Aug 11 2008
[Yahoo]
The Archdiocese of Cincinnati has issued a detailed list of inappropriate behaviors for priests, saying they should not kiss, tickle or wrestle children.
Read more here.
[From me]
They really have to make a rule like this in writing? Dude, I don’t kiss anyone besides my wife and family.
What do you think?
Jul 18 2008
[BBC]
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has called on followers of the world’s main religions to turn away from extremism and embrace a spirit of reconciliation. The king was opening a conference in Madrid which brings together Muslims, Christians, Jews and Buddhists.
He said the great conflicts of history were not caused by religion, but by the misinterpretation of religion.
King Juan Carlos of Spain, the co-host, said Spain had always sought to promote international dialogue.
Critics have dismissed the gathering as a propaganda gimmick by the Saudis who, they say, are not best placed to host a meeting on religious tolerance.
Read more here.
[From me]
Well the critics may be right but I’ll give the King the benefit of the doubt. I think he makes a great point. It isn’t religion that causes wars. It is people who take their views to extremes. We need to get along and allow people to worship how they want to. I may not like a religion but people are free to believe it if they want to without worrying about their lives.
What do you think?
Jul 15 2008
More than half of Christians in America believe religious freedom should be a high priority in crafting U.S. foreign policy, according to a recent Wilson Research Strategies survey commissioned by Open Doors USA.
“The persecution of Christians in the world today is on the rise, with an estimated 100 million suffering some sort of repression and even death for their faith,” said Carl Moeller, president and chief executive officer of Open Doors USA, a Christian ministry which has served persecuted Christians around the world for more than 50 years. “Open Doors commissioned this study to try to understand what Christians in America feel about religious freedom. Clearly, it is a priority.”
Fifty-four percent of U.S. Christians polled consider religious freedom an important issue in making U.S. foreign policy, according to the survey. This is an especially high priority with those who attend church most frequently (60 percent), compared with those Christians who never attend (40 percent).
Read more here.
[From me]
Well I agree. I think persecution of anyone is wrong. The problem is we live a free society and we forget there are people suffering for their faith in other parts of the world. Makes me more grateful for our missionaries.
What do you think?
Jul 02 2008
In a research brief this month, Bradford Wilcox, a sociology professor at the University of Virginia, analyzed three national studies in order to discover if “there is any evidence that religion is playing a role in encouraging a strong family orientation among contemporary American men?” His research led him to conclude that men who regularly attend Christian services are engaged in happier and stronger marriages and are more involved in the lives of their children than men who do not.
“70 percent of husbands who attend church regularly report they are ‘very happy’ in their marriages, compared to 59 percent of husbands who rarely or never attend church,” explained Wilcox, who also said that the studies indicated that wives experienced more marital happiness when their husbands attended regular religious services.
This is likely one significant reason why the studies showed that married couples who attended regular Christian services were approximately 35 percent less likely to divorce then those couples who did not.
Read more here.
[From me]
Stats don’t tell the whole story. I don’t think it is church or Christianity that makes men better fathers. It is a relationship with God. No training or family can prepare you for parenthood. I think what that stats don’t tell you is how much prayer, Bible Study, fellowship, mentoring, discipleship and the Grace of God are in play.
What do you think?
Jun 19 2008
[LA Times]
Yesterday, gay and lesbian couples were lining up at county clerk’s offices across the state to exercise their new right to marry, bestowed on them last month by the California Supreme Court.
In its controversial decision, the court insisted that these same-sex marriages would not “diminish any other person’s constitutional rights” or “impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person.” Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.
However there is substantial reason to believe that these assurances about the safety of religious liberty are either wrong or reflect a cramped view of religion. The case for same-sex marriage, reduced to its essentials, is an attractive one. It is that the government in a liberal democracy ought not to impose any one moral vision on its citizens; moral decisions ought to be, as much as possible, a matter of private choice and not law.
But it should not follow that having allowed same-sex couples to come out of the closet, as it were, that religious people should in turn be confined to the sanctuary.
In the same-sex marriage decision, the state Supreme Court suggests that all will be well and good as long as the “official” activities of the clergy aren’t affected. But that excludes religion entirely from a broad range of social welfare and other activities, despite the fact that the California Constitution declares: “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.”
Evidence from previous and pending cases indicates that the court tends to take an extremely narrow view of people’s “free exercise and enjoyment of religion” when they clash with another group’s need for equal protection. This would seem particularly true following the In re Marriage Cases ruling, in which the majority equated the ban on same-sex marriage to the now discredited (and unconstitutional) ban on interracial marriages.
Religious liberty claims rarely, if ever, have prevailed in the face of complaints about racial discrimination. Conflicts about the rights of gays and those of religious believers demonstrate that these are not hypothetical fears. Consider the following:
* A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor’s defense during oral arguments last month.
* Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient.
* A Lutheran school in Riverside County was sued in 2005 under California’s Unruh Act (which forbids discrimination by businesses) for expelling two students who allegedly were having a lesbian relationship, in contravention of the religious views of the school. The case was thrown out in Superior Court in January, but the students have appealed.
* Public school officials in Poway, Calif., so far have successfully barred students from wearing T-shirts that register their opposition to homosexuality on campus. One lawsuit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being dismissed (as moot, because the students had graduated), but another federal lawsuit is pending.
Read more here.
Then check out what is happening in Canada.
A Canadian human rights tribunal ordered a Christian pastor to renounce his faith and never again express moral opposition to homosexuality, according to a new report.
In a decision dated May 30 in the penalty phase of the quasi-judicial proceedings run by the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal, evangelical pastor Stephen Boisson was banned from expressing his biblical perspective of homosexuality and ordered to pay $5,000 for “damages for pain and suffering” as well as apologize to the activist who complained of being hurt.
According to a report from Pete Vere at the Catholic Exchange, the penalty could foreshadow the possible fate of the Rev. Alphonse de Valk, who also cited the biblical perspective on homosexuality in the nation’s debate over same-sex “marriage” and now faces HRC charges.
Read more here.
[From me]
So…Will we be allowed to continue teaching what the Bible says when it comes to lifestyle choices? What Christian beliefs will be thrown out next by our courts? Canada today, California tomorrow, your neighborhood and community next week?
What do you think?
recent messages
It: How Churches and Leaders Can Get It and Keep It by Craig Groeschel
None
