Just Kidding...Acid Attack Hoax

Ont August 30th this year Bethany Storo made international headlines when she reported a black woman threw acid in her face.  Well, guess what, it was a hoax This is certainly a puzzling one,claiming to be robbed and your slap yourself around a bit you can see, but to injure yourself with acid...acid?  What was she looking to have happen?  I do not see what possible benefit to this event could have been. 

In my opinion, the worst part, she claimed to be a Christian.  She deceive millions of people about a horrible assault bringing them to have concern for her.  While not everyone who claims to be a Christian is in fact a Christian, it brings a terrible witness for the cause of Christianity.  Non-Christians already have a perception that Christians are hypocrites, and this does not help.  Non-Christians will tend not to see the difference between a professing Christian and a true Christian resulting in people who may have been open to belief to just be pushed further away.

Justice Stephen Breyer's Political Correctness

Recently George Stephanopolous Interviewed Supreme Court Justice, Stephen Breyer and the discussion turned to the Florida pastor Terry Jones and his planned then abandoned Qur'an burning.

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans.  But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

So in Justice Breyer's opinion, burning the American flag, the bible, and the constitution is fine by the constitution.  Fashion "artwork" depicting a crucifix in a jar of human urine is fine by the constitution.  Making movies showing the assassination of the President, George W. Bush is fine by the constitution.  All of it protected by the constitution, but the Justice is not prepared to say burning a Qur'an is is a protected practice?   Seems a tad selective.  And people wonder why Christians are worried about Christianity being legislated away.

Does Your Church Pass the Test?

From the White Horse Inn Blog, an interesting piece about the IRS requirement for a church which seeks to become a church.  A federal court recently rejected the "Foundation for Human Understanding" appeal when the IRS revoked their church status.

Here is a list of requirements the IRS uses to determine whether or not your organization is a church:

• a distinct legal existence
• a recognized creed and form of worship
• a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
• a formal code of doctrine and discipline
• a distinct religious history
• a membership not associated with any other church or denomination
• an organization of ordained ministers
• ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies
• a literature of its own
• established places of worship
• regular congregation
• regular religious services
• Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young; and
• schools for the preparation of its ministers

How many churches have Sunday schools for children for instruction rather than simply for baby sitting?  Many non-denominational churches allow its ministers and pastors lead without official ordination or schooling.  I think it is funny that the federal government requires more of churches than the churches themselves.

Supreme Court Rules Against Christian Group

Recently the Highest court in the United States ruled against a Christian organization by upholding the University of California's Hastings College of Law's policy regarding groups officially recognized by the school requiring them to adhere to their "all-comers" policy.  The Christian Legal Society's membership requirements essentially exclude non-Christians, and practicing homosexuals from becoming voting members or holding positions of leadership within the CLS.

Such a ruling, the CLS claims, violates their First amendment right to freedom of assembly and religious expression.  I agree.  I believe it is essential for any group or club in order to exist it must be free to maintain it's ideal purity but admitting only those who hold to the club's ideals, and refusing admission to those opposed to their mission.  This does not just hold for Christian groups, but any "specialized" group.

Hastings College of Law's policy taken to it's logical end would require a group to admit to membership and leadership people whose values and agenda is contrary to the group.  The policy could potentially force black groups to allow white supremacists as members and leaders; Republicans to vote and run Democrat groups and vice versa.  The policy is absurd if applied to the letter without taking into account there are highly specialized groups.  In the end this ruling threatens the purity of any group or club by disallowing the group to discriminate against people who hold hostile views towards them.

Remembering 9/11

I still vividly remember where I was and what I was doing when the airliners struck the World Trade Center buildings.  This tragedy has become this generation's Kennedy assassination.  Each year, I have discussions with friends, family, and co-workers about where each of us were, and what we were feeling.  I think it is important to watch the news shows which show footage of the attacks, lest we forget.  Unfortunately there are people-Americans-who protest the NY Mosque protestors to 'get over it already'.  It is a sad state of affairs when a horror such as the WTC attacks is that easily passed into history.

Gospel Reliability Experiment

I just read a recent entry in the Cross Examined Blog where the author decided to make a point about the reliability of the "contradictory" Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, and why they are not in fact contradictory.  Briefly, the main charge of skeptics of the Gospel accounts is the accounts contradict each other and are therefore unreliable.  For example, were there two angels or one, how many people went to the empty tomb, and who were they, etc.  These objections all have answers, but Neil Mammen used a clever illustration to make his point and hoist the skeptics by their own petard.

There had recently been an airplane accident where it had to make a crash landing, killing a young boy, wrecking a couple cars by sliding off the runway, and  breaking through multiple barriers coming to rest on a street.  Multiple news agencies reported the incident but made different observations.  A couple sources mentioned two cars, one or two others mentioned one car.  A couple reports mentioned breaking through a wall, another a barrier, and another a security fence.  One report only mentioned the boy killed.  So Neil went on a rant citing all the "contradictions" in the reporting and concluding the incident never took place, much like skeptics of the resurrection of Jesus.

Obviously most commenter's came to the defense of the differing reports actually citing reasons most Christian apologists give for the defense of the differing accounts in the Gospels, which the skeptics themselves reject for the defense of the Gospels.

In the end the point is glaring and obvious.  The accounts vary because of differences of perspective, not contradiction or deception.  The entire blog article is a bit long but well worth the read.

Atheist discrimination...Where?

In an article from The Blaze, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is financing a billboard campaign promoting atheism.  “We hope discrimination against atheists and other nonbelievers will soon be ‘gone with the wind,’” said FFRF co-president Dan Barker, my question, where is this discrimination?  Slogans such as "In God We Trust" discriminates?  Discrimination takes away something from the one discriminated, not just having opposing worldviews on display.  Besides, has Barker read a science journal lately?  Or been to a major university?  In these venues atheists have rigged the system to disallow anything remotely religious.  He needs to grow up and understand he has a personal freedom from religion, not a public one.  Living in America does not entitle anyone to a freedom from offense.

The Hartford City Mosque Council

Recently the city of Hartford had decided to open council meetings with Muslim prayers in an attempt to show tolerance toward Muslims in the wake of opposition to the proposed "Ground Zero" Mosque.  In the wake of public outcry the council is reconsidering their "outreach.  It seems the concept of "separation of church and state" only applies to "church".  I suppose since a mosque is not a church, the often quoted out-of-context Jeffersonian prohibition was not immediately obvious.

I Pledge Allegiance

Every once in a while I over hear or read "why don't kids say the Pledge of Allegiance anymore?".  I wonder where their children go to school.  My child (grade 5) has been saying the pledge before the start of class through out her schooling thus far.  Being from the blue State of Connecticut that's saying something.  I truly hope this country never decides patriotism is offensive.