Come in! Come in!

"If you are a dreamer, come in. If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, a Hope-er, a Pray-er, a Magic Bean buyer; if you're a pretender, come sit by my fire. For we have some flax-golden tales to spin. Come in! Come in!" -- Shel Silverstein

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

"Birds of a feather flock together"

These days, one can hardly keep up with the missives from Nigeria.

The Psalmist may be right and "joy comes in the morning" (Ps. 30:5) but so does yet another missive from Himself, the self-proclaimed, "Archbishop, Metropolitan, and Primate of all Nigeria."

Just how much hubris does it take, exactly, to sign your name to a
Communique that congratulates yourself "with much delight and enthusiasm" and then
encourages you, your very self, "not to relent in his efforts in exercising his
ministry"?

I never cease to be amazed by ++PJA.

As for a "Global South Conference" alternative to Lambeth, well, Deputy
Kaeton, Newark, agrees with . . . . um . . . ."Synod" . . . that "The need
therefore, to redefine and/or re-determine those who are truly Anglicans becomes
urgent, imperative and compelling."

If you must speak about yourself in the third person, I'd say you already
have an identity problem.

Let's have at it.

Birds of a feather, an all that . . .

(You know, I've been thinking. When the movie gets made of this time in the life of the Anglican Communion, perhaps we shouldn't have Samuel L. Jackson play Akinola. I think someone like Eddie Murphey or Russell Simmons might have just the right kind of 'edge'.)


ACNS 4162 | NIGERIA | 4 JULY 2006

Communiqué from the Episcopal Synod of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican
Communion)

Episcopal Synod held at All Saints' Church Wuse Zone 5 Abuja from
Tuesday 27 - Wednesday 28 June 2006

Communiqué

The Episcopal Synod of the Church of Nigeria met under God at All
Saints' church Abuja from 27th - 28th June 2006 with His Grace, The
Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, CON, DD, Archbishop, Primate and
Metropolitan of All Nigeria presiding. After sessions of deliberations
on issues affecting both the Church and Society, the Synod under the
guidance of the Holy Spirit issued this Communiqué.

1. CONGRATULATIONS

Synod notes with satisfaction the efforts of the Primate of the Church
of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), His Grace, The Most Rev. Peter J.
Akinola, in giving the Church of Nigeria, (CAPA and Global South a
purposeful and effective leadership. It further expresses its approval
of his actions and pronouncements against errors of revisionist
ideologies. With much delight and enthusiasm, Synod received his citing
by TIME Magazine as one of the 100 persons that shaped the World in
2005, and encouraged him not to relent in his efforts in exercising his
ministry.

2. THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

Synod is satisfied with the move by the Global South to continue with
its veritable project of defending the faith committed to us against
present onslaught from ECUSA, Canada, England and their allies. The need
therefore, to redefine and/or re-determine those who are truly Anglicans
becomes urgent, imperative and compelling. Synod therefore empowers the
leadership of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) to give assent
to the Anglican Covenant.

3. THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE

The Lambeth Conference which is one of the accepted organs of unity in
the Anglican Communion is due for another meeting in 2008. the Synod,
after reviewing some recent major events in the Communion, especially
the effects of the 'revisionists' theology', which is now making wave in
America, Canada and England, observed with dismay the inability of the
Church in the afore­mentioned areas to see reason for repentance from
the harm and stress they have caused this communion since 1988
culminating in the consecration of Gene Robinson, a practicing
homosexual in 2003 as a bishop in ECUSA. Synod also regrets the
inability of the See of Canterbury to prevent further impairment of the
unity of the Church. It therefore, believes strongly that the moral
justification for the proposed Lambeth Conference of 2008 is
questionable in view of the fact that by promoting teachings and
practices that are alien and inimical to the historic formularies of the
Church, the Bishops of ECUSA, Canada and parts of Britain have abandoned
the Biblical faith of our fathers.

4. GLOBAL SOUTH CONFERENCE

Synod underlines the need for maintaining the age-long tradition of a
ten-yearly Conference of Bishops in the Anglican Communion for
discussing issues affecting the Church. It therefore calls on the
leadership of the Global South and Council of Anglican Provinces in
Africa (CAPA) to do everything necessary to put in place a Conference of
all Anglican Bishops to hold in 2008 should all efforts to get the
apostles of 'revisionist agenda' to repent and retrace their steps fail.


5. THE SO-CALLED RELIGIOUS RIOTS

Synod is worried that months after the mayhem unleashed on the nation in
February 2006 by criminals, murderers and arsonists hiding under the
cloak of religion, no one has been brought to book neither any
compensation paid for the properties especially churches destroyed and
lives lost in the riots. It therefore, calls on the Governments of the
land to take urgent steps to prosecute these enemies of mankind and pay
necessary compensations in order to restore the confidence that every
Nigerian is protected any where in this nation.

6. HIV/AIDS SCOURGE

Synod continues to note with concern the ravaging effects of HJV/AIDS
and the threat it is posing to human society. More worrisome is the
mismanagement of funds meant for prosecution of the war against this
scourge in Nigeria; leading to the de-listing of Nigeria by foreign
Donor Agencies. While noting the efforts of Church in the HIV/AIDS
Programme, it calls on all Dioceses and Churches to be actively involved
in this project with a view to ensuring that this ugly monster does not
further endanger the lives for which Christ died.

7. ISLAM AND MINORITY RIGHTS

While noting the spread of Islam in hitherto predominantly Christian
cities, especially in Europe and America, and their insistence on
minority rights, Synod is worried that this same Muslims have refused to
allow people of other faiths into their (Muslim dominated) areas to
enjoy such rights. It therefore calls on our Muslim brothers in the
spirit of reciprocity to have a change of attitude and put an end to
intolerance and hostilities to Christians all over the world.

8. 2007 GENERAL ELECTIONS IN NIGERIA

Synod is happy that the processes leading to the general elections in
Nigeria come 2007 are on course. While underscoring the need for
emergence of credible, committed and patriotic leaders for the nation,
it calls on all Christians to actively participate in all electoral
processes to forestall a situation where e lections are used to recycle
past leaders. Synod further enjoins the Independent National Electoral
Commission (INEC) to ensure a very high degree of transparency in all
elections slated for 2007, so as to avoid the ugly consequences of any
electoral result that did not truly reflect the wishes and aspirations
of the electorate. While calling for a truly independent judiciary, the
synod insists that all petitions arising from the forthcoming general
elections should be handled with dispatch in the spirit of justice,
equity and fair play.

Signed

The Most Revd. Peter J. Akinola, CON, D.D.
Archbishop, Metropolitan and Primate of All Nigeria

Article from: The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
http://www.anglican-nig.org/communique_episynod_june06.htm

___________________________________________________________________
ACNSlist, published by Anglican Communion News Service, London, is
distributed to more than 8,000 journalists and other readers around
the world.

33 comments:

Mike in Texas said...

I think more people are beginning to realize that Akinola and his western supporters do not want unity and have never wanted it, Elizabeth.

We can look back to right wing forces in the USA as a major part of the problem as well. These folks are encouraging and bankrolling Akinola.

Institute on Religion and Democracy
.

I suppose this may old news to most folks around here, but the Howard Ahmanson mentioned in that article is a member of St. James Newport Beach, one of the militant breakway churches.

US millionaire bankrolls crusade against gay Anglican priests

One of the groups he bankrolls, Chalcedon, is an organization of Christian Reconstructionists.

Here are a few quotes from Christian Reconstructionists. These quotes reveal what their real long term plans are.

"The divorce problem will be solved in a society under God's law because any spouse guilty of capital crimes (adultery, homosexuality, Sabbath desecration, etc.) would be swiftly executed, thus freeing the other part to remarry" --Mark Rushdoony

"Parents would be required to bring their incorrigible children before the judge and, if convicted, have them stoned to death" -- Mark Rushdoony

"In a Christian society the death penalty is still appropriate for the crime of worshipping another god on the Lord's day" -- James Jordan

"The bible permits slavery. This statement will come as a shock to most people.... the biblical laws concerning slavery are among the most beneficent in all the Bible.... We should especially note God's merciful justice here. Heathen slaves who were purchased or captured in war were actually favored by this law, since It placed them in contact with believers...Slaves have no economic incentive to work, since they cannot improve their situation regardless of how hard they labor. Therefore the master is allowed to provide that incentive by beating them (Exodus 21:20-27). -- David Chilton

The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant--baptism and holy communion--must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. -- Gary North

Ew-3 said...

To mike in Texas:

Ah! Here we go again! Guilt by association! So now anyone who is
opposed to the ordination of gay clergy can be linked to some crazy fringe groups who want to stone children and bring back slavery, is that it?

Are the African bishops in favor of slavery, Mike?

Should we link Robinson and other gay clergy to the gay pride parades, Mike? The very same parades that continue to allow NAMBLA to march in them?

Mike in Texas said...

If anyone would like to present facts from the opposing side, I would read them. Emotional outbursts do not interest me. I suspect I am not alone in that matter.

It would also help if those people would stop spreading lies about trying to associate NAMBLA with the gay rights movement. Perhaps they're just ignorant, but it does makes them sound like outrageous bigots.

It is true that there was a period during which NAMBLA was permitted to march in the parades. That was due to conflict about whether or not the parades, which oppose discrimination, should exclude groups wishing to participate. That conflict was resolved in the early 90s and NAMBLA has not been permitted in the parades since.

Ew-3 said...

Nice try, Mike. But that is irrelevant. The point is, up until fairly recently, NAMBLA WAS allowed (and there are reports that they continue to do so "unofficially") march in gay pride parades, which a number of Episcopal clergy do as well. If you can associate anyone who opposes the Robinson ordination with those who would endorse the stoning of children or the return of slavery, then I can easily associate persons those who support gay clergy with NAMBLA.

In short, it works both ways, my friend.

Mike in Texas said...

Mugabe fuels 'Reformation' against gays

MORE than 30 million African Anglicans are set to form a breakaway church in the biggest schism since the Reformation prompted by a backlash against liberal attitudes to gays and lesbians in the west.

The church is taking its cue from the unlikeliest champion of family values, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who in 1993 flamboyantly but infamously branded gay people as "worse than dogs and pigs".

Nigerians clerics, who are led by the fearfully homophobic Archbishop Peter Akinola, say they are linking up with Evangelicals who not only support Mugabe, but also President George W Bush and the Republican Party in the US, Ben Mkapa in Tanzania and Sam Nujoma in Namibia, to wipe clean the "evil stain" of homosexuality from the face of Africa.

[...]

Ew-3 said...

That article you cite is almost two years old, Mike. Not sure what your point is.

Mike in Texas said...

Anglicans and Violence

"In response to recent violence following the cartoons depicting the Prophet, and violent and aimless reprisals against Christians and Christian churches, Akinola said in a statement "may we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation" and that "C.A.N. [Christian Association of Nigeria] may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue". That was Tuesday of last week (2/21), just as anti-Christian violence in the north over the previous weekend claimed at least 43 lives (some say at least 50) in the predominantly Muslim cities of Maidugiri and Bauchi. On Tuesday (2/21) and Wednesday (2/22), retaliatory attacks against Muslims in the southeastern Christian city of Onitsha claimed 80 more ... Of course, it is unclear from news reports whether the timing of Akinola's statement led directly in any way to the retaliatory attacks on southern Muslims, but the statement certainly offered no effort of reconciliation."

GL+ said...

Violence, either physical or verbal, never solves anything. If we could all just "dial back" on the hate rhetoric, we might be able to have a substantive conversation.

Ew-3 said...

You might want to ask Akinola, Mugabe and any other Nigerians opposed to gay clergy if they identify with the views of 'Christian Reconstructionists' that you cite in support of slavery. See what kind of response you get.

Ew-3 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Catherine said...

I agree with gl+. Let's "dial back" as recommended because as much as we may disagree on some issues we are part of the Body, the One and Only Body of Christ.

Neither side benefits by the vitriol read here in this comment section, and it does nothing to glorify God, the Son or the Holy Spirit.

I don't know either mike in texas or ew-3, but regardless of differences of opinion we are spritually related.

Peace,

Catherine+

Mike in Texas said...

Hello Catherine.

I'm just making sure that all in here understand some of the facts about the part of the 'spiritual' continuum ew-3 identifies with and promotes.

Sometimes the facts are very ugly.

DaveGolub said...

I have met both Gene Robinson and Peter Akinola. Neither one has horns and neither one is the anti-Christ. There is so much anger and hostility that conversation seems useless. Let us go our own ways in peace -- preserving the possibility that God can knit together what we see as irrevocably separated.

Mike in Texas said...

"I have met both Gene Robinson and Peter Akinola. Neither one has horns and neither one is the anti-Christ."

So that's why horns don't show up in their photos. Thank you for clearing that up.

Lisa Fox said...

Elizabeth, you neglected to highlight my very favorite part: the fact that Pope Peter apparently is inclined to excommunicate "ECUSA, Canada, England and their allies" -- or at least to bar them from the Pseudo-Lambeth of the Truly Pure. So Akinola wants to kick the Church of England out of the Anglican Communion. As you are fond of saying: "You just can't make this stuff up!" It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic. ... Nah, it really is hilarious.

GL+ said...

I think we need to have a combined blog somewhere. One where inhabitants of Telling Secrets, Inch at a Time, TitusOneNine, & Stand Firm all come together in one place to speak to one another in mutual respect & forbearance.

Esther392 said...

The deletion of my comment is just another symptom of why this war is raging within our church. The comment was not mean-spirited but in fact asked a question that evidently the author did not like. The question - I'm sure repeating it will get the comment deleted again - but here goes - When will the demonizing of those who believe that homosexuality is not condoned by the bible stop?
I guess I misunderstood the purpose of your blog. If you are seeking the sound of one hand clapping, go ahead and delete it again. It sure will tell me how much I misunderstood your real agenda.

Elizabeth Kaeton said...

Ester392 said: "The deletion of my comment is just another symptom of why this war is raging within our church."

Is that you, 'AKA' ew-3?

Well, whoever you are - and to all y'all: I have not removed Ester392's comment.

Indeed, I have not removed ANYONE's comment.

Even the ones that annoy me.

Even the ones that should be on someone else's blog.

The only thing indicated on this site is that a comment was removed "by the author".

I was not the author of that comment. Whowever wrote apparently had second thoughts and removed it him or herself.

Sorry I don't have more time to post. I have my LAST DAY of academic course work for my doctoral tomorrow.

I have one short paper to write tonight and a HUGE paper due July 19 and then I'm DONE.

Woo-hoo!

Pray for me and I'll pray for you.

Muerk said...

This whole issue is why I am so glad to be Roman Catholic. We are gifted by God with the magisterium and papal authority in order to stop this kind of division.

My personal take on the issue of homosexuality is this:

There are two main ways to view sexuality and personhood.

1. Person exists - person has sexual desires - person acts on desires or person does NOT act - certain acts are beloved by God, certain acts are not.

In this paradigm a person is not the sum of his/her sexual desires. And it is a person's behavior that causes sin/rejection of God, but not the actual person.

2. Person exists - person has sexual desires - person is hetero/homo/bi/trans/pan/etc.-sexual

Here, by saying that homosexual sex acts are sinful, you are saying that homosexual persons are sinful. Rather than rejecting an act, or stating that a desire is against the natural law, you are attacking the actual person-nature of someone.

I believe that God wants us to have sexual relationships in the context of marriage, and that by its very reproductive nature marriage is a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.

Thus adultary, premarital sex and homosexual acts are all sinful by the fact that they do not conform to God's ideal of human sexual behavior. Both Scripture and history attest to this.

If people are their sexuality, then yes it would be an act of intolerable cruelty by God to make them this way and then accuse them of sin via Scripture and tradition/history. But I don't believe God does make us "heterosexual" or "homosexual", for whatever reason (nature/nuture) some of us want to have sex with people of our own gender. However God's love gives us the freedom of choice to act on those desires or to not act.

When a liberal hears a conservative, they hear "Homosexuals are sinful." which is a bigoted statement. What I think conservatives are saying is different, it's "Sexual acts by people who are the same gender are sinful." They judge behavior, not personhood.

You aren't really debating homosexual sex. You are really debating how to define the nature of personhood. By being emotive and yelling "bigot" or "lefty rainbow fairy" you are both destroying the possibility of communication. You aren't talking theology, you are name calling.

I think both sides should have a moratorium on the "gay" argument and all go read Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" and then come back and see what you think.

Take all this with whatever grain of salt you want. But at least stop being so nasty to each other.

Muerk said...

Oh sorry, btw I'm not trying to be anonymous, I just hate spam, so my email is tessATkaosDOTnetDOTnz. And my real name is Tess, I'm from wintery New Zealand.

God bless all of you in sunny America, and where ever else you hail from. :)

Lisa Fox said...

muerk, if we wanted a "reformed" Nazi [a.k.a. Pope Benedict] to tell us what to believe, then we would be Roman Catholics. But we are not. We are Anglicans. And our Reformed Catholic theology allows us to read, mark, and inwardly digest Scripture without needing a reformed Nazi to tell us what to think. Why do you feel drawn to Elizabeth's+ blog???

muerk, I am glad you have someone to tell you what to think and believe. Now go say a Hail Mary for contaminating yourself on this blog and sin no more.

Lisa Fox said...

esther392 & muerk: You seem to be having trouble grasping the concept of a blog. Let me try to explain it to you. This is not the public airwaves. Elizabeth is not obligated to provide "fair and balanced" dialogue. She has established this blog to speak her own voice without any intervention. I don't know her, but I think she is trying to provide us a space in which to converse. Think of it as her living room. It is her living room. You cannot enter it and shout your venom without being shown the door. If you want a space in which to say how much you hate gay people or liberals or Episcopalians, then there's a very simple solution: get your own blog, and treat it as your living room, and throw people like me out on our ears. Meanwhile, please pipe down and speak civilly while you are in Elizabeth's living room. Many of us here are Episcopalians. We value manners and decorum. Please do likewise.

Esther392 said...

First, I owe Elizabeth an apology. In my haste I failed to realize the post I had made was on the next entry. Please forgive my comment about a deletion. You are correct that you allow diverse comments here which was the reason for my surprise.
No, I am not EW=3 and I deeply regret that some believe that a stance against homosexuality is a statement of hatred toward those who practice it. It is not. It is a part of our belief system. It is why we are in disagreement. I know I personally deeply regret that the homosexual community was made the poster child for the division in the Church. It has nothing to do with that but is actually a dispute over the authority of Scripture. It appears that our leadership - both sides - are not willing or able to see what the people on this blog already know. We are already two separate churches. Let us find a way to love one another but still remain faithful to what we believe. Unfortunately, I don't see how that can be done without a physical separation. Until that time, can't we disagree without tearing each other apart?

Muerk said...

Lisa: I'm sorry. I thought I had been polite and civil.

I thought it was alright to post here since it has open comments. I'm more than willing to cease posting here if that's what Elizabeth would like, since as you say, it is her blog.

And I think the reason I am drawn to her blog is because she seems kind and funny. I really liked the "we are stirred, but never shaken" line. After reading for a while I just wanted to speak from my perspective. If I am unwelcome then I'll pop off elsewhere to see what the great undulating internet reveals next.

Mike in Texas said...

Muerk, I don't know about others in here, but I left the Catholic Church decades ago. My reaction to anything that comes from the Vatican is a great big yawn.

Funny, I had a nice chat with my mom over the weekend, a good lifelong Irish Catholic, now in her 80s. She was talking about how she wished the US Catholics would officially sever themselves from Rome.

Ew-3 said...

To Lisa -

"If we wanted a "reformed" Nazi [a.k.a. Pope Benedict] to tell us what to believe, then we would be Roman Catholics...And our Reformed Catholic theology allows us to read, mark, and inwardly digest Scripture without needing a reformed Nazi to tell us what to think."

- WOW!!! Those are the harshest words yet!!! For the record, Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when it was COMPULSORY for all German boys. Not to do so would have been dangerous for him and his family. But neither he nor his family were ever members of the Nazi Party. Indeed, they were critical of the Nazis.


"muerk, I am glad you have someone to tell you what to think and believe. Now go say a Hail Mary for contaminating yourself on this blog and sin no more."

- WOW again!!! So now you feel to compelled not only to criticize the muerck's spiritual leader, but you also throw in a disparaging remark about his/her religious practices! I'm curious - would you tell a even Muslim terrorist to go to Mecca and walk around a black box a few times?

Statements like yours demonstrate all too clearly why you and your allies are not to be trusted. You regard yourselves as so 'open-minded', but in reality, you are more bigoted and totalitarian than ANY of your critics.

Oh, and, Rev. Elizabeth, where is your righteous outrage over Lisa's statements? Where are you ever present tears?

DaveGolub said...

EW-3 I have known Elizabeth for almost ten years. We disagree on most church issues but don't attribute Lisa's reaction to Elizabeth. Assuming the analogy to this place being Elizabeth's living room is appropriate, who is Lisa to tell Elizabeth's guests what conduct Elizabeth does or does not permit in her home? It is rather presumptuous I would say. Believe me, Elizabeth Kaeton is no shrinking violet and needs no help from Lisa or Mike in Texas to defend her turf. She is more than capable.
When we all finally stop calling each other names, perhaps we can get back to what is important. Being the church. If we cannot be the church together, we should each try to be the church and let the other do it as well. I don't like much about TEC - but I do applaud it when it feeds the hungry and clothes the poor -- and that is a not inconsiderable part of its "agenda." So if separation is upon us, let us be about it with as little rancor as is possible and keep our eyes on the Lord whose church we are.

Ew-3 said...

To DaveGolub:

"Don't attribute Lisa's reaction to Elizabeth."

- I don't fault her for Lisa's incredibly hateful comments. What I am faulting her for is her silence over those comments - a silence that is deafening.


"When we all finally stop calling each other names, perhaps we can get back to what is important."

- I have not called anyone any names, even though a few people here, including Elizabeth, have applied nasty labels to me. And I always thought those of a liberal mentality abhor labels because, as I have heard them say numerous times, "words hurt"! I guess that maxim applies in only one direction.


"If we cannot be the church together, we should each try to be the church and let the other do it as well. I don't like much about TEC - but I do applaud it when it feeds the hungry and clothes the poor -- and that is a not inconsiderable part of its "agenda."

- I agree, but I am less optimistic than you are about the separation's effects. I am quite saddened over the direction that this Church is going in, due to its liberal element with its new-age religious principles born out of a 60s protest mentality, and from which its adherents never matured. Their constant whining, self-indulgence, and insistence on having everything their way are quite simply driving our Church toward perdition. They think they are winning something, but they are actually deceiving themselves. Indeed, my guess is they will lose everything (as will the rest of us), for this Church as we know it will soon be no more. What we will be left with is a hedonistic den of confused relativism, disguised with crosses, hymns, and a meaningless sense of morality. And all because a few insist on having things their way. Very sad.

Mike in Texas said...

I think someone in here may be taking Ann Coulter seriously!

Ew-3 said...

She'a a damn sight smarter than Shrillary.

Mike in Texas said...

LOL ....

Call me silly, but for some reason I just don't consider plagiarism to be a characteristic of intelligent people.

Ew-3 said...

If that's the case, then brilliant Hillary should have no trouble debating a "plagiarizing" moron like Anne Coulter, right? Why doesn't Hillary do so, rather than fire missives at her from 2,500 miles away? Trust me - the networks would LOVE to air a debate between those two. Why doesn't Hillary go head-to-head with her? Indeed, when have we ever seen Hillary debate anyone, outside of a green, wet-behind-the-ears Congressman from Long Island that no one ever heard of before?

I can just imagine Hillary in a debate with Coulter. It would be no contest. Anne would get Hillary to explode right on national television. She would get even madder than she did when she threw a lamp a Slick Willie. Remember than one? LOL!

BTW, I am glad you are so concerned about academic integrity. I'm sure, then, that you are equally outraged, if not more so, by Martin Luther King's plagiarism of his dissertation, as well as other materials. Check out: http://chem-gharbison.unl.edu/mlk/plagiarism.html

Ew-3 said...

Some news for you , Mike:

In the weeks after "Godless” came out, leftwing blogs began making claims that Coulter had engaged in plagiarism. But, as usual, this leftist mudslinging has proven itself to be groundless.

"We have reviewed the allegations of plagiarism surrounding ‘Godless’ and found them to be as trivial and meritless as they are irresponsible," said Steve Ross, Senior Vice President and Publisher of Crown Publishing Group.

Ross continued: "Any author is entitled to do what Ann Coulter has done in the three snippets cited: research and report facts. The number of words used by our author in these snippets is so minimal that there is no requirement for attribution. As an experienced author and attorney, Ms. Coulter knows when attribution is appropriate, as underscored by the nineteen pages of hundreds of endnotes contained in ‘Godless.’”

Sorry, Mike. I guess you will have to fabricate some new stories.

Proverbs 12:6 The words of the wicked are to lie in wait for blood: but the mouth of the upright shall deliver them.