From Episcopal Life:
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams held a private meeting September 2 with seven Episcopal Church bishops at Lambeth Palace, his London residence.
The bishops attending the meeting were Mark Lawrence of South Carolina, Gary Lillibridge of West Texas, Edward Little of Northern Indiana, Bill Love of Albany, Michael Smith of North Dakota, James Stanton of Dallas, and Bruce MacPherson of Western Louisiana.
A spokesperson in the Lambeth Palace press office confirmed that Williams had hosted the seven Episcopal bishops, but said that the meeting was private.
When asked for his reflections on the meeting, MacPherson told ENS that the bishops will have "something forthcoming soon."
We shall see. As St. Gilda Radner said, "It's always something".
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Gov. Jindal, Pay Your own Way To Church
From the Advocate in Baton Rouge:
A national group that lobbies Congress on religious issues asked Gov. Bobby Jindal to apologize and reimburse taxpayers for the state-funded helicopter trips he takes on Sundays to visit churches.
The Rev. Welton Gaddy, who is the president of the national Interfaith Alliance, said Jindal is overstepping the line of separation between church and state.
“If you were traveling to these churches to worship with the various congregations, you should have paid your own expenses to get there as did the other worshippers,” Gaddy wrote to the governor in a Sept. 1 letter.
“It appears you owe the people of Louisiana an apology and the treasurer of the state a reimbursement of at least $45,000,” Gaddy wrote. “No taxpayer money should have been used for your travel.”
What the Rev. Gaddy says sounds about right to me. Here's a link to the text of the entire letter.
Gaddy also is pastor of Northminster Baptist Church in Monroe.
I am somewhat surprised that the president of the Interfaith Alliance pastors a church in north Louisiana. I checked out the church's website, and it is, indeed, quite an interesting community. From a sermon by the Rev. Gaddy:
As you may know or surmise, here at Northminster Church, generally the biblical texts that drive Sunday sermons are taken from scripture passages recommended by the Common Lectionary. Such a discipline ensures that a preacher deals with the whole sweep of biblical literature and does not just always gravitate to personal favorites among texts and themes.
From Northminster's church covenant:
The freedom of the individual, led by God's Spirit within the family of faith, to read and interpret the Scriptures, relying on the historical understanding by the church and on the best methods of modern biblical study.
....
The servant role of leadership within the church, following the model of our Servant Lord, and to full partnership of all of God's people in mission and ministry.
As you see, not all Baptists are cut from the same cloth. I lost my focus in the middle of the post, because I was caught up in exploring the church's website, where I found much to admire.
Back to the Advocate:
The Alliance, which Gaddy heads, touts itself as a celebrator of religious freedom and a counter to the “radical religious right.”
"...touts itself"? What does the writer, of the story, Ms Millhollon, imply by that phrase? She sounds a tad doubtful that the group is what it claims to be. What about that Ms Millhollon?
Anyway, I'm with the Rev. Gaddy. Jindal should pay his own way to church. That he schedules a meeting with local officials while he's in town, seems more like following the letter of the law rather than the spirit. One wonders how much of Jindal's helicoptering around the state is really campaigning, which seems a never-ending activity for the governor.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
My Friend (?) The Barred Owl
Remember the owl that I've talked about seeing on my walk? Tonight the bird swooped down and was flying head-on toward me. When the bird was three or four feet away from my face, I screamed, and the owl turned and flew up onto a tree branch. On the way back, I saw the owl fly low to the ground a few yards in front of me, apparently after prey. You can believe that I moved past quickly. I searched on the internet to see if the birds attacked humans, and apparently they do, but not deliberately, according to Canada.com. They see something on humans that looks like prey, like a pony tail swinging. "Anything dangly could draw an attack if the owl mistakes it for a smaller bird or a rodent." I didn't have anything dangly, but that owl was coming for me. The solution: wear a cap, which I will certainly do until the season is over. September is the time when most attacks occur.
UPDATE: Image from Wiki
Myron's Day On 9/1 - From Sue
Hello Everyone,
Myron had another busy day yesterday with chest x-rays and a CAT scan of his chest. His pneumonia still has not resolved and he continues with a productive cough.
He had his eyes open and was able t blink when asked, and was moving his right hand and arm and was able to squeeze ones hand.
He was fitted with his back brace, and to do that he had to get out of bed and sat in a recliner. He didn't seem to be any more alert in the recliner than in bed, but doing physical exercises like that are exhausting, so I'm not too surprised. His pain medication has been changed and when he yawned a couple of times Mary and Stephanie noticed that his front 2 teeth (which are caps from a childhood accident) were missing and a tooth was broken, so there will be dentistry in his future also.
There is some new progress made each day, and that is perfect.
I'll be in touch later on,
Sue
Sue, I'm pleased that you were able to visit Myron. Sue is still not able to visit. That's why she said "squeeze ones hand". It was not her hand.
Myron had another busy day yesterday with chest x-rays and a CAT scan of his chest. His pneumonia still has not resolved and he continues with a productive cough.
He had his eyes open and was able t blink when asked, and was moving his right hand and arm and was able to squeeze ones hand.
He was fitted with his back brace, and to do that he had to get out of bed and sat in a recliner. He didn't seem to be any more alert in the recliner than in bed, but doing physical exercises like that are exhausting, so I'm not too surprised. His pain medication has been changed and when he yawned a couple of times Mary and Stephanie noticed that his front 2 teeth (which are caps from a childhood accident) were missing and a tooth was broken, so there will be dentistry in his future also.
There is some new progress made each day, and that is perfect.
I'll be in touch later on,
Sue
Speaking Of Superior Wisdom....
"Seven diocesans meeting with Rowan Williams"
The headline is from a story in The Lead. At his blog, Fr. Dan Martins states that seven bishops of the Episcopal Church are presently meeting with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The bishops are all members of the Communion Partners, and all signed the Anaheim Statement, which was read at GC09 of the Episcopal Church after the vote on C056 (on blessing faithful, same-sex unions), and which says in part:
* We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538)
* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
Archbishop Williams, in his reflection on GC09, states the following about his two-track system idea for those provinces who sign the Covenant and those who do not:
25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.
In my humble opinion, the ABC opened up a huge can of worms with the statement, not just for the Episcopal Church, but for other provinces in the Anglican Communion, including his own Church of England.
What promises, encouraging words, etc., etc., etc. will the seven bishops take away from their meeting with the ABC? I have no idea. I said in a similar vein in my previous post on President Obama and health care reform, perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury is operating on superior wisdom that's not obvious to me.
UPDATE: Too good to be hidden in the comments:
Lapinbizarre said...
Could it be that one of these days he'll balance his continuing meddling in the internal matters of TEC and, as an example, look into the extent of Nigerian Anglican complicity in the Yelwa massacre. While obviously this does not compare with the abomination of homosexuality - and slaughtering ones enemies is unquestionably Biblical - maybe, as a "communion" thing, it merits a little attention. Have no doubt that Akinola and his lackeys would welcome the inquiry with open arms and cooperate to the fullest.
UPDATE 2: According to Fr. Martin in the comments to his post, the seven bishops are Little, Lawrence, McPherson, Stanton, Lillibridge, Smith (N.D.), and Love.
The headline is from a story in The Lead. At his blog, Fr. Dan Martins states that seven bishops of the Episcopal Church are presently meeting with Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The bishops are all members of the Communion Partners, and all signed the Anaheim Statement, which was read at GC09 of the Episcopal Church after the vote on C056 (on blessing faithful, same-sex unions), and which says in part:
* We reaffirm our constituent membership in the Anglican Communion, our communion with the See of Canterbury and our commitment to preserving these relationships.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this church has received them (BCP 526, 538)
* We reaffirm our commitment to the three moratoria requested of us by the instruments of Communion.
* We reaffirm our commitment to the Anglican Communion Covenant process currently underway, with the hope of working toward its implementation across the Communion once a Covenant is completed.
Archbishop Williams, in his reflection on GC09, states the following about his two-track system idea for those provinces who sign the Covenant and those who do not:
25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.
In my humble opinion, the ABC opened up a huge can of worms with the statement, not just for the Episcopal Church, but for other provinces in the Anglican Communion, including his own Church of England.
What promises, encouraging words, etc., etc., etc. will the seven bishops take away from their meeting with the ABC? I have no idea. I said in a similar vein in my previous post on President Obama and health care reform, perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury is operating on superior wisdom that's not obvious to me.
UPDATE: Too good to be hidden in the comments:
Lapinbizarre said...
Could it be that one of these days he'll balance his continuing meddling in the internal matters of TEC and, as an example, look into the extent of Nigerian Anglican complicity in the Yelwa massacre. While obviously this does not compare with the abomination of homosexuality - and slaughtering ones enemies is unquestionably Biblical - maybe, as a "communion" thing, it merits a little attention. Have no doubt that Akinola and his lackeys would welcome the inquiry with open arms and cooperate to the fullest.
UPDATE 2: According to Fr. Martin in the comments to his post, the seven bishops are Little, Lawrence, McPherson, Stanton, Lillibridge, Smith (N.D.), and Love.
Obama Will Speak On Health Care Reform
From TPM:
President Barack Obama plans to tell the country, in more precise terms, what it is he wants to see in a health care reform bill. According to White House adviser David Axelrod, Obama will not put anything new on the table, but will be more specific about his key goals.
That means that Obama will, again, not be insisting on a public option--a development (or a non-development) that's sure to give his progressive base some heartburn.
According to the Associated Press, Obama may give a speech in the next week or two as part of an effort to regain control of the health care reform debate, after losing it during a month of grueling politics.
It's about time. It's past time. But perhaps President Obama is operating on superior wisdom that's not obvious to me. The bully pulpit, Mr. President! You stand at the bully pulpit.
The link within the story, which I included, goes to Politico, which a good many folks say is a right-leaning source, so take it with a grain of salt. However, I think it's probably correct that Obama will not insist on the public option. And that will give Mary Landrieu and her Blue Dog companions great cover.
The crunch may still come if the more progressive members of Congress refuse to yield ground and a bill which includes the public option comes to a vote. If, by some miracle, such a bill makes its way through the Congress to the president's desk, he will surely sign it into law.
However, I'm losing hope that a bill with a "robust" public option will make it through Congress. I'm pleased to see that Democrats, for the most part, have given up on the idea of a bi-partisan bill. The Republicans don't want to play. They want to stop, delay, or do anything to keep any sort of health care reform from happening now, in the hope that it will never happen.
When Obama takes to the bully pulpit, I'd suggest that he use story after story of real people who suffer from the present chaotic system that we call health care, which, for too many, means no care until it's too late. The stories, Mr. President! Bring to the fore the tragic stories of real people who are denied health care.
President Barack Obama plans to tell the country, in more precise terms, what it is he wants to see in a health care reform bill. According to White House adviser David Axelrod, Obama will not put anything new on the table, but will be more specific about his key goals.
That means that Obama will, again, not be insisting on a public option--a development (or a non-development) that's sure to give his progressive base some heartburn.
According to the Associated Press, Obama may give a speech in the next week or two as part of an effort to regain control of the health care reform debate, after losing it during a month of grueling politics.
It's about time. It's past time. But perhaps President Obama is operating on superior wisdom that's not obvious to me. The bully pulpit, Mr. President! You stand at the bully pulpit.
The link within the story, which I included, goes to Politico, which a good many folks say is a right-leaning source, so take it with a grain of salt. However, I think it's probably correct that Obama will not insist on the public option. And that will give Mary Landrieu and her Blue Dog companions great cover.
The crunch may still come if the more progressive members of Congress refuse to yield ground and a bill which includes the public option comes to a vote. If, by some miracle, such a bill makes its way through the Congress to the president's desk, he will surely sign it into law.
However, I'm losing hope that a bill with a "robust" public option will make it through Congress. I'm pleased to see that Democrats, for the most part, have given up on the idea of a bi-partisan bill. The Republicans don't want to play. They want to stop, delay, or do anything to keep any sort of health care reform from happening now, in the hope that it will never happen.
When Obama takes to the bully pulpit, I'd suggest that he use story after story of real people who suffer from the present chaotic system that we call health care, which, for too many, means no care until it's too late. The stories, Mr. President! Bring to the fore the tragic stories of real people who are denied health care.
Story Of The Day
I say go ahead and build stuff anywhere
you want. If I want nature, I'll watch
Discovery Channel.
From Storypeople.
you want. If I want nature, I'll watch
Discovery Channel.
From Storypeople.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Waxing Gibbous Moon
Waxing gibbous moon
The words themselves a poem
Turning full moon soon
Grandmère Mimi - 2005
This is what I saw when I walked tonight.
A Word From Richard Rohr
"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth: it is not peace I have come to bring, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34). Wow! If Jesus said this, he was surely not expecting the religion of niceness, of pretty words and feel-good experiences that we have become. He knew that Big Truth always divides before it can unite a few at a deeper level. I think most of the thousands of sermons I've heard in my life have been about “being nice” in one way or another. That's how domesticated the gospel has become--as if Jesus were a Divine Miss Manners, and the Church existed to maintain proper social order and class. Yet many are entirely content at the level, and Church has not usually been a passionate search for God. The word nice isn't found anywhere in the Bible, to my knowledge.
There's nothing more dangerous to true religious thinking than conventional thinking, easy conformity, being like everybody else in our social group. There's no depth or power at that level. Mass consciousness is never going to be ready for anything that asks them to “die” or that does not make them feel secure and superior. So we have settled largely for civil religion and cultural Christianity. It's so much more comforting to be nice and “moral” at a small level--than to be faithful to Big Truth—which cuts us all open like a sword.
Adapted from Letting Go: A Spirituality of Subtraction
From Center For Action and Contemplation.
There's nothing more dangerous to true religious thinking than conventional thinking, easy conformity, being like everybody else in our social group. There's no depth or power at that level. Mass consciousness is never going to be ready for anything that asks them to “die” or that does not make them feel secure and superior. So we have settled largely for civil religion and cultural Christianity. It's so much more comforting to be nice and “moral” at a small level--than to be faithful to Big Truth—which cuts us all open like a sword.
Adapted from Letting Go: A Spirituality of Subtraction
From Center For Action and Contemplation.
How Congressional Legislation Happens
From TPM:
As Senate leaders begin work on a Democrat-only health care bill, they're finding themselves confronted with an unexpected irony: Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option that's modeled in many ways after a private insurer, it may be necessary to make the public option more liberal, and thus, more politically radioactive, if it's to overcome a number of unique procedural hurdles.
This is the needle Democrats may have to thread if they want a public option, and at the same time, want to bypass a Republican filibuster. And the key for them will be keeping conservative Democrats on board.
"A very robust public option that scores significant savings would presumably be easy to justify doing through reconciliation," says a Senate Democratic aide. "But it is still being studied whether other, more moderate versions of a public option could pass parliamentary muster."
According to Martin Paone, a legislative expert who's helping Democrats map out legislative strategy, a more robust public option--one that sets low prices, and provides cheap, subsidized insurance to low- and middle-class consumers--would have an easier time surviving the procedural demands of the so-called reconciliation process. However, he cautions that the cost of subsidies "will have to be offset and if [the health care plan] loses money beyond 2014...it will have to be sunsetted."
And there the irony continues: Some experts, including on Capitol Hill, believe that a more robust public option will generate crucial savings needed to keep health care reform in the black--and thus prevent it from expiring. But though that may solve the procedural problems, conservative Democrats have balked at the idea creating such a momentous government program, and if they defected in great numbers, they could imperil the entire reform package.
Let's see if I have this straight. If Democrats choose the more robust public option, they are more likely to be able to overcome the procedural hurdles and pass the bill on 51 votes without the threat of filibuster by the Republicans. The bill would also save money and perhaps pay for itself.
But the conservative Democrats may not stay on board, because they don't like the idea of a "momentous government program"? On what grounds? Read on. Because the Republicans in their pushback say that the public option would have to be "very aggressive in setting rates, price controls and rationing,". Ah, those are scary words to conservative Democrats.
On the other hand, those with no health insurance know rationing quite well.
So. As the author of the article, Brian Beutler says:
The path of least political resistance is beset by procedural obstacles; and the path of least procedural resistance is beset by political ones.
Got that everyone?
As Senate leaders begin work on a Democrat-only health care bill, they're finding themselves confronted with an unexpected irony: Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option that's modeled in many ways after a private insurer, it may be necessary to make the public option more liberal, and thus, more politically radioactive, if it's to overcome a number of unique procedural hurdles.
This is the needle Democrats may have to thread if they want a public option, and at the same time, want to bypass a Republican filibuster. And the key for them will be keeping conservative Democrats on board.
"A very robust public option that scores significant savings would presumably be easy to justify doing through reconciliation," says a Senate Democratic aide. "But it is still being studied whether other, more moderate versions of a public option could pass parliamentary muster."
According to Martin Paone, a legislative expert who's helping Democrats map out legislative strategy, a more robust public option--one that sets low prices, and provides cheap, subsidized insurance to low- and middle-class consumers--would have an easier time surviving the procedural demands of the so-called reconciliation process. However, he cautions that the cost of subsidies "will have to be offset and if [the health care plan] loses money beyond 2014...it will have to be sunsetted."
And there the irony continues: Some experts, including on Capitol Hill, believe that a more robust public option will generate crucial savings needed to keep health care reform in the black--and thus prevent it from expiring. But though that may solve the procedural problems, conservative Democrats have balked at the idea creating such a momentous government program, and if they defected in great numbers, they could imperil the entire reform package.
Let's see if I have this straight. If Democrats choose the more robust public option, they are more likely to be able to overcome the procedural hurdles and pass the bill on 51 votes without the threat of filibuster by the Republicans. The bill would also save money and perhaps pay for itself.
But the conservative Democrats may not stay on board, because they don't like the idea of a "momentous government program"? On what grounds? Read on. Because the Republicans in their pushback say that the public option would have to be "very aggressive in setting rates, price controls and rationing,". Ah, those are scary words to conservative Democrats.
On the other hand, those with no health insurance know rationing quite well.
So. As the author of the article, Brian Beutler says:
The path of least political resistance is beset by procedural obstacles; and the path of least procedural resistance is beset by political ones.
Got that everyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)