 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! April 3, 2005 Under GodBy GreyhawkPaul the Apostle, in his second letter to Timothy, writes
That fought the good fight etc. part should be familiar to any who are familiar with the Christian approach to the end of life. I'm not Catholic. I've been to a Catholic church for a service exactly once - a funeral, in fact. I don't recall if that verse was used, but I'm sure it applied. Overall the Catholics embrace a bit too much ritual for my tastes, but it's part of their faith, and that's fine. That's freedom, after all. By comparison, in spite of these ancient traditions Catholics as a group are certainly more flexible in their orthodoxy than the current academic left - who now subscribe to a belief system so rigid and a world view so constricted and parochial that the slightest deviation from the approved text by any member of the The core belief, the central tenet of that orthodoxy of the left is hatred of the Catholic Church. It's not just the Pope's contribution to the destruction of communism that has brought about that state of affairs. The global left has seen (rightfully) the Church as it's primary enemy in the world for decades ('opiate of the masses', anyone?) and the fall of Russian-brand communism is just another lost battle in an ongoing war. The left lacks vibrancy but remains capable of small skirmishes, and certainly they find positions to attack; current favorites include gay marriage, abortion, etc. But the acrimony really boils down to the Church's acknowledgement of our basic human imperfections and adherence to fundamental Christian morality - the greatest impediment to the advancement of a 'brave new world' so fervently desired by the fanatic followers of 19th century philosophers and so opposed by otherwise philosophically diverse individuals like John Paul II and George Orwell. Those who share either of their disparate yet generationally transcendent (and currently ascendent) world views find themselves allied on that front. With the passing of the Pope expect to see a new wave of calls from outside the body for re-making the Church; more "gay friendly", more pro-choice, more opposed to whatever it is about the Bible that offends the left. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. The Church isn't about to bow to that pressure, of course, but watch the New York Times for examples of anti-church sentiment couched as suggestions and good ideas on how to make the organization more progressive - in this sense meaning adhering to that strict doctrine of the global left. Powerline has already revealed an exposed hint of the agenda, the failure on the part of the weekend web team at the Times to cover up the fact that they've been unable to find someone to quote who might offer a favorable opinion of the deceased Pontiff. Likewise note the media watchdogging currently being done at The Corner, or from Blogs like The Anchoress, Nunblog, or Hugh Hewitt. These people aren't trying to choose the next Pope, but they're exposing those who desire to do just that. Who will the media choose as successor to John Paul II? Bear in mind that for much of 2004 American media portrayed John Kerry as a devout Catholic - ignoring the fact that on the fundamental issue of choice he is as opposed to the Church as any human can be. He was denounced from Pulpits, to the point where weak cries of hypocrisy (the left's greatest imaginable sin) were raised for the failure of the same Church to attack the President for conducting a war in Iraq. Separation of Church and State - that other old favorite response from the left to religious overtones in political issues - could not be applied, since JFK II was spending every Sunday of the year campaigning in America's protestant churches. The Left understands when one of it's own drops into an opium den trolling for votes - that's just being practical. So expect the Times to opine in favor of some mythical Cardinal embodying the qualities of John Kerry, and the rest of American media to follow suit enthusiastically. "Remaking the Church" will be the theme - perhaps we'll even see cries to the effect of "Can Catholicism be Born Again!?" In headlines across the nation. Meanwhile, elsewhere in America, Scott Ott stands prepared to answer. I noted at the start I'm not a Catholic, and I've pre-chastised the left wing media for their upcoming calls for a 'reform Pope'. So now in the height of hypocrisy, that deadliest of mortal sins, I'm going to make my suggestion for the next Pope: At the dawn of the third millennium from the occurrence of the following event, find a descendent of an Ethiopian Eunuch.
Posted by Greyhawk / April 3, 2005 5:48 PM | Permalink 31 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Very well put Greyhawk. I'm not Catholic either, but I have already found myself defending the Pope tooth and nail to some of my more agnostic friends who say "he was a good man, but he wasn't 'progressive' enough..." Maybe it's because the word of God doesn't progress, per se, but is more of an anvil and in troubled times, the solid foundation upon which the hammerof decay strikes, but never dents.
Two problems of course: One, I'm no Canon Law expert, but based on my readings of early (2-4 century) Church law, I don't believe a eunuch can become a bishop (there was some outrage when a 3rd century martyr castrated himself and was afterwards made a bishop, based on this argument... I don't recall right offhand who it was)
Second: You're gonna have a hell of a time finding ANY descendant of a eunuch :-)
On a serious note, JPII appointed all but two or three of the cardinal electors, so I'm sure his legacy is solid
Great essay, Greyhawk!
And now, since I'm secure enough to do so *lol*, I'm going to show my ignorance: Is the Pope politically considered to be a head of state? I ask the question after driving by the biggest flag in our town - at a place of business - and it is lowered. The past eludes me, so I can't put this into perspective.
Sus, Yes... the US Dept. of State even keeps an official liason at the Vatican. Wouldn't want to call him an ambassador, that might make the Arab street mad!!!
Scott Ott nails it. Again.
In an example of hope over experience, I have been watching the 24hour news channels. They have been true to form, showing their ignorance on a subject easily researched on the web. The usual suspects, Instapundit, Donald Sensing, the Anchoress, to name a few, have links to a number of sites chock full of information about the Catholic Church, none of which the MSM have used. Maybe they'll wake up if they keep on doing 24/7 coverage of the death of JPII and the conclave to follow and avail themselves of the wealth of information. (That's where the hope over experience thing comes in.)
Here's one site with information on the upcoming process for choosing a new Pope:
http://www.americamagazine.org/papaltransition.cfm
"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day–and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing."
Go in peace, John Paul II
An African Pope after the Polish Pope? If he could do for that continent what John Paul II did for Europe I'm all for it. Africa stands as the current crossroad of world history - several forces clash on that continent today. Sickness vs. health, Muslim vs. Christian (and Animists), ignorance vs. enlightenment, hope vs. despair. The victors of these battles will move elsewhere tomorrow.
I was raised Catholic, went to parochial school through 8th grade and then got my degrees through a Catholic Womens college. With that said, I do have an issue with JPII and that is with the priest scandals. They haven't gone away and there has been significant coverups over the last 30 years. I do believe there is a problem in the priesthood with homosexuality. Some may argue that it is pedophilia but I ask you who was the last female who filed charges against a priest? Don't think you'll come up with one, it's priest's molesting young boys. And JPII did nothing about it. I know he was a good man in many other respects but I cannot get past that situation. I am not trying to disparage a good man but he was a sinner just like the rest of us.
Well you were correct about the calls for change starting in:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=3&u=/nm/20050403/ts_nm/pope_usa_dc
However you seem just a wee bit biased. I remember the prior Popes. At the occasion of their deaths and their elevation to Pope there is always a great debate in the Church. In American politics they call that an election.
There isn't going to be calls for change just coming from the "left", but from all sides. There are many arguing for the Church to become more conservative. Or whether to take a more active role in the world or not. There is also a debate over whether the laity should have more say in how the Church conducts its business or whether it should continue to be a mostly closed system. And of course the question of celibacy for priests comes up every time. After all, we have only prohibited priests from getting married for the last thousand years, so its still a relatively new concept for the Church to deal with in context of its total lifespan.
The history if the Catholic Church is in many ways one of dissension within the ranks. Thats just the way it works. It's not a liberal plot to take over Catholicism.
You're wrong Patrick, the things you'll see on TV and read in papers will be liberal opinions of what the church should be. The post above doesn't address the internal processes of the church. And the selection of a new Pope bears no resemblance to an American political election.
What you'll see on TV is whatever is going to keep people watching the longest. Be it gay marriage, married priests, pedophiles, pacifism, or birth control the media will air the most controversial issues in the most incendiary way.
But that's a different issue altogether.
"...the selection of a new Pope bears no resemblance to an American political election."
No. It doesn't. But the swirl of opinions vying to come to bear on the Cardinals in the days before they begin the conclave sounds a lot like a political season. Do the Cardinals watch only Italian TV? Do they speak with friends who have recommendations? The air is thick with the urge to influence the outcome, and it's impossible to know what may tip a decision.
This has nothing to do with the 'Left'. The idea that one side of the political spectrum has a greater interest in influencing the selection of the next Pope is absurd.
"The core belief, the central tenet of that orthodoxy of the left is hatred of the Catholic Church".
This is the biggest line of bull I've read in a long time.
I've seen plenty of ad-hominum attacks against liberals and leftists from rightwingers, but the above line is so false it reveals your ignorance about people and the world around you.
If you didn't know, a majority of Catholic clergy and laity in Latin America are leftist. Many leftist Catholics were murdered in Nicaragua by your beloved Contras during the '80's.
To be brief: Cut the crap and contribute something useful to the world besides your pathetic blog. selah sdf
Welllll, he was'nt born a eunuch!
"Seventy-eight percent said the next pope should allow Catholics to use birth control, 63 percent said he should let priests marry and 59 percent said the next pope should have a less-strict policy on stem cell research.
Fifty-five percent said the next pope should allow women to become priests, while 44 percent said he should not. The question's margin of error means the difference is too close to draw strong conclusions."
Poll: U.S. Catholics would support changes
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/04/03/pope.poll/index.html
Mudvillians, go look up Dorothy Day.
Don't you theocons have enough real things to hate liberals about? Why do you need to invent new special fantasies to hate us over? Stick to the meat and potato hatred of the left by the right. There are too many Catholic liberals out here for the "liberals hate the Catholic church" meme to get any real traction. You just look foolish trying to use it... Well, I suppose you look foolish anyway.
The reason the left hates the catholic church is that most of the priests fondle little boys and the church protects them while George Bush and the current administration and certain members of congress, ie Bill Frist, Tom Delay pass legislation to protect this group of child molesters posing as a religious organization.
I tried but I could not post a response that was as ridiculous in its misinformation and paranoia. Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh look sane compared to the original post.
The right wing has truly lost it and has been entirely taken over by people like the bibletolahs that run this site.
Eat my ass, morons.
As a progressive, I loved certain things about the Pope - let's not forget, he was ADAMANTLY opposed to the Iraq War (have you forgotten that) and the death penalty, and in favor of progressive movements in Third World countries. He was not the right-wing Bible thumper you like to think he is
Greyhawk, I notice that you are really drawing in the moonbats today.
Don't these people understand that, while there may be "liberal Catholics", they tend to pick and choose among the official doctrines of their church. How much do they believe in the teachings of that Church ... i.e. just how Catholic are they ... if they are so selective in adopting its doctrines? (That's not to say that those doctrines are all right ... that's why I'm not Catholic ... but the ones that seem to get left behind by the "liberals" are the tenets of personal responsibility that I agree with the most.)
And, the Pope is NOT the "liberation theologian" such as these would like him to be ... he vigorously opposed the hard Left in the Catholic church during his tenure, even as he warned the West about "savage capitalism".
Your statement -- that the Left hates the Catholic Church -- is NOT BS; it just doesn't go far enough. They hate the doctrines of Christianity in general, because it does not endorse the society they wish to impose upon on all of us ...
The Leftists want to guarantee
Your right to get by irresponsibly
Get drunk, get stoned, get high on crack
Then jump with anyone into the sack
And then go see the doc for free
Cure that hangover and STD
Pick up your check, and go back to bed
All they ask is your right ...
... to get ahead
Man, there is some real shit in this comments section. Despite what many people think, most Catholic priests are servants of God who don't approve of sex between unmarried couples, let alone priests and altar-boys. Zen-more, you win the award for disagreeing without being an asshole--I would argue, however, that the Pope is a Bible thumper. It's a prerequisite for the job.
People also forget the Pope's role. He isn't supposed to institute whatever change is 'popular' within the Church, or speak out on government involvement in social issues, or anything else like that. He is supposed to lead the Roman Catholic Church, based on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the revelation of God's Word and Jesus's example. All things in the hope that the entire world will come to know and accept Jesus Christ as our savior. No more. No less.
Rest easy, Greyhawk. Look to the demographics, and relax.
Q: Where is the majority of the Catholic population shifting to?
A: The Third World. Big time.
Q: How do they feel about gay marriage et. al.?
A: "Hell, no - and we mean that literally!"
Not gonna happen, dude, and this Papal election will be the first time we see the Third World become a significant political constitutency within the church. With the demise of Marxism, liberation theology looks unlikely to rise much from the ashes either.
Bottom line: The Catholic Church - and many Protestant churches as well - is likely to become MORE conservative over the next few decades, not less. The leftist elements in the Western churches may want to call the global tune. But the Western churches in their entirety are losing their ability to do so.
This may ultimately lead to schisms in which the Western churches efectively split from their faiths. This may yet happen to the Anglicans, and soon.
The result will be unfortunate for the left, who will be left will aging, dying leftist Western churches. They'll also face traditional churches on their own home turf, often led by preachers who come in from other countries. Again, we can see real examples of these things already.
The left will ultimately be left with the rump of a rump... and the faith will roll on.
And, to those of you throwing around terms like "bibletolahs" and "theocons" ... consider that you probably have more blind faith in yourself -- a being that has been proven fallable -- to accurately perceive truth, than either Greyhawk or I do in our God to show us truth.
I can't speak for Greyhawk, but I'd like to think he'd agree with my stand on theocracy ...
The only way I would accept the institution of theocracy is if God Himself personally and physically showed up to lead it ... and even then, I'd check His ID first!
For more of my thoughts on this subject, you can check here, and here.
Listen up: LIBERATION THEOLOGY. Where leftist ideals meet the Catholic Church in Latin America.
Your whole argument is obsolete and based on ignorance. You guys don't know squat.
who are you talking to?
I'm a catholic and the conservative and religious right detested us for years. I won't evenmention what they called the Pope. But I'm sure somebody will unearth those vicious cartoons. Now that it looks politically expedient to embrace SOME of the tenets of Catholism, conservative relgious folk are stumbling over themselves to get to us. remember it too. I see little difference between hating Catholics and exploiting their faith for a particular agenda as the conservative movement has been doing.
I am offended that the pope is being linked politically with people who have made and continue to make reprehensible moral choices.
My brother just told me that my post was over the top. He said thats only one way of seeing things so okay maybe he's right. Maybe the REAL left is not to friendly to Catholics.
Wow. What invective hatred. I think some people here have made being anti-left their own version of a religion. I bet they hate the left so much that they have broken the left-turn signal in their cars.
I don't see much point to it myself. I don't agree much of what is said, whether Left or Right, but to invest that much energy into hating something is a waste.
Besides, both sides tend to characterize each other in stereotypical terms anyway. Neither side is as monolithic as portrayed in terms of the diversity of opinions or people.
____
I was not comparing the Catholic Church directly to an election, but I think campaign season is closer. This is just a traditional time in the church when issues come to the fore font and are discussed. The Catholic Church is not a democracy however, it's a top-down organization.
I would guess, that as been said already, that the leadership of the Church will be more conservative not less. They may become more outspoken on certain issues. What remains to be seen is whether this will increase the distance between themselves and the everyday Catholics. In terms of conservative views, they will not agree on many things but will find common ground. However, what may also happen is that with the conservatism the leadership of the Church will become more insular. As I said, it's a top down institution. And increase in the power of the Church hierarchy would be a more traditional stance.
"Anon" - I think you are the first commenter here to ever request to be the victim of cannibalism. Heh - I'm kidding. Actually, Mr Rove, you didn't fool me for a minute. I know your brand of devious lefty bashing when I see it. Okay - kidding again. Whoever you are I'm leaving your comment up for all time as punishment. Call your mother, I'm sure she'll be proud.
Stevie Forte and Liberal Avenger - More careful readers will note I never used the term 'liberal' above - I used 'left'. This was intentional. If some leftists imagine themselves to be liberal I can only blame their overexposure to Rush Limbaugh. The words are not synonymous. Marxism, the definitive leftist theology, is anti-Church. This is not up for debate. I do accept that some priests are more socialist than others.
Zen - are you sure the Pope was ADAMANTLY opposed to the Iraq war? Can you support? And who called the Pope a right wing Bible thumper?
Steve J, if you want to create a church in your image by all means do so. Henry VIII and Martin Luther had issues with the Catholic Church too.
Carolyn, you are right about many Protestants hating Catholics down through the ages. The rancor is probably more faith-based than political. The hatred was/is often mutual. And it's sad and inexcusable.
Thanks to those commenters here on all sides who've joined the discussion without name calling. Please continue.
I must have successfully written a new book of Scripture here - it's already been interpreted 10 ways by 10 people!
I think that you may have to have a Catholic upbringing to really hate the Catholic church. I am just generally somewhat fearful of any religious sect that believes that it has a direct line to God yet has a history of repression and torture, has a propensity for theocracy, and continues to attempt to influence laws to force even nonbelievers to submit to its religious strictures. That certainly includes the Catholic church, but they are hardly the only ones. The Taliban, for example.
Maybe this would be a time to quote someone (Michael Spencer at www.internetmonk.com)
"Despite what some think, I don't believe Jesus gave a daily Matthew 23 tirade to every Pharisee he met or upon every erring word he heard from a small town rabbi. I believe he laughed a lot, shook his head and told another story"
Maybe it's time to love each other, seek God's will, and leave the heresies to someone ese
You say that a core orthodoxy of the left is hatred of the Catholic Church. Well, 39% of Catholics consider themselves Democrat (http://cara.georgetown.edu/Press%2041204.pdf). Do they hate the Catholic Church? I am Jewish and very ecumenical and very Liberal. I do not hate the Catholic Church nor have I heard any of my fellow travelers say they hate Catholic or the Catholic Church. I have heard and read a lot of conservatives this weekend making nasty and gratuitous comments about the Left hating the Pope and the Catholic Church. Do you just make this stuff up?
I'm not catholic, and I do not hate them nor their church. I do not agree with their religious views, but I do not "hate" them. Thank GOD, and our forefathers for "Freedom of religion" and "Freedom of speach."