On November 3, we noted that the “War on Christmas” had begun. One piece of evidence that was offered was the decision to have a “Holiday Tree,” instead of a “Christmas Tree,” in Frankfort, Kentucky. But after getting pounded by outraged Christians, Gov. Steve Beshear has reversed himself: both he, and the state government, have now chosen to call the Christmas Tree the “Christmas Tree.”

Christians have every right to be insulted when agents of government refuse to acknowledge their holiday, and it matters not a whit if the stated purpose is inclusion. Indeed, the politics of inclusion is a malignant cultural cancer that needs to be wiped out, along with its parent ideology, multiculturalism.

Congratulations to Gov. Beshear can be extended by contacting his director of communications, Jill Midkiff: Jill.Midkiff@mail.state.ky.us

“The Catholic Church is a leaven in the dough,” began Msgr. Sedrak.  His social activism in a minority context is considerable.  This social and pastoral development gives the Church (which is at least eight million strong) a respected public persona in a population of more than 80 million inhabitants.

In the Diocese of Minya, where there are 50 000 Coptics of the Catholic rite, the Church supports “marginalized categories of people such as the handicapped, the deaf, the mute and the sick.”  The bishop explained that prisoners are also helped along with their families. “Over time, there were even children who were becoming criminals! So, little by little and with care, the work done with them diminished significantly the number of those who would otherwise choose the same road as their parents had.  There has been great progress,” he said proudly.

In the area of education, there are more than 185 catholic schools in Egypt, five of which are in the Diocese of Minya, and they hope to build another.  Education plays a crucial role, according to the bishop, as it lays a foundation for a better society and encourages a more open dialogue between Christians and Muslims. Many Muslims have developed a willingness to dialogue after seeing firsthand the good conduct of individual Christians.

This dialogue is sometimes complicated by the daily discrimination encountered by Christians at all levels. “Personally, as a Christian leader, I have problems building a church, without a doubt.  According to the rule, nothing is clear.”  But, Bishop Sedrak added, even Muslims find that laws are often “weakened” by “corruption” and “a disorder that invades everywhere.”  He estimated that from the political point of view “even Muslims are suffering.”

On the subject of interreligious dialogue, the bishop remarked, “In Egypt, one must distinguish between Islam and Muslims.” He continued, saying, “With Islam, I cannot go very far, because we will be discussing dogmas – convictions which will never change.  However, with Muslims, people who live with me every day, I can dialogue.”

This is especially true with Muslims who have attended Catholic schools, as well as those who have used the social services put in place by the Church which are open to everyone. “One must distinguish between simple, everyday people who are seeking their daily bread [and Islam].  If you are of service to them, you are considered to be a good person… and then they will like you!

The Synod: Having the courage to speak the truth

Bishop Sedrak also participated in the Synod on Africa which was held at the Vatican from the 4^th to the 25^th of October.  Commenting on the Synod, the bishop said, “This assembly of bishops, experts, those interested in the Church in Africa – this is already a fruit.  Sharing our experiences, our misfortunes and difficulties; getting along is already a fruit.”

The bishop also commented on the Synod discussions concerning the “prophetic role of the Church.” He said, “Prophetic role: as in, having the courage to speak the truth when it is needed.  Saying yes when needed, and saying no when needed.  Not always evading problems, that is a prophetic role in my opinion.”

Another remarkable happening for Msgr. Sedrak is the fact that he can ‘count himself’ among Africans. “Before, as an Egyptian, I did not consider myself to be an African, but now, I have something new.”  Along with this ‘new sense of belonging’ to the Church of Africa, the bishop of Minya was touched by the Holy Father’s conduct with regard to the Synod.  He “leaves his work to be present with us…and he was really there!”  A situation, he reckons, that “changes a Churches’ mentality; meaning: there are not great and small; there is but one Church.

Not leaving, despite it all

Bishop Msgr. Sedrak also expressed concern about the exodus of young people from Egypt, especially by Christians. He explained that it is easy to leave the country and he believes that at times this exodus is supported by the national government and even the international community.

The bishop summarized his views, saying “I believe that to be Christian in a country that is majority Muslim is a vocation.”  He also said that standing your ground requires prayer, courage, wisdom and strength… and a helping hand from outside.  “Egypt, we must help, because it is a very important country at all levels: for Africa, for the Middle-East and even for the world”!

Last year, Aid to the Church in Need provided more than $500,000 in aid to support Church projects in Egypt.

ID)) : ?>
ID); ?>

When we got word recently that the movie “2012” depicts the Vatican being blown up, along with the famous statue from Rio, Christ the Redeemer, we were unmoved. Why? Because this occurs during the end of the world in a massive destruction. This kind of sensationalism, we reasoned, is standard fare for director Roland Emmerich: he is the guru of the “blow ‘em up” genre of movies. But now we’ve learned that while Catholics get theirs, Muslims are spared. Out of fear, of course.

Emmerich is more than a coward—he is a liar who has it out for Catholics. Last year, he was quoted saying, “I would like to erase all nations and religions.” Not true. He is quite content to live with Islam, even though he readily admits it is a religion of terror. When asked why he did not show the destruction of Kaaba, the religious structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca, he said, “I wanted to do that, I have to admit. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have…a fatwa.”

So why was the Sistine Chapel designated for destruction? “We have to show how this gets destroyed….I am against organized religion.” Emmerich lies again. He is not against Islam.

After bragging that the movie shows the Sistine Chapel falling on people’s heads, Emmerich explains the moral of the story: “Never pray in front of a big church. Pray by yourself.” He lies again: Muslims who want to pray in front of a mosque are safe. That’s because, as Emmerich sees it, they’re known to kill those who offend their religion.

Every time I say Hollywood hates Christianity, especially Catholicism, my critics cringe. But they never offer evidence that I’m wrong.

Contact Sony Pictures Entertainment chief Amy Pascal:
amy.pascal@spe.sony.com

When the Spiritual Center in Kobayat, northern Lebanon, opens its doors in a year’s time, the main target group will be lay people seen as crucial for the revival of a Church under pressure from poverty, extremism and massive emigration of Christians.

Central to the project is the renovation of former monastery and school buildings dating back to the 19^th century and the development of a conference center, seminar rooms, two refectories, dormitories, living quarters and a chapel.

The plan, which has already received $59,600 from Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), is being seen as a bold program of Christian renewal in an area close to the Syrian border and fraught with problems, including political instability.

In an interview with ACN, which supports persecuted and other suffering Christians, project coordinator Fr. Raymond Abdo, Provincial of Discalced Carmelites in Lebanon, said, “We consider the center and its work with lay people as a priority for the development of our pastoral work.”

The priest continued, “With declining numbers of faithful and an increase in Islamic fundamentalism, the material situation of the Church in Lebanon has suffered but what we are now seeing is a rise in Christian awareness among the faithful – and to build on that we need to put more emphasis on lay formation.

Mindful that ACN is committed to ongoing support of this kind, Fr. Raymond went on to thank ACN friends and benefactors for their support for the plan in Kobayat. He said, “We are only able to work on the new center in Kobayat because of ACN’s help. I want to say thank you to the benefactors for what you are doing to support the Church in Lebanon.”

The initiative in Kobayat is inspired by the success of a similar Carmelite project developed in Hazmiye, just outside the Lebanese capital, Beirut. Since 2004, hundreds of lay people – including many young people – have received catechesis and courses in Carmelite spirituality centering on the 16^th century Spanish mystic and Doctor of the Church, St. Teresa of Avila.

Both the Beirut and Kobayat center are a response to a Church devastated by emigration. Fr. Raymond reported that the Christians in Lebanon had halved in number since 1970 and were now down to 35 percent of the total population.

He also commented on relations between local Christians and Muslims in the country, explaining, “Many Muslims do not accept us Christians. As a minority now, we do not feel accepted in our own society. We are witnessing a wave of Islamic fundamentalism.

But, Fr. Raymond added, “Even if we have many problems, our Church is full of hope for the future. We are now more conscious of our role which is to be witnesses of faith in Jesus Christ and His presence among us.”

Aid to the Church in Need sees support for the Church in Lebanon as crucial for the long-term development of Christianity across the Middle East. It remains a priority country for ACN aid and last year the Church there received over $425,000 in project support.

“The IRS cannot ignore Constitutional rights of churches.” said Luke Goodrich, Deputy National Litigation Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Under the proposed regulations, the IRS can audit churches, revoke tax exempt status or impose penalties  without ever expressly considering church’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment.”

The proposed regulations govern which IRS officials can approve an investigation into a church’s tax status. Such investigations can lead to a revocation of tax-exempt status, or other tax penalties, for a variety of reasons.

“It is crucial for the IRS to recognize that its enforcement efforts may unlawfully burden the free exercise of religion,” explain the Becket Fund’s comments. The comments recommend four concrete changes to the proposed regulations: (1) The IRS should notify churches of their free exercise rights at the beginning of an audit; (2) The IRS should attempt to minimize the burdens on free exercise rights in any church audit; (3) IRS lawyers should expressly consider free exercise rights when they review the legality of an audit or tax adjustment; and (4) IRS officials involved in a church audit should seek guidance from their superiors or IRS lawyers when the audit implicates free exercise rights.

To read the full text of The Becket Fund’s comments, click here.

For almost three decades, there has been a Christmas parade in Amelia, Ohio, a village outside Cincinnati. But this year there will be none. That’s because one person complained, village solicitor Laura Abrams*. Her complaint: the word “Christmas.” In response, the village changed the name to the “Holiday Parade,” though it did not say what holiday was being celebrated. Understandably, this dishonest scheme created a furor, the result being—just to play it safe—there will be no parade.

There will be no Christmas tree this year on the Capitol lawn in Frankfort, Kentucky. The word “Christmas” was deemed offensive. Instead, there will be a “Holiday Tree.” The official line is that the “Holiday Tree” is inclusive of Thanksgiving, Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year’s, though no one has ever heard of a “Thanksgiving Tree,” “Hanukkah Tree” or “New Year’s Tree.”

When World War II ended, a local resident from Warren, Michigan decided to erect a nativity scene on a public median; the same family has privately maintained this tradition ever since. But there won’t be one this year because a lawsuit argues it is discriminatory.

In Olympia, Washington, religious displays have been banned inside municipal buildings. But outside the buildings, it is okay. Well, not really—atheists are already protesting that decision.

Arizona is supplying this year’s Christmas Tree in the nation’s Capitol. Attempts to bar students from making religious ornaments were defeated, but only because of a threatened lawsuit.

Make no mistake about it: The declared enemy of these cultural fascists is religious speech, and they will stop at nothing to censor it. Stay tuned—we’re only in early November.

*Laura Abrams contacted the league and maintains that she was rendering a legal opinion.

The feeble “moderate” the Times was backing for Congress was Dede Scozzafava - pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-union power, pro-tax hike. The Times found these positions to be proof of “refreshing tinges of centrism.” The Times lectured the conservative movement to embrace this candidacy, since “creative ideas and candidates, not right-wing zeal, are the obvious way to get back in the game of democracy.”

Any New Yorker foolish enough to follow the political advice of The New York Times deserves what he gets.

What if the Times portrayed this battle for the 23rd District of New York the opposite way? What if the surging campaign of conservative Doug Hoffman was portrayed as “Revenge of the Irate Moderates?” Liberals would rub their eyes in utter disbelief. But just three years ago, the Times editorial page was using those exact words to describe the hard-left forces behind Ned Lamont, who upset moderate Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman in the primary, only to lose to him in the general election.

The idea that Ned Lamont was a leftist was downright ludicrous to the Times. Lieberman “tried to depict Mr. Lamont and his backers as wild-eyed radicals who want to punish the senator for working with Republicans and to force the Democratic Party into a disastrous turn toward extremism. It’s hard to imagine Connecticut, which likes to be called the Land of Steady Habits, as an encampment of left-wing isolationists, and it’s hard to imagine Mr. Lamont, who worked happily with the Republicans in Greenwich politics, leading that kind of revolution.”

Ned Lamont was Cindy Sheehan in drag, whose only “steady habit” was lashing out at Bush. But the press corps as a whole couldn’t have been water-boarded into acknowledging in their copy that Lamont was even a “liberal.” Instead, he was consistently described as merely an “anti-war” idealist.

A non-ideological national media would acknowledge that both Democrats and Republicans over the last several decades have shunned centrism and embraced a bolder ideological approach. A nonpartisan press corps would report that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in a landslide. But our liberal media are transparently partisan. Instead we get two very differing and self-serving portraits. The Republicans are in a “civil war,” on a “disastrous turn toward extremism.” For Democrats, their embrace of hard-core leftists is an “opportunity” and revenge of the “moderates” upset by “deeply unmoderate” conservatives.

Conservatives have heard enough of this siren song over the years to ignore it. The same cannot be said for the Republican Party, with its Helen Keller approach to the obvious. In presidential elections, every time Republicans nominate the kind of moderation-embracing D.C. dealmaker the media would select for them - think Bob Dole or John McCain - they’ve been trounced.

Yet they continue heeding the advice of The New York Times by endorsing the likes of Scozzafava. How thoroughly embarrassing it was for them when Scozzafava petulantly left the race and endorsed the Democrat in this district. She was even less than a Republican In Name Only.

The biggest head-scratcher in this game was Newt Gingrich, who embraced this Democrat-in-GOP-clothing as the “best” the Republicans could do. Is this the way Newt built a majority in1994, by identifying a “revolution” of Arlen Specter wannabes across America? No. Through his lectures and cassette tapes, Gingrich built a cadre of conservative candidates who could stand behind the idea of rolling back an overweening federal government. He didn’t lead a slithering surge of centrists eager to go to Washington and stick their fingers in the wind to protect their own careers.

There can be a robust debate over the advisability of a supporting moderate, even liberal Republicans over liberal Democrats in blue-state districts. What is settled, however, is that conservatives will no longer blindly embrace “moderates” like Scozzafava when there’s an open seat in a staunchly Republican district.

Every Republican should know that there are two divisive forces in the Republican Party that always threaten to break it apart and ruin its chances. The first is the insincere consultants in the “news” media that try to rule it from the outside. The second is the consultants in the party that listen to them.

There are costumes depicting Jesus, priests, nuns, ministers, rabbis and imams, and most of them are innocuous. But there are two costumes that are vulgar, and, as usual, they are designed to offend Catholics: a priest with an erection and a pregnant nun, often sold as a pair.

Some immigrant groups are upset about an illegal alien costume, but even those who are complaining don’t say it is vulgar. A mere depiction of Muhammad in a Danish cartoon that was anything but vulgar led to riots. Now imagine what would happen if we paired Muhammad sporting an erection with a Latina illegal alien? Not to worry, it’s only Catholic clergy and religious that the bigots want to bash.

Spirit Halloween, owned by Spencer Gifts, is carrying the objectionable costumes, as are the websites of Amazon, Halloween Costume World, Annie’s Costumes, Halloween Store and Halloween Express. We urge Catholics to patronize stores like Target, Walgreen’s, CVS and Wal-Mart: they don’t carry such offensive fare.

Contact Spirit Halloween official Steven Schwadron: steven.schwadron@fleishman.com

“The Becket Fund will continue to defend the Pledge from coast to coast,” said National Litigation Director Eric Rassbach. “Whether kids are in California, New Hampshire, or somewhere in between, they should have the right to say Pledge, voluntarily, including the words ‘under God.’”

Chief Judge McAuliffe’s October 1st order dismissing the case was issued in response to a motion filed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty on behalf of three Hanover families and the Knights of Columbus. The Becket Fund’s clients are children who attend the targeted public schools and who want to keep saying the Pledge of Allegiance complete with the words “under God”; the parents of those children; and the Knights of Columbus, a fraternal organization that spearheaded the effort to add “under God” to the Pledge 55 years ago. on behalf of three Hanover families and the Knights of Columbus.

The Becket Fund’s argument to the court explained that the two words “under God” in the Pledge encapsulate a foundational idea in American law and political philosophy: that the rights of the human person are inalienable — and that the power of the state is correspondingly limited — precisely because those rights exist prior to the state and come from a source beyond it. The Becket Fund made the same argument to the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in a similar Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit, also brought by Newdow. The decision in that appeal, filed in November 2005 and argued in December 2007, is still pending.

Liberals in the media found even better news to declare: a new low for the Republican Party, since only 20 percent of those surveyed “usually” think of themselves as Republicans. (Another 19 percent “lean more” toward the Republicans, but that number is being ignored because 20 percent sounds better.) MSNBC’s David Shuster openly hoped: “Have centrists been frightened away from the Republican Party by the right-wing birthers, Tenthers, and town hall screamers?”

PBS “NewsHour” anchor Judy Woodruff proclaimed this was the worst showing for the GOP in a quarter-century, and the remedy was sounding much more like the Democrats. Why be the Party of No when you can be the Party of Snowe? Liberal Mark Shields knew who the GOP should follow: “[Lindsey Graham and John McCain] are trying to reach out, and they recognize the country’s changed. The party has to change. And the Republican Party got whomped, thumped, among those new emerging constituencies, among young voters.”

If Shields truly understood the Republican Party, he’d understand it is precisely because of this thinking that Lindsey Graham is not currently Secretary of State in the John McCain administration.

Liberals who fondly reminisce about recreating that supine moderate Republican establishment of the Seventies might have looked deeper into the poll. So bedazzled was the Left by that 57 percent number that they overlooked – or just plain ignored – the other numbers in that ABC-Washington Post survey.

When asked if their views were liberal, moderate, or conservative, 38 percent said conservative, and only 23 percent said liberal. In January, those numbers were 32 percent and 24 percent, respectively. That’s a net gain of seven points for conservatives since Obama took office. That’s a national headline. Unless you’re a leftist media outlet, in which case you ignored it.

That number is no fluke. Consider Gallup, which conducts thousands of interviews with Americans each year and always asks respondents to describe their political views. So far in 2009, 40 percent of those surveyed call themselves conservative. That’s up from 37 percent in 2007 and 2008, the lowest percentage of self-identified conservatives in more than a decade. Movement is coming from independents. In Gallup’s 2008 interviews, 29 percent of independents self-described as conservative. This year, it’s 35 percent.

In other words, MSNBC’s Shuster has it exactly backward. No surprise there.

Even as the Post touted a surge in support for the blow-private-insurance-to-smithereens “option,” other Post poll numbers suggested that Democrats shouldn’t be too rosy about a government takeover. Only 45 percent of Americans favored the broad outlines of the proposals now moving in Congress, while 48 percent were opposed, about the same division that existed in August. Then consider the strength of passion: 26 percent strongly support current proposals in Congress, while 36 percent strongly oppose them.

So it was almost comical a few days later when a headline on the Post front page touted “Momentum Shift is Dramatic” toward that government-monopoly “option.” Democratic leaders may be shifting, but the poll numbers are certainly not a socialist landslide.

What else was downplayed? The Post poll respondents are skeptical of bizarre liberal claims that health “reform” will reduce the deficit. When asked if it will increase the deficit, 68 percent said yes, and only ten percent said no, it would decrease it. So of course, the Post added whether the deficit increase would be “worth it,” and less than half of those who saw a deficit hike said it was worth it.

It gets worse. So why not tax “Cadillac” private-insurance plans? The Senate Finance Committee suggested taxing the most costly private insurance plans to extend coverage to millions more people. Guess what? Americans correctly understand that they are the supposed Cadillacs. Sixty-one percent oppose the idea, while 35 percent favor it.

More bad news still. In a more generic question about the economy, the Post pollsters asked if it was more important to increase federal spending to improve the economy and increase the deficit, or avoid a big increase in the deficit even if it meant not spending to improve the economy. Fifty-seven percent opposed a large new deficit, while only 38 percent wanted more spending.

Conservatism is not dead. It is not only alive, it is growing. The last thing the liberal media want is a resurgent Reaganite Republican majority party, instead of a crippled and co-opted Rockefeller Republican minority. Despite all their attempts, it’s here, it’s flexing its muscles, and it’s ready to rumble.