(CNN) -- Three people were shot, two fatally, at a Tallahassee, Florida, federal prison Wednesday as federal agents were serving an indictment on six corrections officers, authorities said.
One of those being arrested opened fire, the FBI said. A federal agent and the gunman were both killed.
The shooting occurred about 7:45 a.m. at the Federal Correctional Institution in Tallahassee. The facility holds inmates awaiting trial, spokeswoman Carla Wilson said.
#1
Sounds like the guards had a sweet deal going on down there. Sex for favors? Sorry in my fantasy world this happens all the time at a womens prison.
#5
I just have to wonder why, knowing their arrestee would be armed, the FBI didn't find a way to arrest him without the weapon. Like at home. Seems like a stupid thing to overlook.
Remember, we're talking about the FBI. Nothing is too stupid for them to overlook.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/21/2006 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I'm sure the inmates found it entertaining.
Nah, that was a good thing, if they saw it. Although the death of the Agent was tragic, I'm sure there was no love lost on the scumbag who was also kiled. And, it sends a message to inmates that abuse by guards will be dealt with, and complaints will be investigated.
I think the morale and behavior of the inmates will improve with this. That can only make it better for everyone. My condolences to the Agent's family.
#8
Chuck, the arrestee somehow managed to smuggle his personal firearm into the facility. I worked for an Architectural Company that specialized in jails and prisons. There are no jails or prisons that I know of that allow armed guards to roam freely. Firearms have to be locked in a lockbox just in case some kind of uprising occurs and the prisoners can therefore aquire firearms. How this guard was able to smuggle a personally owned firearm in indicates a lax policy at the prison. Heads should roll.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/21/2006 20:09 Comments ||
Top||
Former Liberian president Charles Taylor arrived in the Netherlands on Tuesday to face trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, airport officials said. "He arrived in Rotterdam and was picked up by officials from the Foreign Ministry," an airport official said. Taylor will be held at the ICC's Scheveningen detention unit. He faces 11 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for backing Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front rebels, whose drugged child soldiers killed, mutilated and raped civilians during the West African country's 1990s civil war.
Taylor was flown in a U.N. helicopter to the country's main airport at Lungi from the compound of the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, which has charged him with war crimes and will conduct his trial in The Hague.
"Any calls while I was out, Frieda?"
"No, Ms. del Ponte."
"Damn. I thought for sure they'd have called by now..."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/21/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) - President Evo Morales' latest anti-U.S. diatribe came in a speech to thousands of peasants in his political stronghold: The United States is sending soldiers disguised as students and tourists to Bolivia.
The accusation, rejected Wednesday as unfounded by the U.S. Embassy, comes as Morales faces attacks by political opponents for his cozy relationship with President Hugo Chavez's Venezuela, including accepting aid from that country's military.
It's not clear how many Venezuelan troops are in Bolivia, but Venezuelan pilots have been ferrying Morales around the country for the past two weeks in two loaned military helicopters as he campaigns ahead of July 2 elections for an assembly that is to retool Bolivia's constitution.
What do you know: a new socialist president and a rapid move to 'revamp' the country's constitution. And all the while socialist troops from another country are just 'helping out'. Must be from the goodness of their hearts.
Morales' accusation also comes as Bolivia seeks to extend a preferential trade agreement that has been a big boost to South America's poorest country, helping Bolivia export $380 million in goods to the United States last year.
Um, hmmm, let me think about it ... okay, got it ... no.
Vice President Alvaro Garcia Linera is expected to head to Washington next month to lobby for an extension of the Andean Trade Promotion and Drug Eradication Act, which expires Dec. 31. Relations between the two countries have been frosty since Morales took office in January, and U.S. officials have said it's unlikely Bolivia will get an extension. Washington wants Bolivia to join Peru and Colombia in signing bilateral free-trade agreements.
During Morales' speech Tuesday in Cochabamba state, home of his political base, he mentioned that U.S. Ambassador David Greenlee had sought a meeting with him. "He asked for a meeting. I don't know what he's looking to discuss. I'm not at all afraid of talking or perhaps he's angry," said Morales. "But I also have the right to complain because U.S. soldiers disguised as students and tourists are entering the country," said Morales, a leftist Aymara Indian whose plan for Bolivia includes the nationalization of its natural gas industry.
Did you look under your bed this morning? Just asking.
Morales offered no evidence to back up the claim. His spokesman, Alex Contreras, said Morales would be providing evidence, though he did not say when.
About the same time as TruthOut.org.
The U.S. Embassy issued a statement calling Morales' accusation "unfounded." "We reiterate once more that we are supporting Bolivian democracy in a consistent way," the statement said.
On Sunday, during a meeting with coca growers, Morales had uttered a phrase in the native Quechua language that may have irritated the U.S. ambassador. "I shouted, 'Qausachun coca (long live coca!), wanuchun yanquis (die Yankees!),' and perhaps that could have angered him," said Morales. "If he complains, I, too, have the right to complain."
Morale often intoned the incendiary Quechua phrase in speeches during his years as head of the coca growers' union, a post he continues to hold today. Morales' government and Washington have been at loggerheads over his promotion of coca leaf for export in products including tea, toothpaste and shampoo.
Tuesday's remarks were Morales' second direct reference to the United States in recent days. Last week, he told a crowd that he was prepared to defend his revolution with arms against any U.S. threat.
Just like his buddy Hugo.
Earlier this month, Morales said without offering specifics that the United States had tried to assassinate him in the past.
Morales' main political opponent, former president Jorge Quiroga, accused him this week of compromising Bolivia's sovereignty by inviting so many Venezuelan soldiers. Venezuelan Embassy officials did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment on how many of the country's soldiers were in Bolivia.
Military cooperation with the United States, meanwhile, has ebbed. The U.S. Embassy would not specify how many Department of Defense employees it has in Bolivia, saying only that they number about a few dozen.
And they're all wearing Hawaiian shirts.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2006 17:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Evo, you're absolutely right. There are thousands of Yanqui secret agents and infiltrators in greater La Paz alone. Thousands of 'em. And they're being helped by moles and collaborators in the highest levels of your government and military. You'd better start rounding them up and purging them now, while you still have a chance.
And I wouldn't be shocked if your new best friend Hugo isn't double-dealing with them to save his own skin, too. Better not trust him too much.
No, it's not paranoia if they're really out to get you.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/21/2006 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yes Evo, there are indeed thousands of them. Usually using the cover of a journalist from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, Boston Globe, or LAT. Just don't forget that.
There has all along been a debate whether there is the so-called "Sun Zi's Art of War Craze" at all. Some believe it is nothing but an insubstantial vision. Vision or reality? Solid figures speak louder. In the past few days, the Seventh International Symposium on Sun Zi's Art of War held in Hangzhou, China, attracted over 300 experts and scholars from 30 countries and regions to attend.
In modern times, the economic integration facilitates unprecedented close connections among countries. Under the new historical conditions, the strategic thinking and the resourceful wisdom of the Sun Zi's Art of War epitomized in "breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting it" have been valued immensely by people, and furthermore, has been endowed with new meanings of the modern times and introduced into sectors with the ingrain nature of competitiveness and rivalry such as politics, diplomacy, business, sports and the like.
Sun Zi's Art of War advocates wining "without fighting", resorting to military action with discretion and fighting to win, and underscores not engaging the enemy unless being assured of the necessary conditions for victory, complete victory and overwhelming the enemy, which contains the concept of valuing humanities and peace, and in fact is of great immediate guidance to settling disputes, realizing win-win situation for all and seeking for security through negotiation, consultation and cooperation.
This mentality is in line with the common interests of the whole mankind and naturally attracts admiration worldwide just as the old Chinese saying goes: Peaches and plums do not have to talk, yet the world beats a path to them. In view of this, it is quite a reasonable choice for the world people to pay attention to, study, research on and apply the Sun Zi's Art of War rather than a hot-headed whim.
One writer - Sun Zi is a great man, we should follow his works.
#5
Largely, Sun Tzu's commentary is a compendium of facts that any mediocre military strategist and tactician should already know. The fact that he wrote down these summaries is all the fame he really ought to get.
Clausewitz's On War is a far broader and deeper treatise with some of the most profound viewpoints and commentaries ever put to print. While sometimes tedious and difficult, it beats Sun Tzu's commentaries in breadth and scope by miles.
I've always found Sun Tzu's commentaries fairly infantile in their brevity. If Grant had followed these commentaries he'd have never beaten Lee into the ground and taken his surrender at Appomatox C.H. If Eiesenhower had taken Sun Tzu's comments literally and figuratively he'd have never ever>/em> dared to launch D-Day.
No plan ever survives contact with the enemy. There are always unknowns. Sun Tzu's attempts to qualify all the maxims of warfare fail to point out this overall law first codified by Murphy.
Sometimes - historically more often than not - it has been shown that when you're in a difficult spot and don;t know what the enemy is going to do it's often a good idea to attack him anyway - directly, ruthlessly, and with malice aforethought.
Surprise, doing what the enemy doesn;t think you're able or willing to do, is often a winning strategy. While Sun Tzu does point this out, his other maxims tend to outweigh this one and get better press.
#7
If Grant had followed these commentaries he'd have never beaten Lee into the ground
Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, though badly attrited and low on food and supplies, had lost little of its adeptness and enthusiasm, and Lee himself, through all but incapacitated from exhaustion stomach flu, and lacking the aid of his most able subordinates (most of whom were now dead), had lost none of his knack for outwitting battlefield opponents. At no time did anyone ever think the South could achieve an overall military victory, but many believed that it could maintain the 1861 successions and eventually become an independent, sovereign nation, gradually wearing down the North's resolve to keep the entire Union together. President Lincoln was absolutely determined not to allow that to happen. He was wholly committed to preserving the Union and thus prosecuting the war to its conclusion. Lee chose honorable surrender as opposed to a guerrilla was, which many of his subordinate generals strongly encouraged. "Beaten into the ground" the Army of Northern Virginia was not.
#8
The best element of Sun Tzu is that he formalized two concepts: the military unit organization, and the method of planning operations.
Every modern military on the planet uses both concepts. The method of planning consists of only six elements, but if you plan for those six, MOST of your typical planning is done:
The overall situation
The mission
Execution of the mission
Logistical support of the mission
The command structure and communications
Deception and obscuration of enemy intelligence
Though there is considerable variation in emphasis with this method of planning, well-trained combat officers in modern armies are practiced in using this outline for planning for tasks from the mundane to the serious. Optimally, it will be second nature to them.
As an outline, it expands or contracts depending on the size of the unit. Even the D-Day invasion, who operations plan was alleged to stand five feet tall, was just extrapolated from these six paragraphs.
Of course, this philosophy has a widely different interpretation when embraced by civilians. Some years ago, it was all the rage on Wall Street, along with the more recently discovered writings of one of Sun Tzu's disciples, Sun Pin, along with such tripe as "The leadership skills of Ghengis Khan."
By the time Lee had run to Five Forks, his army had indeed been beaten into the ground. Herded back to Richmond and Petersburg, then surrounded and put into siege, with dwindling supplies, disease setting in, and exhaustion through the ranks, there was no way Lee could effect his extraction from Richmond and move south.
In the strategic sense the ANV had been beaten as well. It could no longer perform its primary task: keep the Union out of Central Virginia, and keep the capital of the Confederacy safe from attack.
The ANV was beaten. Lee's final act of genius and compassion was to recognize that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2006 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Besoeker: Lee chose honorable surrender as opposed to a guerrilla was, which many of his subordinate generals strongly encouraged. "Beaten into the ground" the Army of Northern Virginia was not.
Under the rules of engagement of the day, Lee was beaten. Sherman burned Atlanta - and I suspect he was willing to do the same to any town that supported the rebels. Dehousing works - it puts the enemy's base of support in a situation where they can barely feed themselves, let alone feed the enemy. In fact, the idea is to avoid killing the enemy's base (as long as they don't offer armed resistance, otherwise, it's maneuver by fire), so that they have more mouths to feed, with ruins for housing, and burned farmlands for forage. Under the rules of the day, Lee was finished. And he knew it, which is why he surrendered, to avoid merely delaying the inevitable at a massive cost in Southern lives and livelihoods.
#11
Moose: Of course, this philosophy has a widely different interpretation when embraced by civilians. Some years ago, it was all the rage on Wall Street, along with the more recently discovered writings of one of Sun Tzu's disciples, Sun Pin, along with such tripe as "The leadership skills of Ghengis Khan."
In war, you can physically eliminate your adversary. In the business world (unless you consider La Cosa Nostra a business), you cannot. Logistics doesn't matter to law firms. The list goes on and on. Overall, I think Machavelli's The Prince is a better book for civilians.
The Asian edition of the Wall Street Journal of the U.S. recently carried a not-signed commentary in an effort to defend the U.S. Defense Department's "Annual Report to the Congress on the Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2006" and to inflate the fallacy of "China threat".
The article alleged that China's military was in wanting of transparency. The last paragraph of the article concluded that China said its military motive was for peace. However, people would perhaps be more prone to take China at its words if China's efforts in building up its military might for national defense would embrace less surreptitiousness of Su Zi's Art of War but more transparency.
It is absurd indeed for this new argument to imply that Chinese military's dedication to the study of the Sun Zi's Art of War contributes to the arrival at the conclusion that China's military was lack of transparency.
The logic of the article desecrated Sun Zi's Art of War by alleging that the purpose of studying it is to churn out "intrigues". The thought of Sun Zi is known to all and its highest realm is to "break the enemy's resistance without fighting it". Although over 2000 years have elapsed, the ideas of "without fighting it" and "being cautious to resort to fight" are still of immediate significance, and thereby merit thinking deeply about and insight learning.
China is following the road of peaceful development and the task of China's armed forces is to stand up to aggression and defend the security of the country. It is downright mudslinging to say that the Chinese army's study of Sun Zi's Art of War is to add more "secrecy" to the military affairs. And to stamp the open and transparent Chinese military with a non-transparent chop is beyond any doubt a practice that harbors absolute ulterior motives and therefore is misleading to the public opinion.
And the other writer - China is not following Sun Zi's ideas, but other nations are. Stop it!
I believe this is called "projection". It could also be called "rank hypocrisy", but based on my experience in China, talking with two faces is called "business as usual".
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkey's prime minister announced plans Tuesday to build three nuclear power plants by 2015 to meet the country's growing energy needs. Turkey has limited energy resources, relying on natural gas supplies from Iran and Russia.
``As a country whose energy consumption is increasing rapidly, we want to benefit from nuclear energy as soon as possible,'' Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told an energy conference in Istanbul. ``We foresee the building of three nuclear power plants by 2015.''
Turkey has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and strict agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/21/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Maybe we can build a grid to transmit some of that power over here.
The second-in-command of the Indian army has apologised for saying it does not need women officers. The comments by Lt Gen S Pattabhiraman provoked an angry reaction from women's rights activists who demanded that he be sacked.
He was speaking soon after a young female officer had committed suicide in Indian-administered Kashmir.
There are fewer than 1,000 female officers in the million-strong Indian army, all in non-combat roles.
Lt Gen Pattabhiraman made his apology in a statement issued on Tuesday. "Should my remarks have caused any anguish or doubt about my personal commitment and healthy respect towards the role of lady officers, I have no hesitation in rendering an apology to such groups or sections of society or individuals."
He said he now had a personal commitment and healthy respect towards the role of women officers in the army. His apology comes days after his comments drew a storm of protests from women's activists and opposition party leaders.
A newspaper last week had quoted him as saying that the view from the army rank and file was that they could do without women officers.
A spokeswoman for India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Sushma Swaraj, said the government should tell the general that "the Indian army could do without him". The National Commission for Women condemned the remarks as "very irresponsible".
The Indian army said on Saturday that the general was quoted out of context. Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee played down the row by saying the government would like to see more women in the army.
But women's groups have insisted that the general's remarks are a clear indication of gender bias in the army. The government started recruiting women officers nearly 14 years ago.
Posted by: john ||
06/21/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Cree Demonstrates 131 Lumens per Watt White LED [full disclosure MHW family owns some stock in Cree]
... Cree, Inc. (Nasdaq: CREE - News),..announced LED efficacy test results ... of 131 lumens per watt white LED efficacy, confirmed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology...LED chips operating at 20 mA and a correlated color temperature of 6027 K.
I posted on RB when Cree got up to 80 lumens/watt a few weeks ago. That was a soft white suitable for reading, etc. This test was for a harsh white not suitable for reading. However, it does show yet more promise. Once again, for context, incandescent bulbs are about 20 lumens/watt, compact fluorescents about 60 lumens per watt. After the previous post we had a discussion about the nature and pace of the use of LEDs
Of course the MHW family (among others) will start getting solicitations from agents of the "big power companies" to sell their stock. High efficiency LEDs are bad news for some.
Posted by: Mullah Richard ||
06/21/2006 19:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
actually the power companies may be happy because lowered lighting will tend to decrease the peak load more than the base load (hot days have peak load partly because of waste heat from the lighting of shopping centers and office buildings
If you have trouble getting the buttons to work when posting to Rantburg, Opera's the way to go. It's my standard browser on Linux and I often use it on the Winboxes.
Works perfectly for the Mac. Opera 9 is 'universal binary' (we Mac folk know what that means), and most of the keyboard shortcuts are now the same as for Safari. I use it for all my Rantburg work.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/21/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm reading/writing this from Opera 9 now. Before version 8 it was almost there but not quite, but now it's just right. Get yourself some.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
06/21/2006 0:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yup, Opera 9 works great for me dual boot on Arch Linux and Windows, I use one bookmark file for both.
Definitely the best browser going. Lightweight, many excellent features.
#6
My only concern with the Opera browser is that it might spontaneously uninstall if Fred puts his "fat lady singing" graphic into an article. I mean, when the fat lady sings, that means the Opera's over, right?
(ducks)
Posted by: Mike ||
06/21/2006 13:37 Comments ||
Top||
Episcopal delegates Tuesday snubbed Anglican leaders' request to temporarily stop electing openly gay bishops, a vote that prompted the church's leader to call a special session in hopes of reaching a compromise to preserve fragile Anglican unity. The vote by the Episcopal House of Deputies came just hours before Presbyterians, at a separate meeting, approved a plan to let local congregations install gay ministers if they wish.
I'd hate to think of what the Unitarians have come up with.
In Columbus, wrenching debate over the moratorium on gay bishops stretched over two days in the House of Deputies, a legislative body of more than 800 clergy and lay leaders. Top Anglican officials had asked the Episcopalians for a temporary ban to calm the outrage among conservatives over the election three years ago of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, who lives with his longtime male partner. In a complex balloting system, a majority of deputies voted against a measure that would have urged dioceses to refrain from electing gay bishops. Conservatives complained that the proposal stopped short of a moratorium, but supporters argued it would have set a moral standard for the church and would have signaled that the American denomination understood the concerns of Anglican leaders.
Which they obviously don't...
Outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, the head of the denomination, said he would use his authority to call a special session Wednesday morning to address the issue again. The meeting will include both the deputies and the church's other policymaking body, the House of Bishops.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/21/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This will be the one that splinters teh Eposcopial church in the US and globally as well.
And these people claim the Catholic Chruch has a confusing bureacracy?
Not only can I not figure out who is responsible, I cant seem to even find a spine in there in the leaderhship, much less any sort of orthodox theology.
May as well join the Unitarians if this is all their faith and theology stands for. Invite in the tribal hoodoos and new age crystal gazers while you're at it - they have as much conviction and tehological basis as does the Episcopal Church anymore.
Sigh. I guess I better get ready for a ton more converts this fall. We Catholics get a lot of refugees that come to the Roman "catholic" Church as converts every time a major denomination goes off the rails like this.
Its rather sad to see the Anglicans and Episcopalians self destruct.
#2
I'm not episcopalian but I guess it comes down to what you believe. I left organized religion a short time ago but if I were to belong to a church - I'd want to know if the preacher/priest or whoever was put in their present position was because of their knowledge, professionalism, and sincere ability to fulfill their duties w/accords to the mission statement of that particular religious organization. Not, because of their race, color, creed or sexual preferences. I personally care not what a person's sexual orientation is so long as they are proficient at their job and have the class to keep it to themselves. If, the church as I described was trying to push the gay ajenda as I've seen on MTV and other left-leaning social jokes I would prolly leave quick. I've no tolerance for that type of sh*t. Bottomline, if I knew my pastor was gay but he/she didn't make some victocrat or rally around issue of it I could prolly deal w/that.
#4
Mods please delete the above post - I am tired so I didn't catch the transpositions and typos (dyslexia and slightly arthritic hands are a bad combo)
Now with Google-Bar Spell Checked Goodness! (thanks for that heads up about Google-bar for FireFox and it's ability to spell check text boxes)
BH6 - that's the Catholic position. Being a homosexual is no bar to salvation - but being a fornicator (sex outside of marriage) or performing homosexual acts *is* a bar to proper Christian behavior.
I know of at least one priest who is "homosexually oriented", but isn't pushy about it. He says the Catholic Church's rules on clerical celibacy were a Godsend to him - in his words they "literally saved his soul", in his viewpoint, by putting him in the service of God and putting a severe (cardinal) sin on the far end of the forbidden list, and giving him plenty of motivation toward proper Christian behavior.
We all sin - its those that do not recognize, repent and ask forgiveness for their sins that condemn themselves. That's everything from Adultery to Homosexuality to blasphemy. And unfortunately for the Episcopalians, they have erred in one of the most egregious ways - in that they are leading a whole group of people astray with errant theology and a warping of the Gospel into a lie. All to avoid having people become uncomfortable. Christianity places a moral obligation for Christians to inform sinners of what things are sins, help them repent and teach them of the forgiveness that's is available. The "prostitute" that Jesus forgives is a prime example of such a thing - but also remember that his parting words are "Go, and SIN NO MORE". People tend to forget that part.
Forgiveness is there, in an almost unimaginable amount - god's capacity to forgive exceeds our capacity to sin! But it also carries with the the obligation to put forth the effort to not sin again - and to prudently avoid things that can bring us to sin (like "lusting in our heart", etc).
And that's where the "soft" churches like the Episcopalians are headed - into deep theological error,, and they are doing the worst thing a shepherd can do - they are leading their flock astray, straight to the wolves. All as a matter to salve their liberal conscience. They forget that we enter by the narrow gate (as Christ said), not the broad road.
#5
I have an uncle who is gay. Knew it when he was about 12-13 yrs old (early 1960s). Being of the big Irish Catholic family he married my aunt, had two kids and tried to stay faithfully married for nearly 30 yrs. They ended up separating when he felt he no longer could fulfill that obligation as he still was a homosexual at heart and had those yearnings or whatever. They never got divorced because he didn't want her to lose his health insurance benefits and I know he had the guilt about drawing her into that lie. My uncle was a good father to his children and always did right by me (and I'm possibly the most un p.c. archie bunker type you'd ever wanna meet). I'm not condoning him lying to her & basically wasting a lot of good years for her.
He's not what I'd call a flamer & my point of this story is if he wants to live the rest of his life as an unrepentant homosexual because he believes that how two consenting adults love each other is no one else's business I don't really have a problem w/it. I don't think the Almighty I believe in is going to doom him to eternity in hell, purgatory or any other dismal place. I think 95% of homosexuals are born that way. People can quote the Bible about sin (which means to act without love) or recite verse verbatim about what is sin or what Jesus supposedly said. If you believe whole heartedly in Catholic doctrine (which I don't anymore) and that works for you then power to you and I agree that your clergy should strictly follow those regulations they voluntarily agreed to as per their organization sets forth - just as I do in my profession. Off topic but worty of note - either way there is no way to tell what was ever actually said or what man devised wrt scriptures, gospels, or revealed religion from any culture. IMHO - most of it was written by man for man. (So here comes the can of worms).
#6
Not only can I not figure out who is responsible, I cant seem to even find a spine in there in the leaderhship, much less any sort of orthodox theology.
Read Chris Johnston's web site; they have lots of backbone when dealing with people going against their party line.
Posted by: Phil ||
06/21/2006 1:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
My personal take.
"... The Word of God shall stand forever." Isaiah 40:8
Liberals may kill off "Christian" churches, but then the liberals just die like anyone else. People have been trying to derail Christianity for 2,000 years.
The world will continue to degenerate until Armagheden, but that is simply the ultimate result of mankind chosing to distance himself from God. But afterwards, God will still be standing, along with many that chose to stand with Him.
In the mean time, God is a team player. It takes Him and true Christians to reverse the current trend. Otherwise, if Christians just sit back, so does God...
#8
Homosexual acts, according to natural law, the scriptures and the Church, are disordered acts. Additionally there is an obligation as Christians to "remain chaste within our station" in life - that means no sex unless you are married. To violate that is to commit the sin of fornication (or adultery if you are married and have sex outside of marriage). Homosexuals can never fit that particular part of Christian obligation (marriage), and as such they have an increased burden, like someone who has a handicap. In the case of your uncle, I assume from your description that he attempted to do the right things as he knew them, and as long as his heart was right with God and he didn't commit anything he knew was wrong (or at least he genuine repented), then he will get the forgiveness if he sought it, and will get the ultimate reward, the same as any of us sinners. God accommodates all those who seek him, but one shouldn't go expecting Him to change the rules. The Old and New Testaments are fairly clear about homosexual acts being disordered, and generally an egregious sin: an act against God's laws - there is little to debate there (I quoted chapter and verse there, where homosexual acts were included with other sins like extortion, etc, as dis-qualifiers from heaven). There is also the Christian duty to admonish the sinner so they will know what they are doing is wrong, in order to help them repent and seek the forgiveness that awaits them (several biblical cites for that as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church going back many centuries). To allow a sinner to continue in ignorance is a terrible abrogation of that responsibility. One thing I want to be clear about is that this doesn't give any excuse for tactlessness nor hate (c.f. Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" church). God doesn't "hate fags" any more than he hates drunkards, abuser or even murderers. He hates the sins, not the sinner. If He hated sinners, then He would not have come down as His Son and gone through the agony of the cross to provide us a way out by fulfilling the old covenant and establishing the new one.
Bottom line: people are left with a choice when it comes to this issue an Christianity: either believe in the fundamental tenets of orthodox Christianity regarding truth and interpretation of Biblical scripture or don't. If one does, then my argument holds sway. If one doesn't then there is really very little to discuss - we have probably even less in common, theologically speaking, than I would have with a Southern Baptist (who consider us Catholics to be idol worshippers and "Papists"). But be warned, along the path of Heterodoxy are many snares and ways to create your own stumbling blocks. Orthodoxy has a couple of thousand years of hard study behind it from the Pentateuch through the ancient scholars of the Church, etc. These questions have been argued long and by minds far greater than ours - and that's why I believe what I do. If you choose to believe otherwise, then that's your choice. Just be aware of the cost of a wrong choice if you knew the other way was right.
I guess all we can agree is that we disagree BH6.
I'll not post further except to clarify things if others have questions, or else to provide citations. The last thing I want to turn this into is an Othrodox vs Heterodox battle royale. We do have a few things in common after all - the Trinity, forgivness of sins, baptism, and so on.
#14
OS, you're right, these questions have been argued long and hard by minds far greater than ours but also after study and much contemplation - this is also exactly why I believe as I do. If you choose to believe otherwise, then that's your choice and I support you as I would any other fellow patriot who is trying to make a positive contribution to our society or at the very least not trying to be a burden to it. As for the trinity, virgin birth, baptism as forgiveness of sins, original sin, then yeah we can agree to disagree and definitely no hard feelings from this end. I'm a spiritually secure Deist anyhow FWIW.
As for the egregious act of homosexuality being against the laws of nature, I'd submit from the gays I've known they have all claimed to have been born that way (now, they could be lying but I doubt it). Based off that I'd submit that they are merely acting in accordance w/their nature or in the manner nature has unfortunately prescribed them. I would like to know how two consenting adults acting within their nature (as far back as they remember it) and do it in the privacy of their own home - then what is the logical reason it is an egregious sin? My personal thought is that obviously since their can be no procreation or "fruitfulness" from homosexual activities those who wrote the old testament saw this as an egregious crime against God &/or nature and a possible threat to society as they knew it at the time. I'd call this (in my limited analytical fashion - remember you're dealing w/a knuckle dragging Marine here & I'm not real articulate, as least not of your league to be sure) a prescribed pragmatic safeguard to ensure the survivability of a society. To a lesser extent I believe hygenic and dietery restrictions were dealt with in the same way - to keep the tribe healthy and fruitful. Hence common wisdom or good wisdom at the time was to avoid eating certain kinds of food due to the uncertainty in cooking it and the haphazard results there of - i.e. trichenosis (sp?). If one believes God wrote the whole Bible through man w/out error then he didn't have much regard for homosexuals IIRC (Leveticus?). If (as some believe) he wrote only parts of it then I'm not sure which ones. If one (I think the most popular interpretation) believes man wrote it based off divine inspiration as aforementioned but after or before many of the events ascribed to it took place (according to historical studies) then I'm not sure if God's stance softened or not wrt homosexuality other then "sin no more" and then I would go back to my original premise - it's if you believe God said it was a sin in the first place and not man ascribing it to God for his own end & protection of his society. I.E. - similarly like sexing it up w/Satyrs, Dragons, fiery lizards, and cockatrices. (If one believes in those aforementioned animals then we prolly have very little in common.) I don't remember JC having to much to say on the homo matter other then what you posted about "sin no more." I do know Saul of Tarsus (Paul) had a hard on for them - no pun intended. Either way worth thinking about.
For GP, & my general disclaimer before anyone thinks I'm a huge fan of those who got the gay:
I don't want to see two dudes swapping spit anymore then I'd want to see two fat baboons f*cking (or Rosey O'Donnell humping on Melissa Etheridge - kind of the same thing when you really contemplate it). I also don't think being gay is *cool* in that stupid MTV kind of way - though the few gays I've met have seemed nice enough. I never-ever want to see gay PDA but I do believe in live and let live and I'd like to see all honest hard-working Americans lead happy lives. The only definition of marriage I believe in is one man/one woman (if homos want the civil union then okay by me but it's not a "marriage"), I don't want gays openly serving in the military (for wholly pragmatic purposes - they'd be getting beat down left & right & the military is not a damn social experiment) & I f*cking hate the liberal flaming gay ajenda wrt to the hate crimes/hate speech nonsense laws - because I feel it actually takes away from the rest of us receiving equal protections under the U.S. Const.
Wow, thank God for ogranized religion as it keeps are conversations from getting boring.
#15
When Murtha dies Chesty will be waiting for his ass.........wherever it goes.
Hey, even if we disagree on religion or whatever I think we all agree the Almighty is ultimately just and doesn't mind seeing a good ass whipping when it's earned......he also has a grand but odd sense of humor - why do you think he invented tabloids and Michael Jackson?
#16
To close out my point, after rereading things it looks like I'm gay bashing - I dont want that to be the image in people's minds because thats not what I intended. Its that the Episcopalians are having the same problems liberals everywhere have - they simply dont follow the rules or try to change them to suit whatever the "feel good" whim of the day is. And they aren't the only denomination - the Presbyterians are having issues too about enforcement of sexual morality rules on their clergy in a recent vote that threatens to schism their church, and thare are also the well publicised problems in the Catholic Church regarding heterodoxy versus orthodoxy (google for all the people in Orange County up in arms about Cardinal Mahoney, versus the paise Archibishop Chaput in Denver gets - and look at the differences in effectiveness, the latter being far more effective).
(I agree with Mark Roberts, from whom I cribbed the gist of this part of my post)
The issue for me is that any institution that says "Here are the rules but you can decide whether the rules have to be followed or not" is doomed. Consider what would happen if the United States acted like the that. Under the Constitution, people are guaranteed the freedom of speech. But what would be left of our national union if states or localities had the unchecked authority to decide whether or not to allow their residents to speak freely, and in what circumstances. We'd soon find ourselves in unending conflicts and general anarchy. And that's where the Epicopalians, Anglicans, Presbyterians and others are headed due to the heterodoxy thay have allowed to become doctrine. The Catholic Church has escaped this only due to a fairly orthodox, strong theologian in John Paul the Great and his strongly orthodox fellow theologian successor, Benedict. That and a heck of a lot of pressure from the laity, and "Divine Providence" as Ben Franklin would have put it.
And there it is, laid out for you - all the ugly politics behind organized relgion, and its reflection of the red-blue split. One thing is for sure, they sure dont seem too organized these days.
Maybe thats another Oxymoron we should add to the list... Organized Religion.
Heh.
Thanks for you posts BH6 - you just brought a goofy grin to my face with the image of Murtha arriving at either destination, and Chesty is there, with this chest out, sleeves rolled up, chewin on a stogie, saying "I saw where you were talking bad about my beloved Corps..." THUMP!
FYI, Ive too too many ops with (former, not Ex) Marines, that jar-headedness just rubs off after a while even on an old Army Dog. And remember - there is no bag limit on bad guys. Good hunting!
#17
OS, I see your point. Hopefully their respective organizations can figure out what it is they adhere to and then actually maintain their standards. I heard about Presby USA vs. the Anglican conglomerate on talk radio last night but I'm not familiar w/the RC split in Diego and Denver - I'll have to google that one.
Oddly enough, in between posts our friendly neighborhood Jehova's Witnesses showed up to my door doing their monthly rounds of my subdivision. I don't know many JW's but this couple always seems friendly so I figure it wouldn't be right if I didn't test their faith a little bit - ya know, just to keep'em on their toes while they're out working hard fishing for the lord. Needless to say my wife doesn't let me answer the door anymore when they show up (there was also somethin' about me having no hope of being a part of the 144,000 or some such the last time they came by). Oh well, *sigh and shrug shoulders* always a bridesmaid....... ;)
*wait a second, now that I think about it, didn't I mention Mikey Jackson in my last post? He was born a JW IIRC! And now that JW couple shows up to my door!! Coincidence?! I think not! Damn, I am going to hell and I'll prolly have to watch rosey o'donnell and one of the indigo girls get it on too! The horror....the horror :(
#20
RE: #8. OS, this here Southern Baptist does NOT consider you an idol worshipper or a papist. But, I do completely agree with you on the Fred Phelps issue. I'm sure J.C., if he were to return today would smack fred (phelps, not our lovely mod) hard. My whole attitude as a Southern Baptist is exactly what you said..."Love the sinner, hate the sin." Unfortunately, in this day of P.C. spun "language" that often comes out as gay-bashing. In fact, I can't STAND the term "homophobic..." I'm not AFRAID of them, just don't agree with their lifestyle. And, I'm like OS on this one...just expressing my opinion (we can agree to disagree), but BH6 has got it right....these groups are being infiltrated by libs with the "touchy-feely issue of the day" only to collapse from within (much like our nation as a whole), and yet, like OS, as a Christian, I believe it is my duty to point out sin to sinners (myself, the Chief of them, like Paul wrote), even unbelievers. This is one of those times for these denominations (Presby's and Episcopals).
Posted by: BA ||
06/21/2006 13:21 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Big surprise.
And that's where the "soft" churches like the Episcopalians are headed - into deep theological error,, and they are doing the worst thing a shepherd can do - they are leading their flock astray, straight to the wolves.
Man, get a clue. This denomination went apostate a very long time ago. You can't lead a sheep astray if it's already astray, and you as the Shepherd, are totally lost too. Further, you can't lead a sheep astray if it's not a sheep. There's nothing remotely Christian about these folks, so in the final analysis, I could care less. The only thing that offends me about them is that they dare to call themselves a Christian denomination.
#22
I think we all agree the Almighty is ultimately just and doesn't mind seeing a good ass whipping when it's earned......he also has a grand but odd sense of humor
#23
interesting discussion. But the whole "born that way" issue is such a pet peeve for me that ...I ..can't...help..myself....
I was raised in SOCAL and the whole "do your own thing" is ingrained in my life's outlook - so I really don't care what others do in their spare time as long as it doesn't hurt me or society, Fortunately God didn't appoint me as the ultimate decider on the fate of the souls of others....
but... .
what difference does it make if he was "born that way"? That just seems such a bogus explanation. Does it matter if a gambler is "born that way"? How about an addict? A nymphomaniac? Or would it make a difference if a child molester was "born that way"?
Nooooo I'm not equating your Uncle with a child molester - I'll trust you can grasp that my point is does it matter?
I'm not going to discuss the theology of it cause the positions of all have already been made and well stated. But it just really makes no difference in terms of the question is homosexuality a sin any more than the question, is adultery a sin to ponder the issue of whether or not he was "born that way". It's meaningless.
#24
MY LORD GOD, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think that I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and you will never leave me to face my perils alone.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/21/2006 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I have to agree with 2b's outlook on this. It's not my role to ultimately judge gays on their life style but to whole heartedly endorse it wouldn't be right either.
Some one earlier used the old phrase 'hate the sin not the sinner'. I agree with this outlook strongly but, it doesn't mean I as a Christian should condone certain behavior.
Sex was ultimately devised by God for procreation just as marriage was devised to create a stable environment for the raising of children. Obviously both are far more complicated than that but at their core those are the reasons they exist.
Living the way God would have us all live isn't easy, in fact it can be damned inconvenient at times. Never the less the law remains.
Someone else earlier shared a story of a relative or friend, I don't remember now, who was helped by the rule of celebacy within the priesthood. I'm glad it was an aid to him, even though I don't think it is a good idea, I think it causes more harm than good. Anyway I'm not Catholic so I don't worry about it much.
I do live in a largely Catholic community though, and I've seen first hand the damage done by priests who have gone astray in regards to homosexuality and celebacy. Given their lofty place within the local parishes it seems foolhardy to ignore the problems that exist when a priest gives in to certain temptations be they born in or no.
If you can't trust your children with some priests, and you probably won't know who he is until it's too late then what does the church have left to offer?
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
06/21/2006 22:51 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Life is much easier all around when people keep their private lives, whatever activities that may entail, private. There are lots of things I don't want to know about others. This isn't a good/evil, right/wrong, or even acceptable/unacceptable judgement -- I hust do not want to know. Especially if you're in the habit of drinking with a straw at the table or eating straight out of the container without even putting it on a plate!
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
(CNN) -- Three people were shot, two fatally, at a Tallahassee, Florida, federal prison Wednesday as federal agents were serving an indictment on six corrections officers, authorities said.
Former Liberian president 
LA PAZ, Bolivia (AP) - President Evo Morales' latest anti-U.S. diatribe came in a speech to thousands of peasants in his political stronghold: The United States is sending soldiers disguised as students and tourists to Bolivia.
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Turkey's prime minister announced plans Tuesday to build three nuclear power plants by 2015 to meet the country's growing energy needs. Turkey has limited energy resources, relying on natural gas supplies from Iran and Russia.
Cree Demonstrates 131 Lumens per Watt White LED
Episcopal delegates Tuesday snubbed Anglican leaders' request to temporarily stop electing openly gay bishops, a vote that prompted the church's leader to call a special session in hopes of reaching a compromise to preserve fragile Anglican unity. The vote by the Episcopal House of Deputies came just hours before Presbyterians, at a separate meeting, approved a plan to let local congregations install gay ministers if they wish.
