KS: As VP debate looms: remembering Admiral Stockdale

I have to admit, this resonanted with me. I remember this debate and that I had no idea who Admiral Stockdale was - I just followed the media circus. It wasn't until years later that I learned about his record and his heroism. We need to always remember that those running for public office are not caricatures of media projection, but real people deserving our fair hearing and consideration.

From Kathy Shaidle at five feet of fury [non-italic boldface mine]:

His son writes:

Anyone over 30 will probably remember the spectacle. (...)

My father, a bona fide war hero, was trying to adapt to a format of discourse utterly foreign to him.

The debate hall was noisy, hot and nasty. My mom took a bad fall just before coming out to sit down. She, the strongest woman I know, broke into tears as she was overcome with emotion. Her four sons tried to console her.

Dad entered the race reluctantly, and only due to the deep gratitude he had for the aid Mr. Perot extended to him and my mom while he was a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

As everyone saw that evening, he was not a politician. He was a fighter-pilot ace, a Medal of Honor recipient, and a wonderful dad and human being. During his eight years as a POW, he slit his scalp and beat his face with a stool to prevent his captors from parading him in the streets for propaganda purposes. He gave starving men his food rations when he himself was starving. And at home, after his release in 1973, he was a respected leader, scholar and writer. He considered himself a philosopher.

I watched that debate too. I knew nothing about Stockdale; in fact, I don't even remember him being introduced as "Admiral". Not that that would have mattered to me. I was still a vestigal lefty, military-hating peacenik, although just barely.

I squirmed in my seat as Stockdale struggled to fit his answers into the tiny allotment of time, and the audience snickered.

Somehow, the next day, amid all the vicious mockery of Stockdale's performance, and of Perot for selecting him, I learned about the Admiral's past as a brave POW, and his current life as a college professor. Perot must have said as much in an angry post-debate interview.

That evening, my then-best friend (now my key ex-9/11 friend, as I call them) came over. She repeated all the late night talk show hosts' jokes about Stockdale, and -- to her surprise, and mine -- I exploded:
"Don't you know this guy was the leader of his fellow POWs, who kept them going all that time? Don't you know the guy teaches, like, rhetoric or something at some Ivy League college? Jesus, we complain that politicians speak in soundbites and when someone comes along who doesn't, we complain about that! "

Chastened, my friend admitted she hadn't known or thought of any of that. And why would she have? In those pre-internet days, that's just how it was for most people. . .

Some people call themselves "9/11 conservatives" but I guess I'm more a "Stockdale" conservative myself. It had nothing to do with anything Stockdale said that night -- any policy ideas or great philosophical notions (which he wasn't able to articulate in the format anyway...)

It was the reaction of kneejerk liberals and leftists to Stockdale's performance that turned me off -- just as most people join or leave religions based on [ed. not] upon apologetics and theology but upon the behaviour of other believers. . .

Read it all.

Instapundit: Political media insight

From Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit:

A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS:

"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working."

I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted. . .

Read it all. I don't care which political party it is, anytime the media blatantly picks one side over the other, we as a country suffer. If the media prefaced their reports with their political prejudices (of any persuasion), I wouldn't have a problem - it's their condescending, arrogant attitude of "objectivity" that is so grating.

Uncommon Knowledge: Interview with Archbishop Chaput

Check out Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson to see his 5-part interview with Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, author of Render Unto Caesar (a book well worth reading)!

H/t to Judith L.

Press, politics, and religion

From Jeff at Protein Wisdom [boldface mine]:

. . . A free society cannot run this way. If information is power, those who control the information and its mainstream dissemination are in a position to act as the most important swing vote in any election. That the press has given up, at this late stage (and despite declines in readership and public trust), any serious attempt to report objectively suggests that we are now quite immersed in a battle for the very principles of a democratic republic. Progressives have decided that the ends justify the means — that lies in the service of greater truths (as defined by their own ideology) are both pragmatic and utilitarian measures to be adopted so that “we” can finally get things “right,” and accept government from a permanent political class, a new aristocracy, that will expand the federal government in ways that will protect us from ourselves, in the process, assuring that ever new generations will be reliable upon the good graces of the federal government for their survival.

The new media held promise for fighting back. But the left recognized this immediately and built a counter balance to the MSM fact-checkers — and, in a perverse expansion of their role as foils, these progressive “netroots” are now responsible for feeding stories to the mainstream press, a further assault on the Enlightenment mandate for the free exchange of ideas, and further proof that progressives are every bit the totalitarians and would be fascists that I have long suggested they must necessarily be, given the philosophical imperatives that underwrite their political philosophy. . .

For my part, I’d just like to again reiterate that, should the press be allowed to comport itself this way under the current mythology that it is dedicated to “objectivity,” then every election will be necessarily skewed — if not by Evan Thomas’ infamous 15 percentage points, than at least by a number significant enough that it could very well be the deciding factor in every major election.

At which point, we’re dealing with no more than simulacrums of free elections, and the idea that we live in a democratic republic is but a useful fiction we tell ourselves as we slide ever more toward western European socialism and away from the principles this country was founded upon.

What’s the solution? I don’t know. But my suggestion would be either a press that surrenders the pretense of objectivity all together, or else some brave upstart looking for market share to come in with a clean slate of dedicated reporters who are taught not to “frame” facts into narratives that deliver “lessons,” but are rather instructed to report basic facts, almost genealogically — and without even the trappings of narrative.

Even then, omission and sequencing can be used to affect interpretation; but at least such things are easily recognizable when the tropes of “storytelling” are entirely removed.

Read it all. Sound familiar? Who knew politics and religion were so similar? Until you realize that for the majority of bishops in the Episcopal Church, politics and religion seem to be the same thing.

Religious leaders make mistake in meeting with Iranian President Ahmadinejad

From Jay Sekulow on Beliefnet [boldface mine]:

In an inexplicable move, some religious organizations will host a dinner reception on September 25 for one of the world's most renowned terrorist supporters, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He has been asked to speak on the topic, "Has Not One God Created Us? The Significance of Religious Contributions to Peace." I stand with the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom in strongly condemning this move by the American Friends Service Committee, the Mennonite Central Committee, the World Council of Churches, and the Episcopal Church.

But what about the "tolerance and sincere dialogue" that Bishop Chane called for this summer, Jay? Hum? Don't you want to be part of "dialogue" like this?

. . . On May 8, [2008,] in a speech to members of the Majlis (Iran's parliament), [Ahmadinejad] referred to Israel as "a stinking corpse" and little better than "dead rats." Ahmadinejad – who says the Jewish state plays the role of "the Little Satan" to the "The Great Satan" (the U.S.) and has pledged to "wipe Israel off the map" to bring about the revelation of the "Twelfth Imam" (a messianic Shiite figure) and the worldwide dominion of Islam - promised that those who "assist the Zionist regime…will burn in fire."

Continuing Jay's concerns about the current visit by the Iranian president and the dinner party:

Ahmadinejad is a man who has repeatedly called for the annihilation of the Jewish state of Israel, rejects religious freedom, and embraces terrorism. It is well known that Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" and is notorious for denying that the Holocaust occurred, saying of the West, "[t]hey have invented a myth that Jews were massacred."

Ahmadinejad has also warned that "[a]nybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury."

Just recently, the Iranian Parliament voted in favor of a bill permitting the death penalty for "apostasy," i.e., voluntarily changing one's religious faith.

Under this law, "Christians, Baha'is, and even some Muslims would be vulnerable to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. . . . [T]wo Christians from Muslim backgrounds who are currently in prison for apostasy--Mahmoud Mohammad Matin-Azad and Arash Ahmad-Ali Basirat--could be given the death sentence.". . .

Read it all, and remember the Episcopal Church is part of this.
H/t to the Anglican Curmudgeon.

British ethicist: Senile should be “put down”

From Ed Morrissey at HotAir [boldface mine]:

In yet another revealing moment for nationalized health care, a highly respected British ethicist said that dementia sufferers should get euthanized in order to preserve resources for healthier people. Baroness Warnock, described as “Britain’s leading moral philosopher”, said that the government should license people to be “put down” and stop being a drain on society:

The veteran Government adviser said pensioners in mental decline are “wasting people’s lives” because of the care they require and should be allowed to opt for euthanasia even if they are not in pain.

She insisted there was “nothing wrong” with people being helped to die for the sake of their loved ones or society.

The 84-year-old added that she hoped people will soon be “licensed to put others down” if they are unable to look after themselves. …

Lady Warnock said: “If you’re demented, you’re wasting people’s lives – your family’s lives – and you’re wasting the resources of the National Health Service.

“I’m absolutely, fully in agreement with the argument that if pain is insufferable, then someone should be given help to die, but I feel there’s a wider argument that if somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they’re a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die.

“Actually I’ve just written an article called ‘A Duty to Die?’ for a Norwegian periodical. I wrote it really suggesting that there’s nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself.”

Shocking? It shouldn’t be. When the State has the burden of providing “free” medical care, that care will get rationed in ways that are, unfortunately, all too predictable. Human life stops being sacred and instead becomes a commodity with a balance sheet. If bureaucrats decide that a particular life, or a class of life, has become a net negative, then eventually they will find ways to eliminate the liability.

Totalitarian governments have always worked this way; the shock comes from the same impulse occuring in supposedly enlightened democracies. We’re seeing a new kind of government these nanny states, though — a democratic totalitarianism that makes all of the choices for its subjects after they willingly give the bureaucracy the power of life and death over them. It’s a voluntary totalitarianism, and it starts by assigning government the role of caretaker from cradle to grave, the latter point coming at their choosing.

Western civilization built itself on the sanctity of human life and the rights of the individual. It doesn’t take much for Westerners to give up that birthright. The only incentive for voluntary slavery appears to be low-cost prescriptions and catastrophic hospital coverage. Once we buy into that system, all manner of personal choices get removed: the foods you can eat, the beverages you can drink, your pastimes, and apparently your right not to be murdered just to clear a hospital bed. . .

Read it all.

‘Objectivist’ writer: Trig Palin a financial burden who should have been aborted

From Newsbusters:

In stunningly self-centered, cruel fashion, Nicholas Provenzo, writer for the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism suggests that Sarah Palin’s decision to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome, is a financial burden that others are forced to suffer with.

Provenzo, who has written opinion pieces for the Washington Times, Capitalism Magazine, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution, as well as being a guest on Bill Maher’s former show, Politically Incorrect, makes his case for “the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome.”

The full first paragraph of the piece which is circulating amidst the blogosphere reads (emphasis mine):

Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.

Morally justifiable reasons for killing a baby? There is no justifiable reason for taking any child's life, and to call it a moral obligation to society is undeniably one of the more disgusting things to be written by a human being, about another human being.

In fact, advocating the abortion of a child based on the potential of that child having a disease or imperfection of some kind raises echoes of Nazi Germany’s quest for an Aryan race.

The suggestion that another life should be ended based on the presence of an extra chromosome, and that another healthy individual’s own life is more precious because of that, is over the top narcissism.

Maybe this shouldn’t surprise quite so much. After all, it wasn’t too long ago that sick individuals were offering up baby Trig on ebay. We live in a society where skeptics simply can't admire someone who stands on their principals. They must tear them down by insinuating that such a move is merely a political prop. Or, in this case, they argue that choosing life was actually a selfish move. A stunning argument to say the least.

However, Mr. Provenzo demonstrates his own level of selfishness in his rant. He doesn’t go the typical route of the pro-choice crowd, but reveals some very bizarre reasoning for why it is Palin’s obligation to have killed her baby boy. . .

Read it all. All I can think of to do is to pray for Mr. Provenzo - what a sad life.

Bishop Gene Robinson breaks ranks and backs Barack Obama for president **Corrected**

Correction: I took the headline from George Conger's blog and didn't notice that Barack Obama's first name is spelled wrong there [Barak], so I've corrected it above.

Original: "Separation of church and state" for thee, but not for me.

From George Conger [boldface mine]:

The Bishop of New Hampshire has broken with tradition and endorsed a candidate for political office. In a letter published on “LGBT for Obama,” a website that states it serves as the “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community’s online campaign to educate voters on John McCain’s anti-gay policies” Bishop Gene Robinson called on all LGBT voters to “put our differences and disappointments aside, and get behind the one candidate who has our interests at heart.”

On Sept 4 Bishop Robinson wrote LGBT voters were “faced with the most stark choice in recent memory, with ramifications for our community like no other. If nothing else convinces you to vote for Barack Obama, surely the likelihood of the next president appointing one, two, or possibly even three Supreme Court justices should do it.”. . .

Bishop Robinson said that the election of John McCain would lead to the packing of the US Supreme Court with justices that would rule against the recognition of gay marriages. “With Barack Obama, we have someone who is utterly sympathetic to our full and equal rights as citizens.”

He added that while Senator Obama “won’t say he’s for equal marriage rights” Bishop Robinson knew from his “own private conversations with him that he is totally in our court. I believe him, and I trust him, not to throw us under the bus when the election is over.”

Read it all.

Statement on Proposition 8 by Episcopal bishops in California

Yes, +Lamb signed it, and for those of us in San Diego, +Mathes did, too, unfortunately.

Proposition 8, on the ballot in November, would amend the California Constitution to clarify that marriage is only between one man and one woman. This would reverse the California Supreme Court decision of earlier this year that recognized same-sex marriage. A short history of the definition of marriage in California:

In 1977 the California legislature explicitly defined marriage as a legal tie between a man and a women. The pertinent text is: "Marriage is a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary." (Family Code Sec. 300.) This status quo position was strengthened in March 2000 when voters passed Proposition 22, an initiative statute which states: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." (Family Code Sec. 308.5.) The vote for the initiative was 61.4% to 38.6%.

Yes, Prop. 22 passed 61% to 39%, yet our overlords know better than we do, so the California Supreme Court earlier this year recognized the "right" of those in same-sex relationships to marry.

And this leads us to this recent statement by the bishops of the Episcopal Church in California (always ready to impress us with their theology and reassure us that they are not being political - okay, sarcasm off) [boldface mine and I've added some editorial comments]:

As Episcopal Bishops of California, we are moved [ed.-by whom? The Holy Spirit? didn't think so] to urge voters to vote "No" on Proposition Eight. Jesus calls us to love rather than hate, to give rather than to receive, to live into hope rather than fear. On Tuesday, November 8th, voters in California will be given the opportunity to vote for or against Proposition Eight, which would amend the state's constitution to reserve marriage as only between a man and a woman. Since the California Supreme Court's ruling in May that civil marriage should be provided to all of the state's citizens whether the genders of the couple are different or the same, faithful gays and lesbians have entered into marriage as the principle way in which they show their love, devotion and life-long commitment to each other. Furthermore, marriage provides these couples the same legal rights and protections that heterosexual couples take for granted.

Proposition Eight would reverse the court's decision and withdraw a right given. Proponents of Proposition Eight have suggested that this amendment to the Constitution would protect marriage. We do not believe that marriage of heterosexuals is threatened by same-sex marriage. [ed.-What say you, +Beisner?] Rather, the Christian values of monogamy, commitment, love, mutual respect and witness of monogamy are enhanced for all by providing this right to gay and straight alike [ed.-and what is so magic about the number 2? Can't three people have these same values?]. Society is strengthened when two people who love each other choose to enter into marriage, engaged in a lifetime of disciplined relationship building that serves as a witness to the importance of love and commitment.

As bishops, we are not of one mind regarding how our Church's clergy should participate with the State in same-sex marriage. Some of us believe it is appropriate to permit our clergy to officiate at such marriages and pronounce blessings over the union; others of us believe that we should await consent of our General Convention before permitting such actions. Nevertheless, we are adamant that justice demands that same-sex civil marriage continue in our state and advocate voting "No" on Proposition Eight. [ed.-and we have now put the Episcopal Church in California outside of all other Christian faiths - but, hey, we still call ourselves part of the "catholic" church, so it must be true!]

General Convention 2006 in Columbus passed Resolution A095 that said, "Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the Episcopal Church's historical support of gay and lesbian persons as children of God and entitled to full civil rights; and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention reaffirm the 71st General Convention's action calling upon municipal council, state legislatures and the United States Congress to approve measures giving gay and lesbian couples protection[s] such as: bereavement and family leave policies; health benefits; pension benefits; real-estate transfer tax benefits; and commitments to mutual support enjoyed by non-gay married couples and be it further Resolved, That the 75th General Convention oppose any state or federal constitutional amendment that prohibits same-sex civil marriage or civil unions."

We believe that continued access to civil marriage for all, regardless of sexual orientation [ed.-or number or consanguinity or age, etc., etc.], is consistent with the best principles of our constitutional rights. We believe that this continued access promotes Jesus' ethic of love, giving, and hope.

The Rt. Rev. Marc Handley Andrus, Bishop of California
The Rt. Rev. Barry L. Beisner, Bishop of Northern California
The Rt. Rev. J. Jon Bruno, Bishop of Los Angeles
The Rt. Rev. Mary Gray-Reeves, Bishop of El Camino Real
The Rt. Rev. Jerry A. Lamb, Provisional Bishop of San Joaquin
The Rt. Rev. James R. Mathes, Bishop of San Diego

Many believe that Proposition 8 will pass, and same-sex marriage will no longer be legal in California. I am not so sanguine.

Unless and until those in favor of Prop 8 present secular reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, of which there are plenty (here for a start), many voters will feel that they are being "judgmental" or "mean" or "unfair" or "too religious" to, at this point, take away something. Once the California Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, it enabled those for it to now present Prop. 8 as something removing rights, which a lot of people automatically vote against.

I think there's a lot of work on education and legal ramifications that needs to be done here, or California voters will reject Prop. 8 and same-sex marriage will remain legal - and as California goes, so goes the nation.

Archbishop George Niederauer, Nancy Pelosi to talk about communion

From The Hill newspaper [boldface mine]:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has accepted an invitation from San Francisco’s archbishop to discuss whether she should continue to receive communion at the Catholic Church in the wake of comments she made about abortion.

San Francisco Archbishop George H. Niederauer said he had received letters and e-mails from “many Catholics” expressing dismay over Pelosi’s remarks, in which she said the matter of when life begins remained controversial within the church. He said many of them questioned whether she should be able to receive communion from the church. . .

Her comments have been criticized by several Catholic Church officials, and Niederauer described them as being “in serious conflict” with the church in the Sept. 5 issue of Catholic San Francisco.

Niederauer concludes that, based on Catholic Church statements, it is up to him as Pelosi’s pastor to address whether she may continue to receive communion. He then invites the Speaker “into a conversation with me about these matters.”. . .

In a Sept. 5 response hand-delivered to Niederauer on Friday, Pelosi thanks him for the invitation and his gracious remarks about her love for the church and her Catholic faith. . .

Niederauer quoted a section of the catechism of the Catholic Church to underline his point that when life begins is not controversial within the church. “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception,” according to the catechism. “Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”

Niederauer also criticized an Aug. 26 statement from Pelosi’s office about her comments on “Meet the Press.” In the statement, Pelosi’s office said that while the Catholic Church believes life begins at conception, “many Catholics” do not agree with this view.

“Authentic moral teaching is based on objective truth, not polling,” Niederauer wrote. He noted that in 1861, polls in different states showed different views on slavery, but this did not mean that slavery was moral in one state and not in another.". . .

Read it all.

Shoe Thursday: Political edition

Okay, like I said here, I don't do politics, but what can I say - there are shoes involved here!


These shoes, to be exact:


Pretty nice!

And for another take on the Pelosi story: Kathy Shaidle

From Kathy Shaidle at five feet of fury:

The reason the MSM (and ordinary people) are ignorning the "Bishops smack down Nancy Pelosi on abortion" story is:

a) they are, as you [Hugh Hewitt] said on air, notoriously tone deaf about religious issues,

b) they agree with Pelosi on abortion anyhow; but most importantly:

c) they find it rich -- as I do -- that cardinals and archibishops can manage to shift themselves so rapidly when the issue is abortion, but kept their mouths shut for twenty years when children were being molested by their brethren.

The American Catholic hierarchy has NO moral authority now and may never recover it.

Pelosi is wrong and you and the cardinals are right.

It. Doesn't. Matter.

No one takes the American Catholic hierarchy seriously any longer, given their abdication of authority over the greatest in-house controversy in its history. . .

Check it out.

And now Cardinal Egan joins in. . .

From the Archdiocese of New York:

STATEMENT OF HIS EMINENCE, EDWARD CARDINAL EGAN CONCERNING REMARKS MADE BY THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Like many other citizens of this nation, I was shocked to learn that the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America would make the kind of statements that were made to Mr. Tom Brokaw of NBC-TV on Sunday, August 24, 2008. What the Speaker had to say about theologians and their positions regarding abortion was not only misinformed; it was also, and especially, utterly incredible in this day and age.

We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb. In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

Edward Cardinal Egan
Archbishop of New York

August 26, 2008

H/t to Jeff via email.

"Washington archbishop rips Pelosi on abortion"

From the Roman Catholic Diocese of Washington, a statement by Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl:

On Meet the Press this past Sunday, August 23, 2008, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made statements regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church, human life and abortion that were incorrect.

Speaker Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic. She went on to say, “And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition...” After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, “I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.”

We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear: the current teaching of the Catholic Church on human life and abortion is the same teaching as it was 2,000 years ago. The Catechism reads:

“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception…Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.” (Catechism, 2270-2271)

The Catechism goes on to quote the Didache, a treatise that dates to the first century: “’You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.’”

From the beginning, the Catholic Church has respected the dignity of all human life from the moment of conception to natural death.

And more on the story from The Hill:

In a rare public rebuke of a top politician, the archbishop of Washington said Monday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was incorrect when she recently said the moment of conception has long been a matter of controversy within the Catholic Church.

In a release issued Monday night, Washington Archbishop Donald W. Wuerl said Pelosi's comments on "Meet the Press" on Sunday "were incorrect."

Wuerl noted that Pelosi responded to a question on when life begins by mentioning she was Catholic.

The release quoted Pelosi as saying the church has not been able to come with a definition of when life begins.

“After Mr. Tom Brokaw, the interviewer, pointed out that the Catholic Church feels strongly that life begins at conception, she replied, 'I understand. And this is, like, maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy,' " the release said.

Wuerl strongly disagrees.

He said, "We respect the right of elected officials such as Speaker Pelosi to address matters of public policy that are before them, but the interpretation of Catholic faith has rightfully been entrusted to the Catholic bishops. Given this responsibility to teach, it is important to make this correction for the record."

Wuerl pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear, and has been clear for 2,000 years. He cited Catechism language that reads, "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception … Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

A Pelosi spokesman did not immediately comment for this article. . .

In an interview on C-SPAN that aired earlier this month, Pelosi was asked about how some church officials have raised objections about whether former presidential contenders — such as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) — should receive communion.

Pelosi, a Roman Catholic whose district includes most of San Francisco, said she has not encountered such difficulties in her church.

“I think some of it is regional,” she said, “It depends on the bishop of a certain region, and, fortunately for me, communion has not been withheld and I’m a regular communicant, so that would be a severe blow to me if that were the case.”

Read it all.

Testimony of Jill Stanek, R.N.

From the Congressional Record, the oral statement and prepared statement by Jill Stanek, R.N., who testified at a hearing on the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2001 (signed into law by Pres. Bush in August 2001) before the U.S. House Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary in July of 2001 [boldface mine]:

Statement by Jill Stanek of Mokena, IL

I am a registered nurse who has worked in the labor and delivery department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois for the past 6 years. In the year that has elapsed since I last testified before this Committee, I have continued to work in the same hospital at the same position.

Christ Hospital performs abortions on women in their second or even third trimester of pregnancy. Sometimes the babies being aborted alive are healthy and sometimes they are not. The abortion technique that Christ Hospital and other hospitals use is called induced-labor abortion, and sometimes results in babies being aborted alive because throughout this particular procedure, the baby is not killed in utero. The focus of this procedure is to forcibly dilate a woman's cervix so that she will prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon after.

The cervix is the opening that's at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a woman is about 40 weeks pregnant and goes into labor. There are a few ways to force the cervix to open early. At Christ Hospital, the most common way this is done is by the physician inserting a medication called Cytotec into the birth canal close to the cervix. Cytotec irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open early. After the cervix is prematurely dilated, the small pre-term baby drops out of the uterus, sometimes alive.

In the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she is given what my hospital calls comfort care. Comfort care involves wrapping the baby in a blanket and offering her to her parents to hold until she dies. If parents do not want to hold their baby, as I have been told is most often the case, it is left to staff to care for the baby.

Up until recently, staff options were to hold the baby until death, or put the baby in our soiled utility if we got too busy or if the baby lingered too long. Indeed, it is not uncommon for one of these babies to live for an hour or two or even longer. Last year, of the 16 babies that Christ Hospital states were aborted, at least five were born alive. Four of those babies, two boys and two girls, lived between one and a half and 3 hours. At Christ Hospital, one aborted baby lived once for almost an entire 8-hour shift. At least two of the second-trimester babies who were aborted last year at Christ Hospital were healthy babies.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our soiled utility room because his parents did not want to hold him and she did not have the time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in the soiled utility room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was between 21 and 22 weeks old, weighed about a half a pound, and was about ten inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe.

Toward the end, he was so quiet, I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up against the light to see if I could see his heart beating through his chest wall.

After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where we take all of our other dead patients.

Other co-workers have told me about incidences of live aborted babies whom they have cared for. A support associate told me about an aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the soiled utility room wrapped in a disposable blanket—I'm sorry—towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to try and find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and onto the floor.

A nurse co-worker told me about an abortion she was involved in where the baby was supposed to have spina bifida but was born with an intact spine. Since I spoke before you last year, this nurse that was involved in this particular abortion told me that what actually happened was that there was an incompletely formed twin who appeared as a mass on his brother's back during ultrasound. The nurse told me that the father came into the soiled utility room to see his son, took one look and saw that he had been involved in aborting a completely healthy baby, turned and left the room without saying a word.

I was recently told about a situation by a nursing co-worker who said, ''I can't stop thinking about it.'' She had a patient who was just over 23 weeks pregnant, and she was not going to be able to complete her pregnancy to term. This baby was completely healthy and had up to a 39 percent chance of survival according to the national stats, but the patient chose to abort. The baby was born alive. If the mother had wanted everything done for this baby, there would have been a neonatologist, a pediatric resident, a pediatric nurse, and a respiratory therapist present for this delivery and the baby would have been taken to our NICU for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery were a resident and my co-worker.

After delivery, the baby, who showed early signs of thriving—she began to breathe on her own and her FR scores improved—was merely wrapped in a blanket and kept in the labor and delivery department until she died two and a half hours later.

Just 3 weeks after this baby was aborted, another mother came to the hospital under similar circumstances, identically aged gestation, and was offered the same options. But she wanted to keep her baby, and so present at her delivery were those four aforementioned NICU personnel, and for the 2 days that I tracked her, that little girl lived.

When I testified before you last July, another nurse who worked at the hospital named Allison Baker also testified. Allison described walking into our soiled utility room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale one time and on a metal counter another time. She told about the patient she herself had who didn't know that her baby was going to be aborted alive and who did not want to hold him. After he was taken to the soiled utility room, she kept asking, ''Is he dead yet? Is he dead yet.''

Lest you think that Christ Hospital's live abortion practice is uncommon, I am entering into the congressional record today literature from a March 30th, 2001 symposium sponsored by Waukesha Memorial Hospital in Wisconsin wherein Dr. Washington Hill wrote, that one of three potential complications of a mid-trimester abortion is a live birth.

After I testified last year, Christ Hospital stopped putting babies into the soiled utility room to die. Seven months ago, it unveiled its comfort care room. This is a small, nicely decorated room complete with a First Foto machine in case parents want pictures of their aborted babies, baptismal supplies if parents would like their aborted babies baptized, and a footprinter and bracelets if parents would like keepsakes of their aborted babies. There is also a wooden rocker in the corner to rock the babies to death. And I am entering pictures of the comfort care room into the hearing record with your permission.

Prepared Statement of Jill L. Stanek

I am a Registered Nurse who has worked in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, for the past six years. In the year that has elapsed since I testified before your committee regarding the same bill under discussion today, I have continued to work at the same hospital in the same position.

Christ Hospital performs abortions on women in their second or even third trimesters of pregnancy. Sometimes the babies being aborted are healthy, and sometimes they are not. The abortion technique that Christ Hospital and other hospitals use, called ''induced labor abortion,'' sometimes results in infants being aborted alive, because throughout this particular abortion procedure the fetus is not killed in the uterus. The focus of this method is to forcibly dilate a woman's cervix so that she will prematurely deliver a baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward.

The cervix is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a woman is about 40 weeks pregnant and goes into labor. There are a few ways to cause the cervix to open early. At Christ Hospital the most common way this is done is by the physician inserting a medication called Cytotec into the birth canal close to the cervix. Cytotec irritates the cervix. The FDA does not approve Cytotec for this use. It is a drug that is supposed to be taken by mouth to help control ulcers. The manufacturer of Cytotec issued a public letter in August 2000 warning that this drug may be harmful to women if used to induce labor, up to and including causing the uterus to rupture and causing death. But Christ Hospital continues to use Cytotec for pregnancy terminations.

After the cervix is prematurely dilated, the small, preterm baby drops out of the uterus, sometimes alive. In the event that a baby is aborted alive, he or she is given what my hospital calls ''comfort care.'' ''Comfort care'' involves wrapping the baby in a blanket and offering him or her to the parents to hold until the baby dies. If parents do not want to hold their baby, as I have observed is most often the case, it is left to staff to care for the baby. Up until recently, staff options were to hold the baby until death or put the baby in our Soiled Utility Room if we got busy or if the baby lingered too long. Indeed, it is not uncommon for one of these babies to live for an hour or two or even longer. Last year alone, of the 16 babies that Christ Hospital states were aborted, I am aware of four who were born alive. Each of these babies—two boys and two girls—lived between 1 1/2 and 3 hours. At Christ Hospital one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. At least two of the second-trimester babies who were aborted last year at Christ Hospital were completely healthy.

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Other co-workers have told me about incidences of live aborted babies whom they have cared for. A Support Associate told me about an aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor. A nurse coworker told me about an abortion she was involved in where the baby was supposed to have spina bifida but was born with an intact spine. She said that what actually happened was that there was an incompletely formed twin who appeared as a mass on his brother's back during an ultrasound. The nurse told me that the father came into the Soiled Utility Room to see his son, took one look and saw that he had been involved in aborting his completely healthy baby, and turned and left the room without saying a word. I was recently told about a situation by a nursing coworker who said, ''I can't stop thinking about it.'' She had a patient who was just over 23 weeks pregnant, and she was not going to be able to complete her pregnancy to term. The baby was healthy and had up to a 39% chance of survival, according to national statistics. But the patient chose to abort. The baby was born alive. If the mother had wanted everything done for her baby, there would have been a neonatologist, pediatric resident, neonatal nurse, and respiratory therapist present for the delivery, and the baby would have been taken to our Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for specialized care. Instead, the only personnel present for this delivery were an obstetrical resident and my coworker. After delivery the baby, who showed early signs of thriving, was merely wrapped in a blanket and kept in the Labor & Delivery Department until she died 2 1/2 hours later. Just three weeks after this baby was aborted, another mother came to the hospital under similar circumstances, carrying an identically aged baby and was offered the same options. But she said that she wanted her baby. And so present at her delivery were the aforementioned NICU team, and for the two days that I tracked her, that little girl lived.

When I testified before you last July, another nurse who worked at Christ Hospital, Allison Baker, also testified. Allison was not asked back today due to the new limit on the number of witnesses allowed. But last year Allison described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions to find live aborted babies left naked on a scale and the metal counter. She told about the patient that she herself had who didn't know that her baby might be aborted alive and who did not then want to hold him. After he was taken to the Soiled Utility Room she kept asking, ''Is he dead yet? Is he dead yet?'' (This testimony is being entered today into the Congressional Record.)

Lest you think that Christ Hospital's live birth abortion practice is uncommon, I am entering into Congressional Record today literature from a March 30, 2001, symposium sponsored by Waukesha Memorial Hospital in Wisconsin that was ''reviewed and is acceptable'' by the American Academy of Family Physicians, wherein Dr. Washington Hill writes that a ''complication'' of a mid-trimester labor induction is a ''live birth.'' The American College of Obstetricians and gynecologists also gave credit hours to physicians for taking this course.

After I testified last year, Christ Hospital stopped putting aborted babies to die in the Soiled Utility Room. This past December it unveiled its ''Comfort Room.'' This is a small, nicely decorated room complete with a First Foto machine in case parents want pictures of their aborted babies, baptismal supplies if parents would like their aborted babies baptized, and a foot printer and baby bracelets if parents would like keepsakes of their aborted babies. There is also a wooden rocker to rock these babies to death. (Pictures entered into Congressional Record.)

When Christ Hospital opened its Comfort Room, I was honestly galled. It became clearer to me than ever that a law must be enacted that specifies that all babies born alive are indeed humans and American citizens with civil rights to equal protection. This is a point that is obviously not clear to extremists in our great country who believe that the right to obtain an abortion must be extended to include the right to commit infanticide. If a hospital named ''Christ'' does not willingly stop committing infanticide but handles public and legal scrutiny by merely trying to make those whose lives they're snuffing out more ''comfortable,'' I have grave concerns about children whose lives are being ended at abortion clinics and hospitals where there is no spotlight of attention.

Once a fetus is aborted, the pregnancy has been terminated. But when what emerges on the other of the vaginal vault is alive, ''it'' by medical definition is no longer a fetus but is now a ''neonate'' or ''baby,'' with rights as human beings and American citizens that must be zealously protected. If we all cannot at least agree that civil rights begin at birth, then we will have to initiate the debate as to when after delivery a living person does begin to have rights, and a Pandora's Box will have been opened, the depths of which none of can possibly ascertain today.

The Department of Health & Human Services wrote me that, ''civil rights laws do not cover abortion procedures or the rights of newborns.'' The Illinois Attorney General determined that ''there is no basis for legal action by this office against the Hospital'' at this time . . . in regard to Christ Hospital's labor induction abortion practices. (Both letters entered into Congressional Record.) Alan Keyes recently observed, ''If we reflect for a moment upon the example of the Declaration of Independence, we will remember that sometimes even self-evident truths need to be declared.'' I think it is obvious that this is one of those times.

And from Priests for Life:

Jill has shared with us the photos of the "Comfort Room" which was established at Christ Hospital, for the babies to die in.

Photo1 -- entrance to the Comfort Room

Photo2 -- the "First Foto" machine, for professional photos of the aborted baby

Photo3 -- Babies are rocked to death in this chair.

Photo4 -- The evil of child-killing is given spiritual trappings, with the option of baptism for the child who is killed.

Photo5 -- the scale to weigh the aborted babies

Sigh . . . the campaign season begins

I hate politics.

Not because I don't believe in the system, I do, very much so. And not because I don't like politicians - some of my best friends (and family) are politicians. I think they have a generally thankless job that requires them to open their (and their families') lives to public scrutiny and constant fundraising. A necessary but contentious part of the American life.

I hate the bickering and the one-up-manship and the gotcha games and the party hacks (on all sides) that always agree with their party line, illogical or not - if something is proposed by their party, it's the best thing ever and if that same thing is proposed by the other party, it's a complete waste and failure.

So I do not plan to post much at all on politics this fall. This, however, because of the tangential connection with Lambeth 2008 seemed appropriate.

President Bush’s pastor to appear in pro-Obama ad

Christian Leaders Release Pro-Family Obama Ad
By the Matthew 25 Network

To Run During Saddleback Presidential Forum

This Saturday, in their first appearance together, Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain will be attending the Saddleback Civil Forum on National Leadership held at Rick Warren’s megachurch.

The Matthew 25 Network will release our first TV ad entitled “Families” that will air during the Saddleback Forum.

The religious leaders that appear in the ad will be speakers on the press call to talk about the important issues to people of faith when making their choice for president, including the character and faith of each candidate.

We will discuss the contrast in efforts made by Senator Obama’s and Senator McCain’s campaigns to reach out to religious voters in the lead up to Saturday’s Forum on National Leadership.

Join us Friday, August 15th at 10:30am Eastern

Press Conference Call

Join:

Mara Vanderslice, Founder and Director, Matthew 25 Network

Brian McLaren, Pastor and Author, Leader in the Emergent Church movement

Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, Senior Pastor, Windsor Village United Methodist Church, Houston, TX
Spoke at President Bush’s Inauguration and officiated Jenna Bush’s wedding

Lisa Cahill, Catholic theologian,Professor of Theology, Theology Department, Boston College

Sounds pretty innocuous (don't forget that separation of church and state thingy that the political left is always going on about) until you find out more about the Matthew 25 Network PAC (yes, that's Political Action Committee):

Called “The Matthew 25 Network,” the new organization, which is still in its earliest stages, is being spearheaded by Mara Vanderslice, who was director of religious outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign in 2004 and did similar work for several statewide Democratic candidates, including Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas.

Mr. Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, is beginning to step up his outreach to the religious community, and met Tuesday in Chicago with a group of about 30 leaders, including the Rev. T. D. Jakes, the black mega-church pastor.

Ms. Vanderslice, who has been active in the budding movement over the last few years to encourage Democrats to be more willing to discuss matters of faith, declined to detail the group’s plans, because she said the organization is planning an official rollout later in the month.

Nevertheless, according to a description of the group that came with the invitation to its fund-raiser tonight in which the suggested contribution is $1,000, the committee is hoping to reach out to “targeted religious communities that are key to electoral success for Senator Obama, including Catholics, moderate evangelicals, Hispanic Catholics and Protestants.”. . .

And, of course, we all remember Brian McLaren from Lambeth. (You know, I thought he was a young guy just because of his association with the emergent church movement, but he's older than I am! It reminds me of the college students of the '60's who thought they were so revolutionary and rebellious, but when you look into it, you realize that they were led by older professors and activists.)

So by appearing in a pro-Obama ad, we can only assume that Brian McLaren is comfortable with Senator Obama's position on abortion, which we have all learned more about this week [boldface mine]:

. . . When [Senator Barack] Obama was in the Illinois Senate, the Born Alive Infants bill came up three successive years.

In 2001, three bills were proposed to help babies who survived induced labor abortions. One, like the federal Born Alive Infants bill, simply said a living "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

On all three bills, Obama voted "present," effectively the same as a "no." Defining "a pre-viable fetus" that survived an abortion as a "person" or "child," he argued, "would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

In 2002, Obama voted "no" on the bill.

When Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate in 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. The Born Alive Infants bill and an amendment to add exactly the language [Senator Barbara] Boxer [of California] said protected Roe in the federal bill (which President Bush had signed into law in 2002) was referred to this committee.

According to the records made by committee Republicans, the amendment to include in the Illinois bill the language Boxer said protected Roe was approved by a 10 to zero vote of the committee. (This vote, Republicans say, was a common procedural courtesy extended to the sponsoring senator.) The bill as amended was then put to a committee vote. It lost four to six, with Obama voting "no.". . .

The heart weeps. And that's all I have to say about that.

H/t to the BibleBeltBlogger.

Parents have the right to home school, California state court says

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

A state appeals court reversed itself today and ruled that parents in California have the right to home school their children even if they lack a teaching credential.

The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles had ruled Feb. 28 that the state's compulsory education law requires parents to send their children to a full-time public or private school or have them taught by credentialed tutors at home. The ruling caused an uproar among home-schooling advocates and could have made truants out of an estimated 166,000 children in California who are taught at home by their parents.

After hearing from an array of objectors that included state education officials and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the court agreed to reconsider the case and issued a new ruling today that reached the opposite conclusion: State law allows home schooling, although children can be required to attend school if they're being abused or neglected at home.

Although the compulsory-education law hasn't changed since 1929, some alter laws "demonstrate an apparent acceptance by the Legislature that home-schooling is taking place in California, with home schools allowed as private schools," Justice H. Walter Croskey, author of the earlier ruling, wrote in today's 3-0 decision.

"Recent statutes indicate that the Legislature is aware that some parents in California home school their children by declaring their homes to be private schools," Croskey said. He said one of those laws, a 1998 measure exempting parents from fingerprinting requirements imposed on private school employees, indicated "a legislative approval of home-schooling."

Because the 1929 law itself did not explicitly allow or prohibit home schooling, Croskey said, the court should interpret it consistently with the Legislature's current understanding, along with the views of state government and education officials.

He said such an interpretation also allows the court to avoid deciding "difficult constitutional questions" about parents' rights to exempt their children from compulsory-schooling laws. The previous ruling found that no such right exists. . .

Read it all.

Pope resolution passes after "life" language removed

From the The Crypt at Politico.com [boldface mine]:

While Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to Washington received wall to wall coverage, Sen. Barbara Boxer briefly held up a Senate resolution welcoming the pontiff because she objected to language about how the pope values "each and every human life."

The measure later cleared the Senate Thursday afternoon after the sponsor of the resolution, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), dropped the reference to "human life" because some Democrats saw it as a reference to abortion. According to Republican aides, Brownback, a devout Catholic, did not want a high profile fight over the resolution, which was adopted on a voice vote. In fact, Brownback blackberried his staff from the Pope's mass at Nationals Park to direct them to drop the references to human life.

A copy of the original resolution can be found here. The new resolution, with the human life language and references to religious expression in public buildings removed, is here.

"There was some politics involved here, and the objectionable language has been withdrawn," a senior Democratic Senate aide said.

Three Senate Republican aides involved in the issue say that Boxer objected to the "life" language, which Democrats see as an implicit reference to the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. Senate Democratic leadership offices declined to comment but referred questions to Boxer's office, which has not responded to Politico's inquiries this morning. . .

Read it all.

Uganda: Gadaffi ignorant

In response to this earlier report (Libya: Bible a forgery, says Col. Gadaffi), a follow-up from allAfrica.com:

THE Libyan leader's mid-week frontal attack on the Bible has continued to elicit strong responses from Christian and non-Christian leaders alike, with Archbishop Cyprian Kizito Lwanga describing Col. Muammar Gadaffi's views as provocative.

"Had the Christians said something similar [about] the Koran, there would be war," Dr Lwanga, who is the Catholic archbishop of Kampala, said during Good Friday prayers at Nakivubo Stadium. "But we need to forgive him and pray for his conversion."

Interestingly, Col. Gadaffi questioned the Bible's authenticity at the same Nakivubo Stadium in Kampala on Wednesday while leading celebrations to mark the birth of Prophet Muhammad.

The Libyan leader said that someone had deleted the name of Prophet Muhammad from the text of the Bible and as such it is a forgery. He thus called for the search of the genuine Bible.

But Christian leaders are having none of it.

"To say that the Bible is a forgery because Prophet Muhammad is not included [is] distorting religious facts," Dr Lwanga said. "The Koran came in 610 AD long after the Bible [had been written] in 1450 BC. How can we be blamed for not including what was not in existence?"

MP David Bahati (NRM, Ndorwa West), the secretary of the Uganda Parliamentary Fellowship, said yesterday that Col. Gadaffi's remarks were a direct attack on the principles of tolerance and co-existence.

"It is clear that Col. Gadaffi's views had nothing to do with the Muslims in Uganda and our people should ignore his remarks," Mr Bahati said. "We have lived together harmoniously and no one should promote disunity among our people."

Some Muslims appear to have also been taken aback by the directness of the Libyan colonel.

MP Ibrahim Kadunabbi (NRM, Butambala), the chairman of the Uganda Muslim Parliamentary Caucus, said: "As Muslims, we are mandated to reflect on our utterances, this is what religion says. It was crucial for Col. Gadaffi to first think over before saying anything like that to avoid causing problems."

Makerere University Chaplain Larry Kanyike dismissed Col. Gadaffi as a man ignorant of the subject he was talking about.

"Gadaffi attacked the Bible because he is a Muslim and assumes that other religions are secondary, which is not correct," Fr Kanyike said yesterday. "Gadaffi is a politician, not a biblical scholar.". . .

The Libyan's views have so roiled the waters that various Christian groups are falling over themselves in condemnation.

"This issue cannot be taken lightly," said the Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye, the provincial secretary of the Church of Uganda speaking on behalf of Archbishop Luke Orombi.

"For us in the Church of Uganda, we have already issued a statement on this matter. But again, under our umbrella organisation [the Uganda Joint Christian Council - UJCC] we are going to issue another statement on Tuesday on the same matter because we're deeply concerned."

Archbishop Orombi is reported to be on a working trip out of the country. Fr Kanyike of Makerere said calls being made by some sections of the Christian community for Col. Gadaffi to apologise "are useless because Gadaffi does not understand what he was talking about and you cannot base an apology on ignorance".

Several Christian leaders demanded an apology from the Libyans on the same day Col. Gadaffi spoke out.

The government, which appears to be feeling the heat generated by the President's guest who abruptly left the country on Thursday, is meanwhile keeping quiet hoping the furore will run its course and die out. . .

Read it all.

Libya: Bible a forgery, says Col. Gadaffi

From allAfrica.com [boldface mine]:

Hussein Bogere, Kampala

COLONEL Muammar Gadaffi yesterday celebrated the anniversary of the birth of Prophet Muhammad with a two-hour speech in which he attacked the Scandinavian countries for besmirching the Prophet, the Arabs for monopolising the Kaaba and signed off by describing the Bible as a forgery.

Speaking to the mammoth crowd that braved the afternoon heat in Nakivubo War Memorial Stadium after leading the Thuhur (afternoon) prayer, Col. Gadaffi said any Bible and Tora (Old Testament) that does not mention Prophet Muhammad was written by mankind and therefore a fraud.

"The Bible we have now is not the one that was revealed to Issa [Jesus] and the Old Testament is not the one that was revealed to Musa. Muhammad is mentioned in both (original versions), but the Tora and Bible we have now, there is no mention of him," the Libyan leader, more known for his controversial statements than his piety, said.

"It means that it (Bible) has been forged. Prophet Muhammad was sent to mankind. Allah wanted mankind to have one religion. The Koran that we have is the only book that was sent by Allah. We believe in the Bible as well as the Tora.". . .

President Museveni said he would put the Archbishop of Uganda, Luke Orombi and Bishop Cyprian Lwanga of Kampala Archdiocese to task to explain the omission of Prophet Muhammad from the Bible. He thanked Col. Gadaffi for the help he has extended to Islam in Uganda.

Col. Gadaffi's remarks, just like the similar ones he made exactly a year ago in West Africa are bound to court some controversy in a deeply religious Uganda. . .

Wouldn't you love to hear ++Orombi's response?

Read it all.