Susan concludes,
we'll see where this goes. That may be the end of it and it may be the beginning of something more. I don't know.Meanwhile, rrom the Roman Catholic Bishops' Conference we hear the following
But what I do know is every opportunity to witness to God's inclusive love in public platforms of communication are opportunities for evangelism. Opportunities to tell the Good News of the God of Justice to many who have only heard about the God of Judgement. Opportunties to counter the voices of those who have God confused with their own homophobia. Opportunities to take the ancient call to "preach the good news, in season and out of season" to a multiplatform 21st century world ... and preach the good news: online and offline; by blog, tweet, comment, "forward" and "share."
So thanks, Ms. Kardashian and Mr. Backholm for some fertile soil for Multiplatform Evangelism. and to HuffPost, Pam's Blend and Daily Kos for helping spread the good news. Feel free to keep it coming!
“We see in our culture a drive to neuter religion,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the bishops conference, said in a news conference Monday at the bishops’ annual meeting in Baltimore. He added that “well-financed, well-oiled sectors” were trying “to push religion back into the sacristy.”
No, Archbishop, I think this shows that the Rev. Canon Susan Russell is taking religion out of the sacristy to the streets. What you don't like is it's not your flavor of religion. So what's that about liberty?
4 comments:
but. but. but. once it is out of the sacristy, will the man lose control? or has he already?
I think the RC hierarchy should be less concerned about the alleged "drive to neuter religion" and more concerned about its failure to neuter a number of its clergy.
The California Supreme Court has issued a Notice of Forthcoming Filing, advising that its decision on the Prop. 8 standing question will be issued tomorrow, November 17 at 10:00 a.m. The issue is:
"Whether under Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, or otherwise under California law, the official proponents of an initiative measure possess either a particularized interest in the initiative’s validity or the authority to assert the State’s interest in the initiative’s validity, which would enable them to defend the constitutionality of the initiative upon its adoption or appeal a judgment invalidating the initiative, when the public officials charged with that duty refuse to do so."
If the court says, "No," this could be death-knell of Prop. 8.
The California Supreme Court has ruled in the Prop. 8 case that initiative proponents do have the right to litigate the validity of a initiative when the public officials refuse to. From the introduction:
"In a postelection challenge to a voter-approved initiative measure, the official proponents of the initiative are authorized under California law to appear and assert the state’s interest in the initiative’s validity and to appeal a judgment invalidating the measure when the public officials who ordinarily defend the measure or appeal such a judgment decline to do so."
The result was unanimous although there was a concurring opinion by one of the justices (Kennard). You can read the whole thing here. So the litigation continues ...
Post a Comment