Obama Prevents World War.

With our differences in opinion, it's not often that I compliment President Obama.
OK, well, I guess I've never given him a compliment, but, you know, I believe in giving the Devil his due, so to speak and when Obama does something right, then, by gosh, I need to point it out.

It was from this very important news story that I learned of the President's solving the world crisis brought about by Pastor Terry Jones' plan to burn the Qur'an on September 11th.

I am urging everyone to follow the link to the story on I.N.N.. Maybe this will earn Obama a second Noble Peace Prize.

More Thoughts on Burning the Qur'an.

Prior to writing yesterday's post ,I went to the website for Terry Jones' Dove World Outreach Center to get his take on burning the Qur'an. I had read innumerable articles voicing criticism of Dr. Jones and I wanted to get his side of the story.

While visiting the website, I sent an email to Jones - pointing out something which he may not have been aware of. As I told him, translated versions of the Qur'an (or Koran, as he puts it) are not considered to be the Qur'an by devote Muslims. An English translation, for example, is not the Qur'an ..... that book would be referred to as "the meaning of the Qur'an". For it to be considered authentic, the book must be written in Arabic. I explained to Dr. Jones, that should he wish to actually burn a Qur'an, he must use a copy written in Arabic.

I have no idea what, if any, reaction Jones had to this tidbit.

I went back to the Dove World Outreach Center website this morning only to find that the website is down.




Did it crash? Was it hacked or did Jones and his group take the site down intentionally? I doubt if Jones had anything to do with the removal of his website. He obviously likes the attention he's getting.

President Obama - who is not a Muslim, by the way - has now come out against the planned burning.


In an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Mr Obama called Jones' "stunt" a "recruitment bonanza" for al-Qaeda. Obama went on the say that, should Jones carry out his threat, it would endanger American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as innocent individuals in Pakistan. Obama worries that this could increase the recruitment of individuals who are willing to blow themselves up in American or European cities. The President said that Jones is engaging in a destructive act.

How can this be? We all know that Islam is a Religion of Peace. Is the President suggesting that Muslims would kill innocent people because of the actions of another individual? I do not recall Obama, or Hillary Clinton or Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair speaking out so forcefully when P.Z.Myers (a professor at the University of Minnesota Morris) pledged to desecrate the Eucharist. Are they telling us that Muslims would react more violently than Catholics would under these circumstances?

Tell me it ain't so.

On Burning The Qur'an.

It was a few weeks back that I first learned from an article in the National Catholic Register of Dr. Terry Jones and his Dove World Outreach Center and their plan to burn a copy of the Qur'an this upcoming September 11th. Since reading this article, I have been of two minds as to what the proper response should be.

From news reports, it appears that Dr. Jones is not a popular man. His Qur'an burning day is being criticized by not just thousands of Muslims in Indonesia but seemingly everyone else from the Vatican to, so-called, "prominent Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders in the U.S." to Attorny General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Even Angelina Jolie is upset over the "Koran-Burning Plan".

Dr.Jones is, however, determined to go ahead as scheduled even in the face of fierce condemnation. On his website, Jones gives 15 reasons why the book should be burned (10 plus 5). To my mind, two of his more convincing arguments are that the truth about the nature of Islam needs to be exposed and the world must be forced into action.

The two main arguments against the burning are along the lines of Clinton's argument that burning the Qur'an is a "disrespectful, disgraceful act" and General David Petraeus' belief that the book burning will endanger U.S. troops in Muslim countries.

Naturally, one cannot help but compare this with the uproar over the proposed building of the Mosque near Ground Zero. Those calling for Muslims to be sensitive towards the feelings of those who had family die in the September 11th terrorist attack and those who are calling for Christians to be sensitive toward Muslims and the Qur'an don't appear to be the same group of people. Those who are advocating for the Muslims' Constitutional Right to put up a place of worship where ever they want are not advocating for Dr. Jones Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speech.

Years ago, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) gave away copies of the Qur'an in an attempt to improve Islam's image in America. I requested a copy and did my best to plow through the rather dull and monotonous work. In the end, I decided that I did not want a copy of the book in my house. Falling prey to "political correctness", I was, for a time, unsure of what I should do with my copy. Would simply tossing the book in the trash be disrespectful and disgraceful? One particularly hard core Protestant I know suggested that I burn the book and put a video of the burning on my blog. I finally decided that unceremoniously throwing the book into the dumpster was the proper method of disposing of it. The book is not worthy of my respect (notice, I do not refer to it as the Holy Qur'an), but discretion being the better part of valor, I did not wish to call down Jihadists upon my head.

Another Christine Judd Supporter Gets It Wrong.

One has to wonder how someone who possesses, what he himself describes as, a "religiously undereducated mind" could possibly write an article entitled "How the Springfield Diocese could have held to its principles and retained Athletic Director Christine Judd" and seriously expect the article to be anything other than religiously undereducated drivel. Oddly, that's the case with sports writer Scott Coen in his recent opinion piece on masslive.com.

Anyone unfamiliar with the story of Christine Judd, who was fired from her job as the athletic director at Cathedral High School after it came to the attention of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts that Ms. Judd had "married" her female partner in August, can get up to speed by reading my post from Sunday.

In Coen's article, he relates how he believes the Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts could have avoided what he sees as a poor PR maneuver. Coen maintains that the Diocese could have continued to employ Ms Judd, in spite of her having, in the words of the diocese code of conduct from its employee handbook, by public example, engaged in conduct, which contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Church. In other words, Coen believes the Diocese could have simply ignored the whole thing.

To illustrate his point, Coen tells a story of how he and his wife had asked Bishop Joseph Maguire to offer a prayer at their renewal of vows ceremony at the Dr.Suess Memorial. Bishop Maguire, according to Coen's story, explained that he could not do that because Coen's marriage was not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. Coen, a baptized Catholic, had married a non-Catholic, "on the cliffs beside a lighthouse in Maine" by a Justice of the Peace and not by a priest in accordance with canon law. Coen claims that, prior to his conversation with Bishop Maguire, he had no clue that his marriage was invalid in the eyes of the Church. The Bishop did, however, drop by the reception to say hello.

I've read over Coen's article several times and for the life of me, I can't fathom why he believes the story of his encounter with the Bishop illustrates how the Diocese could have followed Catholic teaching and have allowed Judd to remain at Cathedral High School. Coen's solution seems to be the same as nearly every other supporter of Judd in this case; the Church should ignore her own teaching and simply look the other way. As I wrote Sunday, to folks like Coen, codes of conduct and religious teachings mean absolutely nothing.

Coen was right about one thing; he does have a "religiously undereducated mind". It is for that reason, Coen should avoid giving his opinion on religious matters. As a fan of Dr.Suess, perhaps Coen should stick to writing fantasy.

Athletic Director Fired after Same-sex "Marriage".

Google the name Christine Judd and you'll come across a never ending number of stories dealing with Ms. Judd being fired from her job as the athletic director at Cathedral High School after it came to the attention of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts that Ms. Judd had "married" her female partner in August. You'll be hard pressed to find any articles, however, that support the decision of the Diocese. Most will, like this piece from masslive.com and this update on that story, do their best to slam the Diocese and put the teachings of the Church in a bad light.

Many of the stories will include a portion of the diocese code of conduct from its employee handbook that states, in part:

“Whenever, by public example, an employee engages in or espouses conduct, which contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Church, such employee may, at the sole discretion of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Springfield, be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.”

Many of these writers expect the Diocese to overlook its code of conduct and allow Ms. Judd to continue working at Cathedral High School. Codes of conduct and religious teachings mean absolutely nothing to these folks.

In one particular article, Judd was quoted as saying, “I married my partner this summer. I was hoping that my loyalty, my professionalism the last 12 years would supersede the current hypocrisy that has already been shown with the Diocese of Springfield.”

What is that "current hypocrisy" of which Judd spoke?

"Asked to elaborate on her claim of hypocrisy, Judd said she questions if there are lay persons who work for the Catholic diocese who divorce and remarry without an annulment, or employees who use birth control, or men who have had vasectomies, or individuals who are pro-choice on abortion."

Does Judd have a point?

Judd had been working for the school for 12 years. I cannot speculate on whether it was known during those 12 years that she was a lesbian. Being a homosexual is not considered a sin by the Church....it is the homosexual act that is considered a sin. If, in those 12 years, it had been known that Judd was lesbian, this could be overlooked if there was no indication that she was not celibate. An unmarried, heterosexual woman would have been expected to be celibate as well. Judd was not fired for being homosexual, but was fired for "marrying" her lesbian partner thereby making public her non-celibate, homosexual lifestyle.

Would the Diocese fire male teachers who have had vasectomies? Generally speaking, the Diocese would be unaware of which male school employees have had vasectomies; there wouldn't be any sort of witch hunt for these men. However, I'm sure that if a male teacher who had had a vasectomy, had made it a point to "go public" in some way then the Diocese would have fired him as well. Writing an article in a newspaper or blog, announcing that he had a vasectomy and that he believed the Church's teaching on vasectomies is in error, would probably cause a male employee to get fired too.

The same would apply for employees who use birth control or individuals who are pro-choice on abortion. If the Diocese was unaware, then there is little that could or would be done. Publicly advocating birth control or abortion would be a different matter.

Those accusing the Church of hypocrisy are overlooking a key phrase: "by public example".
It's perfectly feasible that more than one employee is engaging in behavior which "contravenes the doctrine and teaching of the Church", but if the Church and/or the students of the school are not aware of said conduct then, of course, there is little danger of that employee losing his or her job.

An article on the WWLP website, states that "Dozens of students and friends of Christine Judd came out to St. Michael's Cathedral to protest her resignation." This should give pause to parents who believe a Catholic education necessarily turns out Catholics who understand and follow Church teachings.

Like Judd, one senior at the school, who supports her, mentioned people working for the school who are divorced. Being divorced isn't against Church policy.......the Church understands that divorce is sometimes necessary. What is not allowed is remarriage in the Church after a civil divorce. Is the divorced teacher remarried? That would contravene the doctrine and teaching of the Church, but simply being divorced would not.