By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent | THE TELEGRAPH | July 20, 2004 Proposals to divide the Church of England into two - one part with female clergy and one without - are being discussed by Church leaders to avert an exodus of traditionalists when women become bishops. The Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope, has told friends he believes such a scheme, though highly controversial, is probably the only way to hold the Church together if it decides to consecrate women. He has privately won support from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, who agrees the options facing the Church are limited. Both are worried that more than 300 traditionalist clergy could quit in protest, potentially costing tens of millions of pounds in hardship payments to those who leave. Dr Hope is keen to encourage a compromise between die-hard traditionalists and middle-of-the-road Anglicans that will minimise the structural divisions within the Church. The diehards are demanding a "third province", a church-within-a-church with its own archbishop, bishops and training colleges operating in parallel with the remainder of the Church, but with no female clergy. As The Telegraph disclosed in January, the third province option has been included in the unpublished official report on women bishops by a working party headed by the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali. But Dr Hope prefers a scheme which, rather than creating parallel structures, enshrines the rights of traditionalist parishes that could find themselves in dioceses headed by women bishops or liberals. Under such a scheme, parishes opposed to women's ordination would be able to reject the pastoral care of their diocesan bishop if they found them unacceptable. Such parishes could choose to be ministered to by a like-minded traditionalist bishop, who could visit them, if necessary, from outside the diocese. Parishes can already opt for "flying" bishops under provisions introduced for traditionalists when women were ordained priests 10 years ago. At present, diocesan bishops retain their authority over their dioceses and operate a "gentleman's agreement" that they will not block flying bishops from operating in their territory. Although this system has worked satisfactorily, Dr Hope fears it will come under such strain when women are consecrated as bishops that it will need bolstering. Critically, diocesan bishops would lose their right to block traditionalist bishops if parishes opt for them. The proposals are designed to allay the fears of many conservatives that liberal diocesan bishops will gradually undermine the current agreement, and traditionalists will find themselves being squeezed out of the Church. The General Synod is within its rights to make no concessions to the traditionalists, leaving them either to put up with women bishops or leave without hardship payments. But the measure will have to pass through Parliament and MPs could reject the whole reform if there is no adequate package of payments attached. Dr Hope and other Church leaders are convinced that the Synod will baulk at the sums involved - the Church paid £26 million to clergy who left over women priests - and his proposals will gain in popularity.

By Raymond J. Keating | NEWSDAY.COM | July 20, 2004 When the world looks at Christians, it often sees disunity. Some differences merely reflect denominational specialties while others expose deep cracks in the church. Regarding certain niches, Anglicans - including the Episcopal Church in the United States - often excel in architecture and worship. One of the loveliest churches on Long Island has to be St. Ann's Episcopal Church in Sayville. The elegance of its stone, castle-like exterior is rivaled by the interior's gorgeous Tiffany stained glass windows. At St. Mary's Church in Amityville, this past Sunday's "Choral Eucharist" combined with the beauty of the sanctuary in such a way as to foster reflection about and praise of God. But Anglicans are being ripped apart. And they are not alone, as most Christian denominations struggle with a fundamental question about faith and society: Should the church go along with shifting cultural views of morality or teach enduring truths? Consider the ongoing debate over how to define marriage. Last week, delegates at the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod's national convention in St. Louis voted by a 1,163-to-22 margin to affirm "marriage as the lifelong union of one man and one woman." Given what the Bible says and the church has taught throughout the centuries, such a declaration should be obvious. That's increasingly not so, though, in society and for some within Christianity. The consecration last year of V. Gene Robinson as the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire served as a signal. Robinson is the first openly gay bishop, and a divorced father of two. He told Newsday earlier this year that, if gay marriage were allowed in New Hampshire, he and his partner would "be married in a minute." Robinson's installation sent waves of tumult throughout much of the Christian world, but he has claimed that "10 years from now, we will wonder what all the hullabaloo was about." I spoke with a couple of Episcopal priests on Long Island last week who see matters differently from Robinson. The Rev. Randolph Jon Geminder, the rector at St. Mary's, explained: "The leaders of the Episcopal Church that tend to be in the majority now in their hearts really feel that the church needs to mirror society." In contrast, Geminder noted, the traditional view is that "the church must lead the world to mirror the church's teachings." He adds that traditional-minded Episcopalians in America "are in spiritual lockstep with 90 percent of the rest of the Anglican world," and that "just shy of two-thirds of the entire Anglican world has broken communion" to one degree or another with the Americans due to Robinson's installation. Cutting across denominations, the most substantive split in 21st-century Christianity promises to be between liberals, who have chosen to eliminate or redefine sin to fit personal preferences and cultural trends, and more orthodox or traditional Christians who hold to the authority of Holy Scripture, and respect the long tradition of the church. The Rev. Jim Byrum of St. John's Episcopal Church in Huntington placed the controversy within the larger context of Christianity's mission. He observed: "Once you start subjectively recategorizing sin, you effectively for the church eliminate the need for a savior." Christians, Byrum continued, are "a group that believes God sent his Son to redeem us from ourselves, from the dark side of ourselves. Well, if all of a sudden everyone is saying there is no dark side to ourselves, then what the heck does anyone need a Messiah for." Both men worry that traditional Christianity today often gets portrayed as lacking compassion. To the contrary, in speaking with each, Christian love and warmth were evident. Geminder told me: "The church is a place where everybody is welcome. But we just don't feel we have the power to add to what the Lord taught us." He added: "Toleration does not equate itself with endorsement." That is essential to Christianity. As the old saying goes, hate the sin, love the sinner - and we are all sinners. Copyright 2004, Newsday, Inc.

News Analysis by David W. Virtue Bill Clinton's former Labor Secretary Robert Reich predicts there will be a religious war in America. Writing for the liberal magazine The American Prospect, former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich calls for a war against conservative (read Evangelical) religious believers. "The great conflict of the 21st century will not be between the West and terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief," he writes. "The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernists; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority; between those who give priority to life in this world and those who believe that human life is mere preparation for an existence beyond life; between those who believe in science, reason, and logic and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face." Reich has been calling for — or at least predicting — this war for a long time. In the past, his use of war language has seemed rhetorical and metaphoric, but now it seems we should take him literally if not seriously. Mr. Reich has it all wrong. There is indeed a serious culture war going on in America, a culture war that was started by those dissenting from absolute moral norms that have been the staple of Western Civilization for more than 2,000 years. Our understanding of the family, marriage, law, what is right and wrong have been shaped by the West's reading of the Bible, its understanding of the ancient Mosaic texts, reflected further in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount. It is the abandonment and violation of these laws that has brought about the current culture wars in the West, the infiltration of which has permeated not only society but the historic mainline Christian churches as well. Mr. Reich says that the outcome of the 2004 presidential election will depend partly on what happens between now and Election Day in Iraq and to the U.S. economy. "It will also turn on the religious wars — fueled by evangelical Protestants, the ground troops of the Republican Party," he wrote in December. It is apparent Mr. Reich doesn't know very much about Evangelicals in America. Evangelicals are not a homogenous group; they are as diverse as any group could be. Jerry Falwell (a Republican) calls himself an Evangelical and so does Jimmy Carter (a Democrat). In fact Carter gave cachet to the term "born again" when he became president. Billy Graham is an Evangelical and so is Dr. C. FitzSimons Allison, a retired Episcopal Bishop. Furthermore there is a whole history of left-wing Evangelicalism in America found in such persons as Jim Wallis of Sojourners magazine, Dr. Tony Campolo, a former professor at Eastern University and chaplain to Clinton, and Dr. Ron Sider who heads Evangelicals for Social Action. They are all left-of-center Evangelicals and you can be assured they will vote for the Democratic Party in November. There is of course a right-wing Evangelicalism in America that will vote for George W. Bush. That is their right. For Mr. Reich to cast "Evangelical Protestants" as the "ground troops of the Republican Party" is just plain nonsense. Millions of Southern Baptists are Democrats. They are not uniformly Republican. Writes Reich: "Democrats can hold their own in these wars — if they respond vigorously to the coming assault. Democrats should call all this for what it is — a clear and present danger to religious liberty in America. For more than three hundred years, the liberal tradition has sought to free people from the tyranny of religious doctrines that would otherwise be imposed on them. Today's evangelical right detests that tradition and seeks nothing short of a state-sponsored religion. But maintaining the separation of church and state is a necessary precondition of liberty. The religious wars aren't pretty. Religious wars never are. But Democrats should mount a firm and clear counter-assault." This statement is not only inflammatory, it is wrong. Many Evangelicals now believe that their own liberties are under assault by the tyranny of liberals and the abandonment of once-held cherished beliefs, and the Federal Marriage Amendment Act is a case in point. Mr. Reich says evangelicals want a "state-sponsored religion" or a theocracy. That's nonsense. No Evangelical or Evangelical publication that this writer knows of — including Christianity Today, WORLD, Charisma, or even Focus on the Family — has ever called for a theocracy. All Evangelicals want is the right to call sin by its name and call people to repentance. Furthermore, to call Evangelicals "anti-modernists" is arrant nonsense. Evangelicals have been in the forefront of science, business, the environment, foundations, and care for the poor that makes liberal efforts pale by comparison. Liberal church organizations have nothing to compare with movements like the Salvation Army, World Vision Int., Food for the Poor, and a whole array of institutions, schools and universities begun by evangelicals — including Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Reich talks rubbish about Evangelicals. In the Episcopal Church, for example, Evangelicals have for more than 40 years backed away from advances made by liberals in theological and moral innovation. Today they stand with their backs to the wall as revisionist bishops beat orthodox rectors into the ground, inhibiting, deposing and taking their parishes from them in the name of their "liberal" revisionist god. The truth is the emerging tyranny is coming from the left, not the right. Is opposing gay marriage, abortion, and the free exercise of religion in public schools so terribly un-American? "Democrats should be clear that the issues of abortion and stem-cell research are about religious liberty," Reich says. If either of these is limited in any way, he suggests, America becomes a theocracy — and that, the logic necessarily follows, demands a revolution. Can Reich really mean what he says? Ramesh Ponnuru in National Review Online writes: "His most recent column is a denunciation — as a graver threat than terrorists — of people who believe that the world to come is more important than this world, or that all human beings owe their allegiance to God. Many millions of Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other religious believers will reject Reich's witless rhetorical oppositions. One can believe in the political 'primacy of the individual,' the obligation of all people to answer to God, and the wrongness of any governmental attempt to make them answer to Him, all at the same time. But if our choice is between the primacy of individuals and the primacy of God, then the vast majority of traditional religious believers would have to choose God. All of us, for Reich, are the enemy." The deeper truth is that if a war is coming it will be between Islam and a morally bankrupt West that Islam sees as weak and therefore vulnerable. If that is true, then Mr. Reich may well be grateful for "Evangelical Protestants" when that time comes, because it will be they who will be the nation's storm-troopers as the West fights for its very soul.

Seabury and Other Churches Troubled by Their Leader's Support of Gay Bishop By Bethne Dufresne | The Day | July 17, 2004 Power, not sex, is the crux of a dispute within America's Episcopal Church over the consecration of the church's first openly gay bishop. So said a spokesman Friday for six churches, including Bishop Seabury in Groton, that are seeking to be led by a bishop other than the head of the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut, the Rt. Rev. Andrew D. Smith, who supported the consecration. The six churches are the only ones among the state's 178 Episcopal congregations to apply for what is called "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight." But the Rev. Mark Hansen of St. John's Episcopal Church in Bristol said it won't remove them from Smith's jurisdiction. A major concern, said Hansen, is the selection of future pastors. Church tradition says the presiding bishop must approve the parish's selection. Hansen and his group want written assurance that parishioners can "call" pastors without fear of veto by a bishop, such as Smith, who doesn't share their opposition to gay clergy. "Not one of us intends to leave the church," assured the Rev. Ronald A. Gauss of Bishop Seabury, who is on vacation and spoke via phone from Kentucky. But parishioners are "very worried," he said. "If I were to retire," he explained, "the church might not be able to call up the person they want." The global Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is a part, has been deeply divided over the consecration of the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, a divorced man who lives openly with his gay partner. Church leaders in some nations have gone so far as to suggest that the American church be thrown out of the Anglican Communion. Many in the Episcopal Church have embraced the decision to ordain Robinson, and most appear to have accepted it. But a number of orthodox Anglican parishes, including Groton's Bishop Seabury, have joined the American Anglican Council, formed in opposition to the U.S. church's liberal direction. To keep the Anglican Communion whole while a commission appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury studies the fissures, global primates mandated "adequate or alternative Episcopal pastoral oversight." This, said Hansen, would allow "biblically orthodox" parishes like his to report to a bishop in line with their thinking. But "through a sleight of hand," said Hansen, the American House of Bishops changed "alternative" to "delegated." Smith acknowledged that the two are "fundamentally different." But "we have our own policy, our own church canons," he said. "Other provinces have different procedures." Alternative oversight places a church "under the jurisdiction of another bishop entirely," said Smith. "Delegated means the diocesan bishop remains the bishop of all the parishes, but certain functions can be delegated to another bishop." As Smith struggles to keep the Connecticut diocese united, dissenting churches are seeking as much distance as possible. The group also includes Christ Church in Watertown, St. Paul's Church in Darien, Trinity Church in Bristol and Christ & The Epiphany Church in East Haven. Pastors of the six churches asked to meet with Smith as a group, but he has insisted on meeting with each individually. Hansen said this is a "divide and conquer" tactic. Smith said it's his duty to treat each parish as a unique unit. "Each parish is very different," he said, and one other bishop might not be able to meet all their needs. "This is one of the things I want to talk about," he said. Smith ignored the group's request that he apologize for his vote in favor of Robinson, and their request for "written assurance that you and the Diocese of Connecticut will not foster a ministerial environment that is hostile to our parishes' mission and ministries." Hansen will meet with Smith later this month, but Gauss said vacations — his and Smith's — might keep them from meeting until the end of August. Gauss said he was in no rush, that these things take time. Hansen was offended by Smith's terse July 9 letter to him that began, "In my capacity as canonical overseer I issue to you a Pastoral Direction." Smith went on, in three sentences, to tell Hansen when and where they would meet one-on-one. Hansen, echoing the sentiments of another of the six pastors, said it sounded like he was being "served with a subpoena." But Smith made no apologies for his directive. "It is what it is," he said. "I don't know why he won't meet with us as a group," said Gauss. "But I will obey his directive. He is still my bishop."

By Frances Grandy Taylor | The Hartford Courant | July 16, 2004 In the latest sign of the stresses tearing at a variety of denominations over social issues, six Episcopal parishes are seeking to remove their churches from the control of Bishop Andrew D. Smith, who leads the Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut. The parishes want to become aligned with a bishop outside the state, one who is part of a network of conservative Episcopal churches that have come together in opposition to the consecration last year of the church's first openly gay bishop. This week, priests from the six churches — Christ Church in Watertown, St. John's Church in Bristol, St. Paul's Church in Darien, Trinity Church in Bristol, Christ & The Epiphany Church in East Haven, and Bishop of Seabury Church in Groton — each received a "pastoral directive" and were summoned by registered letter to meet with Smith. "At first, I thought I was being subpoenaed. It turned out to be a letter from my bishop commanding that I meet with him," said the Rev. Christopher Leighton, pastor of St. Paul's Church in Darien. Leighton said being summoned to a compulsory meeting with Smith was a tactic that added more tension to an increasingly strained relationship. In March, the U.S. Episcopal bishops created a framework for the kind of alternative oversight the six churches are seeking. Called "Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight," the procedure was designed to allow churches that refuse to accept the consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire to become aligned with another bishop, "who neither supported the election of Robinson nor supports the ordination of homosexuals to ordained ministry in the Episcopal Church." Robinson's consecration a year ago, which was supported by a majority of Episcopal bishops, including Smith, has brought the U.S. Episcopal Church to the brink of schism with the worldwide Anglican Communion. Smith said Thursday he expects the six churches will get another bishop to oversee them, though many details still need to be worked out. "I want the delegated oversight to be implemented," Smith said. "It's something that is offered in the church, that respects and accommodates the views of those who have petitioned for it." So far, only one parish church, in Newark, N.J., has been granted delegated oversight. Under a DEPO agreement, Smith would voluntarily relinquish many activities at the six churches, such as performing confirmations, baptisms and rites of initiation. At the same time, Smith would retain constitutional and canonical jurisdiction over the congregations, and the parishes would pledge funds to the diocese at a level that is agreed upon. Leighton said St. Paul's Church has stopped contributing to the diocese and instead sends its money to other Episcopal ministries. "We have felt led by God to continue to give our money — not to a bureaucracy filled with error — but to people who need help," Leighton said. The rectors of the six churches wanted to undergo the DEPO process as a group, but several said Smith has insisted that they do so as individual churches, which has put the process at something of an impasse. Smith declined to express his personal feelings about the quest of the six parishes, except to say "we worked very long and hard at the bishops meeting to create DEPO, recognizing that it would meet the pastoral needs." "It's the Episcopal Church's attempt to accommodate the pastoral needs of our parishes and to maintain our unity," he said. The Rev. Allan Benedict, rector of Christ Church in Watertown, said the process could take months, since the bishop who would be chosen for oversight must be acceptable both to Smith and the churches. But, Benedict added, that will not stop the crisis facing the Episcopal Church. "I believe that ultimately, the worldwide communion will take action against the U.S. Episcopal Church," Benedict said. "They will either have to reverse their decision on Robinson or go their own way." The Rev. Mark Hansen is rector of St. John's Church in Bristol, which in the wake of Robinson's approval voted in February to affiliate with the Anglican Network, a new group of "biblically orthodox" parishes. Hansen criticized the designated oversight plan as inadequate and said it unilaterally imposes a take-it-or-leave-it approach. He said a number of specifics still need to be worked out — such as future succession of clergy at parishes under delegated oversight, which is not spelled out in the DEPO framework. Further, it "keeps all the power in the hands of an existing bishop," Hansen said. "[Smith] doesn't relinquish one iota of power." The bishops of the U.S. Episcopal Church are refusing to see that "reality has been radically and irrevocably altered," Hansen said. "A tectonic shift is going on, and they are trying to manage it in a business-as-usual way. There is a power struggle going on that transcends Bristol, a drama being played on the global stage."

By Anthony Browne | The Spectator There's no plot, says Anthony Browne: Islam really does want to conquer the world. That's because Muslims, unlike many Christians, actually believe they are right, and that their religion is the path to salvation for all. A year ago I had lunch with an eminent figure who asked if I thought she was mad. "No," I said politely, while thinking, "Yup." She had said she thought there was a secret plot by Muslims to take over the West. I have never been into conspiracy theories, and this one was definitely of the little-green-men variety. It is the sort of thing BNP thugs claim to justify their racial hatred. Obviously, we all know about Osama bin Laden's ambitions. And we are all aware of the loons of al-Muhajiroun waving placards saying "Islam is the future of Britain." But these are all on the extremist fringe, representative of no one but themselves. Surely no one in Islam takes this sort of thing seriously? I started surfing the Islamic media. Take Dr. Al-Qaradawi, the controversial Egyptian imam who was recently fawned over by the Mayor of London even though he promotes the execution of homosexuals, the right of men to indulge in domestic violence, and the murder of innocent Jews. During the brouhaha it went unnoticed that he also wants to conquer Europe. Don't take my word for it, just listen to him on his popular al-Jazeera TV show, Sharia and Life. "Islam will return to Europe. The conquest need not necessarily be by the sword. Perhaps we will conquer these lands without armies. We want an army of preachers and teachers who will present Islam in all languages and in all dialects," he broadcast in 1999, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, which translates his programmes. On another programme he declared, "Europe will see that it suffers from a materialist culture, and it will seek a way out, it will seek a lifeboat. It will seek no life-saver but the message of Islam." Far from being on the fringe, his immensely popular programmes are watched by millions across the Middle East and Europe. The BBC cooed that he has "star" status among the world's Muslims. Dr. Al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar, is also the spiritual guide of the hardline Muslim Brotherhood, whose leader Muhammad Mahdi Othman 'Akef declared recently, "I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission." In the most sacred mosque in Islam, Sheikh Abd al-Rahman al-Sudais of the Grand Mosque in Mecca uses his sermons to call for Jews to be "annihilated" and to urge the overthrow of Western civilisation. "The most noble civilisation ever known to mankind is our Islamic civilisation. Today, Western civilisation is nothing more than the product of its encounter with our Islamic civilisation in Andalusia. The reason for Western civilisation's bankruptcy is its reliance on the materialistic approach, and its detachment from religion and values. Only one nation is capable of resuscitating global civilisation, and that is the nation of Islam." Al-Sudais is the highest imam appointed by the Saudi government, and his sermons are widely listened to across the Middle East. When he came to the UK in June to open the London Islamic Centre, thousands of British Muslims flocked to see him, race relations minister Fiona Mactaggart shared the platform, and Prince Charles sent a video message. Saudi Arabia, whose flag shows a sword, seems unabashed about its desire for Islam to take over the world. Its embassy in Washington recommends the home page of its Islamic affairs department, where it declares, "The Muslims are required to raise the banner of jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world." Saudi Arabia has used billions of its petrodollars to export its particularly harsh form of Islam, Wahhabism, paying for mosques and Islamic schools across the West. About 80 per cent of the U.S.'s mosques are thought to be under Wahabi control. Saudi Arabia's education ministry encourages schoolchildren to despise Christianity and Judaism. A new schoolbook in the kingdom's curriculum tells six-year-olds: "All religions other than Islam are false." In Egypt, the schoolbook Studies in Theology: Traditions and Morals explains that a particularly "noble" bit of the Koran encourages "the faithful to perform jihad in God's cause, to behead the infidels, take them prisoner, break their power." A popular topic for discussion on Arabic TV channels is the best strategy for conquering the West. Muslim immigration and conversion are seen as the best path. Saudi Professor Nasser bin Suleiman al-Omar declared on al-Majd TV, "Islam is advancing according to a steady plan, to the point that tens of thousands of Muslims have joined the American army and Islam is the second largest religion in America. America will be destroyed. But we must be patient." Islam is now the second religion not just in the U.S. but in Europe and Australia. Europe has 15 million Muslims, accounting for one in ten of the population in France, where the government now estimates 50,000 Christians are converting to Islam every year. In Brussels, Mohammed has been the most popular name for boy babies for the last four years. In Britain, attendance at mosques is now higher than it is in the Church of England. Al-Qaeda is criticised for being impatient, and waking the West up. Saudi preacher Sheikh Said al-Qahtani said, "We did not occupy the US, with eight million Muslims, using bombings. Had we been patient and let time take its course, instead of the eight million there could have been 80 million, and 50 years later perhaps the US would have become Muslim." It is difficult to brush this off as an aberration of Islam. Dr. Zaki Badawi, the moderate former director of the Islamic Cultural Centre in London, admitted, "Islam endeavours to expand in Britain. Islam is a universal religion. It aims to bring its message to all corners of the earth. It hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community." In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into Dar al-Islam, where Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the "field of war" where the infidels live. "The presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until all the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule," wrote Professor Bernard Lewis in his bestseller The Crisis of Islam. The first jihad was in AD 630, when Mohammed led his army to conquer Mecca. He made a prediction that Islam would conquer the two most powerful Christian centres at the time, Constantinople and Rome. Within 100 years of his death, Muslim armies had conquered the previously Christian provinces of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the rest of North Africa, as well as Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, until they were stopped at Poitiers in central France in AD 732. Ibn Warraq, a Pakistani who lost his Islamic faith, wrote in Why I am not a Muslim, "Although Europeans are constantly castigated for having imposed their insidious decadent values, culture and language on the Third World, no one cares to point out that Islam colonised lands that were the homes of advanced and ancient civilisations." It took 700 years for the Spanish to get their country back in the prolonged "Reconquista." In the meantime the Turks had conquered the ancient Christian land of Anatolia (now called Turkey). In 1453 they captured Constantinople — fulfilling Mohammed's first prediction — which was the centre of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The glorious Hagia Sophia, which had been one of the most important churches in Christendom for nearly 1,000 years after it was built in AD 537, was turned into a mosque, and minarets were added. The Turks went on to occupy Greece and much of the Balkans for four centuries, turning the Parthenon into a mosque and besieging Vienna, before retreating as their power waned. In the Middle East, there are regular calls for Mohammed's second prediction to come true. Sheikh Muhammad bin Abd al-Rahman al-'Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi government's King Fahd Defence Academy, wrote recently, "We will control the land of the Vatican; we will control Rome and introduce Islam in it." Not all conversion has been by the sword. Muslim traders peaceably converted Indonesia, now the most populous Islamic nation. But nor have the conquests stopped. Islam has continued spreading in sub-Saharan Africa, most notably in Nigeria and Sudan. Just 50 years ago, Lebanon was still predominantly Christian; it is now predominantly Muslim. Of course, Christianity has been just as much a conquering religion. Spanish armies ruthlessly destroyed ancient civilisations in Central and South America to spread the message of love. Christians colonised the Americas and Australia, committing genocide as they went, while missionaries converted most of Africa. But the difference is that Christendom has — by and large — stopped conquering and converting, and indeed in Europe simply stopped believing. Even President Bush's most trenchant critics don't believe he conquered Afghanistan and Iraq to spread the word of Jesus. It is ironic that by deposing Saddam, who ran the most secular of Arab regimes, the U.S. actually transferred power to the imams. I believe in a free market in religions, and it is inevitable that if you believe your religion is true, then you believe others are false. But this market is seriously rigged. In Saudi Arabia the government bans all churches, while in Europe governments pay to build Islamic cultural centres. While in many Islamic countries preaching Christianity is banned, in Western Christian countries the right to preach Islam is enshrined in law. Christians are free to convert to Islam, while Muslims who convert to Christianity can expect either death threats or a death sentence. The Pope keeps apologising for the Crusades while his opposite numbers call for the overthrow of Christendom. In Christian countries, those who warn about Islamification are prosecuted, while in Muslim countries those who call for the Islamification of the world are turned into TV celebrities. In the West, schools teach comparative religion, while in Muslim countries schools teach that Islam is the only true faith. In the last century some Christians justified the persecution and mass murder of Jews by claiming that Jews wanted to take over the world. But these fascist fantasies were based on deliberate lies. Now, many in the Muslim world are open about their desire for Islam to conquer the West. Anthony Browne is Europe correspondent for the Times. © 2001 The Spectator

The Telegraph | Dublin, July 16, 2004 A major international conference of world leaders of the Anglican Church under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, is scheduled to meet in Northern Ireland next February. The Belfast Telegraph has learned that primates from all 38 provinces of the Communion will meet in Newcastle, Co. Down, to make crucial decisions on the future of the worldwide Church following the report of the Anglican Commission on the divisions caused over sexual issues within Anglicanism. The historic Primates Meeting in Newcastle is likely to be one of the most significant Church gatherings to take place in Northern Ireland, with its outcome charting the way forward for the future of the entire Anglican Church, which has some 70 million members around the world. The current Commission on Anglican Structures, headed by the Church of Ireland Primate Archbishop Robin Eames, is scheduled to deliver its highly significant report in October to Dr. Williams. This was set up by Dr. Williams after the international upheaval within Anglicanism in the wake of the appointment of the openly homosexual Dr. Gene Robinson as a bishop in New Hampshire last year. It is understood that once the report is delivered to Dr. Williams it will be analysed in depth within the Communion in order to help the primates come to definitive decisions about the way forward for the Church as a whole at their meeting in Newcastle next February. The fact that this historic meeting is coming to Ulster is a reflection of the high standing within worldwide Anglicanism of Archbishop Eames. He is senior primate in the Church and previously chaired with success two other important Anglican commissions — on women's ordination and also on theological issues. He told the Belfast Telegraph: "I am very pleased that the Primates Meeting will be coming here in February. A number of venues were considered and Northern Ireland was deemed to be the most suitable on this occasion."

By William Murchison | The Washington Times Well, just who's happy the Senate this week has been debating the Federal Marriage Amendment, defining marriage as the union exclusively of a man and a woman? Are Democrats happy? Not hugely. For all that they meant the whole time to sink the amendment on a procedural vote, there is the inconvenience of the thing, the necessity of — one more time — reminding the electorate Democrats aren't hot to defend traditional cultural norms. Are Republicans happy? To the extent, perhaps, that the issue finally gets out in the sunshine. But out in the sunshine, the party's inability to pass such an amendment, and gratify an important constituency, will show up all the more clearly. I think nonetheless a bigger disheartening lies in store for amendment backers. It is knowledge — the in-your-face variety — of how things get done in modern America. Here's how they get done: You get the media and the judiciary on your side; they do the rest. That sounds like elitism? Elitism it is: meaning the capacity, enjoyed by a select, like-minded few, to shove social change down the more numerous throats of others ill-prepared for said change. The reason the Senate has been considering the constitutional amendment is that courts — notably the highest Massachusetts court — have been foisting on the population a conceptual overhaul of the oldest human institution there is: marriage. The Massachusetts judges, ordering the state to legitimatize same-sex unions, proclaimed the existence of "an evolving paradigm" regarding marriage. Now you see the historic understanding; now you don't. Oh? And how did the judges know? Well, a little bird or, likelier, television, notable newspapers and magazines told them. When you have evolving paradigms, the last thing you're to look for is stability of understanding. Yesterday's truth, in the evolving-paradigm department, is tomorrow's cranky opinion. I'll wager you just noted a seeming inconsistency. Aren't court decisions known as "opinions"? They certainly are, which is one reason courts once were fairly modest when it came to shaking up institutions. This was becoming in the judges. They recognized, to one degree or another, that democratic government rests on the consent of the governed, not the consent of those who do the governing. Gone with the wind. For 30 or 40 years, judges have been flattering themselves their own acute readings of social necessity and paradigms exceeded those of lesser folk. A moment ago, I mentioned the media. The media's consent is instrumental in matters like the pending overthrow of marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. The media's fascination with homosexual rights has invested the quest for such rights with an authority it never before enjoyed. Judges can't help but notice such things. And that's where we are today: trying halfheartedly (if we're talking about Congress) to let the people's will prevail over that of judges with respect to marriage. But there isn't the kind of unanimity you would expect on this question, perhaps because people have grown used to judges running their lives and consequently put little stock in those constitutional amendments (anti-busing, pro-school prayer, anti-abortion, anti-flag burning, etc.) members of Congress talk about but never seem to pass. Granted, amending the Constitution is an arduous and complex process. Any amendment Congress really wants requires two-thirds votes in both houses and ratification by three-fourths of the states. That can be a tall order, especially on an evolving paradigm. When you're being forward-kicked by men and women in judicial robes, the temptation is to suppose they can't be altogether mischievous in their assumptions. Well, they are in the case of marriage: an institution older than the Constitution and never before considered open-ended except maybe in Las Vegas. The judges are as wrong as can be, but setting them right — that's a challenge possibly beyond our present representatives. When the harm and gross stupidity of the attack on marriage becomes more apparent — maybe we'll finally do something, if it isn't too late. William Murchison is a nationally syndicated columnist.

By Mark D. Tooley | The Weekly Standard ONE OF AMERICA'S largest Protestant denominations voted in May to prohibit the solemnization of same-sex unions in its churches, to withhold ordination from practicing homosexuals, to ban church funding for "gay" causes, to require celibacy for its single clergy, and to endorse civil laws that define marriage as uniting a man and a woman. And it wasn't the Southern Baptists. No, all this occurred at the governing General Conference of the United Methodist Church, a "mainline" denomination whose leadership has been decidedly liberal for decades. Over 8 million strong, the United Methodists are the third largest church in the United States after the Roman Catholics and the Southern Baptists, and the turn they have taken on the issue of homosexuality is almost directly opposite to that of the quintessential mainline group, the Episcopalians. The Episcopal Church — only one-fourth the size of the United Methodists — has been much in the spotlight since the election of its first openly homosexual bishop last year. Advocates of approving homosexuality hoped the Episcopal Church was a harbinger of America's religious future. But the Methodists aren't following its lead. The United Methodists have always been Main Street, to the Episcopalians' Wall Street. They are more suburban and small town than the Episcopalians, more southern and midwestern, and on the whole more culturally conservative. United Methodists are also highly international. Almost one-third of the U.S.-based denomination is now overseas, mostly in Africa. This represents not only growth abroad but also diminishing numbers at home. Methodism was America's largest church as recently as the late 19th century, but after 40 years of continuous decline, the United Methodists have gone from 11 million to 8.3 million in the United States. Meanwhile, their former mission churches in places like the Congo, Angola, and Mozambique are surging. Full of enthusiastic recent converts, these congregations are ones where liberal theology holds little sway. Africans and to a lesser extent Filipinos have been crucial to setting United Methodism's more culturally conservative direction. In the floor debates over homosexuality at the church's 2004 General Conference in Pittsburgh, African delegates seized the lead in arguing against any weakening of the church's stance that homosexual behavior is "incompatible with Christian teaching." "We have received teaching on marriage from our missionaries," explained one delegate from the Congo, noting the rejection of polygamy. "We Africans, we accepted this teaching, and we became Christians." About two-thirds of the nearly 1,000 delegates voted to reaffirm and in some cases strengthen the church's disapproval of homosexual practice. Compromise language that would have acknowledged internal church differences over homosexuality was rejected, though by a smaller margin. Sixty percent voted that homosexual practice was incompatible with Christian teaching, 72 percent voted to uphold the ban on practicing homosexual clergy, 80 percent reaffirmed the ban on same-sex unions, and 85 percent reaffirmed that clergy must be celibate if single and monogamous if married. Seventy-seven percent voted to affirm "laws in civil society that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman," making the United Methodists the first mainline church to adopt a political stance on same-sex unions. The ban on funding of homosexual advocacy by the national church was expanded to include regional bodies. And adultery, premarital sex, homosexual practice, and same-sex ceremonies were all made chargeable offenses that could precipitate church trials. Supporters of endorsing homosexual behavior responded with anger. "Few expected that there would be any moderation in the denomination's position regarding sexual orientation," complained the Rev. Greg Dell, a Chicago pastor put on leave of absence several years ago for conducting a same-sex ceremony. "But not many were ready for the further tightening of the belt of bigotry that is occurring in Pittsburgh." Many liberal United Methodists believe only fear is keeping the church from following secular society in embracing homosexuality. They are waiting for what they believe is inevitable. But time is not on their side. Liberal religion is demographically dying in the United States, as it is around the world.

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent — The Telegraph 10/07/2004 The Church of England's largest diocese is leading an unprecedented revolt, preparing to withhold more than £100,000 in protest over spiraling costs. In a move that could have far-reaching consequences, the Diocese of London is threatening to cap the money it is expected to pay towards the Church's central bureaucracy. The development, which will alarm the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, follows a 28 per cent jump in the amount that the diocese has been asked to contribute. The Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Peter Broadbent, who is leading the London diocese's campaign, said the Church needed to carry out a fundamental independent review of its bureaucracy and make significant cuts. Six other large dioceses, including Southwark, Oxford and Chichester, are understood to be sympathetic and could follow suit, further undermining the Church's finances. A number of dioceses have been struggling with large deficits and several, particularly in the north of England, face bankruptcy. The London diocese itself has had to cut a number of clergy and other posts to stave off imminent collapse. The row is expected to surface at the General Synod, which began a four-day meeting in York yesterday and is to debate the budget of the Archbishops' Council, the Church's managing body. It will also undermine criticism by bishops that evangelical parishes that cap their quotas in protest at the Church's policy on homosexuality are using money as a weapon. The London diocese voted by a large majority at its diocesan synod last week to give the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres, the authority to cap its 2005 contribution to central funds to £1.7 million. It also asked the council to share out the cost of administering the Church more fairly. Bishop Broadbent said that while wealthier dioceses should support poorer ones, the balance had been lost and the Church had ignored his complaints for years. "The current formula hits us below the belt, and because they haven't been listening to us, we've had to issue this threat," said the bishop. He said that while the central bureaucracy had controlled its spending in recent years, it needed to make further cuts to services it offered that could be carried out by dioceses. Among the services paid for by the centre are the selection and training of future clergy, working on social issues such as education, supporting chaplaincies and supporting the General Synod and the media office. A Church insider said that the six wealthiest dioceses encompassed 28 per cent of the population of England, and the apportionment placed on them was about 30 per cent. He said the council's budget had been frozen for three years, and had effectively reduced its sum by £1 million. A spokesman for the council said: "The council views this development with considerable concern. Dioceses were consulted as usual on the proposed national budget at a meeting of diocesan representatives in May, before the council approved the budget, but this issue was not aired at that stage."

Rabbi Daniel Lapin Thursday, July 15, 2004 On Wednesday afternoon the United States Senate voted against moving forward on a proposed amendment which would have added to the constitution these words, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman." Some Americans are celebrating this as a triumph of tolerance while others are mourning it as the defeat of decency. However, I suspect that many Americans, whose basic credo is live-and-let-live, are ignoring it entirely. It is to these readers, who regard the Senate vote as largely irrelevant in their lives, that I address myself. The majority of us live our lives confronting challenges that demand that we make decisions many times each day. Should I invest this unexpected windfall or spend it on a long-awaited necessity? Should we send our children to private or public school? Should I remain in my job or switch careers? Should I marry the person I have been seeing or wait for someone else? Should I do my homework or go swimming? Many of these decisions would be easy if we didn't all live in a state of exquisite tension, constantly suspended between two opposing poles. Almost every decision forces us to choose between the two poles, each pulling us in a different direction. Sometimes the two poles appear dressed as duty and pleasure. Other times they wear the costumes of our short-term interests versus our long-term interests. Often, in our own minds and for our own emotional convenience, we interpret the two conflicting tugs to be good and evil. However, for many of us, that distinction usually reflects nothing but our own pre-existing inclinations. Often our basic two choices masquerade as continuity and change. For instance, do I divorce my spouse or remain in a flawed marriage? We all feel a pull to keep doing what we have been doing, because continuity is comfortable and change can be terrifying. On the other hand, we are also attracted by change with all its promise of excitement, novelty and perhaps improvement. For many years now American public policy seems to have been guided by the false credo that instead of continuity, change is always the best path. To be sure, the abolition of slavery and the outlawing of child labor were overdue and good changes, but many public policy decisions have also caused dreadful changes. Things don't just happen. Many specific decisions, each made with only good intentions, gradually made life in these United States indescribably more squalid, more expensive, and more dangerous than it was only, say, about 50 years ago. Violent and salacious lyrics that would have made a hardened convict blush back then now pound remorselessly through the earphones of almost every suburban teenager. Do you recall how, in the 1950s, an enviable middle-class lifestyle could be maintained for a family by the earnings of one worker? Back then, women could walk safely at any time of the day or night through the parks of any major city in the country. We embraced the public policies that brought about these terrible changes. People like you and me failed to remember that life involves reconciling continuity and change, not just thoughtlessly accepting change. Public policy decisions do have consequences in our lives. You may not feel the impact of a bill passing Congress until years have elapsed, but feel it you will. Eventually it will impact your children, your finances, and most other aspects of your life; and not necessarily for the better. Whether you personally see the two poles as continuity and change, duty and pleasure, or present and future, they are alluded to by the opening words of the Torah: "In the beginning God created heaven and earth." Rather than viewing this sentence as a cosmological insight into Big Bang theory, ancient Jewish wisdom reveals it to be a fundamental insight into the most basic dilemma of human existence: the need to choose between heaven and earth. Virtually every difficult choice resolves itself in terms of this dilemma - at every confusing crossroad, in the face of two choices, reality restricts our footsteps to only one path. The trick is to identify the real nature of the two paths regardless of what the signposts may say. Clearly, the real nature of the two paths is hinted at by the terms heaven and earth, but what in our real lives do heaven and earth represent? Within no more than 20 words, the biblical text provides a hint: The choice is light and darkness. For those of us still unsure, a later verse spells it out: "I have placed life and death before you, blessing and curse, therefore choose life so that you and your children should live." Back in 1973, because people like you and me considered public policy to be irrelevant to our lives, and because some of us were seduced by the propaganda of choice and freedom, the country chose death. It took many years, but today in most states, your teenage daughter can get an abortion without your knowledge or consent. At its deepest level, the existential choice we each confront many times each day is a choice between heaven and earth, a choice between eternity and mortality, and, yes, ultimately a choice between life and death. The question we now ought to ask ourselves is whether publicly sanctioned homosexual marriage corresponds to the path of life or that of death. Can anyone really be sure of the impact this legislation would have upon the essence of all our lives a few years down the road? To those who ignore the public debate on homosexual marriage and to those who feel it is irrelevant in their lives and to those who advertise their tolerance by singing "live-and-let-live," I say the time has come to choose continuity over change. The time has come to choose heaven over earth, and, yes, life over death. Radio talk show host Rabbi Daniel Lapin is president of Toward Tradition - the American Alliance of Jews and Christians (www.towardtradition.org), a Seattle-based bridge-building organization providing a voice for all Americans who defend the Judeo-Christian values vital for our nation's survival.

By John Johnson Episcopalian senators were evenly split on the issue when the U.S. Senate defeated an attempt July 14 to amend the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage and prohibiting same-gender civil marriage. In a procedural vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, the tally was 50 to 48 -- 12 votes short of the number needed for senators to end debate and vote on the actual amendment, according to the Episcopal Church's Office of Government Relations in Washington, D.C. A vote to invoke cloture -- to cut off debate -- requires 60 votes. An amendment to the Constitution requires a "super majority" of 67 votes in order to pass the Senate. Of those voting to cut off debate - Saxby Chambliss (Georgia), Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Ted Stevens (Alaska), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), and John Warner (Virginia) -- all are Republicans. Of those not voting in favor, Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island) and John McCain (Arizona) are Republicans and Bill Nelson (Florida), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), and Evan Bayh (Indiana) are Democrats. "I am here today to say that not all people of faith believe we should amend the Constitution to deny people equal rights under the law," said the Rt. Rev. Jane Holmes Dixon, retired Bishop of Washington pro-tempore, at a news conference outside the Capitol following the vote. "As a Christian, my faith calls me to respect the dignity of every human being and to strive for justice and to tear down the walls that separate us." "In the history of our nation, this great Constitution to form a more perfect union and establish justice has been amended to include those not originally included, never to exclude," Dixon added. "And the Federal Marriage Amendment debated in the Senate today [would] do just that. It excludes and denies American citizens equal protection under the law." In a statement released by Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold in February, he expressed similar concerns about a Constitutional amendment. "The Episcopal Church is on record as being committed to continuing discussion and discernment around these questions [of sexuality], about which we do not have a common mind, and to equal protection under the law and full civil rights for homosexual persons," the statement said. "I am concerned about the advisability of a Constitutional amendment being put forth for discussion at this time. Questions of sexuality are far from settled, and a Constitutional amendment which was perceived as settling this matter might make it more difficult to engage in civil discourse around this topic." The 1976 General Convention of the Episcopal Church established the policy of the Church that "Homosexual persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws with all other citizens." That policy was reaffirmed in 1994. At the news conference, Dixon was joined at the podium by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and Barbara Boxer (D-California), U.S. Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-New York) and U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado). Also participating in the news conference were Wade Henderson, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Cheryl Jacques, president of the Human Rights Campaign; Rabbi Michael Namath of the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism; Lisalyn Jacobs of Legal Momentum and Martin Ornelas-Quintero of Llego. John Johnson is a domestic policy analyst in the Episcopal Church Office of Government Relations.