Earlier today, Pope Benedict XVI expressed support for the beatification of Pope Pius XII. This is raising eyebrows in some media circles. After all, Pope Pius XII has been the frequent target of Church opponents, like John Cornwell, who claim that he did not do enough to protect Jews during the Holocaust. This is false. As Pope Benedict explained today, Pius XII did speak out against the Holocaust while it happened:

“With a voice broken with emotion, he deplored the situation of ‘hundreds of thousands of persons, who, for no fault of their own, only for reason of nationality or ethnic roots, were destined for death or for steady deterioration,’ with clear reference to the deportation and extermination carried out against Jews,” Pope Benedict said quoting from the speech.

Now it’s true that Pius XII could have been more open in his words and in the decisions he made, but what church opponents often fail to consider (which is easy to do in hindsight) is the delicate balancing act Pius had to perform. Again, Pope Benedict:

Pius XII “often acted in a secret and silent way precisely because, given the concrete situations of that complex historic moment, he knew intuitively that only in this way he could avoid the worse, and save the biggest number possible of Jews,” he said.

With the Vatican and other Church institutions surrounded by a fascist military, action seen as too forceful could have led to military crackdown that would have endangered Jewish people. Pope Pius’ critics never seem to mention that Pius XII secretly ordered Catholic convents across Nazi-occupied territory to hide Jewish people from those who would send them to concentration camps. His critics are also silent on the fact that Pope Pius rarely visited his summer residence because he was hiding thousands of Jewish people there. There are many more facts that seem to have slipped the minds of Pius’ opponents. Rabbi David Dalin has an excellent piece on the many facts those who slander Pius choose to ignore.

It’s a shame when dishonest rewrite history to slander those who work for and accomplish good in the world. Thankfully there are Jewish leaders like Rabbi Dalin correcting the record. Thankfully, the current Pope is a man who never flinches in conveying what is.

If your interested in a more in-depth look at Dalin’s take on Pope Pius, check out his book on the subject: “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis.”

UPDATE: I just learned a lesson.  When referring to a book, make sure to look at its cover rather than Amazon’s description.  Sorry for the error.  Post now reflects the correct title of Dalin’s book.  Special thanks to In Partibus Infidelium for catching my mistake. 

Reuters photo

I got an email this morning highlighting the Book of Revelation’s take on the 2008 Election, and Sarah Palin in particular.  Here’s a quote from Revelation 14: 9-11.

“(9) And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, (10) he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. (11) And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.”

Here’s what I got from an email forward this morning:

“And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive a plain rash in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.”

The sign of the end times is this:  if you rearrange the letters of ”a plain rash“, one outcome is “Sarah Palin“!  Rapture, here we come! 

These people are getting a little crazed out there!  Plus, I’m not sure God would be the one having trouble with a pro-life, pro-family candidate.

Yesterday was “Pulpit Freedom Sunday:” a time when 32 pastors across 22 states decided to test the separation between church and state against the IRS and judicial interpretation that certain speech is political, and thereby if spoken forom the pulpit would risk the tax-exempt status of the church in question.  The Alliance Defense Fund want to get the state out of religion and away from the pulpit. 

As it turns out, the 54-year-old law being challenged was actually initially proposed by Texas Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. 

The “wall of separation between church and state” line most heavily quoted from Thomas Jefferson was actually penned in 1802 thanking the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, for their support of Jefferson in the tight 1800 election.  Jefferson’s point was to assuage the Danbury Baptist’s fears that a state religion would hamper their ability to practice what is clearly their First Amendment rights against the entrenched Congregationalists in CT.

Religion has long been infused with politics, and remains so even today in many churches around the country (Reverend Wright anyone?).  I agree with the Pulpit Initiative in that churches should be allowed to identify those who agree or disagree with their point of view.  It should be protected speech, rather than a target for the IRS.

Here’s the First Amendment. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Notice the highlighted phrase. Is the IRS ‘prohibiting the free exercise” of religion by threatening pastors who identify candidates whose positions are abhorrent to that faith’s fundamental beliefs?  I think the Pulpit Initiative and the conservative Alliance Defense Fund have a case against the meddlesome IRS.

Gordon Brown has drawn up an interesting proposal that would allow Catholics to sit on the English throne for the first time in over 300 years.  Presumably, people from other currently excluded faiths would also be eligible to wear the crown as well. Given the decline of Anglican Church attendance, the increase in Catholic Church attendance, and growth of Islam in Londonistan however, it isn’t entirely clear whether the next non-Anglican monarch would be a spiritual heir of King James II and Queen Mary I or something along the lines of a sultan.

The reform would also change the line of succession to make the monarch’s eldest child the next in line, regardless of gender.

If this passes, the UK may also need to reconsider the concept of state religion.

Despite the so-called “Wall of Separation” between Church and State, religion always plays a part in our nation’s politics, as many issues stem from people’s view of the world, which is often formed in large part by faith.  Religions faith touches the core of a human being;  it is a way of looking at the world, and therefore it is inevitable that it forms a person’s ideas on policy and current events. 

A person’s ”religion” can be anything from Catholicism, to Evangelical, to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and even Atheism, Materialism, and Agnosticism.  All of these religions — whether traditional spiritually-based, modern materially-based or belief in no God whatsoever — are based on a faith in something that cannot be proven, but that touches the core of the person’s beliefs. 

It is important to note that religions people are not monolithic;  Catholics, for example, are not more or less likely to vote Democrat or Republican because they are Catholic.  Rather, a better indicator is church attendance.  Polling data suggests that Practicing Christians are more likely to vote Republican than non-practicing Christians, primarily because of the issue of Abortion, but also because of other Christian-values issues.  

In the election of 2008, religion is again playing an important role.  As usual, the media is displaying its anti-Christian bias, such as during the interview of Sarah Palin and Charlie Gibson.  Gibson could not understand Sarah Palin’s prayer that we as Americans would follow God’s plan.  Palin did not mean that we were following His plan, but that we should pray that we always follow God’s plan.  Gibson’s response, asking her if she believed we were fighting a Holy War, shows his profound misunderstanding of Christian belief.  Yet millions of Americans who saw the interview knew exactly what she meant. 

Next Week, Obama will try to pander to Christian voters, by engaging on a “Faith Tour.”  The tour, entitled “Voting ALL Our Values” tries to make the point that Obama and company are more in-line with the Christian faith than the Republicans.  This type of pandering will not fly with many Christians and Catholics.  Since 2004, the Democrats have tried to appeal to the so-called “Values Voters”, to no avail.  Obama’s stances on the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, among other issues, make it impossible for many Christians to support Obama. 

In 2004, core values played a major part in the re-election of George W. Bush.  In 2008, religion will again play a major role in the election.  It remains to be seen just how large of an impact it will have, but suffice to say, almost everyone will vote partly based on their religions beliefs, whether they want to admit it or not.

Just when they’ve been a little bit quiet lately, one of the old world-jihad ilk has come up with this: ”Satan’s soldier” himself, Mickey Mouse must be killed “in all cases” under shariah law according to Sheikh Muhammad Munajid, a former Saudi diplomat in Washington DC. 

Why, you ask? 

Because mice are impure creatures and should be killed, even the cartoon ones.  Positively portraying mice, as Disney does (in the face of shariah law, mind you) is corrupting our youth. Tsk tsk, all of you, tsk tsk.

But think about this…

Loveable al Aqsa children’s show mouse, Farfur, is already dead. 

Very tragic. 

“What next?” we thought.  “How can they top that craziness?” we pondered.  “Where do we go from here?” they pined.

Well, now we know – Mickey Mouse is the next target of jihad! 

Pic from the American Conservative.

Over the past year, many sharia court decisions in the UK have been backed by the force of law. The legal justification is an Act of Parliament which permits courts to enforce arbitration decisions. On the surface, this justification is nothing extraordinary. Many legal systems, including our own, look favorably upon and even encourage alternative dispute resolution. What’s happening in the UK however is not your typical arbitration system.

The types of cases approved by British courts have included not only your run of the mill contract case, but also divorce, inheritance, and even domestic violence cases. Many Brits were outraged earlier this year when the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed that the imposition of Sharia Law was inevitable. I suspect that those who have noticed and bemoaned Britain’s lax attitude toward Islamic extremism in their midst will have a similar reaction to this latest revelation.

I’d like to think Gordon Brown would have something to say about the unprecedented parallel legal system that emerged on his watch. Then again, that might be expecting too much from a Labour Prime Minister who refuses to identify his nation’s enemy and can’t even hold Glasgow East.

Gianna Jessen, survivor of a botched saline abortion on April 6, 1977, and her story are showcased in the recently launched ”Born Alive Truth” website with the help of Jill Stanek. 

The site and the campaign are highlighting Obama’s horrid position on the Illinois Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which he did NOT support — that’s beyond pro-choice and into just plain sick. 

I heard an ad on the Sean Hannity Show  today, along with his interview with Gianna Jessen herself.  Both were very powerful and really brings this point home.  She’ll be interviewed on Hannity and Colmes tonight as well.

UPDATE:  Here’s the ad mentioned above:

She’s 17 and has got a lot of growing up to do! 

Bristol Palin is having a baby and will do the right thing and shortly marry the father.  Sarah and Todd have indicated that the press should respect the historical privacy of the candidate’s children and stay out of this ordeal.  The One agrees.  The Palins have a positive attitude and will be supportive of their oldest daughter and her soon-to-be-husband… given Sarah Palin’s history with guns, this gives new meaning to the term ”shotgun wedding.”

Elated Libs just don’t get it.  Some of the conspiracy theories and allegations on the blogosphere are terrible and I will not post a link to them out of respect and tact. 

To be frank just because Bristol is pregnant, doesn’t mean Conservatives will abandon her mom, nor does it mean Palin’s not Conservative, nor will Conservatives lose respect for her.  That Bristol is getting married, keeping the baby, and is still embraced by her parents are all things consistent with Conservative values.  Remember, the Family Values crowd also believes that we’re all sinners and need the guidance of Jesus’ teachings to help us through life’s tribulations.  This whole issue doesn’t exemplify model behavior, but given the situation, this shows the Palins are ready to face life’s challenges, while showing themselves to be good people dealt a difficult hand.

Reuters photo.

Reason #314 why I will not be voting for a Democrat any time soon:  former DNC Chairman, Don Fowler was giddy with the notion that the deadly Category 4 Hurricane Gustav (as of this writing anyway– it could go up to Cat 5 by landfall) is timed so well with the Republican National Convention that it just “demonstrates that God’s on [their] side.”  Comic Book Guy himself, Michael Moore has echoed these statements too, saying that this is proof there is a God.  But we except as much from him, plus Moore’s not a political leader.

Both links have videos which made me angry given that it is a certainty that lives will be lost, people are already displaced, and suffering will ensue despite whatever political ramifications the Dems think this will all have.

If you’re going to bring up God, here’s a letter which in my opinion has its heart in the right place.  Yet, why do these Dems become so unabashed about invoking God when a deadly hurricane destined to take some lives and destroy homes coincides in what they think is great political theater?  They must have quite a warped view of God (but that’s reason #26 why I won’t be voting for a Democrat any time soon).  The balloons not dropping on cue when Kerry finished his 2004 acceptance speech was great political theater, but cheering a deadly monster storm is just sick.  I’m waiting for the McCain campaign to tactfully pounce on this one.

Map from NOAA.

Last evening, the evangelical mega-church, Saddleback Church, had a “civic forum” with the candidates to discuss issues Pastor Rick Warren wished to hear about.  It was not a debate in the usual sense.  The format was excellent: about 50 minutes a piece, one candidate at a time using the same questions with the same audience for roughly the same amount of time without hearing how the other responded.  On a coin flip, Obama went first followed by McCain.

There is a sense that McCain looked strong and decisive, while Obama looked measured and at ease.  I didn’t watch the whole thing.  I popped in here and there.  I thought McCain looked good and answered with authority.  Everyone knows Obama can speak, so McCain’s performance beat the lowered expectations… that concept helped get Bush two terms!  McCain’s not my favorite politician (even slightly misquoting Reagan’s “[take] down this wall!” remark), but he did not hurt himself at all in this event.  In fact, I agree with those who say that he even won.

Much of the “analysis” afterwards on the cable networks dealt with the potential gaffes.  In my opinion, Obama had the biggest gaffe of the night on the issue of abortion:  he really did utter the phrase “above my pay-grade” in response to a question about his opinion as to when unborn babies should get legal protection?  I guess until he’s President, right, then he’ll be paid enough?  The Empty Suit strikes again!

What a ridiculous answer and one which will hurt him with evangelicals and pro-life Catholics!  To all those who doubt: life begins at conception — that’s not a political opinion or a moral issue, it’s a scientific fact.  That is a premise on which we all should agree.  Politics and policy come next and everyone’s opinion matters.   McCain handled it right and his pro-life beliefs make him the choice for evangelicals in this election.  Obama will not sway the one-issue pro-life voters into voting for Obama-style social welfare (which they like), when Obama is openly pro-choice.

LA Times photo.

Isaac Hayes is the second significant entertainer to die in the last three days!  Well-known for his work on the Shaft soundtrack and as the voice of “Chef” on South Park, Hayes was found dead near his treadmill at about 1pm today in Memphis, Tennessee.  He was 65.

Hayes was a highly influential, Grammy-winning musician whose impact stretched across the decades and music genres.  He was inducted into the Rock n’ Roll Hall of Fame in 2002 and won an Oscar for the Shaft Soundtrack in 1971.  He eventually quit South Park because SP railed on Christians a bit too much for Hayes, (it’s true, SP farcically loves hitting Christians, especially Mormons and often Catholics too) who was a Scientologist. 

Entertainer, songwriter, and civil rights activist Isaac Hayes will be sorely missed.

AP photo

Of course, Hamas is the instigator here, shaving the mustaches of Fatah prisoners or dissodents in public in order to humiliate them.  I know the whole cultural thing about facial hair in that part of the world, but I would not be surprised if lack of a mustache could get you killed in Gaza one day. 

A few questions come to mind, however:  before performing jihad and getting to rape those afterlife virgins, isn’t it prescribed that one shaves off any excess hair?  Could (by some interpretation) facial hair be considered “excess” hair in that regard?  If so, doesn’t this act put these members of Fatah on a fast track to wear that snug and hardly-noticeable suicide belt faster than those Hamas folks could, say, if they wanted to blow up Jews or Hamas members?  And ultimately, isn’t that an unfair advantage which could backfire on Hamas one day?  If that all follows, I’m not sure Hamas quite thought this renewed policy through fully. 

Either way, sarcasm aside, there seems something very 7th Century about this whole thing.  It is clear that Fatah, by cooperating with Israel and the West, is in a much better position to achieve independence than Hamas, who continues to be violent obstructionists with their sights set squarely on the mustaches of their enemies for the purpose of humiliation and degradation.  I just don’t think that’s a winning strategy in the long-run. 

Reuters photo.

The latest piece from Times Online editor, American Gerard Baker, first came to my attention about an hour ago and it’s a doozy! 

His latest op-ed is absolutely awesome.  Baker takes the media’s open desire to make Barack Obama the Savior/Messiah and completely pokes fun at those who have this view (he also calls Gordon Brown, Gordon the Leper!) through colorful and biblical-style language.  I don’t think the New Yorker crowd will misunderstand this satire, but one never knows.  Here’s a sample from the beginning:

“And it came to pass, in the eighth year of the reign of the evil Bush the Younger (The Ignorant), when the whole land from the Arabian desert to the shores of the Great Lakes had been laid barren, that a Child appeared in the wilderness.

The Child was blessed in looks and intellect. Scion of a simple family, offspring of a miraculous union, grandson of a typical white person and an African peasant. And yea, as he grew, the Child walked in the path of righteousness, with only the occasional detour into the odd weed and a little blow.”

I wish Obama would have “ventured forth” to the wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, but that would have seemed “too political.”  The Pentagon simply told him not to bring his media and campaign troglodytes, but he could go as an elected official, rather than a candidate.  He chose not to go.  However, he made it to the gym though.

AP photo.

Finally some good news for McCain on the conservative front.  Seeing as the choice in this year’s election is one between “meh” and “Oh God, NO!” a group of about 100 Christian Conservative leaders will support ”meh”. 

Eventually, some Christian conservatives will come out to vote for McCain, but I still feel that voting for a candidate draws more enthusiasm and turnout than voting against becoming an Obama Nation.  For McCain’s part, his campaign didn’t bother sending anyone to this potentially important meeting.  Even though the recent string of Obama speeches, gaffes by surrogates like Clark, and the recent slate of Supreme Court decisions have made me a bit more jazzed about defeating Obama, I can’t get truly excited about this McCain.  I think the message out of the Christian conservative meeting was pretty much the same.