For Immediate Release: July 7, 2009
Contact: Jim Crumley 703-690-1247
jcrumley@triostrategies.com
The national advocacy group In God We Trust today called on Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to dismiss the head of the state’s Ethics Office, Carol Carson, over the her office’s harassment of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport. Carson’s office claimed the church violated state lobbying laws by busing supporters to a rally protesting a controversial bill before the Connecticut state legislature. The proposed law would have allowed the state government to regulate the governing structure of the church. The bill was withdrawn in the face of public pressure. Last week Carson’s office reluctantly agreed to drop its investigation of the church after Connecticut’s Attorney General warned that the state would likely lose a lawsuit filed against it by the Diocese.
“The Connecticut state ethics office is out of control. It attempted to use its power to regulate and infringe on the rights of the Catholic church and the people of Connecticut to exercise their first amendments rights,” says Bishop Council Nedd, In God We Trust’s Chairman. “It is right for the office to drop its investigation, but it should never have gone after the church in the first place. This is clearly a case of power-crazed bureaucrats run amok. Anyone who would even consider using the power of the state to try to intimidate a church should not be working in government. Carol Carson and Ethics Enforcement Officer Thomas K. Jones, who was in charge of this investigation, must be fired,” he says.
In God We Trust is a national political advocacy organization with over 70,000 supporters of various faiths. Council Nedd is a traditional Episcopal priest and serves as the Bishop of the Chesapeake and Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church. In God We Trust can be found on the Internet at www.InGodWeTrustUSA.org.
Tuesday, 7 July 2009
National Religious Freedom Group Calls for Dismissal of Connecticut State Ethics Office Chief for Harassing the Catholic Church
Friday, 3 July 2009
Why the Emotion of July Fourth?
by Bishop William Milllsaps
The editor of a magazine found the following piece in his files. He passed it on to another magazine. I made some effort to find out if this author, Suzi Powers, was still living. She herself claimed that it was based on a New York Times editorial from the 1940’s. I want to pass it on to you. Whatever your political party, or indeed, whatever our faith or even lack of faith, we can at least pay tribute to those who set forth the Declaration of Independence. Our patriotic hymns pay tribute to "our father’s God" as the "Author of liberty." The second verse of our national anthem, though seldom sung, tells us to "Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!" It also reminds us that our motto is, "In God we trust." I hope you take a few minutes to read Suzi Powers’ words on the flag. She died a few years ago. Her words are very beautiful to me.
I remember as a young girl using an excellent New York Times
editorial on the flag to prepare my July 4 speech for a county
"declamation" contest. I still recall the gist of that wonderful
editorial. Maybe love for a country begins with a love for the land
itself. It is the fog rolling in with the tide at Eastport or through
the Golden Gate; it is the sun coming up behind the White
Mountains, over the Green, throwing a shining glory on Lake
Champlain and above the Adirondacks. It is the Mississippi rolling
swift and muddy past St. Louis, rolling past Cairo, pouring down
the levees of New Orleans. It is the glowing nakedness of Arizona,
a cattle ranch in Wyoming, the little fishing village in Maine, the
metropolis of New York, and the cotton plantation in Georgia. It
is the plot of land with a stand of cottonwood trees on it and a mission
called the Alamo. It is people... it is stories told. It is the Pilgrims
dying in their first dreadful winter, a Minuteman standing his ground at
Concord Bridge and dying there, the Army in rags, sick, freezing,
starving at Valley Forge. It is the wagons and the men on foot going
westward over Cumberland Gap, floating down the great rivers,
rolling over the Great Plains. It is Thoreau at Walden Pond... Lee
riding home from Appomattox. It is corruption and disgrace answered
always by men and women who would not let the flag lie in the dust,
who have stood up in every generation to fight for the old ideals and
the old rights at risk of ruin or of life itself. This year when we watch a
July 4 parade and snap to attention as Old Glory passes by, let us
thank God for America, for its flag which is an emblem of peace and
tranquility and a banner of freedom for you and me.
We are in a very "iffy" time right now. Some people say that the mainstream media are clearly "in the tank" for the new young President. Let us be clear that some very sincere people question even his eligibility to serve. The Press Secretary tried to make a joke at the expense of a distinguished senior White House Correspondent, Les Kinsolving. Les has outlasted seven presidents and a score of Press Secretaries. Dialogue is needed. Do not fear honest dialogue. Try not to make fun of people. Live your life. Enjoy the Fourth !
The editor of a magazine found the following piece in his files. He passed it on to another magazine. I made some effort to find out if this author, Suzi Powers, was still living. She herself claimed that it was based on a New York Times editorial from the 1940’s. I want to pass it on to you. Whatever your political party, or indeed, whatever our faith or even lack of faith, we can at least pay tribute to those who set forth the Declaration of Independence. Our patriotic hymns pay tribute to "our father’s God" as the "Author of liberty." The second verse of our national anthem, though seldom sung, tells us to "Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!" It also reminds us that our motto is, "In God we trust." I hope you take a few minutes to read Suzi Powers’ words on the flag. She died a few years ago. Her words are very beautiful to me.
I remember as a young girl using an excellent New York Times
editorial on the flag to prepare my July 4 speech for a county
"declamation" contest. I still recall the gist of that wonderful
editorial. Maybe love for a country begins with a love for the land
itself. It is the fog rolling in with the tide at Eastport or through
the Golden Gate; it is the sun coming up behind the White
Mountains, over the Green, throwing a shining glory on Lake
Champlain and above the Adirondacks. It is the Mississippi rolling
swift and muddy past St. Louis, rolling past Cairo, pouring down
the levees of New Orleans. It is the glowing nakedness of Arizona,
a cattle ranch in Wyoming, the little fishing village in Maine, the
metropolis of New York, and the cotton plantation in Georgia. It
is the plot of land with a stand of cottonwood trees on it and a mission
called the Alamo. It is people... it is stories told. It is the Pilgrims
dying in their first dreadful winter, a Minuteman standing his ground at
Concord Bridge and dying there, the Army in rags, sick, freezing,
starving at Valley Forge. It is the wagons and the men on foot going
westward over Cumberland Gap, floating down the great rivers,
rolling over the Great Plains. It is Thoreau at Walden Pond... Lee
riding home from Appomattox. It is corruption and disgrace answered
always by men and women who would not let the flag lie in the dust,
who have stood up in every generation to fight for the old ideals and
the old rights at risk of ruin or of life itself. This year when we watch a
July 4 parade and snap to attention as Old Glory passes by, let us
thank God for America, for its flag which is an emblem of peace and
tranquility and a banner of freedom for you and me.
We are in a very "iffy" time right now. Some people say that the mainstream media are clearly "in the tank" for the new young President. Let us be clear that some very sincere people question even his eligibility to serve. The Press Secretary tried to make a joke at the expense of a distinguished senior White House Correspondent, Les Kinsolving. Les has outlasted seven presidents and a score of Press Secretaries. Dialogue is needed. Do not fear honest dialogue. Try not to make fun of people. Live your life. Enjoy the Fourth !
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Project 21 Critical of Members of Congress Under Ethics Investigation for Retaliating Against House Ethics Office and for Playing "Race Card"
Washington, D.C. - An apparent effort by the Congressional Black Caucus to deter ethics investigations of its membership is drawing sharp criticism from members of the black leadership group Project 21.
CBC members reportedly are considering changes to the law authorizing the House Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE, in retaliation for the OCE referring allegations against several CBC members to the House Ethics Committee.
CBC members reportedly also have complained that the OCE does not have enough minority staffers, adding a racial element to the apparent retaliation.
"What does the racial or ethnic makeup of the Office of Congressional Ethics have to do with the fact that these members of the Congressional Black Caucus may have violated ethics laws? It has absolutely no bearing on the charge, and to claim that is a lack of diversity at the OCE is playing the race card plain and simple," said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, also a commentator for Pajamas Television. "It is laughable that CBC members are charging the OCE with some sort of racial targeting. The OCE was created by Speaker Pelosi, someone who shamelessly bends over backwards to be politically correct."
Of the three investigative counsels hired by the OCE, one is black. The chairman of the formal Ethics Committee investigation sparked by the OCE referral is a black Member of Congress, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), a CBC member.
"A legitimate complaint has been filed and an investigation has begun, but political pressure is now being applied to cover up the allegations and brush everything under the rug," said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II. "So much for those promises to 'drain the swamp' and root out the 'culture of corruption.' It seems that swamp has turned into a hot tub for them rather quickly."
"President Obama has long proclaimed that it is special interest lobbyists who are the root of what is wrong with our federal government. This latest lapse in congressional sensibilities exposes the fact that it is wayward members of Congress themselves, whether Republican or Democrat, who pose the greatest threat to good government for the citizens of this country," said Project 21 member John Meredith. "The idea of disbanding the one avenue the citizens of this great nation have to track congressional malfeasance is an affront to the pledge of transparency in government and the use of the race card to facilitate the closing of the Office of Congressional Ethics is insulting not only to black people but to people of every color."
The controversy was sparked by an ethics complaint filed with the OCE by National Legal and Policy Center President Peter Flaherty.
In November 2008, Flaherty attended the "Caribbean Multi-Cultural Business Conference" on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten. Although the conference officially was sponsored by the Carib News Foundation, according to Flaherty, signs and materials present indicate the event was funded by Citigroup, Pfizer, American Airlines, Verizon, IBM and other large corporations with business before Congress. CBC members Charles Rangel (D-NY), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Delegate Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended the event.
Members of Congress have been prohibited since 2007 from taking funded trips of over two days if those trips are paid for or coordinated by companies that "employ or retain a registered lobbyist."
Flaherty alerted the OCE. In his letter to the OCE, Flaherty noted: "My characterization of the trip as a 'junket' is based on my observation that the sessions were lightly attended. Most attendees spend significant time at the beach or the pool. Members of Congress attended the sessions when they had a speaking role." Flaherty also said any suggestion that attendees could not see evidence of corporate involvement was "implausible."
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
-30-
CBC members reportedly are considering changes to the law authorizing the House Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE, in retaliation for the OCE referring allegations against several CBC members to the House Ethics Committee.
CBC members reportedly also have complained that the OCE does not have enough minority staffers, adding a racial element to the apparent retaliation.
"What does the racial or ethnic makeup of the Office of Congressional Ethics have to do with the fact that these members of the Congressional Black Caucus may have violated ethics laws? It has absolutely no bearing on the charge, and to claim that is a lack of diversity at the OCE is playing the race card plain and simple," said Project 21 member Joe Hicks, also a commentator for Pajamas Television. "It is laughable that CBC members are charging the OCE with some sort of racial targeting. The OCE was created by Speaker Pelosi, someone who shamelessly bends over backwards to be politically correct."
Of the three investigative counsels hired by the OCE, one is black. The chairman of the formal Ethics Committee investigation sparked by the OCE referral is a black Member of Congress, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-NC), a CBC member.
"A legitimate complaint has been filed and an investigation has begun, but political pressure is now being applied to cover up the allegations and brush everything under the rug," said Project 21 member Bishop Council Nedd II. "So much for those promises to 'drain the swamp' and root out the 'culture of corruption.' It seems that swamp has turned into a hot tub for them rather quickly."
"President Obama has long proclaimed that it is special interest lobbyists who are the root of what is wrong with our federal government. This latest lapse in congressional sensibilities exposes the fact that it is wayward members of Congress themselves, whether Republican or Democrat, who pose the greatest threat to good government for the citizens of this country," said Project 21 member John Meredith. "The idea of disbanding the one avenue the citizens of this great nation have to track congressional malfeasance is an affront to the pledge of transparency in government and the use of the race card to facilitate the closing of the Office of Congressional Ethics is insulting not only to black people but to people of every color."
The controversy was sparked by an ethics complaint filed with the OCE by National Legal and Policy Center President Peter Flaherty.
In November 2008, Flaherty attended the "Caribbean Multi-Cultural Business Conference" on the Caribbean island of St. Maarten. Although the conference officially was sponsored by the Carib News Foundation, according to Flaherty, signs and materials present indicate the event was funded by Citigroup, Pfizer, American Airlines, Verizon, IBM and other large corporations with business before Congress. CBC members Charles Rangel (D-NY), Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Bennie Thompson (D-MS) and Delegate Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) attended the event.
Members of Congress have been prohibited since 2007 from taking funded trips of over two days if those trips are paid for or coordinated by companies that "employ or retain a registered lobbyist."
Flaherty alerted the OCE. In his letter to the OCE, Flaherty noted: "My characterization of the trip as a 'junket' is based on my observation that the sessions were lightly attended. Most attendees spend significant time at the beach or the pool. Members of Congress attended the sessions when they had a speaking role." Flaherty also said any suggestion that attendees could not see evidence of corporate involvement was "implausible."
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21's website at http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html.
-30-
Enlightened Intolerance an Enemy of Democracy
By Bishop Council Nedd II
Just before last year's elections, I was dismayed to hear police speaking openly at a local restaurant about potential violence no matter who won the White House.
Where I live in Central Pennsylvania, racial tension exists beneath everyday civility. Thankfully, there and across America, the concerns of my local police never materialized. America elected a black liberal to the presidency without feared "white rage" in "red states."
While Obama handily and peacefully won in California, civil unrest occurred due to something else on the ballot - Proposition 8, which upheld traditional marriage.
Californians can legislate by voting on referendums. Last November, many of those who voted for Obama also voted for Proposition 8 to amend the state's constitution to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples. It won with over 52 percent of the vote.
According the polling cited by the Washington Post, seven in 10 blacks voted for Proposition 8. Among Hispanics, 53 percent supported it.
Opponents of Proposition 8 were furious. Unlike 2000, however, there were no complaints of voter suppression, people turned away at the polls or faulty voting machines casting doubt on the results. The fact it passed was the sole reason for the outrage.
In a state where residents pride themselves on inclusiveness, tolerance and enlightenment, proponents of gay marriage decided the will of the people must be overruled.
Angry crowds marched. Threats were made against supporters. Efforts were made to find and punish those who funded the pro-Proposition 8 campaign.
The Mormon Church was particularly demonized, with Hollywood superstar Tom Hanks calling Mormons "un-American" for their support of Proposition 8. Mormon churches and Mormon-owned businesses were targeted for vandalism and boycotts.
A legal appeal to overturn the results was promptly filed. The California Supreme Court overwhelmingly backed Proposition 8, but let existing gay marriages remain legal. A few days after that ruling, a federal lawsuit was filed.
All this because people voted for what they thought was in their own best interest.
My father, born in a very segregated South Carolina in 1925, was fond of saying, "meet the new boss, the same as the old boss." The behavior of these cultural terrorists in California, I am saddened to say, illustrates his point.
One needs only to Google a few words to reveal the venom of Proposition 8's supposedly enlightened and tolerant opponents. Searching terms such as "Proposition 8," "terrorists" and the n-word shortly after Election Day, I read disturbing first-hand accounts of racial slurs. I also read diatribes I might assume came from white supremacists rather than those claiming to be from a persecuted class.
While these people were likely delighted with overwhelming black support for Obama, their true feelings apparently slipped out when people they always took for granted voted their conscience.
Six states currently allow same-sex marriage. But, in 30 states where it has been brought up for a public vote, traditional marriage prevails. Most recently, the government of the predominantly black District of Columbia rejected a marriage referendum because it would allegedly violate anti-discrimination laws.
When the people can't be trusted, take away their vote?
This minority-liberal schism, and the nasty liberal response, shows what happens when blacks leave the liberal plantation. Contempt is not reserved just for Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas anymore.
While I'm no fan of excessive government intervention, authorities have investigated infractions not as egregious as this in the past.
A Justice Department investigation is unlikely, but it could fall under the purview of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission investigated the 2000 election, and this seems to have more merit.
Imagine the surprise when those claiming to be the most tolerant are found to be the least willing to deal with change. It would prove that what my father said in the past remains true today.
# # #
Project 21 member Council Nedd II, the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church, is the honorary chairman of In God We Trust (http://www.ingodwetrustusa.org) - a group formed to oppose anti-religious bigotry. Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.
Published by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21 or the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Just before last year's elections, I was dismayed to hear police speaking openly at a local restaurant about potential violence no matter who won the White House.
Where I live in Central Pennsylvania, racial tension exists beneath everyday civility. Thankfully, there and across America, the concerns of my local police never materialized. America elected a black liberal to the presidency without feared "white rage" in "red states."
While Obama handily and peacefully won in California, civil unrest occurred due to something else on the ballot - Proposition 8, which upheld traditional marriage.
Californians can legislate by voting on referendums. Last November, many of those who voted for Obama also voted for Proposition 8 to amend the state's constitution to reserve marriage for heterosexual couples. It won with over 52 percent of the vote.
According the polling cited by the Washington Post, seven in 10 blacks voted for Proposition 8. Among Hispanics, 53 percent supported it.
Opponents of Proposition 8 were furious. Unlike 2000, however, there were no complaints of voter suppression, people turned away at the polls or faulty voting machines casting doubt on the results. The fact it passed was the sole reason for the outrage.
In a state where residents pride themselves on inclusiveness, tolerance and enlightenment, proponents of gay marriage decided the will of the people must be overruled.
Angry crowds marched. Threats were made against supporters. Efforts were made to find and punish those who funded the pro-Proposition 8 campaign.
The Mormon Church was particularly demonized, with Hollywood superstar Tom Hanks calling Mormons "un-American" for their support of Proposition 8. Mormon churches and Mormon-owned businesses were targeted for vandalism and boycotts.
A legal appeal to overturn the results was promptly filed. The California Supreme Court overwhelmingly backed Proposition 8, but let existing gay marriages remain legal. A few days after that ruling, a federal lawsuit was filed.
All this because people voted for what they thought was in their own best interest.
My father, born in a very segregated South Carolina in 1925, was fond of saying, "meet the new boss, the same as the old boss." The behavior of these cultural terrorists in California, I am saddened to say, illustrates his point.
One needs only to Google a few words to reveal the venom of Proposition 8's supposedly enlightened and tolerant opponents. Searching terms such as "Proposition 8," "terrorists" and the n-word shortly after Election Day, I read disturbing first-hand accounts of racial slurs. I also read diatribes I might assume came from white supremacists rather than those claiming to be from a persecuted class.
While these people were likely delighted with overwhelming black support for Obama, their true feelings apparently slipped out when people they always took for granted voted their conscience.
Six states currently allow same-sex marriage. But, in 30 states where it has been brought up for a public vote, traditional marriage prevails. Most recently, the government of the predominantly black District of Columbia rejected a marriage referendum because it would allegedly violate anti-discrimination laws.
When the people can't be trusted, take away their vote?
This minority-liberal schism, and the nasty liberal response, shows what happens when blacks leave the liberal plantation. Contempt is not reserved just for Michael Steele and Clarence Thomas anymore.
While I'm no fan of excessive government intervention, authorities have investigated infractions not as egregious as this in the past.
A Justice Department investigation is unlikely, but it could fall under the purview of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Commission investigated the 2000 election, and this seems to have more merit.
Imagine the surprise when those claiming to be the most tolerant are found to be the least willing to deal with change. It would prove that what my father said in the past remains true today.
# # #
Project 21 member Council Nedd II, the bishop of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church, is the honorary chairman of In God We Trust (http://www.ingodwetrustusa.org) - a group formed to oppose anti-religious bigotry. Comments may be sent to Project21@nationalcenter.org.
Published by The National Center for Public Policy Research. Reprints permitted provided source is credited. New Visions Commentaries reflect the views of their author, and not necessarily those of Project 21 or the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Friday, 26 June 2009
AHEAD Applauds Pharmaceutical Support for Medicare Coverage
Washington, D.C. (June 25, 2009)— The Alliance for Health, Education, and Development (AHEAD) Executive Director Bishop Council Nedd issued the following statement regarding the pharmaceutical industry’s $80 billion commitment to closing the Medicare Part D coverage gap:
“AHEAD commends the initiative to cut prices of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients who reach the coverage gap of Part D. The pharmaceutical industry’s recent pledge for health care reform addresses that coverage gap in prescription drug benefits, which has long been a challenge to many Medicare recipients. AHEAD salutes the pharmaceutical industry for leading the way in health care reform, providing an example of public and private partners working together towards the best outcome for everyone.
“Throughout its history, AHEAD has been involved in the education of underserved communities about health care resources, particularly the benefits available to Medicare recipients. We are committed to getting useful health information to our members and the community at large, and we support access to affordable, high-quality healthcare coverage and services.
“In my recent travels around the country, it has become clear that people were waiting for the action on healthcare reform to begin. We are glad to see that wait is over.”
______________
The Alliance for Health, Education, and Development (AHEAD) was established with the primary goal of educating members of underserved communities about their full range of choices and options in the areas of health, education, and economic development. AHEAD employs a full range of implementation strategies including the organization of educational outreach programs, the presentation of special events and seminars on the regional and national levels, the publication of materials, and the establishment of scholarship and recruitment programs.
www.ahead-usa.org
# # #
“AHEAD commends the initiative to cut prices of prescription drugs for Medicare recipients who reach the coverage gap of Part D. The pharmaceutical industry’s recent pledge for health care reform addresses that coverage gap in prescription drug benefits, which has long been a challenge to many Medicare recipients. AHEAD salutes the pharmaceutical industry for leading the way in health care reform, providing an example of public and private partners working together towards the best outcome for everyone.
“Throughout its history, AHEAD has been involved in the education of underserved communities about health care resources, particularly the benefits available to Medicare recipients. We are committed to getting useful health information to our members and the community at large, and we support access to affordable, high-quality healthcare coverage and services.
“In my recent travels around the country, it has become clear that people were waiting for the action on healthcare reform to begin. We are glad to see that wait is over.”
______________
The Alliance for Health, Education, and Development (AHEAD) was established with the primary goal of educating members of underserved communities about their full range of choices and options in the areas of health, education, and economic development. AHEAD employs a full range of implementation strategies including the organization of educational outreach programs, the presentation of special events and seminars on the regional and national levels, the publication of materials, and the establishment of scholarship and recruitment programs.
www.ahead-usa.org
# # #
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Open letter to Bp. Duncan
I posted the text of this letter before, but the subsequent posts are worth the read.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
The Anglican Church in North America
By the Rev. Fr. Charles Moncrief
The Anglican Church in North America is holding its Inaugural Assembly in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex this week. To bypass any presentation of background understand ACNA’s purpose is to replace The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Church in Canada as the North American Province of the Anglican Communion.
While in principle I agree that the Anglican Communion should accept the withdrawal of The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Church in Canada (whether these two provinces initiate the withdrawal or not), I have strong misgivings about the process to date I have equally strong concerns about the direction that ACNA is taking.
From the outset I confess to a certain prejudice about two topics. The first is that a large number of clergy delayed leaving The Episcopal Church until it was financially less uncomfortable for them to do so. To be sure, many of them will now receive noticeably reduced pensions. But I’m sure these clergy have secured their financial futures nonetheless. I refer to these Bishops and Priests as "Flagship Mega-martyrs," gaining national media coverage. While these are dedicated clergy who left The Episcopal Church rather than compromise their principles, I contrast them with those clergy who left The Episcopal Church in the 1980s, long before securing their pensions or protecting assets. The clergy who left previously fielded ridicule from many who are only now leaving The Episcopal Church for the same or substantially similar reasons.
My second source of discomfort is with the manner in which the Provincial Archbishops and Primates extended protection and oversight to congregations who wanted to leave The Episcopal Church. The Primates disregarded the dedicated orthodox Bishops in the United States and consecrated new Bishops. Existing Anglican Bishops have generally been ignored and disregarded.
When the first meeting of what became Common Cause was held in Atlanta, years ago, they invited my Presiding Bishop. He attended, but essentially as a guest with listening privileges. At the meeting the organizers seated women Priests, recognizing them as Priests even though its original purpose was in part to protest the ordination of women to the Priesthood.
A couple of years ago essentially the same group met in Pittsburgh. They again invited my Presiding Bishop. At the time he received his invitation, he asked if he could bring his Suffragan, an African-American Bishop whose international activities rival most of those now parading their connections in ACNA. The request was denied, with the stated reason being lack of space for anyone but "lead Bishops." He attended, again with "listening privileges." The organizers seated a number of Suffragans from other groups after denying permission to our Suffragan.
Several years ago I heard a story about an Episcopal Church congregation that called a recent seminary graduate to be their Rector (senior minister). Upon his arrival he began to lay out his plans to grow the congregation. He was quickly advised not to do this because "everyone who needs to be an Episcopalian already is one. Such an exclusivist attitude was one of the objects of disdain among those forming the various groups that ACNA is attempting to pull together. Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that this new organization is steadily acquiring the characteristics that it disliked about The Episcopal Church.
These are only personal misgivings, set in the larger context of my applause for the dedicated men and women who for consciences’ sake did in fact leave The Episcopal Church. These would correspond to those laborers in the vineyard who came at the eleventh hour. My only request is that the eleventh-hour laborers ask I no more than I those who bore the burdens through the heat of the day.
The Anglican Church in North America is holding its Inaugural Assembly in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex this week. To bypass any presentation of background understand ACNA’s purpose is to replace The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Church in Canada as the North American Province of the Anglican Communion.
While in principle I agree that the Anglican Communion should accept the withdrawal of The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Church in Canada (whether these two provinces initiate the withdrawal or not), I have strong misgivings about the process to date I have equally strong concerns about the direction that ACNA is taking.
From the outset I confess to a certain prejudice about two topics. The first is that a large number of clergy delayed leaving The Episcopal Church until it was financially less uncomfortable for them to do so. To be sure, many of them will now receive noticeably reduced pensions. But I’m sure these clergy have secured their financial futures nonetheless. I refer to these Bishops and Priests as "Flagship Mega-martyrs," gaining national media coverage. While these are dedicated clergy who left The Episcopal Church rather than compromise their principles, I contrast them with those clergy who left The Episcopal Church in the 1980s, long before securing their pensions or protecting assets. The clergy who left previously fielded ridicule from many who are only now leaving The Episcopal Church for the same or substantially similar reasons.
My second source of discomfort is with the manner in which the Provincial Archbishops and Primates extended protection and oversight to congregations who wanted to leave The Episcopal Church. The Primates disregarded the dedicated orthodox Bishops in the United States and consecrated new Bishops. Existing Anglican Bishops have generally been ignored and disregarded.
When the first meeting of what became Common Cause was held in Atlanta, years ago, they invited my Presiding Bishop. He attended, but essentially as a guest with listening privileges. At the meeting the organizers seated women Priests, recognizing them as Priests even though its original purpose was in part to protest the ordination of women to the Priesthood.
A couple of years ago essentially the same group met in Pittsburgh. They again invited my Presiding Bishop. At the time he received his invitation, he asked if he could bring his Suffragan, an African-American Bishop whose international activities rival most of those now parading their connections in ACNA. The request was denied, with the stated reason being lack of space for anyone but "lead Bishops." He attended, again with "listening privileges." The organizers seated a number of Suffragans from other groups after denying permission to our Suffragan.
Several years ago I heard a story about an Episcopal Church congregation that called a recent seminary graduate to be their Rector (senior minister). Upon his arrival he began to lay out his plans to grow the congregation. He was quickly advised not to do this because "everyone who needs to be an Episcopalian already is one. Such an exclusivist attitude was one of the objects of disdain among those forming the various groups that ACNA is attempting to pull together. Unfortunately, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that this new organization is steadily acquiring the characteristics that it disliked about The Episcopal Church.
These are only personal misgivings, set in the larger context of my applause for the dedicated men and women who for consciences’ sake did in fact leave The Episcopal Church. These would correspond to those laborers in the vineyard who came at the eleventh hour. My only request is that the eleventh-hour laborers ask I no more than I those who bore the burdens through the heat of the day.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
An Open Letter to Bishop Duncan
The Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan
1001 Merchant Street
Ambridge, Pa. 15003
Dear Bishop Duncan,
When I am aware of a meeting of Christians who are gathering for the purpose of prayer and setting forth the mission of Evangelism, I pray that their work will honor God. It was an honor and a privilege to attend GAFCON, and to sign on to be a" confessing Anglican." I pray daily that "all who profess and call themselves Christians" will take seriously their call. I seek no quarrel with anyone who is seeking to live out his or her faith. I value my friendship with those of other Faith-Traditions and spent some time both before and after GAFCON with rabbis and others in Israel at the Yad Vashem, and at the Museum of the Air Force near Beer Sheva. I was also at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. in January, just after the Meeting of Endorsers for Military Chaplains with the Armed Forces Chaplains Board at the Pentagon. I believe the Lord provided an opportunity for me to share some time with some of the Security Guards there at the Holocaust Museum and to thank them for their service. It was also, in my opinion, a kind of miracle that, many years ago, I got to spend a short time with Pope John Paul II and to pray with him. When the first meeting of what became Common Cause was held in Atlanta, years ago, I attended. The Episcopal Missionary Church later became a member of the Federation of Anglican Churches. At this time we are still members of that organization. "Common Cause" from the beginning, before it even had a name, seated women priests as such at the table, and while I always seek to be courteous I could not envision the Episcopal Missionary Church as being in any sense a full member of a body so compromised on an issue that set modernity against the historic Church.
Because of this and many other issues I will not attend the Bedford, Texas meeting, even as an ecumenical observer or guest. I feel I must write you that the whole presentation that there is somehow a new "Anglican Church in North America" complete with an "Archbishop-Designate," as you have signed your letters for months, is so troubling to me I am not sure what to pray concerning it. How can those who think, as I do, that only men can be presbyters (the very word means old men) process with priests who are female? You yourself have left no doubt as to where you stand, as you have ordained more and more women , even in recent months. Then there is the problem of multi-married male clergy. The ranks of the new body are filled with them. The late Dr. Peter Toon wrote time and time again about this issue. There are tragic situations where abandonment of married men and contested divorces have taken place, but could there be as many as seems the case with clergy members of the bodies coming together as the "ACNA"? Has the ACNA in formation taken a stand on Abortion? I know individuals have done so, but is there a public stand? Perhaps you have read the Affirmation of St. Louis. The Episcopal Missionary Church did not come into being until 1992 , but has affirmed the Affirmation and asked our friends in the Reformed Episcopal Church to do so only to be told there were things in it which they could not affirm. We have viewed the document as the best available basis for working toward unity, and we find the only thing grievously lacking to be a stated concern about the persecution of people of faith which has accelerated in too much of our world and continues to accelerate today.
I have written about avoiding property disputes since the 1980s. I wrote that as long as the local bishop or Standing Committee of The Episcopal Church or 815 Second Avenue had even one local person to unlock the doors, faithful people would have to see the suffering and exile they felt as an opportunity to show that the Faith was no more about buildings than it was in the days of the Arian heresy. The Christian Challenge magazine published an article called "The Bishops and their buildings" which made clear my position that we should not even press claims or change locks, but should welcome a time of pilgrimage, unfettered by fixing roofs and paying insurance. If God willed it we would be able to build new buildings, and as what we believed was an apostate church collapsed, the bishops might beg us to buy some of the buildings. What a hypocrite I might seem to sit quietly with those who have, in the view of many courts, simply attempted to steal the buildings. The appeal to a law based in the time of the War Between the States, or the American Civil War, to settle church disputes seems to me very ironic if not shameful.
I have not even mentioned that the use of the words The Anglican Church in North America is yet another attempt to steal a "previous-use" title of a church body that may be still in existence. It is not about numbers, it is about integrity. Nor have I mentioned "the elephant in the room" which seems to have provided momentum for your movement . Nor have I mentioned that the lip service given to the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer and the Prayer Book Tradition is just that--lip service. If the truth is told, many of the "new Anglicans" have no interest in traditional liturgy, and sincerely believe that those of us who do must lack a vibrant faith.
These are hard times for many of us. It appears that "celebrity christianity" or the attempt to create news by hype is very much alive, if not well. Hundreds of people will spend thousands of dollars to attend the Bedford Meeting. The American Tradition of having only a "presiding bishop" rather than an "Archbishop" which was already challenged by many small groups since the 1970's will be further weakened. Press releases will be issued which will give the impression that there are now two bodies competing for legitimate claim to be the inheritors of the Anglican Tradition in North America. When I departed the Episcopal Church I tried not to burn the bridges, and I spoke of the many small bodies which already were keeping the flame burning.
Do I think that a tiny body such as The Episcopal Missionary Church should take offense at what you are doing? Please do not read that into this letter. Many sincere people are coming to that meeting, and I have hundreds of friends in Dallas and Ft. Worth who are part of it. Please forgive any offense I may have given in this letter, but know that as long as I too "profess and call my myself a Christian" I must follow my conscience and refrain from appearing to support things which I do not support. I can pray for guidance and wisdom for each person there. There is a parallel and corollated political situation taking place in our country at the present time where anyone who disagrees or dissents with the new political administration is accused of hoping for its failure. Semantics as usual are adding fuel to another type of debate where many cannot and will not wish for policies to succeed that are counter to the core values of its citizens. In broad terms no one wishes ill of policy makers even while one cannot support the policies themselves.
I thank all who have reached out to me over the years as I have worked to serve the Kingdom of God, and I continue to reach out to encourage others. Many people feel insecure if they are not part of a larger group and we are indeed in an era of mega-churches and big government. There is, for many, even though there may be a sacrifice of integrity, a sense of safety in numbers. Christianity, from its earliest days, has found its strongest moments in the smallest of groups and in the actions of individuals. I think we have lost sight of that and in order to reclaim the faith as handed to us by the early church, we should return to our roots and remind ourselves from whence we came.
Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. William Millsaps
Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church
Monteagle, Tennessee
1001 Merchant Street
Ambridge, Pa. 15003
Dear Bishop Duncan,
When I am aware of a meeting of Christians who are gathering for the purpose of prayer and setting forth the mission of Evangelism, I pray that their work will honor God. It was an honor and a privilege to attend GAFCON, and to sign on to be a" confessing Anglican." I pray daily that "all who profess and call themselves Christians" will take seriously their call. I seek no quarrel with anyone who is seeking to live out his or her faith. I value my friendship with those of other Faith-Traditions and spent some time both before and after GAFCON with rabbis and others in Israel at the Yad Vashem, and at the Museum of the Air Force near Beer Sheva. I was also at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. in January, just after the Meeting of Endorsers for Military Chaplains with the Armed Forces Chaplains Board at the Pentagon. I believe the Lord provided an opportunity for me to share some time with some of the Security Guards there at the Holocaust Museum and to thank them for their service. It was also, in my opinion, a kind of miracle that, many years ago, I got to spend a short time with Pope John Paul II and to pray with him. When the first meeting of what became Common Cause was held in Atlanta, years ago, I attended. The Episcopal Missionary Church later became a member of the Federation of Anglican Churches. At this time we are still members of that organization. "Common Cause" from the beginning, before it even had a name, seated women priests as such at the table, and while I always seek to be courteous I could not envision the Episcopal Missionary Church as being in any sense a full member of a body so compromised on an issue that set modernity against the historic Church.
Because of this and many other issues I will not attend the Bedford, Texas meeting, even as an ecumenical observer or guest. I feel I must write you that the whole presentation that there is somehow a new "Anglican Church in North America" complete with an "Archbishop-Designate," as you have signed your letters for months, is so troubling to me I am not sure what to pray concerning it. How can those who think, as I do, that only men can be presbyters (the very word means old men) process with priests who are female? You yourself have left no doubt as to where you stand, as you have ordained more and more women , even in recent months. Then there is the problem of multi-married male clergy. The ranks of the new body are filled with them. The late Dr. Peter Toon wrote time and time again about this issue. There are tragic situations where abandonment of married men and contested divorces have taken place, but could there be as many as seems the case with clergy members of the bodies coming together as the "ACNA"? Has the ACNA in formation taken a stand on Abortion? I know individuals have done so, but is there a public stand? Perhaps you have read the Affirmation of St. Louis. The Episcopal Missionary Church did not come into being until 1992 , but has affirmed the Affirmation and asked our friends in the Reformed Episcopal Church to do so only to be told there were things in it which they could not affirm. We have viewed the document as the best available basis for working toward unity, and we find the only thing grievously lacking to be a stated concern about the persecution of people of faith which has accelerated in too much of our world and continues to accelerate today.
I have written about avoiding property disputes since the 1980s. I wrote that as long as the local bishop or Standing Committee of The Episcopal Church or 815 Second Avenue had even one local person to unlock the doors, faithful people would have to see the suffering and exile they felt as an opportunity to show that the Faith was no more about buildings than it was in the days of the Arian heresy. The Christian Challenge magazine published an article called "The Bishops and their buildings" which made clear my position that we should not even press claims or change locks, but should welcome a time of pilgrimage, unfettered by fixing roofs and paying insurance. If God willed it we would be able to build new buildings, and as what we believed was an apostate church collapsed, the bishops might beg us to buy some of the buildings. What a hypocrite I might seem to sit quietly with those who have, in the view of many courts, simply attempted to steal the buildings. The appeal to a law based in the time of the War Between the States, or the American Civil War, to settle church disputes seems to me very ironic if not shameful.
I have not even mentioned that the use of the words The Anglican Church in North America is yet another attempt to steal a "previous-use" title of a church body that may be still in existence. It is not about numbers, it is about integrity. Nor have I mentioned "the elephant in the room" which seems to have provided momentum for your movement . Nor have I mentioned that the lip service given to the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer and the Prayer Book Tradition is just that--lip service. If the truth is told, many of the "new Anglicans" have no interest in traditional liturgy, and sincerely believe that those of us who do must lack a vibrant faith.
These are hard times for many of us. It appears that "celebrity christianity" or the attempt to create news by hype is very much alive, if not well. Hundreds of people will spend thousands of dollars to attend the Bedford Meeting. The American Tradition of having only a "presiding bishop" rather than an "Archbishop" which was already challenged by many small groups since the 1970's will be further weakened. Press releases will be issued which will give the impression that there are now two bodies competing for legitimate claim to be the inheritors of the Anglican Tradition in North America. When I departed the Episcopal Church I tried not to burn the bridges, and I spoke of the many small bodies which already were keeping the flame burning.
Do I think that a tiny body such as The Episcopal Missionary Church should take offense at what you are doing? Please do not read that into this letter. Many sincere people are coming to that meeting, and I have hundreds of friends in Dallas and Ft. Worth who are part of it. Please forgive any offense I may have given in this letter, but know that as long as I too "profess and call my myself a Christian" I must follow my conscience and refrain from appearing to support things which I do not support. I can pray for guidance and wisdom for each person there. There is a parallel and corollated political situation taking place in our country at the present time where anyone who disagrees or dissents with the new political administration is accused of hoping for its failure. Semantics as usual are adding fuel to another type of debate where many cannot and will not wish for policies to succeed that are counter to the core values of its citizens. In broad terms no one wishes ill of policy makers even while one cannot support the policies themselves.
I thank all who have reached out to me over the years as I have worked to serve the Kingdom of God, and I continue to reach out to encourage others. Many people feel insecure if they are not part of a larger group and we are indeed in an era of mega-churches and big government. There is, for many, even though there may be a sacrifice of integrity, a sense of safety in numbers. Christianity, from its earliest days, has found its strongest moments in the smallest of groups and in the actions of individuals. I think we have lost sight of that and in order to reclaim the faith as handed to us by the early church, we should return to our roots and remind ourselves from whence we came.
Faithfully,
The Rt. Rev. William Millsaps
Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Missionary Church
Monteagle, Tennessee
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
The Importance of Fathers
by Bishop William Millsaps
Well, is it Father’s Day or Fathers’ Day which is coming up this Sunday? I decided to go with the latter because it is not just one father, but the whole idea of “Fathers” that was behind the setting apart of a special time to celebrate fathers. A generation ago it was common to speak of “The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of Man”, but if you did that now you would appear to many to be desirous of a debate, rather than appealing to an irenic thought of how we might all grow closer together. The truth is, that now “sisterhood” is a real word and ‘brotherhood” seems misogynist.
But somehow through the fog we have to come to grips with the reality that there seems to be an innate need for a father, as well as a mother. Few seem to have read Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, This book ought to be required reading for anyone running for public office and certainly for all teachers. Here are a few sentences from the book:
“There are exceptions of course, but here is the rule: boys raised by traditionally masculine fathers do not commit crimes. Fatherless boys commit crimes….” “In fact, fatherlessness has been proven to be the number one factor predisposing someone to criminal activity -- more than poverty, IQ, race, culture or education. Girls who lack the strong influence of a father are much more prone to get involved sexually before they should. They are looking for a male to fulfill that need in their life that their father failed to fulfill. “Many studies confirm that girls who grow up without fathers are at much greater risk for early sexual activity, adolescent childbearing, divorce and lack of sexual confidence.”
In the book Father Hunger the author, Robert S. McGee, points out concerning our human need for fathers, that you can live without good nutrition, but you will pay a price. “If children fail to receive enough love from their fathers, they carry the painful effects for a long time to come -- usually for the rest of their lives.”
It would have been easier for me just to write some cute stories about fathers. I know this article seems depressing. But each of us can have an influence of encouragement toward young and old fathers we know. If we are men we can reach out and try to be better role models and even “stand in the gap”. There is probably someone to whom you can be a listener. If you are a woman, you can affirm those you see are at least trying to be good fathers. We really are in this together.
Well, is it Father’s Day or Fathers’ Day which is coming up this Sunday? I decided to go with the latter because it is not just one father, but the whole idea of “Fathers” that was behind the setting apart of a special time to celebrate fathers. A generation ago it was common to speak of “The Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of Man”, but if you did that now you would appear to many to be desirous of a debate, rather than appealing to an irenic thought of how we might all grow closer together. The truth is, that now “sisterhood” is a real word and ‘brotherhood” seems misogynist.
But somehow through the fog we have to come to grips with the reality that there seems to be an innate need for a father, as well as a mother. Few seem to have read Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, This book ought to be required reading for anyone running for public office and certainly for all teachers. Here are a few sentences from the book:
“There are exceptions of course, but here is the rule: boys raised by traditionally masculine fathers do not commit crimes. Fatherless boys commit crimes….” “In fact, fatherlessness has been proven to be the number one factor predisposing someone to criminal activity -- more than poverty, IQ, race, culture or education. Girls who lack the strong influence of a father are much more prone to get involved sexually before they should. They are looking for a male to fulfill that need in their life that their father failed to fulfill. “Many studies confirm that girls who grow up without fathers are at much greater risk for early sexual activity, adolescent childbearing, divorce and lack of sexual confidence.”
In the book Father Hunger the author, Robert S. McGee, points out concerning our human need for fathers, that you can live without good nutrition, but you will pay a price. “If children fail to receive enough love from their fathers, they carry the painful effects for a long time to come -- usually for the rest of their lives.”
It would have been easier for me just to write some cute stories about fathers. I know this article seems depressing. But each of us can have an influence of encouragement toward young and old fathers we know. If we are men we can reach out and try to be better role models and even “stand in the gap”. There is probably someone to whom you can be a listener. If you are a woman, you can affirm those you see are at least trying to be good fathers. We really are in this together.
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Rabbi: Obama Breeds Climate of Hate Against Jews
By Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz
Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.
It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.
Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.
But this was code.
In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere.
And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.
Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians.
This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
“On the other hand . . . ”?
Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.
At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding.
If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.
The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present.
Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past.
Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery.
“For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.
According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?
At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?
Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”
And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.
In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education.
How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.
Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.”
He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.
But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?
“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Our new president did not tell a virulent anti-Semite to travel to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington to kill Jews, but he is most certainly creating a climate of hate against us.
It is no coincidence that we are witnessing this level of hatred toward Jews as President Barack Obama positions America against the Jewish state.
Just days ago Obama traveled to Cairo, Egypt. It was his second trip in a short time to visit Muslim countries. He sent a clear message by not visiting Israel.
But this was code.
In Cairo, Obama said things that pose a grave danger to Jews in Israel, in America and everywhere.
And if his views are not vigorously opposed they will help create a danger as great as that posed by the Nazis to the Jewish people.
Just last week, Obama told his worldwide audience — more than 100 million people — that the killing of six million Jews during the Holocaust was the equivalent of Israel’s actions in dealing with the Palestinians.
This remark is incredible on its face, an insult to the six million Jews who died as a result of Hitler’s genocide — and it is a form of revisionism that will bode evil for Jews for years to come.
While Obama acknowledged that “six million Jews were killed — more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today” — his discussion about the Holocaust was followed by this statement: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”
“On the other hand . . . ”?
Obama’s clever construct comparing the mass genocide of six million Jews to the Palestinian struggle will not be lost on the estimated 100 million Muslims who tuned into to hear him.
Perhaps it was not lost on James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old white supremacist identified as the alleged attacker Wednesday at the Holocaust Museum. He apparently felt that he could easily take retribution against the Jews for the atrocities Obama implies they are guilty of.
At first blush Mr. Obama’s speech seemed rosy, optimistic — one that espoused tolerance and understanding.
If you scratch the surface it is a dangerous document that history will view as a turning point for America and Israel — one that will lead to dangerous times ahead for both Jews and believing Christians.
The immediate danger posed by Obama’s speech is in its incredible re-writing of the history of Jews, Christians and Muslims from Medieval times to the present.
Obama, continually throughout his speech, talks of Islam’s peaceful intent. And while there are certainly Koranic verses that support this interpretation, Islam has a long and bloody history of violence against fellow Muslims, Jews and Christians.
Has Obama not heard about the Muslim’s violent conquest of the Middle East, Spain and half of Western Europe? Was he never taught that the Crusades sought to turn back this Muslim onslaught that demanded subjugated populations convert or die?
In his almost hour-long speech, there is not a single word about Islam’s well known and checkered past.
Ironically, the American president offered plenty of references to what he sees are America’s evils, such as its “colonialism” and history of slavery.
“For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation,” Obama told his audience, citing a litany of American shortcomings. He failed to mention that Arab Muslims were the greatest slave traders in the history of humanity.
According to Obama, Israelis, too, are guilty of wrongdoing, especially when it comes to their supposed maltreatment of the Palestinians.
Isn’t it odd an American president would go to a foreign country and slander his own country and its long-time ally?
At the same time he praises — unconditionally — a religion and culture that has a long history of being antithetical to the very values that have made America a great nation?
Mr. Obama even has the unbelievable gall, when talking about the treatment of Muslim women, to condemn Western countries for attempting to stop Muslim women from using the full facial cover, or hijab. This is a symbol of Muslim subjugation of women.
Listen to what Obama said: “Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit - for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear.”
And Obama not only ignores the gross subjugation of women in many Arab societies — he does not mention even once the almost total religious intolerance throughout the Muslim world against Christians and Jews.
In his speech, Obama’s only plea for Muslim women living in Muslim countries is that they should be afforded an education.
How about a discussion of the beheading of Arab women for “crimes” such as adultery? How about the malicious treatment of women in Muslim countries who choose not to wear the hijab?
Obama insists that Islam has promoted tolerance and that in Islamic societies such ideals have flourished.
Obama claimed that “as a student of history” he understands more than most the truth about “civilization's debt to Islam.”
He added, “And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
Does he not know that a Jew or Christian would be beheaded in Saudi Arabia for practicing their religion today, now, this minute?
Of course, Obama offers not one example of where religious freedom is truly tolerated in the Muslim world. Yet, he proudly told his audience that in every state of the union and throughout the U.S. there exist more than 1,200 mosques.
But why, Mr. President, is there no Christian Church or Jewish synagogue operating within the borders of Saudi Arabia? Not even one.
Why in many countries, including your host Egypt, Christian churches have suffered vicious and continual persecution? Why is a once vibrant Cairo Jewish community — a home for the likes of Maimonides — today practically extinct?
Why, dear president, has the ancient Christian community in the West Bank and places like Bethlehem been almost completely wiped out by the modern Muslim onslaught?
“On the other hand,” to quote you Mr. President, you avoided mentioning some other truths.
Let’s start with the Israeli Arabs who can claim one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. Indeed, they have more rights than Arabs in any Muslim country, their religious freedom is completely protected, and they even vote in free elections.
Tell me what Muslim country matches Israel’s record in protecting its minorities?
Even Arabs in the West Bank, during the time of Israeli control, saw their standard of living rise dramatically. Today, Arabs there are among the best educated in the world, thanks to Israel.
In your revisionist view, Israel has acted to harm these people. But it was not Israel that could not abide by United Nations resolutions clearly setting borders for both the state of Israel and an entity that had never existed before named Palestine.
You cleverly omitted any discussion of these facts, or the continual attacks against the state of Israel over six decades by its Muslim neighbors. Nor is it the Israelis who persecute from time to time the Coptic Christians of Egypt.
No, Mr. President, I do not accept your assertion that you are seeking religious tolerance or that you are seeking to protect Jews. I do not accept it because you are inventing a false history to fit your own agenda.
Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that you would offer such a distortion of truth in the hopes of creating a lasting peace. A lasting peace cannot be created out of lies, distortions and half truths.
You profess to be a Christian. But you seem more intent on protecting Muslims. In your speech you talked openly of your Muslim heritage, your admiration of their way of life, and so forth. You said in your speech that you have made one of your chief aims of your presidency repairing the image of Islam.
Why did you hide these views from the American public during the recent presidential campaign?
Why, as president, did you fully bow to the Saudi king, who refuses to allow any religious freedom for any Christian or Jew?
You have made clear, by your words and assertions, that you are re-positioning the United States away from Israel, America’s lone democratic ally in the Mid-East.
You have made clear through your statements and those of your minions that Israel should, under no circumstances, prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons.
And yes, you have promised to retaliate against Iran if it ever attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.
But you know full well that if Iran succeeds in its admitted goal of “wiping the Jewish state off the map” — and hits this tiny nation with nuclear warheads — there will be no Israel for the U.S. to retaliate on behalf of.
Some Jews may be naïve, but we are not stupid.
Rabbi Dr. Morton H. Pomerantz is a member of the Reform movement of Judaism and serves as a chaplain for the State of New York. A former Navy and Marine Corps officer and chaplain, he has also served as deputy national chaplain for the Jewish War Veterans of the United States.
© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Monday, 1 June 2009
The Imaginary Wall Between the Church and the State
By Bishop Council Nedd II
What motivated our nation’s Founding Fathers to build such a high wall of separation between church and state?
They didn’t. Like giant alligators living in the sewers and Snapple being owned by the KKK, a constitutional declaration of church-state separation is one of the greatest urban legends of all time.
It is said, however, that if a lie is told enough times it will eventually become the truth. That’s been the unfortunate situation in this case, and the charade has gone on to the extent that legal precedent has been created to shore up the misconception.
In truth, our Founding Fathers had a reverence for religion and never intended for the creation of a ban on religion mixing with policymaking like what the atheists and the groups supporting them such as the ACLU now demand.
The argument alleging the Founding Fathers’ support for a wall between faith and government is actually based on a single letter. Not a constitutional amendment. Not a proclamation or an executive order. Not a law passed by the newborn Congress. Not even an official memo.
Just a private letter.
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association — a religious minority in the predominantly Congregationalist state of Connecticut — sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson asking for his guidance on the topic of religious freedom.
According to Tara Ross and Joseph C. Smith, Jr. in the book Under God, Jefferson “put thought into his response”:
Jefferson probably saw the letter as presenting him with a two-fold opportunity. First, he could strike back at the Congregationalist ministers who had attacked him so ferociously during the 1800 campaign… Second, Jefferson’s views on religious policies differed from those of his contemporaries…
Thus, Jefferson’s response to the Danbury Baptists was a vehicle to promote his own religious policy views, much as he might have sought to advance his own economic policy or his own foreign policy.
However,
With a few strokes of the pen, Jefferson thus became the first American to authoritatively suggest that the First Amendment to the Constitution requires separation between religious and civil entities.
In his letter, Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
It was not the sort of response the Danbury Baptists were seeking or expecting. In fact, they were quite unhappy with Jefferson’s reply. As Ross and Smith wrote:
The Danbury Baptists failed to publicize their receipt of the letter, however, suggesting their disapproval of its contents. The objectionable terminology seems to have been Jefferson’s strong language about “separation between Church and State.” As a religious minority, the Danbury Baptists sought a government that respected freedom of conscience, of course, but they did not want a government that was opposed to religion. To the contrary, as devout Baptists, they believed the positive influence of God on the civic aspects of their lives was as important as his influence on their personal concerns.
Then again, this was just a letter stating his personal opinion. At least that’s what he and the Danbury Baptists might have thought at the time.
It took almost 150 years for Jefferson’s letter to find a welcoming audience. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Court upheld the ability for a public school district to transport local children to both government-run and parochial schools. While this ruling was a victory for church and state working together for the public good, the opinion of the Court, as written by Justice Hugo Black, stated: “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.”
Little “c” on “church.” Big “s” on “State.” And those words are nowhere in the Constitution — only a piece of President Jefferson’s stationery.
Nonetheless, the atheists, agnostics, nontheists and anyone wanting to drive a wedge between America and its Judeo-Christian founding now relies on it as a legal means of justifying their case.
Jefferson was actually raised in the Anglican faith and, according to Rebecca Bowman of the Monticello Research Department, “believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being.”
Furthermore, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church senior minister D. James Kennedy wrote on WorldNetDaily in 2002:
Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.
The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU’s worst nightmare.
It’s also important to note that Jefferson wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention. He wasn’t even in the country at the time. From 1785 to 1789, Jefferson was the American representative to France.
Jefferson was also not a member of Congress during the time that the First Amendment was debated and adopted.
George Washington was someone intrinsically involved in both. As pointed out by Washington biographer Joseph Ellis, Washington is a “central feature in every major event of the revolutionary era.”
Washington was also much more tolerant and accepting of religion and government working together for mutual benefit. As Ross and Smith wrote in Under God:
Washington’s approach to church-state relations differs from Jefferson’s “wall of separation” and the line of modern-day legal decisions that it has spawned. Washington’s perspective on the First Amendment and the Constitution would permit a much more religion-friendly government, even as it emphasized the importance of religious freedom. His imprimatur cannot be seriously questioned — unless one believes that the father of the country, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and served as president during the passage of the First Amendment, misunderstood and indeed violated the Constitution.
Washington viewed America as unique. Its citizens may enjoy the benefits of public religion, while individuals are left free to hold their own religious beliefs.
Furthermore,
During his lifetime of public service, Washington developed a perspective that was more accommodating and encouraging toward religion than the “separation between Church & State” advocated by Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and, more than a century later, adopted by the United States Supreme Court.
Washington noted during his Farewell Address in 1796: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
Additionally, Washington received a letter of his own from another Baptist group and answered in a much less strident tone than Jefferson. It, and another letter to a group of Presbyterians, is not of the sort shared and lauded by proponents of church-state separation.
In May of 1789, the United Baptist Churches of Virginia wrote to Washington with similar concerns as the Danbury Baptists about being a religious minority. They said: “When the constitution [sic] first made its appearance in Virginia, we, as a Society, had unusual strugglings of mind; fearing that the liberty of conscience, dearer to than property or life, was not sufficiently secured.”
Washington replied: “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.”
While his response in that letter did not directly address the relationship of church and state, his letter to the Presbyterian Ministers of Massachusetts and New Hampshire in November of 1789 was more explicit:
[T]he ministers of the gospel [are] to instruct the ignorant, and to reclaim the devious — and, in the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion, and the completion of our happiness.
Washington and Jefferson. Both were integral to our nation’s founding, but their legacies are very divergent when it comes to faith and governing. In reality, however, they are closer than most people are being led to believe.
What motivated our nation’s Founding Fathers to build such a high wall of separation between church and state?
They didn’t. Like giant alligators living in the sewers and Snapple being owned by the KKK, a constitutional declaration of church-state separation is one of the greatest urban legends of all time.
It is said, however, that if a lie is told enough times it will eventually become the truth. That’s been the unfortunate situation in this case, and the charade has gone on to the extent that legal precedent has been created to shore up the misconception.
In truth, our Founding Fathers had a reverence for religion and never intended for the creation of a ban on religion mixing with policymaking like what the atheists and the groups supporting them such as the ACLU now demand.
The argument alleging the Founding Fathers’ support for a wall between faith and government is actually based on a single letter. Not a constitutional amendment. Not a proclamation or an executive order. Not a law passed by the newborn Congress. Not even an official memo.
Just a private letter.
In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association — a religious minority in the predominantly Congregationalist state of Connecticut — sent a letter to President Thomas Jefferson asking for his guidance on the topic of religious freedom.
According to Tara Ross and Joseph C. Smith, Jr. in the book Under God, Jefferson “put thought into his response”:
Jefferson probably saw the letter as presenting him with a two-fold opportunity. First, he could strike back at the Congregationalist ministers who had attacked him so ferociously during the 1800 campaign… Second, Jefferson’s views on religious policies differed from those of his contemporaries…
Thus, Jefferson’s response to the Danbury Baptists was a vehicle to promote his own religious policy views, much as he might have sought to advance his own economic policy or his own foreign policy.
However,
With a few strokes of the pen, Jefferson thus became the first American to authoritatively suggest that the First Amendment to the Constitution requires separation between religious and civil entities.
In his letter, Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.
It was not the sort of response the Danbury Baptists were seeking or expecting. In fact, they were quite unhappy with Jefferson’s reply. As Ross and Smith wrote:
The Danbury Baptists failed to publicize their receipt of the letter, however, suggesting their disapproval of its contents. The objectionable terminology seems to have been Jefferson’s strong language about “separation between Church and State.” As a religious minority, the Danbury Baptists sought a government that respected freedom of conscience, of course, but they did not want a government that was opposed to religion. To the contrary, as devout Baptists, they believed the positive influence of God on the civic aspects of their lives was as important as his influence on their personal concerns.
Then again, this was just a letter stating his personal opinion. At least that’s what he and the Danbury Baptists might have thought at the time.
It took almost 150 years for Jefferson’s letter to find a welcoming audience. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Court upheld the ability for a public school district to transport local children to both government-run and parochial schools. While this ruling was a victory for church and state working together for the public good, the opinion of the Court, as written by Justice Hugo Black, stated: “In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.”
Little “c” on “church.” Big “s” on “State.” And those words are nowhere in the Constitution — only a piece of President Jefferson’s stationery.
Nonetheless, the atheists, agnostics, nontheists and anyone wanting to drive a wedge between America and its Judeo-Christian founding now relies on it as a legal means of justifying their case.
Jefferson was actually raised in the Anglican faith and, according to Rebecca Bowman of the Monticello Research Department, “believed in the existence of a Supreme Being who was the creator and sustainer of the universe and the ultimate ground of being.”
Furthermore, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church senior minister D. James Kennedy wrote on WorldNetDaily in 2002:
Jefferson's presidential acts would, if done today, send the ACLU marching into court. He signed legislation that gave land to Indian missionaries, put chaplains on the government payroll, and provided for the punishment of irreverent soldiers. He also sent Congress an Indian treaty that set aside money for a priest's salary and for the construction of a church.
The real Thomas Jefferson, it turns out, is the ACLU’s worst nightmare.
It’s also important to note that Jefferson wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention. He wasn’t even in the country at the time. From 1785 to 1789, Jefferson was the American representative to France.
Jefferson was also not a member of Congress during the time that the First Amendment was debated and adopted.
George Washington was someone intrinsically involved in both. As pointed out by Washington biographer Joseph Ellis, Washington is a “central feature in every major event of the revolutionary era.”
Washington was also much more tolerant and accepting of religion and government working together for mutual benefit. As Ross and Smith wrote in Under God:
Washington’s approach to church-state relations differs from Jefferson’s “wall of separation” and the line of modern-day legal decisions that it has spawned. Washington’s perspective on the First Amendment and the Constitution would permit a much more religion-friendly government, even as it emphasized the importance of religious freedom. His imprimatur cannot be seriously questioned — unless one believes that the father of the country, who presided over the Constitutional Convention and served as president during the passage of the First Amendment, misunderstood and indeed violated the Constitution.
Washington viewed America as unique. Its citizens may enjoy the benefits of public religion, while individuals are left free to hold their own religious beliefs.
Furthermore,
During his lifetime of public service, Washington developed a perspective that was more accommodating and encouraging toward religion than the “separation between Church & State” advocated by Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists and, more than a century later, adopted by the United States Supreme Court.
Washington noted during his Farewell Address in 1796: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
Additionally, Washington received a letter of his own from another Baptist group and answered in a much less strident tone than Jefferson. It, and another letter to a group of Presbyterians, is not of the sort shared and lauded by proponents of church-state separation.
In May of 1789, the United Baptist Churches of Virginia wrote to Washington with similar concerns as the Danbury Baptists about being a religious minority. They said: “When the constitution [sic] first made its appearance in Virginia, we, as a Society, had unusual strugglings of mind; fearing that the liberty of conscience, dearer to than property or life, was not sufficiently secured.”
Washington replied: “If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the Constitution framed in the Convention, where I had the honor to preside, might possibly endanger the religious rights of any ecclesiastical Society, certainly I would never have placed my signature to it.”
While his response in that letter did not directly address the relationship of church and state, his letter to the Presbyterian Ministers of Massachusetts and New Hampshire in November of 1789 was more explicit:
[T]he ministers of the gospel [are] to instruct the ignorant, and to reclaim the devious — and, in the progress of morality and science, to which our government will give every furtherance, we may confidently expect the advancement of true religion, and the completion of our happiness.
Washington and Jefferson. Both were integral to our nation’s founding, but their legacies are very divergent when it comes to faith and governing. In reality, however, they are closer than most people are being led to believe.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Rest in Peace Rev. Peter Toon
from Vita Toon:
Peter Toon, 1939 – 2009
Peter, son of Thomas Arthur and Hilda Toon, was born in Yorkshire, England, soon after the start of World War II. After him came Paul, David and Christine. He attended Hemsworth Grammar School, Cliff College, Sheffield; King’s College, London; The University of Liverpool and Christ Church, Oxford University. He held three Masters’ degrees and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Oxford.
He was married to Vita for forty-seven years and they have one daughter, Deborah, who lives in California, and is married to Michael, a Naval Officer. Vita is a graduate of London and Oxford Universities, while Deborah is a graduate of Vanderbilt University in Nashville and the University of Texas at Austin.
After teaching religious studies in a College, Peter was ordained in the Church of England in 1973 in the Diocese of Liverpool. Since then he has served in parishes in both England and the U.S.A. and also as a theologian in theological houses in the U.S.A. and in England. In the last decade of his working life, he served the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. as its President and C E O.
Peter wrote and had published over twenty-five books, together with booklets, essays, articles. He also wrote many opinion pieces for the web. He edited Home Words in England from 1985-2001 and The Mandate in the U.S.A. from 1995 to 2008. He was much committed to The Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism, and to the importance of the historical Formularies—Articles, BCP and Ordinal. The woes of the Anglican Communion in recent days much distressed him.
As he died on Saturday, April 25th in San Diego, and as virtually all Vita’s and Peter’s relatives and friends are thousands of miles away, there was no public funeral in California, only a service for the family based on the classic BCP. It is hoped that his remains may be interred in the family grave in Yorkshire.
Peter Toon, 1939 – 2009
Peter, son of Thomas Arthur and Hilda Toon, was born in Yorkshire, England, soon after the start of World War II. After him came Paul, David and Christine. He attended Hemsworth Grammar School, Cliff College, Sheffield; King’s College, London; The University of Liverpool and Christ Church, Oxford University. He held three Masters’ degrees and a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Oxford.
He was married to Vita for forty-seven years and they have one daughter, Deborah, who lives in California, and is married to Michael, a Naval Officer. Vita is a graduate of London and Oxford Universities, while Deborah is a graduate of Vanderbilt University in Nashville and the University of Texas at Austin.
After teaching religious studies in a College, Peter was ordained in the Church of England in 1973 in the Diocese of Liverpool. Since then he has served in parishes in both England and the U.S.A. and also as a theologian in theological houses in the U.S.A. and in England. In the last decade of his working life, he served the Prayer Book Society of the U.S.A. as its President and C E O.
Peter wrote and had published over twenty-five books, together with booklets, essays, articles. He also wrote many opinion pieces for the web. He edited Home Words in England from 1985-2001 and The Mandate in the U.S.A. from 1995 to 2008. He was much committed to The Anglican Way as Reformed Catholicism, and to the importance of the historical Formularies—Articles, BCP and Ordinal. The woes of the Anglican Communion in recent days much distressed him.
As he died on Saturday, April 25th in San Diego, and as virtually all Vita’s and Peter’s relatives and friends are thousands of miles away, there was no public funeral in California, only a service for the family based on the classic BCP. It is hoped that his remains may be interred in the family grave in Yorkshire.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)