Some Food for Thought

Not too long ago, I wrote of a document produced by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that attempted to provide assistance in helping Roman Catholics vote on issues. I mentioned that the document was esentially spineless (which it is). However, not all Roman Catholics lack vertebral reinforcement. CatholicVote.com has put out a video that should be viewed prayerfully by all Christians. This is an important election coming up, one that has the opportunity to define us for several generations. View this and pray.

http://www.catholicvote.com/cv_homepage_theater_live.swf

Adventures in Atheism, Part 2

Back in July, I wrote a piece called "Jesus and the Professor." I included the text of an entry that Professor Paul Myers, a biologist at the University of Minnesota - Morris in which he stated his desire to blaspheme the Holy Eucharist, using his massive intellectual powers to coin the elegant and original phrase, "It's just a freakin' cracker."

Someone named Aatish found my column, probably from doing an RSS of any mention of Professor Paul Myers, and suggested that until Christians could prove their point from fact and reason, then we needed essentially shut up and put up with whatever stuff good ol' Professor Myers wanted to say.

After thanking Aatish for his comment, I said that I was more than capable of explaining my position from reason.

However, any argument that I could make on this matter pales compared to a wonderful article by Michael Novak that appeared on today's National Review Online.

By the way, Professor and Aatish (whoever you are), I don't care if you consider this smug or condescending. I'll continue to pray for you both every day. In the event that you are right and I am wrong, and there is no God, then I've just wasted my time. But if I am right and you are wrong, you're going to need all the prayers you can get.

Here's the link to Novak's article.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWJiM2NhNTVhYWU2NDhlYjc4MmM4NDczZjJjYmVjZWY=&w=MA==

We could start with you, Baroness!

Now here's a story you don't see everyday. Baroness Mary Helen Warnock, considered by many to be the premier moralist in England, has said that anyone who is demented has a duty to commit suicide and spare themselves, their families, and - most of all - the national health service the burden and expense of caring for them.

I will agree to this outrageous proposal only if all titled British moralists will lead by example since, at least in this case, there is reason to suspect an advanced dementia.

Here's the link:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29538

Well said, Father.

Father John Roddy is the Rector of Saint Hilda of Whitby Anglican Catholic Church in downtown Atlanta. Father is a wonderful writer who picks up the pen much too infrequently for my taste. When he does write, he says quite a bit worth remembering. (He's also a fine priest and a fine man, but that's the subject of another post.)

Over on Father Roddy's blog, Anglican Catholic Priest (http://anglicancatholicpriest.blogspot.com), he has posted an entry which should be read and seriously considered by most Continuing Anglican churchmen and, indeed, by all Christians of a traditionalist mindset.

Father puts forth the thesis that continuing Anglicans and all traditional Christians may be adversely affected by the Episcopal Church's complete submission to the radical leftist agenda promoted by its leadership and most recently expressed in the illegal deposition of the Right Rev. Robert Duncan from his position as Bishop of Pittsburgh. Father Roddy states that the Episcopal Church will now probably join forces with other leftist causes and seek to inhibit continuing Anglicans through legal battles and through the support of "hate crime" and "hate speech" legislation.

Over on The Continuum, an outstanding traditionalist Anglican blog (http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com), one writer responding to Father Roddy used the term "paranoia" in describing Father's perception of the current situation.

I think it is important we remember that not all paranoia is pathological. We need a certain amount of it to survive. Even in situations where paranoia is pathological, never forget the old saying, "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean that they are not out to get you!"

I agree with Father Roddy that those of us in the Continuum are at risk for attack from the leftist Episcopal Church and from others of the same ilk. Consider that our freedom of speech and freedom of religion proceed from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Since the Bill of Rights was adopted, the freedom of the churches have been guaranteed.

However, in the last few decades, attacks on other freedoms should give us pause. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the current debates surrounding the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. Historically, that amendment has always guaranteed the citizenry the right to own weapons for whatever legitimate purpose a citizen has in mind. Recently, leftists have attacked this interpretation, claiming that the amendment really means that citizens have the right to form armed militias, much like the National Guard. Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court upheld the traditional understanding of the Second Amendment. However, it would not take a change of too many justices on the U.S. Supreme Court for that opinion to be overturned and their are many liberal jurists who would be only too happy to do it.

If the Second Amendment could be so easily distorted, what about the First? What would keep a radical court from claiming that freedom of religion does not extend to anything that is described as "hate speech"? What would keep a radical court from saying that any church that holds to doctrine that is "hateful" and proclaims or teaches that doctrine should have their tax-exempt status revoked? Any reasonable person living today would have to answer that nothing would stand in the way of such a position. We already see evidence of this same tactic in the election-year restrictions that are placed on churches. A further example can be found in a recent edition of The International Herald-Tribune in an article described many legal scholars who urged that the First Amendment needed to be modified to take "hate speech" into consideration, much as it is in Canada and Europe. Is it too hard to imagine that could happen here? I think not.

In my opinion, Father Roddy's argument should be read carefully and prayerfully by all. Our freedoms are precious things and while they come to us from God, they are assured by a vigilant citizenry. May God grant us the grace to stay sober and alert, the grace to guard the freedoms that God has given us in our great nation.

Here's the link to Father Roddy's article:

http://anglicancatholicpriest.blogspot.com/2008/09/critique-of-pure-dread.html

I'm Back!!

I've been so fed up with the upcoming election and its attendant media Obamania that I've been laying low for awhile. Finally, I decided that it was time to come in from the cold and submit another blog entry.

Today, I have a real treat for you. It's an article that appeared on NationalReview.com over the weekend by Bill Whittle. It's entitled The Undefended City and it describes in some detail the factors that frequently go along with the fall of a great society. It's a great article and provides some food for thought in these perilous times.

Here's the link:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGVlY2RhOGM0MWE5MjNmMGM2ZjY0NzcxMjMzMTc5NWI=

Parents, Are You Paying Attention?

Here's an article from Phyllis Schlafly about the recent meeting of the National Education Association. This is particularly important because these are the people who set the agenda for our public school systems. Read what their plans are and ask yourself, "Is this the agenda I want for my children and grandchildren?"

Here's the link:

http://townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/07/28/the_nea_spells_out_its_policies

Jesus and the Professor, Part 2

It seems that a young man in London stole a host consecrated at a Roman Catholic High Mass
and placed it in a condom, in protest over the Roman Catholic Church's prohibition on artificial birth control and the alleged problem that teaching has created with AIDs related deaths in Africa.

Now it further seems that the host may have been sent to Dr. Paul Myers, the atheist biology professor whose sacrilegious rant was posted on this website a few weeks ago. According to this story, Dr. Myers pierced the host with a rusty nail, commenting, "I hope that Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date." Dr. Myers then threw the host in the trash.

I've been trying to come up with a comment concerning this story, but its outrageous character, I think, speaks for itself. Pray for these people.

Here's the link to the story from the Catholic Herald:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000341.shtml

Prayer in Public Life

"Quin Hilyer" is not exactly a household name but it should be. Quin is an editor for the Washington Examiner and writes a regular column for Spectator.org, the internet arm of The American Spectator. I also consider Quin a personal friend.

Yesterday, Quin published a great column on prayer and those who live in the public eye, particularly politicians. It's not only worth a read, it's worth several.

Here's the link:

http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13622

Spineless Bishops Strike Again

There's an old joke that goes something like this: When a new bishop is elected, he immediately undergoes surgery to remove his spine and tatoo a yellow streak up his back.

Well, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops have once again proved the truth of that statement. The bishops have released a document entitled "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship." In this document they encourage Catholics to not be "single-issue" voters, i.e., a politician's stance on abortion should not necessarily be the sole determinant of how a person votes.

OK, I guess agree with that as soon as the boys in purple answer another question: If an elected official can deny something as basic as the right to life to our most vulnerable people, the unborn, what other rights can they deny? What other rights are even important? It's time for Christians to put first things first and stand up to defend life! Nothing else is more important.

One of the advantages of being in the Anglican Catholic Church is that we are, for the most part, a poor church. Because of this, our bishops can't afford the surgical procedures noted above.

Here's the link from nj.com

http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-4/1217390961251120.xml=&coll=5

Here's the link to the bishops' document:

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Maybe we should sue God?

Here's one from the good folks at Stoplight. A man in Michigan is suing two Christian publishing houses for $70,000,000. His complaint: The Bible contains passages that offend him.


http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000007807.cfm

One More Reason Why I Am an Anglican Catholic

I could rail on about the travesty of modern liturgy and the loss of the sense of the sacred. I could speak endless words about how the Church of Rome, indeed almost all contemporary churches, have abandoned their ancient and timeless liturgical principles. I could say all of these things, but I think the video below, filmed at World Youth Day 2008, says it better than I ever could:

http://www.gloria.tv/?video=arbjp2rmxsioabwnmvyn

Are You Excited About the Election?? Yawn!

Four more months to go and I'm bored to tears with the upcoming election. I'm scared that Campaign 2012 will begin immediately after Election Day.

Do you feel this way, too? Then you'll be glad to know that the folks at jibjab.com have come up with a new election video that will brighten your spirits. These are the same folks that gave us the great Kerry-Bush, "This Land Is Your Land" video in 2004.

Folks at the New Yorker take note: This is how you do satire. Here's the link:

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin

Jesus and the Professor

Paul Zachary Myers is not exactly a household name, or wasn't until now. In what is a clear sign of our times, this biology professor at the University of Minnesota - Morris has recently stepped outside of his area of expertise to comment on the Holy Eucharist. Writing on his blog, Pharyngula: Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal, he addressed the situation where a young man smuggled the Sacred Body of Christ out of a Roman Catholic church and kept it for four days. Myers' reaction was amazing, even for an atheist academic. He proposed to have someone mail him a consecrated host so that it could be publicly desecrated.

I'm going to copy his entire post here so that you can read it in full. I warn you up front that this contains language that you will never normally encounter on my blog. However, controversial posts like his have a way of being pulled under some pressure and I'd like to make sure that a record of this post is enshrined somewhere.

How should we deal with this blasphemy as Christians? While it is easy for us to be angry, even outraged, I think it is important to recognize Myers' screed as the output of a sick soul and to pray for him as would our Lord, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Here's the post and here's the link:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php

-----

T'S A FRACKIN’ CRACKER!

Category: Religion • Stupidity
Posted on: July 8, 2008 8:05 PM, by PZ Myers

There are days when it is agony to read the news, because people are so goddamned stupid. Petty and stupid. Hateful and stupid. Just plain stupid. And nothing makes them stupider than religion.

Here's a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity.

Webster Cook says he smuggled a Eucharist, a small bread wafer that to Catholics symbolic of the Body of Christ after a priest blesses it, out of mass, didn't eat it as he was supposed to do, but instead walked with it.

This isn't the stupid part yet. He walked off with a cracker that was put in his mouth, and people in the church fought with him to get it back. It is just a cracker!

Catholics worldwide became furious.

Would you believe this isn't hyperbole? People around the world are actually extremely angry about this — Webster Cook has been sent death threats over his cracker. Those are just kooks, you might say, but here is the considered, measured response of the local diocese:

"We don't know 100% what Mr. Cooks motivation was," said Susan Fani a spokesperson with the local Catholic diocese. "However, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it."

We just expect the University to take this seriously," she added "To send a message to not just Mr. Cook but the whole community that this kind of really complete sacrilege will not be tolerated."

Wait, what? Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further?

Well, you could have a priest compare this event to a kidnapping.

"It is hurtful," said Father Migeul Gonzalez with the Diocese. "Imagine if they kidnapped somebody and you make a plea for that individual to please return that loved one to the family."

Gonzalez said the Diocese is willing to meet with Cook and help him understand the importance of the Eucharist in hopes of him returning it. The Diocese is dispatching a nun to UCF's campus to oversee the next mass, protect the Eucharist and in hopes Cook will return it.

I like the idea of sending a scary nun to guard the ceremony at the next mass. But even better…let's send Webster Cook to hell!

Gonzalez said intentionally abusing the Eucharist is classified as a mortal sin in the Catholic church, the most severe possible. If it's not returned, the community of faith will have to ask for forgiveness.

"We have to make acts of reparation," Gonzalez said. "The whole community is going to turn to prayer. We'll ask the Lord for pardon, forgiveness, peace, not only for the whole community affected by it, but also for [Cook], we offer prayers for him as well."

Get some perspective, man. IT'S A CRACKER.

And of course, Bill Donohue is outraged (I know, Donohue is going to die of apoplexy someday when a gnat violates his oatmeal, so this isn't saying much).

For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage--regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance--is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.

Oh, beyond hate speech. Where does this fit on the Shoah scale, Bill? It shouldn't even register, but here is Wild-Eyed Bill the Offended calling for the expulsion of a student…for not swallowing a cracker.

Would you believe that the mealy-mouthed president of the university, John Hitt, is avoiding defending his student is instead playing up the importance of the Catholic church to the university? Of course you would. That's what university presidents do. Bugger the students, keep the donors and the state reps happy.

Unfortunately, Webster Cook has now returned the cracker. Why?

Webster just wants all of this to go away. Especially now that he feels his life is in danger.

That's right. Crazy Christian fanatics right here in our own country have been threatening to kill a young man over a cracker. This is insane. These people are demented fuckwits. And Cook is not out of the fire yet — that Fox News story ends with an open incitement to cause him further misery.

University officials said, that as for right now, Webster Cook is not in trouble. If anyone or any group wants to file a formal complaint with the University through the student judicial system, they can. If that happens, Webster will go through a hearing either in front of an administrative panel or a panel of his peers.

Got that? If you don't like what Webster Cook did, all you have to do is complain to the university, and they will do the dirty work for you of making his college experience miserable. And don't assume the university would support Cook; the college is now having armed university police officers standing guard during mass.

I find this all utterly unbelievable. It's like Dark Age superstition and malice, all thriving with the endorsement of secular institutions here in 21st century America. It is a culture of deluded lunatics calling the shots and making human beings dance to their mythical bunkum.

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I'll send you my home address.

Just wait. Now there'll be a team of Jesuits assigned to rifle through my mail every day.

Sliding Down the Slippery Slope

I'm often asked by continuing Anglicans, "Why don't we seek unity with Canterbury?" The short, correct, and undiplomatic answer, of course, is that Canterbury is in heresy and we cannot seek union with heretics. Yesterday, we saw the final insult as the Church of England Synod voted to "consecrate" women to the episcopate. Not surprisingly, the liberals of the Synod refused to allow for any provision for those who oppose the move to receive pastoral support from sympathetic bishops, much in the same way that the Episcopal Church did a cram-down on those who opposed women "bishops" in the United States.

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, allegedly hung his head when support for traditionalists was denied, the implication being that he was somehow sorry that the church had failed to support traditionalists. I find this surprising, considering that Williams has supported the "ordination" of women for years. More than likely, he was just tired.

Many traditionalists are already jabbering about swimming the Tiber to Rome. If results in the United States suggest anything, a few will do so, a few will join a continuing church (such as the ACC), and most will simply draw a new line in the sand. In short, for the most part, nothing will change.

Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London covered the story. Here's her report:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4289994.ece

On other fronts, the Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON, met in Jerusalem from June 22nd through June 29th. This conference of Evangelical Anglican primates, bishops, and others, formed mainly to protest the consecration of open homosexuals to the episcopate and homosexual marriage. GAFCON does not address other serious differences between traditional Anglicans and the modernist ones, such as the "ordination" of women, the role of Tradition and Scripture in the Church, to name two. Unless these are addressed, it is only a matter of time before even these evangelicals struggle with the same issues as plague Canterbury.

Archbishop Mark Haverland of the ACC has written a cogent and accurate assessment of GAFCON. Here's the link:

http://www.anglicancatholic.org/gafcon.html

DOMA and the Candidate

Back in the days when the homosexual marriage movement was getting under way, many people in the U.S. realized that gay marriages performed in one state would have to be recognized in other states because of the Privileges and Immunities Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Congress responded to this potential problem by passing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, stating that no state had to recognize a same sex union of another state and that the Federal government would not recognize these relationships.

Ever wonder what a political candidate might think about this issue? Check the link below:

http://www.citizenlink.org/turnsignal/A000007636.cfm

I Now Pronounce You Adam and Steve

Here's an article from National Review Online concerning the marriage crisis that we face because of the decision from the California Supreme Court that stated that restricting marriage to a man and a woman violated the California State Constitution. Christians need to be very aware that everything that we believe is under assault. I would say more but this article says it all. Here's the link:

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZGNmODNiMjI0MTQ1MTQwNGM4N2YyNmVhY2UyZTE0OWY=

Why I Have Little Respect for Professional Athletes

I spent the better part of this Father's Day evening glued to my television watching the U.S. Open. Tiger Woods, playing in tremendous pain in his left knee at the beginning of the round, almost miraculously appeared to get better as the day wore on. Tiger, as usual, threw clubs during his round, muttered his usual curse words after missing a shot, in short, behaved as a petulant child. After making a 15 foot putt to force a playoff, God's gift to golf had the following exchange with Roger Maltbie of NBC Sports:

Maltbie: Now, I have to ask you about the knee. It seemed like it bothered you early on and then it seemed like it didn't bother you as much as the round progressed, different from other days. True or not true?
Woods: Uh, true. Um, took some things to kind of relieve that.
Maltbie: And adrenaline, maybe?
Woods: [smiling] That helps, too.

OK, Tiger, what did you take? If it was 800 to 1000 mg of ibuprofen that's one thing. However, if the "things" that he took included a substance such as hydrocodone, isn't that something else entirely?

Also, what about all of the children who look up to Tiger as a role model? They now know that the means justify the ends. It's OK to take whatever you need to in order to achieve your goal.

Finally, the gentleman's game of golf has been reduced to the ash heap that is professional athletics.

Do you think the major sports outlets will cover this or demand an explanation? Not a chance. Tiger will never have to answer one question. But the children will remember!

I guess there is no professional sport left that values honor and integrity over results.

When Does Free Speech Become Hate Speech?

In yesterday's edition of the International Herald Tribune there was an article that should send shivers up the spine of any Christian. Entitled "Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S." The article can be neatly summed up in the title. What is alarming is the number of legal scholars and politicians who believe that the First Amendment privileges should be tightened to exclude items that have been designated as "hate speech." Here's the problem: Who decides what crosses the line into hate speech? For a Christian, is it hate speech to preach that Christ is the only way to salvation? Is it hate speech to attempt to convert people of other religions? Is it hate speech to insist that human sexual activity is only moral when it exists within the context of holy matrimony, that is in a Sacramental relationship between one man and one woman?

When we start to restrict what people can and cannot say (slander and libel excepted), then we simply reach a point where we are arbitrarily setting standards. My intuition tells me that traditional Christians will be negatively impacted by this more than any other group. It is a sad sign of the progression of liberalism in our society that a thesis proposing that we should limit the first amendment could even see the light of day.

Oh, yes, here's one more thing: Let's say that somewhere down the line the Free Speech clause is encumbered with hate-speech provisions. What's next? What if someone starts to think that there are other aspects of the First Amendment that should be curtailed? Freedom of religion, perhaps? What will stop someone from saying that this religion is OK, but that religion teaches intolerant doctrine? Who will be there to stop them once Free Speech has been relativized?

Be very, very concerned.

Here's the link:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/11/america/hate.php

Oh, oh, oh, It's Magic!

Here's a shot of our first greyhound, Golden Magic, taken when she was two years old and just adopted. Magic is now nine and going strong. She's also my favorite, but just by a nose! Visit

http://www.greyhoundadoption.org/ to find out more about these greyt dogs.

Some Thoughts on Unalienable Rights I

Recently I was packing some books to take from my home to my office at the church and I came across a small volume that could easily fit in a shirt pocket. It was paper bound and had images of the American flag on the front. This small volume contained the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I sat down in a corner of my basement and proceeded to read, "IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America."

I've always been very proud to be born a citizen of this great nation. When I think of all the people throughout the world who have made tremendous sacrifices to come here, I'm filled with awe at their courage, dedication, and belief that the United States of America held opportunities for them that far exceeded their own country of origin. These are people who would take their life savings to cross the Atlantic Ocean in the bowels of a steamship. Ellis Island will forever stand as a monument to the stubborn determination of several generations of new Americans. Other Americans came differently, fleeing communism or other despotic regimes, even floating across the Straits of Florida through shark-infested water on nothing more than boards and only the glimmer of hope that they would reach the United States where they could enjoy the freedom about which they could only dream in their native lands. When I think of these brave people, I can only cry out my thanks to God that I could be born into such a great nation, that I was spared the grueling and dangerous journey to this great land.

I sat reading the Declaration, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights, and I thought of all the people who made such sacrifices so that I could enjoy the freedom and opportunity that is the birthright of all Americans. I thought of my maternal great-grandfather who fought for the Union in the Civil War and later became a physician in his native east Tennessee. I thought of those on my father's side of the family whose blood fertilized the ground and stained the Confederate gray of their uniforms in battles far, far from home. I thought of my grandfather who landed on Normandy on D-Day plus two and my father who served in the Italian Occupation Forces. I remember with great thanks the service of my uncle, my mother's brother, Uncle Roy, whose plane was shot down somewhere in Europe and who was, as the War Department put it in a telegram to my grandparents, "missing and presumed dead." But he wasn't dead. He was in a German POW camp, one that was - fortunately for him and us - liberated by the Americans as they swept through Europe in 1944. These people and countless others who are nameless and faceless sacrificed their time, their safety, their occupations, and - in too many cases - their lives, so that I could enjoy the freedom that is found in the United States. As I read through this little book, I couldn't help but be humbled by the men and women who are, even as I write this, sacrificing their lives in strange and terrible lands named Iraq and Afghanistan for the principles in the little book that I held in my hands.

As I read my little book, I was struck by a passage in the Declaration of Independence, a passage that I, and I suppose all of us, have heard so many times before:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

On the surface it seems pretty simple now, we have rights that come from God, rights that are ours by the mere fact of our birth, rights that can never under any circumstances be taken away from us, and that among them are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What seems simple now, however, was wildly radical in its day. The world of the 18th Century was a world that saw "rights" as something that proceeded from the authority of the state. In Europe, this frequently meant rights that were granted to the people by a monarch who ruled by God's will and with God's authority. However, those whose thoughts would frame the Declaration would have none of this. For them, the rights that were ascribed to man were a part of the very fabric of his nature and could no more be given to him by someone else than Joe could give Jim property that belonged to Steve. The Revolution that would be fought up and down the Atlantic seaboard actually had its first shot fired, not at Concord, but in these powerful words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

As I was meditating on these words, I suddenly realized that I wanted to take some time over the coming months and share some thoughts with you about these rights: The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I don't wish to present myself as an expert on this period, because I am neither a political scientist, nor am I a historian. What I am, however, is an Anglican Catholic Priest by vocation and a clinical psychologist by profession who approaches his task with a basic presupposition: I believe that a fundamentally sound understanding of these rights can only be achieved if one understands the Christian principles that are, I believe, implicit in them. Over the coming months, I plan to write a few occasional pieces on the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These will not be scholarly. They will, however, be the thoughts and meditations of a man who has been called by God to serve at His Altar in the one nation on earth that protects his freedom to do so. While I hope that you will find some enjoyment in what I write, I pen these words primarily to offer my thanks to God who has placed me in this wonderful country for His service.

More to come...