The Church Cannon

Homophones are troublesome words in a language and I suspect that the English language has more than its share of them to confound the young and the newly adopted. Perhaps the classic is ˈther with its triple spellings. Take the word pronounced [kan-uhn] for example. One is a body of ecclesiastical law while the other is an instrument of the military. Hmm. Perhaps both have a hidden, subtle connection.

The idiotic fundamentalist Quran-burning preacher from Florida is still hanging around in my neck of the woods waiting for a second chance to demonstrate his stupidity in the Dearborn, Michigan  area.  His first attempt was thwarted by a legal restraining order. This guy ‘believes’ that his canon is more correct than the Muslim canon. Yes, dueling medieval books alive and operational here in the 21st century in the bastion of liberty.

Then there is a hubbub in Toledo over a new billboard erected in a busy intersection. A United Methodist Church erected it to welcome the gay community into their church.  Yet, not unexpectedly, several holier-than-thou fundamentalist ministers denounced the idea with quotes from their ‘holy’ canon.

When will religion here in these United States be at last shuttered to back rooms where it belongs?


7 thoughts on “The Church Cannon

  1. Maybe after the US suffers a religious war or more like the ones in 16th and 17th Century Europe.

    The problem is that the same fanatics (English Purtians and Scottish Presbyterians) who were responsible for those travesties moved to the New World where they brought their old prejudices and historical ignorance. The have forgotten the English Civil War, Interregnum, and the Killing Time. The last one should clue you in on how rampant the religious persecution happened to be.

    The problem was that there was enough freedom that these people thought they could have their “Christian Nation” without the incumbent prejudice. The problem is that fantacism breeds intolerence because they see things as black and white/right and wrong.

    I find it amusing that Britain with its established State Church actually appears far more tolerant than the allegedly secular US. There has been a Jewish PM (Disraeli), Jewish Cabinet members, Muslim and Jewish Peers. Despite Constitutional guarantees against religious tests and establishment, there are people in the US who say that non-Christians cannot be good Americans!

    What’s wrong with that picture?

  2. So what is it you hate; Freedom of speech or religion? I find it ironic that people that claim to not have bias and prejudice seem to be the greatest practitioners of the same. It’s like the wackos tha tprotest the execution of a cold blooded convicted murderer and then protest to support the murder of millions of unborn babies.
    I mean seriously do oyu not see the hypocrisy in what you wrote?

  3. “Jim” runs an anti-Obama blog filled with hate for him as well as for blacks.

    Yes, Jim, I “hate” freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But most of all, I hate hypocrites and bone heads like you.

    I took a dreadful trip to a nether world by clicking on some of Jim’s links and people who commented there. It was a paranormal experience filled with conspiracy theories, hate and fear. I suggested to one of the people that they should look up to see that there is a plastic bubble enclosing him, just above the trees. I suggested that, because of his insular location, he shoot a bullet up and through that plastic bubble and let the fresh air and sunshine pour in. I assured him that those of us on the outside of his bubble universe are rather regular folks and are in no way his enemies nor are we plotting to kidnap him. Perhaps after several sessions with a good mental health counselor, I said, he would be able to actually function in the real world.

    But of course, his blog comments are ‘moderated’ and thus my thoughts will never see the light of day there.

    Oh well, at least I tried.

  4. A better answer to Jim is to point out Matthew 5:9:

    “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

    Terry Jones needs to reassess his beliefs in light of that passage. This passage should be held to its literal meaning, peace-makers not as some say peaceable men. The founders and promoters of peace are meant by this passage. That means those who not only keep the peace, but seek to bring men into harmony with each other. Some versions render this as the maintainers of peace.

    Not the soldiers of a warrior king, such as the Jews expected but the men who, in the name of the Prince of Peace, go forth to proclaim peace and good will among men. Christ is the great Peacemaker.

    Terry Jones’s actions work for the Taliban, not for peace. By their fruit you will recognize them (Matthew 7:16).

  5. Laci- I don’t believe that Jim was actually looking for an answer because he actually had no question. Rather, he seems to have needed to dump, like a dog, on this territory. Apparently, in the delusional world that he and his followers have conjured up, there is a need to ‘smite’ the perceived enemy and, with the load that he dumped at my doorstep, he figures that I have been appropriately smitten.

    It’s quite biblical. No doubt Jim has soaked up the myths of the bible and has transferred the into his bubble universe- fantasy ‘n stuff. That’s why he and others living in the paranormal world find it necessary to construct a ‘safe’ environment in which to operate- an environment that is exclusive rather than inclusive. It all reminds me so much of tribal living, not unlike the wandering tribes described in the old books of the bible.

    By the way, does anyone know what Jim was talking about in his comment above? I’m still trying to figure it out.

  6. My assumption:

    Freedom of speech

    The symbolic act of burning something such as a Koran or US flag. Although, I would assume that Jim and Jones would be as upset about seeing the US flag burned as the Muslims are about seeing the Koran burned.

    or religion

    Jones cloaks his actions under religious beliefs, however, they do not appear to be based upon any real Judaeo-Christian-Islamic system. Given that Islam and Chritianity find their roots in the Jewish religion, if Islam is of the Devil–what is Chritianity of?

    There is a common thread in these religions:

    Judaism-What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id

    Christianity-All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1

    Islam-No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Sunnah

    To return to Jim’s rant:
    It’s like the wackos that protest the execution of a cold blooded convicted murderer and then protest to support the murder of millions of unborn babies.

    An interesting comment since it is loaded with value judgements. IS it about the sanctity of life? If so, do “unborn babies” count as life? In the Jewish and Sikh traditions they do not, one can argue whether the sme applies in Christianity. Medically, when does a foetus become viable outside the womb?

    Conversely, if one says that life is sacred, then one must act in a way that affirms that belief. From David P. Gushee, PhD, The Sanctity of Life:

    The concept of the sanctity of life is the belief that all human beings, at any and every stage of life, in any and every state of consciousness or self-awareness, of any and every race, color, ethnicity, level of intelligence, religion, language, gender, character, behavior, physical ability/disability, potential, class, social status, etc., of any and every particular quality of relationship to the viewing subject, are to be perceived as persons of equal and immeasurable worth and of inviolable dignity and therefore must be treated in a manner commensurate with this moral status.

    Notice several things about this definition.

    First, the sanctity of life is a concept that one believes in. It is, in other words, a moral conviction.

    Second, it is a moral conviction about how human beings are to be perceived and treated. Belief in the sanctity of life prescribes a certain way of looking at the world, in particular its human inhabitants (with implications for its non-human inhabitants—a subject for another article). This perception then leads to behavioral implications related to how human beings are to be treated. Moral conviction leads to perception and flows into behavior. Notice that in constructing my understanding of the sanctity of life in this way I am emphasizing worldview dimensions first (convictions), character qualities next (perceptions), and behavioral prescriptions last. I think this is actually how the moral life works.

    The third thing to notice about this definition is its universality. Rightly understood, the sanctity of life is among the broadest and most inclusive understandings possible of our moral obligations to other human beings.

    All human beings are included (each and every human being), at all stages of existence, with every quality of experience, reflecting every type of human diversity, and encompassing every possible quality of relationship to the person who does the perceiving. What all are included in is a vision of their immeasurable worth and inviolable dignity. This means that each of these human beings has a value that transcends all human capacity to count or measure, which confers upon them an elevated status that must not be dishonored or degraded.

    This breathtaking and exalted vision of the worth and dignity of human beings is what we mean, or ought to mean, when we speak of the sanctity of life. It is a moral conviction that continually challenges our efforts to weaken it. Yet weaken it we do, whether purposefully or unintentionally. Most often we weaken it when we chafe against the implications of its universality—its vision of the weak, the enemy, the disabled, the stranger, the unborn, the sinner, the poor, the ex-friend, the racial other, or whoever else we find it difficult to include within the community of the truly human.

  7. I should add that if one finds life to be sacred then a cold blooded convicted murderer’s life is as sacred as the unborn child’s.

    I doubt that Jim agrees with that position.

    Likewise, if one finds a cold blooded convicted murderer’s life to not be sacred, how can one find a hypothetical being’s (foetal) life sacred?

    That makes Jim’s comment to be sort of gibberish is Jones’s act one of free speech or religion? Is life truly sacred? We have found that the average right winger in the US is not very intellectually developed, Jim’s comment confirms that.

Comments are closed.