An Ecumenical Reach

An Ecumenical Reach

Imagine how much energy it must take

To meet with ecumenical leaders here and abroad.

Image for Christian witness sake

A global unity of Gospel not flawed.

A nascent church in the northern hemisphere

Emerged from the global south,

With blessings from primates Anglican mere,

A proclamation through the Gospel's mouth.

At its birth a needed constitution

Was enabled from an Allegheny hill

And ratified without Gospel substitution

With a plain old lone star ritual and quill.

Without its initial leadership of high quality

The nascent ship, almost sunken.

A clear vision, discipline, and polity,

Floated the ship, it did not bob, it was done can.

After a blessed five-year renewal

Like a relay; time to pass the baton

To another with plenty of fuel

Advancing ecumenical action anon.

Quickly it became evident

A broad vision and reach were in store,

To commune with those far and closely resident

And push open wide the ecumenical door.

An American, a Russian, both primates and cosmopolitan.

The nascent Anglican, the now-mature OCA,

And Saint Basil's Metropolitan.
Hmmm, there's something in the air, I say.

A Moderate

A Moderate

Is it possible to be a moderate,

Even if independent, democrat or GOP?

Any breathing human without doctorate

Has a belief system for all to see.

Take a person of faith or religion

Who holds to a set practice or book.

It may be open or hidden

To aliens something difficult to brook.

One book authorizes killing,

Ridding unbelievers for some good.

Adherents who are quite willing,

Remove perceived infidels where they once stood.

Is this authorization extreme or moderate?

Is their book the standard for all?

Veering from its content opens the gate

Fearing even their own demise – blood, guts, and gall.

If beheadings are standard in their book,

Its believers not deemed extreme,

For they are the faithful who take

Seriously the book and its theme.

Politically correct leaders seek tolerance.

Knowing nothing of realities in words.

“Moderation and forbearance,”

They say is what tolerance affords.

What some call extreme

Is actually the faith’s norm.

A moderate is complete fantasy or a dream

No matter what the verbal form.

Suppose there are “moderate” Jews,

And “moderate” Christians, too.

How then do they spread the news,

To their “extremists” they never knew.

A faithful, moderate Jew

Cannot be;

A middler Christian will not do.

True faith never undulates as the sea.

The moderate Jew knows no Torah,

His messiah and temple, empty dreams.

His bloodline bleeds pure aura,

But his eyes no Star of David gleams.

The moderate Christian has no Cross,

The Resurrection not so spectacular.

The blood of his Savior seems lost,

With a moderate, a person secular.

Seeking moderate believers is futile,

They must abandon their Meccan faith.

For its fundamental belief is brutal

Conversion, the Prophet saith.

Neither moderation nor the moderate

Can hold faith in mid-way form.

Moderation itself is nothing.

Find the faith through total reform!

Little Sisters, Ave Maria University, ACNA Chaplains' Bishop, and SCOTUS

The Affordable Care Act is to be tested again beginning March 23, 2016 in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), this time by the Roman Catholic Church's religious order of the Little Sisters of the Poor.

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has allowed that religious-affiliated organizations not to provide contraception to their employees, but requires such organizations to sign papers documenting their objection to this part of the Act. Such an objection would force the insurer or some other healthcare plan insurer to provide the birth control coverage. This alternative is also objected to by Little Sisters.

The furthering of an explanation of the issue by SCOTUS brings into the debate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as in the Hobby Lobby case. Provision by the organization (Little Sisters, in this case) of no-cost contraceptive to employees is a mandate of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Little Sisters' objection to the mandate on religious conviction is what will be argued.

Ave Maria University and the Anglican Chaplains Jurisdiction of the Anglican Church in North America have filed Amici Curiae brief for the upcoming court hearing.

In the "Summary of Argument" the amici curiae states that "The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) Jurisdiction of the Armed Forces and Chaplaincy is part of the Anglican Communion, the world's third largest Christian Communion with over 85 million members. ACNA's endorser, Bishop Derek Jones, is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and decorated fighter pilot who served 27 years and helped lead the development of the joint military religious affairs doctrine.

"Ave Maria University ("AMU") was founded in 2003 in fidelity to Christ and His Church in response to the call of Vatican II for greater lay witness in contemporary society. ...

The amici curiae are organizations with extensive experience concerning the free exercise of religion in the United States. ..."

Any interested observer can see that the Little Sisters religious convictions would be violated if the HHS mandate is held. Also, one can see how a Christian military chaplain, an officer, would be placed in serious jeopardy of violating military conduct should the mandate be held by SCOTUS.

The court, in accepting this case, combined at least six other suits: (1) Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell; (2) East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell; (3) Zubik v. Burwell; (4) Priests for Life v. Burwell; (5) Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell; and (6) Geneva College v. Burwell.

Five of the eight justices are Roman Catholic: Chief Justice John Roberts; and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayer.

Let us pray for ACNA Bishop Derek Jones, the leaders of Ave Maria University, and their legal counsel of record, Scott W. Haylord, Professor Law at Elon University, that their argument will be received as sound, reasonable to the Court, and faithful to their convictions. Therefore, finding in favor of the Little Sisters of the Poor and other dedicated Christians.

Donald Trump and University of Illinois-Chicago Event

On Friday evening, March 11, 2016, a presidential candidate was scheduled to deliver a speech in a building on the urban campus of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Things did not go right, or did it?

According to television news coverage, apparently the people who wanted to hear Donald Trump speak did not have that opportunity because an organized and successful disruption campaign trumped (pun intended) the scheduled political rally. Shouts of "we won, we won" were heard and reported by the media present on the streets. So, who won? Consider the following items.

Item #1: The University of Illinois-Chicago is one of most radical, left-leaning universities in Chicago if not the nation.

Item #2: "Former" anarchist and founder of the Weather Underground, Bill Ayers, is a "distinguished" professor at University of Illinois-Chicago.

Item #3: Bill Ayers and President Obama were/are friends, certainly they were former political associates. One can consider Ayers expert in rallying students toward radical-left purposes.

Item #4: Chicago has a history of violent demonstration. Many people remember the 1968 Democratic National Convention and the violent demonstrations outside the convention arena as well as some scuffles inside the convention center. Remember when reporter Dan Rather was shoved around?

Item #5: Donald Trump and his campaign leadership team, for certain, had to have been aware of the four items listed above.

Could it be that the Trump campaign concluded, well in advance of scheduling the rally at that particular venue, that such a disruption could occur? I think so.

One should understand that free speech was violated last evening - the Trump campaign was not allowed to exercise its First Amendment right to free speech.

What happened last evening occurred not in fascist Italy or Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s; it was staged in the United States of America, a continuing constitutional republic in the 21st century.

Keep in mind the end result of last evening's event as you read the definition of FASCISM from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Fascism is "a way of organizing a society in which a government

 ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which 

people are not allowed to disagree with the government; 

a very harsh control or authority.

One can speculate that this organized disruption had the backing of or was instigated my the group known as move-on dot org. Certainly one can speculate collusion by George Soros and his million$ in that event.

I have written earlier in this blog of the inevitable result of a continuance of liberal-progressive policy/governance: eventually liberalism runs out of targets to attack and therefore is consumed by a strong-man, a dictator, a totalitarian.

Given the media coverage following last evening's disruption, liberal-progressive politics was on ugly display - and the demonstrators were true to their beliefs for all of America and the world to witness.

I believe that the Trump organization was brilliant in that it knew that a disruption of that magnitiude might very well happen. So again, who won?

Bernie is the logical successor to Obama, not Hillary

Bernie is the logical political successor to Obama, not Hillary

In previous posts I have explained how Progressive politics (if "successful") morphs over time into totalitarianism. The historical and logical movement of Progressivism is toward Socialism. Socialism eventually consumes itself. Therefore, in order to maintain control of government, the leaders at the "end" of the socialism experiment must become dictators. The term Democratic Socialism is an inevitable oxymoron. I use the word "inevitable" because Socialist political candidates are, at first, elected. That "first election" is  the last or final election also.

The Obama administration has progressively moved the government of the United States into aspects of Socialism. Through his executive orders Obama has demonstrated his post-Socialism tendencies.

Unlike Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton has experienced the rewards of (crony) capitalism and has never yet shown or been able to implement socialism in the United States. Clandestine in her actions, a sleuth perhaps, I do not think Hillary shares Bernie's expressed socialistic beliefs.

Therefore, it is Bernie and his proposed policies that naturally flow from, or extend the policies of, the Obama administration.

BE CAREFUL IN YOUR VOTING AMERICA!

An Abandoned White Middle Class, an analysis

The question that this writer/editor is answering is "What is driving the populist movement in the 2016 election?" It is a relatively short article, but analytically astute.

"One can make an argument that over the long haul economic globalization will be good for all Americans. Perhaps, but in the meantime the gap grows. The top end of society is thoroughly committed. This leads to the following problem for politicians: The Democratic establishment must lie about its economic commitments, while promising to take care of the middle class, and Republicans can be frank about their free-market commitments, while having very little to offer middle class voters." R.R. Reno, FIRST THINGS magazine.

First Things article by R.R. Reno, click here

Madeleine, O Madeleine

Madeleine, O Madeleine

Lecture them Maddie, O lecture them well,

Those young women who don’t fall in line.

With party rhetoric meant to overwhelm

Them, as if rotten grapes fallen from the vine.

 There is a place for all in her party,

Just one place actually, for like schools of thought.

Diversity in this case is not hearty

With branches differently brought.

Religion and politics dare mix

When politicians wax wrecklessly with theology.

The many mansions in my Father’s house is the fix;

Scolding and oppressing young sisters tests Maddie’s own soteriology.

If “there’s a special place in hell

For women who don’t help each other,”

There’s a complementary comparison as well.

Like the party, hell has no diversity and will smother?

Madeleine, O Madeleine,

We know what you’re thinking.

Your young women have not fallen in line

 And friend Hillary’s future is sinking.

Madeleine, O Madeleine, hell hath no fury

Like a scorned candidate’s pride.

Perhaps a young women’s jury

Is saying farewell as William mourns his desperate bride.

Madeleine Albright's "special place in hell ..." short video