?

Log in

faithxpolitics [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
faithxpolitics

[ website | maintainers journal ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

(no subject) [Jan. 17th, 2005|03:05 am]
faithxpolitics
superkiddo7
Catholics Take On Single-Issue BishopsCollapse )
linkpost comment

thoughts? [Dec. 29th, 2004|05:37 pm]
faithxpolitics

rosette
Who is Maitreya?
He has been expected for generations by all of the major religions. Christians know him as the Christ, and expect his imminent return. Jews await him as the Messiah; Hindus look for the coming of Krishna; Buddhists expect him as Maitreya Buddha; and Muslims anticipate the Imam Mahdi or Messiah.

http://www.shareintl.org/maitreya/Ma_main.htm

Some people believe hes the anti-christ.
link10 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Dec. 29th, 2004|12:10 am]
faithxpolitics
superkiddo7
I want my faith back
Getting personal about the political hijacking of religion.
Jennifer Barnett Reed
Updated: 12/23/2004


STEVE COPLEY
There’s only one thing on my Christmas list this year:

I want my faith back.

I didn’t come by it easily. I’m a card-carrying liberal, skeptical by nature, with an almost knee-jerk eye-roll reaction to anyone who’s completely comfortable discussing their religious convictions in mixed company. I spent pretty much the entire decade of my 20s in an uncomfortable agnosticism because I just couldn’t make up my damn mind.

So now that I have — now that words like “sinful” spring to mind when I hear about the $40 million budget for George W. Bush’s inaugural soirees, instead of just “disgusting” — I’m starting to take the right wing’s


hijacking of my religion very, very personally.


“These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.”

— Matthew 15:8-9


Shortly before the election an acquaintance who, like me, is a liberal Christian and a Methodist (a denomination we share, at least officially, with President Bush), sent me an op-ed piece written by a retired Methodist bishop. It critiqued Bush’s record in light of the United Methodist Church’s Book of Discipline, the denomination’s central collection of beliefs and rules. Not surprisingly, the bishop found him lacking.

I forwarded the piece to a relative in another state who’s a part-time Methodist pastor, thinking he’d at least find it interesting. His response? Harsher than anything I’d expected. He defended Bush as the “man of faith” in the election. Kerry — a lifelong practicing Catholic — apparently didn’t fit the bill, although my relative didn’t give details to support that view. Furthermore, if Kerry were elected, he would “undermine the role of religion in public life” and appoint Supreme Court justices who eventually would restrict religious expression to the point that my relative wouldn’t be able to publicly denounce homosexuality as a sin.

I tried to be as non-snarky as possible in my reply, but I haven’t heard from him since.

If we’d continued our conversation, I would have wanted to ask him this: Why are all the fights over posting religious language in government buildings — and, most recently, having it embroidered down the front of your judge’s robes — about the Ten Commandments? How come no one’s ever gone to court over posting the Beatitudes? If the U.S. should be a “Christian” nation as reflected in our government’s official actions, why don’t we start with legislating “Love your neighbor as yourself”?

And this: With all the millions of children in our country who don’t have enough food, clothing, or love, how can right-wing Christians possibly still cling to the delusion that God thinks gay people are the biggest threat to Christian values? Times Jesus mentions the poor in the gospels: I lost count halfway through Matthew. Times he mentions homosexuality: Zero.


Throughout the entire 2004 election cycle, the debate on “moral values” was hamstrung by the religious right — limited to abortion and gay marriage, with no mention at all of any traditional religious social justice concerns.

“The Bible speaks a huge amount about the poor and poverty and how you treat the least of these in your midst,” said Steve Copley, pastor of North Little Rock First United Methodist Church. “That doesn’t even seem to be on the table at all. … Right now, we talk about life, but if folks don’t have enough to live on … and I’m not even talking about people on welfare, I’m talking about the working poor.”

The same attitude showed up in Central Arkansas’s local congressional races this year, said Rabbi Eugene Levy of Little Rock’s B’nai Israel synagogue.

“What they had in common was the dialogue had to be done on Republicans’ turf,” Levy said of the campaigns of Rep. Vic Snyder and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, both Democrats and professed Christians. “Who’s more in favor of troops, who’s more in favor of sending money to the war in Iraq. What happened to the moderate agenda? It’s gone. It was all about can the moderates out-security the Republicans.”

Snyder, who’s married to the Rev. Betsy Singleton, pastor of Quapaw Quarter United Methodist Church, said it’s bothered his wife that “a lot of things that are values don’t get discussed that way” — education, hunger, peacemaking.

“I get really worked up about the children,” Singleton said. “Why aren’t they a religious issue?”

The hypocrisy hasn’t gone unnoticed outside our borders. The Rev. Randy Hyde, pastor of Pulaski Heights Baptist Church, spent three months in Europe earlier this year. He said Europeans are suspicious of Americans “because we talk so much about religious values but don’t live them.”

And he dismisses the right-wing, pseudo-patriotic mantra that the opinion of the rest of the world doesn’t matter.

“People say ‘We don’t care what they think about us,’ but we ought to care what people think about us because that’s a part of our witness.”


Of all the progressive and moderate people of faith I talked to as part of this story, Howard “Flash” Gordon, pastor of First Presbyterian Church and a social justice activist, told me the story I’ve repeated the most often:

When Ronald Reagan died earlier this year, someone from Fox News called Gordon, looking for a sound bite for a story on Reagan’s religious faith because Gordon had known Reagan’s pastor.

“I said, ‘He didn’t take care of poor people,’ ” Gordon said.

The guy from Fox said, “I don’t want to hear about poor people, I want to hear about Reagan’s Christianity.”

Gordon replied, “That IS Reagan’s Christianity,” and the Fox guy hung up on him.

That story captures for me how low we’ve sunk in our perceptions and expectations of what “faith” looks like. “I don’t want to hear about poor people, I want to hear about Reagan’s Christianity.”

It’s altogether depressing, really, at least on the surface. There was that infamous exit poll, offered up as proof in the mainstream media that conservative Christian voters were now in charge, and the rest of us were just hopelessly out of touch.

But all the right wing’s posturing, before and after the election, may well be the best thing that ever happened to progressive and moderate people of faith. Outrage has taken me in a good direction. If I’m in any way representative, we are finally starting to clue in to the need to act politically specifically as an expression of faith — and realizing just how many others like us are out there.

In the past I’ve been reluctant to out myself as a Christian among my liberal friends, and as a liberal among my religious friends. It’s not that I’m embarrassed to believe what I believe; but the word “Christian” has come to be so strongly associated with beliefs that are the polar opposite of mine. It’s frankly embarrassing to share a label with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.

I know I’m not the only one, either. Cole Wakefield, a liberal, devout friend who works at the Cokesbury Christian bookstore, puts it this way: “The problem is, nobody knows it’s out there. There are a lot of progressive Christians, a lot of churches who might feel they’re the only ones.”

Look at cable TV, he points out. No shortage of channels devoted solely to religious programming, but virtually all of it is right-leaning.

A few months ago I was sure progressive Christians were a dying breed, or at least an increasingly underground one. What I’ve found in the wake of the election and doing research on this story, though, is that Wakefield is right: There is a large, viable, and, most importantly, energized movement of broad-minded faithful out there.

The Granddaddy of progressive Christian media is Sojourner magazine, which has an extensive web site and a weekly email update and claims a readership of 100,000. The magazine and its parent organization have been around for 30 years, and executive editor Jim Wallis has been the go-to guy this year for progressive religious commentary on any number of TV news shows and newspaper articles.

Given that, it’s a testimony to how much more effectively right-wing religious groups have used the media to promote their message that I’d never even heard of Sojourner or Wallis until a month or two before the election, when someone emailed me a Sojourner-sponsored petition/full-page newspaper ad that began with the headline, “God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat.”

A Zogby poll commissioned by three liberal groups after the election found that despite registering 400,000 new voters and spending almost $2 million, the religious left was only about half as effective as the religious right in getting its message out: 71 percent of voters said they’d heard from Christian conservatives, while 38 percent said they’d heard from religious progressives.

But we are out there. Not just at Sojourner, but at many smaller web sites too, having online conversations about where we are, how we got here and what we should do differently next time.

One discussion thread I stumbled onto asked simply, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

“No!” wrote someone who signed himself matthew0724. “As an evangelical Christian, I feel the most important job I have been given is to be a witness to non-believers. Much of this witnessing is simply trying to live a Christ-like life so others will see the character of Jesus through me. My ability to be any kind of a witness, active or passive, has been drastically harmed by the religious right — specifically the Bush administration. By acting as if they own the franchise on Christianity, and then acting as un-Christlike as possible, many more people are inclined to dismiss my beliefs out of hand. Duh-bya is also giving Christians the image of being morons. ‘It’s the stupid, stupid.’ ”


Rabbi Levy traces the conservative religious take-over back to the campaign against Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern. The religious right attacked McGovern in several key states, and in a post-election interview, he blamed them for his loss and explained how they’d accomplished what they did: They co-opted emotionally charged words like “family” and “life,” stuck “pro” on the front and claimed the linguistic high ground for their ultra-conservative agenda.

This time around, of course, it was “moral values.” Conservative Christians remade the phrase into code for being anti-abortion rights and anti-gay rights, and they got away with it. Again.

“Traditional Democratic values are Christian values,” Wakefield said. “But somehow ‘help the poor’ doesn’t matter, war doesn’t matter, because there are gay people around.”

Part of the problem is that progressive people of faith have allowed conservatives to have a stronger voice because we often don’t feel as confident debating Scripture, said the Rev. Karen Akins, an associate pastor at Second Presbyterian Church.

“People who do not literally approach Scripture…perhaps feel somewhat handicapped, because they can’t point to a specific place because we’re not about proof-texting” — using specific Bible verses to make a point, without considering their context. “We talk more about the story of God, the places where we feel God’s voice is strong about righteousness and justice.

“When someone is standing before you very adamantly pointing to a specific place [in Scripture], sometimes it’s hard to come back — you want to open the whole Bible rather than pointing to a place in Leviticus or a place in Deuteronomy or a place in Romans.”

Rep. Snyder, a churchgoing Methodist who still had to defend his religious bona fides against a Republican “moral values” candidate in November, puts the blame not on conservative Christians, but on Republican campaign operatives.

“What was different in this election was the Republican politicals did a much better job of milking those religious issues in ways I thought at times were sinful,” he said — like the brochure distributed in Arkansas and West Virginia claiming Democrats would ban the Bible if they were elected.

“By saying Democrats are going to ban the Bible — what they’re saying is, they’re the party that’s going to protect the Bible, but they’re doing that with this flagrant dishonesty.”

Gordon, however, blames Democrats for selling out — abandoning their historic positions on social programs and economic justice to cater to centrist voters. That’s allowed Republicans to push religious differences to the fore of what distinguishes the two parties, he said.

“What issues are left then?” Gordon asked. “ ‘They’re complicated heathens, we’re simple Christians.’ ”

Akins added that progressive people of faith seem to have underestimated the power of the religious right lobby in government, and haven’t responded as strongly.

“We’ve not stepped up to the plate to match that as people of faith,” she said. “I certainly think it’s a wake-up call for us to be better at articulating what our faith is calling us to do and to be.”

And the right-wing Christian message has enormous appeal to people because it offers a black-and-white take on complicated issues.

“Certainty is the narcotic of the right wing,” Gordon said — and they are marvelously adept at pushing it. They have been much more willing to stand up in pulpits and on TV news shows and proclaim what is right and wrong, selling a brand of Christianity that doesn’t allow room for complexity.

“It is far, far easier to be on the right than in the middle or on the left, because everything is already determined for you,” Pulaski Heights Baptist’s Hyde said.


But I wonder why progressive Christians can’t do the same thing. Yes, we almost define ourselves by our inclusiveness, by our emphasis on Jesus as a loving savior, not a judgmental one. But we also have black-and-white beliefs, just like conservatives do: Greed is wrong. Poverty is unjust. Compassion is commanded. If it’s certainty people want, we can give it to them in spades.

Writing in The Nation a few weeks after the election, author Barbara Ehrenreich had this advice for the losing side:

“In the aftermath of Election ’04, centrist Democrats should not be flirting with faith but re-examining their affinity for candidates too mumble-mouthed and compromised to articulate poverty and war as the urgent moral issues they are. Jesus is on our side here, and secular liberals should not be afraid to invoke him. Policies of pre-emptive war and the upward redistribution of wealth are inversions of the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is for the most part silent, or mysteriously cryptic, on gays and abortion.”

The job may not be as hard as right-wing Christians would have us believe.

Sure, NBC (home of the exceedingly popular “Will and Grace,” half of whose main characters are very out gay men) and CBS refused to air a United Church of Christ commercial promoting that denomination’s open-door policy. And yes, CBS actually cited the Bush administration’s position on gay marriage as the reason tolerance was too hot a topic for them to allow on their airwaves.

But there is hope to be had in a post-election poll that found that 33 percent of voters cited “greed and materialism” as the country’s greatest moral problem. Another 31 percent said “poverty and economic justice.” Only 16 percent rated abortion the most urgent, and 12 percent chose same-sex marriage.

The poll also asked voters what was the most important “moral issue” that affected their vote. Almost twice as many said the war in Iraq as chose abortion and same-sex marriage combined.

In Arkansas, exit polls showed that 16 percent of voters said the one quality that most influenced their choice of candidate was strong religious faith; they voted overwhelmingly for Bush.

But that was the third most popular choice, behind “He will bring about needed change” (23 percent, of whom almost all voted for Kerry) and “He is a strong leader” (17 percent, most of whom voted for Bush).

But the result that’s most telling to me: 10 percent chose “He cares about people like me.” More than two-thirds of those voters cast ballots for Kerry.

That seems to show the disconnect between what people value personally and what they perceive as “religious.” The job of progressive people of faith seems to be to bridge that gap — to reclaim the “values” turf for a broader spectrum of social justice issues.

“We have to bring these topics up in religious settings,” Wakefield said. “Bring up poverty, bring up war. We have to get people to see these things as the religious issues they are. …We have to force the debate into the true territory of what values are.”

Exactly how to accomplish that, the clergy I talked to were less sure.

There’s an inherent conflict in trying to wed progressive religious values to the political system, they said, especially when conservatives have already defined the terms of debate. Politics is about getting and keeping power, and that’s anathema to the progressive view of what Christianity is about.

“Part of the struggle of that for us is so many of our examples are of Christ working through weakness,” Second Presbyterian’s Karen Akins said. “I’m not sure how to infuse that power base without becoming what I don’t feel like I’m called to become.”

Copley said progressive people of faith have two options. The first is to get into the existing debate on values, where the religious right has already set the ground rules and progressives would be forever on the defensive. The other way, he said, is to “go out there and say we’re going after this.”

That’s Copley’s choice.

“For me, the way forward is to create our own agenda — raise the issues of people who are hungry and poor” within individual congregations. “It will bubble up from the grassroots level.”

Copley said some in the progressive religious community did try to bring poverty to the fore of the presidential campaign this year.

“That’s going to have to continue,” he said. “Forty-five million people in America don’t have health insurance.”


So I ended the process of writing this story less outraged and more hopeful. There are so many thoughtful and eloquent progressives out there — and who’ve been out there for years — talking about how to reclaim the public and political face of faith. I mentioned Jim Wallis, the head of Sojourner magazine, before. I’ll let him close.

From an op-ed piece called “Recovering a hijacked faith,” published in the Boston Globe last July:

“When we take back our faith, we will discover that faith challenges the powers that be to do justice for the poor instead of preaching a ‘prosperity gospel’ and supporting politicians who further enrich the wealthy. We will remember that faith hates violence and tries to reduce it, and exerts a fundamental presumption against war instead of justifying it in God’s name.

“We will see that faith creates community from racial, class and gender divisions, prefers international community over nationalist religion, and that ‘God bless America’ is found nowhere in the Bible. And we will be reminded that faith regards matters such as the sacredness of life and family bonds as so important that they should never be used as ideological symbols or mere political pawns in partisan warfare.

“…When the poor are defended on moral or religious grounds, it is not ‘class warfare,’ as the rich will always charge, but rather a direct response to the overwhelming focus in the Scriptures, which claims they are regularly neglected, exploited, and oppressed by wealthy elites, political rulers, and indifferent affluent populations. Those Scriptures don’t simply endorse the social programs of liberals or conservatives, but make clear that poverty is indeed a religious issue, and the failure of political leaders to help uplift those in poverty will be judged a moral failing.”

Amen.
link7 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Dec. 28th, 2004|10:26 pm]
faithxpolitics
superkiddo7
It's the feeling expressed in the follwing article that makes me believe that we are not ready in this country for the introduction of relgion into public schools - and why I'm fine with only hearing Frosty the Snowman being sung at holiday sing-alongs in America's schools:

Restoring Christmas to Christ
Posted: Wednesday, Dec 22, 2004 - 08:15:50 pm EST





This seems to me the perfect time of the year to write this column. It is about the move toward the secularization of Christmas and of Christianity, itself. I need to tell you that these are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of others.

It has become abundantly clear that there are individuals and groups who have worked hard to take all the religious tones out of the Christmas holiday. It is their desire to strip this country of its heritage and to de-elevate Christianity in the United States so that it is equal to Buddhism, Islam, atheism and all other religions including the worship of rocks.

In the spirit of openness and compromise, many of us have tried to live with new guidelines that essentially put down our faith, the faith of our founding fathers. What we have experienced is that as soon as we voluntarily give an inch, we are required to give a mile. I have had enough of this nonsense, and I believe it is time we reclaim the country of our ancestors - before it is too late to reclaim it.

Here are the reasons I believe Christmas and Christianity should not be stricken from the public sphere:


Restoring Christmas to Christ
Posted: Wednesday, Dec 22, 2004 - 08:15:50 pm EST





This seems to me the perfect time of the year to write this column. It is about the move toward the secularization of Christmas and of Christianity, itself. I need to tell you that these are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of others.

It has become abundantly clear that there are individuals and groups who have worked hard to take all the religious tones out of the Christmas holiday. It is their desire to strip this country of its heritage and to de-elevate Christianity in the United States so that it is equal to Buddhism, Islam, atheism and all other religions including the worship of rocks.

In the spirit of openness and compromise, many of us have tried to live with new guidelines that essentially put down our faith, the faith of our founding fathers. What we have experienced is that as soon as we voluntarily give an inch, we are required to give a mile. I have had enough of this nonsense, and I believe it is time we reclaim the country of our ancestors - before it is too late to reclaim it.

Here are the reasons I believe Christmas and Christianity should not be stricken from the public sphere:

Restoring Christmas to Christ

This seems to me the perfect time of the year to write this column. It is about the move toward the secularization of Christmas and of Christianity, itself. I need to tell you that these are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of others.

It has become abundantly clear that there are individuals and groups who have worked hard to take all the religious tones out of the Christmas holiday. It is their desire to strip this country of its heritage and to de-elevate Christianity in the United States so that it is equal to Buddhism, Islam, atheism and all other religions including the worship of rocks.

In the spirit of openness and compromise, many of us have tried to live with new guidelines that essentially put down our faith, the faith of our founding fathers. What we have experienced is that as soon as we voluntarily give an inch, we are required to give a mile. I have had enough of this nonsense, and I believe it is time we reclaim the country of our ancestors - before it is too late to reclaim it.

Here are the reasons I believe Christmas and Christianity should not be stricken from the public sphere:


Restoring Christ To Christmas

This seems to me the perfect time of the year to write this column. It is about the move toward the secularization of Christmas and of Christianity, itself. I need to tell you that these are my personal views and do not necessarily reflect the views of others.

It has become abundantly clear that there are individuals and groups who have worked hard to take all the religious tones out of the Christmas holiday. It is their desire to strip this country of its heritage and to de-elevate Christianity in the United States so that it is equal to Buddhism, Islam, atheism and all other religions including the worship of rocks.

In the spirit of openness and compromise, many of us have tried to live with new guidelines that essentially put down our faith, the faith of our founding fathers. What we have experienced is that as soon as we voluntarily give an inch, we are required to give a mile. I have had enough of this nonsense, and I believe it is time we reclaim the country of our ancestors - before it is too late to reclaim it.

Here are the reasons I believe Christmas and Christianity should not be stricken from the public sphere:



1) This country was founded on Christianity, and - yes - that does indeed give it the right to be the predominant religion in the United States. Under no circumstances should it be required to be made equal with other religions.

Our forefathers came to this country, in part, to escape religious persecution. We must remember that, be considerate of those with differing religious beliefs and not require our citizens to conform to our beliefs. However, that does not make it our obligation to make any religion as important as Christianity in this country.

2) Christmas is a federal holiday and was made so with the recognition that it was the Christian celebration of the birth of our Savior. Therefore, our schools and public offices should be able to speak of and celebrate the true Christmas without fear of recrimination.

I have the most wonderful memories of the annual Christmas Program at school, both while I was attending and when my daughter was a child. Now, we've forced our schools to have a Holiday Program or a Secular School Event. Hogwash! If you are raising your child to be of a different faith than Christianity, then your child is not required to participate in Christian-based activities.

We welcome people to live legally, peacefully and productively in this country and respect the decision to worship differently than Christians. If, however, anyone is angered by the predominant religion in this country, we ask that he live peacefully and productively in a country more to his liking.

3) I'll be doggoned if I'm going to be forced to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" because it might offend a person of a different faith. Ridiculous! I am not offended when I hear" Happy Hanukkah" or cordial greetings from other religions. How on earth can anyone be offended by a greeting that has the word "Merry" in front of it??? That doesn't mean I won't say "Happy Holidays;" it just means I will not be required to think twice about whether or not I'm allowed to acknowledge my religion in a seasonal greeting.

Our Pledge of Allegiance, Constitution and other federal documents contain the word "God," specifically included to indicate the Christian faith. Why have we let those who wish to discourage our religion even bring up the question of removing that word from courthouses and schools? Why have we not vigorously defended our heritage and the words of our forefathers to those who would simply erase them?

No, I do not want clerics running this country. And, yes, I absolutely believe in the separation of church and state. But there are those who have used that doctrine as a excuse to remove Christian principles from our public life, purge all Christian references from our schools and deny Christianity as the preeminent religion in the country. I believe they are wrong.

The hijacking of Christmas and Christianity in the country is a movement that needs to be stopped, quashed and put to an end. Christianity is the religion our forefathers carefully infused into their public offices, their schools and the very fabric of their society. Only in contemporary times have we allowed secular activists with an agenda and ultra-liberal judges to tell us that is wrong.

What's wrong is that we have almost had our faith and our holiday stolen from us. Remembering the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands who died to guarantee our open expression of Christianity and celebration of Christian holidays, we should be ashamed that we have let it go this far.

It is time we put Christ back into Christmas and Christianity back into our society.

That said, I extend to all of you a Merry Christmas.

If you are not a Christian, that means I wish you the kindness, tolerance and peacefulness that my Lord preaches.

If you are a Christian, it means I wish you a Christ-centered holiday resplendent with the blessings we know come only from Him.




http://www.tristate-media.com/articles/2004/12/23/pdclarion/editorials/03-shirleycol.txt
link3 comments|post comment

(no subject) [Dec. 25th, 2004|04:42 am]
faithxpolitics

rosette
Merry Christmas Everyone!
link1 comment|post comment

(no subject) [Dec. 24th, 2004|08:08 pm]
faithxpolitics
superkiddo7
Confrontation Erupts At Parish Slated To Close


For churches in the Boston Archdiocese slated for closure, the joy of the Christmas season has been tempered with sadness.




NewsCenter 5's Amalia Barreda reported that a confrontation between a parish priest and parishioners angry over the planned closing of their church heated up at Sacred Heart Church in South Natick Friday.

Members of the parish started arriving at about 3 p.m. in preparation for the Mass. When the service began, two parishioners emerged to hang a banner officially announcing that the parish was in vigil beginning Friday night.

The Rev. Joseph Sliva called police and said that parishioners did not have permission to hang the banner. They were ordered to remove it.

"We've written letters and requested that the church be kept open. We tried to get response from the archdiocese, and it hasn't worked out," parishioner Paul Quigley said.

Parishioner Brendan Melchiorri, 14, spent part of his Christmas Eve gathering signatures on a petition to send to Archbishop Sean O'Malley.

"I really don’t want this place to close. I don't think it's right that the Archdiocese should be able to close churches permanently. It's horrible," he said.

"We really don’t have any choice. I mean, we are confirmed Catholics, which means that we have the responsibility of protecting the Roman Catholic Church in Boston. That means protecting it from outside and inside sources," parishioner Anne Green said.

During Communion, Sliva called police again -- this time to remove Melchiorri and his parents because of the signatures that the family was gathering.

"This is our church. This is not his church. I mean, he is a part of this church, but this belongs to the people -- the people of the parish," said parishioner Susan Melchiorri. "For him to tell me that a 14-year-old boy did something that was in his heart, that is disgusting."

"I just can't believe it. Why would he be so cruel?" Brendan Melchiorri said.

He said that he would continue to collect signatures. The church is scheduled to close on Dec. 27.

O'Malley celebrated Mass with the city's Vietnamese community at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross earlier Friday. He was expected to visit a homeless shelter and then celebrate Midnight Mass.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=383&u=/ibsys/20041225/lo_WCVB/2510881&printer=1
link1 comment|post comment

(no subject) [Dec. 21st, 2004|01:51 am]
faithxpolitics
superkiddo7
an interesting insight into the positive role of the faithful in the ukraine situation.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006041
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Dec. 14th, 2004|03:01 pm]
faithxpolitics
superkiddo7
God's ClockCollapse )
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Dec. 12th, 2004|02:31 am]
faithxpolitics

rosette
This community isnt here solely for the debate of homosexuality. it is a place to discuss faiths role in our political views. So if your post is just to cause an arguement over weather being gay is right or wrong and has nothing to do with anything political. dont post it here. i'm sure we all have beter things to do then read spam on our friends page. further posts like this will be deleted. God bless.
linkpost comment

(no subject) [Dec. 12th, 2004|02:20 am]
faithxpolitics
superkiddo7
Just a thought : if instead of the failed idea of "love the sinner - hate the sin" how about we took this idea
: "What if we said 'Love the sinner, hate MY OWN sin?' Wouldn't that be a good thought?"

As the old song goes - let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me.
link3 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | 10 entries back ]
[ go | earlier/later ]