Posted on 09/18/2005 7:21:44 PM PDT by Pikamax
I wonder if they got their 30 pieces of silver...
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr6605.html
Caterpillar: No current grounds for disinvestment
19 September 2005
A robust and rigorous review of the Church of England’s shareholding in Caterpillar Inc – the US-based manufacturer of construction and mining equipment - has resulted in a decision by the Church's Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG) not to recommend disinvestment at this time. More at link
___________________________________________________________
http://anglicansonline.org/new_this_week.html
http://churchtimes.co.uk/churchtimes/website/pages.nsf/httppublicpages/3BE9C0A372D7ACBB8025707500465136
Why the people of New Orleans suffered
‘We chose to respond to this disaster ideologically’
EVERYONE remembers where they were when the Twin Towers fell. I was in the kitchen watching the morning news, and remembered, as I saw the plane crash into the second tower, where I had been when Kennedy was shot.
We believed 9/11 would change our history, and, for a few weeks, it did. For the first time in decades, we could sing “God Bless America”, fly the flag, and rehearse the patriotic folk-traditions we’d learnt as children, which since Vietnam had been unacceptable in polite company. Middle-Americans watched New Yorkers post pictures of fathers, husbands, mothers, and sons on fences, set out flowers, and mourn — and realised that they had families, too, and were vulnerable.
Inevitably, after that brief truce, class warfare between the educated liberal élite, and the conservative, Middle-American peasantry resumed. Predictably, 9/11 was turned to political purposes, to set up George W. Bush as a “war president”. Through the efforts of his groomers and trainers, once established as a strong leader and protector, all disasters at home or abroad played to his advantage. And the current disaster in New Orleans, regardless of how badly it is handled, will be no exception.
Now, after Hurricane Katrina, with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people dead, there are no stories yet of heroism, no noble sentiment, no patriotic fervour, and no catharsis in sight. This is no 9/11: there is no purifying fire — only thousands of people, living and dead, packed in squalid shelters, wading in sewage, desperate to extricate themselves from the filth and chaos.
But soon we will forget. The story of Katrina will be sanitised, and the official version will be spun: the heroic efforts of the Red Cross and the National Guard will be celebrated, sentimental stories of unlikely rescues and remarkable reunions will feature on the evening news, and George W. Bush will be represented again as an icon of steadfastness, compassion, and courage — a ready help in time of trouble, striding purposefully through the rubble.
OF COURSE, Katrina was not his fault: hurricanes are natural disasters. Still, there are no wholly natural disasters — children don’t starve when there’s a drought in Southern California. We don’t expect to see refugees by the thousand without food, water, or medicine, huddled in camps after storms, earthquakes, or floods in affluent countries that have the money, technology, and organisation to avoid the worst consequences of natural disasters.
We can predict these events, and warn people to leave; we can evacuate in buses and planes those who have no transport; we can put them up in motels; we can get the elderly and infirm out; and transport hospital patients to comparable facilities away from the area.
But we didn’t. We chose to respond to this disaster ideologically, according to the two maxims that define our current political commitment: recognise government as the problem, not the solution; and invest in rescue after the fact, rather than prevention before.
We knew, days before Katrina stuck, that it would be a category-five hurricane, and that the levees would probably break. Residents were urged to evacuate, and on the news we watched the procession of cars on bridges with all lanes outward bound. But almost a quarter of New Orleans residents had no cars, and, of those, many did not have the money for bus fares or lodging out of the area. The poor, the very young, the elderly and infirm had no way out.
On the Sunday before Katrina hit, the Mayor of New Orleans, desperate and without support for any public evacuation efforts, spoke in city churches, urging residents who had cars to take friends, relatives and neighbours with them when they left town. There was no public programme: government, after all, was not the solution. The assumption was that neighbours would be neighbourly, churches and charities would take up the slack, and everyone would be taken care of. They weren’t.
We knew for years before Katrina hit that a hurricane would almost certainly hit New Orleans and flood the city. Hurricane season is an annual event in the south-eastern United States. The Army Corps of Engineers had worked out that the New Orleans levees would break if a major hurricane stuck, as it most certainly would. But federal funds for building up the levees dried up when the US went into Iraq.
EVEN IF flooding couldn’t have been averted, the human costs might have been minimised if residents of New Orleans and nearby Gulf coast towns had been evacuated before the storm. But refugees, hospital patients, the sick and dying only began to be evacuated after the fact. America is giving generously after the disaster, but would not spend to prevent it.
Hardly surprising: this is our ongoing policy. We provide expensive emergency medical treatment, but, uniquely among affluent countries, no routine health-care or preventative medicine. More than 45 million Americans are uninsured, and rely on hospital emergency rooms for routine doctors’ visits.
We give to the deserving poor, and lock up the undeserving poor — maintaining the largest prison population in the world — but have no effective programmes to alleviate poverty or prevent crime. We believe that such programmes are ineffective, wasteful, and soft-headed; we rely on charity and punishment. We give generously to charity, but grudge every nickel that goes for taxes to support education or health-care to alleviate poverty or maintain the infrastructure. We have a taste for melodrama and sentimentality — human misery, tragedy, heroism, and rescue.
It remains to be seen whether that taste trumps the shocking pictures of chaos and human misery we’ve seen, or whether the administration will be able to turn this tragedy to its advantage. I doubt that black Americans, recently wooed by Republicans, will be impressed. In New Orleans, divided by race and class, virtually all the refugees were black.
I do not believe that this disaster will make any difference. I hope that I am wrong.
Dr Harriet Baber is Professor of Philosophy at the University of San Diego, California.
___________________________________________________________
http://anglicansonline.org/new_this_week.html
Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11
19 September 2005
Churches have a vital role to play in combating the threat of terrorism, states a report from a working group of the Church of England’s House of Bishops, published today.
‘Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11’ examines the issues around terrorism; international order and American power; and political reform and the Middle East; and sets out 13 Christian principles for addressing “a world characterised by power and violence.”
The 100-page report cites the “complex relationship between religion and violence” and the churches’ “tradition of self-examination and penitence” that “could make a distinctive contribution to the quest for reconciliation.”
It states: “Religion is now a major player on the public stage of the world in a way that few foresaw two decades ago. We believe that the churches have an important role to play, not simply in urging the importance and applicability of Christian principles, but in a proper awareness of the role of religion, for good as well as ill, and initiatives it might take towards reconciliation between adversaries.
“For the Church is called on both to be a witness to the Kingdom of God, which bears on relationships between states as well as individuals, but to be a sign of that kingdom, both in its own life and the role it plays in the international order.”
On terrorism, the Bishop of Oxford writes in the preface: “All governments have a proper responsibility to take the necessary steps to safeguard their citizens. People in Britain are acutely aware of this following the London bomb attacks of July 2005.
“But citizens need to be vigilant that these steps do not infringe hard won civil liberties, particularly the right to due process of law. The churches have a particular message here based on Biblical insights about fear and how playing on the fears of enemies makes for unwise policies.”
The report also examines the United States’ sense of ‘moral righteousness’ and questions the way some American Christians have used Biblical texts to support a political agenda in the Middle East. The bishops argue: “There is no uniquely righteous nation. No country should see itself as the redeemer nation, singled out by God as part of his providential plan.”
The report calls for a strengthening of the United Nations as “the legitimate authority for military intervention” and opposes democracy being “imposed on any other country by force,” saying it must be adopted by a nation “in culturally appropriate ways.”
In a case study, annexed to the report, the authors examine the current controversy surrounding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. While recognising the West’s legitimate security concerns the report suggests: “Tehran might forgo a nuclear weapons capability, if the EU-3 delivered a suitably attractive incentive package.” The report thought it “disappointing” that “the EU-3 did not use the Framework Agreement to offer more security assurances.”
The authors also say that the arguments against nuclear proliferation need to be made more compelling. “If certain countries retain their nuclear weapons on the basis of the uncertainty and potentially violent volatility of international relations, on what basis are the same weapons denied to other states?”
They conclude: “The non-nuclear weapon states need to be presented with rather more convincing arguments and incentives than they have been up to now, as to why it might be in their best interests not to go nuclear.”
Notes
The working group, set up in October 2004, was comprised of: The Rt Revd Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford (Chair); The Rt Revd Colin Bennetts, Bishop of Coventry; The Rt Revd Peter Selby, Bishop of Worcester; The Rt Revd Peter Price, Bishop of Bath and Wells.
The report was produced by the Working Group at the request of the House of Bishops.
‘We chose to respond to this disaster ideologically’
WE? Democrats/Left would be a better way too put this.
While we're talking about groveling, I trust you have read these recent words by ("Catholic") Cardinal McCarrick, addressed to the King of Jordan who had just presented a paper on "Islam as the Way of Peace:"
"Your Majesty,
A few months ago, when I was privileged to pray for you on another occasion in this capital city, I asked Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world, to bless you and to help you make your country a bridge across which all nations might walk in unity, fellowship and love. As I listened to your words today, I believe my prayer is being answered.
Indeed, the Amman Message of November of last year is a blueprint and a challenge not only to the great world of Islam, but to the whole human race. Your thoughtful leadership is a stirring invitation to all of us, especially to the people of the Book, the family of Abraham, who share so much and who are called to be brothers and sisters in God’s one human family.
You have taken to heart the words of Pope Benedict XVI when he addressed the Muslim leaders gathered with him in Germany last month and invited them all to join him in eliminating from all hearts any trace of rancor, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence. As you quoted in your splendid talk to us today, Pope Benedict called his listeners, in this way, to turn back the way of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress for world peace.
Your Majesty’s call and that of the Holy Father are in so many ways the same. May Allah, the merciful and compassionate, continue to guide your steps along this noble path. May He guide and protect you, your family and your beloved country and may peace and justice come to all lands and all peoples through your efforts, your vision and your courage.
In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate God, we pray. Amen.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick"
It's not just an Anglican plague, unfortunately. He did make a passing reference to the Pope's call to Muslim leaders last month to quit preaching hate and terrorizing everybody, but other than that, it's truly a disgusting example of toadying, worthy of an Anglican bishop. Including the invocation of the Islamic formula ("Allah the most merciful," etc.) instead of the Christian blessing. Betcha the Anglicans do likewise.
They were repentant for those things they ought to have done, and they were unrepentant for those things they ought not to have done. And there is no good sense in them.
The CoE has been a dying institution for over 100 years. The stench of decay is too obvious to ignore. The only way these ridiculous witch-doctors can get any attention, and maybe some petro-dollars in the collection plate, is to shake their feathers and rattle their gourds at Uncle Sam.
By all rights, the MSM should have enough material by now for a saturation blitz of stories on the folly and menace of the Religious Left. When will we see such a hard-hitting exposé?
*crickets*
Let's buy these lunatics a one-way ticket to the Sunni Triangle. They can make their apologies there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.