Pretty much, this

SWAT Raid- Dogs shot

I'm a big fan of law and order. But that's the point. I believe in law. The police in the video were operating within the letter of the law. That fact leads me to believe that the law needs to be changed. SWAT call outs are a typically unnecessary escalation of force.

The teams were developed to respond to hostage situations and other already dangerous situations. They were not originally designed to serve warrants. That they are being used to serve warrants is more a function of using already existing assets rather than letting them sit around idle.

In this instance, two or three uniformed officers in regular uniforms could have served the warrant and searched the premises. If they had shown up in mid evening, say around 7 or 8 PM, the family would still be awake and the dogs would have been calm. Instead they executed a warrant in the middle of the night and broke the door down. The dogs became excited, thinking that their pack was in danger. The police then shoot the dogs while at least one child was present.

Some may say that we should be wary of 'Monday morning quarterbacking'. We should be more wary of police departments that believe they are entitled to wage war against the citizenry. Every call out of a SWAT team should be justified beyond a reasonable doubt. Their overuse and misuse is a recipe for disaster. We've already had one fatality here in Atlanta because of these jack booted thuggery. It's only a matter of time before more die unless the men in black are reined in or put to pasture.

It's time for the police to be put in their place. They are here to serve, not to be served. They are not above the law nor are they entitled to special privileges under it.

Summer Rant

My wife has left me for ten days. She is taking her best friend on an Alaskan cruise to celebrate said friend's retirement. So I've been left to do the grocery shopping unaided.

We've let the fridge clear out in anticipation of Sally's trip, so tonight I went to the local Publix in search of bachelor chow. Tonight's dinner will be a simple repast of a french cheese whose name I can not recall and ritz crackers, followed by watermelon for dessert.

While in Publix I discovered something, that for me, provides the key to modern America. You can buy many different brands of instant iced tea mix, but they all have sweetening. Most have sugar, or possibly high fructose corn syrup, some have saccharin, some have nutrasweet, fewer have splenda and one lonely brand had stevia, I think. But you can not buy unsweetened instant tea.

I'm lazy. Boiling water requires work and effort. Pouring water over tea flavoured pellets is far less tiring. I don't much care about the taste as I going to add lemon juice to it anyway, so the better taste of freshly made hot tea isn't an issue.

But do all of our beverages have to be sweet? I drink, in no particular order: Tap water, orange juice, coffee, milk, an occasional lemonade when it is truly hot, and iced tea. If we are having a sit down dinner, I may have beer or wine. Of those beverages, only orange juice and lemonade can be classified as sweet. None of them would be foreign to Americans of fifty years ago.

But what you see in the grocery store is an endless array of sweetened beverages. No wonder we're all fat.

Rage Against the Machine

At this point the only reason I would ever vote Democrat is if the Republicans do something catastrophically stupid. Which is well within the bounds of likelihood.

I have two hot button issues: The Bill of Rights together with the 13th and 14th Amendments and space exploration. The jackasses have pressed both buttons. They have been jabbing at the first since January and now they've gone for the second.

I'll give them this much, this is the worst federal government we've had since Carter. Sky-rocketing debt, a desire to expand the ever so well managed Medicare and Medicaid programs to cover all Americans (and just how exactly will that control costs?), endless bailouts for the politically well connected, active suppression of free speech, an amoral commitment to the retention of power, a desire to destroy our national economy in the name of pseudo science and a total lack of an optimistic vision for the future.

We have a hollow man for President, a gang of thieves and thugs in Congress, and a love of failed ideologies on the part of our intellectual classes.

And don't try any 'moral equivalency' on this. The Republicans were stupid. The current crop of Democrats are flat out evil.

We're going to be paying for this fat headed exercise in 'Hope and Change' for a very long time. And unfortunately the burden of this folly will fall mostly on those who are silly enough to try to be adults. The overaged children, spawns of the 60's 'me generation' will likely skate as usual.

To put my money where my mouth is, I'll bet anyone who wishes that, if the Democrats retain control of Congress through the next election, that the inflation rate plus the unemployment rate (expressed as percentages) will be as high or higher than they are today in 2012. The stakes are, fittingly enough, two pounds of Nueske's applewood bacon.

My good friend who blogs over at S S Pequod has accepted the challenge. Inflation (2%) plus unemployment (9.4%) = 11.4 as of today.

I like bacon....

Best Quote So Far- Lambeth 2009

Bishop Frade neatly encapsulates the Episcopal debacle: "We were able to clarify that neither he nor anyone else gets disciplined in our church for beliefs". Nice to have official confirmation that the Episcopal Church is effectively free of content.

Big hint for the bishops: If you do not believe in anything, it is rather hard to recruit people to join you. You say you are for justice, peace and the environment. Most of us are. I know I am. But those concepts as you use them are so vague as to be meaningless.

Unless and until you actually commit to something worth fighting for, and you demonstrate your commitment to it by meaningful effort and cost, no one will ever follow you. All that you have going for you right now are inertia and habit, and both are diminishing over time.

The Episcopal Church isn't just corrupt, although it certainly is. It isn't just rotten, although that is true as well. It is hollow. And its leaders are hollow as well.

Is Anybody There? - 1776

In honour of the day.

To get really political and alienate everyone, the question the song poses is still valid. We talk about being free and we mostly are, but very few of us are committed to maintaining and defending that freedom. All too many of my fellow citizens are perfectly willing to sell their freedom for the chimera of security.

The lack of outrage over the Human Rights Tribunals in Canada has been disheartening. The news from England is even more depressing. That's not to say there isn't hope. Even as the ACLU has abandoned its core commitments to the Bill of Rights in favour of a leftie agenda, the Internet has provided an extremely valuable tool for organizing freedom lovers from all nations in ad hoc, issue by issue groups. Youtube has proven a huge asset in shining the light of publicity on authoritarian asshats all over the globe.

The last 232 years have been a pretty good run for our country. I hope and pray that our commitment to remaining free does not flag. With some luck, the world may grow more free rather than less. We certainly can try to make it so.

Karl Rove is a Smart Man

In a guest column in today's Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove points out the economic ignorance of both candidates. He is a very clever man. Just once, I'd like to hear an economic proposal from a candidate that wasn't fundamentally flawed.

And it is not alright if they do not actually intend to implement the stupid proposal. If that is the case then the candidate is pandering to the idiots among us, which is a bad idea. And is lying to all of us. I know I am an idealist, but I would rather not have to decide between candidates on the basis of which one is the better and more skilled liar.

Freedom vs Security

Read this editorial. Reflect upon it. Then understand that if you favour any of the changes made in Britain mentioned in it, you and I are enemies. Further, if these are the sorts of things that you favour, you are what Aristotle described when he said some men are born to be slaves.

You would have been thought mad 20 years ago to have predicted that it would be a crime for people to smoke on an open-air railway station in the middle of the countryside, smack their children on the leg, hunt foxes, own a donkey without possessing ID for the animal, recite a poem without a licence, possess a.22 calibre air pistol for sporting purposes, engage in teenage canoodling, or set off a firework after 11pm.

and

Twenty years ago you would also have been regarded as barmy if you had said innocent people would have their DNA held on a database for criminals; or that there would be one CCTV camera for every 14 people; or that children would be fingerprinted and their records held, as though they were all potential victims of abuse; or that it would be unlawful to stage a silent, one-person protest within one kilometre of the Palace of Westminster without permission from the police; or that trials would be held without juries; or that microchips would be placed in our dustbins; or that there would be 266 separate provisions granting power to enter homes without permission, a symptom of the expanding role of the state in the lives of citizens.

If you wish to be secure, to lock your timid self into a police state, feel free. Start a subdivision where surveillance is omnipresent. Have security guards that you and your spineless neighbours pay for patrol the streets. Fingerprint and record the DNA of your hapless offspring.

Just do not try to take me with you. Unlike you, I value my freedom more than my life. I will use every legal means I know, and I know how to play politics, to fight you to the bitter end. And ask yourself, if you have any imagination at all, is a life like that ever worth living? Is the relentless pursuit of safety an activity worth doing?

For further reading, check out this.

Parting epigram: "In a world of wolves and sheep, I would rather live as a man."

Class in Embalming

The children of God having left, the remaining Episcopalians in San Joaquin have been asked to help those in other breakaway dioceses remain Episcopalian. I assume that there will be seminars in how to ditch those pesky Standing Committees, how to pry largesse out of 815, how to have some level of input as to who your new bishop will be, basic lawsuit filing, and of course the ever popular labyrinth design workshop.

For a denomination that prides itself on dialog, the Episcopal Church resorts to scorched earth tactics in lieu of negotiation entirely too much. Our leadership not only can no longer use the language of Christianity, it can not act Christ-like either.

I am very much in favour of those who wish to stay Episcopalian staying Episcopalian. I am also in favour of those who wish to leave, being allowed to leave. And I am keenly aware of the fact that there are only a limited number of churches that I have ever contributed money to and that under any sense of fairness I would ever presume to feel that I have some sense of ownership. Anglo-Catholic I may be, but I didn't build those buildings, I didn't work in them, raise children in them or get buried near them. I have no right to have a voice in their disposal.

I wish like heck that those who have no direct interest in the building (I am looking at you Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori) would keep their big fat flapping mouths shut and mind their own business. If you feel you have a steward's obligation towards the properties, then may I ask what efforts you have ever put towards their construction and maintenance? As to the funds you have direct and overt authority over, is handing them to Goodwin-Procter really the highest and best use for them? I assume you learned at your recent poverty summit that there are still poor people in America.

Some factual background information:

The reconstituted Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin consists of six parishes (churches that are self supporting) and ten missions, one of which has its own building.

Moving

We had dinner last night with my brother and his wife. They confirmed that they are likely leaving Atlanta by mid-summer. My sister and her family are moving out of their apartment into a new house this weekend. Sally and I are staying right where we are.

I'm probably moving as well though. I do not know where, but I think that I can no longer be a part of an organization that revels in injustice. I do not think I will be an Episcopalian for much longer.

The Episcopal Church has been moving in the wrong direction for decades. I have fought the changes with every fibre of my being. I have participated in church politics, I have done committees, written letters, politicked, campaigned, you name it. Some time back I burnt out and almost ceased being a Christian, let alone an Episcopalian.

The argument I hear from my reappraising mother and moderate father is that I ought to remain. That doctrinal disagreements are no reason to leave. That it is possible to reform from within. They are correct. 2008 is by no means the worst year in the history of Christianity. Arguably, that honour belongs to 1378, when there were two Popes serving at the same time.

However, there is more to membership than working from within. We are more than Episcopalians. We are also Christians. And the second is much more important than the former.

For some time, the label Episcopalian has been hindering my Christian witness. That is unacceptable. Given the lack of commitment of my church to mercy, charity, grace or even justice at the present time, I can not see that remaining will constitute anything other than an endorsement of my church's actions.

I think I will stay to see what happens to Bishop Duncan. That will be the final straw, the last ditch, the line that must not be crossed. If the Episcopal Church behaves as I believe it will, then the following things will happen.

I have been donating anonymously to my alma mater. That will cease. I have given money to my home church. That will stop. All of my time and energy that I have spent protesting, corresponding and communicating with anyone who will listen about the current state of affairs in the Episcopal Church will be spent on finding a new home for my wife and myself.

I don't expect to hear anything from the institutional loyalists other than 'don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out'. But....

How many people have to leave before our leadership acknowledges that there is a problem? How small can the Episcopal Church get and remain viable? If there is no physical resurrection, no life after death, no real theology or ethics or even morality other than “God won't fix in a box” then what reason is there for the Episcopal Church?

The Baptists have better sermons, the Methodists have much better music, the Catholics have better liturgy, the Orthodox have greater solemnity, and the Presbyterians just know what's going to happen. And all of them have Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. So why be an Episcopalian? What do we have to offer that is valuable?

That's the core of the current crisis. Because if you do not believe that Jesus is God and that you are a sinner and therefore separated from God. And do not believe that God loves you and died for you and rose again triumphant over death. Then you have no reason to live as a Christian. Because you are not one.

Your god may not fit in a box. But mine doesn't either. And mine is much more powerful and active than yours is. My God died for you. Your god can not even live, much less act. My God acts on a minute by minute basis in the world. He performs miracles with astonishing regularity. Your god is limited. Your god is dead. Nietzsche said so and he was right.

I no longer wish to bear the responsibility of the acts of the godless. I can no longer worship in a place of disbelief. It's time to worship the Lord amongst my fellow believers.

The Real Estate Market Today

I am not linking to it, but I just read a rather fat headed post about the 'real estate meltdown'. The writer of the post had no clue as to what has caused the current 'crisis' (Please note the use of 'scare' quotes).

Here is why some houses are now worth less than they were a year ago.

Lenders used brokers to loan people who had not previously been considered credit worthy one hundred percent of equity loans with adjustable interest rates. These rates were made artificially low as an incentive to borrow.

Two simple sentences and that explains it.

Let me break it down.

The lenders generally did not use salaried employees to evaluate the loans that were being made. They used brokers whose compensation depended directly upon making loans. The more loans made, the greater the brokers' compensation. Further the lenders relied upon the brokers to obtain accurate facts from the prospective borrowers and to evaluate their credit worthiness. {sarcasm}There was of course no incentive on the part of the brokers to fudge, shade the facts or lie {/sarcasm}.

The number of mortgage brokers had grown considerably while interest rates were falling. When the rates stopped declining or even rose, the huge pool of borrowers with good credit who had been refinancing dried up. The brokers then looked around for loans they could make so that they could continue to get paid.

Borrowers with poor credit are typically charged a higher rate of interest than borrowers with good credit. That is because they have a higher default rate and the lender wants to offset the risk. In addition, people buying houses have typically been required to put a hefty down payment on their new house. This makes sure that the new homeowner is invested into the house and is therefore committed to it. If the house declines in value due to neglect the first person to feel the pinch will be the homeowner, not the lender.

Recently it has been possible for almost all purchasers to borrow as much as one hundred percent of the sale price. This has been accomplished by using two loans. One at standard terms and one with a line of credit at a higher interest rate. The amount at risk for the purchaser is therefore nothing or pretty near close to. There is therefore no incentive on the part of the purchaser to stick with the home.

The use of teaser rates (artificially low interest rates) and balloon payment loans (loans that require little or no principle payment for a set period, typically six months to a year, and then require either payment in full or a hefty principle payment) has resulted in people buying houses that they could not afford to make payments on once the payments increased to market rates.

Put all of the above factors together and you get the current mess. However, it is not a universal mess. In our local market, most housing prices have not declined. What has been hit hard are new-construction starter homes. That is houses that have been recently built for persons looking to buy their first house. As builders and developers tend to build and develop by subdivision rather than piecemeal, this has caused certain neighborhoods to decline in value. The new owners bought the house, the payments increased, they found they could not refinance to lower the payments, they walked away. When that happens often enough in a neighborhood, prices begin to fall.

And to be blunt, real estate has been over heated in recent years. The housing supply was growing faster than the population at large. When supply exceeds demand, prices fall.

The main thing to remember is that the three most important words in real estate are location, location and location. A house on Park Avenue will always be worth more than a house on Mediterranean.

Fisking a Satanist

I reproduce here, in full, a rather silly rant from StandFirm.

Dear christians,
Hi there. My name is Sam, and I’m the young man in the photo above holding the sign with the “implications involving violence, death, and genocide.” You can no doubt imagine my amusement upon checking my email this morning and discovering that overnight I had become a posterboy for hatred of christianity. I feel that this would be a good place to expand upon the sentiments expressed in my sign.
I feel that the christian faith is the most contemptable collection of delusions to have ever besmirched the Earth. For centuries your churches have supressed free thought, burned people at the stake, perpetuated genocide against indiginous peoples, amassed incredible fortunes at sword-point, molested children, etc, etc, ad infinitum. All in the service of a ludicrous imaginary being who exemplifies all that is most base and vile in the reactionary mindset. You claim to love your enemies while torturing them into renouncing their natural convictions. More people have suffered as a result of your “love” then any other genocidal movement in the history of the world. You describe all that is good and natural in this world as a sin, and hold the false docrine of eternal salvation like a carrot before a donkey as you perpetuate your infamous crimes. Any person with two grains of logic can see that your doctrines are the silliest of falsehoods. This is why you have earned my contempt; because you despoil the earth by your very presence upon it. Lucifer is the bringer of enlightenment, and the day is dawning when the youth of America shall follow the example set by their Norwegian comerades in their battle against your false doctrine of death worship. The night sky shell be set alight by the blazing of your sanctuaries, and, hopefully, your immortal souls can be released from the bondage of this wicked Earth which you hate so much, in the form of the martyrdom you relish, and you can go to meet your maker in a more timely manner then you would be otherwise inclined to take.
If you wish to share your thoughts with me, please feel free to visit my blog at:
http://pfirsich666.livejournal.com/

Hail Satan!
Rev. Coyotel Samuel Maxwell

It has been a while since I've applied the dual headlights of reason and reality to the darkness so let's fisk it, shall we?

"Hi there. My name is Sam, and I’m the young man in the photo above holding the sign with the “implications involving violence, death, and genocide.” You can no doubt imagine my amusement upon checking my email this morning and discovering that overnight I had become a posterboy for hatred of christianity. I feel that this would be a good place to expand upon the sentiments expressed in my sign."


Well, I took the liberty of checking our pal Sam out. Here is what he has over on LiveJournal:
"White male. 23 years of age. Oakland. California. Satanist. Anarchist. Libertine. Drugs & alcohol. BFA in Painting. Drives a pickup.

Working knowledge of:
Painting. Drawing. Printmaking. Black & white / digital photography. Glassblowing. Casting. Welding. Blacksmithing. Aikido. Capoiera. Bass. Guitar. Flute. Clarinet. Piano. The occult."

In other words Sam is your basic West Coast Arts guy. He went the occult route rather than the hippy dippy route but it all seems rather standard. He does play an awful lot of instruments, so I admit to being a tad jealous.

Let's read on.

"I feel that the christian faith is the most contemptable collection of delusions to have ever besmirched the Earth."

Well, feelings are of course paramount in this world of ours. I feel I ought to be richer than Bill Gates, but wishing hasn't made it so. The first sentence is rather bold but very subjective.

"For centuries your churches have supressed free thought, burned people at the stake, perpetuated genocide against indiginous peoples, amassed incredible fortunes at sword-point, molested children, etc, etc, ad infinitum."

Golly. Well, for starters, the church has been around for millenia. So whatever naughtiness we've been up to, we've been doing it for longer than mere centuries. Secondly, I would have thought a Satanist would approve of such activities. So is all this simple jealousy? I'm not really aware of any religious based genocide against indigenous peoples by the church nor do I believe that the church has ever perpetuated it. Perhaps Sam means perpetrated? Irregardless the track record of the Church is rather good as regards to the original inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere. The Dominicans and especially Franciscans worked tirelessly to restrain the Conquistadores. I do admit that there have been some very egregious Christian leaders, including some Popes. On the balance though, all of the denominations have established churches, hospitals, schools and colleges, fed the hungry, housed the homeless and clothed the naked. We have been about this work for the aforementioned millenia.

"All in the service of a ludicrous imaginary being who exemplifies all that is most base and vile in the reactionary mindset."

A Satanist is claiming the Christian God is imaginary? My brain hurts. Is Sam an agent provocateur for the Excedrin company? In specific, this sentence is yet more hyperbole with no fact or justification.

"You claim to love your enemies while torturing them into renouncing their natural convictions."

Ah yes, that would explain the racks and iron maidens over at the Methodist church.

"More people have suffered as a result of your “love” then any other genocidal movement in the history of the world."

This gets oft repeated, but it is demonstrably false. In order of homicides, the most murderous ideologies ever are:

1. Communism, far and away. If you separate it by country, then it gets the four of the top five slots.
2. Nazism
3. Islam (check out the death toll in the India-Pakistan split, for example)
4. Non-Communist Socialism
5. Fascism

The Twentieth Century has much to answer for. Christianity does not even come close. I would note that all of the top five ideologies are vocally anti-Christian. Looks like Sam is in good company, then.

"You describe all that is good and natural in this world as a sin, and hold the false docrine of eternal salvation like a carrot before a donkey as you perpetuate your infamous crimes."

I rather like classical music, and I'm fairly certain that doing so is not sinful. I like puppies and kittens. That isn't a sin either. I'm afraid I'm a bit clueless as to what 'good and natural' things he thinks I think are sinful. As for eternal salvation, he can always wait and see whether it is false or not. I'm absolutely positive I have not committed any crimes in recent memory. So I am not perpetuating anything. If anyone is perpetuating crimes, I blame Greg Griffiths. :)

"Any person with two grains of logic can see that your doctrines are the silliest of falsehoods."

If only Sam had two grains of logic. Actually I thought logic was measured by the premise and the conclusion, rather than a volumetric or weight measurement. Silly me.

"This is why you have earned my contempt; because you despoil the earth by your very presence upon it. Lucifer is the bringer of enlightenment, and the day is dawning when the youth of America shall follow the example set by their Norwegian comerades in their battle against your false doctrine of death worship. The night sky shell be set alight by the blazing of your sanctuaries, and, hopefully, your immortal souls can be released from the bondage of this wicked Earth which you hate so much, in the form of the martyrdom you relish, and you can go to meet your maker in a more timely manner then you would be otherwise inclined to take."

I don't think I worship death, quite the opposite. Apparently Lucifer is also bringing in the day of purple prose as well. I would remind Sam that murder, the actual physical kind, remains a crime in all fifty states. While I am perfectly willing to die for my faith, precipitating that end on his part would likely result in either a long prison term or execution in my home state. Just FYI.

So, upon review, what Sam has said here is a lot of hyperbole, some verifiably false assertions and a fair amount of mis-spelled venom.

Sam will be in my prayers.

This Answers My Question

Atlanta is a city where people evaluate each other by their ride. Drive a Lexus or a BMW and you rank highly. Foreign ranks above domestic. SUV's outrank minivans. MARTA passengers are the local equivalent of untouchables and so on.

Because I dislike making car payments, my ride is ten years old. But I see people every day driving prestige (expensive) vehicles that I am certain make less money than I do. And my question has been, how can they afford it? Then I saw this article.

Unlike the reporter, I have no sympathy. If I were making $2500 per month on disability, the very first question I would ask would be: How much are the payments? The second question would be: For how long? I would feel sympathy if there were some kind of teaser payment or if the interest rate were variable, but neither are mentioned.

Instead, a woman bought a car she could not pay for. She lost the car. The only person I feel sorry for in the transaction is the lender. They accepted a credit application, assumed the facts on it were correct, got a clean credit report and loaned the money. Now they are about to own a car they likely do not want.

The just result will be the deadbeat loses her car, the dealership gets blacklisted by the lender and the car sells for the loan amount. I doubt somehow that will happen.

The American Dream has never been about instant gratification or about getting something only because you want it very badly. Frugality, budgeting, planning and hard work have always been key ingredients in our national dream. And they need to remain that way.

No one has a right to a free BMW.

Abomination!

I love invective. When I was in college I learned an awful lot of vulgar Latin (which I have since forgotten) just by reading diatribes by William of Ockham against the pope. Luther later cribbed a lot of the choicer phrases and translated them into German. One of the founders of Anglicanism, Thomas Cranmer, was an excellent writer of invective. When I was an acolyte, I'd amuse myself by reading and rereading the Thirty Nine Articles. Article XXII has always been especial favourite of mine:

"The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well of Images as of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God."

That's the work of someone who knows how to say what they mean.

Jesus wasn't too shabby either:

"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

Back when I was in college and was up late studying, I'd head to the commons room and watch Dr. Gene Scott. I was never really sure what he was going on about, but it was fun listening to him rant.

On the modern front, perhaps the best writer of invective today is probably Ann Coulter. If you read her and ignore the issues (which can be hard for some people), you'll find she is rather good at what she does.

What sad is how few of our leaders can use invective. The common reason given for so not doing is that they are too mature. I think that's nonsense. It's not that they will not, it is because they can not.

/rant.

The Elephant in the Room

I just finished reading the convention program for the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina. I grew up in North Carolina and attended two churches there as a child (St. John's, Charlotte and St. Francis, Greensboro). My parents were very active laymen until they retired and moved to my mother's hometown in South Carolina. I have a connection with North Carolina.

I noticed several things. First, the diocese now has three bishops. This is two more than they needed when I was growing up there. Second, diocesan contributions from parishes are now mandatory. Third, plate and pledge income is up. Fourth, North Carolina is now apparently a “mission oriented diocese”.

What really struck me was what I did not see: Any discussion of the systemic decline in membership and average Sunday attendance (ASA) for the diocese and the national church. North Carolina's ASA is down around 7% for the past five years.

The official church line is that numbers do not matter. The only growth that truly matters is individual growth. And that is true, so far as it goes. But if what you are doing is worthwhile, then you will wish to share it, to get others to participate in your activity, be it bridge tournaments, baseball games, helping children or feeding the hungry. That is human nature. And if what you are doing is meaningful, then others will want to join in. That is also human nature.

The resistance to discussing the elephant in the room stems, I think, from the recognition that the Episcopal Church no longer has any meaning. We are a church of familiar faces, whose only remaining function is to be a circle of mutual admiration and self-love. We make all the right noises about serving others, about doing good. But in the end notice how little of the church's work at the diocesan or national level is about volunteers helping others and how much of it consists of paying someone to do something.

In the past the Episcopal Church was seen, rightly or wrongly, as being all about sin and guilt. The 1928 BCP is replete with phrases such as “have mercy upon us, miserable offenders”. The Episcopal Church has backed away from that in the past thirty or so years. The word from our clergy is that sin is largely irrelevant. That God loves us regardless. That we have nothing to feel guilty about, and nothing to worry about. We're good, right?

It's true that God loves us unconditionally. But it is not true that we love God in the same manner. We separate ourselves from God on a regular, almost minute by minute basis. And if we do not repent, that separation will continue and even grow. A church that does not believe in sin will also not believe in repentance and will thus offer no counsel on how to get closer to God.

As its members have withdrawn from God, so has the Episcopal Church. It no longer repents of current actions of intolerance, or bigotry or injustice, but instead repents of actions that none of its current members had any part in. Such repentance reaps its own reward in acclaim in the press, but accomplishes nothing.

The Episcopal Church seems to exist to make its members feel good about themselves. It no longer seems willing to help us be better than we were before. If I have a blister on my foot, telling me that I'm a nice guy really isn't helpful. Pricking the blister with a needle and then applying a bandage is what is needed. So too with sin.

“We don't evangelize”, I've often heard said. In the past we didn't need to yell from the street corners, because everyone knew what the church stood for: Well mannered and well meaning Christianity. Now we do yell from street corners and it doesn't help, because everyone knows what we stand for: A certain radical political progressivism coupled with a worship of the United Nations as well as certain totalitarian regimes. And no one needs to go to church to participate in those causes.

The main sin of the Episcopal Church is not lust, homosexual or heterosexual. It is pride. It is our stubborn refusal to admit that there is anything wrong. And there is something wrong. Our leadership says that there is something worthwhile about being an Episcopalian. And some of our members are buying the company line. But no one else is. That is the elephant in the room. As long as we refuse to admit our sin, we can not and will not do anything about it.

We have become a church without sin. We are also a church without God. And we are rapidly becoming a church without members. And our leadership does not or will not see a connection between those three statements.

We are a proud church, and no matter what happens that condition is not likely to continue. Either, as a church, we repent and humble ourselves before an almighty God, or we won't be a church and so will no longer be proud.

Father Jake Swings, Misses

Terry Martin has written a post about how hard the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali is making evangelism by being so narrow and homophobic. The concluding sentence is "And we wonder why some of our younger generations consider Christians to be homophobic, judgmental and hypocritical."

Okay.

Let's look at what the Bishop of Rochester has said according to Terry Martin:

1. Couples who are deliberately childless are being self-indulgent.
2. Just war theory may allow a pre-emptive attack.
3. If the TEC bishops who consecrated Gene Robinson get Lambeth invites, he might not attend.
4. Muslims have created no-go areas in certain large British cities.

Let's discuss them one by one. Number one, the selfishness of not having children is in agreement with the theology of the Catholic church. Protestant theologians can and do disagree with that position, but it is a legitimate position. It all boils down to what you believe marriage is for. Unfortunately for Terry Martin, the historical Anglican position on marriage is found in the 1928 BCP enumeration for the reasons to get married, one of which is children.

But more to the point, such a view is not homophobic, and I'm not sure that calling it hypocritical is fair. So that leaves judgmental. Well it could be, but what was the context of the remark? Terry+ links to this BBC article. Here's the money quote: "Writing in a diocesan newspaper, Rochester Link, the bishop advised priests to look kindly on those whose marriages broke down because of the refusal of one partner to have a child. He said that such people should be treated with the same sympathy as victims of 'infidelity, desertion or cruelty'." So he was calling for compassion when couples divorce over the issue. I'm sorry, but how is that judgmental?

The second idea is about attacking Iraq. A lot of people were against the idea. I'm quite convinced that going in was a mistake. The money quote for the article Terry links to is "If the Government's promised intelligence dossier on Saddam's weapons stockpile proved convincing, then military action would be legitimate self-defence." Note the use of "If...then". What the Bishop states is a version of the 'Just War Theory'. Just War Theory attempts to answer the question "When may Christians go to war?". I'm not a fan of Just War Theory, but there you are. Again, I'm not seeing homophobia, hypocrisy or judgmentalism here.

What about the third point? Here's the quote: "The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, said he would find it difficult to attend a Church council alongside those who consecrated or approved the appointment of Anglicanism's first openly gay bishop." Well, the consecration of Bishop Robinson was characterized by the Archbishop of Canterbury as straining the fabric of the Anglican Communion. It was in deliberate violation of commitments made by the Episcopal Church. It went against millennia of Church teaching and practice. Further, an absolute majority of the Anglican Communion is no longer in communion with the Episcopal Church as a result of that act.

And I think this is what has gotten Terry's goat. It isn't the couples without children or Just War Theory. It's that Terry Martin thinks that the Episcopal Church is right and the rest of the world, except maybe Canada, is wrong.

But let's get to cases. I think Terry Martin would say that here we see homophobia and judgmentalism and probably hypocrisy. Perhaps someone can explain how it's hypocritical, because I'm not seeing it. Apparently following Church tradition is homophobic, and judgmental. Can someone explain that one to me as well?

Now to point four, Terry Martin objects to the Bishop of Rochester's statement about 'no go areas'. Unfortunately for Father Martin, the Bishop appears to be right.

What is really going on here? Terry Martin doesn't like Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali. And instead of saying so and then explaining why, he resorts to the epithets of the Left, terming him homophobic, judgmental and a hypocrite. He would have called the Right Reverend a racist, but for the happy chance that the good bishop is a person of colour. I am startled that Terry Martin left off a reference to the patriarchy. The sad thing is not that it is invective, but that it is invective poorly done.

What is the Bishop of Rochester's sin? He dares to disagree with a priest on another continent. He dares to express concern about issues that Terry Martin doesn't think are important. He has forgotten that he is a second class Christian from a third world country. He needs reminding that the liberal white elite know best, and he should keep his mouth shut, unless it is to express agreement with his betters. I've seen this sort of reaction before. It's what also happens to Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas, among others.

Instead of explaining why the good Bishop is in error, Father Terry simply resorts to a few epithets. He mis-uses some news articles to provide support for a predetermined and poorly thought out conclusion.

This is why the country and the Episcopal Church are divided. Pompous pusillanimous prating priests such as Terry Martin attack their opponents without ever using the Divinely given gift of Reason. He doesn't just attack, he smears, he labels and he doesn't think. Not ever. His conduct in that one post is reprehensible. Unfortunately, his entire website is replete of examples of how narrow minded, bigoted and self-righteous he really is. If just once he would justify his use of the hackneyed labels of the whitebread Left, I could respect him, maybe.

Conclusion: Father Jake is a jerk.

Welcome to the new guys

Hazel Stone (that has to be a pseudonym) and Ted Bronson have a brand new blog. It's well worth checking out. Ted got things off to a flying start with one heck of an essay about the nanny state. Note to any politicos: If you really want my vote, the issues he mentions are the issues that will get you my vote. Check it out.

Listen to it All- Not!

Several of my favourite blogs have fallen into the nasty habit of linking to audio files. On the surface this can be a good thing. But there are problems in that habit.

First, an amazing number of audio files are in Real Media (rm) format. I loathe Real Media. I loathe Real Player and I loathe everyone and everything associated with them. They simply will not play well with Firefox. Either you register with Real Media for official, approved version of their latest adware or you have to download a freeware cracked version. Neither option is especially appealing. Windows Media Files can also prove problematic for the non-Internet Explorer user. I will not change my browsing habits to suit someone who is too lazy to switch to a superior format. (If that's not flame war provocation, I don't know what is). Firefox is better than IE in so many different ways that it isn't funny (more fuel to the fire!).

Second, unlike text, audio files require sustained listening. If the good bit that you want your readers to appreciate occurs fifteen minutes into the speech, tell them that. Until I stopped doing it, I wasted untold hours of time waiting for the punchline. It never hurts to give your readers the option to cut to the chase. Better still, type out the bit that amused, offended, provoked or challenged you.

Let's Get Political, Political! I Wanna Get Political

Or maybe not. I was mulling over my primary choices. As an independent I'm basically free in my state to vote in either primary. Then something occurred to me. I don't like Ron Paul. Shocking but true, I know. Please allow me to explain. I don't like his name. He has two first names. In my line of work, people who have two first names and no proper last name are troublesome.

Second and most importantly he either sounds like a purveyor of coconut clad chocolates, which I can't have because I'm diabetic, or he sounds like a second rate porn star.

I don't know where my readers stand, but I refuse to support a man who makes obscene candies. Even if they do have coconut. Besides his candies would be little and sweaty and that's just plain gross.

I firmly believe that Presidential candidates should come fully equipped with proper last names and share any foods they may make.

For those who don't remember the seventies, the title of this article refers to this song.

Side note: Given that Hillary and Bill didn't inhale, would it really be safe to accept brownies from Senator Clinton?

Philosophy (Not family friendly)

It's funny, but I graduated from college some twenty five years ago. I was a philosophy major. Many people think that philosophy is a useless major, but I have never found it to be so. I learned to think in college, and that has made a huge difference in my life.

Whilst studying philosophy, I fell in love with the thinking of a Franciscan friar named William of Ockham (hence the name of this blog). He is responsible, among other things, of the earliest formulation of Occam's razor. He also wrote some very nasty critiques of the Papacy, which Luther cribbed from later on. I'm still a bit of a nominalist to this day.

Which made my readings of the speech linked to here very painful. To be blunt the whole speech is bulls**t. Dr. Adams employs bad logic, false definitions, faulty reasoning and weak rhetoric to reach her predetermined conclusions. There is no intellectual honesty, no charity and scholarship in her thinking and in her speaking. I've read the foul thing twice now. I may fisk it later. But probably not. Every time I think about it, I recoil.

I may use it as a touchstone. If you like it, then you are in league with the devil. If you don't then you probably are not. That may be too uncharitable. But intentional perversion of God's gifts of reason and learning angers me more than anything. It's a flaw. I'm feeling a distinct lack of love and am sorely tempted to crib some of Brother William's works and use them against Dr. Adams.

Addendum: I am ashamed of this post. It is intemperate. I still dislike the sermon, and for much the same reasons, but I should never have written this. However, I made a promise to myself when I started this that I would never delete a post. So I won't. But for the record, I was most uncharitable. I apologize.