Pajamas Media

72 Comments

1. Ed Wallis:

Granted, this example comes from the UK. Fair enough.

I, for one, am glad to hear that, after 40 years or so of willful governmental/litigious persecution (word chosen intentionally), individuals of Christian faiths are fighting back.

I am happy to hear that certain religous aspects will not be taken out of the daily lives of millions unless it is – how does that old munitions phrase go? – only out of their cold, dead hands.

“Christianity is better than this,” writes Mary Jackson. Hey Mary, sweetie, I recommend you lean on the terrorists laying unorthodox “pressure” on our culture for – ahem – “change” before yammering on about a Christian working for the positive and constructive in our Western society.

Jul 28, 2008 - 2:06 am 2. Mary Jackson:

yammering on about a Christian working for the positive and constructive in our Western society.

And how is refusing to perform the duties for which one is paid and demanding a payout “working for the positive and constructive”? This woman’s payout comes from taxpayers’ hard-earned money. Earned, that is by doing a job rather than running screaming to a tribunal.

Jul 28, 2008 - 2:57 am 3. OmegaPaladin:

Remarrying divorcees is against God’s law? Are you a Catholic? Protestants generally are of a different opinion on this matter. It is not a settled question that you can use to toss around hypocrisy charges.

The response you advocate is pretty weak. You excoriate the woman for allowing other employees to complete the paperwork, but that is foolishness itself. Regardless of what she did, the other people at the office would have continued to fill out the partnerships. All she would have needed to do is to trade clients with someone else. No lost production, and the people get served.

It reminds me of the flap over the morning after pill. Yeah, I support it, but some people believe it is murder. A pharmacist may dispense drugs for a wide variety of conditions, 99% of them being no problem. But we wouldn’t dare let someone’s conscience get in the way of convenience.

Jul 28, 2008 - 3:00 am 4. Tristan Phillips:

Using cases of outright harassment to complain that Christians are whiners? And equating that harassment with Islam’s many attempts at cultural Jihad.

Gotta wonder who the whiner is.

Jul 28, 2008 - 3:03 am 5. Bill in New York:

Mary’s right: two wrongs don’t make a right. The taxpayers are getting screwed either way. Hell, the Islamofacists could look at that as a “victory”, too because it undermines society… and that’s their aim. So, if you’re a terrorist just claim to be a Christian, and sue the taxpayers until they bleed!

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:18 am 6. Mary Jackson:

All she would have needed to do is to trade clients with someone else.

Which involved re-arranging shifts, anti-social hours etc, with most ceremonies being on a Saturday. Thus others are inconvenienced because of her religious faith. Why should they be? If it’s wrong for Muslims to refuse to serve pork in a shop, it’s wrong for Christians to refuse to do part of their job that they are paid for.

Basically, do your job or leave and find another. Let the Council employ someone who pulls his weight. Don’t go screaming to a tribunal and getting unearned payouts from the taxpayer.

And no, I am in no way equating this with Islam’s cultural jihad. I explicitly state that the war of whining is part and parcel of Islam, but not part of Christianity.

People shouldn’t make money out of victimhood, whatever their religion.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:29 am 7. katinga:

False moral equivalence claim, and as such, a smear as well as a whine.

No one should be forced to act against his or her convictions. If the lady in question cannot with good conscience perform the ceremony, then she should have a list of referrals she can make. And the same would apply to Muslim clerks who would also be against the ceremony.

The whine has already been explained to you. Here’s the smear: This is not in the same league with committing arson in the name of being offended because of a political cartoon, or claiming the right to commit FGM in the name of one’s religion.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:47 am 8. Dave:

Mary is right, and the responses show that to some as long as it is the right wing Christian doing the “harassing” it’s just fine but turn the tables and they claim their “convictions” are under attack. Perhaps if the day ever came that their convictions actually matched those of the One they claim to worship they might have a case.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:23 am 9. Mary Jackson:

This is not in the same league with committing arson in the name of being offended because of a political cartoon, or claiming the right to commit FGM in the name of one’s religion.

Where do I say that it is? Have you actually read the article at all?

This is not in the same league with committing arson in the name of being offended because of a political cartoon, or claiming the right to commit FGM in the name of one’s religion.

Which means that others must re-arrange their rota. Why should they, because of her conscience? She was a public servant, paid for by the taxpayer. If she cannot perform her duties, as laid down by law, then she should find another job. Nobody is forcing her to do anything – that’s a Muslim argument. Muslims claim that the are “forced” out of jobs when people won’t let them wear a ninja outfit to work.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:35 am 10. TomJW:

Mary’s nuts. I have never seen an article writer here jump so snarkily on commenters.

I’m outta here.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:54 am 11. MarkD:

Let’s see, is it is alright to deprive a pharmacist of his livelihood because he refuses to dispense a “morning after” pill which his religion believes is murder? He only invested years of his life and thousands of dollars earning his degree. Now the rules change, and it’s OK for the state to deprive him of his livelihood? I think not.

Likewise, this clerk, when hired could never have contemplated this condition on her employment. Sorry, no sale. I can see a requirement for new hires. I can’t see changing the rules mid-game.

So here’s my counter proposal. Buy her out. Vest her fully in whatever retirement she would have earned, and pay her until retirement age. Since we can’t make reasonable accommodations, let’s be unreasonable at the taxpayer’s expense.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:16 am 12. Lisa:

This is ridiculous. Her job was to register marriages and civil partnerships. That is her primary function in this job. If her religion/disability/whatever makes it impossible for her to do the primary functions of her job, she needs to find a different job.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:20 am 13. jvon:

MarkD: The rules change in mid-game all the time and people have to find different careers, for far more arbitrary and difficult-to-predict reasons than this. The woman has a choice whether to perform her duties as assigned or to resign. Those are her only choices.

Should we really offer buyouts to every employee who finds something to object to about his or her job? What do you think the end result of that will be? Maybe you think it will be a more fair system. I believe it would be just the opposite.

Jul 28, 2008 - 6:29 am 14. Beagle8u:

I wonder which way Mary would be “Whinning” if the clerk was black, and the law changed and forced them to go to a KKK rally to perform the service?

I somehow doubt she would have the same opinion on that!

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:24 am 15. Phil Magness:

Good topic – and interesting and thought-provoking comments. PJM at its best!

I think MarkD almost has it right, when he points to “the rules changing”, but Jvon is also right in pointing out that “the rules change in mid-game all the time”. Yet I think there is a fair and logical resolution to this tension.

In the case of the pharmacist, his is a private enterprise and therefore the government should not be able to compel him to sell abortofacients against his conscience. If the state is somehow deceived into thinking it has a compelling interest in making the “morning-after pill” readily available to all consumers, the state then should figure out a way to make such distributions without violating the liberties of its citizens.

But in the case of the Enlish civil clerk who is offended by ‘civil unions’, it may surpirse our snarky friend Dave that this “right wing Chrsitian” agrees with Mary, and not just because Christians are called to bear their crosses in this world. The difference here is that Ms. Ledele’s employer is the state, and the state has purview over her employment. That said, I do see nothing wrong with Ms. Ledele availing herself of employee benefits such as a “buyout” or a severence package IF there is precedent in England for that sort of thing when someone can demonstrate religious objection to a change in employment policy. But in either case, Ms. Ledele should be looking for a new job, not insisting that others do her work.

Having agreed with Mary on her main point, I do wonder, though, if she would consider it to be “whining” if Christians asked for the same consideration as Muslims and Jews receive when it comes to holidays. Here in Illinois we have constant problems with school districts mandating that Christians participate in school activities while we at our parish are observing Ash Wednesday or celebrating Christ’s Ascension. I think this is wrong. It seems to me that if the schools can avoid stepping on Eid or Purim, they can also respect Christian holidays. I know there is a limit to the number of religions that might be accomodated, but given that Catholics and Lutherans make up the majority of religious persons in our area, I find it rather odd that accomodations are made for minority religions that aren’t made for the majority. So, while I do think Ms. Ledele went in the wrong direction with her protest (perhaps she should have organized a massive walkout of Christian clerks instead?), I do think there are some areas where Christians should speak up and insist upon the same considerations a decent civil society gives to other religions.

Jul 28, 2008 - 8:57 am 16. John Samford:

Mary is typical of Western Liberal arrogance. She obviously feels that her concept of ‘law’ is the ONLY valid one.
The Muslims feel the same way, which is the foundation for the ongoing war.
Islam finds the idea of men making their own laws as foolish as the west finds the idea of getting law from a 1400 year old novel.
There is no room for compromise here. In the past the physical distance separating the two civilizations meant that each was able to hold their concept of law internally and not infringe on the other very much.
Improvements in communication and transportation times have changed that. Scorpions in the desert get along fine. When they are sharing a bottle, things get fractious.
As a Westerner, I rooting for my side. I’m not optimistic. While the West has all the superficial advantages, Islam has withstood the test of time. Western civilization hasn’t.
Plus the West is vulnerable to the weapons Islam uses the best.
Few is the West have the mental abilities to recognize that Islam is at war with us, much less understand that their lack of recognition is a major weapon.
The West will have to learn that not all weapons are physical. Muslims already know that. Which is why they are conducting ‘lawfare’ and using our laws as a weapon against us.

“Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive one; it is man
and not materials that counts.”
- Chairman Mao Zedong (Tse-tung), 1938

“If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating
it yourself. . . . If you want to know the theory and methods of revolution,
you must take part in revolution. All genuine knowledge originates in direct
experience.”
- Chairman Mao Zedong (Tse-tung)

Islam doesn’t have revolutions. The Caliph can change, but when the dust clears and the blood dries, it’s still Islam.
This is a feature that it has in common with the West. The name of the leader is different, but the government he is leading doesn’t change.
Obama or McCain. It doesn’t matter, the bureaucracy will tame them both. The Islamic bureaucracy is just as powerful within it’s ‘turf’. Plus the Islamic bureaucrats don’t need weapons to destroy the West. They just teach our bureaucrats how to take bribes.

Mary, here is the secret of Law;

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”
- Chairman Mao Zedong (Tse-tung)

Simple, and not really a secret. Or rather a secret that is hidden in plan sight behind a cloud of good intentions and find sounding phases.
Blackstone was saying the same thing when he observed that “the Law does not go where enforcement cannot reach.”
Two simple statements, one timeless concept.

Jul 28, 2008 - 9:26 am 17. Mary Jackson:

I do wonder, though, if she would consider it to be “whining” if Christians asked for the same consideration as Muslims and Jews receive when it comes to holidays.

Not at all – that’s only fair. Christmas and Easter are public holidays anyway, but certainly Christians should not be treated less favourably.

It is difficult to see how the complainant was being discriminated against when she was actually being treated in the same way as anyone else.

She could also consider going freelance and hiring herself out to celebrate only conventional marriages. That would be her choice. If she explained why, she might have quite a few takers among Christians who feel the same way. But if she’s paid by the state she should do the job that she’s paid to do.

I wonder which way Mary would be “Whinning” if the clerk was black, and the law changed and forced them to go to a KKK rally to perform the service?

She is black. I deal in the realm of the probable.

Jul 28, 2008 - 9:28 am 18. Morton Doodslag:

This lifelong registered Democrat agnostic thinks Mary Jackson got it right – and that’s really quite amazing since I usually believe she got it wrong. The only thing I have trouble with is her initial comparison of Christians to Muslims. It comes close to being an overbroad smear, and was perhaps done to be provocative, which is typical for her style. In any event, she rectifies it by asserting that Christianity is better than Islam, and with that I heartily agree.

Given the savaging that Christians have received at tge hands ot radical secularists over recent decades, some Christians do lapse dangerously close to the tactics of our Muslim enemy. It’s imperative to find our shared common cause in uniting to repel Islamic advances.

One Christian who reinforces this nasty tendency I’d Dinesh D’Souza, who explicitly states that the reason Muslims are attacking is because we are are so decadent and sinful. I’m sure he has little sympathy with their murderous tactics, but he expresses far too much understanding with what he projects as their motives.

This is extremely dangerous for our side. It is a monstrous mistake to imagine that we will ever make true common cause with Muslims. Their intention is to subert all and replace all with Islam. Christianity still evangelizes, but it no longer spreads by the sword. Islam will ALWAYS spread by terrorism and the sword.

I think Mz. Jackson says it best when she says Christians are better than that. I can make common cause with them without fear. If they begin taking pages out of the vile Muslim victim-pimping playbook, as this woman did, they not only will make it impossible to make such common cause for those secularist such as I, but will do much to encourage and reinforce Muslim bad acts on behalf of their sinister “faith”. Christiams: We must not see that happen! We must fight against our enemy together!

Jul 28, 2008 - 9:51 am 19. Beagle8u:

“She is black. I deal in the realm of the probable.”

I also deal in the probable.

I knew it was quite probable that you would dodge that question.

Jul 28, 2008 - 9:53 am 20. Morton Doodslag:

Profound apologies for typos – I sometimes post on a tiny iPod and it’s impossible to proofread without the “preview” feature, which seems to be lacking on many PJM articles lately…

Jul 28, 2008 - 9:56 am 21. Cletus:

This is in no way at all similar to Muslims who want taxpayers to pay the bill for for foot baths, mosques and religious schools.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:10 am 22. Believer:

Mary Jackson is right.

Ms. Ledele should have resigned and not “trumpeted her virtue.” In fact, little virtue was exercised by Ms. Ledele.

Her error was compounded by her lawsuit. There is scripture that discourages this, speaking of man suing another out of a failure of faith.

Ms. Ledele was given an opportunity to grow closer to God in faith and love. He rewards those who choose to trust Him rather than follow the ways of the world. Had she exercised faith in Him, quietly resigned her job and trusted Him to “supply all her need,” she might very well have been blessed beyond measure.

At the very least, her heart would have grown immeasurably.

But too many Christians have opportunities like this every day and squander them, prefering to go the way of the world instead. It is always a shame because only by exercising our faith, quietly and in humility, will we show there is a better way — and hopefully — draw others to a life of faith in Him as well.

Jul 28, 2008 - 11:22 am 23. mishu:

I wonder which way Mary would be “Whinning” if the clerk was Spainish, and the law changed and forced them to go to a Aztec wedding and perform a human sacrifice?

If, if, if…

Jul 28, 2008 - 11:39 am 24. Mary Jackson:

Just to clarify, the headline for this piece – “It’s not just Muslims; Christians play the victim card too” – is not mine. My title for this piece was “To the Victim, the Spoils”, but it was changed without asking me.

I don’t usually mind minor changes, but I think in this case my original title is better (as it contains a bit of wordplay) and, more importantly, reflects what I wanted to say. I disapprove of the victimhood industry, and making money out of it. In no way do I think Christianity and Islam are equivalent. Christianity is better, and Christians should therefore behave better than Muslims.

Jul 28, 2008 - 11:50 am 25. Ed Wallis:

Mary, I wouldn’t take issue with your choice of titles, yet I think the point being made here repeatedly – one which I think you may not have adequately addressed, whether intended to provoke by your article or not – is that over the past few decades Christians indeed (in particular in the US, that’s my turf) DO seem to have been overly berated and subjected to abuse/isolation in the culture by overzealous lawyers among others.

Yet, now comes along an author who says, “we all gotta play faaaiiir.” Sounds nice, but it sits about as well as hearing once again the jaded bleating about alleged “racism” of a white person after decades of state-sponsored racism and sexism in “affirmative action” preferences. It may exist, but don’t expect any sympathy in your argument.

In that respect, “Waah Waah Waaaaaaah…” is indeed an understandable response to your article.

Jul 28, 2008 - 12:27 pm 26. Herschel Smith:

As for “demanding that the law bend to my faith,” are you implying that I have no right to vote my conscience in the voting booth? If you have the right to do this but I don’t because I am a Christian, then of course that would be irrational.

The burden is not on the Christian, because the system of laws in both the UK and the U.S. is based on Christian ethics.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2221

So regardless of whatever complaining you feel that this person is doing, rightly or wrongly, you have conflated your feelings with rights that someone should or shouldn’t have. Frankly, what you feel should be the case is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I have as much right to lobby for laws, vote my conscience, and make demands of my public officials as anyone else does.

Any assertion to the contrary is simply not substantiated by the facts. If you don’t like what I, as a Christian, would lobby for, then COMPLAINING about it isn’t good form.

Oh. That’s what your article is all about any way. Complaining.

Jul 28, 2008 - 1:10 pm 27. John Samford:

When both sides follow the rules, but the rules they follow are radically different, then who decides what fair is?
When one side is using the other sides rules as a means of attack, then what does fair have to do with anything?

“War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no
hope except in arms.”
- Niccolo Machiavelli

Jul 28, 2008 - 1:10 pm 28. Lisa:

Phil,

You think that there is consideration given to Jews and Muslims that is not given to Christians? You have that backwards.

In my school district, every Christmas and Good Friday is a school holiday for teachers and students. I have to take a personal day to attend Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur services. My Christian co-workers don’t. They, in effect, are given a bonus for being Christian.

Jul 28, 2008 - 1:46 pm 29. Jude:

Makes me wonder when the murderer is executed does the guy who pushes the switch, injects the poison, pulls the trap door, fires a rifle is committing murder?

Jul 28, 2008 - 2:13 pm 30. Greg:

Jude wrote: “Makes me wonder when the murderer is executed does the guy who pushes the switch, injects the poison, pulls the trap door, fires a rifle is committing murder?”

By my logic, if you execute someone, you are guilty of murder, therefore you should receive the death penalty. Pretty soon there will be only one person left, who presumably will have to jump off a cliff.

———————————————

I’m not sure how your comment relates to the main article, so I’ll also throw in a non sequitur:

Is it morally acceptable to test veterinary medicines on animals?

If you say no, then you are effectively saying that the first animals that take the medicines will be people’s pets. But wouldn’t it be more humane if they were taking these drugs in laboratory conditions?

And if you say yes, then why stop there? If human life is more valuable than animal life, then why not extend the remit of the testing. Why not test human medicines on animals?

Jul 28, 2008 - 3:35 pm 31. P. Ami:

Greg,
I suppose you can create meaning that applies to yourself and anyone who chooses to follow your teaching. In the world which we currently share, Murder means something other then killing.

Murder, under common-law jurisdiction, is the unlawful killing of another human being. Execution is the lawful killing of a human being for unlawful transgression. Under common-law, execution is undertaken by the branches of justice after careful deliberation and legal procedure. These procedures are followed so as to minimize the chances of executing anyone in error.

While killing, murdering, , warring, executing, assassinating, and slaughtering all are verbs whose result is the death of human beings, they have nuances of meaning which indicate distinctions. It is this error in distinction between killing and murder which has lead to confusion regarding the commandment given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Some translators take the Hebrew words “al tirzach”, which means “Thou shall not murder” and translate it to “Thou shall not kill”, which would, in Hebrew, be written “al ta’arog”. A commandment to not kill would negate killing anything at all and the Jews would have lived like Tibetan Buddhist Monks who take care to remove all the bugs from the ground before digging for a foundation. Clearly, the Bible has many instances in which killing was considered the correct action, not the least of which were killing for food.

Jul 28, 2008 - 4:11 pm 32. N Lenz:

Interesting. I went over and read the Telegraph article, and I came up with a few questions. 1) Is the job of officiating at civil ceremonies the ONLY job a British registrar has? Over here in the Colonies, our registrars do a lot more. I’m sore pressed to believe that measures could not be taken to relieve this woman of performing ceremonies she feels are contrary to her faith. In fact, according to the article, they did so for 15 months, until, apparently, her coworkers became upset about it.

2) Ms Jackson makes two statements in her article that, frankly, I can find no sources for in the Telegraph article: First, she insists ‘Ms Ladele may well have felt that marrying divorcees was a compromise she could make’. With nothing in the original to indicate this, perhaps she has, perhaps she hasn’t. Second, Ms Jackson states, ‘She was, it seems, happy for her colleagues to “sin” more so she could “sin” less.’ Again, no information of this kind is found in the source. So Ms Ladele transforms from a persecuted Christian to a deceitful liar.

One of the things Christians are not to do is lead anyone into what is considered sinful. Since Ms. Ladele considers same-sex civil unions a sin, she cannot in good conscience perform them. Ms Jackson’s contention that “When the requirements of a job change such that they conflict with one’s conscience, the right thing to do is resign” conflicts with Christian teaching, wherein Christians are to teach by example, as well as by word. Running away from the source of the problem does absolutely nothing.

Do I think Ms Ladele’s taking this to court was wrong? Absolutely not. As has been said in the comments, it’s about time Christians began to stand up for themselves. As far as the ‘large payout’ she will receive because of this win, what she does with that is between herself and her God.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:04 pm 33. Greg:

Erm … P.Ami – I was being satirical. I was trying to be funny.

Read my post again.

I agree with and appreciate your post, and understand the distinction between murder and execution. Let me build on your exposition further and debate from first principles the morality of military action:

Dennis Prager uses the “should you shoot the sniper” discussion to deconstruct and hence invalidate pacifism.

In this hypothetical thought experiment your choices are:

(1) Let a sniper pick off school children
(2) Shoot the sniper

The second option results in fewer casualties, so it is the logical and moral choice. That’s the one the police would do. Because if you always oppose the use of force, then you will end up being ruled by violent thugs.

Of course, it is perfectly acceptable for people to oppose specific military actions, or propose diplomacy, or political alternatives to military action, or sanctions, or involve themselves in peaceful protest …

However, pacifism as a universal rule is illogical.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:12 pm 34. Herr Morgenholz:

Oh good grief. The freaking difference is that Britain is still a marginally Christian country. And divorce is foreign only to Rome. Ask the Orthodox.

“Looky Looky!! They’ve made Honor Killings illegal, but those bastard Christians can say that “I don’t like abortion or gay marriage”. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE?

Intellectually and historically and culturally utterly vapid. Sigh.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:14 pm 35. Vanfonthewg:

In a secular society you should keep your faith as a private matter. It’s unbearable and embarrasing to throw it at others. How dare you plague others with your principles derivating from your personal so called ‘belief’.The principle of secularism means that state and religion are separate. Separate, for good reasons.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:29 pm 36. Phil Magness:

Hi Lisa,

I’m sorry your district makes you take a personal day for your holidays. I think your comment about Christmas is a bit disinegenuous, though, since Christmas always takes place during what schools now call “Winter Break”. You seriously dont want everyone to come in on Christmas just to make a point, do you?

But I do think it is unfair that you have to take a personal day on your holidays, and I would structure things differently out of respect for Judaism were I to make the rules.

Still, where I live in Illinois, the public schools step on Christian holidays all the time, other than Christmas, of course, which takes place over “Winter Break” and so doesn’t really count.

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:47 pm 37. Smarty:

Publishing horsecrap like this will be the downfall of PJM

Jul 28, 2008 - 5:48 pm 38. katinga:

Her error was compounded by her lawsuit. There is scripture that discourages this, speaking of man suing another out of a failure of faith.

Wrong. The Scripture speaks of Christians suing Christians as wrong, not Christians suing Pagans, to which Paul, who wrote about this, is silent, though he himself knew his way around the law appealing to Ceasar against the local authorities.

Jul 28, 2008 - 7:17 pm 39. G Benn:

Why does a local authority need to employ marriage celebrants? They don’t employ vicars, ministers, priests, rabbis etc., all of whom are licensed to perform weddings. Celebrants should be private operators, charge a fee for service and marry whom they wish. I doubt anyone expects a Catholic Priest to marry a gay couple, why should a celebrant be different?

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:07 pm 40. Believer:

Katinga — I’m sorry I’ll have to disagree with you on this. And heartily.

I was remembering Jesus’ words, not Paul’s. I don’t know the exact quote (maybe you do?) but my memory is that he discourages it, saying something like “this is why you have lawyers.”

We have lawyers because we don’t love our neighbor as we would want him to love us. Wouldn’t we want him to have mercy on us and forgive us our debt? We’re called to love every man — even our enemy. It is the highest calling. We deceive ourselves if we think we’re allowed to sue one man and not another. The calling of Christ is higher than man’s law.

We willingly accept Christ’s sacrifice for us, but we don’t want to take up the cross ourselves. He has shown us the Way – to act on faith and do what is contrary to the nature of man.

But do we really believe? We should. Easter reminds us that it results in life everlasting. The Resurrection.

I know personally this Truth. Though I’d been a Christian all my life, this was indeed my moment of salvation. I wish I could share with you all the blessings that came from drawing closer to Him in faith rather than choosing the way of the world. Beyond any words. Life changing.

Luke 11:52 – “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.” Those are Jesus’ words.

Had I gone to a lawyer rather than to God, I would never have known the life – the “key of knowledge” – that He gave me. I had indeed “entered in” – heaven itself opened to me. I encourage every Christian to trust Him rather than the world.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:27 pm 41. P. Ami:

Vanfonthewg,
I disagree with your view of a democratic state. Laws, in a democratic republic, reflect many human traits. When voters choose to support a candidate or a law being put before the electorate, they will make their choice according to their self interest. For many, their self interest is a reflection of their beliefs and some of these beliefs, most of these beliefs, are based on moral codes affirmed, confirmed, and introduced to them by their religion or a lack there of. Asking people with religious affiliation to leave their affiliation out of their politics is like asking a doctor to leave his medical training out of a meeting of a board of health. You are asking people to vote as if they do not have the biases, ideas, aspirations and training that they do. It is impossible.

Sorry Greg,
I was slow on the uptake. The fact that I took you seriously is as much a reflection of the sort of commentary I sometimes read as it is of my fatigue. Thanks for correcting me.

Oh, and I think the woman who refuses to be involved with these civil unions should simply leave her job.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:39 pm 42. Believer:

I want to add that it was on this very issue – forgiveness and the work of the cross – that I first commented here at PJM. It was a wonderful article written by a Jewish man who had learned to forgive himself and wrote to Obama as it applied to his relationship with Wright.

It’s the reason I have opposed Obama and the teachings of Wright’s church. The very message of salvation is denied his parishoners by what he preaches.

Far too important to remain silent.

Jul 28, 2008 - 10:53 pm 43. bs:

The principle of secularism means that state and religion are separate. – vanfonthewg.

Not quite. The principle of secularism means that state and CHURCH are separate. It is entirely proper that Christians’ religion should be expressed in their political and all other activities, and that a state should reflect their values. It is just as reasonable to suppose that a state with a majority Muslim population would reflect their values. Can you see where this is going?

Diversity is not a strength. If you import Muslims, you will change the nature of your whole society. Including your secular state.

Jul 29, 2008 - 1:22 am 44. katinga:

Believer citing: Luke 11:52 – “Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.”

First, I was commenting on lawsuits. You’re commenting on lawyers. Not quite the same thing.

Next, what is translated ‘lawyers’ in your cite is usually translated ’scribes’. From Webster online: a member of a learned class in ancient Israel through New Testament times studying the Scriptures and serving as copyists, editors, teachers, and jurists.

These people engaged in an art known as ‘casuistry’. They basically instructed people about what to do in order to uphold their religious duties, and sometimes they engaged in dispute resolution in a fashion that has little resemblance to modern courts of law, and more closely resembling arbitration or mediation. (Are you also against arbitration and mediation?)

These were not lawyers in the modern sense, and in any event, the passage you cite has nothing to do with lawsuits, but with setting standards of behavior that they themselves cannot keep.

Jesus himself did not a priori have anything against legal action. Remember the parable of the widow and the unjust judge? And about taking the master taking the unjust foreman to court?

The definitive word remains with Paul in 1 Corinthians, who is in turn commenting on Matthew 18. Christians are not to sue each other, but to engage in dispute resolution in a series of escalating steps ending in excommunication. For matters external to the church, yes, settle out of court if you can (especially if you are culpable, as I remember now Jesus says elsewhere), but the courts aren’t necessarily to be avoided.

Jul 29, 2008 - 5:23 am 45. katinga:

It (also, in addition to an earlier post) seems to me that Mary Jackson is advocating viewpoint cleansing, such as already goes on in the academy, motion pictures, and in MSM journalism. And she chooses to blame the victims of her ideology in her desire to remove anyone from government that she deems homophobic.

Also, perhaps there is a hint of Christophobia here? If the clerk involved was Muslim, would there even be a news story to editorialize on?

Jul 29, 2008 - 5:31 am 46. Lisa:

Phil

Why does Winter Break ALWAYS include Christmas? Winter Break doesn’t come at the end of the semester. No, Winter Break is deliberately SCHEDULED to include Christmas.

We also use to schedule our Spring Break to coincide with Easter; it was always off on Good Friday with the following week off. This year Easter came too early to do that so what happened? We still had Good Friday off. Easter and Christmas are the only two religious holidays that our district takes off. These two days are the days Christians are most likely to take off for religious reasons.

Let’s compare that to Judaism. I take off days for Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah… my two most important holidays that require me to be out of school. I do not take time off for Purim, Pesach (Passover), Hannukah, Sukkot, Simach Torah or any of the other holidays. I have had Principals ask me to stay late for meetings during Hannukah so that I’ve missed the candle lighting. I’ve missed the candle lightings for Shabbat due to Principal insensitivity despite requests to leave. I’ve had meetings/activities scheduled in the evening for the first two days of Pesach.

No. Christianity is NOT being singled out for discrimination. At least you can take your two major holidays off without losing personal days.

Jul 29, 2008 - 6:10 am 47. Steynian 209 « Free Mark Steyn!:

[...] IT’S NOT JUST THE MUSLIMS: Christians Play the Victim Card, Too …. [...]

Jul 29, 2008 - 7:07 am 48. Phil Magness:

Lisa,

I think because you have been wronged by your principal, you might be missing my point. I hope that it is not because you harbor a hatred of Christianity.

It simply would be silly in our culture to try to have school on Christmas. Non-Christians observe it as a secular “holiday” and nobody would come to school that even if it were held. Easter falls on Sunday, so there is no point in throwing stones at the Feast of the Resurrection either.

NOW, to your point. I AGREE that you should not be penalized or prevented from observing Purim, Passover, Hannukah, Sukkot, or Simach Torah. I am SORRY that where YOU are at, YOU are not allowed to do that. THAT IS WRONG.

But where I am at, Christian requests to observe Ash Wednesday, Epiphany, Ascension, and Maundy Thursday are often not taken seriously. I am not complaining that Jewish students are excused from, for example, being penalized for not attending the Honor Society banquet because of Purim. I am happy the local school district honors Judaism by being accomodating. I just wish that the district would similarly respect Ash Wednesday (for example).

I realize there is a limit to the number of holidays and number of religions that might be reasonably accomodated. Perhaps the answer is to increase the number of personal days for everyone. But, at minimum, public schools should avoid scheduling activities on days that are religiously important for any significant number of employees or students. And for the smaller religions, special consideration and accomodation should always be granted (such as being granted time to light the candles for Shabbat).

I appreciate your situation, but am troubled by your tone. Observant Christians are not your problem; your employer is. I’m pretty sure (s)he would not let me out of a meeting in time for the imposition of ashes or to take communion on Ascension Day either!

Jul 29, 2008 - 7:56 am 49. Believer:

Katinga, you choose to concern yourself with things of this world. I should think a Christian, wanting to grow in Christ, would find it pointless to debate those things.

I have written about a higher law and you have chosen to ignore those words. I’d rather you considered what Jesus meant by this: “…those who were entering in you hindered.” These are the words of our Lord and Savior. I don’t understand how one might not want to understand them as Christ meant them.

Christ died for every man. If we don’t put our faith to work in order to grow to be more like Him, how are we any different from any other man? But, as Christians, that is what we are called to do. All too often we choose to ignore passages and twist scripture — or read into it what neatly fits the desires of our own hearts.

But we are here to do the will of God. Not ours. To surrender to Him.

The Holy Spirit teaches us all Truth. About scripture and about the condition of our hearts. If we don’t grow in faith, hope and love, we are no different from any other man on the face of the earth.

The fruit of the Spirit signals to the world we are one of His. Let us encourage one another to be crucified with Christ.

Jul 29, 2008 - 3:07 pm 50. HRPKathy:

Perhaps the real victim here is logic. This article is an exercise in apples to oranges comparisons, and to add insult to injury it is overly sodden with emotion driven rhetoric.

The premise of this piece: In public positions such as registrar in the UK, there should only be automatons who do as they are bidded by the State. No conscience required, in fact, conscience forbidden.

This article would fit well into any Marx handbook. After all, “religion is the opiate of the people”.

Secularism: the new opiate.

Let’s say a law was passed which compelled the author of this piece to declare a faith in God before she was allowed to publish. If it suddenly became a requirement of her job, after years of work and training, would she so cavalierly toss out her retirement, job security, and benefits and trot on off to a lower paying job (and to make things equal – the author must be a single mother as in the case of the person suffering under the brunt of this particular criticism)?

I don’t think so. And I don’t think Ms. Jackson would compromise either. And if she protested against an imposition of religion, Christians would support her. Christians understand conscience.

Sad that Ms. Jackson picks a familiar target, sadder that there are those whose own prejudices enable them to readily accept it, but saddest still that no truth exists in it on which to hang even a secularist’s very small hat.

How conveniently Ms. Jackson omitted the necessity for the livelihood she’d compel the adjucated victim, Ms. Ladele, to surrender in order to comply to her arbitrary code of conduct – if it is against your conscience you must surrender your morals or quit. How convenient to ignore the many ways that the victim tried to remedy this dispute, but the only compromise suitable to her supervisors was that the Christian had to surrender her faith, morality, or income. There was a foundation for the finding of the lawsuit. Ms. Ladell was discriminated against on the basis of her Christianity. Facts in evidence. Facts this diatribe ignored.

Austen’s definition of villainy: A person who gets all that they want at no cost to themselves and at great cost to others. Ms. Ladele did not submit to Ms. Jackson’s approved version of civic villainy and for that she must be excoriated.

What is the price of conscience?

Some of us still value them.

And others write meaningless articles that stroke prejudices and offer up convenient scapegoats.

I want no part of a society engineered by secularists. It would be heartless, and worse still, mindless.

Jul 30, 2008 - 9:34 pm 51. BMoon:

Agree with HRPKathy and others that Jackson’s piece trying to equate the British registrar’s dilemma of conscience with the prevalence of creeping Sharia across the western post-Christian world is just another insipid example of mushminded equivalence-thinking, something quite unusual to PJM writers. What makes it even more cruelly ironic is that Jackson blatantly sympathizes with the same-sex unions, something that threatens our stability as a society by undermining the very foundation of society- the family- just as much as Islamism threatens us. Promoting, legitimizing, mainsteaming sexual behaviors that produce negative birth rates amongst western peoples issomething that the Islamists just laugh gleefully over.

Equivalence methodologists…try to get it through your skulls, Christians are not playing any victim card. We are the victims between the hidebound secularists at home and the Islamicists abroad.

Jul 31, 2008 - 1:00 am 52. mylai:

Mary,

Great article as it does two things. It highlights the hypocracy of “religious privledge.” Not long ago it was Christianity who had the lionshare of the say. Not long ago, in the US, all retail establishments were closed on Sundays (not to mention the closure of everything on all Christian holidays) as this was the Christian day of worship. The only buildings open naturally were Churches. This eventually went by the wayside of course as it was hardly anything but annoying to people of other faiths or no faith at all.

Now we see the same bending of rules to accomodate another Religion, Islam. A time will come when this too becomes so restrictive that people of other faiths (or no faith at all) also become overly annoyed and secularists demand an end to the nonsense.

Any one can see that these “religious privledges” do much much more to divide people than they do to unite us. And we’ve all seen how THAT goes, never well since now the Christians are damanding their privledges. Sadly, the powers that be have learned absolutely nothing from history.

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:18 am 53. mylai:

To all the Mary bashers,

Are you failing to see the larger picture here? The article has much less to do with same-sex marriage/civil unions than with how we are bending our society, not for gay marriage or civil unions but for religious ritual or belief. Of course this is a game of victimhood. How else can we get what we want? The gays are victims, the muslims, the christians, we’re all victims – of each others prejudices.

Who wins if shop keepers must shuffle around clerks to sell alcohol to customers, we do. or when a female (muslim) surgeon refuses to wash her forearms prior to surgery, we do. And now this. How much further do we need to “make acceptions,” in the name of beliefs? And who’s to choose? When will the Hindus demand the end to the selling of beef because it offends them, or wiccans ban witch costumes at Halloween because it offends them? Is it so immposible to imagine that at some point (sooner, it seems, rather than later if this keeps up) that physical conflict between “tribes” will break out. Oh excuse me, it already has.

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:36 am 54. AdrianS:

Obama’s religion is not an issue in the current election. However, why he suggests that “We are not a Christian nation …” is questionable. He only is 50% Black and yet he says he’s Black. The United States is only slightly less than 80% Christian, so why does Obama say that American is no longer a Christian nation? What is he planning? Why is he lying?

http://www.nextgenerationcorp.com/nextgenblog/

Jul 31, 2008 - 1:00 pm 55. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: Hey!

“No matter what your religion, it’s wrong to demand that the law bend to your faith.” — Mary Jackson

Does that apply to atheists as well?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.]

Aug 1, 2008 - 2:56 pm 56. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Lisa
RE: Heh

“Why does Winter Break ALWAYS include Christmas? Winter Break doesn’t come at the end of the semester. No, Winter Break is deliberately SCHEDULED to include Christmas.

We also use to schedule our Spring Break to coincide with Easter; it was always off on Good Friday with the following week off.” — Lisa

So….

…if you’re opposed to that. Find a school that doesn’t allow for such breaks.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays.]

Aug 1, 2008 - 3:14 pm 57. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: The Devil….

“No, this isn’t a Muslim lifeguard winning the right to swim in full burqa or a Muslim barman getting out of serving beer.” — Mary Jackson

I didn’t know there were cases where some female of the Muslim persuasion had to file a ’suit’ in order to wear a bathing ’suit’. Nor had I heard of a case where some Muslim had got himself a job serving alcohol and then sued against being fired for refusing to do the job expected of him.

Could you please provide me with the case numbers and identify the courts that heard them? Please include the country.

More to follow….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Justice, n., What comes down from the bench when the decision is in your favor.]

Aug 1, 2008 - 4:54 pm 58. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: The Christian Registrar

“Thus, a registrar is not being asked to “marry” a gay couple, but to conduct a different kind of ceremony.” — Mary Jackson

I my honest opinion, she should quit the job. Or be dismissed with considerations, i.e., without prejudice due to a change in the working environment that made it untenable for her.

On the other hand, the Muslim of the female persuasion who was denied a job as a hairdresser should not have had her suit approved, as she had not been hired at all.

But you don’t seem to notice the differences here. Instead you apply one situation to another, when the situations are totally dissimilar; one was already hired and things changed whereas the other was not hired at all.

Why is it you cannot grasp the significant differences between these cases?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Justice, I think, is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, -- Learned Hand]

P.S. And British society looks rather schitzie, at this time.

Aug 1, 2008 - 5:06 pm 59. Chuck Pelto:

TO: mylai
RE: TRY….

“Who wins….when a female (muslim) surgeon refuses to wash her forearms prior to surgery, we do.” — mylai

…not to be a complete moron here.

Or, rather, next time you go into a hospital for surgery, tell the doctors they don’t have to wash in accordance with proven sanitation/disinfection practices.

Are you familiar with MRSA? If not, you should look it up. It’s EVIL incarnate. And you’re just asking for it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[PC must have some meaning other than 'Politically Correct'. How about Prognosis Critical?]

Aug 1, 2008 - 5:14 pm 60. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: CQ

Yoohooooooo!

Are you an atheist? Do you believe atheists should receive the same treatment, vis-a-vis expression of their beliefs as christians/muslims/hindus/shintos, or the law?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Please remember….

….Silence is considered affirmation in English Common Law.

Aug 2, 2008 - 2:14 pm 61. Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. I’ll give you 48 hours to reply to my two questions. If there is no ‘Yes-No’ replies to them at that time, I’ll consider it a response in the affirmative.

You have until 1530 hrs Mountain Time, Monday, 4 August 2008, to reply…..

Aug 2, 2008 - 2:26 pm 62. Mary Jackson:

No, I’m not an atheist. I believe in equal treatment under the law, with reasonable give and take. Expecting others to take over your duties long term is not reasonable give and take.

Aug 2, 2008 - 4:30 pm 63. rae:

Mary Jackson: It’s unfortunate the registrar felt compelled to litigate her complaint. Apparantly, there was no employer concern for her conscience. For true Christians it’s becoming harder to “be in the world” but not part of it’s social agenda.

Is Islington overwhelmed with numerous daily gay civil unions? Your column implies the demand for this service must be staggering!

If there was no accomodation for the clerk, I think she had a right to litigate. Perhaps her livelihood will be hard to duplicate quickly. If others use the system wrongfully, then let hard-working citizens be compensated when forced out of a position.

It’s not possible for people to compartmentalize their faith/belief system from daily activities. It’s a part of you…moment by moment.

However, I take exception to BELIEVER who seems to think Christians should somehow pay bills by faith. I haven’t found any shop which accepts this currency. Yes, Christians should trust their Savior for strength, wisdom, comfort, etc. But Jesus paid the temple tax with coin of the realm (though out of a fish’s mouth!).

Mary Jackson says, “Christianity is better than this…” Certainly, Jesus’ atonement/cleansing from sin/penalties isn’t to be compared with any other belief/religion. His yoke is easy and does come with compensation payouts…eternal life, right standing with our Creator, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

Yet…Jesus wasn’t a wimp. When He saw profiteering temple vendors, they were driven with a whip from the house of prayer. My point being…being a Christian doesn’t exempt us from daily spiritual decisions…some hard, costly and humbling.

The state can’t accomodate everyone’s belief system, but there come’s a time to stand your ground. The book of Judges’ theme: “Everyone did what was right in their own eyes” illustrates the chaotic dilemma of such a practice.

Common sense (in short supply!) should lead us to civil decent decisions…but this has become the muddiest quagmire in all sectors of society.

CHUCK PELTO: Thanks for a breath of fresh mountain air! 8pm Mountain Time, Saturday, 2 August 2008

Aug 2, 2008 - 7:01 pm 64. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: Atheists R NOT Us

No, I’m not an atheist.– Mary Jackson

Thanks for the quick response on that question. It is much appreciated.

However, as is all too frequently the case, it brings on another question. One that I will not request an answer for just yet. I hope that the answer will be self-evident in the not-too-distant future. But I’ll state it now so you can prepare yourself, one way or another….

If you are not an atheist, what religious persuasion are you that holds such antipathy towards Christianity?

RE: Equal Treatment Under Law

I believe in equal treatment under the law, with reasonable give and take.– Mary Jackson

I think this is a GREAT idea. Indeed. It was one of the founding principles of this country’s government, as expressed in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States.

Unfortunately, atheists don’t appear to feel this way. [Note: Your perceived antipathy towards Christianity lead me to believe you were one of those people.]

The situation is that atheists are continually attempting to suppress the expression of Christianity, even to demonizing the ethics therein. And yet, atheists think they are not a ‘religious belief’ and therefore any such constraint of their beliefs under law, i.e., the concept of equal treatment under law, does not apply to them.

Until atheists accept the idea of their religious beliefs do not allow them to trample on others expressions of religious beliefs, the atheists are doing EXACTLY what you’re ‘whining’ about in your articles; vis-a-vis Christians and Muslims. [Note: I look forward to giving them a similar ‘thrashing’......soon....]

RE: Duty and Honor

Expecting others to take over your duties long term is not reasonable give and take. — Mary Jackson

I’ve never been one to consciously shirk my duty, as I see them. Unfortunately that sort of ‘ethic’ seems to be lacking in any number of different venues.

Atheists are using the government in EXACTLY the same manner you complained about Christians here and Muslims a short time back.

So I call upon your fine sense of ‘duty’ to address their whining too.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The honor IS to serve. -- Lieutenant Worf]

Aug 3, 2008 - 9:48 am 65. Chuck Pelto:

TO: rae
RE: Wowzers!

“CHUCK PELTO: Thanks for a breath of fresh mountain air! 8pm Mountain Time, Saturday, 2 August 2008″ — rae

The ‘moderators’, i.e., censors, of PJM must have sent your comment to committee. I was up here around 3 am and your comment, as I see it now timestamped Aug 2, 2008 – 7:01 pm, was not accessible at that time. I didn’t see it until approximately 1030 hrs Mountain Time.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Ban Censorship!]

Aug 3, 2008 - 9:54 am 66. Believer:

Nor do I, Rae, suggest that the world accept anything other than its currency.

I’m sorry that you would limit God’s abilities to the intangibles. They are indeed His greatest gifts. But we happily discover the others are added when we exercise those gifts. Are you not aware your very words, “But Jesus paid the temple tax with the coin of the realm (though out of a fish’s mouth!)” suggest He is able to do all things for us?

Perhaps today you’re happy to know God in limited ways. I would hope, though, that every one of us has readied himself for the day when it will be profitable to know Him without limit.

Aug 3, 2008 - 10:19 am 67. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Believer
RE: [OT] Hope v. Trust

“I would hope, though, that every one of us has readied himself for the day when it will be profitable to know Him without limit.” — Believer

There’s that dog-gone ‘Trust’ business again. And we’re of so little faith. But it does get rather ’scary’ out there on the edge of the precipice in the off-balance position.

On the other hand, some of us have learned better. And yet STILL our weak human nature draws at us to not trust.

On the third hand, we have evidence coming at us all the time that we should trust Him. Physical evidence at that.

Did He not say that we have dominion over all the earth? And what does that mean? That we should plunder it? I doubt it. Rather that we should use it.

Case in point…..

….ever hear of something called “homeopathy”? It’s anathema amongst the AMA, FDA and drug companies. To speak it in this country is tantamount to preaching heresy during the Spanish Inquisition. Indeed. The Colorado Medical Board has tried to nail an MD who took up homeopathy on a number of occasion. But because his patients reported that his treatments worked, they couldn’t do much about revoking his license.

For the uninformed, homeopathy is using the plants, animals and minerals of the Earth to cure ailments and disorders of one form or another. The extremely low content of these frequently poisonous materials seems to alert the body to the nature of the problem it is confronted with and the body responds to the actual problem; theretofore, it seemed to be ‘confused’ as to the nature of the disorder.

I’ve used it effectively to deal with acute attacks of gout—a birthday gift from my Father—over the last five years. Each attack has been significantly different. Each attack has required the use of a different materia medica, i.e., the one I used before had not worked to deal with the current attack. Each, once properly identified has worked within 15 minutes of taking the materia medica; the excruciating pain—think Christ and nails and the Cross—went away.

And all these things are part of the Earth given into our stewardship.

We just need to understand how to properly use them for our benefit.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[You know, Tolstoy, like myself, wasn't taken in by superstitions like science and medicine. -- George Bernard Shaw]

Aug 3, 2008 - 11:58 am 68. Chuck Pelto:

P.S. That all these things are strewn over the Earth as a blessing to us, like so many beneficial computer software ‘easter eggs’, is evidence that God, indeed, made the Earth for Man.

It’s almost like Will Smith’s character in I Robot, following so many ‘bread crumbs’ to the Truth.

Aug 3, 2008 - 12:18 pm 69. Believer:

Chuck, I could not agree with you more.

I’ve known those ’scary’ moments – and moments of weakness – when I’m tempted not to trust.

The Earth is indeed a blessing. And, yes, I’ve heard of homeopathy – but you’ve added to my knowledge of it. Be assured, I’ll remember what you’ve told me.

I want to know of alternatives since my history with those in the field of medicine has been less than spectacular. What I observed with my parents in their last years was not encouraging either.

Some years ago, I found myself without health insurance. So I decided to accept it as a blessing. It’s been a walk of faith not shared by family or friends. I appreciate your words more than you might have imagined. They only encourage me.

I hope for you continued good health and blessings.

Aug 3, 2008 - 8:15 pm 70. Believer:

Chuck – just occured to me:

I heard recently that keeping one’s body more in the alkaline state is critical to one’s health – that nearly all diseases are a result of phbalance more acidic. Don’t know…

My joints always feel better when I’ve taken Bragg’s organic apple cider vinegar – “apple a day, keeps doctor away?” But I’m lousy at regimens.

For gout – maybe you already know that plentiful water intake is encouraged to flush out the uric acid that allows the crystals(?)to form and leads to that excruciating pain. I can’t imagine those 15 min. you endure…

Are we OT now…But all the best to you and everyone else out there!

Aug 3, 2008 - 8:52 pm 71. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Believer, et al.
RE: [OT] Mere Proof

“The Earth is indeed a blessing. And, yes, I’ve heard of homeopathy – but you’ve added to my knowledge of it. Be assured, I’ll remember what you’ve told me.” — Believer

The simplest proof of homeopathy’s efficacy is get go down to your local Vitamin Cottage or Whole Foods or some other such place that sells the materia medica and get cantharis.

Keep it in your kitchen.

Next time you get a severe burn while cooking, wait until the stinging begins and THEN take 4 tablets, put them under your tongue and let them dissolve of their own accord. Do not drink or eat anything until 15 minutes after they have dissolved. The active agent is absorbed into your blood through the thin skin under the tongue. Not in the stomach where the acidic environment might denature the active agent.

The pain will go away in about 15 minutes. I’ve had nigh on 3d degree burns from direct contact with a red-hot heating element in an oven and this stuff works.

RE: [OT] The Medical Industry Experience

“I want to know of alternatives since my history with those in the field of medicine has been less than spectacular.” — Believer

Mine has not been all that great either. From the moment I arrived in this venue too; delivering physician stuck the end of the forecep in my left eye. I’m partially blind there. To the last medication my GP prescribed which gave me central sleep apnea; your brain forgets to tell your lungs to breath. You wake up gasping for air like the guy in He Said/She Said. You go to bed at night thinking you just might wake up dead the next morning. Or like Teri Schiavo.

I found a homeopathic materia medica that deals with those attacks.

RE: [OT] The Folks

Going through that with my In-Laws at this point. The distaff’s Mother has a very aggressive cancer. She’s moved in with us as her husband is too aged to provide the help necessary on a day-to-day basis. Fortunately, God gave us the house we needed to support them both when we moved here five years ago.

RE: [OT] Alkaline Blood

We’ve seen these reports too. We’re working on it with Mom.

RE: [OT] Gout

Lots of water doesn’t seem to help in my instances. My attacks are all based on stress. Just like my Father, whose worst attack occurred when he retired from the Air Force. Not diet. Drinking lots of water just makes me go potty more often.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God helps those who help themselves. -- Benjamin Franklin]

Aug 3, 2008 - 10:05 pm 72. Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: So….

….have you picked up on the discussion over at RLS about the ‘reliability’ of Wikipedia?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Aug 5, 2008 - 4:16 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: