The Speeches Not Given. At the JFK Library, and posted on-line, we can see the two Presidential speeches that John Fitzgeral Kennedy was going to give, had he not been felled by an assassin’s bullet.

The first was an address at the Trade Mart in Dallas.

He began with JFK realism that rings across the decades and rebukes many today: "There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternatives, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable." He then moved to the focal point of the address

I want to discuss with you today the status of our strength and our security because this question clearly calls for the most responsible qualities of leadership and the most enlightened products of scholarship. For this Nation's strength and security are not easily or cheaply obtained, nor are they quickly and simply explained. There are many kinds of strength and no one kind will suffice. Overwhelming nuclear strength cannot stop a guerrilla war. Formal pacts of alliance cannot stop internal subversion. Displays of material wealth cannot stop the disillusionment of diplomats subjected to discrimination.

Above all, words alone are not enough. The United States is a peaceful nation. And where our strength and determination are clear, our words need merely to convey conviction, not belligerence. If we are strong, our strength will speak for itself. If we are weak, words will be of no help.

I realize that this Nation often tends to identify turning-points in world affairs with the major addresses which preceded them. But it was not the Monroe Doctrine that kept all Europe away from this hemisphere--it was the strength of the British fleet and the width of the Atlantic Ocean. It was not General Marshall's speech at Harvard which kept communism out of Western Europe--it was the strength and stability made possible by our military and economic assistance.

His speech continues, addressing the realities face by the US in 1963 -- please read it for the specific details.

I am quoting extensive portions to show that JFK established a doctrine of freedom for all in the world that continues unabated to this day and the Bush presidency. Was this said by Kennedy on that day or Bush last week:

Our adversaries have not abandoned their ambitions, our dangers have not diminished, our vigilance cannot be relaxed. But now we have the military, the scientific, and the economic strength to do whatever must be done for the preservation and promotion of freedom.

That strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions--it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations--it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.

We in this country, in this generation, are--by destiny rather than choice--the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: 'except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'

Students of JFK know it is his speech, but it easily could be George W. Bush.


The second was an address to a political convention, showing the progress his administration had made on his goals:

We pledged to increase America's strength against its enemies, its prestige among its friends, and the opportunities it offered to its citizens. Those pledges have been fulfilled.

...I pledged . . . to restore world confidence in the vitality and energy of American society. That pledge has been fulfilled. We have won the respect of allies and adversaries alike through our determined stand on behalf of freedom around the world, from West Berlin to Southeast Asia--through our resistance to Communist intervention in the Congo and Communist missiles in Cuba-- . . . America . . . has shown that it cares about the needy of its own and other lands, . . . America . . . has shown that freedom is the way to the future, . . . America . . . is known to be first in the effort for peace as well as preparedness.

I pledged . . . that the businessmen of this State and Nation--particularly the small businessman who is the backbone of our economy--would move ahead as our economy moved ahead. That pledge has been fulfilled. Business profits--having risen 43 percent in 2 years--now stand at a record high; and businessmen all over America are grateful for liberalized depreciation for the investment tax credit, and for our programs to increase their markets at home as well as abroad. We have proposed a massive tax reduction . . .

I pledged . . .that this country would no longer tolerate the lowest rate of economic growth of any major industrialized nation in the world. That pledge has been and is being fulfilled. In less than 3 years our national output will shortly have risen by a record $100 billion--industrial production is Up 22 percent, personal income is up 16 percent. And the Wall Street Journal pointed out a short time ago that the United States now leads most of Western Europe in the rate of business expansion and the margin of corporate profits. . .

. . .I pledged . . . to build a national defense which was second to none--a position I said, which is not "first, but," not "first, if," not "first, when," but first--period. That pledge has been fulfilled. In the past 3 years we have increased our defense budget by over 20 percent; increased the program for acquisition of Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by 60 percent; added 5 combat ready divisions and 5 tactical fighter wings to our Armed Forces; increased our strategic airlift capabilities by 75 percent; and increased our special counter-insurgency forces by 600 percent. We can truly say today, with pride in our voices and peace in our hearts, that the defensive forces of the United States are, without a doubt, the most powerful and resourceful forces anywhere in the world.

(emphasis added -- hard to believe this was before a Democratic political convention.)

The following was to be his concluding remarks to this convention. Perhaps we should remember this as his farewell address:

For this country is moving and it must not stop. It cannot stop. For this is a time for courage and a time for challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither the fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed. And our duty as a party is not to our party alone, but to the Nation, and, indeed., to all mankind. Our duty is not merely the preservation of political power but the preservation of peace and freedom.

So let us not be petty when our cause is so great. Let us not quarrel amongst ourselves when our Nation's future is at stake. Let us stand together with renewed confidence in our cause--united in our heritage of the past and our hopes for the future--and determined that this land we love shall lead all mankind into new frontiers of peace and abundance.

Plano East. Okay, I've been hearing about this for the past week and a half, but wanted to wait until I saw confirmation. There will be a conference held in Woodbridge on January 9 and 10, 2004, to follow up on the developments with respect to the confessing movement in the Episcopal social club (I can't call it a "church"). From the announcement:

The American Anglican Council's historic conference in Dallas, Texas (known as the'"Plano" conference) was a powerful and uplifting experience of the Church, bold in standing for Jesus Christ and alive in the Spirit for the work of mission. It strengthened, encouraged and challenged all who attended.

The AAC Chapters in Virginia and Washington would like to provide a similar experience for faithful Episcopalians in our region. But while the Plano conference looked ahead to the emergency meeting of the Primates and possible realignment of the Anglican Communion, we now find ourselves facing the reality of realignment. At the "Plano-East" conference, key leaders of the AAC will inform us of the latest developments nationally and internationally, inspire us with biblical teaching and preaching, and challenge us to go forth to fulfill the Church's mission.

Details are here. Also, just to make it clear, I don't have any "inside information" on this -- I haven't been holding back or anything -- the only reason I knew about this is because my oldest daughter will be involved in the worship.

Bush 2004. Coming back from Portland last month, I had the "pleasure" of flying on the same plane with attorney Stanley L. Cohen, who was finishing his defense of the Portland Seven. (They were the rag-tag group of Islamofacists who were attempting to go to Afghanistan to fight the United States.) For the record, it should be noted that Mr. Cohen, a defender of the oppressed, flew first class. (Is it any surprise?)

Before boarding the plane, another passenger handed Mr. Cohen an anti-Bush, anti-Ashcroft political drawing. At this Mr. Cohen seemed to think he was being asked to get on a soapbox (I'm not sure why -- we were all just the passengers in the waiting area -- no news media were around) and loudly proclaimed that if George Bush won re-election in 2004, he was moving to Canada.

As though it would be a great loss to this country.

Too bad these guys never go through with their promises.

Roe, the Sequel. From today's Wall Street Journal:

Antonin Scalia was right after all. And we don't mean his prediction that the Supreme Court's Lawrence decision this year throwing out a Texas sodomy law would quickly become a vehicle for gay marriage -- which came true this week courtesy of a Massachusetts Supreme Court decision.

We mean Justice Scalia's far more prophetic dissent a few years back in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Though that case involved abortion, Mr. Scalia's larger point was about the culture wars that were unleashed on the body politic the last time our judiciary presumed to "settle" a contentious social issue that properly rests with the people's elected representatives.

"By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses," he wrote, "by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish." That is one legacy of Roe v. Wade.

We were reminded of this by Massachusetts Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's 4-3 majority opinion this week defining marriage as an "evolving paradigm" and declaring there exists no "constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples." Can anyone doubt that the Massachusetts High Court has started another Thirty Years War?

So let's be clear. Notwithstanding headlines trumpeting that Massachusetts has just opted for gay marriage, the people of that commonwealth did no such thing. It is four liberal judges on the Massachusetts Supreme Court who, egged on by well-connected and politically powerful gay rights activists, have imposed their own moral values on the rest of its citizens.

This is no coincidence. Despite Justice Marshall's solemn talk about an "evolving paradigm," most gay rights champions don't believe Americans have evolved that much. And they know they'd have an almost impossible time getting this new "paradigm" past most state legislatures. In other words, it's precisely the American public whom they most fear and whose voice they want to keep out of this process.

So they've done what liberals so often do: Provoke some state court decisions in hopes that the U.S. Supreme Court will finally do the legislating for them. This sure beats having to persuade your fellow Americans through democratic debate. Did we mention that Justice Marshall's very first legal citation, in the second paragraph of her decision, is Lawrence?

The tragedy here is that the first casualty of an all-or-nothing court clash over "rights" is any kind of reasoned debate or workable social consensus. American attitudes toward homosexuality are plainly changing, and many companies, including the one we work for, already extend full benefits to same-sex partners. We believe that this signals most Americans are at least open to persuasion about increasing the rights of gay Americans, including but not limited to marriage.

But what the Massachusetts High Court gave America in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health is not an argument, much less an open debate. It is instead a unilateral declaration that the assumptions and values that have defined one of civilization's oldest and most vital institutions -- marriage -- should be tossed out the window. And if you don't agree they're going to force it on you anyway.

Millions of Americans who have other views are not going to accept this moral diktat, and so once again our politics will be polarized by the cultural furies. When the fighting starts, let's all be clear about who fired the first shot.

Seabury. After my erroneous posting about Samuel Seabury, below, the web-elves of CANN redeemed me through this posting. (I meant to mention the elves magic earlier, but got side-tracked by the four horsemen from Massachusetts.)

More on the Mass. Suicide. In his comments to one of the postings from yesterday, Peter writes, in part (read his whole comment, please):

If there is no compelling state interest in restricting marriage to an adult male and an adult female, there is none in prohibiting polygamy, marrying minors, etc. In that case, why not do away with civil marriage all together? If it means nothing more than property distribution, spousal privilege in court and tax return status. Why not replace civil marriages with private contracts between persons and get the state out of it altogether? A husband and wife can have a civil contract and be joined by Holy Matrimony. I dare say Holy Matrimony means a lot more to most couples than a license from the State. If all the "unchurched" that show up before the altar to get married is any guide.

Sorry, I meant to cut off the quote at the "etc" (which I "bolded") -- but his entire point was so good, I couldn't cut it off.

Peter is absolutely correct in this point -- under the Massachusetts majority opinion, there is now no justification in barring polygamous or incestuous marriages. Eugene Volokh, a tentative supporter of same-sex marriage (although, I gather an opponent of having it judicially mandated) makes this point very clearly:

The court reasons that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice," but while it qualifies this as "subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare," it's far from clear that a court would find that "health, safety, and welfare" would be hurt by adult polygamous marriages (assuming all existing partners in the marriage consent to the addition of another). Likewise for adult brother-sister marriages; as I mentioned several months ago, I think the genetic harm argument doesn't really work here -- after all, we don't generally ban marriages between people who have serious genetic diseases, even if the odds of a defect in their children are much higher than for brother-sister marriages.

Similarly, the court rejects the government's "foster the best environment for raising children" argument by saying that "It cannot be rational under our laws, and indeed it is not permitted, to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits because the State disapproves of their parents' sexual orientation." Seems to apply equally to children of polygamous marriages or of incestuous marriages. In fact, why isn't the desire to have multiple committed lifelong partners, or to have a relationship with one's sibling itself a "sexual orientation"?

As they say, please read the whole thing here.

In another post, Prof. Volokh also makes the point that's maddening to those of us who take what would seem to be the middle-road of having supported anti-discrimination legislation, now having it been turned back against us:

So the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision allowing homosexual marriage partly relied on the passage of that very antidiscrimination statute. Unless the court's argument was just makeweight (possible, but the court must have at least thought that the point would be persuasive to some readers, or else it wouldn't have included it), passage of the employment discrimination bill did take another step down the slope towards homosexual marriage, in the sense that it did make homosexual marriage more plausible.

Again, please read his whole essay.

Amend It. Today, looking at the Mass. Court decision, Senator John Cornyn said he is

concerned that Goodridge, coupled with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, raises serious questions regarding the future of both the family and the traditional definition of marriage throughout America as embodied in [the Defense of Marriage Act ]. The question now is whether the popular and bipartisan legislation will remain the law of the land as the people intend, or be overturned by the courts.

In light of these and other articulated concerns about the legal protection of the state of marriage, we believe it is important to consider what steps, up to and including a constitutional amendment, are now needed to protect and safeguard marriage.

I have long resisted constitutional amendments, but I think it's time. It is apparent that a thin majority of judges on a small number of courts have an extreme agenda they are trying to cram through. It's time to amend the constitution and put these renegade judges in their place.

Three partners. This statement, by the majority in the Massachusetts case struck a raw nerve with me, because it's very similar to something our minister said in his wedding sermon:

In a real sense, there are three partners to every civil marriage: two willing spouses and an approving State.

In our wedding sermon, our pastor, Renny Scott, advised us that

There are three involved in every marriage, the Bride, the Groom, and their God.

My god is God, not the state, Mr. Chief Justice.

More on MA. With respect to the Massachusetts case, Jack asks:

I'm not a legal eagle, but what kind of polity is it where a court however Supreme can tell an elected legislature what to do? And, what if, rather than do what the MA Court has ordered, the legislature were to clearly define marriage as heterosexual, and to specifically deny the issuance of licenses to same sex couples? Not that that is likely to occur in MA, but it would be a lot of fun to watch.

On the first question, it's surprising what courts can do -- run prison systems, run school districts, and even, courtesy of Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33 (1990), raise taxes. But, it should be pointed out, this first question is in response to my first post (now struck out and amended, below) where I stated the court was requiring the legislature to take action. I was wrong. The court is staying it's own decree to give the legislature time to act.

On the second question -- it's do-able, but you don't want to anger the gods, err, judges.

In Virginia, as in many other states, same-sex marriage is prohibited by law. Not in Massachusetts, apparently.

The majority opinion (i.e. four judges) indicate the court was asked to re-construe "marriage" as something different, but (it seems to me) decided not to do so in order that it could address the "right to marry" question:

The plaintiffs argue that because nothing in that licensing law specifically prohibits marriages between persons of the same sex, we may interpret the statute to permit "qualified same sex couples" to obtain marriage licenses, thereby avoiding the question whether the law is constitutional. . . .This claim lacks merit.

We interpret statutes to carry out the Legislature's intent, determined by the words of a statute interpreted according to "the ordinary and approved usage of the language." . . . The everyday meaning of "marriage" is "[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife," Black's Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed. 1999), and the plaintiffs do not argue that the term "marriage" has ever had a different meaning under Massachusetts law. . . . This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law. . . Far from being ambiguous, the undefined word "marriage," as used in G. L. c. 207, confirms the General Court's intent to hew to the term's common-law and quotidian meaning concerning the genders of the marriage partners.

(citations omitted).

The majority decided "Without the right to marry -- or more properly, the right to choose to marry -- one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's 'avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship.'" The chief justice, for the majority, later writes "Whether and whom to marry, how to express sexual intimacy, and whether and how to establish a family -- these are among the most basic of every individual's liberty and due process rights..."

The CJ decides to employ, surprisingly enough, the "rational basis test," which is the lower standard in these type of cases (in other words, if the government shows that there is some rational basis for the challenged action, the action will stand). The CJ then says that he doesn't understand any of the rationales put forth, so this must be wrong: "The marriage ban works a deep and scarring hardship on a very real segment of the community for no rational reason. The absence of any reasonable relationship between, on the one hand, an absolute disqualification of same-sex couples who wish to enter into civil marriage and, on the other, protection of public health, safety, or general welfare, suggests that the marriage restriction is rooted in persistent prejudices against persons who are (or who are believed to be) homosexual."

As I said below, look for an amendment to the state constitution.

Decision. Mass. Supremes find bar on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and require legislature to act. First AP story.

Opinion Here. Close case: 4-3. The Court is requiring the state legislature to re-enact legislation in a shorter time (180 days as opposed to, by my count, 259 days) than it took to decide this case. remanding the case to the lower court and requiring it to act. It is also staying its decree for 180 days to give the legislature time to act.

I suspect we will see a constitutional amendment in Massachusetts defining marriage as between a man and woman only.

D-Day in Massachusetts. I just checked the Massachusetts Supreme Court website -- today will be the decision day for the Goodrich case: the case where a number of persons are seeking to have same-sex marriages declared a right.

The decision will be available after 10 in Massachusetts.

My Fantasy. Last week Mark Byron touched off, oh, shall we describe it as a wee bit o' controversy? when he described his "fantasy" involving the death of 21 Senators. This prompted Peter Sean Bradley to whimsically note his fantasy:

my "dark thoughts" involve a rifle with a sniper scope, a time machine and Germany in 1517.

Can I tell you my fantasy? (Don't worry, it's completely "G" -rated: I'm so clueless that last week when I overheard some folks taking about Paris Hilton, I thought they meant a hotel -- only after watching football on Fox yesterday did I learn this refers to an acerebral human being.)

I'd love to have a time machine to go back to this moment:

[Jesus] went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

Every time I hear that passage read, it sends chills up my spine.


If I couldn't go back that far in time, send me back to when I was 18, so I could show myself what happens if I don't lay off the onion rings.

Guilty. No surprise, John Muhammad has been found guilty. Now starts the penalty phase. I expect a death sentence.

The Lee Boyd Malvo case should be interesting. When I saw the make-up of the jury, I thought it strongly favored the defense and thought he could go free. But then I remembered that this one is being prosecuted by Fairfax Commonwealth's Attorney Robert F. Horan Jr., a local legend.

I think you'll see Malvo convicted -- but he won't get the death penalty. The defense, by building up the "insanity defense" will be laying a large foundation of mitigating circumstances that will be successful before this jury.

Will the Gentleman who stopped and spoke with me immediately after church on Sunday please send me an e-mail or leave me a comment? I didn't get your name and I feel terrible about that.

Big boo-boo. I really goofed last Friday picking up the words of Samuel Seabury's grandson, Samuel Seabury, and attributing them to Samuel Seabury. Thank you to all those commenting for clarifying this. This is one of many reasons I love the comment feature and encourage you to use it. I try not to make mistakes but do.

What really bugs me is there was a clear clue in that first sermon that should've tipped me off. As James Manley noted "Rome did not adopt the Immaculate Conception of Mary until 1854, long after the first Samuel Seabury died." I knew that -- I should've picked up on that and looked at the date of the sermon. For some reason, when I did look at the date of the sermon I transposed the "1874" at the top to what I expected: "1784." I then compounded my error by using it to assume (and confirm my own bias) that Seabury was commenting on a recent devolopment in the Church of Rome relating to Mary, instead of the ex cathedra pronouncement of Mary's Immaculate Conception.

Blanco. The WaPo can be such a parody of itself: "...Kathleen Blanco...won a tightly contested election for Louisiana's governor...breaking a 130-year lock by white males on the job....She defeated Republican Bobby Jindal, a brown-skinned 32-year-old son of immigrants from India."

Who knows what the factors were in this race. My own anecdotal thoughts (based on talking to one person from La) is that the "Republican" tag is still more of a factor in that state than either "brown-skinned" or "female." Possibly of equal weight is "cajun" as opposed to "immigrant."

Samuel Seabury, Fundamentalist. Today, November 14, 2003, is the commemoration of Samuel Seabury, the first Anglican Bishop in the U.S. Here is a good summary of his particular importance to the Episcopal Church.

Whoops, I goofed. As noted by many in the comments, I picked up the sermon from a later Samuel Seabury. (Hang around for awhile and I'll tell you about Martin Luther's famous "I have a dream" speech.)

I wonder how he would fare today?

Look at this sermon in which he examines a particular doctrine espoused by the Anglican Church, that our Lord's human nature "was, from the first moment of its existence, void of all spot or taint of sin."

Let us walk with Bishop Seabury to see how Doctrine is derived.

First, he tells us we believe this doctrine "because it has been delivered to us by the Church as a necessary article of the Christian faith." It traces back to "[t]he apostles, themselves, or at least their successors at a very early age of the Church..." and is " necessary to guard the original faith from the assaults and wiles of those who sought to deprave it by false and heretical teaching."

Is tradition alone, Rev. Seabury, sufficient grounding for Doctrine?

this prescription, which may plead apostolic tradition in its favor; this teaching of our common mother, which ought in reason to have far more weight with us than the wisest of human parents, is a sufficient ground for our belief in the doctrine, at least in the first instance, and until we shall be qualified to try our faith by the ultimate standard of Holy Scripture.

(emphasis added).

How should we proceed?

...you proceed, as in an humble and reverential spirit you properly may, to compare the teaching of the Church with the infallible dictates of Holy Scripture...

Bishop Seabury continues: "Human testimony is the ground of human faith, or that which we exercise in the common affairs of life. Divine testimony is the ground of divine faith, or that which is required of us in order to our everlasting salvation."

In the second portion of his sermon, he turns from the grounds of Doctrine to "the use of" or reason for the Doctrine. As Seabury puts it: "For God does nothing for naught, and weak as we are we can always discover enough in His works to excite our admiration of His wisdom and goodness."

The rest of the sermon is excellent and I commend it to you -- it is, essentially a refutation of what was then a recent development in the Church of Rome, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The importance for us is that he develops Doctrine based on the Apostolic teachings handed down, subject always to the ultimate standard, the Word of God.

What a fundamentalist!

More. From this it looks like Seabury only bases Doctrine on two of the three legs of the Anglican stool. What about the third leg, reason?

In this sermon he does reaffirm the three legs, but again note that it must comport with "plain Scripture:

...truth which is conveyed to faith in regard to the invisible and spiritual must correspond to all that is expressed to the senses in regard to the visible and material, provided that nothing be received which is contradictory to reason and plain Scripture.

Shut My Mouth. There are some really great bloggers out there -- better than the drivel you find on even the best op-ed pages. Nevertheless, sometimes there is one that makes me want to turn this blog into a redirect. This is one of those times -- go read "Why Robinson Matters"

NOW!

This is Lileks-quality work folks.

A Little Knowledge is Dangerous. I know very little about the Law of Schism -- so I don't offer any of this as a legal opinion, I am placing it out there for those who might be interested to start getting familiar with some of these things.

First, both of the First Amendment religion clauses -- freedom of religion and the establishment clause work to try to keep the courts and government out of arbitrating church disputes. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen.

A few key cases (in chronological order, to cut to the chase, skip down to Wolf):

Watson v. Jones 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679 (1872). Civil War case -- no use of the First Amendment. See also the Brennan concurrence in a 1970 case.

Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral 344 U.S. 94 (1952). This is notable because it's the first application of the 1st Amendment clauses to the Law of Schism. It's really not applicable to the present (on the facts) because the state legislature passed a law determining who would be in control of a denomination. ("By fiat [the state law] displaces one church administrator with another. It passes the control of matters strictly ecclesiastical from one church authority to another. It thus intrudes for the benefit of one segment of a church the power of the state into the forbidden area of religious freedom contrary to the principles of the First Amendment." )

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440 (1969); Here the Court stated "...there are neutral principles of law, developed for use in all property disputes, which can be applied without 'establishing' churches to which property is awarded. But First Amendment values are plainly jeopardized when church property litigation is made to turn on the resolution by civil courts of controversies over religious doctrine and practice." The Court then stated:

The Georgia courts have violated the command of the First Amendment. The departure-from-doctrine element of the implied trust theory which they applied requires the civil judiciary to determine whether actions of the general church constitute such a "substantial departure" from the tenets of faith and practice existing at the time of the local churches' affiliation that the trust in favor of the general church must be declared to have terminated. This determination has two parts. The civil court must first decide whether the challenged actions of the general church depart substantially from prior doctrine. In reaching such a decision, the court must of necessity make its own interpretation of the meaning of church doctrines. If the court should decide that a substantial departure has occurred, it must then go on to determine whether the issue on which the general church has departed holds a place of such importance in the traditional theology as to require that the trust be terminated. A civil court can make this determination only after assessing the relative significance to the religion of the tenets from which departure was found. Thus, the departure-from-doctrine element of the Georgia implied trust theory requires the civil court to determine matters at the very core of a religion - the interpretation of particular church doctrines and the importance of those doctrines to the religion. Plainly, the First Amendment forbids civil courts from playing such a role.

The Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Dionisije Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 697 (1976) Here the Court held [see pp. 720-25] that the power to reorganize the dioceses of a hierarchical church in this country, was ''at the core of ecclesiastical affairs'' and a court could not interpret the church constitution to make an independent determination of the power but must defer to the interpretation of the body authorized to decide. (Also, note the dissenters, White and Rehnquist, who would be on opposite sides the next time in...)

Jones v. Wolf 443 U.S. 595 (1979). In short, if you followed the Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese case mentioned above, you would think the case would go one way, but it went a different way. The local church split and took their property with them. A minority petitioned the hierarchical denomination which sided with the denomination. The state courts, going back to the Watson v. Jones principles, looked first at what the deeds said, what the state laws on trusts said, etc. before deferring to the hierarchical church.

As a result of this case, the ECUSA adopted the Dennis Canon*. But that's the subject for another discussion.

-----------------
* See Canon I.7.4, of the Episcopal Church USA, which states: "All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located."

Sisyphus for a 2 year old. One of my children's favorite little ditties has been the Michael Finnegan song:

There once was a man named Michael Finnegan
He grew whiskers on his chinnegan
Shaved them off but they grew in again
Poor old Michael Finnegan - begin again

Time to go pray with my baby and sing her this, her favorite song. [midi]

Church Property. One of the huge issues, now that the leadership of the ECUSA has abandoned the Christian faith is control of local church property. The apostate leadership, realizing it's going to lose a large number of "cheerful-giving" Christians, is looking to seizing property to keep itself in chicken dinners until, well, kingdom come ("not that we really take that kind of thing literally")

There's part of me that thinks, if that's the case -- let's adopt a "poison pill" strategy. Mortgage all church property to the hilt and transfer the proceeds to the faithful churches in Africa. Then have the congregation and ministers walk out, leaving the property and debts to the ECUSA.

Of course, that wouldn't be a "good faith" type way to deal with this.

But it's fun to think about.

Actually, this is a serious issue. I walk around my own sanctuary and church grounds and see the discrete plaques -- "this pew was given to God in memory of..." These are all good faith gifts and there is a stewardship duty to protect them and to ensure that they are used to glorify God.

My family donated some altar clothes -- the Easter whites -- in memory of my Grandmother. It tears me apart to think that these could be desecrated one day to "bless" what God has not blessed.

In her address to the AAC convention, Diane Knippers observed:

I’m also hearing from laypeople who are beginning to realize what is at stake in terms of church property. They are willing to fight for it, but not sacrifice their faith for it. We do not want valuable resources to be at the disposal of those who have abandoned the faith. But we are willing to sing,

Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also;
The body they may kill: God’s truth abideth still,
His kingdom is forever.

More Thanks for the comments folks -- these are all excellent. I do want to highlight one from an attorney who is actually handling a similar case in California -- Peter Sean Bradley, the fifth comment.

Johnny Cash at Wembley, 1986. I'm involved in a trading tree right now where we're swapping the Johnny Cash and Family show in England, 1986. I'll have this on my hard drive for the next month or so. If any one is interested in it, e-mail me at myruststuff [-at-] hotmail.com. I'll do this blanks and postage (or trade, if you do that). As always, send no money -- no one profits.

This is really an excellent show!

Setlist:

Johnny Cash - 03/31/86
Wembley Arena (Wembley Country Festival)
London, England

CD#1 :
1. Intro Medley (Johnny Cash Band) (2:40)
2. Ring Of Fire (2:41)
3. Folsom Prison Blues (2:40)
4. Sunday Morning Coming Down (3:37)
5. Any Old Wind That Blows (2:44)
6. These Hands (2:35)
7. Here Comes That Rainbow Again (2:17)
8. Love Is The Way (2:00)
9. The Highwayman (with John Schneider) (2:43)
10. Big River (2:32)
11. I Guess Things Happen That Way (1:30)
12. Band Introductions (0:27)
13. Fairweather Friends (2:38)
14. Piano Solo (Earl 'Pool' Ball) (3:48)
15. One Piece At A Time (4:23)
16. Forty Shades Of Green (2:18)
17. Ghost Riders In The Sky (3:56)

CD#2 :
18. If I Were A Carpenter (with June) (2:04)
19. Jackson (with June) (2:22) Carter Family (June,
Helen, Anita):
20. June Carter Introduction (1:28)
21. Wabash Cannonball (June Carter) (1:52)
22. San Antonio Rose (June Carter) (1:04)
23. Elbow Room (Carter Family with Carlene Carter) (3:23)
24. I'll Be All Smiles Tonight (Anita) (3:28)
25. Foggy Mountain Top (Carter Family) (2:38)
26. Will The Circle Be Unbroken (Carter Family) (3:52)
27. Wildwood Flower jam (Johnny Cash Band) (0:21)
28. Wreck Of The Old '97 (with June) (2:52)
29. A Thing Called Love (2:21)
30. The Ballad Of Ira Hayes (3:02)
31. Were You There When They Crucified My Lord (3:26)
32. Daddy Sang Bass (with John Schneider) (2:12)
33. Outro (Johnny Cash Band) (0:37)
34. Casey Jones (1:25)
35. Orange Blossom Special (3:35)
36. I Walk The Line (2:07)

Nice Tribute. Here's a very nice tribute by a son to his forefathers in the military.

So many of us want to honor the Veterans -- It's not something we were raised with -- honoring Vets -- and it's a difficult thing to teach, it seems to me, if you're active duty military (not wanting to say "honor me.")

I do give honor to my father, Richard, and his father, Anthony, who both served ably and lived to tell about it. I also honor my mother's brothers who died in France in WWII, William and Robert.

Thank you.

Between Iraq and WWII. Viet Nam -- why was it fought? Would the Marines, soldiers, sailors and airmen do it again? Former Secretary of the Navy and Marine James Webb answers these questions.

It is a worthy piece for reflection on Veterans Day.

Happy Birthday, Marine! It's their 228th Birthday. If you're in Philly, stop by Tun Tavern and buy a "gyrene" a beer.

It's a day that I'll always remember my grandfather, part of the men who earned the sobriquet "teufel hunden" (not to mention the Fouragere the Fifth Marines are entitled to wear), and honor my father, a (lovable) Leatherneck.

MLK to American Christians. Today's third (and final) guest blogger is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The following are excerpts (due to copyright restrictions) from his sermon, "Paul's Letter to American Christians" (the entire sermon may be read by following the link):

I, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to you who are in America, Grace be unto you, and peace from God our Father, through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

For many years I have longed to be able to come to see you. I have heard so much of you and of what you are doing. I have heard of the fascinating and astounding advances that you have made in the scientific realm. I have heard of your dashing subways and flashing airplanes. Through your scientific genius you have been able to dwarf distance and place time in chains. You have been able to carve highways through the stratosphere. So in your world you have made it possible to eat breakfast in New York City and dinner in Paris, France. I have also heard of your skyscraping buildings with their prodigious towers steeping heavenward. I have heard of your great medical advances, which have resulted in the curing of many dread plagues and diseases, and thereby prolonged your lives and made for greater security and physical well-being. All of that is marvelous. You can do so many things in your day that I could not do in the Greco-Roman world of my day. In your age you can travel distances in one day that took me three months to travel. That is wonderful. You have made tremendous strides in the area of scientific and technological development.

But America, as I look at you from afar, I wonder whether your moral and spiritual progress has been commensurate with your scientific progress. It seems to me that your moral progress lags behind your scientific progress. Your poet Thoreau used to talk about "improved means to an unimproved end." How often this is true. You have allowed the material means by which you live to outdistance the spiritual ends for which you live. You have allowed your mentality to outrun your morality. You have allowed your civilization to outdistance your culture. Through your scientific genius you have made of the world a neighborhood, but through your moral and spiritual genius you have failed to make of it a brotherhood. So America, I would urge you to keep your moral advances abreast with your scientific advances.

I am impelled to write you concerning the responsibilities laid upon you to live as Christians in the midst of an unChristian world. That is what I had to do. That is what every Christian has to do. But I understand that there are many Christians in America who give their ultimate allegiance to man-made systems and customs. They are afraid to be different. Their great concern is to be accepted socially. They live by some such principle as this: "everybody is doing it, so it must be alright." For so many of you Morality is merely group consensus. In your modern sociological lingo, the mores are accepted as the right ways. You have unconsciously come to believe that right is discovered by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority opinion. How many are giving their ultimate allegiance to this way.

But American Christians, I must say to you as I said to the Roman Christians years ago, "Be not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind." Or, as I said to the Phillipian Christians, "Ye are a colony of heaven." This means that although you live in the colony of time, your ultimate allegiance is to the empire of eternity. You have a dual citizenry. You live both in time and eternity; both in heaven and earth. Therefore, your ultimate allegiance is not to the government, not to the state, not to nation, not to any man-made institution. The Christian owes his ultimate allegiance to God, and if any earthly institution conflicts with God's will it is your Christian duty to take a stand against it. You must never allow the transitory evanescent demands of man-made institutions to take precedence over the eternal demands of the Almighty God.

* * *

Let me rush on to say something about the church. Americans, I must remind you, as I have said to so many others, that the church is the Body of Christ. So when the church is true to its nature it knows neither division nor disunity. But I am disturbed about what you are doing to the Body of Christ. They tell me that in America you have within Protestantism more than two hundred and fifty six denominations. The tragedy is not so much that you have such a multiplicity of denominations, but that most of them are warring against each other with a claim to absolute truth. This narrow sectarianism is destroying the unity of the Body of Christ. You must come to see that God is neither a Baptist nor a Methodist; He is neither a Presbyterian nor a Episcopalian. God is bigger than all of our denominations. If you are to be true witnesses for Christ, you must come to see that America.

* * *

There is another thing that disturbs me to no end about the American church. You have a white church and you have a Negro church. You have allowed segregation to creep into the doors of the church. How can such a division exist in the true Body of Christ? You must face the tragic fact that when you stand at 11:00 on Sunday morning to sing "All Hail the Power of Jesus Name" and "Dear Lord and Father of all Mankind," you stand in the most segregated hour of Christian America. They tell me that there is more integration in the entertaining world and other secular agencies than there is in the Christian church. How appalling that is.

* * *

I understand that there are Christians among you who try to justify segregation on the basis of the Bible. They argue that the Negro is inferior by nature because of Noah's curse upon the children of Ham. Oh my friends, this is blasphemy. This is against everything that the Christian religion stands for. I must say to you as I have said to so many Christians before, that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Gentile, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." Moreover, I must reiterate the words that I uttered on Mars Hill: "God that made the world and all things therein . . . hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."

So Americans I must urge you to get rid of every aspect of segregation. The broad universalism standing at the center of the gospel makes both the theory and practice of segregation morally unjustifiable. Segregation is a blatant denial of the unity which we all have in Christ. It substitutes an "I-it" relationship for the "I-thou" relationship. The segregator relegates the segregated to the status of a thing rather than elevate him to the status of a person. The underlying philosophy of Christianity is diametrically opposed to the underlying philosophy of segregation, and all the dialectics of the logicians cannot make them lie down together. . . .

This sermon was delivered at Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, Alabama, on November 4, 1956. As you can see, I've clipped a lot -- yet I believe that I've been faithful to what applies to us today.

Lewis on Paul. Today's guest blogger is C. S. Lewis responding to the revisionists who seek to denigrate St. Paul and say that he has strayed from the message of Jesus:

The Impeachment of St. Paul

A most astounding misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St. Paul. It is to this effect: that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the gospels) and that St. Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the epistles). This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts came from the mouth of our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St. Paul. . . There is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from St. Paul’s. The epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The gospels come later. They are not “the gospel,” the statement of Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted “the gospel.” The leave out many of the “complications” (that is the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the epistles are more primitive and more central than the gospels – though not, of course, than the great events which the gospel recount. . . In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage at which you do not yet attack the King in person. You say: “The King is all right. It is his ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans – which, I’m sure, are good plans if only the ministers would let them take effect.” And the first victory consists in beheading a few ministers: only at the later stage do you go on and behead the King himself. In the same way, the nineteenth-century attack on St. Paul was really only a stage in the revolt against Christ. . . . It was unfortunate that [the attack] could not impress anyone who had really read the gospels and the epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the first victory was won. St. Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step – the attack on the King himself.

Matrix 3 is worth the 6 bucks I spent at a matinee. It can't hold a candle to the original, but it's better than number 2.

More later. In the meantime, was the fight scene in the rain (no spoilers -- it's all over the trailer) -- was that inspired by Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai?

The strange thing for me, leaving the theater, there was a guy who came out from the row across from me -- an Asian guy dressed in a full black cassock and putting on his sunglasses. He looked just like Sing Ngai as Seraph. Then I remembered the Catholic seminary down the street.

The Scariest Thing About the Matrix... for me wasn't the harvesting of humans for energy. Coppertops. After all, you'd expect that from machines.

It was that there is only one religion, one temple. James Lileks calls it "the Temple of No Particular Deity"

Hmmm... so the Episcopal Church and the Unitarians finally unite in the future?

New Coins. The announcement of new nickels yesterday by the Mint got me thinking, impishly, about wouldn't it be fun to have a new dime. We could do a series on the development of the law -- say ten designs to reflect the value of ten for the dime. Do one on, the Constitution, of course, and the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights -- that ties in nicely with the theme of ten, since there were ten amendments to the Constitution set forth in the Bill of Rights. What else? The Decalogue, perhaps? Put Charlton Heston on the flip side and the collective ACLU will blow a gasket. heh-heh...

Yes, I am an imp.

Guest Blogger: Dorothy Sayers. Reading all the different essays and sermons, for and against, the ordination of VGR, there are still some more things I want to add. Maybe this weekend. One of the things I've seen is the disparagement of "dogma" by so many Robinson supporters -- even bishops and priests who should know better.

So I'm giving this space over to Ms. Dorothy Sayers for a rebuttal:

Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as "a bad press." We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine --"dull dogma," as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man--and the dogma is the drama.

That drama is summarized quite dearly in the creeds of the Church, and if we think it dull it is because we either have never really read those amazing documents, or have recited them so often and so mechanically as to have lost all sense of their meaning. The plot pivots upon a single character, and the whole action is the answer to a single central problem: What think ye of Christ? Before we adopt any of the unofficial solutions (some of which are indeed excessively dull)--before we dismiss Christ as a myth, an idealist, a demagogue, a liar, or a lunatic--it will do no harm to find out what the creeds really say about Him. What does the Church think of Christ?

The Church's answer is categorical and uncompromising, and it is this: That Jesus Bar-Joseph, the carpenter of Nazareth, was in fact and in truth, and in the most exact and literal sense of the words, the God "by whom all things were made." His body and brain were those of a common man; his personality was the personality of God, so far as that personality could be expressed in human terms. He was not a kind of demon or fairy pretending to be human. He was in every respect a genuine living man. He was not merely a man so good as to be "like God"--he was God.

Now, this is not just a pious commonplace; it is not commonplace at all. For what it means is this, among other things: that for whatever reason God chose to make man as he is--limited and suffering and subject to sorrows and death-he [God] had the honesty and the courage to take his own medicine. Whatever game he is playing with his creation, he has kept his own rules and played fair. He can exact nothing from man that he has not exacted from himself. He has himself gone through the whole of human experience, from the trivial irritations of family life and the cramping restrictions of hard work and lack of money to the worst horrors -- of pain and humiliation, defeat, despair, and death. when he was a man, he played the man. He was born in poverty and died in disgrace and thought it well worthwhile.

Christianity is, of course, not the only religion that has found the best explanation of human life in the idea of an incarnate and suffering god. The Egyptian Osiris died and rose again; Aeschylus in his play, The Eumenides, reconciled man to God by the theory of a suffering Zeus. But in most theologies, the god is supposed to have suffered and died in some remote and mythical period of pre-history. The Christian story, on the other hand, starts off briskly in St. Matthew's account with a place and a date: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King." St. Luke, still more practically and prosaically, pins the thing down by a reference to a piece of government finance. God, he says, was made man in the year when Caesar Augustus was taking a census in connection with a scheme of taxation. Similarly, we might date an event by saying that it took place in the year that Great Britain went off the gold standard. About thirty-three years later (we are informed) God was executed, for being a political nuisance, under Pontius Pilate"-much as we might say, "when Mr. Joynson-Hicks was Home Secretary." It is as definite and concrete as all that.

Possibly we might prefer not to take this tale too seriously --there are disquieting points about it. Here we had a man of Divine character walking and talking among us--and what did we find to do with him? The common people, indeed, "heard him gladly"; but our leading authorities in Church and State considered that he talked too much and uttered too many disconcerting truths. So we bribed one of his friends to hand him over quietly to the police, and we tried him on a rather vague charge of creating a disturbance, and had him publicly flogged and hanged on the common gallows, "thanking God we were rid of a knave." All this was not very creditable to us, even if he was (as many people thought and think) only a harmless crazy preacher. But if the Church is right about him, it was more discreditable still; for the man we hanged was God Almighty.

So that is the outline of the official story--the tale of the time when God was the underdog and got beaten, when he submitted to the conditions he had laid down and became a man like the men he had made, and the men he had made broke him and killed him. This is the dogma we find so dull--this terrifying drama of which God is the victim and hero.

If this is dull, then what, in Heaven's name, is worthy to be called exciting? The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused him of being a bore. On the contrary; they thought him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him "meek and mild," and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies. To those who knew him, however, he in no way suggested a milk-and-water person; they objected to him as a dangerous firebrand. True, he was tender to the unfortunate, patient with honest inquirers, and humble before Heaven; but he insulted respectable clergymen by calling them hypocrites; he referred to King Herod as "that fox"; he went to parties in disreputable company and was looked upon as a "gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners"; he assaulted indignant tradesmen and threw them and their belongings out of the Temple; he drove a coach-and-horses through a number of sacrosanct and hoary regulations; he cured diseases by any means that came handy, with a shocking casualness in the matter of other people's pigs and property; he showed no proper deference for wealth or social position; when con-fronted with neat dialectical traps, he displayed a paradoxical humor that affronted serious-minded people, and he retorted by asking disagreeably searching questions that could not be answered by rule of thumb. He was emphatically not a dull man in his human lifetime, and if he was God, there can be nothing dull about God either. But he had "a daily beauty in his life that made us ugly," and officialdom felt that the established order of things would be more secure without him. So they did away with God in the name of peace and quietness.

"And the third day He rose again"; what are we to make of that? One thing is certain: if he was God and nothing else, his immortality means nothing to us; if he was man and no more, his death is no more important than yours or mine. But if he really was both God and man, then when the man Jesus died, God died too, and when the God Jesus rose from the dead, man rose too, because they were one and the same person. The Church binds us to no theory about the exact composition of Christ¹s resurrection body. A body of some kind there had to be, since man cannot perceive the infinite otherwise than in terms of space and time. It may have been made from the same elements as the body that disappeared so strangely from the guarded tomb, but it was not that old, limited, mortal body, though it was recognizably like it. In any case, those who saw the risen Christ remained persuaded that life was worth living and death a triviality--an attitude curiously unlike that of the modern defeatist, who is firmly persuaded that life is a disaster and death (rather inconsistently) a major catastrophe.

Now, nobody is compelled to believe a single word of this remarkable story. God (says the Church) has created us perfectly free to disbelieve in him as much as we choose. If we do disbelieve, then he and we must take the consequences in a world ruled by cause and effect. The Church says further, that man did, in fact, disbelieve, and that God did, in fact, take the consequences. All the same, if we are going to disbelieve a thing, it seems on the whole to be desirable that we should first find out what, exactly, we are disbelieving. Very well, then: "The right faith is, that we believe that Jesus Christ is God and Man. Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Who although he be God and Man, yet is he not two, but one Christ." There is the essential doctrine, of which the whole elaborate structure of Christian faith and morals is only the logical consequence.

Now, we may call that doctrine exhilarating or we may call it devastating; we may call it revelation or we may call it rubbish; but if we call it dull, then words have no meaning at all. That God should play the tyrant over man is a dismal story of unrelieved oppression; that man should play the tyrant over man is the usual dreary record of human futility; but that man should play the tyrant over God and find him a better man than himself is an astonishing drama indeed. Any journalist, hearing of it for the first time, would recognize it as News; those who did hear it for the first time actually called it News, and good news at that; though we are apt to forget that the word Gospel ever meant anything so sensational.

Perhaps the drama is played out now, and Jesus is safely dead and buried. Perhaps. It is ironical and entertaining to consider that once at least in the world's history those words might have been spoken with complete conviction, and that was upon the eve of the resurrection.

-Dorothy L. Sayers "The Greatest Drama Ever Told" (1963).

Botched Operation: Jeff Jacoby learns from history.

Sportmanship. Here's a good column on sportsmanship and breaking records. The impetus for the column:

Nate Haasis got his little piece of history, too. But unlike Reaves or Sales or Strahan or James Wilder, if he had been successful, he gave it back. Haasis refused to accept the record for career passing yards in the Central State Eight Conference, of which his school, Springfield Southeast, is a member. Thanks, but no thanks.
He refused after he learned that both his coach and the opponent's coach had rigged things to not only let Haasis get a final opportunity but offer no resistance so he could complete the record-setting pass. Speaking for players "past and present," Haasis said he "felt disrespectful" to set the record that way and wanted no part of it. Then, in a letter to the conference, Haasis used such words as "integrity" and "sportsmanship."

[BTW, I agree with Joe Klecko's assessment of Michael Strahan at the end of the article.]

Here's more, more, and more.

I think the next generation(s) are going to blow the socks off the irrelevant Baby ("truth is relative") Boomers.

Matrix Regurgitated. Now for something other than VGR and the downfall of the Episcopal Church. (Yet, these can be related).

The Matrix Revolutions will hit the theaters tomorrow. I loved the first Matrix and hated strongly disliked the second. Why? It simply lacked internal consistency.

In "On Fairy-Stories," an essay by J. R. R. Tolkien, (first published in Essays Presented to Charles Williams, Oxford University Press, 1947) he explains:

Children are capable, of course, of literary belief, when the story-maker's art is good enough to produce it. That state of mind has been called “willing suspension of disbelief.” But this does not seem to me a good description of what happens. What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful “sub-creator.” He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is “true”: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. The moment disbelief arises, the spell is broken; the magic, or rather art, has failed. You are then out in the Primary World again, looking at the little abortive Secondary World from outside. If you are obliged, by kindliness or circumstance, to stay, then disbelief must be suspended (or stifled), otherwise listening and looking would become intolerable. But this suspension of disbelief is a substitute for the genuine thing, a subterfuge we use when condescending to games or make-believe, or when trying (more or less willingly) to find what virtue we can in the work of an art that has for us failed.

The Matrix, the first Matrix, sustained the spell; the second one broke it.

Yes, I'll probably see the third one sometime, but I find that I'm very unenthusiastic about it.

Impressive Clergymen. Thanks to Cap'n Yip, err, Jack White (via CANN), we have a list of bishops present at the coronation (I really have trouble calling it a consecration).

Also, there is no truth to the rumor that Peter Cook will be playing V. Gene Robinson in a made for TV movie.

Mainly because Peter Cook is dead.

WM Bishops. In all the pictures of the ordination of V. Gene Robinson, I have been struck by all the white male faces I'm seeing.

See for example, the pictures to the right and to the left showing the "laying on of hands" by the Episcopal Bishops. (BTW, does anyone know who was present for this abomination? Is there a list of the bishops? I know my Bishop, Peter James Lee, was busy doing his hair that day and couldn't be there, but apparently there were quite a few Bishops who wanted to publicly proclaim they were in favor of this.)

Where is all the celebrated Episcopal diversity I've been hearing about?

It's true, the Anglican communion is very diverse, geographically, ethnically, racially, culturally, and economic status. Yet, it's only the white male northern power structure that favors the disregard of the Scriptural norms in elevating Robinson to be a "bishop." The truly diverse portion of the Anglican communion which disagrees with this power structure has been ignored and marginalized.

"Strict Interpretation" A referral from the eminent Christopher S. Johnson leads to this article which states

An Episcopal rector has left the [Western North Carolina] Diocese, saying the church has strayed from strict interpretations of the Bible . . .

I feel compelled to note that one need not have a "strict interpretation[] of the Bible" to conclude the Robinson ordination was forbidden by the Scriptures. Kendall Harmon noted last week:

Walter Wink of Auburn Theological Seminary, who favors altering the church’s teaching in the area of sexual morality, [explained]: “Efforts to twist the text to mean what it clearly does not say are deplorable. Simply put, the Bible is negative toward same-sex behavior, and there is no getting around it.”

In fact, it takes a severely twisted reading of the Scriptures to conclude that it is permissible for a Bishop to have an ongoing sexual relationship outside of marriage.

The good... I'm trying to lead off with good news, because the bad news, below, has me feeling disturbed. At Truro Church yesterday, our Rector Martyn Minns was out -- he was in London for a regularly scheduled meeting of the Compass Rose Society. The good news was announced by one of the associate rectors, Marshall Brown: the prior week had been Stewardship Sunday and the number of initial pledges were only down by two families from last year. The good news is that the total pledges were up by over $220,000!

...the bad.... I've had three separate co-workers confront me this morning about VGR. Because this is a work situation, there's not a lot of discussion, but the jist of each was best summed up by the first (who, by the way is an African-American Howard Dean supporter, debunking the notion that only the far-right is opposed to this), who asked me "What Bible do they read in the Episcopal Church?"

Another replied to the text of Archbishop Peter J. Akinola's statement that I e-mailed:

To allow this schism in the church in order to satisfy his [Robinson] personal desires is an act of selfishness that is beyond description. I have read the statement from the archbishop and think it is an argument well and truly made. If I were an Episcopalian my continued membership with the church would depend on whether it adhered to Christian principles, or political correctness.

The third response was the most disturbing for me. A co-worker (originally from a third-world country) said he will not have anything to do with me, beyond the minimal work contacts we have, until I've assured him I've left the Episcopal Church.

...and the ugly. "Hello, Oakland Police Department? Yes, I'd like to report a kidnapping. I think some kids, probably a pre-school class, are holding the Raiders hostage. Even worse, they're dressing up like the team and trying to pass themselves off --"

"How long? Well, I thought it was a Halloween thing, but now that I think of it, the Raiders have been missing since mid-January..."

This Day. For many Episcopal Churches, today, being the Sunday that All Saints Day was observed, was a day of baptisms and celebration and rejoicing. It was thus at my church, Truro Church.

In the Diocese of New Hampshire, however, it was a day of apostasy and heresy and schism. A large number of priests, bishops and laity, gathered to consecrate a ministry that can not be consecrated. A Bishop in the Church of Christ is called to a higher standard. A person living in an open, notorious and rebellious sexual relationship, out side the bounds of holy matrimony, should not and must not be elevated to the episcopal office of Bishop.

Not only has the person who assumed this office, V. Gene Robinson, violated the standards of the Christian Church, but so have all of those who have done all in their power to consecrate Mr. Robinson.

This is an abomination.

There is a point in the service of Baptism in which six key questions are posed. The are:

Question Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of God?
Answer I renounce them.
Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Savior?
Answer I do.
Question Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
Answer I do.
Question Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
Answer I do.

Accordingly, it seems fitting that on this day, I articulate the following:

I renounce the faction of the Episcopal Church which has set itself in opposition to the Word of God.
I renounce the teachings of the world that have been brought into the Church of God, Episcopal and have corrupted and destroyed its teachings and are destroying its members.
I renounce those desires which are plainly sinful, yet some have falsely called blessed.
I renounce the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA, T. Frank Griswold.
I renounce the apostate Bishop V. Gene Robinson.
I renounce the schismatic Bishop of the Diocese of Virginia, Peter James Lee.
I renounce all Bishops, Laity, and Ministers who have called evil good and good evil.
I renounce the Diocese of New Hampshire (yet I do not renounce those faithful Saints of God living in the Diocese -- you have my prayers).

Nevertheless, all those, even Peter Lee, even Gene Robinson, even Frank Griswold, as well as their followers, disciples and minions, are not beyond the saving power of Jesus Christ. Accordingly, I call upon them to repent and seek to be restored to full fellowship with Christ Jesus.

Moreover, I acknowledge my own sinfulness and declare that I am in need of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. I put my whole trust in His grace and love. I do promise to follow and obey him as my Lord.

Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me, a sinner.

I'm a Man. According to the Gender Genie, I write like a man:

Female Score: 507
Male Score: 1281

Too Late. According to this article in the Telegraph, "A Church of England spokesman said: 'One hopes . . . that no irrevocable steps are taken.'"

Umm, sorry Charlie, you're several months (years) too late. The ECUSA establishment officially made a mockery of the service of matrimony in Minneapolis, not to mention, blatently ignoring Scripture in selecting a clergyman living in a sexual relationship outside of marriage to be a bishop.

These were the irrevocable steps. What happens from here follows from those actions.

Anglican Essentials. I received a compact disc of Kendall Harmon's address to the AAC meeting in Texas. Unfortunately, there was a brief gap in the address near the end. The good news is that the full address was transcribed and the text placed on line here. Powerful address.

Tapes and discs may be ordered here.

Bunny Man. This WaPo article brings back memories of the Bunny Man, a much whispered story that circulated back when I was in 7th grade (too long ago).

Typical Suburban Witch. The WaPo has this article today about your typical suburban witch, which notes in passing that "20 years ago [she] rejected the Episcopal faith in favor of paganism..." Of course today the Episcopal Church is much more diverse and open. You can have your "alter [sic] to Titan, Anubis, Shira and the Lord of the Forest . . ." and still we'll welcome you. The article further notes:

They are witches who, noted Publisher's Weekly in a review, "tend to hold liberal views and be politically active, especially on environmental issues. . . They are broadly supportive of alternative lifestyles and sexualities, and tend to approve of group marriage, in theory if not in practice; but they split over the propriety of sex between spiritual teachers and students."

Yep, it sounds like the majority of those active at 815 and/or the majority of the House of Pancakes Bishops.

And let's not forget this blast from the past: Episcopal Church Appoints First Openly-Muslim Bishop.

Laugh At Satan Day. This is why I love All Hallow's Eve: we get to laugh at Satan. He has no power over us. An excerpt from this wonderful article:

Should the forces of evil be mocked? Should Satan be laughed at? He most certainly should be. At the beginning of The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis includes two telling quotations, the first from Martin Luther: "The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."

The second comes from Thomas More: "The devil … the proud spirit cannot endure to be mocked."

The one thing Satan cannot bear is to be a source of laughter. His pride is undermined by his own knowledge that his infernal rebellion against God is in reality an absurd farce. Hating laughter, he demands to be taken seriously. Indeed, I would say that those Christians who spend the night of October 31 filled with concern over what evils might be (and sometimes are) taking place are doing the very thing Lucifer wants them to do. By giving him this respect, such believers are giving his authority credence.

Solar Storm? We got a call from my brother-in-law saying you could see the Northern Lights tonight. We saw them once before, here in NoVa, but wasn't sure about it tonight. Basically, what we saw was an area of redness, but without the clear definition as before.

Some folks -- even devout Christians -- take these as signs. I'm not sure what to think. I mean they occur very frequently in the northern regions. Still they are pretty.

More. I see from the front page of the WaPo, that redness was the northern lights. I'm deep-linking the WaPo picture, to the right, above.

Still More. Here's the link to the NOAA satelite and here's one to the estimated planetary K-index.

Crackdown. Kudos to Kendall Harmon and others for breaking the news about the crackdown on orthodox priests in Puerto Rico.

What I am going to say is pure speculation [WARNING, WARNING], but looking over the clues, I believe that Bishop David Alvarez has either been pressured on this -- either directly or indirectly (his own perception? -- this appears to be most likely). The Diocese of Puerto Rico was just brought into ECUSA at GC2K3 and +Alvarez was placed on the committee to select the next Presiding Bishop.

Right Thing. Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore did the right thing. I'm not sure why some conservative groups are criticizing him. No, I don't think these few conservative groups are anti-gay or homophobic, but they look that way. There are somethings that are outside the scope of a government agency that hires state workers -- sexual preferences or orientation is one of them.

This surprised me:

The more than 200 delegates meeting in St. George over the weekend in the 98th Convention of the Diocese of Utah approved a resolution supporting the national's convention's actions and affirming the votes of the Utah deputation at that convention.

I didn't know there were 200 Episcopalians in Utah.

The Members of the ABC's Commission:

Archbishop Robin Eames, Primate of All Ireland, Chairman,

The Revd Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director of Faith, Worship and Ministry, the Anglican Church of Canada,

Bishop David Beetge, Dean of the Church of the Province of Southern Africa,

Professor Norman Doe, Director of the Centre for Law and Religion, Cardiff University, Wales,

Bishop Mark Dyer, Director of Spiritual Formation, Virginia Theological Seminary, USA,

Archbishop Drexel Gomez, Primate of the West Indies,

Archbishop Josiah Iduwo-Fearon, Archbishop of Kaduna, the Anglican Church of Nigeria,

The Revd Dorothy Lau, Director of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Welfare Council,

Ms Anne McGavin, Advocate, formerly Legal Adviser to the College of Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church,

Archbishop Bernard Malango, Primate of Central Africa,

Dr Esther Mombo, Academic Dean of St Paul's United Theological Seminary, Limuru, Kenya,

Archbishop Barry Morgan, Primate of Wales,
Chancellor Rubie Nottage, Chancellor of the West Indies,

Bishop John Paterson, Primate of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, and Chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council,

Dr Jenny Te Paa, Principal of College of Saint John the Evangelist, Auckland, New Zealand,

Bishop James Terom, Moderator, the Church of North India,

Bishop N. Thomas Wright, Bishop of Durham, the Church of England.

The Revd Canon John Rees, Legal Adviser to the Anglican Consultative Council, will act as Legal Consultant to the Commission.

The Revd Canon Gregory Cameron, Director of Ecumenical Affairs and Studies, Anglican Communion Office, will act as Secretary to the Commission.

I'm very pleased with several of these members. One I've mentioned recently -- N.T. Wright. Some might see him as a "conservative." And yes he is. But to see him as a partisan would be extremely wrong. If there were a "liberal" version of N.T.Wright, I would be extremely pleased to have him/her on the Commission. Wright has very high integrity and intellect.

Bishop (Ret'd) Dyer, of VTS has been named to the Commission. Some class notes, prepared by students, are available for review on the internet. Pay attention to the Feb. 7 notes where Dyer states "The #1 heresy is schism." (quote from Dianne Carroll notes).

The Mandate. As has been said elsewhere, this Commission is not yet another Commission to study "sexuality" (which seems to be the favorite of the ECUSA). The Commission will be looking at the deliberate tearing of the fabric of the Anglican Communion by the establishment of the ECUSA and the actions of one bishop in Canada.

The Archbishop of Canterbury requests the Commission:

1. To examine and report to him by 30th September 2004, in preparation for the ensuing meetings of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, on the legal and theological implications flowing from the decisions of the Episcopal Church (USA) to appoint a priest in a committed same sex relationship as one of its bishops, and of the Diocese of New Westminster to authorise services for use in connection with same sex unions, and specifically on the canonical understandings of communion, impaired and broken communion, and the ways in which provinces of the Anglican Communion may relate to one another in situations where the ecclesiastical authorities of one province feel unable to maintain the fullness of communion with another part of the Anglican Communion.

2. Within their report, to include practical recommendations (including reflection on emerging patterns of provision for episcopal oversight for those Anglicans within a particular jurisdiction, where full communion within a province is under threat) for maintaining the highest degree of communion that may be possible in the circumstances resulting from these decisions, both within and between the churches of the Anglican Communion.

3. Thereafter, as soon as practicable, and with particular reference to the issues raised in Section IV of the Report of the Lambeth Conference 1998, to make recommendations to the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council, as to the exceptional circumstances and conditions under which, and the means by which, it would be appropriate for the Archbishop of Canterbury to exercise an extraordinary ministry of episcope (pastoral oversight), support and reconciliation with regard to the internal affairs of a province other than his own for the sake of maintaining communion with the said province and between the said province and the rest of the Anglican Communion.

4. In its deliberations, to take due account of the work already undertaken on issues of communion by the Lambeth Conferences of 1988 and 1998, as well as the views expressed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion in the communiqués and pastoral letters arising from their meetings since 2000.

The Commission The ABC has announced the Mandate and Members of the Commission, promised in the Primates Joint Statement, October 2003. Both are important and need consideration and prayer.

Separation of Church and State? Thanks to poor, oppressed Rachel, we have a link to the latest attempt by the theological left -- bringing the full force of the federal government to bear on the AAC. In other words, they're seeking to have a full federal audit by the Internal Revenue Service.

It's too bad that Janet Reno isn't around. She knew how to deal with fundamentalists, right Rachel?

What’s Happens on November 3rd? The following is from Rev. Martyn Minns, Rector of Truro Church:

By all reports it looks as if the consecration of Canon Gene Robinson as Bishop Coadjutor in the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire will go ahead as planned on November 2. The room has been booked, the guests are on their way and the media is poised for a big event. The expressed mind of the leaders of the Anglican Communion and numerous personal entreaties to step back from this divisive action have not resulted in any change of plans—although all such services have the caveat “God willing” and we may still be surprised! But working with the assumption that it will go forward, what then? In many ways much of the world will breathe a sigh of relief. When compared with all of the crises that face the world this particular issue will quickly fade into insignificance. The Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire will have had its moment in the world spotlight and will then go back to its former status of a relatively small collection of congregations who are struggling to stay alive. However, something serious will have happened.

One part of the Anglican family will have told the rest that their heartfelt convictions don’t matter. A small group of Episcopalians will have declared that they no longer believe that something which has always been called sin is not sin and that the biblical teaching on marriage and family has been replaced by a vague appeal to inclusivity—the limits of which have neither been defined or explained. What happens next is that the Anglican family will begin to unravel. Or to use the language of the Primates “This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level.” Major parts of the Anglican Communion will separate themselves from the Diocese of New Hampshire and from the Episcopal Church. While the advocates for this action see it as a way to affirm and embrace those who consider themselves to be homosexuals one unintended consequence is that instead of offering a message of hope for transformation they will be celebrating brokenness and supporting rebellion. As in the aftermath of a divorce, people will be forced to take sides. It is already happening in churches around the world and we are already feeling the pain.

What about Truro? The actions of General Convention and the Bishop of Virginia have already had a profoundly negative impact upon us and a number of families have left. Because of their own sense of an aggrieved conscience a large number of our parishioners have asked to restrict their financial support so that no portion of their contribution can be used to support or encourage this departure from Christian teaching. We have withdrawn a request for a scheduled Fall confirmation visit from Bishop Lee. The Vestry is meeting to pray and seek direction about our future role within the Diocese of Virginia and the wider Episcopal Church. We have no desire to act precipitously but we have now been placed in a situation of conflicting loyalties and we must stand against this affront. Our integrity as a congregation committed to upholding Biblical truth and longstanding relationships with our Anglican partners around the world leaves us no choice. The Truro Vestry will meet for retreat on November 15 to pray and prepare a plan for a way forward. We are determined to stand firm for the life-transforming message of the Gospel as we renew our commitment to mission here at home and around the world. While the occasion is painful, I remain convinced that God can use this time for great blessing …
“We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28)

Calif. Fires. The fires are all over the area my family is from -- so far it looks like everyone we know is okay. We're concerned for the others.

I had a note from my Mom saying that Dad told her that he knew one area where it was--he and his high school buddy Leo used to drink beer in that canyon: "Interesting enough Leo called shortly after that and told me they drank beer everywhere!"

Madame Chiang Kai-shek. I missed this in the paper yesterday: Soong Mei-ling, who married Chiang Kai-shek, passed away this week. She was arguably the most powerful woman to have lived in the 20th Century. Raised, in part, in the U.S., she was a member of the Soong family (think a less corrupt, but more powerful version of the Kennedys) and married the Nationalist Chinese leader, Chiang Kai-Shek. In 1943, she spoke to a joint session of Congess seeking aid for the Chinese in their fight against Japan. Through the 1960s she was known as one of the most admired women in the world.

She lived to be 105 years old.

Think about how different the world would be if the Nationalists prevailed in the struggle for China and the miracle of Taiwan took place on the Chinese mainland. Think what it would be like to have a world without Mao.

Amazing, huh?

(Also, as I have noted before, when I was a very young boy and my father was stationed in Taiwan as part of JFK's commitment to supporting Quemoy and Matsu, I was able to see Madame Chiang (I never saw her husband). )

Couldn't Have Said It Better. Consider this very apt, consise description of what happened at GC2K3:

a vocal minority claiming a privileged knowledge of the mind of God has placed itself in the seat of judgment, above the good order, canonical authority, civility and

. . . Scripture. Opps, that last word wasn't part of the statement, but, of course, should've been. Since that is the Word of God upon which the Church is built.

Unfortunately, the speaker doesn't really care much for Scripture. You see the speaker is John Bryson Chane, the Bishop of Washington, D.C. And he's not talking about the power play that was rammed through at GC2K3, but about the members of the confessing churches.

Praying. Debbie told me that the AAC was having a board meeting at Truro today. The room is booked off from 9 a.m. until 9 p.m. What is significant is there are two women posted outside the room, praying.