On "respecting" unChristian religions

A reader recently wrote saying that he does not think any convincing book has yet been written that synthesizes or expounds Dominus Iesus thoroughly and in connection with modern challenges. He says he assumes that this is either because of fuzzy thinking or because those who might be concerned may be afraid that their more conservative take could be rebuffed by Rome, or both. In the meantime, a Baptist sends a couple of lumps toward the Vatican. Be forewarned: he is both unfair and wrong on several counts. Yet given the Middle Eastern geo-politics of the past decade or more, his remarks provoke some worthy questions:

Albert Mohler, "R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Should Christians 'Respect' Other Religions?" (Crosswalk.com, May 14, 2009):

The world we now know is marked by religious pluralism and the clash of worldviews. The modern world brings individuals and groups of different belief systems into both proximity and potential conflict. How should Christians respond when asked about this? Should Christians "respect" other religions?

Headlines throughout the world announced this week that Pope Benedict XVI, while visiting Jordan, spoke of his "respect" for Islam. This came on the heels of the Pope's notorious 2006 speech at Germany's Regensburg University. In that speech Benedict quoted Emperor Manuel II, one of the Byzantine monarchs, who said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The outrage throughout the Muslim world was immediate and overwhelming. The Pope issued clarifications and explanations, but Muslim outrage continued. This week, with the Pope scheduled to make his first papal visit to an Islamic country, the sensitivities were high.

The Vatican's official transcript of the Pope's comments at the Amman airport records him as saying:

My visit to Jordan gives me a welcome opportunity to speak of my deep respect for the Muslim community, and to pay tribute to the leadership shown by His Majesty the King in promoting a better understanding of the virtues proclaimed by Islam.

There are so many different angles to this situation. First, we have the spectacle of a Pope being received as a head of state. This is wrong on so many counts. Second, we have the Pope speaking in diplomatic jargon, rather than in plain and direct speech. Third, we have the Pope speaking of "respect" without any clear understanding of what this really means. Does the Pope believe that Muslims can be saved through the teachings of Islam?

Actually, he probably does -- at least within the context of a salvific inclusivism. The Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that Muslims are "included in the plan of salvation" by virtue of their claim to "hold the faith of Abraham."

In the words of Lumen Gentium, one of the major documents adopted at Vatican II:

But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.

The same language is basic to the current official catechism of the church as well. Within the context of the document, this language clearly implies that Muslims are within the scope of God's salvation. While the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Islam is both erroneous and incomplete, it also holds that sincere Muslims can be included in Christ's salvation through their faithfulness to monotheism and Islam.

Thus, when the Catholic Pope speaks of "respecting" Islam, he can do so in a way that evangelical Christians cannot. Within the context of official Catholic teaching, the Pope can create a fusion of diplomacy and doctrine.

While evangelical Christians face a different context to this question, the urgency is the same. We are not playing a diplomatic role as head of state, but we are called to be ambassadors for Christ and his Gospel.

In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction. Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.

Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves. We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture. We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture. But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God's Son, and takes millions of souls captive.

This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations. We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.

The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point. To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who "along with us adore the one and merciful God." To deny the Trinity is to worship another God.

Respect is a problematic category. In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth. We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.

[Hat tip to J.M.; and to the Kraghs for the memories of "UnChristian Religions 101"]

Most detailed coverage of Pope's Holy Land visit

For probably the most detailed coverage of the Pope's visit to Jordan and Israel, check out the hour-by-hour account, tracking reactions and observations from every quarter, found at http://benedictinisrael.blogspot.com/.

25th anniversary of Schaeffer's death: interview

May 15th will be the 25th anniversary of the death of Francis Schaeffer. Justin Taylor, "An Interview with Os Guinness on the 25th Anniversary of Francis Schaeffer's Death" (Between Two Worlds, May 7, 2009), interviews Os Guinness. Excerpts:

I had the privilege of living with Francis and Edith Schaeffer for three years in their home, so I came to know them both very well. To be honest, I adored Edith and have never met a woman like her. I can’t say quite the same about Francis, and I have my differences with him. But I also owe the world to him, and he has influenced me profoundly even where I differ from him.... Schaeffer has influenced me more in an unspoken way. I often say simply that I have never met anyone with such a passion for God, combined with a passion for people, combined with a passion for truth. That is an extremely rare combination, and Schaeffer embodied it. It is also why so many of his scholarly critics completely miss the heart of who he was, and why his son’s recent portrayal of his father is such a travesty and an outrage.

... Of all his own books, Francis Schaeffer’s favorite was True Spirituality. It tells the story of his passionate, even desperate, search for reality in faith. But that was what was so great about him. There was no gap between his trust in God, his praying, his wrestling with issues, his lectures, his preaching, his love of the mountains, his sense of fun, his appreciation of beauty, and so on. With all his flaws, he was a very real man.

... At the same time, although he was a brilliant thinker, with an uncanny ability to connect the dots and see the significance of things, he was not a scholar and he relied too much on reading magazines rather than books.

... Many who cite his apologetic approach have a comically wooden understanding of how he approached people to win them to faith. I have yet to see the book that does justice to the sheer brilliance of his way of presenting the gospel.

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Craig spanks Hitchens, warmly received in Turkey

William Lane Craig debated the famous "new atheist," Christopher Hitchens, at Biola University in April. "Hitchens Debate at Biola" (Reasonable Faith Newsletter, May 2009):

The debate on April 4 was the largest ticketed event ever held at Biola University. The gymnasium where the debate was held was stunningly illuminated with a bright blue backdrop and equipped with a giant screen and packed with 4,000 people. High-definition television cables linked the gym to every other auditorium on campus. The debate was webcast live (as well as on delayed feeds) to 35 other states and even to four foreign countries! Bloggers in the gym were providing live, blow-by-blow coverage to people across the internet.

... Hitchens showed himself utterly incapable of interacting with the [philosophical] arguments in a substantive way. By his third speech he had reverted to his usual railing against God as a North Korean dictator who robs us of our freedom....

The reaction in the blogosphere was immediate and unanimous. Hitchens was uniformly denounced for his empty rhetoric and posturing and his failure to interact with the arguments. One atheist blogger summed it up: “Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.”

A little over a week later, Craig flew to Turkey where he was invited to speak, among other venues, to a closed session of the faculty and grad students of the Theology Department at the University of Ankara on "The Coherence of the Christian Doctrine of the Incarnation," and received throughout his speaking tour with amazing warmth and gratitude. After his Ankara presentation, he reports, 'one of the professors shook my hand and said with a big smile, “You are a better practitioner of kalam than our philosophers!'” ("Speaking Trip to Turkey," Reasonable Faith newsletter, May 2009).

[Hat tip to E.E.]

A theology of the body too far?

"Catholicism, properly understood ... is one of the sexiest of the world's religions." (Ignatius Insight Scoop, May 7, 2009)

That from Christopher West, who is described as a "sex sermonist" in a profile from ABC News:

"I love Hugh Hefner," said West. "I really do. Why? Because I think I understand his ache. I think I understand his longing because I feel it myself. There is this yearning, this ache, this longing we all have for love, for union, for intimacy."

West said John Paul II took the sexual revolution an extra step, outlining what he called the "Theology of the Body." The pope emphasized how God made Adam and Eve naked and without shame, in his own image. And told them to be fruitful and multiply.

In other words, according to the pope, from the very beginning, sexual love has been at the heart of God's plan for us.

"Catholicism, properly understood ... is one of the sexiest of the world's religions," said West. "But what do we mean by that statement? Catholicism is a very physical, very sensual religion. And indeed the authentic soundtrack for Christianity is a small book in the Old Testament called the Song of Songs. And what is it? It is glorious erotic love poetry."

One reader points out that a sub-literature is even cropping up: Amazon.com: The Virgin Mary And Theology of the Body: Donald H. Calloway: Books.

Waldstein's new translation of John Paul II's Theology of the Body -- Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body (Pauline Books & Media, 2006) -- has been called "magisterial" by Thomas Howard, and I think Waldstein's Introduction, covering the various influences on John Paul (St. John of the Cross, Immanuel Kant, Max Scheler, etc.) is first-rate.

But a "Theology of the Body" Institute? I'll have to think about that one.

While we're at it, the Calloway's title suggests a question one of our readers raised, so I'll pass it on to you: What Marian books would you recommend as the best coverage of this area theologically?

Of related interest

• Jimmy Akin's take on the issue (JimmyAkin.org, May14, 2009), showing how ABC edited out crucial context from West's piece.
• David L. Schindler, "Christopher West's Theology of the Body" (Headline Bistro, May 22, 2009).

Simply brilliant

Joseph Bottom, "God and Obama at Notre Dame" (Weekly Standard, May 11, 2009).

[Hat tip to E.E.]

New world order

Remake religion? Remake Christianity? "Obama and Blair. Messianism reinterpreted," an article by Michel Schooyans. Scary. "Angel or Demon? In the Vatican, Obama Is Both" (Sandro Magister, www.Chiesa, May 8, 2009): "L'Osservatore Romano" praises him. Two prominent scholars of the pontifical academy of social sciences rail against him. The complete text of the accusation, signed by Michel Schooyans in conjunction with the archbishop of Dijon, Roland Minnerath."

De Deféctibus – Part 3 of 4

Tridentine Community News (May 10, 2009):

We continue our presentation of the 1962 Roman Missal instruction, De Deféctibus (On Defects Occurring in the Celebration of Mass), which displays the Church’s concern for the Blessed Sacrament and the validity of the Eucharist that the faithful may receive.

IX. Defects of the Disposition of Body (con’t.)

30. Priests who can do so are earnestly invited to observe the ancient and venerable form of the Eucharistic fast before Mass.

X. Defects Occurring in the Celebration of the Rite Itself

31. Defects may occur also in the performance of the rite itself, if any of the required elements is lacking, as in the following cases: if the Mass is celebrated in a place that is not sacred, or not lawfully approved, or on an altar not consecrated, or not covered with three cloths; if there are no wax candles; if it is not the proper time for celebrating Mass, which is from one hour before dawn until one hour after noon under ordinary circumstances, unless some other time is established or permitted for certain Masses; if the priest fails to wear some one of the priestly vestments; if the priestly vestments and the altar cloths have not been blessed; if there is no cleric present nor any other man or boy serving the Mass; if there is not a chalice, with a cup of gold, or of silver with the inside gold-plated; if the paten is not gold-plated; if both chalice and paten are not consecrated by a bishop; if the corporal is not clean (and the corporal should be of linen, not decorated in the middle with silk or gold; and both corporal and pall should be blessed); if the priest celebrates Mass with his head covered, without a dispensation to do so; if there is no missal present, even though the priest may know by heart the Mass he intends to say.

32. If, while the priest is celebrating Mass, the church is violated before he has reached the Canon, the Mass is to be discontinued; if after the Canon, it is not to be discontinued. If there is fear of an attack by enemies, or of a flood or of the collapse of the building where the Mass is being celebrated, the Mass is to be discontinued if it is before the Consecration; if this fear arises after the Consecration, however, the priest may omit everything else and go on at once to the reception of the Sacrament.

33. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, and in case of necessity even by a priest who is not fasting. If the first priest has not died but has become ill and is still able to receive Communion, and there is no other consecrated Host at hand, the priest who is completing the Mass should divide the Host, give one part to the sick priest and consume the other part himself. If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice from the words Símili modo, postquam cenátum est; or he may say the whole formula over another chalice which has been prepared, and consume the first priest's Host and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice which was left half-consecrated.

34. If anyone fails to consume the whole Sacrament aside from cases of necessity of this kind, he is guilty of very grave sin.

35. If before the Consecration a fly or spider or anything else falls into the chalice, the priest is to pour out the wine in a suitable place, put other wine into the chalice, add a little water, offer it, as above, and continue the Mass. If after the Consecration a fly or something of the kind falls into the chalice, he is to take it out, wash it with wine, burn it after the Mass is over, and throw the ashes and the wine which was used for washing into the sacrarium.

36. If something poisonous falls into the chalice after the Consecration, or something that would cause vomiting, the consecrated wine is to be poured into another chalice, with water added until the chalice is full, so that the species of wine will be dissolved; and this water is to be poured out into the sacrarium. Other wine, together with water, is to be brought and consecrated.

37. If anything poisonous touches the consecrated Host, the priest is to consecrate another and consume it in the way that has been explained, while the first Host is to be put into a chalice full of water and disposed of as was explained regarding the Blood in paragraph 36 above.

38. If the Particle of the Host remains in the chalice when he consumes the Blood, he is to bring it to the edge of the cup with his finger and consume it before the purification, or else he is to pour water in and consume it with the water.

39. If before the Consecration the host is found to be broken, it is to be consecrated anyway, unless the people can see plainly that it is broken. But if there may be scandal for the people, another host is to be taken and offered. If the broken host has already been offered, the priest is to consume it after the ablution. If the host is seen to be broken before the offerings however, another complete host is to be taken, if this can be done without scandal and without a long delay.

40. If the consecrated Host falls into the chalice, nothing is to be repeated on that account, but the priest is to continue the Mass, performing the ceremonies and making the usual signs of the Cross with the part of the Host that is not moistened with the Blood, if he can conveniently do so. But if the entire Host has become wet, he is not to take it out; he is to say everything as usual, omitting the signs of the Cross that pertain to the Host alone, and he is to consume the Body and the Blood together, signing himself with the chalice and saying: Corpus et Sánguis Dómini nostri, etc.

[Comments? Please e-mail tridnews@stjosaphatchurch.org. Previous columns are available at www.stjosaphatchurch.org. This edition of Tridentine Community News, with minor editions, is from the St. Josaphat bulletin insert for May 10, 2009. Hat tip to A.B.]

Revisiting the AmChurch Novus Ordo

After more than a year of assisting exclusively at Extraordinary Form Masses on Sundays, a Mass I have come to love, I had two occasions last summer to revisit the Roman Rite in its Ordinary Form in a large suburban Catholic parish -- the same parish on both occasions, both Sundays. The following are my observations.

I begin with the positive. The church operates a Catholic school. Together they form a large, sprawling physical plant. The Masses are well attended. When you walk into the church, you are greeted by holy water fonts at the entrance, a prominently displayed crucifix above the altar, candles, an identifiable Tabernacle, baptismal font, and pews with kneelers. The pews quickly fill as the opening hymn begins. There are families and individuals of all ages, and many children, from toddlers to teens. The choir is large and reasonably well-trained, and lodged in a loft at the rear of the church. The priest processes in behind a crucifer, two servers, and a lector, kisses the altar and begins Mass straightaway with the Sign of the Cross. There are no clowns. There are no bongos, no electric guitars. There is no dancing in the aisles. The homily is recognizably Christian and notably earnest and sincere in tone; and the people visibly like their priest.

I proceed, next, not to the negative, but to the ambiguous. One question that keeps recurring to me is this: What about this religious rite and ritual would be recognizably Catholic to someone who didn't know what it was beforehand? There is no question about its being Christian. Yet many of these things -- the crucifix, the procession, the altar, the candles, the Nicene Creed, the kneeling, the filing up to receive communion -- I have seen in Episcopal, Lutheran, and even Presbyterian churches.

First of all, the acts of genuflecting and overt references to "sacrifice" ("Pray, my brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice ...") would narrow it down to either a Catholic or Episcopal (Anglican) liturgy, since the Episcopalians also genuflect and the Episcopal liturgy also refers obliquely to "sacrifice" ("... a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world"), and there is no way this spartan rite could possibly be taken for Eastern Orthodox.

Second, the only external signs by which this event could be decisively identified as Catholic, apart from the overt references to things Catholic in the homily, it seems to me, are the references to the Pope and local bishop in the Eucharistic Prayers, and the visible presence of the Tabernacle with the reserved Sacrament. These one would not generally find anywhere but in a Catholic church.

I proceed, finally, to the negative. If nothing else identified this place and this event as recognizably Catholic to someone already familiar with contemporary American Catholicism, all doubt would be banished by the withering ugliness of the architecture, the sloppiness of dress, the sheer shabbiness of the half-improvised liturgical form, the hideous banality of hymns, the utter lack of decorum and unmistakable note of tawdry casual chumminess struck throughout the event. For better or worse, this is what the vast majority of contemporary Catholics call home.

During the entrance procession, the priest stops to shake hands and talk with people along the aisle several times en route to the altar, patting a couple of backs. Crucifer and servers slouch down the aisle in sneakers and jeans, vested in what look like Halloween costume sheets wrapped around them. Some people show up in what looks like beach attire. Several little kids run around the aisles throughout the liturgy. During the hymns, the choir sings the usual hidebound Haugen and Haas offerings, but virtually no one in the congregation sings. Participation seems to mean showing up and sitting back, like a casual spectator.

During the Presentation of the Gifts, those who bring up the gifts join with the priest in saying his prayers over the gifts: "... It will become for us the bread of life. ... It will become our spiritual drink," before returning to their pews. The priest seems to have an allergy against using masculine pronouns, even for God. One hears the politicized response: "Let us give God [not 'Him'] thanks and praise." As he says, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it," the priest lifts the cup (Could this be called a "chalice"?) and gestures with it, holding it out to each side of the congregation expressively, punctuating his words with dramatic pauses and modulating his voice for emphasis. We see him looking out over the congregation. He looks at us. We look at him. The focus is clearly on we who are gathered here and what he is doing for us. If there is any doubt about this, it vanishes in the forest of joined sweaty palms during the Our Father, and cacophony that erupts, recess-like, during the Rite of Peace, the presider himself walking down the aisle, presiding over the shaking of hands all around.

Momentarily, the priest is surrounded by no less than eleven Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, looking for all the world like an out-of-place gentleman in a kitchen full of women. People soon begin shuffling forward (or to the back of the church, depending on where they are seated), to receive Communion. How does one receive here? Of course we have been reminded by Rome that we have the liturgical right to kneel; but where does one kneel here, amidst this confusion of milling people and Eucharistic Ministers? Nobody kneels, and neither do I. What's the point? Do I want to call attention to myself or make a political statement? I just want to receive Jesus. I already feel compromised by being here. I feel disappointed in myself and by the whole experience.

About one fourth of the congregation leaves for the parking lot right after Communion. Maybe half remain until the last verse of the recessional hymn. The words of Martin Mosebach come to mind: "I go to church to see God and come away like a theater critic." Throughout the Mass I find that my focus is constantly diverted. Like Mosebach, I just want to "see God." I want to witness the Sacrifice of Christ, and to receive Him. Yet in countless ways, the elements of the Mass conspire to divert my attention away from Him, and towards incidentals -- towards those who walk into their pews without genuflecting, towards those wearing what looks like beach attire, toward the chummy bonhomie of the pastor, toward his unusual gestures and voice modulations, towards the politicized gender-bending of words, toward the Eucharistic Minister who doesn't seem to know what to do with my mouth open and tongue stuck out at her, toward the unseemly distasteful clutteredness of it all.

Yes, I know, Jesus is here too, just as he was in the stable surrounded by the braying of asses and smelly droppings of cows and goats. Yet I wonder: would it have been harder to find Him and worship Him there than here? Is this the best we can do? For the Lord of Heaven, our Maker and Redeemer?

Of related interest

• Martin Mosebach, Heresy of Formlessness (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2006)
• Thomas Day, Why Catholics Can't Sing: The Culture of Catholicism and the Triumph of Bad Taste (Crossroads Classic, 1992).
• Pertinacious Papist, "And they don't even charge admission!" (Musings, January 18, 2009).
• Fr. John Zuhlsdorf's comments on this post (WDTPRS, May 11, 2009)

Back to the future: Communion on the tongue

Card. Caffara of Bologna: in certain churches only Communion on the tongue (WDTPRS, May 7, 2009):

... His Eminence Carlo Card. Caffarra, Archbishop of Bologna, has made the decision ... wait for it ...

... to require that in the certain great churches of Bologna Holy Communion will be distributed only on the tongue.

I find this interesting and encouraging.

In a time when Pope Benedict distributes Communion only on the tongue….

In a time when liturgical leaders such as the Secretary of the CDW, Archbishop Ranjith, has written about Communion and the Holy See’s own publishing arm printed a book by Bishop Anastasius Schneider Dominis Est...

In a time when many American dioceses are hurrying to recommend that Communion shouldn’t be given on the tongue because of risk of disease…

... we read of this decision.

Read the English translation of the communique from the Archdiocese of Bologna here.

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith's second exile

First exiled in 2004 when, as adjunct secretary of Propaganda Fide, he was suddenly nominated Nuncio to Indonesia by Pope John Paul II. Now, under mounting pressures against the formidable Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, it looks like Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, will be going back to his native Sri Lanka, as Archbishop of Columbo, its capital city. See:

• The Scapegoat Rajnith to Columbo (Rorate Caeli, April 30, 2009)
• Rajnith to Columbo? Follow-up (Rorate Caeli, May 7, 2009),

Apparently Cañizares, the former Archbishop of Toledo, nicknamed 'the small Ratzinger', wished that Ranjith would remain in Rome.

Benedict in Israel: a preview

"The walls of the old City of Jerusalem from Mount Zion."
A preview of the Pope's pilgrimage to the Holy Land (May 6, 2009), by a longtime contributor to the Benedict Forum, who writes:

A pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a life-changing experience for those who believe in Christ. Even though the sites we revere today we may not be the precise spots mentioned in the Gospels, when you visit Galilee, Nazareth, Bethlehem, Jerusalem and other ancient places in modern-day Israel, the presence of Jesus , Mary and Joseph, the Apostles and the disciples -as well as the "villains" in the story of our salvation-becomes palpable. Galilee and Jerusalem, especially, make indelible impressions on the heart and soul.

When I first visited Israel I had only a point and shoot 36mm film camera. On my second, I had better digital equipment. In anticipation of Pope Benedict's visit, I thought I would share with the forum some of my impressions of the places where he is scheduled to go.

A preview of Pope Benedict XVI's pilgrimage to the Holy Land - photos and impressions from Yad Vashem; The Dome of the Rock; The Western ("Wailing") Wall; The Upper Room; The Mount of Olives, Gethsemane, Kidron Valley; Basilica of the Nativity, Nazareth and Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Less skin. More virtue. Not bad.

Saudis' "Miss Beautiful Morals" Pageant (CBS, May 7, 2009): No Swimsuit Competition At Saudi Arabia's Only Beauty Contest.

Babylon

Babylon Ruins Reopen in Iraq, to Controversy (NYT, May 2, 2009): great slide show of one of the most renown cities of ancient history, home of the Hanging Gardens of Babylon (one of the 'Seven Wonders of the World'), ancient capital of the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, the city of Hammurabi, Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel, Cyrus, Darius, Alexander the Great ... Sadam Hussein. Wonder when they'll finally open a McDonalds and get civilized ...

Obama on National Day of Prayer

Obama plans a scaled back National Day of Prayer (AP, May 6, 2009): The man with no qualities on prayer: Sheesh! 'nuff o' that mumbo-jumbo: Who's got time for talkin' to the walls and ceiling when you could be out talkin' to real people with political clout (campaigning)!