-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Over the past few weeks the New York Times has twice reported that new evidence links Pope Benedict XVI to the cover-up of two separate instances of clerical child abuse under his jurisdiction: one case involving the abusive principal of a school for deaf children in Milwaukee that was referred to then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1996, and the other relating to an abusive priest’s return to full time ministry even after Ratzinger permitted the priest to be transferred to his archdiocese of Munich for therapy in 1980.
The first Times story lacks a firm basis. The Times’ own documentation doesn’t tell the story that the headline claims, the sources questioned are not very credible, and today the judicial vicar who presided over the canonical trial of the abusive priest writes that he was never contacted by the Times even though they quoted him extensively, and that they and other outlets misquoted him.
The second Times report, too, fails in what is clearly its purpose: to establish that the pope is entangled in the scandal. But it raises serious questions about what then-Cardinal Ratzinger knew and when he knew it. Further reporting could establish that Ratzinger was indeed guilty of at least negligence, or it could exonerate him completely.
What these articles have accomplished, as thinly reported as they are, is to give the pope’s usual detractors a jumping-off point for connecting Benedict’s theology to his personal involvement in sex-abuse scandals. Take as one example of many this article by Christopher Hitchens published in the National Post, which condemns the pope in the strongest terms: “Ratzinger himself may be banal, but his whole career has the stench of evil - a clinging and systematic evil that is beyond the power of exorcism to dispel.” Now, much of Hitchens’s argument is way off — Sean Murphy has provided an exhaustive and painstakingly documented account of the numerous and serious errors of fact, internal contradictions, and obfuscations. But the motivation for the piece was to try to establish how far up the Church hierarchy the responsibility for the crisis runs, and to shed a light on Benedict’s personal responsibility.
And given the Church’s recent disgraceful record in handling clerical abuse, that impetus — trying to establish Benedict’s culpability — is definitely a worthwhile one. If Benedict is in fact guilty of covering up for abusive priests, then the truth must come out and he must be held accountable. After all, even if he’s guilty of nothing more than negligence, the Church should be held to a higher standard, and that starts at the top.
On the other hand, if he’s innocent of these charges, the available evidence suggests that Benedict has done more to rid the Church of the sex abuse crisis than anyone.
Either way, the New York Times has done the truth a disservice. All that publishing these thinly-source accusations has accomplished is to create two camps: one that thinks the Vatican is guilty and is trying to poison its believers’ minds into rejecting any claim otherwise, and another that concludes that the usual collection of anti-Church bigots are mounting a coordinated smear campaign against the pope, who must be defended. Of course, what both sides really want is just the truth. But it’s not so simple now.
Again, if the Times is on to something, the pope must be held accountable. But if not, the Times must be held similarly accountable for the damage it’s done.
Cris Worth| 3.30.10 @ 2:11PM
500 years ago in the year of our Lord 1510 Protestant Reformer Martin Luther made a trip to Rome and was stunned by the corruption of the Catholic clergy primarily the sale of indulgences today it's the Catholic clergy indulging in pedophilia on a grander scale. When judgment begins it will begin in the House of the Lord.
Tim| 3.30.10 @ 3:00PM
Martin Luther? The Jew hating bastard whose wrings helped form an intellectual basis for Nazism? The Martin Luther who believed that his constipation was the work of Satan reaching up his butt? That Martin Luther?
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 3:31PM
His Holiness has never abused a child, abetted the abuse of a child; or for that matter an adult. Most children, BTW, are abused by their fathers or stepfathers. Blaming Catholics for child abuse is like blaming the Lutheran Church for Martin Luther having been an antisemite.
And BTW the best people I know are Catholics.
George Watson| 3.30.10 @ 4:07PM
I strongly disagree. The best people I know are Jews. Or, maybe Baptists. Evangelicals ... Not sure, but I'll keep working on this.
Jerry| 3.30.10 @ 6:15PM
Bigot.
Kerry| 3.30.10 @ 9:20PM
Spigot.
Liam| 3.31.10 @ 2:30AM
Moron.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 10:17PM
"I strongly disagree. The best people I know are Jews. Or, maybe Baptists. Evangelicals ... Not sure, but I'll keep working on this."
George,
Some of us like to make up our minds concerning our preferences, to do the business and get off the pot. But when you finally make your mind, yes: please do get back to us-- we'll be sitting at our keyboards waiting for the reply f rom your braintrust.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 10:28PM
Main point IMO, though not to excuse it, the abuse is of adolescents, NOT children; if you were arrest everyone who had intimate relations with someone younger than 18, there wouldn't be enough cells to hold 'em in. What I don't like is not the charges-- of course there has to be mea culpas from the Church hierarchy-- but why it is the continuing fake innocence:
"golly, we didn't know people did these things.
DUH!"
As if a guy is Dr, Pangloss, or Chauncy Gardener. All injured innocence.
ds80| 3.30.10 @ 10:21PM
Yup. Have fun at your Particular Judgment, Cris. When you'll explain to the Lord why you disparaged his entire Church.
Tim| 3.30.10 @ 2:44PM
The Times is the Vatican of Liberalism so they should know a lot about abuse and lies.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 3:35PM
The Pope isn't responsible for EVERYTHING that goes on in the Church. Just for example, was Reagan responsible for what went on with Iran -Contra? No, it was Oliver North's, etc. culpability.
The Pope is being used as a lightning rod.
SoCon| 3.30.10 @ 3:40PM
I heard this was old news the NY Slimes had already reported on in the 1990s.
The timing was chosen by Obama & Co. as punishment for the Catholic Church's vociferous objections to ObamaCare; in a word, payback.
Typical dirty tactics of Chicago street thugs, community organizers and criminals.
Roy| 3.30.10 @ 5:24PM
Eh..maybe..I pretty much think there is never a wrong time to bash Catholics in the mind of the media.
SoCon| 3.30.10 @ 6:14PM
This story is over 10 years old; why bring it up--again--now right after the ObamaCare brawl? Too coincidental for me.
Teflon93| 3.30.10 @ 3:56PM
Cris, you're an anti-Catholic bigot and full of it.
Kindly explain to me if the Catholic clergy is "indulging in pedophilia on a grander scale" we see thousands of (underreported) cases of sexual abuse---including pedophilia---in the Protestant communities?
http://www.reformation.com
Cris Worth| 3.30.10 @ 5:49PM
Martin Luther, a Catholic Priest, saw how corrupt and arbitrary the church had become and wanted to reform it. But the Catholic hierarchy didn't see it that way, condemned him as a heretic, excommunicated him and put him in prison. Luther responded burning the papal bull, challenging the Pope's supremacy and nailing the church to the wall with his 95 theses. Also Luther taught that parish priests might marry. Indeed he did to a former nun and had 6 kids. One would think this would send a clear message to the Catholic Church especially recent events. Justification by Faith - he got it right and God Bless Martin Luther, a divine revolutionary.
Teflon93| 3.30.10 @ 6:28PM
That would be the same Martin Luther who wrote this when the Jews refused to become Lutherans, right?
http://www.humanitas-internati.....r-jews.htm
And this when the peasants he'd incited to rise up against the princes crossed the princes who'd allowed Luther to take over his abbey as his own property?
http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/fac.....gainst.pdf
Now why don't you address the link I provided earlier showing all those cases of sexual abuse by Protestant minister, including 38 Lutheran ministers?
ds80| 3.30.10 @ 10:22PM
Sola Fides -- hogwash. But proceed along in your invincible ignorance.
melvin polatnick| 3.30.10 @ 4:04PM
There is no doubt that the Vatican has to cleanup their act if they are going to be taken seriously. The first thing they have to do is replace the pope with a newly ordained maverick who will not put up with any child's play.
ZerObama| 3.30.10 @ 4:54PM
Don't hold your breath, Melvin.
ds80| 3.30.10 @ 10:24PM
"they have to ... replace the pope"
Melvin, the Pontiff is not just "chairman of the board". Do you even know what you are talking about?
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 10:35PM
No, Melvin thinks like a lawyer: get the Pope to resign, Melvin thinks, then sue the Church for 30 billion-- as if the Vatican is a tobacco company. The Vatican is a nation, how can class action suits go against countries? Can every plaintiff sue every nation it has a beef with?
Perhaps.
But where do the lawsuits stop?
ADLM| 3.30.10 @ 4:06PM
Much as it pains me to agree with anything in the Spectator, Lawler resoundingly hits the nail on the head when he writes about the Times' reporting creating only twos separate camps, of which, neither are in search of the truth behind what actually happened.
"All that publishing these thinly-source accusations has accomplished is to create two camps: one that thinks the Vatican is guilty and is trying to poison its believers' minds into rejecting any claim otherwise, and another that concludes that the usual collection of anti-Church bigots are mounting a coordinated smear campaign against the pope, who must be defended. "
ncatty| 3.30.10 @ 6:28PM
Why isn't the gay community rallying to the side of the Catholic Church?
Teflon93| 3.30.10 @ 6:31PM
This is the same old attack on the Church we see every Holy Week.
Christ promised that the Church not being of this world would be perpetually at odds with it.
The bigots really ought to ask why secularists like The Times always seek out the Catholic Church first and foremost for their approbation. Christ knew.
GHD | 3.30.10 @ 9:23PM
Luther responded burning the papal bull, challenging the Pope's supremacy and nailing the church to the wall with his 95 theses. Also Luther taught that parish priests might marry.
tim| 3.30.10 @ 9:26PM
Our online shop sales GHD range of GHD Hair Straighteners products. If you are buying GHD Straighteners and Ghd flat iron online through the internet, then we will give you more discounts.In addition, free postage.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 10:48PM
I'll take Benedict over a pighead such as Luther. The Lutheran Church did a film on Luther that was the most unintentionally humorous flick I ever saw-- even funnier than 'The People Vs. Larry Flynt'.
All the characters in the film 'Luther' (released 2000 or so) were wild-eyed and hammy, leading themselves in a trance to the big budget depiction of the wars of the following century, wherein everyone is smiling wildly as the religious carnage swirls around them. Million dollar ruins, as in 'Saving Private Ryan'.
And there's a beautiful blonde woman and beautiful 13 year old (natch) daughter, who appear for recurring very brief scenes, smiling through the devastation of Germany. Who would produce such a thing for tens of millons? What was going on in the film backers' minds? I mean, making a flick is a big deal, it doesn't just happen; everything is planned out.
Alan Brooks| 3.30.10 @ 11:03PM
'Luther' was released 2003, so bad even the Lutherans detested it. Now, I know hypocrisy is universal, but in 'Luther' the blond 13 daughter and her mom wander smiling through the ruins in rags, rags that reveal just enough of them to let you know why the director placed the two 'actresses' several times at strategic points in the film.
Teflon93| 3.31.10 @ 8:12AM
The point is not to Luther bash---Cris Worth made the bogus and bigoted claim that "today it's the Catholic clergy indulging in pedophilia on a grander scale" which is manifestly untrue, in no small part to the actions the Pope took while cardinal when he was asked by his predecessor to review all claims of sexual abuse in the Church.
Notice also that Worth had no response whatsoever when confronted with the vast numbers of cases where Protestant ministers have been alleged to sexually abuse their charges. Indeed, the Protestant numbers are larger and the incidents more recent. Shall we conclude from this that pedophilia is the next "sola"?
Indeed not.
St Paul confronted sin in the churches he'd planted himself and warned constantly of the need to reconcile oneself with Christ. The Church is a hospital for sinners and as in any hospital even the surgeons get infected from time to time. Luther well knew concupiscence.
But to side with the atheists, as Cris Worth has done and others do, for the sake of piling on fabricated anti-Catholic attacks during Holy Week, certainly is foolish.
Or do these Protestant anti-Catholics truly believe that The New York Times, The Discovery Channel et al would give them a warmer reception had the rock of Christianity at last worn away completely?
Chuck| 3.31.10 @ 8:45AM
Pope Benedict released a document stating Protestant churches are only ecclesial communities that do not have the means of salvation. How do Catholic churches provide the means of salvation? Member of a particular church especially the Catholic Church doesn't save you. "True" Christians believe that salvation comes through faith in their savior Jesus Christ. Hence Martin Luther was on the right track, "righteous shall live by faith"- faith indeed justifies man before God. Judgment begins in the House of the Lord and the Catholic Church and liberal Protestant churches need a thorough spring cleaning.
Teflon93| 3.31.10 @ 8:51AM
You have no way of defining "True Christian" beyond that which you inherited from the Church Christ himself founded and against which the gates of Hell will not stand. Luther was 1,500 years too late to make any such claim.
Soteriology not being the subject of the thread, Chuck, why don't we avoid another diversion?
Chuck| 3.31.10 @ 9:06AM
You have made many comments outside the thread yourself trying to impugn and defend many things I don't know what. Besides the title of the blog: Benedict and the Media...and when the Pope releases controversial statements to the media they need to be scrutinized and responded to. One thread leads to another thread.
Teflon93| 3.31.10 @ 9:47AM
I have simply addressed the ignorance and lies promulgated by anti-Catholics lest others be misled.
Notice that no anti-Catholic yet has been willing to address the sexual abuse problem in the Protestant communities and the evidence presented earlier. The silence is deafening.
As is the lack of effort to remove the beam from your own eye first, always good Christian counsel.
The Catholic Church has already taken bold measures to cleanse herself of such depravity, as evidenced by the fact that these cases allege not current abuse but abuse in decades past.
When will the various Protestant communities do the same?
When will secularist strongholds such as the Los Angeles school district, where nary a month goes by without another teacher-on-student predation?
Proud Mormon| 3.31.10 @ 2:24PM
You say The Pope (s) is the Vicar of Christ, the Vatican Head of State politically speaking, what about descendent of St. Peter? Do Catholics still claim that and do Catholics still claim non-catholic Christians will go to hell if they don't convert to Catholicism? Do Catholics still call Jesus' mother Mary the Mother of God? They will show a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. That guy Chuck was right Christendom including LDS needs to clean house and preach and teach sound doctrine based on biblical principles otherwise we will face judgment.
Teflon93| 3.31.10 @ 2:48PM
The Pope holds the chair of St Peter and demonstrates a line of apostolic succession all the way back to the saint---unlike Joseph Smith---yes.
We are all called to union with the Church founded by Christ himself in 33 A.D. and bound to her salvific sacraments, but the Church only evinces to know with certainty the state of the souls of the saints---they are in heaven. The rest of us must work out our salvation with fear and trembling as St Paul urged.
Jesus being the second person of the Holy Trinity, one in being with the Father, and Mary being his mother, we do proclaim Blessed Mary the mother of God. Indeed, this is merely historical fact. As Christ revered his mother, so do we.
And we shall all face judgment, as Christ promised.
We shall not inherit planets for our eternal domain, as Smith claimed. Sound doctrine comes not from a book but from Christ and the Church he founded, the Gates of Hell not prevailing and Christ having meant what he said.
Indeed, you acknowledge as much when you invoke the authority of the New Testament, composed, compiled and confirmed by the Church (and without which even Martin Luther took pains to admit he would know nothing of it) . When Christ and the apostles invoke Scripture, they were of course referring to the Old Testament, the New not having been written but in the acts of the apostles and Early Church Fathers.
One of the inestimable advantages of being within the Body of Christ is that the teachings of the Church are written down and available for all to see---unlike the various Christian mystery religions which purport to "secret" knowledge as though Christ died for a cabal and not for mankind.
Indeed, here it is:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
Anyone who wants to know what the Church teaches will find it here.
Teflon93| 3.31.10 @ 3:28PM
For those disinclined to do the lookup, btw, the Church's formulation for non-Catholic Christians is "separated brethren". You'll note in the Holy Father's ecumenical efforts he never fails to treat non-Catholics as the prodigal son's father---the light is always on for them to come home.
Indeed, unlike some non-Catholic traditions, we do not refuse to call anyone baptised in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit a Christian. We do not insist upon "do over" baptisms merely because the sacrament was not bestowed upon you by a priest of Christ holding valid holy orders.
And much to the consternation of some, we do not change sacraments. For all the power non-Catholics ascribe to the Pope, he does not presume to have the power to undo what Christ wrought by ordaining women, sanctioning gay marriage, or any other fad which comes down the pike.
Some have been outraged because the Church takes at face value Muslim claims to worship the God of Abraham and Mormon claims to worship Christ. She does so because charity so dictates and because the wisdom of ages demonstrates how far afield prodigal sons drift when at a remove from home and hearth and in recognition that after the initial generation of schismatics subsides subsequent generations have only imperfect knowledge of their former home.
As this thread rather amply illustrates.
Proud Mormon| 3.31.10 @ 5:18PM
Romney for President in 2012!
SoCon| 3.31.10 @ 7:59PM
Don't think so, but not because Romney's a Mormon--because he's a RINO!
I wouldn't vote for a Catholic because he was a Catholic; I'd vote for a candidate who stayed true to Conservative precepts. Identity politics are destructive--that's what the democrats do.
Cris Worth| 3.31.10 @ 12:44PM
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover...../id/354258
The Pope is above the law so says the Vatican but judgment draweth nigh and justice will be done.
Teflon93| 3.31.10 @ 1:18PM
The Vatican being an independent state, the Pope is accorded the same treatment any head of state receives.
The Pope being the Vicar of Christ on Earth, he knows quite a bit more about salvation, judgment, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit than you do.
Funny though it is to see you exclaiming ex cathedra from your basement.
Teflon93| 3.31.10 @ 8:14AM
And let's not kid ourselves that this isn't The Times' payback for American Catholic bishops' courageous stand against Obamacare, which enshrined government-sponsored infanticide in American law.
SoCon| 3.31.10 @ 8:11PM
Payback for sure, at the behest of Obama most likely.
Teflon, thank you for your beautiful, knowledgeable posts about the Catholic Church; you obviously cherish your faith.
I do, too.
Have a blessed Holy Week and a joyous Easter.
gearjammer| 3.31.10 @ 8:36AM
The best people I know are not for open borders Brooks. Also, you seem to detest nudity, even partial nudity. Maybe, you should buy some Islamic Cinema dvd's. I am sure the women are properly covered. Is a burka your idea f a negligee ?
JP| 3.31.10 @ 9:32AM
I would strongly suggest that both Catholics and Protestants review many of the administrative changes that were made in the wake of Vatican II (VII).
After VII, Rome no longer had administrative authority for what goes on the in the individual diocese. That power was vested to the individual Bishops. Also, the bishops were finally given formal permissions the form national bishop confrences, which had the authroity to set national policies as long as they were in line with the Magestirium.
In short, the Vatican no longer looked over the shoulders of the bishops and national bishop conferences. The Bishops, after 1965, were given a great deal of freedom and leeway to manage thier diocese as they see fit.
Of course, with this freedom came responsibility. They could no longer blame the meddling of a faraway Vatican; nor could they use this for cover. Many people do not realize this. Only in cases of severe crisis is the Vatican called in. In the case of the Milwaukee priest, the CDF was called in per Canon Law. By the time the case hit then Cdl Ratzinger's desk, the priest was at death's door. The case was dropped a few months before the priest died because of statute of limitations (something Cdl Ratzinger corrected 2 years later).
divakarssathya | 3.31.10 @ 11:13AM
India is crisscrossed by schools and other institutions run by Jesuits.
Yet thanks to India’s dodgy editorial class very few in India know that the Vatican has paid out close to a hundred million dollars to compensate for victims of child sexual abuse by albeit “a small minority” of priests.
The Indian media has barely reported that story.
Was the media’s heinous silence an act of concern for Indian children or a hideously wrongheaded act of leaving well enough alone ?
Abuse of power often happens in plain sight, since to the busy and self absorbed lay person, the powerful appear glamorous and formidable and their prey appear to be rebellious, despicable and in many ways, asking for it.
As somebody who has conscientiously refused to do business the way it “normally” is in so called democratic societies - I will not pay bribes - and who has been almost destroyed for my pains, I am able to feel deep appreciation for the heroes who spoke out and for those who heard them, felt outrage and who together managed to extract a measure of accountability from one of the most powerful and ambitious organisations on this planet.
Since the past two decades, the Government of India, the Government of my own state, Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court , the Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner have combined to impress on me that what works in India is what I have called the “patronage paradigm” – the paradigm of shoddiness, irresponsibility, cronyism and corruption” – and that ideas of the rule of law and democratic processes are merely spectacles to lull the gullible.
I have been denied the recognition that were commended to me by one former Chief Minister of my state, one former minister of home affairs, one speaker of the Lok Sabha, several prominent ministers of the central cabinet, eminent intellectuals and freedom fighters.
I have been unable to earn a decent living.
The office of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh incited my neighbours to cut off my water supply.
The information commissions in the state and at the centre denied me my right to information on spurious, brazenly illegal grounds and punished me for daring to object.
The high court denied me my right to competent counsel and punished me for complaining.
Even as we speak, Dr Manmohan Singh”s office, “Daredevil” Pratibha Patil’s Rashtrapati Bhavan, Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah, State Information Commissioner CD Arha are all locked in a most perverse and ignominious conspiracy of silence to deny me justice.
Even as the Prime Minister’s Office maintains a guilty silence in my case, it appears to have jumped through hoops to heap honour on a businessman alleged to be a serial swindler.
India’s editorial class is as dense, amoral and narcissistic.
Variations of this comment have appeared in almost every major Indian online publication plus in a few abroad.
However, not a single editor or reporter has had the professionalism to pick it up and make it “impact”.
My credentials are strong and I have taken much trouble to meet many editors personally, usually on impeccable referrals.
Our “know-it-all-in -chiefs” have had nothing but smirks to offer.
When I sought the solidarity of the press, Shekhar Gupta (editor in chief of New Indian Express) advised me, “You cannot go around taking pangas (quarrels) with people, yaar.”
Even my comments are mutilated.
Vinod Mehta’s “Outlook” has banned my comments on risible grounds.
The Hindu crawled.
It published “spin” by corrupt officials and got hissy with me for pointing out, with evidence, its craven, yellow soul.
The Indian Press (with a solitary exception) blacked out the fervent open letter written by Padma Vibhushan Kaloji Narayana Rao.
That dear man , clear as a bell in his nineties, had laid his head on my shoulder, hugged me and wept.
What about “civil society” in India ?
Since close to a year now, I have written to the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, Campaign for Judicial Accountability And Reform, Forum For Judicial Accountability, MKSS (Aruna Roy)and Anna Hazare regarding this cascading delinquency of constitutional bodies in India.
There has not been one constructive response.
They all appear to be in helpless denial of the awful truth that an innocent citizen has been hounded and humiliated since two decades, not for any bad behaviour or wrongdoing, but for resisting the dilution of the values of the Indian constitution and standing up for the correct administration of the Right To Information Act 2005.
Please visit and participate at http://sathyagraha.blogspot.com/ :
Andhra Pradesh High Court’s Pernicious Rebellion Against The Law .05/29/09
RTI Act 2005 Abuse In Andhra Pradesh- SIC Cheats! Chief Secretary Lies!05/07/09
Prejudiced CIC Laps Up PMO Lies 05/05/09
Compelling Criminality. Divakar S Natarajan and Varun Gandhi Cannot Both Be Wrong ! 01/28/09
And India’s editorial class will not report the story!
News and views from Divakar S Natarajan’s, “no excuses”, ultra peaceful, non partisan, individual sathyagraha against corruption and for the idea of the rule of law in India.
Now in its 18th year.
Any struggle against a predatory authority is humanity’s struggle to honour the gift of life.
Teflon93| 3.31.10 @ 1:33PM
Certainly sexual abuse is never warranted no matter where the parish lies. Those who have done such things ought to pay the penalty for their horrible crimes which often scar victims for life.
However, you might want to reflect on the injustice of traditional Indian (not to mention Hindu) practices such as the caste system, bride price, and suttee (the burning alive of a widow upon her husband's death) before deeming the Church to be the supreme societal evil facing Indians. The ongoing Hindu/Muslim violence and persecution of Christians in India are also widespread and impact far more Indian citizens, do they not?
SoCon| 3.31.10 @ 8:14PM
Jesus Christ said it would be like this--He knew it would be particularly difficult to follow Him.
Pingback| 4.20.10 @ 3:36PM
Steynian 408nd « Free Canuckistan! links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: