F.B.I. agents on Tuesday raided and temporarily shut down the offices of a small federal watchdog agency that is charged with protecting the rights of government whistle-blowers but has been accused of retaliating against whistle-blowers in its own ranks.
The raid on the downtown Washington headquarters of the agency, the Office of Special Counsel, and another at the home of its director, Scott J. Bloch, followed accusations that Mr. Bloch had destroyed evidence on government computers that might demonstrate wrongdoing.
Mr. Bloch, who has held the post of special counsel since January 2004, has denied intentionally destroying evidence from his agency’s computers, though he has acknowledged paying $1,000 of public money to a technology company, Geeks on Call, to scrub his own government computer in 2006. He has said he was trying to rid the computer of software viruses, an assertion challenged by members of Congress and by lawyers representing current and former employees of the office… [emphasis added]
Bloch has a long history or religious right activism and abuse of office, especially against the GLBT community. I’m just geeky enough myself to know that a standard deep format, a task that can be accomplished by anyone with rudimentary computer skills, will rid the computer of viruses and will cost no more than $100 – $150. A $1,000 wipe overwrites existing data so many times that the original data can never be recovered.
In addition to having previously referred to Catholicism as “The Great Whore,” controversial pastor John Hagee said on NPR in September 2006 that Hurricane Katrina was the result of God condemning New Orleans because “there was to be a homosexual parade there” the day the hurricane hit — a belief he recently reaffirmed.
Despite Hagee’s radical and bigoted beliefs, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sought and received Hagee’s endorsement for president — one McCain said he was “very honored” to have. Since then, Hagee’s views have garnered more attention, sparking wider questions as to why McCain would accept such an endorsement.
In a recent article on the McCain/Hagee saga, Newsweek reports that McCain aides attribute the courting of Hagee’s support to “poor vetting.” But some from McCain’s own party wonder how his views could have “slipped through the cracks”:
McCain’s aides attribute the Hagee controversy to poor vetting. But even some Republicans (not affiliated with the campaign) privately wonder how the pastor’s extreme views slipped through without notice. McCain personally wooed Hagee for more than a year.
Indeed, “some Republicans” weren’t the only ones greeting this explanation with confusion. The New York Times’s Frank Rich noted yesterday that “[a]ny 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops”:
Are we really to believe that neither Mr. McCain nor his camp knew anything then about Mr. Hagee’s views? This particular YouTube video — far from the only one — was posted on Jan. 1, nearly two months before the Hagee-McCain press conference. Mr. Hagee appears on multiple religious networks, including twice daily on the largest, Trinity Broadcasting, which reaches 75 million homes. Any 12-year-old with a laptop could have vetted this preacher in 30 seconds, tops…
…Newsweek noted that McCain “likes to think of himself as a straight-shooter” but when asked about Hagee’s endorsement, McCain starts “bobbing and weaving” — which is exactly what happened last month during an interview on ABC’s This Week. McCain agreed that the endorsement was “a mistake,” but 30 seconds later said he is “glad to have it.”
In seeking Hagee’s support, perhaps McCain and his staff did not “properly” vet the controversial pastor because they were taking advice from McCain’s buddy Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who just last year compared Hagee to Moses… [emphasis added]
The notion that McBigot did not know Hagee’s views is patently absurd. I first reported on Hagee’s extremism in November, 2006, less than three weeks after I relocated my blog to Blogger. Since, I have done so on ten other occasions. If I have thoroughly vetted Hagee, it’s inconceivable that, with all their resources, the McConJob campaign did not. Not only did he McFlipFlop within the space of 30 seconds, but also this goes beyond a mere flip-flop. McLiar is McFullOfIt!
When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.
But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.
Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.
Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.
Eileen Lainez, a spokeswoman for the Defense Department, declined to comment on the case, saying, “The department does not discuss pending litigation.”
Specialist Hall’s lawsuit is the latest incident to raise questions about the military’s religion guidelines. In 2005, the Air Force issued new regulations in response to complaints from cadets at the Air Force Academy that evangelical Christian officers used their positions to proselytize. In general, the armed forces have regulations, Ms. Lainez said, that respect “the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.”
To Specialist Hall and other critics of the military, the guidelines have done little to change a culture they say tilts heavily toward evangelical Christianity. Controversies have continued to flare, largely over tactics used by evangelicals to promote their faith. Perhaps the most high-profile incident involved seven officers, including four generals, who appeared, in uniform and in violation of military regulations, in a 2006 fund-raising video for the Christian Embassy, an evangelical Bible study group.
“They don’t trust you because they think you are unreliable and might break, since you don’t have God to rely on,” Specialist Hall said of those who proselytize in the military. “The message is, ‘It’s a Christian nation, and you need to recognize that.’ ”
Soft-spoken and younger looking than his 23 years, Specialist Hall began a chapter of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers at Camp Speicher, near Tikrit, to support others like him.
At the July meeting, Major Welborn told the soldiers they had disgraced those who had died for the Constitution, Specialist Hall said. When he finished, Major Welborn said, according to the statement: “I love you guys; I just want the best for you. One day you will see the truth and know what I mean.”
Major Welborn declined to comment beyond saying, “I’d love to tell my side of the story because it’s such a false story.”
But Timothy Feary, the other soldier at the meeting, said in an e-mail message: “Jeremy is telling the truth. I was there and witnessed everything.”
It is unclear how widespread religious discrimination or proselytizing is in the armed forces, constitutional law experts and leaders of veterans’ groups said. No one has independently studied the issue, and service members are reluctant to come forward because of possible backlash, those experts said… [emphasis added]
Were this a single isolated incident, I would be inclined to pass it off as one man’s fanaticism, but in context with ongoing attempts by the Bush/GOP Reich to proselytize out troops, this can only be viewed as an intentional violation of the Constitution by the GOP.
I documented HERE, that according to the Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously approved by the US Senate on June 7, 1797, the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Thus the claims made by Major Welborn are lies.
Speaking as a Christian, I’m all for Christianity, but the dogma of the religious right is not Christian. Their attempts to impose their supply-side gospel of hate, war, death, bigotry, greed, and intolerance is criminal.
Some of the country’s most prominent Jewish liberals are forming a political action committee and lobbying group aimed at dislodging what they consider the excessive hold of neoconservatives and evangelical Christians on U.S. policy toward Israel.
The group is planning to channel political contributions to favored candidates in perhaps a half-dozen campaigns this fall, the first time an organization focused on Israel has tried to play such a direct role in the political process, according to its organizers.
Organizers said they hope those efforts, coupled with a separate lobbying group that will focus on promoting an Arab-Israeli peace settlement, will fill a void left by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, and other Jewish groups that they contend have tilted to the right in recent years.
The lobbying group will be known as J Street and the political action group as JStreetPAC. The executive director for both will be Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House.
“The definition of what it means to be pro-Israel has come to diverge from pursuing a peace settlement,” said Alan Solomont, a prominent Democratic Party fundraiser involved in the initiative. In recent years, he said, “We have heard the voices of neocons, and right-of-center Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals, and the mainstream views of the American Jewish community have not been heard.”… [emphasis added]
What a magnificent idea! While I am not altogether comfortable with ANY foreign nation lobbying our representatives, it has been going on for some time, so the issue is who will do the lobbying.
Were I an Israeli, I would feel most uncomfortable to have the primary group fostering my interests to be one focused on the notion that my nation exists to bring about Armageddon, and that, when it happened, I would have to convert or be judged for my faith. That is the AIPAC agenda.
AIPAC, now a neocon theocon tool, is destructive to Israel, because it predicates US support upon having an extreme right government with policies that foster war rather than peace. A lasting peace is in the best interests of both Israel and the Palestinians, but against the interests of the neocons and theocons that control AIPAC.
McBoomBoom is a big AIPAC supporter, and his spiritual mentor, John Hagee, is one of AIPAC’s most prominent leaders.
There may be an explanation for this that doesn’t look like an obvious snub, but nothing comes to mind.
Guess who’s not coming to dinner? Pope Benedict XVI.
President Bush and his wife, Laura, will host a White House dinner in honor of the pontiff Wednesday evening. U.S. Catholic leaders from around the nation will attend. The menu will offer Bavarian-style food in recognition of the pope’s German heritage. It’s even the pope’s 81st birthday. But he won’t be there.
“He’s on a very ambitious official schedule,” Anita McBride, Mrs. Bush’s chief of staff, said Friday. “He’ll be meeting with U.S. bishops that night” at a university in Washington.
Now, it’s not that the Pope is avoiding Bush altogether. The President and First Lady will greet the Pope at Andrews Air Force Base, and there will be a formal welcoming ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House on Wednesday morning.
But the White House also scheduled a dinner in the Pope’s honor for that evening, and he’s apparently decided he has better things to do on Wednesday night.
Complicating matters slightly, Raw Story reported that there are “no competing events listed on the pope’s schedule.”… [emphasis added]
I’m normally not a big fan of Benedict XIV, but I can’t blame him for not wanting to associate with Texas Torquemada at dinner. Note that the Bush/GOP Reich even lied about Benedict’s non-existent schedule conflict.
CNN will serve as the exclusive broadcaster of a presidential candidate forum on faith, values and other current issues at Messiah College near Harrisburg, Penn., on Sunday, April 13, at 8 p.m. (ET) CNN Election Center anchor Campbell Brown and Newsweek editor and Newsweek.com election anchor Jon Meacham will moderate what is being billed as The Compassion Forum, which will take place nine days before the Pennsylvania primary.
Organized and sponsored by Faith in Public Life, the 90-minute forum will consist of wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to pressing moral issues that are bridging ideological divides now more than ever, including poverty, global AIDS, climate change and human rights. It will feature Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the same stage to talk about these topics as each candidate sits down individually with the moderators. The program will also stream live at www.CNN.com …
This could prove most interesting. From my own perspective, my faith impels me to hold progressive views such as tolerance, equality, human rights, concern for the less fortunate, respect for those whose beliefs differ from mine (as long as they are not trying to shove them down my throat), and opposition to the attempts by the religious right to use political power to impose their dogma of greed, war, bigotry and intolerance on others. I do think that there is a place for faith in public life, as long as it does not violate the establishment clause. I look forward to hearing what Clinton and Obama have to say.
Not surprisingly, McConJob declined an invitation to attend. I’m guessing that he fears having to account for why he is now groveling at the feet of those he formerly and correctly described as “agents of intolerance”. Or perhaps his preference for the rich at the expense of the poor. Or perhaps he doesn’t want to explain the Bomb Bomb Iran.
It’s nice to see one subject of a Republican sex-scandal rally to the aid of another.
Embattled Louisiana Sen. David Vitter (R) is getting support from fellow Republicans who say he should not resign over a public sex scandal — including from someone who can speak from experience.
Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was among several GOP senators who say Vitter’s testimony in the “D.C. Madam” prostitution case should not compel his resignation.
“First and foremost, in these kinds of issues, it’s the state and the relationship you have with your state that really determines where you ought to go,” Craig said. “That was certainly my case. The Senate itself wasn’t going to judge me. I would allow the citizens of my state to do so. And there is still strong support there.”
Actually, Craig’s Senate colleagues tried to judge him, but he wouldn’t leave.
Nevertheless, it’s hard to say whether Vitter considers Craig’s endorsement good news or bad. Vitter, who has been called on to testify in the “D.C. Madam” case, is not only facing calls for his resignation, but is apparently getting into car accidents over it. Does support from his scandal-plagued colleague really help?
I suppose, given the circumstances, Vitter will take whatever help he can get.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported yesterday that Vitter’s name is among those listed as potential witnesses in the Deborah Jeane Palfrey trial, and noted that his lawyer insists that Vitter will cite his Fifth Amendment privileges if compelled to testify — a legally sound move that may not go over well in the court of public opinion.
While invoking the Fifth Amendment likely avoids the possibility of embarrassing details being aired in public, political experts say it carries other risks.
“I’d guess the Fifth Amendment response would not play well at all, and would draw a response of ‘What has he got to hide?’ from many people,” said Michael Johnston, a political scientist from Colgate University who has written about the public’s perception of corruption.
Johnston said a better political course would be to “get the story out there and put up with the bad publicity and Jay Leno jokes for a few more days.” Vitter is not up for re-election until 2010.
Washington lawyer Stan Brand said the only member of Congress he remembers taking the Fifth is his former client Dan Rostenkowski, a former Democratic congressman from Illinois. Rostenkowski invoked the Fifth Amendment in the early 1990s when he was asked to testify before a grand jury investigating corruption charges in the House. He survived the political fallout, but lost re-election several years later after being indicted on corruption charges.
“It’s a legal decision, and the political consequences aren’t known,” Brand said.
Ed Renwick, director of the Institute of Politics at Loyola University in New Orleans, said there are no good options for Vitter. “He’s trapped,” Renwick said.
Why is it that Elliot Spitzer resigned quickly when he was caught, but neither Craig nor Vitter has, when the Republicans claim to be the family values party, even though they falsely claim that those values are religious right piety codes. Could it be that the GOP is made of of hypocrites who need to be removed from office in November?
…Commenting on the report, co-host Pat Robertson said of Islam: “I want to say it again, and again, and again: Islam is not a religion, it is a political system meant on — bent on world domination, not a religion. It masquerades as a religion, but the religion covers a worldwide attempt to exercise power and to subjugate the world to their way of thinking.”…
Only a true GOP Sweetheart would combine sufficient ignorance and audacity as to claim that Islam is not even a religion, based on a statement that applies only to a very small minority of Muslims.
This is my second year of participation in Blog Against Theocracy, hosted by Tengrain. This article will be cross-posted there. I am proud to be a participant and encourage you to visit Tengrain’s blog to read other articles posted there by many other bloggers. Friday I defined theocracy and looked at secular reasons to oppose it in this article. Yesterday, I examined theocracy’s track record in this article. Today, for my last article in this event, I shall examine theological errors inherent to theocon dogma, and make a case that Jesus would oppose theocracy in the manner that theocons are attempting to impose it here in the US. I don’t wish to argue whether or not the Biblical passages I cite are divinely inspired. That is irrelevant to my purpose here. So if you are a non-believer, I ask that you temporarily suspend your non-belief, just for this discussion.
The chief error theocons make is their insistence that the Bible be interpreted literally, word for word. In ancient times the most common manner of teaching was through story telling. The stories needed not be true. What was important was that the story illustrate a truth. This was Jesus’ favored method of teaching, and his stories are called parables. Even the religious right acknowledges this, because the gospels often state that a story was a parable. If we can acknowledge that parables were good enough for Jesus, how can we not acknowledge that they were good enough for Moses too? To insist, for example, that the Genesis creation account must be literal rather than allegorical is irrational.
The next error is linguistic. Theocons authority for all things is the Bible, which they call the Word of God, and will happily trot out passage after passage in which “the Word” proclaims its own perfection and power. However, there are three different words in koine (New Testament Greek) contained in these passages, each with its own unique meaning:
The first and most common is Λόγος (logos) and refers to Jesus himself. For example,
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.
When the theocons use passages containing this word, they are falsely assigning the attributes of Jesus to a book.
The second is ῥῆμα (rhēma) and refers to spoken (only) utterances, usually of God. For example,
Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Theocons think their Bibles are their swords for fighting spiritual warfare, but these passages have nothing to do the Bible.
The third and least common is γραφή (graphē) and refers to writings. For example,
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
This is the only word of the three that can rightfully be used to describe the Bible, but in its Biblical context it refers to the Old Testament only.
Since the religious right either misunderstand, or, in the case of their leaders, misrepresent the scripture, to use their misinterpretation of that scripture as a basis for theocracy is irrational.
Therefore, the very basis for theocracy, from my Christian perspective, is hopelessly flawed.
If Jesus were to weigh in on this subject, what would he say? What would he think about the attempts of the theocons to impose their dogma? He made two statements to indicate that, here on earth, he would support the separation of church and state. Here they are:
Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world.
Furthermore, to fully determine his position, I think it necessary to consider that there was a partial theocracy in first century Judea, headed by the theocons of his day, the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees. Like today’s theocons they concentrated on dogma, not on faith. Like today’s theocons, they used their religious position to increase their own power and wealth. And like today’s theocons, they were completely intolerant of all who disagreed with them. Jesus opposed them then and would do so again today.
And what would he say to Robertson, Hagee, Perkins, Dobson and others of their ilk?
Mat 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye tithe mint and anise and cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, justice, and mercy, and faith: but these ye ought to have done, and not to have left the other undone.
Mat 23:24 Ye blind guides, that strain out the gnat, and swallow the camel!
Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full from extortion and excess.
Mat 23:26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside thereof may become clean also.
Mat 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
Mat 23:28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
Thank you for sharing this journey with me. Happy Easter to you all.
This is my second year of participation in Blog Against Theocracy, hosted by Tengrain. This article will be cross-posted there. I am proud to be a participant and encourage you to visit Tengrain’s blog to read other articles posted there by many other bloggers. Yesterday I defined theocracy and looked at secular reasons to oppose it in this article. Today, I wish to take a different approach. In Matthew 7:17, Jesus said that we can recognize authentic believers by their fruit. So it is certainly legitimate to consider the fruit of theocracy. One of the best measures of that is the treatment of outcasts, who Jesus gathered to himself.
We so have a time in history in which the sacred authorities were at least equal to the secular, and for much of it, Western Europe can be considered a virtual theocracy from the fall of the Roman Empire to the Enlightenment. We’ll go back a little earlier for context. One group that was considered outcasts throughout that time was Jews. Here is the fruit of theocracy where Jews are concerned:
325: The Council of Nicea decided to separate the celebration of Easter from the Jewish Passover. They stated: “For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people…We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews…our worship follows a…more convenient course…we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews…How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded.”
337: Christian Emperor Constantius created a law which made the marriage of a Jewish man to a Christian punishable by death.
339: Converting to Judaism became a criminal offense.
343-381: The Laodicean Synod approved Cannon XXXVIII: “It is not lawful [for Christians] to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.”
367 – 376: St. Hilary of Poitiers referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever. St. Ephroem refers to synagogues as brothels.
379-395: Emperor Theodosius the Great permitted the destruction of synagogues if it served a religious purpose. Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire at this time.
380: The bishop of Milan was responsible for the burning of a synagogue; he referred to it as “an act pleasing to God.”
415: The Bishop of Alexandria, St. Cyril, expelled the Jews from that Egyptian city.
415: St. Augustine wrote “The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.”
418: St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Bible wrote of a synagogue: “If you call it a brothel, a den of vice, the Devil’s refuge, Satan’s fortress, a place to deprave the soul, an abyss of every conceivable disaster or whatever you will, you are still saying less than it deserves.”
489 – 519: Christian mobs destroyed the synagogues in Antioch, Daphne (near Antioch) and Ravenna.
528: Emperor Justinian (527-564) passed the Justinian Code. It prohibited Jews from building synagogues, reading the Bible in Hebrew, assemble in public, celebrate Passover before Easter, and testify against Christians in court. 3
535: The “Synod of Claremont decreed that Jews could not hold public office or have authority over Christians.” 3
538: The 3rd and 4th Councils of Orleans prohibited Jews from appearing in public during the Easter season. Canon XXX decreed that “From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians.” 5 Marriages between Christians and Jews were prohibited. Christians were prohibited from converting to Judaism. 4
561: The bishop of Uzes expelled Jews from his diocese in France.
612: Jews were not allowed to own land, to be farmers or enter certain trades.
613: Very serious persecution began in Spain. Jews were given the options of either leaving Spain or converting to Christianity. Jewish children over 6 years of age were taken from their parents and given a Christian education
692: Cannnon II of the Quinisext Council stated: “Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews, nor have any familiar intercourse with them, nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman, let him be cut off.”
694: The 17th Church Council of Toledo, Spain defined Jews as the serfs of the prince. This was based, in part, on the beliefs by Chrysostom, Origen, Jerome, and other Church Fathers that God punished the Jews with perpetual slavery because of their responsibility for the execution of Jesus.
722: Leo III outlawed Judaism. Jews were baptized against their will.
855: Jews were exiled from Italy
1050: The Synod of Narbonne prohibited Christians from living in the homes of Jews.
1078: “Pope Gregory VII decreed that Jews could not hold office or be superiors to Christians.”
1078: The Synod of Gerona forced Jews to pay church taxes
1096: The First Crusade was launched in this year. Although the prime goal of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from the Muslims, Jews were a second target. As the soldiers passed through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, large numbers of Jews were challenged: “Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!” 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade. This behavior continued for 8 additional crusades until the 9th in 1272.
1099: The Crusaders forced all of the Jews of Jerusalem into a central synagogue and set it on fire. Those who tried to escape were forced back into the burning building.
1121: Jews were exiled from Flanders (now part of present-day Belgium)
1130: Some Jews in London allegedly killed a sick man. The Jewish people in the city were required to pay 1 million marks as compensation.
1146: The Second Crusade began. A French Monk, Rudolf, called for the destruction of the Jews.
1179: Canon 24 of the Third Lateran Council stated: “Jews should be slaves to Christians and at the same time treated kindly due of humanitarian considerations.” Canon 26 stated that “the testimony of Christians against Jews is to be preferred in all causes where they use their own witnesses against Christians.”
1180: The French King of France, Philip Augustus, arbitrarily seized all Jewish property and expelled the Jews from the country. There was no legal justification for this action. They were allowed to sell all movable possessions, but their land and houses were stolen by the king.
1189: Jews were persecuted in England. The Crown claimed all Jewish possessions. Most of their houses were burned.
From there we continue with a brief look at the Inquisition.
The Inquisition was a Roman Catholic tribunal for discovery and punishment of heresy, which was marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of rights afforded to the accused.
While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France. By 1255, the Inquisition was in full gear throughout Central and Western Europe; although it was never instituted in England or Scandinavia.
Initially a tribunal would open at a location and an edict of grace would be published calling upon those who are conscious of heresy to confess; after a period of grace, the tribunal officers could make accusations. Those accused of heresy were sentenced at an auto de fe, Act of Faith. Clergyman would sit at the proceedings and would deliver the punishments. Punishments included confinement to dungeons, physical abuse and torture. Those who reconciled with the church were still punished and many had their property confiscated, as well as were banished from public life. Those who never confessed were burned at the stake without strangulation; those who did confess were strangled first. During the 16th and 17th centuries, attendance at auto de fe reached as high as the attendance at bullfights.
In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.
In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.
First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society.
More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492…
Now, lest you consider this a rant against Catholicism, it is not. The brief period of Protestant theocracy in Massachusetts gave us witch burnings. It is the nature of religious hypocrites to seek and abuse authority. The fruit of theocracy is rotten to the core. Now the theocons might argue that it isn’t true anymore, because they like Jews and support Israel, but that claim is also a lie. It still applies, because the theocons have new outcasts. Here’s a theocon from Family Research Council discussing the problem that gay people cannot get permanent visas for partners who were here on temporary work and student visas, because the state does not recognize gay unions:
The bigotry is unchanged. It just has new targets.In addition to intolerance, hate and bigotry, the fruit of theocracy will be rotten any time what’s best for people interferes with their religious agenda. Here’s Tony Perkins of family research council talking about global warming:
Can we entrust the care of the earth to those who want it to end in apocalypse?Tomorrow I shall discuss the error that has led the religious right to attempt to impose their dogma and attempt to discern Jesus’ view.
F.B.I. agents on Tuesday raided and temporarily shut down the offices of a small federal watchdog agency that is charged with protecting the rights of government whistle-blowers but has been accused of retaliating against whistle-blowers in its own ranks.