“The Golden Compass” on DVD

“The Golden Compass” came out on DVD yesterday, and I got it from Netflix today. I had reviewed the trilogy it begins earlier this month.

The film adaptation looks nice, but messes with the story. Contrary to some reports, it doesn’t water down the anti-religious message of the trilogy–most of that comes in the second and third books. It does incorporate a few details and a character, Fra Pavel, from the later books, and makes the dramatic mistake of telling you upfront details about “dust” and its nature that Pullman only reveals slowly, later in the trilogy. The screenplay rearranges the story of the first volume, leaves out many details (as any film must), and omits the climax, whereby Lord Asriel kills Lyra’s friend, Roger, to make a pathway to another world. Lyra is an unlikable brat–which fits, I suppose, since in the trilogy she assists the fallen angels in their rebellion against God–but it makes for a miserable movie.

Check out the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes.

Odds and Ends

Andrew and I went to Free Cone Day at Ben and Jerry’s.

I’m reading John Adams by David McCullough and looking forward to getting the HBO series when it is available on DVD.

On the bus from Boston to Portland last Friday I enjoyed “August Rush”; on the trip back, I was surprised I liked “The Bee Movie.”

Before I left, I watched “Rudy.” I’m not a football fan, but it was an enjoyable film about determination, following your dream, and putting your heart into whatever you do.

And finally, I detest The Home Depot and Lowe’s. I can always find what I want, for a better price, with the assurance of knowledgeable and helpful staff, at Ace Hardware. This afternoon, for example, I went looking for a replacement knob for the bathtub. All I could find at those colossal stores were complete sets that would have set me back $70. At both places, sales people stood around watching me look without asking, “May I help you?” At both places I looked at the special order catalog. Again, the salespeople saw me looking through it, but said nothing. I went to Ace, walked a shorter distance from my car to the store, walked a much shorter distance from the entrance to the plumbing section, was greeted by the staff, got just the replacement knob I needed for $12 (made by Ace), and was out in no time.

“The Marxist Roots of Black Liberation Theology”

Essay by Anthony Bradley.

More Contractor Scandal

Little heeded or reported: Congressional hearing on KBR/Halliburton abuse in Iraq.

J. I. Packer and the Anglican Church in Canada

J. I. Packer joins some other clerics in splitting from the Anglican Church in Canada. Liberals shout, “Bad form!”

American Gratitude

An Army dad has posted a video on YouTube about the hardships his son’s unit faced in Afghanistan–without complaint–and the horrid conditions they then had to endure at Ft. Bragg when they returned.

He encouraged people to complain to Congress and the Commander of Ft. Bragg. They did. The Army is listening. Finally.

“We Can’t Have Aquittals”

In the Kangaroo Court at Gitmo, a right hook for the defense by the military’s former chief prosecutor. See Commonweal.

A UU Pastor on Lakewood

It sounds like a joke … “Joel Osteen went into a bar with a Unitarian pastor ….”

In this case, though, a Unitarian-Universalist pastor went to visit Lakewood. He was impressed by Osteen’s sermon, observing, “It could have been one of mine.” Of “Victoria Osteen’s Bible interpretation”–”She uses the same method I do.”

He didn’t care for the hour of praise and worship before the service. “The theology of the praise music and the prayers conflicted with the theology of the sermon.”

Very interesting observations.

Iranian Take on Jesus

From the sounds of it, a recent Iranian movie about Jesus is blasphemous, sacrilegious, insulting, denigrating–pick your modifier–from a Christian perspective. The Muslim director says instead it is giving the truth about Jesus (i.e., the Muslim view, in which Jesus was just a prophet, and was neither crucified nor resurrected). Be that as it may, one thing stands out: Danish Christians are not rioting.

Biofuels and Starvation

Mark Shea says,

Biofuels are a Scam that Kills People

One tank of gas for an SUV = Food for one person for a year.

Obscene.

The link is to an article in the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Vows of Silence

Vows of Silence, a documentary by Jason Berry on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, focusing on the Legionaries of Christ.

Oh, What a Beautiful Morning!

I woke up groggy from yesterday’s travels, but then got a couple of pleasant surprises: my tax refund has made its way to my checking account, and the bank has returned $1600 of surplus escrow. Now I look forward to my tax rebate, which should arrive by May 9.

So my next trip to Maine is now paid for. Yes, we’ll be going back. Not to speak this time, just for vacation. We’ll be gone for a couple weeks in June and July.  Half of that will be in Vermont, the other half back in Freeport, Maine, for campmeeting. I bought the tickets and reserved the rental car last week (thank you, Priceline!).

From Memphis to Maine to Minnesota …

I’m home after an exhausting weekend. I was invited to speak about young adult ministry in Freeport, Maine, for the Northern New England Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. It was a great weekend, with some enthusiastic young adults in attendance, and I got to see some old friends (and many of my wife’s old friends). But getting there and back was exhausting. I flew on Northwest to Boston (going through Memphis on my way up and through Minneapolis on my return), and then took the Concord Trailways express bus from Logan Airport to Portland, where my host picked me up. I could have arrived at Paris in less time (France, not Maine). The bus was a better experience than the flights. Roomy seats, good drivers, free snacks and water, free headphones and movies (“August Rush” going up and “The Bee Movie” coming back). The planes however … ever shrinking seats, ever increasing prices, ever more things that you now must pay for. You still get a non-alcoholic beverage at no extra charge–but do you want that bag of peanuts? Two bucks. Want a little snack box? Five bucks. Headphones or movie on a three hour flight? Not available. When you check in, would you like an aisle seat? Maybe an exit row seat? You’ll have to cough up some more money=–$15 or $25, depending on the seat. Want to check a second (or third) bag? Pay $25 for it. Want to use curbside check-in at Logan? That’ll be $2 per bag–and that’s a fee, not a tip.

Demands of the “Democratic” Dictator

Howard Dean hasn’t figured out what democracy is about, despite being the leader of the party bearing that name. He’s demanding that one of the final candidates for president drop out before the convention. He’s given a deadline: “We want the voters to have their say. That’s over on June 3.”

But it isn’t over. The primary elections merely elect delegates to a party convention. (And because Dean regards arcane party rules and bullying over laws passed by state legislatures, the voters in Michigan and Florida didn’t even get to participate in that process. ) Those delegates still have to gather in convention to vote. One June 3, neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. There will have to be discussion and debate and voting and persuasion at the convention. That’s historically what conventions were for.

If Dean doesn’t want to do this, then he could change the process–he could institute a real primary, like those that determine candidates for state and local office. I’d suggest he might have a nationwide primary on a single day, with run-offs if no one obtains a majority. Using that process, there would be a single candidate well before the convention, decided by voters directly.

But he doesn’t have that process. He has a process whereby voters elect delegates over a long process, and then those delegates go to convention and vote. He should respect it.

The Crumbling Polygamist Case

Alliance Defense Fund has links to analysis and details regarding the latest in the Texas polygamy case, raising more questions about the legality and the prudence of the state’s actions.

Corpse Show in Italy

In Italy, the crowds will be lining up for what will likely prove to be one of the most popular corpse shows ever (aside from Lenin’s Tomb). The corpse on display: St. Pio da Pietrelcina.

“Jesus of Nazareth: An UnRealistic Portrait”

So. Paul Verhoeven has discovered some old antiChristian calumnies about Jesus, and thinks they are worthy of a(nother) blasphemous retelling. Ho-hum.

Expelled: Further Thoughts

I’ve been reflecting some more this week on Ben Stein’s Moore-ish documentary, Expelled.

One thing that unsettles me about its approach is its snide sarcasm. It approaches the subject from the vantage point of wronged professors and violated freedom.

I think a better starting point is the wonder expressed by the psalmist (Psalm 19): “The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork.” Or the positive affirmation of Paul (Romans 1), that “since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.”

I also think that this movie illustrates the weakness of the ID approach. It’s a compromise that can make no one happy. It pretends not to be based in religion, and to be merely interested in pointing to evidence of design, without suggesting who or what that designer might have been. If that’s the case, why should Stein sneer at Dawkins’ hypothetical suggestion of an alien invasion? If you have a particular designer in mind, why be afraid to name Him? Obviously, because that gets to the point of special revelation, which is clearly religion, and they want to be seen as “scientific.”

There is, of course, a route they can go which is neither “religious” nor “scientific,” and that is the field of philosophy of science. It’s a broad field, with room for all sorts of discussions. Why not encourage proliferation of classes in the philosophy of science so that the implications of science, ethical issues, and other interpretative issues could be freely discussed and debated?

Intelligent Design^TM is a compromise, I say, that makes no one happy.

Evolutionists dismiss it as “Creationism,” despite the fact that some of its proponents, notably Michael Behe, regard themselves as evolutionists. It matters not to mainstream evolutionists whether you think God created the world in six days, six thousand years ago, or whether you accept their timeline–what they cannot accept is the idea of God directly intervening in the cosmos. If you believe in that, you are a Creationist in their mind. They don’t object to a Deistic or Pantheistic version of God, who is identified with the forces of the universe or who operates in the background; it’s the idea of a God who acts with intent that is incompatible with their understanding of how the universe operates.

Intelligent Design^TM, especially the variety that would admit to theistic evolution, cannot satisfy the Creationist, either, because it presents the same problems as mainstream evolutionary theory. It allows for the existence of death prior to the introduction of sin by a moral choice by man. It can accept death as part of God’s design for creation. If that is so, there was no Fall. If no Fall, no Redemption. For more on this line of thought, I’d recommend John Templeton Baldwin, ed., Creation, Catastrophe, & Calvary (Review and Herald, 2000).

I don’t believe in Creation because of evidence of irreducible complexity–I believe in it because I accept God’s Word. I accept the Bible’s teaching that God created the heavens and the earth. He knew what he was doing. He had a plan. The world was as he intended it to be, without death, without sin, without suffering. Then came sin. And yet he didn’t abandon us, but chose to send his son to become one of us, to die for our sins. He is risen from the dead, and he will come again, and he will recreate this world, and restore it to his original design.

I don’t mind if scientists uncover things that suggest evidence of that design. I will wonder and marvel at them and say, “Praise God.” And because of that, I think I’m more satisfied by Louie Giglio’s video, How Great Is Our God, than by Ben Stein’s Expelled. The one leads me to praise God, the other tempts me to curse men. Which is the better outcome?

Ashcroft and Torture

Tompaul Wheeler points us to a report of a visit by John Ashcroft to Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. There was a lively Q&A. Here’s a sample:

ME: First off, Mr. Ashcroft, I’d like to apologize for the rudeness of some of my fellow students.  It was uncalled for–we can disagree civilly, we don’t need that. (round of applause from the audience, and Ashcroft smiles) I have here in my hand two documents.  One of them, you know, is the text of the United Nations Convention against Torture, which, point of interest, says nothing about “lasting physical damage”…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) Do you have the Senate reservations to it?
ME: No, I don’t.  Do you happen to know what they are?
ASHCROFT: (angrily) I don’t have them memorized, no.  I don’t have time to go around memorizing random legal facts.  I just don’t want these people in the audience to go away saying, “He was wrong, she had the proof right in her hand!”  Because that’s not true.  It’s a lie.  If you don’t have the reservations, you don’t have anything.  Now, if you want to bring them another time, we can talk, but…
ME: Actually, Mr. Ashcroft, my question was about this other document. (laughter and applause) This other document is a section from the judgment of the Tokyo War Tribunal.  After WWII, the Tokyo Tribunal was basically the Nuremberg Trials for Japan.  Many Japanese leaders were put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including torture.  And among the tortures listed was the “water treatment,” which we nowadays call waterboarding…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting) This is a speech, not a question.  I don’t mind, but it’s not a question.
ME: It will be, sir, just give me a moment.  The judgment describes this water treatment, and I quote, “the victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.”  One man, Yukio Asano, was sentenced to fifteen years hard labor by the allies for waterboarding American troops to obtain information.  Since Yukio Asano was trying to get information to help defend his country–exactly what you, Mr. Ashcroft, say is acceptible for Americans to do–do you believe that his sentence was unjust? (boisterous applause and shouts of “Good question!”)
ASHCROFT: (angrily) Now, listen here.  You’re comparing apples and oranges, apples and oranges.  We don’t do anything like what you described.
ME: I’m sorry, I was under the impression that we still use the method of putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water down their throat…
ASHCROFT: (interrupting, red-faced, shouting) Pouring!  Pouring! Did you hear what she said?  ”Putting a cloth over someone’s face and pouring water on them.”  That’s not what you said before!  Read that again, what you said before!
ME: Sir, other reports of the time say…
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read what you said before! (cries of “Answer her fucking question!” from the audience) Read it!
ME: (firmly) Mr. Ashcroft, please answer the question.
ASHCROFT: (shouting) Read it back!
ME: “The victim was bound or otherwise secured in a prone position; and water was forced through his mouth and nostrils into his lungs and stomach.”
ASHCROFT: (shouting) You hear that?  You hear it?  ”Forced!”  If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…does this college have an anatomy class?  If you can’t tell the difference between forcing and pouring…
ME: (firmly and loudly) Mr. Ashcroft, do you believe that Yukio Asano’s sentence was unjust?  Answer the question. (pause)
ASHCROFT: (more restrained) It’s not a fair question; there’s no comparison.  Next question! (loud chorus of boos from the audience)

A Cardinal Accused

Richard Sipe has written a letter to Pope Benedict XVI accusing Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of preying upon seminarians and young priests.

This sexual aberration is not generated from the bottom up—that is only from unsuitable candidates—but from the top down—that is from the sexual behaviors of superiors, even bishops and cardinals.

The problem facing us in the American church is systemic.

He continues:

While I was Adjunct Professor at a Pontifical Seminary, St. Mary’s Baltimore (1972-1984) a number of seminarians came to me with concerns about the behavior of Theodore E. McCarrick then bishop of Metuchen New Jersey. It has been widely known for several decades that Bishop/Archbishop now Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick took seminarians and young priests to a shore home in New Jersey, sites in New York, and other places and slept with some of them. He established a coterie of young seminarians and priests that he encouraged to call him “Uncle Ted.” I have his correspondence where he referred to these men as being “cousins” with each other.

Catholic journalist Matt C. Abbott already featured the statements of two priests (2005) and one ex-priest (2006) about McCarrick. All three were “in the know” and aware of the Cardinal McCarrick’s activities in the same mode as I had heard at the seminary. None of these reporters, as far as Abbott knew, had sexual contact with the cardinal in the infamous sleepovers, but one had first hand reports from a seminarian/priest who did share a bed and received cards and letters from McCarrick. The modus operendi is similar to the documents and letters I have received from a priest who describes in detail McCarrick’s sexual advances and personal activity. At least one prominent journalist at the Boston Globe was aware of McCarrick from his investigation of another priest, but until now legal documentation has not been available. And even at this point the complete story cannot be published because priest reporters are afraid of reprisals.

Your Holiness, you must seek out and listen to these stories, as I have from many priests about their seduction by highly placed clerics, and the dire consequences in their lives that does end with personal distess.

I know the names of at least four priests who have had sexual encounters with Cardinal McCarrick. I have documents and letters that record the first hand testimony and eye witness accounts of McCarrick, then archbishop of Newark, New Jersey actually having sex with a priest, and at other times subjecting a priest to unwanted sexual advances.

Your Holiness, you must seek out and listen to the stories, as I have from many priests about their seduction by highly placed clerics, and the dire consequences in their lives that does end in their victimization alone.

Such behavior fosters confusion and makes celibacy problematic for seminarians and priests. This abuse paves the way for them to pass the tradition on—to have sex with each other and even with minors.

Update: Mark Shea takes issue with those, including Rod Dreher, who are disappointed that Pope Benedict has taken no disciplinary action against bishops involved in the scandal. The pope can’t “micromanage” the world church, says Shea. “Micromanage”? He is the supervisor of the bishops. He’s their only superior. He is their manager. “Micromanaging” would be if the pope got involved in personnel decisions regarding priests. “Managing” is when he holds senior management accountable for dishonorable action. And as Rod points out in rejoinder, it seems he’s willing to do that in the case of a Paraguayan bishop who ran for, and has been elected to, public office. If he can laicize him for that, how do you explain his failure to take canonical action against Thomas Dupre, for example?

Update: Gerald Augustinus joins the discussion, with some more links.

Earth Day Predictions

Washington Policy Center reminds us of some Earth Day predictions from the past (ht Mark Shea) …

• “…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “…the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

• The world will be “…eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.

• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

• “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction,” The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.

• “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…” Life magazine, January 1970.

• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

• “…air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

• Ehrlich also predicted that in 1973, 200,000 Americans would die from air pollution, and that by 1980 the life expectancy of Americans would be 42 years.

• “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

• “By the year 2000…the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.

The Pope and Religious Liberty

I got an e-mail today from a religious liberty organization which, ironically, commented on the pope’s visit without saying anything about his remarks on religious liberty!

Let’s take a look at what he said on this topic, shall we?

Remarks at the White House:

Historically, not only Catholics, but all believers have found here the freedom to worship God in accordance with the dictates of their conscience, while at the same time being accepted as part of a commonwealth in which each individual and group can make its voice heard. As the nation faces the increasingly complex political and ethical issues of our time, I am confident that the American people will find in their religious beliefs a precious source of insight and an inspiration to pursue reasoned, responsible and respectful dialogue in the effort to build a more humane and free society.

Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46).

Remarks to the US Bishops:

Respect for freedom of religion is deeply ingrained in the American consciousness – a fact which has contributed to this country’s attraction for generations of immigrants, seeking a home where they can worship freely in accordance with their beliefs.

Remarks to interfaith leaders:

Americans have always valued the ability to worship freely and in accordance with their conscience. Alexis de Tocqueville, the French historian and observer of American affairs, was fascinated with this aspect of the nation. He remarked that this is a country in which religion and freedom are “intimately linked” in contributing to a stable democracy that fosters social virtues and participation in the communal life of all its citizens. In urban areas, it is common for individuals from different cultural backgrounds and religions to engage with one another daily in commercial, social and educational settings. Today, in classrooms throughout the country, young Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and indeed children of all religions sit side-by-side, learning with one another and from one another. This diversity gives rise to new challenges that spark a deeper reflection on the core principles of a democratic society. May others take heart from your experience, realizing that a united society can indeed arise from a plurality of peoples – “E pluribus unum”: “out of many, one” – provided that all recognize religious liberty as a basic civil right (cf. Dignitatis Humanae, 2).

The task of upholding religious freedom is never completed. New situations and challenges invite citizens and leaders to reflect on how their decisions respect this basic human right. Protecting religious freedom within the rule of law does not guarantee that peoples – particularly minorities – will be spared from unjust forms of discrimination and prejudice. This requires constant effort on the part of all members of society to ensure that citizens are afforded the opportunity to worship peaceably and to pass on their religious heritage to their children.

Remarks to the UN:

Human rights, of course, must include the right to religious freedom, understood as the expression of a dimension that is at once individual and communitarian – a vision that brings out the unity of the person while clearly distinguishing between the dimension of the citizen and that of the believer. The activity of the United Nations in recent years has ensured that public debate gives space to viewpoints inspired by a religious vision in all its dimensions, including ritual, worship, education, dissemination of information and the freedom to profess and choose religion. It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights. The rights associated with religion are all the more in need of protection if they are considered to clash with a prevailing secular ideology or with majority religious positions of an exclusive nature. The full guarantee of religious liberty cannot be limited to the free exercise of worship, but has to give due consideration to the public dimension of religion, and hence to the possibility of believers playing their part in building the social order. Indeed, they actually do so, for example through their influential and generous involvement in a vast network of initiatives which extend from Universities, scientific institutions and schools to health care agencies and charitable organizations in the service of the poorest and most marginalized. Refusal to recognize the contribution to society that is rooted in the religious dimension and in the quest for the Absolute – by its nature, expressing communion between persons – would effectively privilege an individualistic approach, and would fragment the unity of the person.

These comments stand in stark contrast to the condemnation of religious liberty and separation of church and state by previous popes, including Gregory XVI (Mirari vos), Pius IX (Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura), Leo XIII (Libertas), Pius X (Vehementer nos). They are in harmony, however, with the teaching of the Second Vatican Council (Dignitatis Humanae, which he cites). Of course, the world has changed over the past hundred years. Catholicism is no longer dominant even in Europe. Secularism and socialism have pushed it aside. It is in the United States and other places just another voice. Thus, instead of seeking to preserve Church prerogatives, as his predecessors did, he seeks to preserve the Church’s freedom and its voice in the marketplace of ideas. And note that never does he endorse separation of church and state. He praises the American system for still allowing religious entities a voice–and he wants to make use of that freedom to the full extent possible. He acknowledges that immigrants came here seeking religious liberty, and that this heritage has strengthened America. But his emphasis is that this provides the Church opportunity to speak, both as Church and through its members.

The Pope, Tancredo, and Immigration

The Wall Street Journal drops its collective jaw at Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo’s views on immigration and the pope. The pope spoke of America’s heritage of welcoming immigrants, even citing the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty. He didn’t address the issue of illegal immigration. Yet Tancredo railed against him for daring to raise the issue of immigration. An Tancredo also made no distinctions between illegal and legal immigration–he’s wears t-shirts that say, “America Is Full.” Tancredo and Lou Dobbs think the Catholic church speaks about immigrants only because it sees them as a source of more members.

The WSJ’s punchline is a classic:

You know the restrictionists have gone head-first into the fever swamps when they denounce a Christian religious leader for sounding like a Christian.

The pope welcomes immigrants because he’s Catholic, not because they are. He isn’t “marketing” his faith. He’s practicing it.

Just what did the pope say on immigration?

First, in his private conversation with President Bush it is said,

The Holy Father and the President also considered the situation in Latin America with reference, among other matters, to immigrants, and the need for a coordinated policy regarding immigration, especially their humane treatment and the well being of their families.

To the bishops he said,

Many of the people to whom John Carroll and his fellow Bishops were ministering two centuries ago had travelled from distant lands. The diversity of their origins is reflected in the rich variety of ecclesial life in present-day America. Brother Bishops, I want to encourage you and your communities to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home. This, indeed, is what your fellow countrymen have done for generations. From the beginning, they have opened their doors to the tired, the poor, the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (cf. Sonnet inscribed on the Statue of Liberty). These are the people whom America has made her own.

In the mass in DC he said:

Two hundred years later, the Church in America can rightfully praise the accomplishment of past generations in bringing together widely differing immigrant groups within the unity of the Catholic faith and in a common commitment to the spread of the Gospel. At the same time, conscious of its rich diversity, the Catholic community in this country has come to appreciate ever more fully the importance of each individual and group offering its own particular gifts to the whole.

To educators, he recalled that Catholic schools “helped generations of immigrants to rise from poverty and take their place in mainstream society.”

In the mass in New York, he simply alluded to “the successive waves of immigrants whose traditions have so enriched the Church in America.”

So, to the President, in private, he spoke of the need for immigration policy to take note of the reality in Latin America, for it to be coordinated, and for it to be concerned for the humane treatment of immigrants and the well being of their families. That’s it.

All of the other statements were made to Catholics. He reminded them of the richness of the church as a result of immigration. He reminded them of the role the church played in helping immigrants assimilate, especially through education. He reminded them how a unity of faith and purpose helped to transcend cultural differences. And he asked them “to continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hopes, to support them in their sorrows and trials, and to help them flourish in their new home.”

This is sound advice, non-political, but, as the WSJ said, rooted in the Christian gospel. It’s something that non-Catholic Christians can also affirm.

“Passover: A Celebration of Patience”

Kemi Ola reflects in a poem on a Seder we celebrated at a recent Adventist Christian Fellowship gathering.

Happy San Jacinto Day

Today was the anniversary of the Battle of San Jacinto, which secured the independence of Texas. Video.

Christians as Aztecs

Liberal Baptist Oliver “Buzz” Thomas compares Christians who are pro-life with the Aztecs, who practiced human sacrifice. Albert Mohler responds.

McCain and Islamic Terrorism

The ISNA wants John McCain to stop speaking of “Islamic Terrorism.” I suppose he will when Islamic Terrorists stop saying they are acting on behalf of Islam.

Polygamy in Context

Get Religion on reporting on Mormonism and polygamy.

Messianic Jews and Israeli Citizenship

Messianic Jews have apparently won a victory before the Supreme Court of Israel. And here. Problem is, both of those are Christian sites. I’d be interested in some links to Jewish/Israeli sources.

USCCB Priorities

It’s useful to read not just what the pope said to US Catholics and politicians, but to read what they said to him.

For example, here’s how Cardinal George outlined the priorities of the USCCB:

The episcopal conference has recently identified the strengthening of marriage and of family life as one of five priorities for our common attention in the next several years. The other four are protecting the life and dignity of the human person at every stage of life’s journey; handing on the faith in the context of sacramental practice and the observance of Sunday worship; fostering vocations to ordained priesthood and consecrated life; and profiting from the cultural diversity of the church here, especially from the gifts of Hispanic Catholics.