Himself and in the very dignity of the human person created in the image of God—a dignity, as our founders proclaimed, inherent in every human, and knowable by all in the exercise of right reason.

Christians confess that God alone is Lord of the conscience. Immunity from religious coercion is the cornerstone of an unconstrained conscience. No one should be compelled to embrace any religion against his will, nor should persons of faith be forbidden to worship God according to the dictates of conscience or to express freely and publicly their deeply held religious convictions. What is true for individuals applies to religious communities as well. [Yet we are compelled to embrace Christianity every day in every way: “Our forefathers were Christian.” “America is a Christian nation!” “Secularists are atheists!” The Christian religion is the ONLY worthwhile religion” “I knew my God was better than his god.” “Keep the Christ in Christmas"]

It is ironic that those who today assert a right to kill the unborn, aged and disabled and also a right to engage in immoral sexual practices, and even a right to have relationships integrated around these practices be recognized and blessed by law—such persons claiming these “rights” are very often in the vanguard [ “Persecution!!”] of those who would trample upon the freedom of others to express their religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

We see this, for example, in the effort to weaken or eliminate conscience clauses, and therefore to compel pro-life institutions (including religiously affiliated hospitals and clinics), and pro-life physicians, surgeons, nurses, and other health care professionals, to refer for abortions and, in certain cases, even to perform or participate in abortions. We see it in the use of anti-discrimination statutes to force religious institutions, businesses, and service providers of various sorts to comply with activities they judge to be deeply immoral or go out of business. [Maybe the government has to dictate morality because “righteous” people WOULD discriminate, fire and ruin the lives of people in the name of “conscience.”] After the judicial imposition of “same-sex marriage” in Massachusetts, for example, Catholic Charities chose with great reluctance to end its century-long work of helping to place orphaned children in good homes rather than comply with a legal mandate that it place children in same-sex households in violation of Catholic moral teaching. In New Jersey, after the establishment of a quasi-marital “civil unions” scheme, a Methodist institution was stripped of its tax exempt status when it declined, as a matter of religious conscience, to permit a facility it owned and operated to be used for ceremonies blessing homosexual unions. In Canada and some European nations, Christian clergy have been prosecuted for preaching Biblical norms against the practice of homosexuality. New hate-crime laws in America raise the specter of the same practice here. [Do Biblical “norms” include the insulting and incendiary speeches of Fred Phelps?]

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one’s own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of. Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny. [This assumes that Christians are always “civil”]

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. [That is why Christian clergy are calling for the death of the President.] We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

Going back to the earliest days of the church, Christians have refused to compromise their proclamation of the gospel. In Acts 4, Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching. Their answer was, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God. For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.” Through the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required. [One could create a wild “slippery slope” from this: not biding by the law of non-discrimination against gays could eventually lead to “Kill a Queer for Christ.” Seriously, this manifesto could validate “birthers” and “teabaggers.”] There is no more eloquent defense of the rights and duties of religious conscience than the one offered by Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. Writing from an explicitly Christian perspective, and citing Christian writers such as Augustine and Aquinas, King taught that just laws elevate and ennoble human beings because they are rooted in the moral law whose ultimate source is God Himself. Unjust laws degrade human beings. Inasmuch as they can claim no authority beyond sheer human will, they lack any power to bind in conscience. King’s willingness to go to jail, rather than comply with legal injustice, was exemplary and inspiring.

Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. [Proselytizing your version of the truth is one thing, while pummeling people with the Bible, cherry-picked verse by cherry-picked verse is another.] We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s.

Thus this “Declaration” ends leading us towards a puzzling but crucial question:

Who gets to decide what is Caesar’s and what is God’s?

Manning and Drake: Taking Back Stupidity...

Only Leads To More Stupidity

Oh! the Christian Charity! Oh! the magnanimous gesture! Oh! the publicity!

Staying in the eye of the media can sometimes cost you a few marbles. Or I.Q. points. Take the cases of Rev. Wiley Drake and Rev. James David Manning. Both have taken upon themselves the odious task of pleading for the death of President Obama. With Drake, it was "imprecatory prayer" (the first time in centuries since those words were ever used, sending millions of people to their dictionaries), asking God to smite Obama when He got the chance. But Manning was more poetic (I think) in telling his faithful that "If Obama lives, America dies." Many people (including Homeland Security) took that sentiment to be a flagrant request for someone, anyone, to kill the President. Of course, neither was as blatantly obtuse as Steven Anderson who said Obama should be killed like a snail - sending some people out to buy huge bags of salt.

BTW: where do these people come from?

So now we have two ministers who have tried to backtrack into less treasonous territory.

From Right Wing Watch:

A former Southern Baptist Convention officer who made headlines in June when he said on national radio that he was praying for Barack Obama to die now says he wants to see the president live long enough to stand trial for treason.

Wiley Drake, pastor of First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif., issued a press release Nov. 19 calling for an end to "imprecatory prayer" -- words of judgment from the Book of Psalms prayed back to God, directed toward Obama. Drake attributed his change of heart to "spiritual counsel" of James David Manning, pastor at ATLAH World Missionary Church in New York, contained in a 16 1/2-minute video recorded Nov. 18.

"I do not want to see anyone attempt, dream about, think about or ever discuss assassinating you," Manning continued. "It is most important to you and to my savior Jesus that you live, and that you live a long life, but that you live that we might be able to bring you to trial.

So Manning has backtracked from his convoluted "mack daddy" speeches to wish Obama a long life (notice he didn't say "healthy") in order to bring him to trial. A visit from Homeland Security to Manning's church/seminary/school/broadcast center could have had something to do with his change of heart, although he also recorded a "fine, take me!" video.

I know, too many people are asking "Are these wackos news?" Unfortunately they are: remember what we've always said about religion and entertainment: in America, you can't tell them apart.

The Manhattan Declaration: The Christian Right Declares Global Warfare, Giving Africa The Gift Of ...Fear

The Christofascist Manifesto!
plus - As Part Of A Double Feature -
Homophobia Is Alive And Thriving In Africa

Christofascists might have a reason to celebrate the holidays very, shall we say, enthusiastically this Christmas: the anti-homosexuality bill of Uganda is still on the table before the Ugandan parliament and, despite strong opposition from human rights groups and progressive churches, looks as if it might pass. If it does, you will hear choruses of "Hallelujah" coming from strongholds of homophobia like the Southern Baptist Convention and Family Research Council, because, after all, they encouraged the bill from its very beginning.

Of course, the climate in Uganda is so thick with fear and loathing of anyone gay that whole communities are already going door-to-door to "root out" homosexuals and turn them in to authorities. Passage of the bill would create a gay genocide unparalleled in history.

From Queerty.com

U.S. conservatives have successfully recruited a significant number of prominent African religious leaders to a campaign seeking to restrict the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. The flagship issue … is the ordination of LGBT clergy by mainline Protestant denominations– particularly the Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist churches– in the United States….

As a direct result of this campaign, homophobia is on the rise in Africa– from increased incidents of violence to antigay legislation that carries the death penalty….

Right Wing Watch:

"We need to stand up against the U.S. Christian Right peddling homophobia in Africa," said Kaoma, who in recent weeks asked U.S. evangelist Rick Warren to denounce the bill and distance himself from its supporters.

“Africa’s antigay campaigns are to a substantial degree made in the U.S.A.”

A progressive think tank - Political Research Associates - just declared this week in the report "Globalizing the Culture Wars: U.S. Conservatives, African Churches and Homophobia" by Rev. Kapya Kaoma, a scholar This short report is MUST READING for those who wish to keep informed about the ugly, steadfast goals of the Christian Right in Africa, especially demonizing and criminalizing homoseuality.

“Rick Warren shows one face in the United States where he says he loves gays, and another face in Africa, which is on the verge of pogroms against this community,” said Reverend Kaoma. “We need to hear his voice loud and clear on this issue that gays and lesbians are entitled to full human rights.”

Rick has souls to win and money to make (in order to win those souls). He's not going to collar Uganda, Rwanda and every other African nation to preach to them what they don't want to hear. Even though he professes "love" for everyone, that love extends just so far - as far as the grasp for a nation's wallet and as far as the clutch of a significant number of souls.

From Christianity Today

Christian leaders reaffirmed their conservative stances on abortion, same-sex marriage, and religious liberty with a 4,700-word declaration released Friday. Signed initially by 125 evangelical, Catholic, and Orthodox leaders, the Manhattan Declaration calls Christians to adhere to three primary convictions, even if this requires civil disobedience. Charles Colson, who helped draft the declaration, said the statement brings Christian leaders together on the issues of abortion, marriage, and religious freedom in the face of growing pressure.

From The Manhattan Declaration:

Because the sanctity of human life, the dignity of marriage as a union of husband and wife, and the freedom of conscience and religion are foundational principles of justice and the common good, we are compelled by our Christian faith to speak and act in their defense. In this declaration we affirm: 1) the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life; 2) marriage as a conjugal union of man and woman, ordained by God from the creation, and historically understood by believers and non-believers alike, to be the most basic institution in society and; 3) religious liberty, which is grounded in the character of God, the example of Christ, and the inherent freedom and dignity of human beings created in the divine image.

Notice:

1. "equal dignity and life" do NOT include homosexuals, women, pro-choice people, leftists (commie-pinko's), socialists, or anyone the church sees fit to make an outcast.

2.) marriage as a societal institution has not been around in the same form as it exists now. This section leaves out the possibility of arranged marriages.

3. If religious liberty is "grounded in the character of God," then it is only CHRISTIAN liberty which is espoused. And that brings up the question as to WHO has signed the manifesto? Were Hindus, Muslims, Rastafarians, Shinto, Buddhists, Mormons, Jews, Zoroastrians invited to sign?

A hypocrisy creeps into the Manhattan Declaration fairly early on:

This same devotion to human dignity has led Christians in the last decade to work to end the dehumanizing scourge of human trafficking and sexual slavery, bring compassionate care to AIDS sufferers in Africa, and assist in a myriad of other human rights causes – from providing clean water in developing nations to providing homes for tens of thousands of children orphaned by war, disease and gender discrimination.

It is only at this juncture that the "Declaration" mentions AIDS and pointedly makes it a scourge of Africa. It conveniently jumps over the lack of compassion and dehumanization of homosexuals in regards to AIDS. That may be because, with the help of Rick Warren, they may be able to claim more converts while imprisoning more homosexuals in The Dark Continent.

The most hypocritical gag-me-with-a-spoon comment slips in later (but we all knew it was coming, didn't we?)

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture.

OK, let's face it: this declaration is a shout against the winds of change. And it is also a threat:

"We will stand here and make your lives as miserable as possible if everyone doesn't kneel down to us and convert RIGHT NOW!" (It says, with the stamp of a patent leather shod foot)

or...

"Don't make us call our friends in Africa to deal with you."

Will James David Manning Be Tried As A Martyr ... Or As An Idiot?

We have finally been given the most incredibly powerful example of blind faith ever seen in this country: James David Manning, "Ph.D." and his ATLAH Worldwide Ministries.

Yes, blind faith: as in willing to believe anything, as in naive, as in ignorant of the facts. I've long said that there are people who are willing to believe anyone who says the magic words: "God" "Bible" "Man of God" "Savior" "Holy" "Sacred." And if someone says those words to them loud enough, with enough emotion, long enough and clutching "Scripture" he or she can also add "send money" and then ...OMG! It's a miracle! People will actually send money!

Yep, that's blind faith. "Blind" being the operative word in this case.

James David Manning has been operating and bloviating about his ATLAH Worldwide "ministries" for over 25 years in Harlem (which he calls ATLAH - All The Land Anointed Holy).

Wikipedia:

Manning is fiercely opposed to the gentrification of Harlem and calls for its residents to boycott its shops, restaurants, doctors, banks and churches. That action, combined with a general rent strike, would force all property owners out of Harlem, he said, leaving the neighborhood to its rightful inheritors: black people. Manning calls his plan "No Dew, Nor Rain," after Elijah's warning to Ahab, king of Israel, of a coming drought. "When there's no dew, no rain, there's a drought - there's all kinds of suffering," said Manning. The whole of Harlem, he said, is to be a "drought zone."

Manning, on his radio show, The Manning Report, has been Obama's most virulent critic, even before the Presidential campaign, calling him a pimp ("Mac Daddy") and has called not only for his removal from office, but his death.

Viewing his "Reports" is like watching a passionate eighth grader read his notes about his love of all the Star Wars episodes (yes, even Jar Jar Binks!). He contradicts himself in statement after statement and doesn't seem to know he's doing it. His reasoning is so faulty that you wonder how he ever made it through high school, much less Union Theological Seminary. His assault never seems to come up for air, droning on and on about how EVERYONE in politics, Republicans, Democrats, Independents have tried to lead America down into the lowest caverns of hell.

And he does more than imply that people will have to perform acts of violence and give of themselves to the point of becoming martyrs. If a suicide bomber were to have pastor Manning's words on his lips before the explosion, Manning would simply say that there are casualties in every war. His war, however, seems to be with reason itself, but to call him insane would be useless: he and his small congregation (400?) have heard all the arguments against his sanity and they expect them. Calling him for what he is, however - a puffed up, fraudulent idiot - would make them stone you. To his congregation, Manning is a "man of God" who offers stern, spiritual guidance, even as he leads them into a separatist, illusary world where they are the only ones battling the forces of darkness.

There are different reasons why people come under the spell of such a "Man of God": some are terrified of spirituality, some are woefully ignorant, some are spiritually "lazy," wanting an authority figure to think things out for them, and then some are simply - stupid. His thoughtless polemics are treated as manna from heaven by his people. They don't know him as a man who's spun a cacoon of fraudulent claims and fraudulent hope. We should feel sorry for them.

But not for him.

With as much theatricality as he could muster, his latest video depicts him as a martyr for the cause of freedom, martyred by Obama and his corrupt administration.

It's hilarious.

It's assinine.

It's horrific in its stupidity.

Pray for this man's congregation. But in the meanwhile, pray for him to be tried as an idiot. That, my friends, would be true justice.

The Bestseller That Isn't: Going Rogue Hits Bestsellerdom With A Wimper!

Will New Book Help Her Run For Office?
Or Run FROM Office?

In 1936, when Margaret Mitchell's Gone With The Wind was published, the population of the country was approx, 128 million people (about 42% of what it is now) and the "average Joe" (to use the sexist terminology of the times) put out a whopping $3.00 (roughly 15% of his weekly salary) to read about the exploits of Scarlett O'Hara. Whole city blocks would chip in between five and ten cents a neighbor to have a turn at reading it. It came out in May 30th with a print run of 5,000 and then a rushed print run in June of 50,000 copies. By Christmas, one million copies were in print.

There was no New York Times Bestseller List at the time, but the nation viewed it as #1 for a over 2 years. That, however, was a time when books were popular because their authors were, at the very least, captivating. In 1984, for example, Erma Bombeck's Motherhood, The Second Oldest Profession was on the top of the charts for several months. People read it for its wit, humor and professionalism.

Times have changed, haven't they?

What constitutes a bestseller these days? The number of copies sold is still the criteria, but there is something else, or rather, there are things which don't "pal around with" good writing. Notoriety of the author or subject sells. Even negative publicity sells. Booksellers are still banking on brisk sales for Carrie Prejean's book Still Standing, but perhaps that's because people sometimes buy books for "camp" value. One truly funny "five star" review:

Although the writing in Miss Prejean's book caused me to throw up a little in my mouth, the spirit moves me to give it five stars. I know some might find that a little strange, but a book is more than simply words, sentences, and chapters; it's also cover art, spine glue, and the little blurbs the publisher commands its other authors to write. In sum, all these pieces must come together to make a book. If I love the smell of the book's spine glue, shouldn't I be allowed to reward the publisher with a few extra stars? I certainly think so.

Now the erstwhile Governor-of-Alaska-for-eighteen-months has penned an autobiography of sorts: Going Rogue will sell in the millions, to be sure, and will (briefly) be on the New York Times bestseller list simply because it had so many pre-orders. And die-hard Sarah Palin fans will brace themselves for a culture war skermish against any liberal MSM onslaught.

Harper Collins' description of the book:

Going Rogue traces one ordinary citizen's extraordinary journey and imparts Palin's vision of a way forward for America and her unfailing hope in the greatest nation on earth.

Certainly the making of a literary megastar! Not! Harper Collins may be trumpeting the pre-publishing sales, but in the end, it's the bookseller who knows what's happening to the book.

At Amazon the list price of $28.99 has been marked down to --$9.oo! That's a 60% markdown! In other words, damn the pre-pub sales - let's remainder it before we get stuck with it!

A tongue-in-cheek five star review:

All I know is this means she wont be running for President in 2012...she will make so much money from her book deal that she can shop at Wal-Mart for 1,212 days spending $3,000 each day. This will take her way past electioneering season.

Under "Tags Customers Associate with This Product" the tag with the most customers is Keeping America Stupid. The book is also paired in sales with a right wing polemical book about the Obama administration with the prescient title: Catastrophy!

I've been in books and publishing long enough to know that a book ala Ann Coulter is only read because of who the author is trashing no matter whether it's truth or "fibrication." Of course, even Ann Coulter can lie more convincely than Sarah Palin, but that won't stop some people from determining the book as the gospel truth. And Going Rogue: An American Life will proudly rest in their bookcases along with the conspiracy theories of Pat Robertson (A New World Order) and My Pet Goat.

And yet another commenter put the relationship between writer and reader beautifully:

When you understand that nobody wants to read your shit, your mind becomes powerfully concentrated. You begin to understand that writing/reading is, above all, a transaction. The reader donates his time and attention, which are supremely valuable commodities. In return, you the writer, must give him something worthy of his gift to you.

*The other two titles are Marvel Comic Books - not really that much of a stretch when you come to think of it. But their cover art has hoisted their prices (collector items) to $45 each making them better investments.

Islamophobia: An Irrational Rage Among People Who Can Barely Spell Islamophobia

From Islamophobia Watch:

Muslims know what materials are being taught in their mosques and they know many of the materials instruct young Muslims to kill innocent people who do not adhere to Sharia law. If Muslims do not want a backlash, then I would recommend a 'house cleaning'. Stack every Saudi, al Qaeda, Pakistani, Taliban, Hamas, and Muslim Brotherhood piece of material from their mosque and have a bonfire. Tell the American, Jewish, and Muslim community this hatred will no longer be allowed in their mosques."

- Dave Gaubatz, author of Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that's Conspiring to Islamize America,

All of this might be dismissed as the ranting of a fringe lunatic, but for the fact that Gaubatz's work has been circulated and endorsed by prominent Republican officials.

From Christian Newswire, Rev. Rusty Lee Thomas, Elijah Ministries,:

Islam is God's reality check for America. Can we continue to survive rejecting God and our Christian heritage for a "bowl of humanistic pottage?" We are selling our birthright as Americans so we can be just as sophisticated and enlightened as the Socialistic European nations that are in the midst of being conquered by Islam. Is this the heritage we desire to leave our children and grandchildren? I pray not in Jesus' name!

The website for Elijah ministries is Christofascist beyond belief and complete with flames and military metaphors.

From Right Wing Watch:
The American Family Association's Bryan Fischer:

The problem is that the more devout a Muslim is, the greater a threat he represents to our national security. And until we have a way of identifying which Muslims are the ones we have to worry about, we just cannot afford to take the chance.

Of course there's our friend "Rev." James David Manning (video below) who says that President Obama will, in exchange for Osama Bin Laden, turn over Israel to Islam. You thought that Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons were incendiary. Manning beats him by a mile. The jury is still out when it comes to investigating Manning and his intentions: maybe he's just a bumbling idiot who took advantage of Harlem's poor schools and huge drop-out rate to hammer hatred and ignorance into its residents.

Here is a prime example of Islamophobia as a result of some preachers' ignorant rants:

Alexios Marakis, a Greek Orthodox priest visiting the U.S., got lost in Tampa and tried to stop and ask directions from Marine reservist Jasen D. Bruce. But instead of offering help, “Bruce struck the priest on the head with a tire iron.” The reservist believed Marakis, who spoke limited English, was an Arab terrorist. Bruce chased the priest for three blocks, “and even called 911 to say that an Arabic man tried to rob him.”

Last but certainly not least, Pat Robertson has chimed in with his opinion of the Fort Hood shooting, Islam and Muslims: "Islam is not a religion" but "a violent political system" created for world domination. The problem with Robertson is that he also eyes world domination by making Christianity the ONLY religion and the base for a one-world theocracy ala R.J. Rushdooney and Reconstructionism.

The argument against hate crimes legislation is that these people are not responsible for any violence that occurs beyond their church.

Bullsh*t.

Someone is going to get killed.

Boehner's Bonafide Blooper

Thomas Jefferson Could Have Authored
The Entire Constitution - But He Didn't

From Crooks and Liars

How is that the House Minority Leader can mix up the U.S. Constitution with the Declaration of Independence in front of a Tea Party crowd at the Capitol? Who knows..but he did it, pulling out his pocket copy of the Constitution he's pledged to uphold, today pledging to "stand here with our Founding Fathers, who wrote in the preamble: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident ..."

Supposedly Representatives Michele Bachmann and Virginia Foxx were behind Boehner at the time looking, as usual, totally clueless.

Stupidity in the Republican Party does not discriminate: from junior reps to senior senators and beyond pundits, it hits them all. And when it hits, it hits BIG.

Laura Ingraham (not only stupid, but tacky):

Nancy Pelosi basically did everything except sell her own body to get this bill passed. OK. [laughter] She did everything!

Ann Coulter:

If we're so cruel to minorities, why do they keep coming here? Why aren't they sneaking across the Mexican border to make their way to the Taliban?

Michele Bachmann:

I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it's an interesting coincidence.

And the always astute Eric Cantor:

When Violent People Come Out Of The Woodwork

“If we’re going to ask why did he do it, knowing full well that he’s in the same mosque in 2001 with the radical preacher going nuts, we’re going to also [laughter] have to believe that the guy was just like Obama, and didn’t hear Rev. Wright’s words when he was in his church.”

-Rush Limbaugh on the shooting at Fort Hood

Inflammatory rhetoric is bad even in the best of times. But when let loose on the general populace during a time of religious and racial tension, it can be catastrophic.

From The Daily Beast

A year after President Obama's election, hate groups are feeling bolder than they have in over a decade, and their usually insular anger is beginning to spill into the public realm. This weekend, the National Socialist Movement, a neo-Nazi organization, held rallies in Arizona and Minnesota. Those demonstrations came on the heels of similar actions in Southern California, where epithet-spewing white supremacists were forced to disband by rock-throwing counter-protesters.

So, who fuels the hate groups? Rush Limbaugh certainly. Glenn Beck definitely. Christofascists? No brainer. Yesterday, I mentioned the event to take place in Washington led by "Pastor" Gary Cass:

Right Wing Watch

The legislation explicitly protects religious freedom and freedom of speech, but "does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence." So if they intend to preach that homosexuality is sinful, that is not much of a challenge, as that sort of speech is clearly protected.

But since they obviously intend for this protest to be a direct challenge to hate crimes protections, that really only leaves them one option: demanding death for gays.

Of course, there's "Rev." "Dr." James David Manning, whose tirades of late smack of outright treason. No matter that he has fewer people in his congregation than he can promote without embarrassment, but he's hoping that more than several of them pull the trigger on Obama. "If Obama lives, America dies." Yes, an outrageous and stupid statement for a pastor to make, then again, it's no less stupid than some of his "seminary" courses (the one on Aliens, I hear, is the most hysterical)

Our dear, dear conspiracy theorist, Pat Robertson, recently stated:

You know, there’s a law – what about a law that says it’s a federal crime to attack somebody because of his religious beliefs? Not a chance!

Robertson's senility is REALLY out of control:

“IN GENERAL.—Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B) or paragraph (3), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of any person—

From The Rally For Religious Freedom:

A letter from Matt Staver of Liberty Council will be presented to Attorney General Eric Holder that expresses our concerns about the many unconstitutional aspects of the hate crime bill. Specific legal challenges also may be announced then.

Remember Mat Staver? He's the one who came up with a looooong list of fantasies about the Healthcare Bill.

And with what happened in Fort Hood, Muslims will become the "sinners du jour"
So what can we deduce from all of this? People who want to inflict harm on other people will be multiplying and gathering steam, like the villagers in Frankenstein, goaded by the likes of Manning, Robertson, Staver, Beck, Cass and Limbaugh. Gary Cass better make sure that not too many swastikas are photographed behind him when he calls for blood.