The Separation of Church and State – Ground Zero Planned Mosque vs. Greek Orthodox Church Destroyed on Site - Analysis

Wars fought in the name of religion, including the Muslim Conquest of Spain 711 AD - photo blog Paradoxplace.com

The AP reports today on a Greek Orthodox Church that was destroyed on September 11, with the World Trade Center – the plight of the Church has gone unnoticed in the wake of the brouhaha over the planned Islamic Community Center (mosque) on the Ground Zero site. The fact that both religious institutions have lacked funding in order to rebuild is not the point – the fact that government is involved at all in a religious institution, regardless of the faith, is mind-boggling. One has to ask, where are the cries of separation of Church and State that are screamed from the rooftops and result in schools barring the singing of Christmas Carols or municipalities ban the placement of a Christian crèche on public property?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander applies in regards to this situation. The fact that individuals oppose a mosque being built on a site where, due to an ongoing religious war between Muslims and Infidels, a holy war, or crusade, resulted in the deaths of thousands of people (United States citizens as well as men and women from nations around the globe) on that site might be understandable. Reasonably, so-called “Holy Wars” have been responsible for the deaths of millions over time: the Crusades, the Muslim Conquest of Northern Africa and the Mediterranean (Southern Spain), to the war between Irish Protestants and Catholics. These major religions and denominations within a major religion caused wars, the outcome of which resulted in deaths of innocents - what is, more or less, anti-religious, given the fact that these religion promotes peace.

It is what it is, and for politicians and the State (Federal or State) to involve itself in the 1st amendment rights of any religion, be it in support or in opposition, should, logic follows, be against the nations rule of law. That said, property laws involving any real estate owned by a religious group, be it a Christian denominations church, a Jewish Synagogue, Hindu Temple, or Mosque should be adhered to in any case.

The fact that the proposed mosque would promote understanding does not hold water – the fact that the property is owned by SoHo properties, a company, which, according to almuslim.com was purchased and the building of said “community center” was approved by a New York zoning committee post September 11th, does. Therefore, if the property developers don’t have the funding, then the mosque cannot be built, nor for that matter, can the Greek Orthodox Church which was destroyed in the same general area in the name of the Muslim faith.

The question as to morality or to sensitivity towards ones neighbors is another issue entirely and, given the patterns associated with said religion, it is doubtful that sensitivity towards ones neighbors will prevail. It will be money that talks in both cases, and should the funding come forward from sources that are legally permitted by the United States Government (issues with funds from Terrorist States aside), both buildings would go forward – if not, then it is not the business of the government, or its officials to support or oppose or aid in the funding of either property.

Therefore, if this project is supported by State officials, then any and all religious holidays and themes associated, be it on private or public property, should be allowed. This includes prayer at schools, the placing of a Christian Crèche on public property during Christmas, or any other symbol of a religion practiced within the boundaries of this United States. The arguments both pro and con, therefore, are about tolerance in the end, the lack of tolerance shown towards Christians, Jews and, yes Muslims, and said religions being used as nothing more than “political” statements by those who personally profit, especially elected officials and members of the press.

Massachusetts – Demands Churches Who Offer Shelter to Homeless Meet State Criteria

The Old North Church - image Marriott Hotels

New England winters are hard, temperatures often drop to below freezing for weeks at a time, and those who have no access to shelters (given the overflow), will often appeal to a local church as it offers a place to survive the night. Enter the Commonwealth of Massachusettswho feels the need to tell Churches that they must follow certain guidelines in order to offer shelter!

The separation of Church and State aside (as so much is ignored regarding the Constitution in the Commonwealth, what’s one more thing), the Massachusetts Board of Building Regulations and Fire Prevention has decided that guidelines are in order as follows: (from Masslive.com)

Churches can now be used as temporary shelters for a maximum of 35 days – but for no more than seven consecutive days at any time – between Sept. 15 and June 15 each year.

A temporary certificate of occupancy must be obtained from the municipality, and no smoking is allowed in the church. In addition, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms must be installed and maintained.

Also, a plan showing occupancy capacity, a seating diagram, and the location of exits and aisles leading to exits must be posted near the main entrance, with a copy given to the Fire Department. The Fire Department must also both be notified before a church becomes a temporary shelter and know how many people will be sheltered.
While authorities are aware churches around the state have opened their doors as shelters in the past, they also want to find a balance between providing a place to sleep with fire safety concerns.

The Commonwealth has no problem using hotels as temporary shelters for the homeless and shelling out millions in taxpayer dollars – yet they do have a problem when it comes to a Church doing so for free. It boggles the mind that the Commonwealth, constantly in the red (see Mass Health Care), would want to discourage Churches (increased paperwork and regulations that possibly would cut into these non-profits budgets), who would be willing to lend a hand for free!

This situation (and many others)cannot be about control, it has to be about stupidity. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts should have a litmus test for all employees, appointees and let’s face it, elected officials, with the main criteria being “common sense”. A lack thereof would eliminate that person from the position. The millions being spent by the Department of Human Services for hotel stays could be used to actually purchase facilities (surely there must be hotels for sale?), immediately cutting costs per diem (they may even be able to grab a few properties for back taxes). Those facilities could be coordinated with a variety of departments, in order to offer a wide range of services to those living in the facility – once gainful employment could be found, rent could be applied to those who chose to remain in the building. This would serve to save taxpayer dollars, and give people a hand up, so to speak.

However, as this is the State of Denial of all things Reasonable, the concept would be to demand those places where a free night at the inn (Church), should be regulated out of existence. It simply flies in the face of reason.

Massachusetts Public School - Drawing Jesus Christ Crucified May Result in Mandatory Psychological Evaluation.

8 year old rendition of Christ on Cross - image Washington Post

Taunton Massachusetts: The first reports came from the Taunton Gazette - an eight year old was asked to do a drawing about the meaning of Christmas, he drew Christ Crucified, and the result – removal from the school and a mandatory psychological evaluation. Apparently, the teacher (those who must report on any situation where a child may be at risk) considered the drawing too violent. Subsequently, in this teachers mind, alarms went off and all proverbial Hades broke loose.

Christ Crucified - artistic rendering - image NelsonIdeas.com

This situation was considered so bizarre, that it has made national headlines via the Associated Press. The parents wish to remove the son from the school, where he was so traumatized for being punished for drawing a picture of Jesus during a class assignment on Christmas, that during the interrogation, he told the authorities that the picture was a self-portrait. (Fear of using Jesus name the cause.) .

Now the Taunton School district is fighting back on a technicality - the boy was not suspended, rather he was not allowed to return to school until he underwent a psychological exam

The eight year old, lacking certain artistic skills, drew x’s instead of eyes on the portrait of Jesus; this is what unnerved the teacher (so alleged by the school). There should be two courses taught to educators prior to them being able to go near children: one, a class on art and the limitations of those who may not be Michelangelo, and the second, a class on World Religion, including Christianity and its symbols. These in particular so that when faced with a Christian holiday, certain Christen symbols would not be so alien that an unnecessary visit to the shrink could be avoided. (Not to mention tons of bad press.)

Worth listening - From WRKO – The Howie Carr Show – Discussion on Taunton Teacher and School District action and policy regarding violence in Christianity.

Watch this at WRKO

Catholic Priests Opposition to Pro-Abortion Candidates Intensifies

A Catholic Priest in Modesto California has urged his parishioners who voted for Obama to take confession – a Catholic sacrament of admission of sin. The priest did note that those who knew Obama was pro-abortion and still voted for him were in need of this sacrament. The Bishop in control of that particular parish cried foul – stating parishioners were under no such obligation. This most likely came after the usual hue and cry went out from those who feel that the Catholic Church (rich in Democrat voters) is off limits when it comes to Christian denominations decrying pro-abortion candidates. They draw on the question of “separation of church and state” as applied to the Constitution – which is ludicrous to say the least. However, the Church has every right, under the same clause, to follow its own doctrine, and as such, denounce political candidates who would uphold practices contrary to the Church.

The problem arises when the leadership within the Church (in the United States), has strong affiliations with politicians, most notably Democrats. This results in the chastisement of priests who are merely following established doctrine, by those Bishops who are choosing a political party over the pulpit. In November, at a semi-annual Bishops meeting, Frances George of Chicago noted:

"If the election is misinterpreted ideologically as a referendum on abortion," said Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "the unity desired by President-elect Obama and all Americans at this moment of crisis would be impossible to achieve."

"Aggressively pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion," George said.

These statements may be seen as unusual considering the Catholic Church has, for years, been supported by and supporters of Democrat Candidates (Massachusetts: Notrious Cardinal Law received support from Ted Kennedy (D-MA) when petitioned to step down after the child molestation scandal hit the US Catholic Churches )

Why the sudden change of heart towards the tie-in between pro-abortion Catholic candidates and their role in the church? Perhaps it comes to rest on the media itself – with the last two elections (2006 and 2008), high-profile Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden, were touted by the media as “Catholics”, they campaigned as “Catholics”, and yet are decidedly following anti-Catholic doctrine. This “advertising of religious affiliations” which is, by the way, OK for some politicians’, but not for others (Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, to name but two), woke the Church from a long apathetic sleep. Therefore, kudos should go to those priests that will stand up to the Bishops - as well as those Bishops who will support the doctrine and follow their religion before politics, practicing their rights under the First Amendment.