Msgr. Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington is really rather hesitant about blogging on hot button topics. Having recently posted on the Liturgy considering Ad Orientum with Are We Walking to Heaven Backward? A Pastoral Consideration of Liturgical “orientation.” he now posts this. Going from liturgical orientation to another type of “orientation” with District of Columbia Cancels Appearance of Gospel Artist due to Views on Homosexuality. Who Will be Next?

Homosexual activists and advocates often state that they merely want recognition and certain legal rights, and that churches and other objectors to their life style remain free to have their opinions and state them in a free culture. And any expressed fears regarding compulsory recognition or punitive measures directed against objectors are dismissed as fear mongering.

Never mind that these fears are based in real experiences in Canada and Europe where clergy have been arrested and fined for presenting the biblical case against homosexuality in the pulpits of their own churches or the pages of their bulletins.

In the end we who raise alarms about the increasingly strident declaration of our objections as “hate speech” and as “human rights violations” remain concerned about legal punishment etc., despite “reassurances” from pro-homosexual advocates and government officials.

Today there is more confirmation about the price that is paid by those who object to the cultural juggernaut that activism is becoming. Gospel Artist Donnie McClurkin has had his appearance canceled by the Mayor’s Office here in DC due to his views on homosexuality. Here is the clip from a local Station, Fox 5 News:

Gospel star Donnie McClurkin made headlines several years ago, when he claimed god “delivered” him from homosexuality.

Now, he’s sounding off about a decision by D.C. leaders, to cancel his appearance at a concert over the weekend.

McClurkin was set to perform at a concert on Saturday, celebrating the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington.

In a video, McClurkin says he was on his way to the airport, when Mayor Vincent Gray’s office called him to tell him his appearance was cancelled.

“These are bully tactics simply because of stances that I took, never ever demeaning, never ever derogatory, any lifestyle – this is a civil rights infringement situation,” McClurkin said. [1]

It is bad enough for someone to disagree with the secular orthodoxy regarding homosexual acts, but for someone with same-sex attraction to do so is apostasy! The Mannish Inquisition will brook no opposition to the teaching that those with same-sex attraction will always have the same level of SSA. “You are born that way and that’s that!” While it certainly might be true that many that suffer with SSA will always have some level of this attraction, it is apparently not true for all cases.

The idea of punishing people for their opinion is of course nothing new. There is always a minority of people who won’t attend a movie or a concert because of the beliefs of one or more people involved regarding their personal life. What is happening here though is a mainstreaming and government shunning of either those like McClurkin who claim to no longer have SSA or simply those who call homosexual acts sinful along with homosexual marriage. For example those who would boycott the big screen adaptation of “Ender’s Game” because the author of the book Orson Scott Card opposes same-sex marriage. In the recent opinion on DOMA authored by Justice Kennedy we were declared “Enemies of the Human Race” for holding such a view.

… But the point to be raised and discussed here is not a legal point but a cultural and moral one. Actions like these put to the lie any notion that homosexual activists merely seek to inculcate respect. They intend much more. Namely to destroy any dissent, marginalize and increasingly coerce consent for their agenda, and apply state sanctioned exclusion for any one who dares question their behavior.

The exclusion of Mr. McClurkin is only another step. Invited clergy are probably already being screened and excluded from any place on any dais if they do not have the politically correct view on this. Exclusions and restrictions are sure to increase and become more severe.

It is a common feature that radicals who march under the banner of tolerance and “libertas!” soon enough usher in their own reign of terror. Because when they say “tolerance” they don’t really mean it and certainly don’t mean they have to tolerate you. For them “tolerance” means your obligation to accept them, and freedom is your right and liberty to agree with whatever they say.

There seems to be absolutely no leeway that will in any way be granted. They will not, it seems, even brook the notion that for many who oppose the celebration of homosexual acts, the opposition is a matter of sincere conscience, not “hate.” If quoting the Bible or the Catechism equals hate, then night has surely come to the West. But we can do no other than adhere to God’s clear and consistent teaching all through the Scriptures at every stage which consigns homosexual acts to the realm of sin. Here I must stay, I can do no other. I will not overrule God to please men, gain access, or be considered acceptable to government officials and powerful lobby groups.

Now that these cultural radicals are politically ensconced the banners of tolerance and freedom are discarded. They never really meant it, and sure never meant the likes of Mr. McClurkin or other bible-believing Christians who object.

These exclusionary tactics are bound to increase and to become more punitive unless enough Americans begin to wake up and realize that all the talk about “tolerance” is not really what this agenda of the radicals has ever been about.

Rainbows may seem pretty, but they usually occur in the midst of a storm. This storm looks to get a lot worse.

There is a conference this weekend at the Eastern Michigan University’s Student center entitled “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” This symposium was coordinated by Al Kresta of Ave Maria Radio.

Featured debaters will be Robert Spencer, director of JihadWatch.org facing off against Shadid Lewis, regional director of the Muslim Debate Initiative in the US, on the question “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?”

Muslim columnist for the Turkish News Mustafa Akyol will debate Richard Thompson of the Thomas More Law Center on “Can Islam Support Religious Liberty?

So this is not a one-sided discussion of the topic, but a debate regarding the question.

Only recently has there been really any coverage of this event. Of course most of the coverage surrounds Robert Spencer.

There is an interesting disparity in coverage here to some extent regarding the giddy greeting the book “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” by Reza Aslan has caused.

Nathan Lean from Aslan Media (Reza Aslan) follows Robert Spencer around the country trying to get him banned from speaking. Lean has succeeded on two occasions due to a failure of leadership, but his charges are bogus. He stirs up emotion and fear while painting Robert as a hate-monger. As Ave Maria Radio prepares for its Symposium Debate this weekend Nathan Lane is at it again. He attempted to intimidate Eastern Michigan University, the venue of the event, and us. He has failed. Apparently he believes the Muslims that are taking part in the debates are ill-equipped to defend their religious beliefs – and his. We do not . Join us as we prove that difficult topics can be debated without resorting to mane-calling and intimidation techniques.

Robert Spencer has not got quite the warm attention from the media that Aslan has got, in fact really in attention he gets is to paint him as an “Anti-Muslim bigot.” While really the only headlines calling Aslan “Anti-Christian” mostly come from a rhetorical question in a Time magazine headline that answers the question that he is not.

The very unscholarly methods that Aslan used and the many mistakes he makes only prove that when it comes to Christianity and the media any stick will do.

When Robert Spencer wrote in 2012 the book “Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam’s Obscure Origins” there was a total lack of interest in it by the media. Skeptical scholars often date the books in the New Testament as late as possible (usually after 70 AD, and Aslan dates them a decade after that), it is interesting that we never hear any similar conjecture regarding the Koran. There is currently no collaborating historical information about the life of Muhammad in anything close to the time he was suppose to live other than the Koran. So it is interesting that the doubts that Aslan counts on Christianity as to what the historical facts our that the problem is much worse for the historicity of the Koran. I bring this up only to highlight the disparity in coverage.

Yet for some reason I suspect that Reza Aslan will be banned from entering the UK like Robert Spencer was. Spencer for critically looking at the Koran and it’s history is a anti-Mulsim bigot and purveyor of hate-speech while Reza Aslan is a “brilliant scholar” who just happens to discredit Christianity.

While many would discredit Reza Aslan because he is Muslim, this probably is not actually very relevant in this case. Considering the fact that Reza Aslan accepts as true that Jesus was crucified, which the Koran rejects. Probably more of a nominal-Muslim as his family background also suggests. Still he has an employee that seems intent on shutting down any debate regarding Islam. Now that would be an interesting question for an interviewer to ask Aslan what he thinks of his employees actions to shut down debate? Especially since this employee is editor-in-chief of Aslan Media. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

Here is a typical example of the smear job towards Robert Spenser (who is a Catholic Deacon).

Patricia Montemurri for the Detroit Free Press:

The symposium, which will be held in the student union, will feature pro-Muslim speakers, too. But Spencer’s appearance is controversial. The New York Times reported that Spencer’s comments were cited 64 times by the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 76 people in Norway in 2011. Spencer was banned from the United Kingdom in June for what the British government said was his association with hate groups.

As Robert Spencer notes:

In writing this, Montemurri implies that “the Norwegian white supremacist” was inspired to white supremacism and murder by me. In reality, Anders Behring Breivik’s “manifesto” cites not just me, but many, many people, including Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, and Thomas Jefferson — who are just three of the many who are never blamed for his murders. Montemurri also doesn’t mention, and probably doesn’t know, since the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media didn’t tell her, that Breivik’s manifesto actually reflects an ideology quite different from mine: so far was he from being a doctrinaire counter-jihadist that he wanted to aid Hamas and ally with jihad groups. Nor does she mention (or know, probably) that Breivik criticized me in his insane “manifesto” for not advocating violence. I am no more responsible for Breivik than the Beatles are for Charles Manson.

And as for the British ban, the fact that Montemurri even mentions it shows how these smears retailed by the editor-in-chief of Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media are self-reinforcing. As a result of smears and defamation from Aslan’s counterparts in Britain, my colleague Pamela Geller and I were banned from entering that country. The Home Office’s letter banning me from entering the country said I was being banned for saying that Islam has a doctrine mandating warfare against unbelievers, which it manifestly and demonstrably does indeed have. A preacher of that doctrine, the Saudi Sheikh Mohammed al-Arifi, was recently admitted into the UK. He has said: “Devotion to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer.” Yet I who advocate no violence or hatred of any kind am not allowed in. This is hardly a blot on my record; it is a blot on Britain’s.

Reference: 14 things you need to know about the new book Zealot

Austria’s Catholic Church is trying a new strategy to attract the faithful: advertising its churches as places to cool off in a record heatwave.

As Austrians sweltered in temperatures close to 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit), Catholic news agency Kathpress surveyed the country’s houses of worship Tuesday to find the coolest one.

“When air conditioning and the cool wetness of a lake or open-air pool are beyond reach, Austria’s churches can provide cool and spiritual refreshment at the same time,” it said.

Vienna’s chilliest church was a mere 24 degrees, with the crypt of St. Stephen’s Cathedral a frigid 14 degrees, Kathpress’s survey found.

(source)

First off I always knew Catholic churches were cooler.

So we have gone from preaching hellfire and damnation to preaching of an available cool climate? Still maybe this is innovative advertising to get them in the church door to be evangelized?

Although I find it rather cheesy and off-putting.

Perhaps some of their rejected ad mottos were:

• Turn the dog days of Summer into the God days of Summer.
• Hell is hot, our church is not
• Why not get both AC and JC?
• Jesus will set you freon.