March 2005
Monthly Archive
Monthly Archive
Posted by Sherry on Mar 31 2005 | Filed under: General, Music
I took some time away this evening, my emotions were strained and I needed some space to think. I ended up at the music store where I picked up Tori Amos’ new CD The Beekeeper and have been listening to it since I hit the car.

If you’re a Tori Amos fan you won’t be disappointed
Posted by Sherry on Mar 31 2005 | Filed under: Pro Life
I’m listening to George Felos give a press conference. I can’t help but be reminded of just how odd this man is, a fact I was also reminded of this morning when reading the Evangelical Outpost
From Mr Felo’s book “Litigation As Spiritual Practice”
As Mrs. Browning lay motionless before my gaze, I suddenly heard a loud, deep moan and scream and wondered if the nursing home personnel heard it and would respond to the unfortunate resident. In the next moment, as this cry of pain and torment continued, I realized it was Mrs. Browning.
I felt the mid-section of my body open and noticed a strange quality to the light in the room. I sensed her soul in agony. As she screamed I heard her say, in confusion, ‘Why am I still here … why am I here?’ My soul touched hers and in some way I communicated that she was still locked in her body. I promised I would do everything in my power to gain the release her soul cried for. With that the screaming immediately stopped. I felt like I was back in my head again, the room resumed its normal appearance, and Mrs. Browning, as she had throughout this experience, lay silent.
Mr Felos seems intent in his speaking today to lay all blame of animosity between the families upon the shoulders of Terri’s brother Bobby Shindler and the family’s priest, Father Pavone. He accuses Father Pavone of being an ideolog and causing division instead of promoting healing.
Reading Mr Felo’s words above in the excerpt from his book I have to say that Father Pavone wasn’t the only one acting from personal ideology.
Comments Off
Posted by Sherry on Mar 31 2005 | Filed under: Politics, Religion
Thank you Marvin for directing me over to Hugh Hewitt’s article, “Hating The Religious Right”
Mr Hewitt asks the question “Should people of faith also be allowed a say in the law-making process?” and points out some interesting falsehoods regarding the religious right and the role they have played in recent divisive politics.
The speed with which issues that excite the passions of people of faith have arrived at the center of American politics is not surprising given the forced march that the courts have put those issues on. It was not the “religious right” that pushed gay marriage to the center of the public debate; it was courts in Hawaii, Vermont, and Massachusetts. It wasn’t the “religious right” that ordered Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube removed; it was a Florida Supreme Court that struck down a law passed by the Florida legislature and signed by Governor Jeb Bush which would have allowed Terri Schiavo to live. And it isn’t the “religious right” that forced the United States Supreme Court to repeatedly issue rulings on areas of law that would have been better left to legislatures.
These and other developments have indeed mobilized new activists across the country, many of who see a vast disparity between what they believe ought to be public policy and what is becoming that policy by judicial fiat. They have every right to participate in politics, and they can be expected to refuse to support elected officials who ignore their concerns.
It’s ridiculous how one sided many people, Sen. Danforth included look at this particular issue.
example:
In their twisted logic a person who believes that abortion is wrong and therefore vote only for pro life candidates is somehow guilty of allowing their faith to guide their politics and so their right to participate in our political arena is therefore questioned.
Yet if you believe that a womans right to choose supercedes the life of an unborn child, you are considered enlightened and reasonable and therefore no one challenges your right to vote your conscience or your involvement in the political debate.
Exactly who are the ideologs here?
Posted by Sherry on Mar 30 2005 | Filed under: Politics, Religion
Marvin over at Little Red Blog has taken issue with those who are trying to avoid being identified as conservative Christians and in particular former Senator John Danforth.
In an op ed for the NY Times Sen Danforth accuses Christians of turning the Republican Party into their “political arm”.
The following is part of Marvin’s reply
And finally sir, to the issue of Terri Schiavo. Like many a conservative and liberal alike, we are conflicted and challenged by this case in a way unlike any other. As for my position, I supported the Congressional action because it was an attempt to ensure that the courts in Florida were not ignoring the rights of a Floridian. It was generally a toothless effort that without teeth fell on deaf ears in the 11th Circuit. By supporting this action, the Congress acted to protect life, to give one last hearing to the unheard. If that to you is a Christian agenda worthy of alarm, then let it be.
Senator, we Republicans are not falling prey to an intrusion of religion into politics. We are instead experiencing a willingness to assert the fullness of the values that we should all use as barometer for governance. As a minister, you recognize the difference between what is legal and what is sin. The current Republican efforts you take issue with are guided not by an understanding of sin, but rather an understanding of the moral depth behind the founding principles of our nation and a desire to support them. These issues, like your support for ending the genocide in Darfur, are important to me because they tell me about our world, our nation and our desire to make the world more free and just.
Like Marvin I find these claims against conservative Christians to be as ludicrous as they are offensive.
All parties have a fringe element and sometimes they go beyond what is acceptable, however the majority of conservative Christians myself included have no ambition or desire to highjack the party nor to turn our nation into a theocracy. What we hope for and what we strive towards is the return of America to the moral foundation that made her so great. The America that once served as a beacon of hope and light to the afflicted and persecuted of the world.
We do not believe this can be achieved without maintaining a deep respect for the sanctity of life for all, including the weak and unwanted.
As Americans we are as much a reflection of our leaders and our policies as our leaders and policies are a reflection upon us. It can not be expected that we should cower and stay hidden to avoid offending merely because we believe in the existence of All Mighty God.
We are fully capable and for the most part do separate our politics from our faith. However it may be impossible to separate our values and morals from choosing our leaders and in deciding which policies and actions we support.
That is not a religious action, it is however the action required of every citizen blessed with the ability to think and consider.
Posted by Sherry on Mar 30 2005 | Filed under: Pro Life
I have no words at this moment …..
The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to consider an emergency bid by Bob and Mary Schindler for a new hearing in their case, raising a flicker of hope for the parents after a series of setbacks in the case. But the court rejected the bid 15 hours later — the fourth time since last week the court ruled against the Schindlers.
“Any further action by our court or the district court would be improper,” wrote Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., who was appointed by former President Bush. “While the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty.”
Posted by Sherry on Mar 30 2005 | Filed under: General
Words to make you feel by Portuguese Poet, Paulo José Miranda
(..)
4. America keeps growing. America keeps welcoming the world.
5. If Europe is the past of America, the former USSR was a reaction to America. USSR was also a human invention, but it was an invention against-time, it was an invention against-America. The USSR wanted to change the world. The USSR wanted to change history. The USSR tried to be a floodgate against the course of history, it tried to be a floodgate against the course of the world. The USSR wanted to be what America already was: the comprehension of the world.
(..)
29. Through television one knows that America is everyday.
(..)
32. America has no religion, America has God.
(..)
76. America has no synonym.
hat tip Deans World by way of Citizen Smash
Comments Off