Gay Christian Feed by IPC
LOVELY LISA THE SCAT EXPERT
The CHANGING ATTITUDES blog has posted a report of Anglican Mainstream's recent gay hate fest (revealing entitled "The Lepers Among Us: Homosexuality and the Life of the Church"). The homophobic harpie, Lisa Nolland, was on fine form:
We were then treated to what can only be described as a lip-quivering and blazing-eyed rambling rant from Ms Nolland about the evils of sex education. She seemed set on outdoing all previous speakers in the smearing of the LGBT community. We had already heard about gays as paedophile child molesters, gays as threats to the family and marriage, gays as spreaders of disease.
But now Ms N was going for gold with her bitter denunciation of LGBT organisations, and especially the Terrence Higgins Trust, for producing perverted and obscene curriculum materials intended to corrupt the innocence of children. Apparently gay activists have conned their way into schools to tell kids that ‘eating faeces’ is great sexual fun (Lisa taught us to call this ‘scat’) and to teach them how to do ‘cock and ball torture’ really well (Lisa said we should refer to this as ‘kink’).
Ms Nolland is also an enthusiastic advocate of the spurious slippery slope argument: tolerate homosexuality and we will be engulfed by all manner of perversions and we will drown in vile pornography. She distributed several ‘information’ sheets including a list of the most popular acts advertised and depicted on the internet such as ‘double anal’ in which ‘a woman is penetrated anally by two men at the same time’, ‘multiple men ejaculating onto a woman’s face’, ‘a penis thrust so far down a woman’s throat that she gags’ etc etc.
Ms Nolland seems to be a world class scaremongerer, alarmist and demoniser. Her presentation was very ugly indeed. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I suspect that even amongst her own constituency there was embarrassment about a lack of balance which appeared to border on pathological obsession.
It doesn't sound as if Ms. Nolland is into scat herself, but she can certainly talk shit.
We were then treated to what can only be described as a lip-quivering and blazing-eyed rambling rant from Ms Nolland about the evils of sex education. She seemed set on outdoing all previous speakers in the smearing of the LGBT community. We had already heard about gays as paedophile child molesters, gays as threats to the family and marriage, gays as spreaders of disease.
But now Ms N was going for gold with her bitter denunciation of LGBT organisations, and especially the Terrence Higgins Trust, for producing perverted and obscene curriculum materials intended to corrupt the innocence of children. Apparently gay activists have conned their way into schools to tell kids that ‘eating faeces’ is great sexual fun (Lisa taught us to call this ‘scat’) and to teach them how to do ‘cock and ball torture’ really well (Lisa said we should refer to this as ‘kink’).
Ms Nolland is also an enthusiastic advocate of the spurious slippery slope argument: tolerate homosexuality and we will be engulfed by all manner of perversions and we will drown in vile pornography. She distributed several ‘information’ sheets including a list of the most popular acts advertised and depicted on the internet such as ‘double anal’ in which ‘a woman is penetrated anally by two men at the same time’, ‘multiple men ejaculating onto a woman’s face’, ‘a penis thrust so far down a woman’s throat that she gags’ etc etc.
Ms Nolland seems to be a world class scaremongerer, alarmist and demoniser. Her presentation was very ugly indeed. Methinks the lady doth protest too much. I suspect that even amongst her own constituency there was embarrassment about a lack of balance which appeared to border on pathological obsession.
It doesn't sound as if Ms. Nolland is into scat herself, but she can certainly talk shit.
SAINT VALENTINE WOULD TURN IT HIS GRAVE
From NBC10 PHILADELPHIA:
A Valentine’s Day contest by St. Joseph’s University’s Alumni Association to share the stories and photos of some alumni who met on Hawk Hill is finding the small Catholic university in the middle of a controversy that the school is discriminating against some alumni due to sexual orientation.
Megan Edwards and Katie MacTurk say they entered their photo and story about how they met during their senior year at St. Joe’s in hopes that they would earn the most “Likes” by Feb. 14.
They were hoping to win the "How I Met My Hawk Mate" contest and a $100 restaurant gift certificate to a restaurant of their choice.
They say they never got their chance. Edwards and MacTurk claim that the Jesuit school's alumni association refused to use their photo on the alumni group’s Facebook page because they are a lesbian couple and that, when pressed, the alumni association claimed the decision was made because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize same-sex relationships.
On Thursday afternoon Saint Joe's Alumni Association responded to their original decision not to post the photo:
"Saint Joseph’s University fully supports and is in agreement with the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage. As a Catholic, Jesuit university, Saint Joseph’s is a welcoming, inclusive community. Our focus is on respect and caring for all individuals as individuals."
But by 2.50 p.m. they had caved in to pressure, much of which came from Saint Joseph's University Alumni:
UPDATE: Around 2:50 p.m. Thursday, the Saint Joseph's Alumni Association posted the "Hawk Mate" photo of Edwards and MacTurk to Facebook. It had more than 330 likes in less than one half hour.
At the time I popped over to their facebook page and clicked on "like" the figure had risen to 1145.
Thanks to whiteycat for keeping me up to date on this story.
A Valentine’s Day contest by St. Joseph’s University’s Alumni Association to share the stories and photos of some alumni who met on Hawk Hill is finding the small Catholic university in the middle of a controversy that the school is discriminating against some alumni due to sexual orientation.
Megan Edwards and Katie MacTurk say they entered their photo and story about how they met during their senior year at St. Joe’s in hopes that they would earn the most “Likes” by Feb. 14.
They were hoping to win the "How I Met My Hawk Mate" contest and a $100 restaurant gift certificate to a restaurant of their choice.
They say they never got their chance. Edwards and MacTurk claim that the Jesuit school's alumni association refused to use their photo on the alumni group’s Facebook page because they are a lesbian couple and that, when pressed, the alumni association claimed the decision was made because the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize same-sex relationships.
On Thursday afternoon Saint Joe's Alumni Association responded to their original decision not to post the photo:
"Saint Joseph’s University fully supports and is in agreement with the Catholic Church’s teachings regarding homosexuality and same sex marriage. As a Catholic, Jesuit university, Saint Joseph’s is a welcoming, inclusive community. Our focus is on respect and caring for all individuals as individuals."
But by 2.50 p.m. they had caved in to pressure, much of which came from Saint Joseph's University Alumni:
UPDATE: Around 2:50 p.m. Thursday, the Saint Joseph's Alumni Association posted the "Hawk Mate" photo of Edwards and MacTurk to Facebook. It had more than 330 likes in less than one half hour.
At the time I popped over to their facebook page and clicked on "like" the figure had risen to 1145.
Thanks to whiteycat for keeping me up to date on this story.
NOT SO STRANGE BEDFELLOWS
Good to see that the AmmoLand blog is getting behind the Roman Catholic bishops. Though why a bunch of redneck blood sports enthusiasts would be so interested in the sanctity of life is beyond my understanding. It's like the British National Party sticking up for the Race relations Commission.
Tough talk about tithing
I've been intrigued by the reports of the "dueling budgets" at the recent meeting of Executive Council.
At least at one point, part of the discussion was whether or not the "asking" from the folks at 815 (As in "Second Ave., NYC, NY", The National/International headquarters of The Episcopal Church) to the dioceses ought to be 19% or 15%.
Which is interesting because, at least at one point and in my diocese, we subscribed to "50/50 Giving". The scheme was that every church give 50% of its operational budget away - 25% to the diocese and 25% to mission. In turn, the diocese would do the same: 25% to "headquarters" at 815 and 25% to mission.
I never understood it. I mean "50/50 Giving" sounds more like a raffle than a Stewardship Plan.
In my diocese, we've reduced our giving to the National/International Church (815) from 25% to 19%. We still owe a couple hundred thousand dollars from one year when - oops! - we somehow didn't pay our pledge, so we're paying that back $10,000 a year until we're solvent again.
The bishop, in his State of the Diocese address, said that the majority of congregations in our diocese pledge 10% of their congregational income. He said that wasn't enough and we had to improve.
I have a few questions about this whole 10%, 15%, 19%, 25%, and "50/50 Giving" thing.
First of all, what is the scriptural basis for anything other than 10%? I've been asking that question for almost 25 years and I've never been given an answer.
Yes, 10% is the "minimum standard requirement" we find in scripture. We give more when we can.
St. Paul told the church at Corinth that if you 'sow sparingly, you will reap sparingly", but if you 'sow generously, you will reap generously'. (2 Corinthians 9:6)
Indeed, Jesus said to the rich young man / ruler, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me". (Matthew 19:16–30, Mark 10:17–31 and Luke 18:18–30.).
In Luke, it is reported in this way, "When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
And, he applauded and gave as an example to his disciples the widow's mite who gave everything she had to her name (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4).
So it's pretty clear that tithing is a spiritual discipline. It's the habit of a generous heart.
It's also pretty clear that it's 10% or everything.
So, where, exactly, did we get these other percentages?
Beyond the math and theology, there's an issue of leadership. One of the most important lessons I've learned as a leader - besides having authenticity and integrity and honesty - is that consistency is incredibly important if you want to get your "message" across.
One of our daughters reminds me that people in the business of marketing report that a person needs to hear a message seven (7) times before they really "hear" it.
The consistent message of "striving to tithe" is 10%. That's scriptural. We teach people to "strive to tithe". And to "live into the tithe" as a spiritual discipline vs. simply "giving to the church".
Clergy are to model that behavior. We reinforce it every year from the pulpit and in Adult Forums and during Stewardship Season.
And then, without fail, clergy find ourselves sitting around the finance committee - some of us with smart, experienced business people - formulating the budget for the next year, or trying to figure out how to balance the budget we developed, when someone says, "Tell me again about the 10% tithe and why we need to give 19% to the diocese?"
So, we launch into the fact that the 10% is a minimum standard and that "to whom much is given, much is expected" and that this is part of living into the words of the Nicene Creed when we say, "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church".
Someone else says, "I get that, but who decided that 19% was 'beyond minimum' when 19% is actually almost twice the minimum? Why can't we give 11% or 12%?"
Insert awkward smile here which accompanies the awkward response, "Erm....the bishop?"
Someone else says, "I understand the scriptural thing, but that was when the church was the only social service agency in town. Now, there are organizations that do things and care for people in ways that the church can't. And, they do it better. So, is it reasonable to give the church the entire 10%? Why not give 5% to the church and 5% to some of these organizations? Or 6% and 4%? Or........But, 19%? What's up with that?"
Awkward silence fills the room.
"So," another member pipes up, "Where does this 19% go anyway?"
"To support the diocese," we say, relieved to have a concrete answer.
"And, what does the diocese do with it? I mean, what comes back to us? To put it another way, what 'bang' to we get for our 'buck'?"
"Well," we say, "that's the way the world may think of it, but this is not "trickle down Regeanomics" The church is a community. That's the 'catholic' part of what we say in the Nicene Creed. We give so that the diocese can help other churches. And, in turn, the diocese gives to the church at the national (and international) level, which, in turn, supports the Anglican Communion."
"Okay," says someone else, "So, it's like a 'membership fee', but what do we get from the national and international church and the Anglican Communion, except grief about how we do things at the local level? I mean, haven't you been teaching about this nasty thing called 'The Anglican Covenant'? Is this what we get for our 'membership dues'?"
The priest responds by placing a hand on the forehead and silently curses because this was never covered in any of the seminary courses she took.
You see where I'm going with this.
The thing of it is is that people have been listening and they ARE taking tithing and pledging seriously. This is why people are asking such difficult questions. They want to know. They are confused. Because the message has not been consistent.
Frankly, I've never had an answer that met with anyone's satisfaction. Including my own.
I've actually been part of a family conversation about stewardship where the single mom in a scruffy urban congregation handed me her pledge card and said, "I was only able to increase my pledge by $50 this year. I figure that new winter coat I need can wait until next year."
When the total pledges for that congregation didn't reach the amount required by the diocese, the chief financial officer at the time actually said to me, "I don't think you are teaching your congregation about Stewardship."
"Oh,", I said, "actually, they are teaching me. You should come and listen to them. You'd be amazed at what you could learn."
Look, I always thought Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan was seriously flawed but at least it did have its own logic. It was consistent. Apparently, it made a lot of sense to a lot of people.
I'm not proposing that there is a simple answer to the problem of financial support for the church. I'm certainly not espousing simplistic solutions to a complex situation.
I simply think it's time that the church developed a consistent message about Stewardship.
The 'old' system isn't working. You can ask people to "do better" than 10%. You can also expect to get blood out of a turnip but don't be too surprised if all you get it red colored water.
If we ask people to "strive to tithe" and "live into the tithe", then why don't we ask churches and dioceses and The Episcopal Church to do the same? Make the same sacrifices we make? Reduce some diocesan staff? Do without some travel and entertainment expenses? Move diocesan offices out of costly, energy-deficient old buildings and share some space with some inner city churches who'd love the company and benefit some financially?
Why can't we expect dioceses - and, indeed, The Episcopal Church - to "live into the tithe"?
That's a serious question.
I'll expect your answers on my desk - single page, type written, double spaced - by 10 AM tomorrow morning.
Because, I, for one, really need to know.
At least at one point, part of the discussion was whether or not the "asking" from the folks at 815 (As in "Second Ave., NYC, NY", The National/International headquarters of The Episcopal Church) to the dioceses ought to be 19% or 15%.
Which is interesting because, at least at one point and in my diocese, we subscribed to "50/50 Giving". The scheme was that every church give 50% of its operational budget away - 25% to the diocese and 25% to mission. In turn, the diocese would do the same: 25% to "headquarters" at 815 and 25% to mission.
I never understood it. I mean "50/50 Giving" sounds more like a raffle than a Stewardship Plan.
In my diocese, we've reduced our giving to the National/International Church (815) from 25% to 19%. We still owe a couple hundred thousand dollars from one year when - oops! - we somehow didn't pay our pledge, so we're paying that back $10,000 a year until we're solvent again.
The bishop, in his State of the Diocese address, said that the majority of congregations in our diocese pledge 10% of their congregational income. He said that wasn't enough and we had to improve.
I have a few questions about this whole 10%, 15%, 19%, 25%, and "50/50 Giving" thing.
First of all, what is the scriptural basis for anything other than 10%? I've been asking that question for almost 25 years and I've never been given an answer.
Yes, 10% is the "minimum standard requirement" we find in scripture. We give more when we can.
St. Paul told the church at Corinth that if you 'sow sparingly, you will reap sparingly", but if you 'sow generously, you will reap generously'. (2 Corinthians 9:6)
Indeed, Jesus said to the rich young man / ruler, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me". (Matthew 19:16–30, Mark 10:17–31 and Luke 18:18–30.).
In Luke, it is reported in this way, "When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth. Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
And, he applauded and gave as an example to his disciples the widow's mite who gave everything she had to her name (Mark 12:41-44, Luke 21:1-4).
So it's pretty clear that tithing is a spiritual discipline. It's the habit of a generous heart.
It's also pretty clear that it's 10% or everything.
So, where, exactly, did we get these other percentages?
Beyond the math and theology, there's an issue of leadership. One of the most important lessons I've learned as a leader - besides having authenticity and integrity and honesty - is that consistency is incredibly important if you want to get your "message" across.
One of our daughters reminds me that people in the business of marketing report that a person needs to hear a message seven (7) times before they really "hear" it.
The consistent message of "striving to tithe" is 10%. That's scriptural. We teach people to "strive to tithe". And to "live into the tithe" as a spiritual discipline vs. simply "giving to the church".
Clergy are to model that behavior. We reinforce it every year from the pulpit and in Adult Forums and during Stewardship Season.
And then, without fail, clergy find ourselves sitting around the finance committee - some of us with smart, experienced business people - formulating the budget for the next year, or trying to figure out how to balance the budget we developed, when someone says, "Tell me again about the 10% tithe and why we need to give 19% to the diocese?"
So, we launch into the fact that the 10% is a minimum standard and that "to whom much is given, much is expected" and that this is part of living into the words of the Nicene Creed when we say, "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church".
Someone else says, "I get that, but who decided that 19% was 'beyond minimum' when 19% is actually almost twice the minimum? Why can't we give 11% or 12%?"
Insert awkward smile here which accompanies the awkward response, "Erm....the bishop?"
Someone else says, "I understand the scriptural thing, but that was when the church was the only social service agency in town. Now, there are organizations that do things and care for people in ways that the church can't. And, they do it better. So, is it reasonable to give the church the entire 10%? Why not give 5% to the church and 5% to some of these organizations? Or 6% and 4%? Or........But, 19%? What's up with that?"
Awkward silence fills the room.
"So," another member pipes up, "Where does this 19% go anyway?"
"To support the diocese," we say, relieved to have a concrete answer.
"And, what does the diocese do with it? I mean, what comes back to us? To put it another way, what 'bang' to we get for our 'buck'?"
"Well," we say, "that's the way the world may think of it, but this is not "trickle down Regeanomics" The church is a community. That's the 'catholic' part of what we say in the Nicene Creed. We give so that the diocese can help other churches. And, in turn, the diocese gives to the church at the national (and international) level, which, in turn, supports the Anglican Communion."
"Okay," says someone else, "So, it's like a 'membership fee', but what do we get from the national and international church and the Anglican Communion, except grief about how we do things at the local level? I mean, haven't you been teaching about this nasty thing called 'The Anglican Covenant'? Is this what we get for our 'membership dues'?"
The priest responds by placing a hand on the forehead and silently curses because this was never covered in any of the seminary courses she took.
You see where I'm going with this.
The thing of it is is that people have been listening and they ARE taking tithing and pledging seriously. This is why people are asking such difficult questions. They want to know. They are confused. Because the message has not been consistent.
Frankly, I've never had an answer that met with anyone's satisfaction. Including my own.
I've actually been part of a family conversation about stewardship where the single mom in a scruffy urban congregation handed me her pledge card and said, "I was only able to increase my pledge by $50 this year. I figure that new winter coat I need can wait until next year."
When the total pledges for that congregation didn't reach the amount required by the diocese, the chief financial officer at the time actually said to me, "I don't think you are teaching your congregation about Stewardship."
"Oh,", I said, "actually, they are teaching me. You should come and listen to them. You'd be amazed at what you could learn."
Look, I always thought Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan was seriously flawed but at least it did have its own logic. It was consistent. Apparently, it made a lot of sense to a lot of people.
I'm not proposing that there is a simple answer to the problem of financial support for the church. I'm certainly not espousing simplistic solutions to a complex situation.
I simply think it's time that the church developed a consistent message about Stewardship.
The 'old' system isn't working. You can ask people to "do better" than 10%. You can also expect to get blood out of a turnip but don't be too surprised if all you get it red colored water.
If we ask people to "strive to tithe" and "live into the tithe", then why don't we ask churches and dioceses and The Episcopal Church to do the same? Make the same sacrifices we make? Reduce some diocesan staff? Do without some travel and entertainment expenses? Move diocesan offices out of costly, energy-deficient old buildings and share some space with some inner city churches who'd love the company and benefit some financially?
Why can't we expect dioceses - and, indeed, The Episcopal Church - to "live into the tithe"?
That's a serious question.
I'll expect your answers on my desk - single page, type written, double spaced - by 10 AM tomorrow morning.
Because, I, for one, really need to know.
WORSHIP AT ST. LAIKA'S
HOLY COMMUNION
THE PRESENTATION
OF CHRIST IN
THE TEMPLE
CANDLEMAS
All are welcome to join me in taking communion.
There are no exceptions.
The order of service is posted beneath the audio file so that you can join in with the service. The words in bold type are the ones we say together.
If you want to physically partake of communion you will require a small piece of bread and a small amount of drink (preferably made from grapes and containing alcohol). How you view the nature of this part of the service is completely up to you.
Click on the arrow on the player to stream.Download via the MP3 icon below the player.Download podcast via iTUNES
MP3 File
The administrator of this site is the Reverend Jonathan Hagger (a.k.a. MadPriest). He is a Church of England priest but he receives no salary from any church or any other employer. At present his ministry consists entirely of his work at OCICBW...
However, he likes to eat occasionally and his blogs cost quite a bit of money to run. So, in true Anglican style a collection plate is being made available for your donations (via PayPal).
You do not need to have a PayPal account to subscribe or donate via the buttons below.
Option 1 : £1.00GBP - monthly
Option 2 : £2.00GBP - monthly
Option 3 : £5.00GBP - monthly
Option 4 : £10.00GBP - monthly
Option 5 : £15.00GBP - monthly
Option 6 : £20.00GBP - monthly
Option 7 : £25.00GBP - monthly
Option 8 : £30.00GBP - monthly
Option 9 : £50.00GBP - monthly
Option 10 : £100.00GBP - monthly
Another way to help Jonathan is to buy Amazon products via his Amazon shop. Details of how to do this can be found in the right hand sidebar.
THE PRESENTATION
OF CHRIST IN
THE TEMPLE
CANDLEMAS
All are welcome to join me in taking communion.
There are no exceptions.
The order of service is posted beneath the audio file so that you can join in with the service. The words in bold type are the ones we say together.
If you want to physically partake of communion you will require a small piece of bread and a small amount of drink (preferably made from grapes and containing alcohol). How you view the nature of this part of the service is completely up to you.
Click on the arrow on the player to stream.Download via the MP3 icon below the player.Download podcast via iTUNES
MP3 File
The administrator of this site is the Reverend Jonathan Hagger (a.k.a. MadPriest). He is a Church of England priest but he receives no salary from any church or any other employer. At present his ministry consists entirely of his work at OCICBW...
However, he likes to eat occasionally and his blogs cost quite a bit of money to run. So, in true Anglican style a collection plate is being made available for your donations (via PayPal).
You do not need to have a PayPal account to subscribe or donate via the buttons below.
Option 1 : £1.00GBP - monthly
Option 2 : £2.00GBP - monthly
Option 3 : £5.00GBP - monthly
Option 4 : £10.00GBP - monthly
Option 5 : £15.00GBP - monthly
Option 6 : £20.00GBP - monthly
Option 7 : £25.00GBP - monthly
Option 8 : £30.00GBP - monthly
Option 9 : £50.00GBP - monthly
Option 10 : £100.00GBP - monthly
Another way to help Jonathan is to buy Amazon products via his Amazon shop. Details of how to do this can be found in the right hand sidebar.
MADPRIEST STICKS HIS POOR PAW OUT AGAIN
Hi, everybody.
It's the first of the month again and, as usual, I am appealing to your generosity in helping me pay those damn bills.
Unfortunately, I haven't sold anywhere near as many "New Words For Holy Communion" downloads as I had pessimistically hoped. Not that I'm giving up. I'm working on a new website and getting my project on a couple of major book trade sites. My friend, Viv, warned me that it would take some time to get up and running and she was, of course, right about this. But, in the meantime I am in the usual dire straights financially. So here is the usual blurb:
The administrator of this site is the Reverend Jonathan Hagger (a.k.a. MadPriest). He is a Church of England priest but he receives no salary from any church or any other employer. At present his ministry consists entirely of his work at OCICBW...
However, he likes to eat occasionally and his blogs cost quite a bit of money to run. So, in true Anglican style a collection plate is being made available for your donations (via PayPal).
You do not need to have a PayPal account to subscribe or donate via the buttons below.
Option 1 : £1.00GBP - monthly
Option 2 : £2.00GBP - monthly
Option 3 : £5.00GBP - monthly
Option 4 : £10.00GBP - monthly
Option 5 : £15.00GBP - monthly
Option 6 : £20.00GBP - monthly
Option 7 : £25.00GBP - monthly
Option 8 : £30.00GBP - monthly
Option 9 : £50.00GBP - monthly
Option 10 : £100.00GBP - monthly
Another way to help Jonathan is to buy Amazon products via his Amazon shop. Details of how to do this can be found in the right hand sidebar.
It's the first of the month again and, as usual, I am appealing to your generosity in helping me pay those damn bills.
Unfortunately, I haven't sold anywhere near as many "New Words For Holy Communion" downloads as I had pessimistically hoped. Not that I'm giving up. I'm working on a new website and getting my project on a couple of major book trade sites. My friend, Viv, warned me that it would take some time to get up and running and she was, of course, right about this. But, in the meantime I am in the usual dire straights financially. So here is the usual blurb:
The administrator of this site is the Reverend Jonathan Hagger (a.k.a. MadPriest). He is a Church of England priest but he receives no salary from any church or any other employer. At present his ministry consists entirely of his work at OCICBW...
However, he likes to eat occasionally and his blogs cost quite a bit of money to run. So, in true Anglican style a collection plate is being made available for your donations (via PayPal).
You do not need to have a PayPal account to subscribe or donate via the buttons below.
Option 1 : £1.00GBP - monthly
Option 2 : £2.00GBP - monthly
Option 3 : £5.00GBP - monthly
Option 4 : £10.00GBP - monthly
Option 5 : £15.00GBP - monthly
Option 6 : £20.00GBP - monthly
Option 7 : £25.00GBP - monthly
Option 8 : £30.00GBP - monthly
Option 9 : £50.00GBP - monthly
Option 10 : £100.00GBP - monthly
Another way to help Jonathan is to buy Amazon products via his Amazon shop. Details of how to do this can be found in the right hand sidebar.
GIVE US A JAIL BREAK!
From THE LOCAL (Sweden):
A 31-year-old woman who is serving a life sentence for murder in a Swedish prison has demanded that she be allowed to take out holiday days. In February 2010, Natalia Pshenkina was transferred from a prison in Hinseberg to a facility in Ystad in southern Sweden where she took a job inside the prison. Now, after nearly two years on the job without a break, Pshenkina thinks she is due some time off.
“I've asked the head of production about which times during the year the prison allows vacation time for inmates. The answer was that the prison doesn't have any vacation time at all,” she wrote in a complaint filed with Sweden's Chancellor of Justice.
Pshenkina closed her complaint by claiming she is due compensation for the paid vacation days she's been denied over the last two years, arguing her job is covered by laws guaranteeing Swedish workers the right to 25 days of paid vacation per year.
But Swedish Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalvården) spokesperson Anders Annerfalk explained that inmates are covered by different laws than those governing the employment conditions of normal Swedish workers.
"They aren't employed by us and therefore laws about vacation time don't apply” he said."
COMMENT: Now, where have I heard that "They aren't employed by us" excuse before?
A 31-year-old woman who is serving a life sentence for murder in a Swedish prison has demanded that she be allowed to take out holiday days. In February 2010, Natalia Pshenkina was transferred from a prison in Hinseberg to a facility in Ystad in southern Sweden where she took a job inside the prison. Now, after nearly two years on the job without a break, Pshenkina thinks she is due some time off.
“I've asked the head of production about which times during the year the prison allows vacation time for inmates. The answer was that the prison doesn't have any vacation time at all,” she wrote in a complaint filed with Sweden's Chancellor of Justice.
Pshenkina closed her complaint by claiming she is due compensation for the paid vacation days she's been denied over the last two years, arguing her job is covered by laws guaranteeing Swedish workers the right to 25 days of paid vacation per year.
But Swedish Prison and Probation Service (Kriminalvården) spokesperson Anders Annerfalk explained that inmates are covered by different laws than those governing the employment conditions of normal Swedish workers.
"They aren't employed by us and therefore laws about vacation time don't apply” he said."
COMMENT: Now, where have I heard that "They aren't employed by us" excuse before?
BECAUSE IT'S WORTH CHEATING
From THE LOCAL (France):
British regulators banned a magazine advert for an anti-ageing moisturiser by French cosmetics company L'Oréal on Wednesday after upholding a complaint that the image of the model, actress Rachel Weisz, was misleading. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it had upheld a complaint by Jo Swinson, a lawmaker for the junior government coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, and a campaigner on improving body image.
"We considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even. We therefore concluded that the image in the ad misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims 'Skin Looks Smoother' and 'Complexion Looks More Even'," an ASA ruling said.
Swinson welcomed the ruling, under which L'Oréal must not publish the ad in its current form again, saying: "The beauty and advertising industries need to stop ripping off consumers with dishonest images."
It is rumoured that future L'Oréal adverts will use the new slogan, "You may be worth it, but our products certainly aren't." However, they have rejected the suggestion that they start using models with wrinkles in their anti-ageing cream adverts.
British regulators banned a magazine advert for an anti-ageing moisturiser by French cosmetics company L'Oréal on Wednesday after upholding a complaint that the image of the model, actress Rachel Weisz, was misleading. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it had upheld a complaint by Jo Swinson, a lawmaker for the junior government coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, and a campaigner on improving body image.
"We considered that the image had been altered in a way that substantially changed her complexion to make it appear smoother and more even. We therefore concluded that the image in the ad misleadingly exaggerated the performance of the product in relation to the claims 'Skin Looks Smoother' and 'Complexion Looks More Even'," an ASA ruling said.
Swinson welcomed the ruling, under which L'Oréal must not publish the ad in its current form again, saying: "The beauty and advertising industries need to stop ripping off consumers with dishonest images."
It is rumoured that future L'Oréal adverts will use the new slogan, "You may be worth it, but our products certainly aren't." However, they have rejected the suggestion that they start using models with wrinkles in their anti-ageing cream adverts.
ONCE A BARBARIAN ALWAYS A BARBARIAN
The bloody Vikings are at it again. In Norway, the government has agreed to allow officially licensed psychopaths to kill 157 cats this year. There are only about 470 elusive lynxes in Norway, one of the world's most underpopulated countries, and yet the human inhabitants find it impossible to share it with the wildlife who were there before they arrived. It's not as if they eat the cats as Norwegians live on a diet of open fish sandwiches and nothing else.
Meanwhile in Sweden a hunter has the audacity to complain that being attacked by a bear his dog had just woken up from hibernation was like "a slaughterhouse." Yes, well now he knows what it feels like to be an inedible, furry non-human in Scandinavia. The bear has been duly punished for being disturbed by a man intent on killing him. Police gave orders for the bear to be tracked and killed, and the municipality’s specialist hunter with the help of local hunting teams succeeded to fell him on Sunday.
Here's a photo of the dead bear which will now never wake up from hibernation ever again. Human beings are bastards.
Meanwhile in Sweden a hunter has the audacity to complain that being attacked by a bear his dog had just woken up from hibernation was like "a slaughterhouse." Yes, well now he knows what it feels like to be an inedible, furry non-human in Scandinavia. The bear has been duly punished for being disturbed by a man intent on killing him. Police gave orders for the bear to be tracked and killed, and the municipality’s specialist hunter with the help of local hunting teams succeeded to fell him on Sunday.
Here's a photo of the dead bear which will now never wake up from hibernation ever again. Human beings are bastards.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
TV is just troubled people being booed these days.
(Jon Ronson in "The Psychopath Test")
(Jon Ronson in "The Psychopath Test")
An Open Letter to Congressman Rohrabacher
Dear Congressman Rohrabacher,
I happened to catch a rerun of last week's (1/27) episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO. You were on the panel along with Mario Batali, Kennedy, and Martin Bashir.
I was listening but not paying close attention to the conversation - honestly, it was so much of what I've been hearing in the Republican debates that, after a while, it just becomes background noise - until it came to the topic of immigration.
I don't have the transcript, but I remember hearing you say, "The children of immigrants are bringing down the level of education in our classrooms. They come here and they don't speak English and they are taking away time from *our* kids [Note: I am quite certain you said "our kids"] which denies our kids the opportunity to learn".
Rep. Dana. RohrabacherThat's not an exact quote but close enough, as it is said, for government work.
I was shocked and disturbed by your comments because I have always thought of you as one of the more "moderate" Republican Conservatives in the House. Not a Tea Party Republican but a man after Ronald Reagan's own heart, having served as one of his senior speech writers with input into the development of his "trickle-down" economic plan which has come to be known as Reaganomics.
So, I went over to your webpage to learn a bit more about your political positions. I was especially interested in your posture on Immigration. Here's what I found:
Rep. Rohrabacher vigorously opposes any attempt to legalize the status of millions of illegals and continues to support common sense immigration policies that serve the American people first. This year, Rep. Rohrabacher has co-sponsored bills to end birthright citizenship, declare English as the official language, strengthen the E-verify program requiring employers to check the work eligibility of all applicants, and introduced H.R. 1822, the No Health Care Subsidies for Illegal Immigrants Act. Rohrabacher's bill would prevent illegal aliens from receiving health insurance subsidies under the new health care law by requiring proof of citizenship for eligibility.In light of all that, I was especially intrigued by your term "common sense immigration policies" and wondered what those might be, exactly. Especially those that "serve the American people first".
When I read the June 3, 2010 report in the LA Times about your unannounced visit to a Mexican consul's office which had been established in a restaurant on Catalina Island, I began to understand.
The Mexican consul’s office first offered the photo identification cards to local illegal immigrant workers two years ago, setting up shop for a day in the upscale Catalina Island Country Club restaurant. The matricula cards can be used to establish credit, open bank accounts, buy insurance and apply for government services.Apparently, after being quoted as saying,“Where you have illegal immigration, crime and drugs are sure to follow," you forced the Consul to move out of the restaurant, as apparently the restaurant did not have federal approval to host the Consul’s operations. The Consul then moved to a nearby church. You followed. Here's that report as published in the LA Times:
At 10 a.m., Rohrabacher and an assistant strode into the church to personally express his concerns, raising eyebrows. Rohrabacher was greeted by Deputy Consul General Juan Carlos Mendoza Sanchez of Los Angeles in the middle of a room where Mexican specialists were typing information into laptop computers from two dozen men and women seeking their services.
But all eyes were on Rohrabacher and Sanchez, who launched into a carefully worded dialogue, expressing strongly opposing opinions.
Standing inches apart, Sanchez told Rohrabacher, “We have a lot of respect for you. At the same time, we have certain responsibilities.”
Rohrabcher responded: “I understand that. But there is a problem in our country; there are too many illegals here.”
“This is not done with any type of belligerency,” Rohrabacher added, referring to his unannounced visit.
“Everyone has their own point of view,” Sanchez said. “We are performing this activity under international law.”
“Well, that will be decided in Washington and Mexico City,” Rohrabacher said.Photoshopped by The Orange Juice BlogI would hope this incident has since come to some satisfactory resolve for all parties, but I tend to doubt it.
I write all of this to allow the readers of my blog to have some context in which to understand what I'm about to say to you.
I am one of those "immigrants". No, not Mexican. Portuguese. I grew up in an apartment above my grandparents in a tenement house in Fall River, MA. All the men in my family worked in the factories and mills and all the women worked in the 'sweat shops' which were part of the 'garment industry'.
Our neighborhood was, for all intents and purposes, a little Portuguese village transplanted from Lisbon and the Azores where most people who were my family and neighbors were born. We all spoke Portuguese.
When I went off to school, I could only speak enough English to purchase what my grandmother needed at the local market. There was no Head Start or Kindergarten, so I was excited to be learning my ABCs and 123s.
Except, there were no provisions made for immigrant kids like me, so I began my academic career in a classroom for those with "special educational needs".
To enlarge for easier reading, click on imageWe didn't really know much about learning disabilities then, so the fact of the matter is that I was in a classroom with high functioning children who had low IQs. Not low enough to be institutionalized, but high enough for the educational system to be compelled to have to do something with and for them.
My parents were mortified. Horrified. They knew I didn't have a low IQ but the tests I had taken were all in English, so I had failed miserably. Enough to qualify me to be in the class all the other kids called "The Retards". I was embarrassed and confused.
My teacher, a feisty Irish woman named Mrs. Kelliher, looked deep into my eyes and said, "It's okay, honey. You will learn English. I'm going to teach you."
And so, while other kids were learning how to identify colors and stack blocks and wipe off trays and tables in the cafeteria, Mrs. Kelliher taught me English. With her help and the encouragement and support of my parents and family, I did so well that, by the end of the first quarter, I was placed into the 'normal' classroom.
Today, I am a productive citizen of the United States. I am an Episcopal Priest with my doctorate and have done post-doctoral work. I have been gainfully employed since I was 15 and a half years old. I pay taxes, mow the lawn, and do not have chickens in my living room nor goats in my front yard.
Oh, and I vote.
Our six children are all gainfully employed and wonderfully educated. Most are married and have blessed us with five grandchildren, all of whom attend public schools. I have no doubt that they, too, will grow to be productive citizens of the United States of America.
I have made certain that they know the story of how their grandparents came to this country and how they worked hard so that their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren - and children of all future generations - could enjoy the liberty and justice guaranteed for all in our Constitution.
Here's the thing, Congressman Rohrabacher: We don't have too many "illegal aliens" in this country. We do not have enough Mrs. Kellihers.
We have immigration laws that are unjust, when they're not draconian, and need to be reformed. And, not to "serve the American people first" but which are in service of the principles of "freedom and justice" which are the foundation of American society.
We have too many "good American" small businesses who are only too happy to hire those "illegal aliens" so they don't have to contribute to payroll taxes, social security and Medicare.
We also have too many "good American" big businesses who "outsource" their employment to other countries so they can keep production costs down and profits up and then get special tax breaks because they are in a higher income bracket.
Which is part of the reason our educational system is in trouble and there aren't enough Mrs. Kellihers in classrooms anymore.
And, don't even get me started on the Evil Twin of the debacle of our immigration system: Human Trafficking.
I know these words will probably fall on deaf ears and blind eyes, but I wanted you to know that in your righteous indignation and anger about "illegal aliens" taking educational opportunities from "our kids" and jobs from "the American people," your words fall heavily on my heart.
I know you're not a bad person. I'm sure you love your country and serve it with pride. You've simply and rather conveniently neglected the fact that we are a nation of immigrants.
Except for the First People - the Native Americans - and yes, many of the Mexicans who are part of your constituency, everyone is a foreigner in The United States. Everyone came here from a different place. My grandparents did. Perhaps your grandparents or great-grandparents or great-great grandparents did.
Every single one of those people contributed to making this country what it is today. Indeed, they helped to make us who we are today.
I don't want big government either, Mr. Congressman - especially in terms of Reproductive Rights - but the worst of it is that we pretend like we have an immigration policy, we make coming into the United States without our permission illegal, and then we actually don't enforce it because it benefits big business.
As long as we give tax breaks to big business, we're going to have big government.
It also seems to me that as the American public continues to focus more intensely on illegal immigration and securing the nation's borders, the number of members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus continues to grow as the situation grows worse.
I'd like to see some "common sense immigration policies," too, sir. Ones that serve the American principles first so that the American people can be served.
I urge you to spend some time with some of those "illegal aliens" in your district. No, they don't vote. Yet. But, they want to become American citizens and if you help them, they will vote for you.
Listen to the stories of their lives. Work with local, small businesses as well as large corporations to hire and pay them fairly. Help their children get a good education so they will grow to be contributing, productive citizens of this great country of ours.
It's called The American Dream. For too many, it's become the American Nightmare - for those who are immigrants as well as everyone else in this country.
We can change that.
It takes equal amounts of common sense and compassion.
I don't imagine I've changed your mind, but perhaps I have touched your heart.
Political dogma without compassion is surely the ugliest blight on 'America the Beautiful' which is reaching epidemic proportions in this country.
Along with Terry Waite, the British envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury who was held captive in Lebanon for four years, I believe, "At the end of the day, love and compassion will win".
I believe that because I have lived it and know it to be true.
If you open your heart, your mind will follow and you'll know it, too.
I happened to catch a rerun of last week's (1/27) episode of "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO. You were on the panel along with Mario Batali, Kennedy, and Martin Bashir.
I was listening but not paying close attention to the conversation - honestly, it was so much of what I've been hearing in the Republican debates that, after a while, it just becomes background noise - until it came to the topic of immigration.
I don't have the transcript, but I remember hearing you say, "The children of immigrants are bringing down the level of education in our classrooms. They come here and they don't speak English and they are taking away time from *our* kids [Note: I am quite certain you said "our kids"] which denies our kids the opportunity to learn".
Rep. Dana. RohrabacherThat's not an exact quote but close enough, as it is said, for government work.
I was shocked and disturbed by your comments because I have always thought of you as one of the more "moderate" Republican Conservatives in the House. Not a Tea Party Republican but a man after Ronald Reagan's own heart, having served as one of his senior speech writers with input into the development of his "trickle-down" economic plan which has come to be known as Reaganomics.
So, I went over to your webpage to learn a bit more about your political positions. I was especially interested in your posture on Immigration. Here's what I found:
Rep. Rohrabacher vigorously opposes any attempt to legalize the status of millions of illegals and continues to support common sense immigration policies that serve the American people first. This year, Rep. Rohrabacher has co-sponsored bills to end birthright citizenship, declare English as the official language, strengthen the E-verify program requiring employers to check the work eligibility of all applicants, and introduced H.R. 1822, the No Health Care Subsidies for Illegal Immigrants Act. Rohrabacher's bill would prevent illegal aliens from receiving health insurance subsidies under the new health care law by requiring proof of citizenship for eligibility.In light of all that, I was especially intrigued by your term "common sense immigration policies" and wondered what those might be, exactly. Especially those that "serve the American people first".
When I read the June 3, 2010 report in the LA Times about your unannounced visit to a Mexican consul's office which had been established in a restaurant on Catalina Island, I began to understand.
The Mexican consul’s office first offered the photo identification cards to local illegal immigrant workers two years ago, setting up shop for a day in the upscale Catalina Island Country Club restaurant. The matricula cards can be used to establish credit, open bank accounts, buy insurance and apply for government services.Apparently, after being quoted as saying,“Where you have illegal immigration, crime and drugs are sure to follow," you forced the Consul to move out of the restaurant, as apparently the restaurant did not have federal approval to host the Consul’s operations. The Consul then moved to a nearby church. You followed. Here's that report as published in the LA Times:
At 10 a.m., Rohrabacher and an assistant strode into the church to personally express his concerns, raising eyebrows. Rohrabacher was greeted by Deputy Consul General Juan Carlos Mendoza Sanchez of Los Angeles in the middle of a room where Mexican specialists were typing information into laptop computers from two dozen men and women seeking their services.
But all eyes were on Rohrabacher and Sanchez, who launched into a carefully worded dialogue, expressing strongly opposing opinions.
Standing inches apart, Sanchez told Rohrabacher, “We have a lot of respect for you. At the same time, we have certain responsibilities.”
Rohrabcher responded: “I understand that. But there is a problem in our country; there are too many illegals here.”
“This is not done with any type of belligerency,” Rohrabacher added, referring to his unannounced visit.
“Everyone has their own point of view,” Sanchez said. “We are performing this activity under international law.”
“Well, that will be decided in Washington and Mexico City,” Rohrabacher said.Photoshopped by The Orange Juice BlogI would hope this incident has since come to some satisfactory resolve for all parties, but I tend to doubt it.
I write all of this to allow the readers of my blog to have some context in which to understand what I'm about to say to you.
I am one of those "immigrants". No, not Mexican. Portuguese. I grew up in an apartment above my grandparents in a tenement house in Fall River, MA. All the men in my family worked in the factories and mills and all the women worked in the 'sweat shops' which were part of the 'garment industry'.
Our neighborhood was, for all intents and purposes, a little Portuguese village transplanted from Lisbon and the Azores where most people who were my family and neighbors were born. We all spoke Portuguese.
When I went off to school, I could only speak enough English to purchase what my grandmother needed at the local market. There was no Head Start or Kindergarten, so I was excited to be learning my ABCs and 123s.
Except, there were no provisions made for immigrant kids like me, so I began my academic career in a classroom for those with "special educational needs".
To enlarge for easier reading, click on imageWe didn't really know much about learning disabilities then, so the fact of the matter is that I was in a classroom with high functioning children who had low IQs. Not low enough to be institutionalized, but high enough for the educational system to be compelled to have to do something with and for them.
My parents were mortified. Horrified. They knew I didn't have a low IQ but the tests I had taken were all in English, so I had failed miserably. Enough to qualify me to be in the class all the other kids called "The Retards". I was embarrassed and confused.
My teacher, a feisty Irish woman named Mrs. Kelliher, looked deep into my eyes and said, "It's okay, honey. You will learn English. I'm going to teach you."
And so, while other kids were learning how to identify colors and stack blocks and wipe off trays and tables in the cafeteria, Mrs. Kelliher taught me English. With her help and the encouragement and support of my parents and family, I did so well that, by the end of the first quarter, I was placed into the 'normal' classroom.
Today, I am a productive citizen of the United States. I am an Episcopal Priest with my doctorate and have done post-doctoral work. I have been gainfully employed since I was 15 and a half years old. I pay taxes, mow the lawn, and do not have chickens in my living room nor goats in my front yard.
Oh, and I vote.
Our six children are all gainfully employed and wonderfully educated. Most are married and have blessed us with five grandchildren, all of whom attend public schools. I have no doubt that they, too, will grow to be productive citizens of the United States of America.
I have made certain that they know the story of how their grandparents came to this country and how they worked hard so that their children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren - and children of all future generations - could enjoy the liberty and justice guaranteed for all in our Constitution.
Here's the thing, Congressman Rohrabacher: We don't have too many "illegal aliens" in this country. We do not have enough Mrs. Kellihers.
We have immigration laws that are unjust, when they're not draconian, and need to be reformed. And, not to "serve the American people first" but which are in service of the principles of "freedom and justice" which are the foundation of American society.
We have too many "good American" small businesses who are only too happy to hire those "illegal aliens" so they don't have to contribute to payroll taxes, social security and Medicare.
We also have too many "good American" big businesses who "outsource" their employment to other countries so they can keep production costs down and profits up and then get special tax breaks because they are in a higher income bracket.
Which is part of the reason our educational system is in trouble and there aren't enough Mrs. Kellihers in classrooms anymore.
And, don't even get me started on the Evil Twin of the debacle of our immigration system: Human Trafficking.
I know these words will probably fall on deaf ears and blind eyes, but I wanted you to know that in your righteous indignation and anger about "illegal aliens" taking educational opportunities from "our kids" and jobs from "the American people," your words fall heavily on my heart.
I know you're not a bad person. I'm sure you love your country and serve it with pride. You've simply and rather conveniently neglected the fact that we are a nation of immigrants.
Except for the First People - the Native Americans - and yes, many of the Mexicans who are part of your constituency, everyone is a foreigner in The United States. Everyone came here from a different place. My grandparents did. Perhaps your grandparents or great-grandparents or great-great grandparents did.
Every single one of those people contributed to making this country what it is today. Indeed, they helped to make us who we are today.
I don't want big government either, Mr. Congressman - especially in terms of Reproductive Rights - but the worst of it is that we pretend like we have an immigration policy, we make coming into the United States without our permission illegal, and then we actually don't enforce it because it benefits big business.
As long as we give tax breaks to big business, we're going to have big government.
It also seems to me that as the American public continues to focus more intensely on illegal immigration and securing the nation's borders, the number of members of the House Immigration Reform Caucus continues to grow as the situation grows worse.
I'd like to see some "common sense immigration policies," too, sir. Ones that serve the American principles first so that the American people can be served.
I urge you to spend some time with some of those "illegal aliens" in your district. No, they don't vote. Yet. But, they want to become American citizens and if you help them, they will vote for you.
Listen to the stories of their lives. Work with local, small businesses as well as large corporations to hire and pay them fairly. Help their children get a good education so they will grow to be contributing, productive citizens of this great country of ours.
It's called The American Dream. For too many, it's become the American Nightmare - for those who are immigrants as well as everyone else in this country.
We can change that.
It takes equal amounts of common sense and compassion.
I don't imagine I've changed your mind, but perhaps I have touched your heart.
Political dogma without compassion is surely the ugliest blight on 'America the Beautiful' which is reaching epidemic proportions in this country.
Along with Terry Waite, the British envoy to the Archbishop of Canterbury who was held captive in Lebanon for four years, I believe, "At the end of the day, love and compassion will win".
I believe that because I have lived it and know it to be true.
If you open your heart, your mind will follow and you'll know it, too.
BISHOP'S BOWELS ON SHOW
This well-preserved bowel, replete with both haemorrhoids and cancer belonged to Thomas Thurlow, the Bishop of Durham between 1787 and 1791.
For more details, including where you can view this Anglican relic, check out BOINGBOING.
Thanks to Paul(A) who came across this item on a recent trwl through body parts listings on Google.
For more details, including where you can view this Anglican relic, check out BOINGBOING.
Thanks to Paul(A) who came across this item on a recent trwl through body parts listings on Google.
