SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (52486)7/6/2002 2:46:04 PM
From: The Philosopher  Respond to of 82486
 
That's a very interesting article -- thanks for posting.

I had not realized that the division between ecumenicalism and "purity of faith" had gone that far in the Lutheran church.



To: Lane3 who wrote (52486)7/6/2002 3:57:46 PM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
Wow
I almost missed this.

It is very interesting. I would think this would be the kind of thing that might make you speechless :-)

I have a very interesting piece to trade with you, I will post it to you. I have bolded the parts I consider to be most important, and most frightening.



To: Lane3 who wrote (52486)7/6/2002 4:01:24 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
US Supreme Court Justice Scalia on
capital punishment: "Death is no big deal"

By Kate Randall
5 July 2002

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

Recent rulings by the US Supreme Court on the death penalty have
focused attention on the high court’s attitude toward capital
punishment—a practice still upheld by 38 US states. In a 6-3 decision
June 20, the Court ruled that executing the mentally retarded is a violation
of the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment ban on “cruel and unusual
punishment.”

The decision incurred the ire of the three dissenting justices—Chief
Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence
Thomas, all known for their extreme-right views—who denounced the
Court’s majority for caving in to international and domestic public opinion
opposing execution of the mentally retarded. In his dissenting opinion,
Scalia argued that such individuals should not escape execution because
“deservedness of the most severe retribution [the death penalty],
depends not merely (if at all) upon the mental capacity of the criminal ...
but also upon the depravity of the crime.”

Reporting on the June 20 ruling, the British Guardian newspaper drew
attention to remarks made earlier this year by Justice Scalia, which cast
further light on the deeply reactionary outlook underpinning his support
for the death penalty. Scalia spoke in January at the University of
Chicago at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, appearing on a
panel with former Democratic Senator Paul Simon and Beth Wilkinson,
lead prosecutor in the government’s case against Timothy McVeigh. His
comments have been virtually blacked out in the American press.

Scalia cited the New Testament to claim that government “derives its
moral authority from God ... to execute wrath, including even wrath by
the sword, which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty.” He
then made the following remarkable declaration:

“Indeed, it seems to me that the more Christian a country is, the less
likely it is to regard the death penalty as immoral. Abolition has taken its
firmest hold in post-Christian Europe and has least support in the
church-going United States. I attribute that to the fact that for the
believing Christian, death is no big deal.”


Scalia went on to attribute any Christian opposition to the death
penalty—including that of the Pope—to the “handiwork of Napoleon,
Hegel and Freud.”

“The post-Freudian secularist,” he remarked, “is most inclined to think
that people are what their history and circumstances have made them,
and there is little sense in assigning blame.” With these words the high
court judge indicated his own view that crime is not to be explained as a
phenomenon with social roots, but rather as the expression of the evil
character of individuals.


Scalia continued: “You want to have a fair death penalty? You kill; you
die. That’s fair. You wouldn’t have any of these problems about, you
know, you kill a white person, you kill a black person. You want to
make it fair? You kill; you die.”


“Does [the death penalty] constitute cruel and unusual punishment?”
Scalia asked. “The answer is no. It does not, even if you don’t allow
mitigating evidence in. I mean, my Court made up that requirement.... I
don’t think my Court is authorized to say, oh, it would be a good idea to
have every jury be able to consider mitigating evidence and grant mercy.
And, oh, it would be a good idea not to have mandatory death
penalties...”

Scalia not only reiterated his support for the death penalty, but called on
any judge who found the practice immoral to resign.
“In my view,” he
said, “the choice for the judge who believes the death penalty to be
immoral is resignation rather than simply ignoring duly enacted
constitutional laws and sabotaging the death penalty.”

With characteristic cynicism, Scalia quipped, “I am happy to have
reached that conclusion [that the death penalty is not immoral] because I
like my job and would rather not resign.”

In response to a question from the audience at the Chicago forum, Scalia
espoused the following unconstitutional standpoint on the relationship of
church and state: “You’re talking about whether the religious viewpoint
should have a role in the legislative and political process,” he said. “Of
course it should. It always has in this country.”

He went on to claim, “I don’t think any of my religious views have
anything to do with how I do my job as a judge.” His vote last week for
the majority in the Supreme Court decision authorizing vouchers for
religious schools, however, demonstrates that his promotion of religion is
an integral part of his anti-democratic political agenda.

Scalia’s appearance at the Chicago forum was remarkable on three
counts. First, his shameless and brutal contempt for human life; second,
his rejection of basic democratic and constitutional principles; and third,
the lack of any challenge to his reactionary rant in the press or among
what passes for the liberal establishment in America. Why is there no
outrage?

It is instructive to contrast the non-reaction to Scalia’s comments to the
treatment of Associate Justice William O. Douglas, who served on the
high court for 36 years, beginning in 1939. Douglas, long known for his
liberal views, faced impeachment charges in 1952 when he granted a stay
of execution to Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. In 1970, then-House
Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford led another unsuccessful impeachment
effort against Douglas, attacking him for his encouragement of political
dissent and his championing of civil rights and anti-war causes.

But Scalia’s remarks are not even reported, let alone opposed. The
acceptance of his reactionary drivel as a reasonable outlook is one more
indication of the absence of any constituency within the political
establishment for the defense of humanist principles and democratic
rights.



To: Lane3 who wrote (52486)7/6/2002 4:38:23 PM
From: Rambi  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
Quick note as we run from seeing MIB2 to the 1/2Price Book Store-- your story caught my eye as I was a Lutheran for 20 years and was surprised they would be that reactive-- then I realized it was Missouri Synod. This is quite different from the much larger ELCA (Evangelical Lutherans) and far more conservative; they believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and adhere very strictly to the Lutheran Confessions. If memory serves, even we ELCAers weren't allowed at the Missouri Synod communion table... but I might be wrong about that- I do know many denominations aren't.
There is such a huge difference between the groups I wanted to point this out.



To: Lane3 who wrote (52486)7/20/2002 9:19:39 AM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 82486
 
Here's a follow-up on the Lutheran rift.

Rift in Lutheran Denomination Deepens
Pastor Who Suspended N.Y. Cleric Over 9/11 Service Loses Radio Preaching Post

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 20, 2002; Page A03

The host of "The Lutheran Hour," a St. Louis-based gospel program carried by more than 1,000 radio stations, has been temporarily removed in a deepening rift within one of the most theologically conservative Protestant denominations, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod.

Last month, the Rev. Wallace Schulz of Pacific, Mo., a vice president of the church, suspended a New York pastor for joining with Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Sikhs in an interfaith service at Yankee Stadium after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Schulz ruled that the Rev. David H. Benke was guilty of "syncretism" -- mixing Christian and non-Christian beliefs -- because he had prayed with "pagans" in the Sept. 23 service organized by Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and emceed by Oprah Winfrey.

Deluged with criticism of that decision, the executive committee of Lutheran Hour Ministries -- an independent auxiliary of the church -- voted this month to suspend Schulz as the main preacher on its flagship "Lutheran Hour," the Missouri Synod's most prominent pulpit.

Schulz's removal means that both camps within the 2.6-million-member Missouri Synod, the 10th-largest church in the nation, now have victims of political infighting to rally around. Those camps defy easy labels, however. Some members speak of liberals vs. conservatives. But Benke said this week it is really a split between "conservatives and ultra-conservatives."

"I don't call myself a liberal; I don't call myself a left-wing person at all," Benke said, noting that like many Lutherans, he believes the Bible is the literal word of God, the theory of evolution is bunk and the only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ.

Schulz declined to comment on Benke's suspension or his own. He spent 25 years as the associate speaker of "The Lutheran Hour" -- the No. 2 job -- before being elevated to the top preaching spot June 22. He was wearing a different hat, as the second vice president of the Missouri Synod, when he ruled against Benke just three days later. The decision fell to Schulz because the president and first vice president had recused themselves.

The radio show was immediately engulfed in controversy, according to Jim Telle, a spokesman for Lutheran Hour Ministries.

"Our staff of about 200 people in St. Louis has been totally inundated and practically paralyzed on many days by phone calls on all sides of this issue," Telle said. "Some of [the callers] are fiercely upset that Dr. Schulz judged the way he did on Dr. Benke. We can't tell whether they're liberal or conservative. We just know they're furious, and the whole fallout for our church has been a black mark."

Telle emphasized that the directors of the radio program have not taken a position on whether Schulz's decision was right or wrong. "Totally unwittingly our organization has been caught in the crossfire," he said. "Our board of directors took the action to relieve him temporarily -- with full pay -- to cool down the situation and study how we in the church are going to get out of it."

Indeed, Schulz's removal is likely to be a major topic of debate at the Lutheran Hour Ministries' annual convention, which starts today in Ottawa. Benke, meanwhile, has appealed the finding of syncretism to a three-member church panel. And the synod's president, the Rev. Gerald B. Kieschnick, has formally asked Schulz to reconsider his ruling.

In a July 9 letter to church members explaining his decision, Kieschnick said the Missouri Synod "is experiencing a period of emotional anxiety and doctrinal disharmony." But in an interview yesterday, he said he prefers to view the situation not as a rift but as "an opportunity for defining who we are."

"The world has changed immensely in the last 50 years, even the last 10 years. When I was a kid, I didn't know a Muslim or a Hindu or a Sikh or a Buddhist," Kieschnick said. "Now we have people from all backgrounds, all colors, all creeds and beliefs who are very responsible members of the citizenry of the United States of America."

The key question facing the church, he continued, is "Do we take the gospel into the public square in a pluralistic, multicultural society? Or do we keep it more quietly in individual congregations and hope and pray that people will come to us?"

Kieschnick, who gave Benke permission to participate in the Yankee Stadium service, said his position is clear: "The mandate Christ has given us in the Scriptures is to go out and be a light in a world of darkness. It cannot be done in a vacuum, and it cannot be done in a closed, cloistered environment."

But to many members of the Missouri Synod, praying with people of other faiths is a profound betrayal of their history and beliefs. The synod was founded in the early 19th century by Lutherans who fled Prussia rather than accede to King Friedrich Wilhelm III's order to worship with Calvinists, and it has maintained a stricter theological line than its sister denomination, the 5.1-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

"There are certain people who want to liberalize and Americanize this church. They care more about being well-liked by their peers than about upholding the faith," said Mollie Ziegler, 27, a member of Immanuel Lutheran Church in Alexandria. "I am so proud of this denomination for standing on the gospel and not caring whether Oprah Winfrey likes it or not."

© 2002 The Washington Post Company