ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

COUNTER REFORMATION PROLOGUE


COUNTER REFORMATION PROLOGUE

The Counter Reformation by its very name defines the reaction of the Roman Catholic Church to the REFORMATION primarily sparked via Martin Luther 1483-1546; however he was not the first to challenge the Roman Catholic Church upon philisophical grounds, and had a strategic advantage of having the recently popularized technologies of printing to spread ideas dangerous to the ancient regime; others included John Wycliffe 1328-1384, Jan Hus 1369-1415, William Tyndale 1494-1536, and Primoz Tubar 1508-1586.


Burning Wycliffe's bones, from John Foxe's Book of Martyrs (1563)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe

The Council of Constance declared Wycliffe (on 4 May 1415) a stiff-necked heretic and under the ban of the Church. It was decreed that his books be burned and his remains be exhumed. The exhumation was carried out in 1428 when, at the command of Pope Martin V, his remains were dug up, burned, and the ashes cast into the River Swift, which flows through Lutterworth. This is the most final of all posthumous attacks on John Wycliffe, but previous attempts had been made before the Council of Constance. The Anti-Wycliffite Statute of 1401 extended persecution to Wycliffe's remaining followers. The "Constitutions of Oxford" of 1408 aimed to reclaim authority in all ecclesiastical matters, specifically naming John Wycliffe in a ban on certain writings, and noting that translation of Scripture into English is a crime punishable by charges of heresy.



Jan Hus at the stake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hus

Trial: On 5 June 1415, he was tried for the first time, and for that purpose was transferred to a Franciscan monastery, where he spent the last weeks of his life. He declared himself willing to recant if his errors should be proven to him from the Bible. Hus conceded his veneration of Wycliffe, and said that he could only wish his soul might some time attain unto that place where Wycliffe's was. On the other hand, he denied having defended Wycliffe's doctrine of The Lord's Supper or the forty-five articles; he had only opposed their summary condemnation. King Wenceslaus admonished him to deliver himself up to the mercy of the Council, as he did not desire to protect a heretic.

At the last trial, on 8 June 1415, there were read to him thirty-nine sentences, twenty-six of which had been excerpted from his book on the Church, seven from his treatise against Páleč, and six from that against Stanislav ze Znojma. The danger of some of these doctrines to worldly power was explained to the emperor to incite him against Hus. Hus again declared himself willing to submit if he could be convinced of errors. He desired only a fair trial and more time to explain the reasons for his views. If his reasons and Bible texts did not suffice, he would be glad to be instructed. This declaration was considered an unconditional surrender, and he was asked to confess:

1.that he had erred in the theses which he had hitherto maintained;
2.that he renounced them for the future;
3.that he recanted them; and
4.that he declared the opposite of these sentences.
He asked to be exempted from recanting doctrines which he had never taught; others, which the assembly considered erroneous, he was not willing to revoke; to act differently would be against his conscience. These words found no favorable reception. After the trial on 8 June, several other attempts were made to induce him to recant, which he resisted.[citation needed]

Condemnation: The condemnation took place on 6 July 1415, in the presence of the assembly of the Council in the Cathedral. After the High Mass and Liturgy, Hus was led into the church. The Bishop of Lodi delivered an oration on the duty of eradicating heresy; then some theses of Hus and Wycliffe and a report of his trial were read.

Refusals to recant: An Italian prelate pronounced the sentence of condemnation upon Hus and his writings. Hus protested, saying that even at this hour he did not wish anything, but to be convinced from Holy Scripture. He fell upon his knees and asked God with a low voice to forgive all his enemies. Then followed his degradation — he was enrobed in priestly vestments and again asked to recant; again he refused. With curses his ornaments were taken from him, his priestly tonsure was destroyed, and the sentence was pronounced that the Church had deprived him of all rights and delivered him to the secular powers. Then a high paper hat was put upon his head, with the inscription "Haeresiarcha" (meaning the leader of a heretical movement). Hus was led away to the stake under a strong guard of armed men. At the place of execution he knelt down, spread out his hands, and prayed aloud. Some of the people asked that a confessor should be given to him, but one priest exclaimed that a heretic should neither be heard nor given a confessor.[citation needed]

Execution: The executioners undressed Hus and tied his hands behind his back with ropes, and bound his neck with a chain to a stake around which wood and straw had been piled up so that it covered him to the neck. At the last moment, the imperial marshal, Von Pappenheim, in the presence of the Count Palatine, asked him to recant and thus save his own life, but Hus declined with the words "God is my witness that the things charged against me I never preached. In the same truth of the Gospel which I have written, taught, and preached, drawing upon the sayings and positions of the holy doctors, I am ready to die today."[5] He was then burned at the stake.

Anecdotally, it has been claimed that the executors had some problems scaling up the fire. An old woman came closer to the bonfire and threw a relatively small amount of brushwood on it. Hus, seeing it, then said, "Sancta Simplicitas!" (Holy Simplicity!) This sentence's Czech equivalent ("svatá prostota!", or, in vocative form "svatá prostoto!") is still used to comment upon a stupid action.[citation needed]

Hus' bones were later ordered dug up and burned, and the ashes scattered at sea.


William Tyndale, before being strangled and burned at the stake, cries out, "Lord, open the King of England's eyes". woodcut from Foxe's Book of Martyrs (1563).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

Tyndale determined to translate the Bible into English, convinced that the way to God was through His word and that scripture should be available even to common people. John Foxe describes an argument with a "learned" but "blasphemous" clergyman, who had asserted to Tyndale that, "We had better be without God's laws than the Pope's." Swelling with emotion, Tyndale responded: "I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spares my life, ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost!" [10][11]

Tyndale left for London in 1523 to seek permission to translate the Bible into English. He requested help from Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, a well-known classicist who had praised Erasmus after working together with him on a Greek New Testament. The bishop, however, had little regard for Tyndale's scholarly credentials; like many highly-placed churchmen, he was suspicious of Tyndale's theology and was uncomfortable with the idea of the Bible in the vernacular. The Church at this time did not support any English translation of scripture. Tunstall told Tyndale he had no room for him in his household.[12] Tyndale preached and studied "at his book" in London for some time, relying on the help of a cloth merchant, Humphrey Monmouth. He then left England and landed on the continent, perhaps at Hamburg, in the spring of the year 1524, possibly travelling on to Wittenberg. This seems likely given that the name "Guillelmus Daltici ex Anglia“ (a Latin pseudonym for "William Tyndale from England") was entered at that time in the matriculation registers of the University Wittenberg .[13] At this time, possibly in Wittenberg, he began translating the New Testament, completing it in 1525, with assistance from Observant friar William Roy.

In 1525, publication of the work by Peter Quentell, in Cologne, was interrupted by impact of anti-Lutheranism. It was not until 1526 that a full edition of the New Testament was produced by the printer Peter Schoeffer in Worms, an imperial free city then in the process of adopting Lutheranism.[14] More copies were soon printed in Antwerp. The book was smuggled into England and Scotland, and was condemned in October 1526 by Tunstall, who issued warnings to booksellers and had copies burned in public.[15] Marius notes that the "spectacle of the scriptures being put to the torch" "provoked controversy even amongst the faithful."[15] Cardinal Wolsey condemned Tyndale as a heretic, being first mentioned in open court as a heretic in January 1529.[16]

From an entry in George Spalatin's Diary, on August 11, 1526, it seems that Tyndale remained at Worms about a year. A mystery hangs over the period between his departure from Worms and his final settlement at Antwerp. The colophon to Tyndale's translation of Genesis and the title pages of several pamphlets from this time are purported to have been printed by Hans Luft at Marburg. A clear link is, however, questionable. Hans Luft, the printer of Luther's books, never had a printing-press at Marburg

Around 1529, it is possible that Tyndale went into hiding in Hamburg, carrying on his work. He revised his New Testament and began translating the Old Testament and writing various treatises. In 1530, he wrote The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts. The king's wrath was aimed at Tyndale: Henry asked the emperor Charles V to have the writer apprehended and returned to England. Tyndale made his case in An Answer unto Sir Thomas More's Dialogue. In 1532 Thomas More published a six volume Confutation of Tyndale's Answer, in which he alleged Tyndale was a traitor and a heretic.[17][18]

Eventually, Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips to the authorities, seized in Antwerp in 1535 and held in the castle of Vilvoorde near Brussels.[19] He was tried on a charge of heresy in 1536 and condemned to death, despite Thomas Cromwell's intercession on his behalf. Tyndale "was strangled to death while tied at the stake, and then his dead body was burned".[20] Foxe gives 6 October as the date of commemoration (left-hand date column), but gives no date of death (right-hand date column).[19] Tyndale's final words, spoken "at the stake with a fervent zeal, and a loud voice", were reported as "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."[21] The traditional date of commemoration is 6 October, but records of Tyndale's imprisonment suggest the actual date of his execution might have been some weeks earlier.[22]

Within four years, at the same king's behest, four English translations of the Bible were published in England,[23] including Henry's official Great Bible. All were based on Tyndale's work.
Read more at continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com
 

COUNTER REFORMATION: AN INTRODUCTION


COUNTER REFORMATION: AN INTRODUCTION

Counter-Reformation

Catholic reaction, an ecclesiastical and political movement in Europe in the mid 16th to 17th century that was led by the papacy and that was directed against the Reformation, with the aim of restoring the position lost by Catholicism in several countries during the first half of the 16th century. In essence the Counter-Reformation was one of the manifestations of feudal reaction (embracing not only the economic and political spheres but the ideological as well), the religious form of the “counterattack” of feudal forces attempting to strengthen the feudal system at a time when it had already begun to disintegrate.

The Inquisition, monastic orders, and the Roman curia were the chief instruments of the Counter-Reformation. The Inquisition, reorganized in 1542 into one of the congregations of the Roman curia and placed under the direct authority of the pope, unleashed in the Catholic countries a struggle against progressive ideas, freethinking, science, and all manifestations of Reformation thought (popular movements in the Reformation were persecuted with particular force). G. Bruno and G. Vanini were burned at the stake, and T. Campanella, Galileo, and many other progressive thinkers were subjected to persecution.

The Jesuit Order, created in 1534—40, took the most active part in the Counter-Reformation. With the help of the Jesuits and other forces of Catholic reaction the papacy succeeded at the Council of Trent (1545–63) in obtaining, in particular, recognition of the unconditional authority of the pope in matters of faith, introduction of a strict ecclesiastical censorship, publication of the Index of Forbidden Books, and other measures. The resolutions of the council became something of a program for the Counter-Reformation. The Trent Profession of Faith was adopted, which all ecclesiastics had to sign; any deviation from it was considered heresy and persecuted.

During the Counter-Reformation there were created in Rome a number of educational establishments for the special training of Catholic clergymen, who were sent, above all, to the countries that were the arena for the most intense struggle between the forces of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation (such as Germany, the Netherlands). During the Counter-Reformation the Jesuits seized control of many universities, which in turn became instruments of Catholic reaction. Among the church figures who most zealously waged the Counter-Reformation were Popes Paul III, Paul IV (Cardinal Carafa prior to his election as pope), and Pius IV, as well as Cardinal Carlo Borromeo and the Jesuit P. Canisius.

The Counter-Reformation was not only the work of institutions of the Catholic Church. It was also energetically waged by the secular powers of several countries, including the Hapsburgs in Spain and the so-called Holy Roman Empire, Maximillian of Bavaria, and Sigismund III Vasa in Poland. Supporters of the Reformation were subjected to state persecution; special government edicts were issued that demanded the return of Protestants to the “bosom of the Catholic Church” under the threat of high fines, expulsion from the country, or even execution. One of the manifestations of the Counter-Reformation was the struggle for the return of lands lost by Catholics during the carrying out of the Reformation (publication of the Edict of Restitution of 1629 by Ferdinand II, emperor of the Holy Roman Empire). Under the banner of the Counter-Reformation, Spain waged its struggle against the Dutch bourgeois revolution of the 16th century, and the Hapsburgs suppressed the liberation movement of their subjugated peoples and struggled for the realization of the idea of the creation of a “universal Christian empire” (as during the Thirty Years' War of 1618–48).

Having brought together the forces of feudal reaction, the Counter-Reformation to a certain extent strengthened the position of the papacy and the Catholic Church (having restored Catholicism and suppressed Reformation movements in several countries) and temporarily retarded the onset of the forces of the new, bourgeois society.

REFERENCES
Mikhnevich, D. E. Ocherki po istorii katolicheskoi reaktsii (lezuity). Moscow, 1953.
Lozinskii, S. G. Istoriia papstva. Moscow, 1961.
Brandi, K. Deutsche Reformation und Gegenreformation. Vol. 2:
”Gegenreformation und Religionskriege.” Leipzig, 1930.
The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 3rd Edition (1970-1979). © 2010 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights
reserved.

Read more at continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com
 

COUNTER REFORMATION Original European Theater


COUNTER REFORMATION Original European Theater

About 1560
About 1618
About 2010
Wlodimir Ledochowski- Mission, Motivation, Geopolitical Chessboard
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/wlodimir-vladimir-ledochowski-mission.html
Read more at continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com
 

COUNTER REFORMATION OVERVIEW


COUNTER REFORMATION OVERVIEW

Original European Theater
Countries
Country Leaders
Prologue- Historical Occurrances
Rome's Reaction- buring of heretics as Tyndale and establishing the Jesuit Order
Read more at continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com
 

Internet Access Is Not a ‘Civil Right’

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com
Internet Access Is Not a ‘Civil Right’

When bureaucrats talk about increasing our "access" to x, y or z, what they're really talking about is increasing exponentially their control over our lives. As it is with the government health care takeover, so it is with the newly approved government plan to "increase" Internet "access." Call it Webcare.

By a vote of 3-2, the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday adopted a controversial scheme to ensure "net neutrality" by turning unaccountable Democratic appointees into meddling online traffic cops. The panel will devise convoluted rules governing Internet service providers, bandwidth use, content, prices and even disclosure details on Internet speeds.

The "neutrality" is brazenly undermined by preferential treatment toward wireless broadband networks. Moreover, the FCC's scheme is widely opposed by Congress -- and has already been rejected once in the courts. Demonized industry critics have warned that the regulations will stifle innovation and result in less access, not more.

Sound familiar? The parallels with health care are striking. The architects of Obamacare promised to provide Americans more access to health insurance -- and cast their agenda as a fundamental universal entitlement.

In fact, it was a pretext for creating a gargantuan federal bureaucracy with the power to tax, redistribute and regulate the private health insurance market to death -- and replace it with a centrally planned government system overseen by politically driven code enforcers dictating everything from annual coverage limits to administrative expenditures to the makeup of the medical workforce. The costly, onerous and selectively applied law has resulted in less access, not more.

Undaunted promoters of Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's "open Internet" plan to expand regulatory authority over the Internet have couched their online power grab in the rhetoric of civil rights. On Monday, FCC Commissioner Michael Copps proclaimed: "Universal access to broadband needs to be seen as a civil right ... (though) not many people have talked about it that way." Opposing the government Internet takeover blueprint, in other words, is tantamount to supporting segregation. Cunning propaganda, that.

"Broadband is becoming a basic necessity," civil rights activist Benjamin Hooks added. And earlier this month, fellow FCC panelist Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Congressional Black Caucus leader and Number Three House Democrat James Clyburn of South Carolina, declared that free (read: taxpayer-subsidized) access to the Internet is not only a civil right for every "nappy-headed child" in America, but is essential to their self-esteem. Every minority child, she said, "deserves to be not only connected, but to be proud of who he or she is."

Calling them "nappy-headed" is a rather questionable way of boosting their pride, but never mind that.

Face it: A high-speed connection is no more an essential civil right than 3G cell phone service or a Netflix account. Increasing competition and restoring academic excellence in abysmal public schools is far more of an imperative to minority children than handing them iPads. Once again, Democrats are using children as human shields to provide useful cover for not so noble political goals.

The "net neutrality" mob -- funded by billionaire George Soros and other left-wing think tanks and nonprofits -- has openly advertised its radical, speech-squelching agenda in its crusade for "media justice." Social justice is the redistribution of wealth and economic "rights." Media justice is the redistribution of free speech and other First Amendment rights.

The meetings of the universal broadband set are littered with Marxist-tinged rants about "disenfranchisement" and "empowerment." They've targeted conservative opponents on talk radio, cable TV and the Internet as purveyors of "hate" who need to be managed or censored. Democratic FCC panelists have dutifully echoed their concerns about concentration of corporate media power.

As the Ford Foundation-funded Media Justice Fund, which lobbied for universal broadband, put it: This is a movement "grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies."

For progressives who cloak their ambitions in the mantle of "fairness," it's all about control. It's always about control.

Read more at www.cnsnews.com
 

Keep the FCC Out of the Internet

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com
Keep the FCC Out of the Internet

When the Obama administration first went to the Supreme Court in March 2009 to explain its understanding of the First Amendment, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart said the administration believed the government could prohibit a corporation from bouncing a book off a satellite into someone's Kindle if that communication took place within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election and if the book included words advocating the election or defeat of a candidate for federal office.

"Your position is that under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within ... the 60/30-day period?" asked Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"If the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy," said Stewart.

"And I suppose," said Kennedy, "it could even -- is it the Kindle where you can read a book? I take it that's from a satellite. So the existing statute would probably prohibit that under your view?"

"Well, the statute applies to cable, satellite and broadcast communications," said Stewart.

"Just to make it clear," said Kennedy, "it's the government's position that under the statute, if this Kindle device where you can read a book which is campaign advocacy, within the 60/30-day period, if it comes from a satellite ... it can be prohibited under the Constitution and perhaps under this statute?

"It can't be prohibited, but a corporation could be barred from using its general treasury funds to publish the book and could be required ... to raise funds to publish the book using its PAC," said Stewart.

In other words, the Obama administration believes it can bar a publisher from electronically selling a book via satellite, cable or broadcast media in an election year if the book advocates throwing someone out of Congress or the White House.

To electronically publish such a book in Barack Obama's America, a publishing house would need to start a political action committee and get political contributors to donate money to fund the operation. No capitalism would be allowed in the business of publishing books that call for the defeat of federal officeholders.

As Stewart dug deeper into his explanation of the administration's understanding of the First Amendment, he was eventually interrupted by the ever-sardonic Justice Antonin Scalia.

"I'm a little disoriented here, Mr. Stewart," said Scalia. "We are dealing with a constitutional provision, are we not, the one that I remember which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press? That's what we're interpreting here?

"That's correct," said Stewart.

In this case -- Citizens United v. FEC -- a 5-4 Supreme Court ruled against the administration, which sought to enforce a rule that said a corporation could not sell a pay-per-view movie to a cable television customer if the movie mentioned a candidate in an election season.

"The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech," Chief Justice John Roberts correctly observed in his concurring opinion in the case.

On Tuesday, led by Obama-appointed Chairman Julius Genachowski, the Federal Communications Commission for the first time issued regulations that would arrogate to the FCC the authority to regulate Internet traffic. The regulations come as wolves in sheeps' clothing, purporting to protect consumers from big businesses that would restrict their access to the Web.

But there are two problems with what the FCC is doing: Congress has never given it authority to regulate Internet traffic, and if it is allowed to usurp that authority it will eventually use it to restrict freedom of speech.

When Congress created the Federal Radio Commission in 1927, then converted it into the Federal Communications Commission in 1934, it expressly denied this agency the authority to control speech on the radio.

Henry Bellows, one of the original FRC commissioners, accurately explained its authority in a speech to the League of Women Voters in the year the agency was born.

"Very rightly, Congress has held that the broadcaster shall not be subject to governmental dictation as to the character of the material he sends out, the Federal Radio Commission under present law cannot and will not interfere with any broadcaster's right to control and censor his own programs," said Bellows.

"In that matter, his relations are not with the government, not with the commission, but with you," said Bellows. "It is for you, the listeners, not for us, to censor his programs. It is for you to tell him when he is rendering, or failing to render, real service to the public, and you may be sure that he will listen to your voices."

Thirteen years later, in 1940, in reviewing the broadcast license of the Yankee Network for the Massachusetts radio station WAAB, the FCC ruled that radio stations were forbidden from advocating.

"A truly free radio cannot be used to advocate the causes of the licensee," said the FCC in that case. "It cannot be used to support the candidacies of his friends. It cannot be devoted to the support of principles he happens to regard most favorably. In brief, the broadcaster cannot be an advocate."

What happened between 1927 and 1940? Did Congress increase the authority of federal radio commissioners? No. An all-Democratic government had come into power and had held it for eight years. 1940 was yet another election year, and freedom of speech was not a priority for the incumbent party.

Read more at www.cnsnews.com
 

U.N. Passes Religious ‘Defamation’ Resolution Sponsored by Islamic Nations, But Support Dwindles

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com
U.N. Passes Religious ‘Defamation’ Resolution Sponsored by Islamic Nations, But Support Dwindles
(Update: Adds details of countries that shifted positions this year, plus reaction from the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom)
United Nations

Flags of member nations flying at United Nations headquarters in New York City. (U.N. Photo by Araujo Pinto)

(CNSNews.com) – For the sixth consecutive year, the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday passed a controversial resolution on religious “defamation” sponsored by Islamic nations, but this time, the measure passed by a mere 12 votes.

Lobbying by a broad range of religious freedom and other groups has steadily eroded the vote tally for the resolution each year since 2006, but outright defeat of the measure sponsored by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) remains elusive.

Tuesday’s vote in the 192-member General Assembly passed by 79 votes to 67, with 40 abstentions.

A comparison of voting records provides an indication of which countries were successfully lobbied since last year, when the vote passed 80-61, with 42 abstentions.

The six additional “no” votes in 2010 came from Barbados (which voted for the resolution last year); Argentina, Bahamas, Fiji and Zambia (all of which abstained last year); and the Solomon Islands (which did not vote last year).

One country, Dominica, voted for the OIC resolution in 2009 and abstained this year. Haiti moved the other way, abstaining last year and voting for the measure in 2010.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent statutory body that advises the executive and legislative branches, welcomed the continued decline in support for the “defamation” resolution.

“Each year, more and more countries are recognizing that laws allegedly protecting religions from ‘defamation’ or criticism actually increase intolerance and human rights violations, instead of reducing these problems,” USCIRF chairman Leonard Leo said Wednesday.

“This resolution seeks to divide the international community, rather than building consensus on ways to promote fundamental freedoms,” he added. “Religious intolerance is best fought through efforts to encourage respect for every individual’s human rights, not through national or international anti-blasphemy laws.”

Earlier this month a petition opposing the resolution, signed by 428,856 people from more than 70 countries, was handed to senior U.N. officials in New York City.

It was organized by the Christian religious freedom organization Open Doors USA, which said that the resolution “criminalizes speech and actions deemed to be against a religion.”

Although the OIC argues that the bill promotes tolerance and protects religious freedom, Open Doors said, “it does the exact opposite for Christians, other religious minorities and even Muslims who do not adhere to government-approved versions of Islam. In effect, the resolution is an international blasphemy law.”

The 56-country OIC says that Islam, its teachings and prophet Mohammed are being maligned through prejudice, ignorance or fear.

The OIC’s “Islamophobia Observatory” issues annual reports highlighting incidents such as the Mohammed newspaper cartoons, threats to burn copies of the Qur’an, the alleged profiling of Muslim passengers at airports in the West, and last month’s vote in Oklahoma to amend the state’s constitution to bar judges from considering Islamic law in Oklahoma courts.

OIC inserts ‘Judeophobia, Christianophobia’ into text

The OIC has introduced its religious “defamation” resolution at the General Assembly every year since 2005, and at the U.N.’s top human rights body every year since 1999, when Pakistan introduced it for the first time. It has passed in both forums every time, although with ever-dwindling support.

The 2006 and 2007 General Assembly resolutions passed by a 57-vote margin. That dropped to 33 in 2008, to 19 last year, and now down to 12.

In an attempt to stem that erosion of support, Islamic governments this time made changes to the text, including inserting the words “Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia.” In previous versions Islam was the only religion referred to be name.

Among other changes, a mention of the 9/11 al-Qaeda terrorist assault on the U.S. was removed. (Earlier versions had referred to discrimination against “Muslim minorities following the events of 11 September 2001.”)

Also, the latest text minimized the use of the provocative term “defamation,” exchanging it in many instances with the word “vilification.”  The formal title of the resolution remained unchanged: “Combating Defamation of Religions.”

Also retained in the text was a sentence expressing “deep concern … that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism.”

The run-up to this year’s vote saw attention drawn to a case in Pakistan involving a Christian woman on death row after being convicted of “blaspheming” Mohammed.

Asia Bibi was indicted under Pakistan’s notorious blasphemy laws, which makes insults aimed at Mohammed and the Qur’an crimes punishable by death.

Bibi is appealing her sentence, but the government and legal system are under pressure from Islamists angered by the notion that she may be acquitted or pardoned. One cleric has offered a reward to anyone who kills her.

Reacting to Tuesday’s U.N. vote, the New York-based advocacy group Human Rights First said Bibi’s case was not unique.

“There are scores of cases that provide ample warning of the dangers of enacting a global blasphemy law, which is what this U.N. resolution seeks to do,” it said.

A recent Human Rights First report documented more than 50 cases in 15 countries “where the enforcement of blasphemy laws have resulted in death sentences and long prison terms as well as arbitrary detentions, and have sparked assaults, murders, and mob attacks.”

Tad Stahnke of Human Rights First said Tuesday’s U.N. vote affirms the dwindling support for the religious “defamation” concept.

It was nonetheless “unfortunate for both individuals at risk whose rights will surely be violated under the guise of prohibiting ‘defamation of religions,’ as well as for the standards of international norms on freedom of expression,” he said.

Tuesday’s U.N. meetings did not take place in the usual General Assembly building, which was evacuated because of noxious odors caused by sewage problems attributed to unusually high tides in the East River. The session was moved to a temporary building nearby.

Read more at www.cnsnews.com
 

Judge Orders Federal Government to Pay $2.5M in Wiretapping Case

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com
Judge Orders Federal Government to Pay $2.5M in Wiretapping Case
By Paul Elias, Associated Press

San Francisco (AP) - A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the U.S. government to pay more than $2.5 million in attorney fees and damages after he concluded investigators wiretapped the phones of a suspected terrorist organization without a warrant.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker said the attorneys for the Ashland, Ore., chapter of the now-defunct Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation should receive $2.5 million for waging its nearly five-year legal challenge to the Bush administration's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.

Walker also awarded $20,400 each to Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, two of the foundation's Washington D.C.-based lawyers. They had their phone conversations with Al-Haramain principals monitored, the judge said.

"The system worked," Ghafoor said. "And we really hope that the government lets this stand and writes it off as a bad program from a previous administration.."

Earlier this year the judge found that investigators illegally intercepted the electronic communications without warrants. Government lawyers have refused throughout the litigation to disclose whether investigators eavesdropped, "although the fact of such surveillance is not in doubt," the judge concluded.

The Department of Justice lawyer who defended the program in court for the Bush administration and then the Obama administration, Anthony J. Coppolino, didn't return a phone call late Tuesday.

The judge refused to award any punitive damages, saying the investigators didn't act in bad faith in following the guidelines of the controversial program exposed by the New York Times in 2005.

"The record shows that the government had reason to believe that Al-Haramain supported acts of terrorism and that critical intelligence could be obtained by monitoring Al-Haramain," the judge said.

The Treasury Department froze the assets of the Ashland chapter and declared it a "specially designated global terrorist" on Sept. 9, 2004. Treasury officials believe the Ashland chapter delivered $150,000 overseas to "support terrorist activities by the Chechen mujahideen," the judge concluded.

Pete Seda was convicted in October of tax fraud and conspiracy for helping another official of Al-Haramain smuggle the $150,000 out of the U.S. to Saudi Arabia in 2000. Seda's lawyers are preparing an appeal.

The eavesdropping was initially discovered when Treasury Department officials mistakenly turned over a document to Al-Haramain lawyers that appeared to be a top-secret call log.

Even though lawyers were ordered to give back the document and not rely on it in the lawsuit, they were still able to convince Walker with other evidence that they were warrantless wiretap targets.

Generally, government investigators are required to obtain search warrants signed by judges to eavesdrop on domestic phone calls, e-mail traffic and other electronic communications. But Bush authorized the surveillance program shortly after 9/11, allowing the National Security Agency to bypass the courts and intercept electronic communications believed connected to al-Qaida.

Bush ended the program in January 2007.

Read more at www.cnsnews.com
 

Screening the Credit History of Job Applicants Is Discriminatory, EEOC Says

Amplify’d from www.cnsnews.com
Screening the Credit History of Job Applicants Is Discriminatory, EEOC Says
By Sam Hananel, Associated Press

(AP) - Federal authorities on Tuesday filed a lawsuit against Kaplan Higher Education Corp. for allegedly discriminating against black job applicants by screening the credit history of potential employees.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says the practice of rejecting job seekers based on their credit history has a discriminatory impact on some racial and ethnic groups. The lawsuit alleges that Kaplan's practice is not job-related or justified by business necessity.

The lawsuit seeks lost wages, benefits and offers of employment for people who were not hired because of the company's credit history screening procedures.

Kaplan spokeswoman Michele Pore said the company has a diverse work force and does not discriminate. She said the company conducts background checks on all potential employees, including checking credit histories of applicants whose duties would include financial matters.

The EEOC said it tried to reach a voluntary settlement with Kaplan before filing the lawsuit in federal district court in Cleveland.

Kaplan is a unit of Washington Post Co.

Read more at www.cnsnews.com
 

Must We Believe the Virgin Birth?

The Virgin Mary was an embodiment and symbol of the pure and true church, unlike the Scarlet Harlot (Catholic Church) which is defiled and impure with their pagan practices and traditions of men!

Amplify’d from www.albertmohler.com

Must We Believe the Virgin Birth?

In one of his columns for The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof once pointed to belief in the Virgin Birth as evidence that conservative Christians are “less intellectual.” Are we saddled with an untenable doctrine? Is belief in the Virgin Birth really necessary?

Kristof is absolutely aghast that so many Americans believe in the Virgin Birth. “The faith in the Virgin Birth reflects the way American Christianity is becoming less intellectual and more mystical over time,” he explains, and the percentage of Americans who believe in the Virgin Birth “actually rose five points in the latest poll.” Yikes! Is this evidence of secular backsliding?

“The Virgin Mary is an interesting prism through which to examine America’s emphasis on faith,” Kristof argues, “because most Biblical scholars regard the evidence for the Virgin Birth … as so shaky that it pretty much has to be a leap of faith.” Here’s a little hint: Anytime you hear a claim about what “most Biblical scholars” believe, check on just who these illustrious scholars really are. In Kristof’s case, he is only concerned about liberal scholars like Hans Kung, whose credentials as a Catholic theologian were revoked by the Vatican.

The list of what Hans Kung does not believe would fill a book [just look at his books!], and citing him as an authority in this area betrays Kristof’s determination to stack the evidence, or his utter ignorance that many theologians and biblical scholars vehemently disagree with Kung. Kung is the anti-Catholic’s favorite Catholic, and that is the real reason he is so loved by the liberal media.

Kristof also cites “the great Yale historian and theologian” Jaroslav Pelikan as an authority against the Virgin Birth, but this is both unfair and untenable. In Mary Through the Centuries, Pelikan does not reject the Virgin Birth, but does trace the development of the doctrine.

What are we to do with the Virgin Birth? The doctrine was among the first to be questioned and then rejected after the rise of historical criticism and the undermining of biblical authority that inevitably followed. Critics claimed that since the doctrine is taught in “only” two of the four Gospels, it must be elective. The Apostle Paul, they argued, did not mention it in his sermons in Acts, so he must not have believed it. Besides, the liberal critics argued, the doctrine is just so supernatural. Modern heretics like retired Episcopal bishop John Shelby Spong argue that the doctrine was just evidence of the early church’s over-claiming of Christ’s deity. It is, Spong tells us, the “entrance myth” to go with the resurrection, the “exit myth.” If only Spong were a myth.

Now, even some revisionist evangelicals claim that belief in the Virgin Birth is unnecessary. The meaning of the miracle is enduring, they argue, but the historical truth of the doctrine is not really important.

Must one believe in the Virgin Birth to be a Christian? This is not a hard question to answer. It is conceivable that someone might come to Christ and trust Christ as Savior without yet learning that the Bible teaches that Jesus was born of a virgin. A new believer is not yet aware of the full structure of Christian truth. The real question is this: Can a Christian, once aware of the Bible’s teaching, reject the Virgin Birth? The answer must be no.

Nicholas Kristof pointed to his grandfather as a “devout” Presbyterian elder who believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” Follow his example, Kristof encourages, and join the modern age. But we must face the hard fact that Kristof’s grandfather denied the faith. This is a very strange and perverse definition of “devout.”

Matthew tells us that before Mary and Joseph “came together,” Mary “was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit.” [Matthew 1:18] This, Matthew explains, fulfilled what Isaiah promised: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name ‘Immanuel,’ which translated means ‘God with Us’.” [Matthew 1:23, Isaiah 7:14]

Luke provides even greater detail, revealing that Mary was visited by an angel who explained that she, though a virgin, would bear the divine child: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy child shall be called the Son of God.” [Luke 1:35]

Even if the Virgin Birth was taught by only one biblical passage, that would be sufficient to obligate all Christians to the belief. We have no right to weigh the relative truthfulness of biblical teachings by their repetition in Scripture. We cannot claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and then turn around and cast suspicion on its teaching.

Millard Erickson states this well: “If we do not hold to the virgin birth despite the fact that the Bible asserts it, then we have compromised the authority of the Bible and there is in principle no reason why we should hold to its other teachings. Thus, rejecting the virgin birth has implications reaching far beyond the doctrine itself.”

Implications, indeed. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, who was His father? There is no answer that will leave the Gospel intact. The Virgin Birth explains how Christ could be both God and man, how He was without sin, and that the entire work of salvation is God’s gracious act. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, He had a human father. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, the Bible teaches a lie.

Carl F. H. Henry, the dean of evangelical theologians, argues that the Virgin Birth is the “essential, historical indication of the Incarnation, bearing not only an analogy to the divine and human natures of the Incarnate, but also bringing out the nature, purpose, and bearing of this work of God to salvation.” Well said, and well believed.

Nicholas Kristof and his secularist friends may find belief in the Virgin Birth to be evidence of intellectual backwardness among American Christians. But this is the faith of the Church, established in God’s perfect Word, and cherished by the true Church throughout the ages. Kristof’s grandfather, we are told, believed that the Virgin Birth is a “pious legend.” The fact that he could hold such beliefs and serve as an elder in his church is evidence of that church’s doctrinal and spiritual laxity — or worse. Those who deny the Virgin Birth affirm other doctrines only by force of whim, for they have already surrendered the authority of Scripture. They have undermined Christ’s nature and nullified the incarnation.

This much we know: All those who find salvation will be saved by the atoning work of Jesus the Christ — the virgin-born Savior. Anything less than this is just not Christianity, whatever it may call itself. A true Christian will not deny the Virgin Birth.

Originally posted December 8, 2006. Reprinted by request.
Read more at www.albertmohler.com