On Homosexuality and Catholicism

In a stunning development, a University of Illinois professor that taught on the subject of Roman Catholicism was fired from his position due to the fact that he actually taught the Catholic position concerning the subject of homosexuality.

"URBANA — The University of Illinois has fired an adjunct professor who taught courses on Catholicism after a student accused the instructor of engaging in hate speech by saying he agrees with the church’s teaching that homosexual sex is immoral.

The professor, Ken Howell of Champaign, said his firing violates his academic freedom. He also lost his job at an on-campus Catholic center.

Howell, who taught Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought, says he was fired at the end of the spring semester after sending an e-mail explaining some Catholic beliefs to his students preparing for an exam....

The email offered homosexuality and other sexual behaviors that are against church teaching (everything from the use of contraception in marriage to sex with children) as examples of things that a consequentialist might approve of under the right circumstances, whereas a Catholic cannot approve under any circumstances.

Unfortunately, this conversation about the class’s subject matter is verboten. Someone who apparently doesn’t even take the class or understand the subject matter decided to report this academic conversation to the campus gestapo. This is what we call the Dictatorship of Moral Relativism. We live in America, where only Islam receives such deference."

The News-Gazette has published the entire email that was sent out by Professor Howell. I have read it a couple of times and to equate what Howell has written to anything approaching so-called "hate speech" is to stretch credulity. Howell wrote (in part)...

"One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body...

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

I know this doesn't answer all the questions in many of your minds. All I ask as your teacher is that you approach these questions as a thinking adult. That implies questioning what you have heard around you. Unless you have done extensive research into homosexuality and are cognizant of the history of moral thought, you are not ready to make judgments about moral truth in this matter. All I encourage is to make informed decisions. As a final note, a perceptive reader will have noticed that none of what I have said here or in class depends upon religion. Catholics don't arrive at their moral conclusions based on their religion. They do so based on a thorough understanding of natural reality."

I think the first paragraph contains what some found to be offensive. However, Howell appears to be discussing the act of homosexual sex in a clinical manner and he does not use a single hateful word in his entire email, at least in my opinion anyway.

The administration at the University of Illinois is exchanging a temporary, false peace with the homosexual community by throwing Professor Howell under the bus. If research conducted by undergraduates at the university indicated that the homosexual lifestyle is even more injurious than previous studies have indicated, would they then suppress such findings to save their sorry butts? The magnitude of such stupidity staggers the mind.

I would be willing to wager that not a single member of the univerity's administration that made the decision to fire Professor Howell could not formulate a meaningful response to his arguments if a million dolars was riding on it. If they could, they would have advanced such an argument already instead of a tight-lipped, refusal to comment being that Howell will probably sue them, and rightfully so.

What If Jesus Had Never been Born? The Advent of Modern Accounting Practices

This is the latest edition in a series of recurring posts pertaining to Dr. D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe's classic, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? in which the authors examine the impact of Christianity upon Western Civilization. Sadly, this is often taken for granted in this age of revisionism and today's topic is how modern accounting practices came into being. In Chapter 8 of their book titled Free Enterprise and the Work Ethic we read....

"Another contribution of Christianity to economics was double-entry bookkeeping and accounting, bequeathed to the world by an Italian Franciscan monk of the Renaissance. Fra Luca Pacioli, who is recognized as the father of modern accounting, published a revolutionary book in 1494, Summa de Arithmetica, Geometria, Proportioni et Proportionalita. The book deals primarily with mathematics but contains a chapter on double-entry bookkeeping that is the basis for our modern accounting. Goethe said that this was "one of the finest discoveries of the human intellect."[1] An economist and sociologist, Werner Sombart, said "Double-entry bookkeeping is born in the same spirit as the system of Galileo and Newton".[2]

Pacioli's work was dedicated to the glory of God. His goal was to write on the science and theology of mathematics-to take it "out of the library" and see it put into practical use in the marketplace. He wrote in the Summa that people should begin all of their economic transactions "in the name of God." The methodology he devoloped changed the future of business forever and led to the development of spread sheets. His ingenious accounting equation of "Assets=Liabilities+Owner's Equity" is used worldwide today. This humble servant of Jesus Christ has provided the world a vital tool for business-to the greater glory of God."

Kennedy, D. James and Jerry Newcombe: What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? pg 111, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Souces cited by Kennedy-Newcombe;

[1] Needles, Anderson and Caldwell; Principles of Accounting, Houghton Mifflin Co., pg 68

[2] Sombert, Werner; Der Moderne Kapitalismus, Duncher and Humbolt, pg 119, trans.

Yet another arrow for your quiver to respond to those who would have you believe that Christianity is a religion for those who are against critical thinking and innovation.

Seperation of Church and State: Obama Style

Rather than letting the radical and violent segment of one of the world's major religions wallow in it's own dysfunction which after awhile would hopefully lead to critical self-examination, the Obama administration, according to George Neumayr's article in today's American Spectator, seems intent on playing nice-nice with it....

"..once safely ensconced in the presidency, he (Obama) renewed his Islamophilia. Last year in Cairo, he tried to wow his audience by saying that he hails from "generations of Muslims" and that he had marinated for "several years" in Islamic Indonesia, where he "heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk."

By secularist standards, Obama's Islamophilia constitutes a blatant violation of Church and state. His presidency largely exists for the benefit of one religion, the only religion he appears to consider blameless and holy -- Islam, and not even its moderate variant...

..Under Obama, America undercuts moderate Muslims while pandering to violent ones. We've seen during Obama's presidency self-identified Muslim terrorists shoot up a military base, try to blow up a plane over Detroit on the day of Jesus Christ's birth, and attempt to bomb tourists in Times Square. Yet U.S. attorney general Eric Holder refuses to identify radical Islam as a motive for terrorism and Obama security adviser John Brennan says jihad is a concept of self-improvement that Dr. Phil could endorse -- "a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community."

The Islamophilia of the Obama administration at this point is well beyond the parodies of The Onion. This week NASA administrator Charles Bolden announced that the space program has adopted a new mission -- to serve as a self-esteem project for global Islam. He informed a reporter with Al Jazeera that when he took the NASA job Obama made it clear to him that "perhaps foremost he wanted to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering.""

And just where is the selective outrage from Americans United For the Seperation of Church and State on this one? Could you image the hand-wringing if instead, NASA was reaching out to the Lutheran church and trying to reinforce their self-esteem due to the contributions of Johannes Kepler? Sure the Muslim world helped contribute to math such as Al-Khwarizmi (above) who is credited with coming up with algebra, but that was over 1100 years ago and over the course of history, real science did not develop in the Muslim world. Why? Because of their worldview as based upon their religion. I've cited this a couple of times in the past and the writings of Dr D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe are proven to be correct yet again. From their book What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? we read...

""Nor could modern science ever have come into existance among the Arabs, because of the Muslim religion. The writings of Aristotle, when lost to the Western world from about A.D. 500 to A.D. 1100, were kept by the Arabs of North Africa and finally reintroduced into Europe in the 1100's and 1200's. Aristotle-unlike Plato-had a philosophy that would lend itself to the scientific type of study because it was more inductive than Plato's deductive kind of reasoning. Plato would get an ideal and deduce all manner of things from it. Aristotle would tend to look at the particulars and induce principles from them. Because of the Aristotelian thought they had access to, the Arabs-including Nestorian Christians-generally made greater scientific and mathematical advances than the Europeans during the Middle Ages.

But during all of that time the Arabs never introduced nor created any real science. Why? Because of their religion. Because of the fatalism that dominates the Muslim religion. Since everything is fatalistically determined, obviously there is no point in trying to manipulate the natural world to change anything, because all things are unchangeable."

Also mentioned in the Spectator article is an account concerning "a scholar in the early 1980s seeking funds to promote moderate Islam who got rejected by a Ford Foundation employee." And who was the employee that rejected the request for funds to promote moderate Islam? Stanley Ann Dunham, the Obama-mama herself. Go figure.



UPDATE: Although it was just an assumption on my behalf, it turned out to be a correct one. A cursory check of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State's website (www.au.org) reveals they are (predictably) trying to sic the Internal Revenue Service on a South Dakota church for endorsing a gubenatorial candidate among other things. But there's nary a word against the Obama/NASA/Islamic contraversy.

On Jesus and Jefferson part II

In part II of my response to Mr. Dave Miller's tour de farce entitled Why the Texas Taliban Fears Mr. Jefferson, (the full text of which can be read by clicking here) I would like to actually address some of the points Miller made re: President Jefferson. First.....

"..he (Jefferson) was proud of his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which disestablished the Anglican church as the official church of Virginia, thus removing it from its chief source of income, which was from taxes on the public. Authorship of that statute was one of the three things that he requested to be inscribed on his grave monument (none of the three were to be his political offices, even his service as President of the United States)"

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom did put other denominations on an equal footing with the Anglican church in Virginia. This statute is best viewed in terms of the Parson's Cause attributed to Jefferson's fellow Virginian, Patrick Henry.

"Prior to the Revolution, in 1768, Patrick Henry rode for miles on horseback to a trial in Spottsylvania county. He entered through the rear of a courtroom where three Baptist ministers were being tried for having preached without the sanction of the Episcopal Church. In the midst of the proceedings, he interrupted: "May it please your lordships, what did I hear read? Did I hear an expression that these men, whom you worships are about to try for misdemeanor, are charged with preaching the gospel of the Son of God?"

I'm certain that Mr Miller was getting around to mentioning this so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for failing to put the Virginia statute in it's proper context. While the First Amendment of the Constitution did prevent the federal government from adopting an official state religion like the Church of England or the Lutheran Church in Scandinavian countries, it did not affect individual states from doing so which Jefferson and others lobbied against for obvious reasons in Virginia. Given the paltry attendence figures at these churches in England and Scandinavia on any given Sunday, it would appear that the Founding Fathers were on to something. Thus, the disestablishment of a individual state's official religion was eventually accomplished through a state statute by the state legislature. Massachusetts, on the other hand, remained officially Congregationalist up until 1833.


For reasons known only to Mr. Miller, he does not make mention of the infamous "Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Dansbury Baptists" within the text of his arguments. There is something that I would like to get Mr. Miller's opinion on, should he ever wish to comment, concerning Jefferson's use of the term, "seperation of church and state" in this private letter.

Shortly after he wrote his letter to the Dansbury Baptists, Thomas Jefferson himself, "Mr. Seperation of Church and State", was sitting in what was most clearly a Christian, religious worship service held inside the US House of Representatives. Yes, you read that right. And these services were held on Sundays until after the US Civil War in the late 1800's. Or, as this writer puts it...

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."

And not only that, Jefferson further CLEARLY endorsed such services by having the US Marine Corps Marching Band (depicted above) appear in the US House to help liven up the music in said services thus providing the ACLU with another, potential heart-attack inducing moment.


So why did Jefferson and Madison not speak out against the use of governmental buildings for expressly Christian religious services but in fact, actively participate in them? Because nobody in attendence was compelled to do so and there is little doubt that neither Jefferson nor Madison would have ever advocated that attendence at these services should have been made compulsory. Mr. Miller, your thoughts please.

Of course, all of this is before we get into why President Jefferson OK'ed federal monies for, "a plan by which the blessing of Christianity might be propagated among the heathen." No, not for atheists/secular humanists Mr. Miller, but for missionary efforts among Native American tribes.

Stop by tomorrow and we'll examine two more of Mr. Millers urban legends key points. The so-called "Jefferson Bible" and the fairy-tale for adults being propagated that the University of Virginia was founded as a "secular" college.

On Jesus and Jefferson

A recurring idea that I've had for some time now is writing a blog post about the third President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson. More so than other early American patriots, Jefferson is lionized by atheists and secular humanists to a degree that a complete picture of his thoughts and ideals is often not presented and we are left with an image of him that those on the Left would want us to see while omitting certain inconvenient elements. All of this gives us an incomplete picture of a man who's religious views were a bit complicated and not readily reduced to a cute sound-byte that quickly summerizes his particular and unique points of view.



This blog entry is written in response to Why the Texas Taliban Fears Mr. Jefferson which my friend Larian Lequella (AKA Steve Lundquist-The Happy Atheist) posted on his blog yesterday and was originally credited to a Mr. Dave Miller, writing in a publication known as The Hook. The entire text of Mr Miller's arguments can be read by clicking here. What follows will be my thoughts on the points raised by Mr. Miller, some of which are not catagorically false but are arranged in such a way as to paint a portrait of Jefferson that I find incomplete at best and disingenuous at worst. First in his opening statement, Mr Miller states....



The impending celebration of Independence Day comes about four months after the powerful Texas Board of Education voted to undermine one of our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms; namely, that of religion



I must admit I was complete unaware that a group of professionals deciding upon the books to be used in the cirriculum of school students in the state of Texas had voted to "undermine" the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and I will assume that this is hyperbole on Mr Miller's part unless evidence is provided to indicate otherwise. Miller continues on in High Drama Queen style by stating...



The Texas School Board’s recent acts of textbook censorship and revision of American history suggest that a Christian Taliban is on the rise



How truly tolerant of Mr Miller to compare those in Texas who have a worldview that skews Christian, to poorly (if at all) educated 7th Century throwbacks with dirty beards and filthy robes, who are dedicated to imposing Sharia Law through beheadings, I.E.D. attacks and suicide bombings. I see the relevance right off the bat. Kudos to you Mr Miller. I am in awe of your unique analysis. His insight is particularly telling in his next paragraph in which his argument goes completely off-the-rails and smack-bang into outright silliness...



Unfortunately, the extreme religious right is of the belief that our government is based on Christianity and should be recognized as such publicly. Often, the arguments are given that the founders were Christian men and the laws of the land are based upon the Biblical ten commandments



Perhaps I might be tempted to cut Mr Miller a bit of slack here for merely regurgitating Skepticism 101 talking points. There might actually BE Christians out there who would advance such an argument as Mr Miller suggests. What Mr Miller (or anyone else) who would like to advance such an argument would demonstrate by raising as such would be to demonstrate that they cannot tell the difference between a legal code and a form of civil government.
The use of early church covenants in the colonies and how they were used as a basis for the formation of government that we here in the United States enjoy today would be much more accurate in demonstrating the Christian underpinnings of the foundation of this country. Mr Miller (and anyone else) is welcome to state their opinion on this subject matter on this thread.



Our laws and their antecedents basically agree with the ten commandments, but so have the laws of most civilizations throughout history. Non-Christian religions all teach similar rules of morality. They were all drawn from human experience down through the ages



While certain Commandments such as Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, are to be found in other legal codes, the 10 Commandments are unique in that I am unaware of any other religious foundational document which predates the 10 Commandments in which our thoughts and attitudes are regulated and not just transgressions that necessitate a particular action on our behalf. I.E. "covetousness".




The thinkers who formulated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were deists, not theists, and were inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment movement in England and Europe



Pure.. Unadulterated.. Poppycock. This flies completely in the face of serious scholarship on the subject by Dr. M. E. Bradford (University of Dallas) in which he careflully examined the religious beliefs of 55 of the framers of the Constitutional Convention and found only 3 whose religious leanings were a bit unclear. A list of the delegates is as follows ...



New Hampshire

John Langdon, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
Nicholas Gilman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

Massachusetts

Elbridge Gerry, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Rufus King, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Caleb Strong, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
Nathaniel Gorham, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

Connecticut

Roger Sherman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
William Johnson, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Oliver Ellsworth, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

New York

Alexander Hamilton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
John Lansing, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist
Robert Yates, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist

New Jersey

William Patterson, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
William Livingston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
Jonathan Dayton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
David Brearly, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
William Churchill Houston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist

Pennsylvania

Benjamin Franklin, DEIST
Robert Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
James Wilson, DEIST
Gouverneur Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Thomas Mifflin, QUAKER
George Clymer, QUAKER
Thomas FitzSimmons, ROMAN CATHOLIC
Jared Ingersoll, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist

Delaware

John Dickinson, QUAKER
George Read, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Richard Bassett, METHODIST
Gunning Beford, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
Jacod Broom, LUTHERAN

Maryland

Luther Martin, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Daniel Carroll, ROMAN CATHOLIC
John Mercer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
James McHenry, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
Daniel Jennifer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

Virginia

George Washington, EPISCOPALIAN (Non-Communicant)
James Madison, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
George Mason, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Edmund Randolph, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
James Blair, Jr., EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
James McClung, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
George Wythe, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

North Carolina

William Davie, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
Hugh Williamson, DEIST
William Blount, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
Alexander Martin, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
Richard Spaight, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

South Carolina

John Rutledge, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Charles Pinckney, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Pierce Butler, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Charles Pinckney, III, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
Georgia

Abraham Baldwin, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
William Leigh Pierce, EPISCOPALIAN Calvinist
William Houstoun, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
William Few, METHODIST


Should there be any questions concerning the classification of Episcopalians as "Calvinist", this was at a time in history when the Episcopal Church had a Calvinistic Confession. Insofar as George Washington's "non-communicant" status, one can read my below entry from last Friday for an explanation about this. As for George Washington being a deist, Mr. Miller is welcome to post the relevant quote from President Washington where he indicated that he was a deist here while citing his source. I will immediately forward said information the the Political Science department of my alma mater for review being that Mr Miller would have provided the first ever quote from Washington that would indicate this.



Among the leaders of that movement were Voltaire (Francois-Marie Arouet), Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Denis Diderot of France, and Francis Bacon, Isaack Newton, and John Locke of England. Americans Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Alexander Hamilton accepted the tenets of Enlightenment philosophy



"Over a ten-year period, political science professors at the University of Houston analyzed over 15,000 writings and speeches by the Founding Fathers to determine the primary source of ideas behind the Constitution. The three most quoted sources were the French philosopher Charles Montesquieu, English jurist William Blackstone and English philosopher John Locke. But the Bible was quoted more than any of these: four times more than Montesquieu, six times more than Locke and twelve times more than Blackstone. Ninety-four percent of the Founding Father's quotes were quoted, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible". Source: Lillback, Peter; Wall of Misconception, pgs. 30-31, (2007), Providence Forum Press.

Source cited by Lillback,

Moore, David T. ; Five Lives of the Century, pgs. 9-10, (1995), Tyndale House Publishing



Just what exactly was the source cited by Mr Miller to form his conclusion? He really doesnt say, but he is welcome to cite it here.



I can see this post is running a bit long and we've barely begun to address President Jefferson so I'll get to the other points raised by Mr. Miller in a seperate entry a little later.

Note: I've linked the other two installments of this series on this page.



On Jesus and Jefferson, Part II



And On Jesus and Jefferson, Part III



Enjoy!

Is it Important Whether George Washington Took Communion or Not?

Dr Peter Lillback, who's Providence Forum is leading the way in explaining America's Christian heritage, has recently started a blog on his organization's website. For the types that frequent this forum, he discusses many of the religious/political and "church and state" issues that come up on this blog with regularity and makes some interesting, well researched arguments defending his position.



One of the threads currently up on his blog addresses a subject that I have encountered on some of the more virulent, hard-core atheist websites, the matter of our (US) Founding Fathers and their personal faith and convictions. I have even read certain atheists put forward the idea that many of the Founding Fathers of the US were atheists or deists in the very least. George Washington is one of those that atheist apologists cite as an example and one of their leading arguments is that Washington stopped taking communion at the time of the commencement of the Revolutionary War. Dr Lillback beings his insight into the matter thusly...

"To begin, consider the often overlooked fact that Church and State were identical in the United Kingdom in the 18th Century as the American Declaration of Independence was signed. This meant that the King had to legally protect the church and it also meant that every Anglican clergyman had taken a legally enforceable vow to the monarch. Thus for Washington, who grew up in the Old Dominion, we can see that his relationship to the State unavoidably evokes the question of his relationship to the State’s established Church. To be a member in good standing in the Anglican Church, one must be a communicant, and specifically communing, at the sacramental table. There has never been any question about Washington’s doing so in his earlier years in the House of Burgesses in Virginia when he was also serving as vestryman and churchwarden for the Anglican Church of Virginia.

Scholars are agreed that Washington ceased to commune and resigned as a vestryman at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. Taking these actions, he was breaking with both Church and State as he began to lead the American Revolutionary Army. While some have identified these actions with a nascent deism, a better explanation is he recognized he was no longer able to be in communion with the King or the King’s clergymen. Thereafter in the Revolution, reports of Washington’s communing occur in non-Anglican settings such as the Presbyterian church in Morristown, New Jersey. Furthermore, Mrs. Alexander Hamilton reported to her family that on the day of the new President’s inauguration in New York City, she had the privilege to kneel and take communion with him in an Episcopalian Chapel. Washington’s actions in this regard are consistent both with his break from the lawful Church and his return to its successor that was legally recognized on both sides of the ocean by the King and Congress. Thus it is clear that even in the matter of communing we see not only a witness to Washington’s Judeo-Christian faith but also the relevance of his religious actions for the creation of the new republic. Washington understood this and it can be seen in one of his own letters when he refers to the chalice of the communion service by the words of the King James Bible, “the cup of blessing.” He warns the nation that it is possible for the cup of blessing to be spilled before it reaches the lips of the one who partakes. In this way he was reminding the country that they were seated around a common communion table of civil liberty that required both thanksgiving and responsibility.

So to conclude, Washington’s communing was not nearly as important as Washington’s view of the tyranny of the King of England, but it is a faulty understanding of our nation’s origins to not see, no pun intended, the communion between the Eucharist and the revolution in the life of our founding father, George Washington."

You can read Dr Lillback's bio here. His book, George Washinton's Sacred Fire recently catapulted to number 1 on amazon.com's website after his appearance on The Glenn Beck Show.

The Italian Crucifix Contraversy

According to the US Central Intelligence Agency, about 90% of the population of the country of Italy identify themselves as Roman Catholics, and of that percentage about a third are regularly practicing Catholics. Fox News is now reporting that there is an organized effort to remove crucifixes from classrooms that have traditionally been displayed there for years...

"The Italian government has appealed a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg that would remove crucifixes from Italian public schools.

The government made its appeal today before the Grand Chamber of the Court, in a case that the Vatican and many European nations will be watching closely.

Ten other countries signed on to show their support for Italy in the case, several of them Orthodox strongholds, including Greece, Russia and Cyprus.

The case stems from a woman who argued that that all the classrooms in her children’s school in a small town in Italy – a secular country -- had crucifixes on the wall.

While Italian courts ruled against her, the European Court of Human Rights upheld her argument last November, maintaining there had been a violation of the right to education, as wall as freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

The crucifix on the wall, the judgment said, “restricted the right of parents to educate their children in conformity with their convictions, and the right of children to believe or not believe.”

Italian officials have argued that the crucifix is not only a religious symbol but also a cultural one, part of the national identity."

I really don't see the why they have to be taken down, especially if it is such a component of their society in a cultural way. One can just as easily gaze upon a crucifix and reject the Resurrection account as related by scripture as accept it. It is merely a symbol after all, but one with profound consequences should those who are skeptical not analyze, with an open mind, the events from 2000 years ago at Calvary.

Those who would advocate the removal of such an icon from European classrooms find themselves in such enviable company, as Canada Free Press informs us, as the Nazi Party who in 1941, among other anti-Christian manuevers, advocated the removal of crucifixes from classrooms as well.

All of this points to the larger issue of Western society losing it's cultural identity. The very idea a Massachusetts school student having to fight tooth and nail against the powers that be in order to actually recite the Pledge of Allegiance would have been unthinkable just a few short years ago, but alas, there it is. If nothing else, we certainly do live in interesting times. As our youth are increasingly unaware about what makes our society unique and what our history is, you can bet that their minds will be filled with an alternative view of the world. And you can bet that it's one that isnt very complimentary of our Christian heritage and our positive achievements in the world either.