Just picked this up over e-mail. If you actually notice an increase in the already high level of blasphemy all around, well, now you’ll know why: it’s blasphemy day! I’d like to suggest that the organizers of this event arrange to celebrate it in a Muslim nation in the Middle East and they shall soon gain a greater appreciation for their rights in the USA, if they live to tell of it.

Amherst, New York (Sept. 25, 2009)–The Center for Inquiry will draw attention in several major cities across the continent this Wednesday with its robust participation in International Blasphemy Day. Events are scheduled for Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Indianapolis, Washington, D.C., Austin, Tucson, Tampa Bay, and Amherst, N.Y.Sept. 30 is the anniversary of the original 2005 publication of the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. The fury which arose within the Islamic community following this publication led to massive riots, attacks on foreign embassies and deaths. Four of the cartoons were reprinted in Free Inquiry magazine in support of the public’s right to free expression and criticism.

Participation in Blasphemy Day is part of the Center for Inquiry’s larger Campaign for Free Expression, an effort to focus attention on one of the most crucial components of freethought: the right of individuals to express their viewpoints, opinions, and beliefs about all subjects–especially religion. “Placing religion off limits in social discourse is just another, gentler way of prohibiting examination and criticism of religion,” CFI President and CEO Ronald A. Lindsay said. “In my view, all subjects of human interest should be open to examination and criticism by humans.”

Other elements of the Campaign for Free Expression include:

• A Blasphemy contest to create a phrase, poem, or statement that considered blasphemous–deadline Oct. 1.
• A Free Expression essay contest open to all students currently enrolled in accredited colleges and universities, with the winner receiving a $2,000 award–deadline, Jan. 5, 2010.
• A cartoon contest, judged by professional cartoonists, in which the theme will be the doctrines of humanity’s many and various religions (CFI aims to be as ecumenical as possible)–deadline to be announced.
• The launching of a new Web site, Please Block Us, featuring reports on recent censorship attempts and controversies as well as original material that would be suppressed under the laws of some countries. It’s an open invitation to oppressive governments to block its material from their citizens’ access, thus highlighting their opposition to free expression. Offending nations’ names will be listed on the site.
• Public discussions and writings devoted to the contemporary champions of free expression.
• A petition drive urging relevant United Nations bodies not to limit speech critical of religion.
• Special events with prominent guest speakers; and much more.

The motivation behind Blasphemy Day is not simply to come up with ways to offend the religious. It’s meant to call attention to human rights–especially the right to free expression and the right to openly criticize unreasonably shielded ideas.

The Center for Inquiry/Transnational, a nonprofit, educational, advocacy, and scientific-research think tank based in Amherst, New York, is also home to the Council for Secular Humanism, founded in 1980; and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), founded in 1976. The Center for Inquiry’s research and educational projects focus on three broad areas: religion, ethics, and society; paranormal and fringe-science claims; and sound public policy. The Center’s Web site is www.centerforinquiry.net .

Just so you know…..

No marriage. Homosexual marriage. What’s next? Multiple coupling: polyamory. It’s coming and we need to be aware of it. Do note all the latest buzz words and redefinition of terms. Dr. Al Mohler speaks to this issue:

Once a sexual revolution is set loose, it inevitably runs its course through the culture.  While the current flashpoints of cultural conflict are focused on same-sex marriage and gender issues, others are biding their time.  As Newsweek magazine makes clear, some new flashpoints are getting restless.

Polyamory, reports Newsweek, is having a “coming-out-party.”  Polyamory is the current “term of art” applied to “families” or “clusters” comprised of multiple sexual partners. As Newsweek explains, this is not exactly polygamy, because marriage is not the issue. Advocates of polyamory argue that their lifestyle is not “open marriage.” Indeed, they define their movement in terms of the moral principle of “ethical nonmonogamy,” defined as “engaging in loving, intimate relationships with more than one person — based upon the knowledge and consent of everyone involved.”

Legal theorists and opponents of same-sex marriage routinely (and rightly) make the argument that the legalization of homosexual marriage will, inevitably, lead to the legalization of polygamy. Once marriage is redefined to allow for same-sex unions, any determination to maintain legal prohibitions against polygamy will be seen as merely arbitrary. At the same time, once strictures against adultery were eliminated in the culture and in the law, something essentially like polygamy was inevitable.

The article in Newsweek, written by Jessica Bennett, presents polyamory as a growing movement that now involves persons in the cultural mainstream. As the magazine reports: “Researchers are just beginning to study the phenomenon, but the few who do estimate that openly polyamorous families in the United States number more than half a million, with thriving contingents in nearly every major city.”

The movement now claims a number of recognized books, blogs, podcasts, and even an online magazine entitled “Loving More.” According to Newsweek, actress Tilda Swinton and Carla Bruni, the First Lady of France, have emerged as prominent spokespersons for nonmonogamy. As should be expected, the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University now features a “polyamory library.”

Jessica Bennett suggests that the contemporary polyamory movement has roots in utopian movements of the 19th century:

The notion of multiple-partner relationships is as old as the human race itself. But polyamorists trace the foundation of their movement to the utopian Oneida commune of upstate New York, founded in 1848 by Yale theologian John Humphrey Noyes. Noyes believed in a kind of communalism he hoped would fix relations between men and women; both genders had equal voice in community governance, and every man was considered to be married to every woman. But it wasn’t until the late-1960s and 1970s “free love” movement that polyamory truly came into vogue; when books like Open Marriage topped best-seller lists and groups like the North American Swingers Club began experimenting with the concept. The term “polyamory,” coined in the 1990s, popped up in both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford English dictionaries in 2006.

In one sense, the polyamorous defy easy categorization. The movement includes couples who openly and with full knowledge of each other engage in sexual relationships with others. Some are involved in group sex and others experiment with bisexuality. The Newsweek article introduces readers to a new vocabulary. The most revealing word is “polyfidelitous” –  which means that the multiple partners keep sexual activity within their own self-identified cluster.

Interestingly, Bennett observes that the movement “has a decidedly feminist bent.” If men can have multiple wives or female partners, then, the logic goes, women must have the same in order to achieve “gender equality.” Bennett quotes Allena Gabosch, director of an organization known as the “Center for Sex Positive Culture,” suggesting that polyamory sounds scary to people because “it shakes up their worldview.” But, she insists, polyamory might well be “more natural than we think.”

Perhaps the best way to understand this new movement is to understand it as a natural consequence of subverting marriage. We have largely normalized adultery, serialized marriage, separated marriage from reproduction and childbearing, and accepted divorce as a mechanism for liberation. Once this happens, boundary after boundary falls as sexual regulation virtually disappears among those defined as “consenting adults.”

The ultimate sign of our moral confusion becomes evident when virtually no one appears ready to condemn polyamory as immoral. The only arguments mustered against this new movement focus on matters of practicality. Polyamory is certainly not new, but this new movement is yet another reminder that virtually all the fences are now down when it comes to sex and sexual relationships.  What comes next?

Here is a story I found very interesting, and perhaps you will to. How does a nation come to terms with its history?

Russian archbishop’s censure of Stalin as ‘a monster’, makes waves – Feature
By Sophia Kishkovsky

Moscow, 4 August (ENI)–Comments by a senior official of the Russian Orthodox Church condemning Soviet dictator Josef Stalin, accusing him of genocide, shortly before a European security forum equated the crimes of Stalin and Hitler, have stirred heated debate in the Russian media and blogosphere.

“I think that Stalin was a spiritually-deformed monster, who created a horrific, inhuman system of ruling the country,” Archbishop Hilarion had said in a June interview with the news magazine Ekspert. “He unleashed a genocide against the people of his own country and bears personal responsibility for the death of millions of innocent people. In this respect Stalin is completely comparable to Hitler.”

Hilarion is head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations, a post Patriarch Kirill I held before he was elected leader of the Russian Orthodox Church in January.

Hilarion’s comments came shortly before a session of the parliamentary assembly of the 56-member, Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in Lithuania. At its 3 July meeting, the organization in a resolution stated that both Nazism and Stalinism “brought about genocide, violations of humans rights and freedoms, war crimes and crimes against humanity”.

The resolution called on member states to mark each 23 August, the day of the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, which divided Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union, as “a Europe-wide Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism”.

The Russian foreign ministry denounced the resolution as “an attempt to distort history for political purposes”.

The Second World War is considered a sacred topic in Russia, where it is called the Great Patriotic War. In May, President Dmitry Medvedev ordered the creation of a commission to fight the “falsification of history” and defend the official account of the Soviet past.

Stalin is portrayed by top officials, and also in a study guide for high school teachers approved by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin when he was president, as an effective manager, comparable to the Russian tsars or to Bismarck, who united Germany in the 19th century. Putin has also continued his efforts to unite the pre-revolutionary and Bolshevik strands of Russian history into a seamless narrative.

Shortly before Victory Day celebrations on 9 May to mark the Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, Patriarch Kirill indicated an interpretation of events that might diverge with that of the Kremlin. The Soviet victory in the war was “a miracle,” Kirill said, and the suffering of the Soviet people during the war is atonement for its rejection of Christianity during the Bolshevik era after the Russian Revolution in 1917.

At the end of July, during his first official visit in Ukraine, Kirill laid a wreath at a monument to victims of a Stalin-era famine that Ukrainians regard as genocide, and which President Medvedev refused to visit in 2008. The Patriarch spoke of how his family, and the entire Soviet people, had suffered under Stalinism.

Read more…

Christians outraged after Bible defaced at Scottish art exhibit
ENI-09-0603

By Trevor Grundy
Edinburgh, 30 July (ENI)–Organizers of an exhibition in Glasgow which encouraged society’s marginalised to write comments in the margins of a Bible have now placed the sacred book behind a transparent screen to prevent offensive messages being written on it.

The exhibition, “Made in God’s Image”, at the city’s Gallery of Modern Art opened on 25 June and is scheduled to end on 22 August.

On show, as part of series of exhibitions focusing on human rights, was a Bible and a container of pens and a notice saying: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

Comments written in the margins of the sacred text included, “f…k the Bible”, “Jesus is a bisexual”, “This is all sexist pish”, “I am bi[sexual], female and proud. I want no God who is disappointed in this.”

The controversy over the exhibit came days after the release of a report by Durham University which found that knowledge of the Bible is in decline in Britain, with fewer than one in 20 people able to name all Ten Commandments and youngsters viewing the Holy Book as “old fashioned”.

“It is the first recognition of something which we all knew in our gut,” said the Rev. Brian D. Brown, a visiting fellow at St John’s College in Durham University. “We knew it was there but we weren’t exactly willing to face it,” he was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency

In Glasgow, a group of about 100 Christians gathered outside the art gallery on 28 July to protest against the exhibition. After the protests, organizers placed the Bible in a transparent container so it can be seen, but not touched.

Visitors are now given pieces of blank paper where they can register their names, their feelings about religion and the Bible and their comments.

The Daily Telegraph newspaper reported an unnamed advisor to Pope Benedict XVI as describing the project as “disgusting and offensive”, and saying, “They would not think of doing it to the Quran.”

The exhibit was meant to enable people who feel marginalised by society and the churches to express themselves, said artist Jane Clarke, a minister of the Metropolitan Community Church, which caters mainly for the spiritual needs of gay men and lesbian women.

“I am saddened that some people have chosen to write offensive messages,” she said in a statement. “Writing our names in the margins of a Bible was to show how we have been marginalised by many Christian churches, and also our desire to be included in God’s love.”

Two artists, Anthony Schrag and David Malone, created the exhibition in association with organizations representing Gay Christians and Muslims. Schrag, the gallery’s artist in residence, was born in Zimbabwe but was brought up in the Middle East and Canada. [484 words]
ENI News Headlines and Featured Articles are now available by RSS feed.
See http://www.eni.ch/rss/
All articles (c) Ecumenical News International
Reproduction permitted only by media subscribers and
provided ENI is acknowledged as the source.

Once more, as we approach Memorial Day, I’m already beginning to read notes on the Internet reflecting the complete confusion out there over what Memorial Day is, and what it is not.

Memorial Day commemorates U.S. men and women who died while in military service. It is not a day to honor living veterans or those presently serving in the military. It is unfortunate that we have allowed Memorial Day to turn into a day for honoring those living, and serving, rather than those who died in war. Let’s do our part to distinguish between Memorial Day and Veterans’ Day and Armed Services Day.

The other confusion is that Memorial Day somehow became observed as “Decoration Day” and people visit the graves of their deceased loved ones, regardless of their military affiliation. I noticed this was particularly popular in Iowa when I served there as a pastor.

I would prefer we reserve Memorial Day for what it is supposed to be and not let it be confused with Veterans’ Day or Armed Forces Day.

I think you will find this debate interesting. 70% of Americans say he does, but who is he? There’s the question. If he does not exist, how do we account for pain and suffering in the world today.

So, we all know that mayonnaise is not health food, yet how many of us have slathered it on our sandwiches. I was shocked in Germany to be asked at the McDonalds by the person at the counter, after ordering "pommes" (fries), "Mit mayo?" And I blurted out, "Was?" She said, again, "Mit mayo?" and then immediately added, in English, "Would you like mayo with your fries?" Sure, sounded interesting. I hated it. On the other hand….if they had offered this. I tried to visit the baconnaise web site, and obviously they are being flooded by hits, due, no doubt, to Amazon mentioning this product.

America: land of the free, and home of the brave, and Baconnaise!

The other day I received a Google Alert on the Concordia edition of the Book of Concord. A pastor had referred to it in a blog post. I went to the blog site and read the following:

   One of my tasks is to develop and make available new ways of catechesis and
discipleship. For this reason, I was thrilled when a compatriot of mine
suggested the development of the entire Book of Concord (Concordia, the
Lutheran Confessions,) be made available (for free) in mp3 and on CD
audio, so that those who desired to grow in the mind of Christ might,
say, listen to the Formula for Harmony on the way to work.

A wonderfully good idea, to be sure! There is just one problem. The project represents a violation of copyright law. I posted a comment on the blog site that the Concordia edition of the Book of Concord is copyrighted and thus can not be done without permission of the copyright holder. I also indicated that Concordia Publishing House would probably not grant permission because we have plans to do audio recordings of it ourselves. I suggested that he make use of the English translation of the Book of Concord that is in the public domain.

The pastor responded by saying that he believes it is sinful for Concordia Publishing House to use copyright laws, and that the laws are themselves sinful. He proceeded to indicate that he believes CPH is doing a disservice to the Gospel in copyrighting the Concordia edition of the Book of Concord.

Is it sinful for Christians to use copyright laws? In this post, I’d like to address a common misunderstanding that circulates around the church about copyright laws and their use. I hope I can do this in such a way as not to give the impression that I am being defensive. It is a challenge to address these issues without people receiving that impression, particularly when they have a firm opinion about the issue. But, I’ll give it a go.

Read more…

Looking for materials to help you respond and understand The Golden Compass? There are several excellent resources available now.

Concordia Publishing House has a free downloadable resource, in various formats, designed to facilitate an adult bible class conversation, youth group or other small group discussion, or for personal reflection.

The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod posted an article on The Golden Compass which provides good food for thought.

The journal, First Things, has a good review which was published when they first appeared.

My take on it? Don’t bother with the movie or the books. No point in putting money in the pockets of people who are clearly intent on attacking and destroying the Christian faith. Better to read the Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings, and watch the movies based on those books.

I generally do not engage in non-theological rants, or postings, for that matter, but…I’m sitting here reading Newsweek magazine and I’m once again assaulted/insulted by the latest news on Lindsey Lohan, Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton. And don’t tell me if I spelled their names correctly, or not. I don’t care. And that’s my point.
    Why does anyone care about these spoiled degenerate young women? I think we should care about what kind of parenting they did, or, obviously, did not have. These are women whose every move is documented and zipped across the Internet. Why is it that "news" about them makes the headline news at my Yahoo home page? Why this endless fascination in watching these poor young women literally self-destruct before our very eyes?
    I can think of few other depressing examples of the deep rot that has set into our culture than the fact that so much time is spent giving attention to these three. What we see here is the tragedy of women whose bank accounts are stuffed full, but whose souls are desperately empty. Perhaps that is the good purpose they serve. Where were their parents? How is that women barely "legal" can already have established criminal records and have spent time in and out of "rehab" for use of illegal drugs and overuse of alcohol. And anyone envies them? What helpless and pointless lives of not-so-quiet desperation they are leading. And this is news? This is worth our public attention? It’s so sad and tragic that it literally makes me sick to my stomach.
    We must pray that somehow, in some way, the proclamation of Law and Gospel reaches these young women before it is too late. God have mercy on them, and on us, in a culture that "celebrates" this kind of spectacle. Your reaction? Is it just me?

Great article by Mollie Ziegler-Hemmingway on the wedding-industrial complex. A must read for every pastor, and an article that might be wise to put into the hands of every couple coming to them for pre-marital counseling.