Magic Statistics

Bad theology hurts.

Found here.

For more bad church signs, check out Crummy Church Signs.  This one is especially bad.

The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Oakland could prevent employees from posting notices referring to "marriage" and "natural family" on the grounds that those terms constitute hate speech.  The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Pro-Family Law Center of Southern California filed a free speech case on behalf of the City of Oakland's Good News Employee Association with the United States Supreme Court on Monday. The petition for certiori requests that the Supreme Court undo prior rulings of the Ninth Circuit and United States District Court which held that certain speech by the petitioners could be censored by the City of Oakland. (http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/46.pdf).

In United States District Court, Case No. CV-03-03542-VRW, the California federal courts concluded that the terms "marriage," "natural family," and "family values" could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech and in the interest of "administrative efficiency." (http://www.profamilylawcenter.com/_docs/45.pdf). Specifically, the City of Oakland banned the use of these terms on postings made to an open bulletin board provided to employees during the same-sex marriage debate in California during 2002 through 2003.

During the same time period, the City of Oakland approved e-mails promoting pro-homosexual social events and an anti-Iraq war "teach-in".  Talk of the natural family, however, the City deemed hateful.

h/t: Tongue Tied 3

Previous related posts:

• Fired for sharing faith during non-work hours
• Oakland city employees afraid of natural family
• Pro-family letter deemed “hate propaganda” by Canada border agents

An organisation of North American Hindus has asked that four Ontario rivers, including the Niagara River (and, therewith, Niagara Falls), be designated for religious disposal of cremated bodies.

The Niagara River would be ideal for the scattering of ashes because of its fast-flowing water and proximity to the Greater Toronto Area, said Roopnauth Sharma, president of the United Hindu Federation of Canada.

However, Sharma stressed the Niagara River is being floated among several other possible candidates in the GTA.
. . .
Sharma, head of Mississauga's Shri Ram temple, is working on the initiative with Ontario's Government Services Ministry, which regulates cemeteries and burials.

If the plan is implemented, the selected rivers would serve as local substitutes for India’s Ganges River.

There are no laws against scattering cremated remains into public bodies of water in Ontario. The Hindu community is hoping to bring more order to the practice by identifying rivers where people could hold brief ceremonies.

If Ontario has no laws restricting scattering of ashes in rivers, why does the government have to get involved?  Why can’t the “United” Hindu Federation of Canada members work it out for themselves?

I can see potential problems if ”brief ceremonies” entail construction of shrines.

Persecution Update India points out that Hindu groups in India have agitated for laws barring non-Hindus from entering certain holy places with temples and crematoria.  At least one state government has obliged.

h/t: Persecution Update India

Previous related post: US Hindu groups encourage violence against Indian Christians

The Zacchaeus Fellowship has written an open letter to members of General Synod, Anglican Church of Canada, which meets later this month in Winnipeg. Motions to be presented at GS call for authorisation of same-sex blessings.  In response, Zacchaeus Fellowship has to point out what should be obvious—those motions affirm desires and behaviours that many Anglicans struggle to resist.

Contrary to what is implicitly suggested by the recent direction of our Anglican Church of Canada, not all persons with same-sex attractions want these attractions affirmed.  We are especially concerned for those whom we describe as “silent sufferers” in the pews. These are the many individuals who adhere to the traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and wish for the church neither to condemn them as persons nor to encourage them to act on those same-sex attractions. To approve Resolution A186 or A187 would pull the rug out from under such people.

That it is necessary to point this out shows, once again, that Anglicans represented by Zacchaeus Fellowship have been marginalised and ignored by much of the ACC leadership.

The letter goes on to affirm the traditional understanding that accepting individuals with homosexual orientation, as the church is called to do, does not necessarily entail celebrating same-sex relationships.

Read the whole thing.

(In fairness to Zacchaeus Fellowship, I confess that my snarky headline does not reflect the pastoral approach of the letter.)

h/t: The Sheepcat

Previous related posts:

• Zacchaeus Fellowship betrayed by Canadian House of Bishops statement
• In the Anglican Church of Canada, “other” means “orthodox”
• Zacchaeus Fellowship thank Rowan Williams for his stance on homosexuality

Coincidentally, just yesterday a “silly quiz” was distributed around my office.  This was the second question:

Are you a nerd?

• Yes
• No

My response: Yes, and proud of it!  Now we have proof.