Tag Archives: christianity

WaPo Finds It Scandalous Beck Would Challenge Obama’s Religious Beliefs

The Washington Post found it newsworthy that “Beck challenges Obama’s religious beliefs after rally in D.C.,” but emphasized how Glenn Beck’s views could cause a backlash, and papered over Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s wild-eyed radical sermons as merely focusing on “the importance of empowering the oppressed.” In the story on page A-4, Post reporter Felicia Sonmez made no mention of the president’s avoidance of church services while she repeated the White House assertion that he’s a “committed Christian.” Here’s the summation:  During an interview on “Fox News Sunday,” which was filmed after Saturday’s rally, Beck claimed that Obama “is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor-and-victim.” “People aren’t recognizing his version of Christianity,” Beck added. Beck’s attacks represent a continuing attempt to characterize Obama as a radical, an approach that has prompted anxiety among some Republicans, who worry that Beck’s rhetoric could backfire . The White House has all but ignored his accusations, but some Democrats have pointed to the Fox News host to portray Republicans as extreme and out of touch . Notice that the Post doesn’t suggest that Rev. Wright’s rhetoric can, and has been used to portray Obama and his Democrat supporters as extreme and out of touch. Here’s how Sonmez summarized the rants of Wright: The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., the onetime pastor of Obama’s former church in Chicago, is an adherent of black liberation theology, which centers on the struggles of African Americans and the importance of empowering the oppressed. Obama severed ties with Wright during the presidential campaign after some of the minister’s inflammatory language drew controversy. Beck, on his Fox News show last Tuesday, said that liberation theology is at the core of Obama’s “belief structure.” “You see, it’s all about victims and victimhood; oppressors and the oppressed; reparations, not repentance; collectivism, not individual salvation. I don’t know what that is, other than it’s not Muslim, it’s not Christian. It’s a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it,” Beck said. Sonmez didn’t note that Wright’s “liberation” theology has roots in Marxism . She also ignored that Wright suggested just days after 9/11 that America deserved the terrorist attack for its imperialism or his kooky view that the federal government created AIDS as a tool of black genocide. But editing those specifics out is a common media practice .

See the article here:
WaPo Finds It Scandalous Beck Would Challenge Obama’s Religious Beliefs

Cooler Than Thou: Will Hipsters Ruin Christianity?

Where's the proper balance between hip and devout? Between the “natural” and the “marketed?” August 28, 2010 | It was pouring rain, cold rain, on an early March morning, as I headed to Brooklyn Label, a caf

CNN Advocates Watered-down Politically Correct Christianity

CNN on Friday disgustingly advocated for a watered-down, more politically correct version of Christianity. Highlighted at its website was research from a Princeton theology professor on the state of Christianity among teenagers. The study found that American churches have fallen for PC feel-good morality that’s afraid of confrontation – and the result is a generation unable to distinguish Christianity from simple theism. The author of the study, Kenda Creasy Dean, said the process was “depressing” as she interviewed one Christian after another describing God as a “therapist” who exists to validate their “self-esteem.” Worse yet, many of them could not give a coherent explanation of the Gospel, content with a general belief that God wants them to “feel good and do good.” And in MSM newsrooms across the fruited plain, there was much rejoicing. Incessant pressure to water down Christianity has finally paid off. CNN reporter John Blake wrote a piece on the sad phenomenon with no introspection as to who might be causing it: If you’re the parent of a Christian teenager, Kenda Creasy Dean has this warning: Your child is following a “mutant” form of Christianity, and you may be responsible. Dean says more American teenagers are embracing what she calls “moralistic therapeutic deism.” Translation: It’s a watered-down faith that portrays God as a “divine therapist” whose chief goal is to boost people’s self-esteem. As to the causes of why this is happening, readers were given a vague explanation: Some adults don’t expect much from youth pastors. They simply want them to keep their children off drugs and away from premarital sex. Others practice a “gospel of niceness,” where faith is simply doing good and not ruffling feathers. The Christian call to take risks, witness and sacrifice for others is muted, she says. “If teenagers lack an articulate faith, it may be because the faith we show them is too spineless to merit much in the way of conversation,” wrote Dean, a professor of youth and church culture at Princeton Theological Seminary. She says pastors often preach a safe message that can bring in the largest number of congregants. The result: more people and yawning in the pews. “If your church can’t survive without a certain number of members pledging, you might not want to preach a message that might make people mad,” Corrie says. “We can all agree that we should all be good and that God rewards those who are nice.” Corrie, echoing the author of “Almost Christian,” says the gospel of niceness can’t teach teens how to confront tragedy. Hmmm, why on Earth would pastors feel pressure to promote a gospel of niceness? Why would they be afraid of making their communities angry? Blake was clueless. There was no more discussion of the PC culture, no research into who came up with spineless Christianity. This NBer decided to help Blake out with a search of CNN’s archives. Turns out, his employer has been pushing angry backlash against fundamental Christians for years. April 23, 2010 saw CNN prime-time anchor Larry King shamefully pit a Christian lesbian against a conservative pastor for an hour of televised demagoguery. Back in 2007, the network aired a documentary in which anchor Christiane Amanpour suggested conservative Christians are akin to the Taliban. And who can forget CNN’s hard-hitting investigation that found a personal commitment to Christ leaves beautiful women “single and lonely.” Whenever evangelicals grow a spine on a particular issue, CNN can be counted on to assure that it will “make people mad.” From gay marriage to abortion to authenticity of Scripture , the network loves to marginalize traditional Christianity. And it isn’t alone. Last November, Fox Network’s hit series “Glee” portrayed evangelicals as heartless jerks who get drunk while watching Glenn Beck. A month later, CBS crime drama “NCIS” preposterously imagined a fictional Christian honor killing – in an episode that aired mere days before Christmas.  Over on the NBC network in 2008, hit series “Law & Order” portrayed an unhinged college evangelical hurling death threats at liberal professors. And in 2007, New York Magazine’s Vulture blog cheerfully listed the 10 Most Anti-Christian Films to come out of Hollywood.  When faced with evidence of systematic cultural mocking toward Christianity, liberals’ fallback argument is to claim that all religions are scorned in American media. Yet some religions seem to be more hated than others. Try searching for a list of anti-Muslim movies on New York Magazine’s website. Or anti-Wiccan. Or anti-Hindu. Hollywood projects that mock those faiths are not so highly celebrated. Try waiting for “Glee” to parallel the sad plight of Muslim American teenagers murdered by their own parents for embarrassing Islam. The show’s producers are willing to exaggerate bigotry among Christians while ignoring real domestic violence elsewhere. Also overlooked is the suffering of pregnant teen girls forcibly dragged into abortion clinics, sometimes at literal gunpoint , by angry parents. No, the real threat to children is Christians who read the Bible, want to preserve every life, and encourage healthy living. Inside the backward mind of liberals, pro-life, pro-family messages are responsible for destroying lives. In such a climate, it’s no wonder pastors are afraid of being confrontational. Having contributed to a weakened, watered-down version of Christianity, CNN is now playing dumb as to how it happened. Blake did not mention a single word about pastors unfairly getting smeared as bigots, or perhaps that these oversensitive communities are being coddled by the media. Controversial Muslims who might be out there “making people mad?” Not so much. Less than a week ago, here’s how CNN introduced the Ground Zero Mosque imam: Video clips posted today by a conservative blogger have set off a new round of bitter debate over the Islamic community center and mosque planned near Ground Zero. Are the clips part of a smear campaign or do the imam’s critics have legitimate concerns? Don’t look for the mainstream media to be reporting on a spineless version of Islam any time soon.

Read more:
CNN Advocates Watered-down Politically Correct Christianity

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Believes ‘Certain Networks’ Would Have Trashed Bush if He Echoed Obama’s ‘We’re Buying Shrimp’

Once again, the co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Joe Scarborough hinted that “certain networks,” (ahem, MSNBC) hold quite the double standard between Democrats and Republicans. When the subject matter was President Obama’s snub of an Iraq War question during his vacation at Martha’s Vineyard – he remarked “We’re buying shrimp, guys” – Scarborough pointed out that network coverage of Bush would have been far more negative. As NewsBusters reported last week, Scarborough also believes “certain networks” will “maul” Haley Barbour if he runs for President in 2012. The show’s co-host Willie Geist first opined that news coverage might have been different with President Bush. “I hate to make this point too often,” he said, “but imagine for a moment George W. Bush were on his sixth vacation, and he was asked about Iraq, and he said ‘I’m buying shrimp.’ You think that wouldn’t be a headline everywhere?” “You’re implying there’s a double-standard, Willie,” conservative guest Pat Buchanan snickered. Scarborough made it quite clear. “Can you imagine if someone asked [Bush] about shrimp – about Iraq, and he goes ‘We’re buying some shrimp here,'” he asked. ” I mean, they would, they would…they would kill him.” “It would be running on a loop. On certain networks,” Scarborough quickly added. Co-host and self-proclaimed Democrat Mika Brzezinski immediately changed the subject. Later in the segment, Joe and Willie were at it again. Joe and Mika entered a brief spat over whether the networks would have treated Obama and Bush differently on the matter. Mika, ever endeared to the Democratic talking points, dismissed any notion of a double-standard. When Pat Buchanan remarked that “they really would rip [Bush] to shreds here, I think,” Mika kindly retorted “I think you’re suffering from a very bad case of selective memory. I’m sorry.” A transcript of the segments, which aired on August 26 at 6:33 a.m. EDT and 7:12 a.m. EDT, respectively, is as follows: 6:33 a.m. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: The President is avoiding questions about Iraq this week, while vacationing on Martha’s Vineyard. Here he is yesterday, being asked about Iraq while placing his lunch order at Nancy’s. (Video Clip) President BARACK OBAMA: We’re buying shrimp, guys. (End Video Clip) WILLIE GEIST: Said “We’re buying shrimp, guys.” MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Okay. We’ll talk more about this later. Moving on with news. North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il made a surprise – (Crosstalk) SCARBOROUGH: That’s just kind of strange, isn’t it? We’re buying shrimp now, guys? GEIST: I hate to make this point too often, but imagine for a moment George W. Bush were on his sixth vacation, and he was asked about Iraq, and he said “I’m buying shrimp.” You think that wouldn’t be a headline everywhere? BRZEZINSKI: No, he was. In a golf cart. SCARBOROUGH: He actually said – GEIST: That’s my point. And noone’s lambasting President Obama for doing the – SCARBOROUGH: And George Bush said “Now watch me” – he answered the question, and said “Now watch me hit this drive.” In this case, of course, Barack Obama didn’t answer the question about Iraq. He said “We’re buying shrimp.” So your point is – PAT BUCHANAN: You’re implying there’s a double-standard, Willie. GEIST: Perhaps. (Laughter) SCARBOROUGH: Can you imagine – BUCHANAN: Isn’t that a bit of a stretch, Willie? SCARBOROUGH: Can you imagine if someone asked him about shrimp – about Iraq, and he goes “We’re buying some shrimp here.” I mean, they would, they would – BUCHANAN: It’d be on all the networks every night. (Crosstalk) SCARBOROUGH: They would kill him. It would be running on a loop. On certain networks. (…) 7:12 a.m. GEIST: We hate to go to this argument too often, because we say – imagine if this had been George W. Bush, the media would have treated him differently. But I mean, that would have been a – SCARBOROUGH: He would have been killed. GEIST: A signature moment. He would have been torn to shreds. (Crosstalk) ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, New York Times columnist: That was a Michael Moore moment. Remember, that was actually in the Michael Moore movie, sort of the iconic – GEIST: You’re asked about Iraq, talk about shrimp, you’re already criticized by some for being on vacation too much. It fits into this narrative. BRZEZINSKI: He gave a speech on Iraq on Tuesday. SCARBOROUGH: George W. Bush made speeches on Iraq all the time. Of course, what would happen is that they would have that response, and then they would cut immediately. News cast would cut immediately to dead Iraqi bodies in the street. We saw – BRZEZINSKI: Wait a second. You’re also taking out of context – it’s not like President Obama brought us in there. And there wasn’t the whole WMD – SCARBOROUGH: He’s commander – he’s Commander-in-Chief. BRZEZINSKI: A huge disgrace. I mean, there were a lot of reasons – SCAROROUGH: That’s all you got? That’s all you got? (…) SCARBOROUGH: You’re telling me that the left-wing wouldn’t shred this guy in a million pieces? BUCHANAN: They shredded even the ol’ man. Remember back there, when the ol’ man went out in his golf cart out there in Maine, during the build-up to Desert Storm? SCARBOROUGH: Tore him to shreds. (…) BUCHANAN: They really would rip him to shreds here, I think. BRZEZINSKI: I think you’re suffering from a very bad case of selective memory. I’m sorry.

Read more here:
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough Believes ‘Certain Networks’ Would Have Trashed Bush if He Echoed Obama’s ‘We’re Buying Shrimp’

Wednesday Night Fights: Laura Ingraham vs. Ground Zero Mosque Supporter

As the summer of 2010 comes to a close, American tempers are dramatically rising over the Ground Zero mosque. A fine example of the heat this issue is generating occurred on Wednesday’s “O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News. In the left corner was Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. On the right filling in for the usual host was Laura Ingraham. What ensued was an ideological battle that likely pleased folks on both sides of this contentious debate (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t our friends at the Right Scoop ):  LAURA INGRAHAM, HOST: Scott, let’s talk about this controversy in New York that’s made some people say a slow news month of August, quite chaotic. Mayor Bloomberg has now staked his ground. He’s doubled down. He made that comment about it’s un-American. Just to throw the word un-American out seems to be a little odd. I don’t know anyone who’s conflating law abiding Muslims in the United states with al Qaeda. It’s about the sensitivity of the place at Ground Zero. SCOTT STRINGER, MANHATTAN BOROUGH PRESIDENT: There’s no doubt about it. As someone who was in Manhattan on that terrible day when the terrorists attacked, we will never forget that. And we will always honor the families and the people in that community, who didn’t walk away from New York. They actually stayed and rebuilt the community. Having said that, a few very well orchestrated agitators have created a situation where we have now seen Tea Party people going after Jewish American elected officials, Mayor Bloomberg, myself, the speaker of our state assembly Shelly Silver. They’re using this as a national political wedge issue. And I have to tell you something, today we now have a report that a cab driver was stabbed when he told a passenger that he was Muslim. INGRAHAM: Right, well, we don’t know the details. STRINGER: But– INGRAHAM: I mean, throwing out examples like that, we don’t know the details of that, Scott. STRINGER: –I have to tell you something. It’s building– INGRAHAM: Well, let me tell you– STRINGER: –and we should tone this down. INGRAHAM: You want to do an anecdote like that? STRINGER: Let’s tone it down. INGRAHAM: I’m going to throw down to doing anecdote. No, I’m going to keep the temperature up because I think this is important. STRINGER: Well, you’re keeping the temperature up because you’re just– INGRAHAM: No, no, no– STRINGER: –you’re creating something that doesn’t exist. INGRAHAM: I’m not creating anything. STRINGER: Well, of course you are. INGRAHAM: You know what happened down at Ground Zero? STRINGER: And the reason I’m on the show is because we have to fight back to let America know that we’re not like this. INGRAHAM: Do you know what happened at Ground Zero? America disagrees with you vehemently. STRINGER: America does not disagree. INGRAHAM: 77 percent of the country disagrees with you. STRINGER: They do not disagree– INGRAHAM: They’re not Islamophobic. STRINGER: –that we should use anti-Semitic slurs– INGRAHAM: They’re not nasty people. They’re good people. STRINGER: –that we should go after Muslim– INGRAHAM: Do you want to know what anti-Semitic was? Let me get in here. STRINGER: This is your Tea Party friends– INGRAHAM: –what happened at Ground Zero. STRINGER: –trying to create an election (INAUDIBLE) when we all know it. INGRAHAM: And I mean, you dismissed the Tea Parties, but they’re obviously having huge and positive influence in the United States. What happened at Ground Zero– STRINGER: You don’t believe that. INGRAHAM: –in these dueling protests, and I think the more protests the better on both sides. STRINGER: Well, constructive debate is good. INGRAHAM: I think people should have their — well, it’s not up to you to determine what’s constructive. That’s the elite’s little trick. STRINGER: No, but I have– INGRAHAM: That’s the elites trick here. STRINGER: –an opinion, too. You can call me– INGRAHAM: You have an opinion, but let me just tell you what else happened, because you raised the issue– STRINGER: Sure. INGRAHAM: –of Judaism in this debate. There was also an exchange. And Andrew Breitbart has this posted on his website. You should see it because a pro-mosque protester got in the face of an 83-year-old man, who said he was a Holocaust survivor. He got in his face and he said you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t know what the con — I mean, he’s in the face of this old man, who survived the Holocaust who doesn’t want this mosque there. STRINGER: That is terrible. But I have to tell you something. I’m talking about– INGRAHAM: How’s that for an example? STRINGER: –Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich, people trying to divide this country and divide this city of New York. INGRAHAM: Trying to divide this country? STRINGER: It’s not going to work because– INGRAHAM: Do you agree with this imam that America has more blood on its hands than al Qaeda? Do you agree with the imam? STRINGER: I believe that we should have an opportunity for everybody to come together. INGRAHAM: How about an opportunity to hear from him? STRINGER: We don’t go and take away people’s property. We don’t raid people. INGRAHAM: I’m not saying we have a right to do any of that, no, no, no. STRINGER: Of course you are. You’re doing that every day. INGRAHAM: No, no, no, no, no. STRINGER: You’re doing that every day. INGRAHAM: They have a right to build this mosque. We have a right– STRINGER: You– INGRAHAM: –to raise questions about funding. And you as an elected official– STRINGER: You started this. INGRAHAM: You as an elected official should have an obligation to ask this imam– STRINGER: You told Daisy Khan, you told them on this show in December of 2009, you said you’re doing the right thing. INGRAHAM: Assimilating, absolutely. STRINGER: You’re doing great work. INGRAHAM: Assimilating. STRINGER: Rabbis support it. You actually– INGRAHAM: Blood — do you believe America has blood on her hands? STRINGER: You supported this and then you– INGRAHAM: You won’t answer the question, will you? STRINGER: that you left the studio. Well, let me just make point and– INGRAHAM: No, no, you want — blood on her hands? STRINGER: You (INAUDIBLE). What did I do? INGRAHAM: Why don’t you want these questions? STRINGER: What did I do? I didn’t stick to the talking points. I have to now go back and reverse myself because I need ratings. INGRAHAM: No, no, no. That’s what I heard. I heard what you don’t want to hear. STRINGER: You agreed with them. INGRAHAM: Pipe down. You know what I heard? STRINGER: Yes. INGRAHAM: I heard– STRINGER: I saw you on the show. INGRAHAM: –blood on our hands. I heard Americans are mean and they’re Islamophobic and they hate Muslims if they disagree. Is that building bridges? STRINGER: But why did you support the cultural center in December 2009? INGRAHAM: I absolutely support assimilation. STRINGER: Okay. So that’s great. INGRAHAM: I don’t support founders of an organization– STRINGER: So that’s great. INGRAHAM: –who actually believe that America is the equivalent of al Qaeda when destroying Muslim lives.. STRINGER: Then you know what? Let’s go to the FBI and Homeland Security. If you have information I don’t know, we should hear. But in the meantime– INGRAHAM: Read the 2005– STRINGER: –December 2009– INGRAHAM: You apparently don’t care what he says. You just don’t care. STRINGER: You supported this before Michael Bloomberg, before anybody else. INGRAHAM: I supported assimilation. You better believe it. STRINGER: You said what they were doing was the right thing. INGRAHAM: And professor, you got short shrift here. Do what you need to do and ask the questions. Ask questions. STRINGER: I’m just endorsing what you said what should happen. INGRAHAM: That’s so weak. Do you actually get elected with that kind of line? Ask questions. Yikes. Someone throw some water on the contestants. That said, Stringer like so many on his side of this debate greatly misrepresented Ingraham’s interview with Daisy Khan last December. It’s been characterized by most liberal media members that Ingraham on that occasion agreed with the location of this mosque. Here’s the video of that segment along with a full transcript. You decide if that’s what actually happened:  INGRAHAM: In the “Impact” segment tonight, some controversy surrounding Islamic mosque and cultural center in the works at Ground Zero. The imam responsible for this project, Feisal Abdul Rauf, has conducted some post-9/11 sensitivity training for the FBI, but he’s also made some questionable remarks about America’s behavior towards Muslims. Joining us now from New York, the imam’s wife, Daisy Khan, the executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement. And Daisy, before we get into this, I know you were listening to our previous segment about the culture war with the — the war against Christmas and these ads, and you wanted to comment. DAISY KHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MUSLIM ADVANCEMENTS: Yes. I was most intrigued, because I don’t think that there is a war between people who are believers. I think our real issue is bringing people who disbelieve and, you know, have absolutely no notion of what God is and believe in the existence of God. And this is what our faith community should be doing together to work on a common platform to remove this kind of ignorance against God. INGRAHAM: All right. I like the — I like the backup you’re giving me on that. Let’s talk about the Islamic center at Ground Zero. Questions, I can’t find many people who really have a problem with it. Bloomberg for it. Rabbis in New York saying they don’t have a problem with it. Why near Ground Zero? Why did you choose that space? KHAN: Well, I think the closeness of the center to Ground Zero, first and foremost, is a blow to the extremists. And you know, we Muslims are really fed up, Laura, of having to be defined by the actions of the extremists. You know, we are law-abiding citizens. We are faithful people. We are very good Americans. And we need to project a different message of Islam, one of tolerance, love and the kind of commonalities we have with different faith communities. And the center will be dedicated to promoting what it needs to be Muslim and what it also means to be Americans, and that is the real message that needs to get out. INGRAHAM: When you see surveys, and I know your group takes a moderate approach to Americanizing people, assimilating people, which I applaud. I think that’s fantastic. But when you see — when you see Pew’s survey, the global survey that came out — what is that, 18 months ago or so — global opinions of Muslims, especially younger male Muslims on a number of issues, including whether jihad is morally justifiable, the figures are disturbing to me. And I was wondering what your thoughts were. KHAN: Well, once again, our faith has been defined by people who have political agendas. And what they do is they use religion as a veneer to mobilize people. And what we have to do is talk about what is the central core of all faiths, which is the love of God. And this is a message, and this is why we want to create a center so close to Ground Zero: to promote a different message, one that most majority of Muslims live. I mean, the extremists are a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. And they don’t represent the majority view. And what we are afraid of is that they become the center and the majority. And we have to stop that. INGRAHAM: The problem is — we’re going to get to your husband’s comment from back in 2004 in a minute. But Pope Benedict has asked for parity, kind of a reciprocity. Look, we’ll have a mosque in Rome. Absolutely, a mosque in Rome, freedom of religion. But let’s have a cathedral or a Catholic church in Saudi Arabia. How far do you think he got with that? I mean, or Lebanon today. Try to build a new church in Lebanon. You know, previously a hot bed of Christianity. And you don’t get anywhere. So that’s what kind of upsets Christians, especially with what’s happening to Christians in Iraq and Iran and places like that. KHAN: Well, I completely agree with you. Because if you look at the history of Muslims and you look at, you know, the pluralism that existed within Islamic history over the last 1,400 years, there used to be great mosques and great cathedrals and churches and synagogues in every place. What has happened is there is a new interpretation that has crept in: one of intolerance and one of non-acceptance. And this, we have to push back against that and bring back what, you know, our religion says: there is no compulsion in religion. Which means you can disbelieve and believe, and believe in other faith communities, because… INGRAHAM: Daisy… KHAN: Yes. INGRAHAM: … let’s get into what your husband said in 2004, because this is a sticking point with a lot of people. Sydney Morning Herald interview, he was quoted as saying it was Christians in World War II who bombed civilians in Dresden and Hiroshima, neither of which were military targets. He placed some blame on Christians for starting mass attacks on civilians. That disturbs a lot of people. A lot of American soldiers died liberating Muslims around the world in Kuwait and Bosnia, and they didn’t appreciate that. KHAN: Well, I don’t think he meant it that way. I think what was trying to say is that, you know, when we take — when we have a small crime, and then there is such a huge response to that, where there’s a calamity on such a large scale, that, you know, we have to look at what the law says. And Christians — Christianity is defined by love. When things are done in the name of Christianity like, you know… INGRAHAM: Well, we didn’t — we didn’t wage World War II in the name of Christianity. KHAN: No, I’m not… INGRAHAM: That’s a difference. I mean, our fighter pilots weren’t screaming, “Allah Akbar,” you know, or the equivalent in English, “Praise be to God.” KHAN: Yes. INGRAHAM: I think — I’d amend that if I were he. I’d kind of go back and re-do that statement. But I like what you’re trying to do, and Ms. Khan, we appreciate it. And come on my radio show sometime. KHAN: Yes. We need the support of people like you, seriously. So we… INGRAHAM: OK, take care. All right, Daisy. Take care.

Continue reading here:
Wednesday Night Fights: Laura Ingraham vs. Ground Zero Mosque Supporter

The Religion Called Tolerance

So AP writer Allen Breed begins his recent mosque piece by defining the word, “tolerance.” It’s a traditional rhetorical device, one learned back in sixth grade while plagiarizing the Encyclopedia Britannica. His piece focuses on religion, of course, – but not Islam, Christianity or even my favorite, “the universal life force of the Grand Unicorn.” His all powerful religion? Tolerance. Of course, for him, tolerance can only play one way. As Yanks we must kneel before the alter of acceptance, while everyone else uses us as a footrest. I mean, I doubt Breed would MENTION tolerance to the mosque developers. Instead, true to the predictable mind grazing on hysterical cliches, he hearkens back to the witch trials – the most overused example of intolerance ever – and one that probably deserved it. I mean, witches suck. Breed then quotes a reverend who says this is all due to a “dominant religious lens factor” – meaning, i guess, when one group thinks their religion is better than others. He knows this, since he’s a wiccan minister, a practitioner of a cult populated by veiny spinsters with cats. I guess the writer wouldn’t find an imam tolerant enough to grant him an interview. Or maybe he didn’t look. After all, it would be a sign of intolerance to question the intolerant, especially when their intolerance is protected by tolerance! Instead, focus on us. We’re nice people. We won’t kill you. But look, intolerance is not the issue. Think about your pal who can have any girl he wants, but chooses to go after the girl dating you. There, tolerance, doesn’t enter the equation. Being a jerk, does. And that’s what this is all about. Tolerance now serves as a condom for jerks seeking protection from their own jerkiness. I’d use it myself, but they don’t make one in my size. And if you disagree with me, you’re a racist homophobe who owes me thirty bucks. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

Follow this link:
The Religion Called Tolerance

Chris Cuomo: Christians Shouldn’t Condemn Jihad Because of Crusades

Is it a case of removing the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from your brothers – or political correctness run amok? In a tweet Aug. 26 , ABC “20/20” anchor Chris Cuomo told his 987,000 followers not to condemn Muslim violence because other religions have perpetrated violence in the past. “To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics – before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades….study them,” Cuomo tweeted around 9:30 am. So does past violence justify modern violence? If so, maybe Cuomo should take his own advice and study the Crusades. Even a brief study would reveal a much more complicated situation than Cuomo’s tweet suggests about who struck first. Historians, including professor and author Bernard Lewis, have noted that the Crusades were in fact a response to jihad. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad – a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” Lewis wrote in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. One of Cuomo’s Twitter followers, magoluv69, pointed out that “by the time the Crusades began Muslim armies had conquered almost 2/3 of Christian world. Neither just.” Cuomo responded that he is “not sure how pointing out Muslim wrongs erases Christian wrongs.” So pointing out Muslim wrongs doesn’t erase Christian wrongs – but pointing out Christian wrongs justifies Muslim wrongs? Author Andrew Bostom noted that the comparison of jihad to the Crusades is not be apples-to-apples anyway. “The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Qur’anic revelation itself, whereas the Crusades were circumscribed historical events subjected to (ongoing and meaningful) criticism by Christians themselves.” 

Go here to read the rest:
Chris Cuomo: Christians Shouldn’t Condemn Jihad Because of Crusades

Mosque Controversy- Boyd’s Local Holy War Continues

No matter which religions are fighting, Boyd loves his country. added by: Progresshiv

Americans do be dumber.

Chances are that by now you've heard about the Aug. 19, 2010, Pew poll that found that nearly one fifth of Americans (mistakenly) believe that President Obama is a Muslim. Perhaps you think that a terrifying outlier; or perhaps you're a believer, and then you are in good company. Either way, you're wrong: in fact, remarkably high numbers of Americans believe the most unusual things. Although the portion of poll respondents who believe Obama is a Muslim has risen recently, some of these oddball opinions contain more consistent numbers of believers. Here's a sampling of the nuttiest. EVOLUTION vs CREATIONISM To mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, Gallup thought it might be a good idea to poll Americans on their beliefs of the British naturalist's theory. But the results must have had Darwin spinning in his grave, since only 39 percent of Americans believed in the theory. The good news: only a quarter said they didn't believe it; the remaining portion either didn't have an opinion or didn't answer. (Also, only 55 percent correctly linked Darwin's name with the theory.) However, it appears that views may, um, evolve: younger people believe in evolution at far higher rates than older ones. WITCHCRAFT It seems obvious that it's not a good idea to put too much stock in withcraft. But it turns out that 21 percent of Americans believe there are real sorcerors, conjurers, and warlocks out there. And that's just one of the several paranormal beliefs common among Americans, according to Gallup: 41 percent believe in ESP, 32 percent in ghosts, and a quarter in astrology. In fairness, the numbers in this poll are a little old—they date back to 2005. But then again, if people haven't changed their mind since the Enlightenment, it's not clear another half decade would make much difference. DEATH PANELS From Facebook to faith: that's how a spurious rumor became part of the national dialogue. On Facebook, Sarah Palin wrote in August 2009 that Obama would institute a “death panel” as part of health-care reform. Soon pundits and politicians were demagoguing the issue into common currency. Even in August 2010, one year after the initial burst and five months after health reform was signed into law, the belief lingers. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, four in 10 Americans mistakenly believe the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a panel that makes decisions about end-of-life care. SADDAM'S WMDs AND 9/11 INVOLVEMENT Even years after claims that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction or had links to the September 11 attacks had been debunked, not all Americans were convinced. In a June 2007 NEWSWEEK poll, four years after the invasion of Iraq, 41 percent believed Saddam was involved in 9/11—even though President Bush had said otherwise as early as September 2003. Wild views on 9/11 are in fact still rampant. In September 2009, Public Policy Polling found that a quarter of Democrats suspected Bush had something to do with the attacks. Meanwhile, many Americans also remain convinced that Saddam had WMDs, even though inspectors haven't found any in the seven years since the invasion. Still, as of 2006, half of Americans believed that, according to Harris. Who knows where they got that idea? HELIOCENTRISM Didn't we clear this one up in the 16th century? Copernicus be damned, 20 percent of Americans were still sure in 1999 that the sun revolved around the Earth. Gallup, the pollster that conducted the study, gamely tried to dress it up by celebrating the fact that “four out of five Americans know Earth revolves around the sun,” but we're not buying. HISTORY OF RELIGION If mutual understanding is the key to tolerance, we're in trouble. According to NEWSWEEK's 2007 What You Need to Know poll, barely half of Americans were correctly able to state that Judaism was older than both Christianity and Islam. Another 41 percent weren't sure; in case you're in that group, here goes: Judaism is the oldest of the Abrahamic faiths, followed by Christianity—which reveres the Jewish prophets (including Moses, above)—and then Islam, which reveres the Jewish prophets and also hails Jesus as a prophet. Supreme Court vs. Seven Dwarfs It's hard to imagine what inspired the pollsters at Zogby to ask the question, but the answer is striking: in a 2006 poll, more than three quarters of Americans could name at least two of the seven dwarfs, while not quite a quarter could name two members of the Supreme Court. NEWSWEEK's response is a split decision, if you will: on the one hand, Disney is as much a symbol of America as the high court, and those dwarfs are adorable. On the other hand, it should be easy to name only two out of a pool of nine options. Objection sustained! WORLD GEOGRAPHY Lost? Don't ask an American. Sixty-three percent of young Americans can't find Iraq on a map, despite the ongoing U.S involvement there. Nine out of 10 can't find Afghanistan—even if you give them the advantage of a map limited to Asia. And more than a third of Americans of any age can't identify the continent that's home to the Amazon River (above), the world's largest. Three Stooges vs. Three Branches What a bunch of knuckleheads: according to Zogby, the majority of Americans—three in four—can correctly identify Larry, Curly, and Moe as the Three Stooges. Only two out of five respondents, however, can correctly identify the executive, legislative, and judicial branches as the three wings of government. FREEDOM OF RELIGION Who needs constitutional constructionism? Not one in three Americans, apparently: that's the proportion that said in a 2008 First Amendment Center poll that the constitutional right to freedom of religion was never meant to apply to groups most folks think are extreme or fringe—a 10 percent increase from 2000. In 2007, two out of five Americans told the FAC that teachers should be allowed to lead prayers in public schools. You can see several years of the reports here. PRESIDENT OBAMA'S RELIGION Opponents of President Obama have been spreading false rumors about his religion for quite some time. Recently, however, it seems that the number of Americans who believe these untruths is on the rise. Among respondents to a Pew poll, 18 percent believed Obama was a Muslim, up from 11 percent in March 2009. A Time magazine poll last week found similar results: 24 percent believed he was a Muslim, while only 47 percent correctly identified him as a Christian. There's some evidence that the best indicator of belief that Obama is a Muslim is opposing him politically, casting doubt on the accuracy of the results. Then again, it wouldn't be the craziest thing Americans believe, would it? added by: UtopianSky

Pataki Smacks Down Matthews: You Bash Limbaugh, How About Olbermann?

Former New York Governor George Pataki on Wednesday got into a heated discussion with Chris Matthews over the Ground Zero mosque and the Republican opposition to it. In the middle of his second “Hardball” segment on MSNBC, Matthews played a clip of Rush Limbaugh saying on the radio earlier in the day, “If this is a nation that is Islamophobic, how do we elect a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama?” This led Matthews to ask his guest, “What do you think of guys that keep putting out lies like that?” Over the course of the next five minutes, Pataki basically took over the show not only putting Matthews in his place, but also doing the same to his other guest, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Governor, it just seems to me that people on the right of the spectrum, right across the right center right all the way over, really don`t like Muslims. Take a look — here`s Rush Limbaugh today. Here`s what he said today about — about the — about our election of — well, he refers to President Obama, basically, as a Muslim here again. Here he is. Let`s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: My question — Mr. Matthews and Mr. Fineman, a question for you. How can America be Islamophobic? We elected Obama, didn`t we? If this is a nation that is Islamophobic, how do we elect a man whose name is Barack Hussein Obama? (END VIDEO CLIP) MATTHEWS: Governor, this is why, I think, 25 or some 30 percent of the people think that Barack Obama is a Muslim, this trash talking by Rush Limbaugh, the voice of the American right here, who speaks for so many Republicans, assuming that he`s a Muslim because we voted for him and that proves we`re not anti-Muslim. What do you think of guys that keep putting out lies like that? So, in Matthews’ view, Limbaugh not only believes Obama is a Muslim, but he’s also responsible for how 25 to 30 percent of the nation thinks.  Well, before we get to Pataki’s fabulous response, here’s what Limbaugh actually said today on this subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH: Monday night on Mess NBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews. He and Howard Fineman are blaming me for the Obama Muslim poll. They’re blaming me for the fact that about 20, 25% of the American people think Obama’s a Muslim and that fewer and fewer Americans believe that Obama is a Christian. Well, that’s not what I was doing. These guys are outthinking me by half here. To put this back in context, I was trying to explain to these people why the poll was what it was. Don’t forget, it’s not us that took the poll. I’m in the wake of this. I had nothing to do with the shaping of opinion on this poll. The only time I have referenced Obama being a Muslim was when I was quoting Khadafy. I’ve never put it out there myself that Obama is a Muslim. I’ve quoted Moammar Khadafy for saying so. I’m trying to explain to these people in the media, “You want to know why the American people think this, let me help you.” What do we know about Obama being a Christian? The only thing we know is that he has said so. But we don’t see him going to church. We don’t hear him talk about it like other presidents have. But we do know that his pastor for 20 years was Jeremiah Wright. And the American people have heard what Jeremiah Wright said, America’s chickens have come home to roost and all of that. And we also have heard Obama say he never heard Wright say any of these things. Well, sorry, media. We just don’t believe that a parishioner does not hear the pastor for 20 years. Sorry. We may be rubes, but that doesn’t compute with us. I mean those of us that go to church know what the pastor says. One of the reasons we go is to hear what the priest or what the pastor says. This Pew poll was taken back in July. Now, I never said anything about Obama being a Muslim until the last few days. With that as pretext, here’s how Pataki responded to Matthews: GEORGE PATAKI, FORMER GOVERNOR NEW YORK (R): Well, I think it`s clear that Rush and I both understand that Barack Obama is a Christian. He has expressed his Christianity. He has shown that he goes to church, although I have doubts about his choice of the right church when he was with Reverend Wright for so many years in Chicago. But, you know, you can pick out inflammatory positions on either side. The idea of this Islamic center so close to Ground Zero is wrong, and you`re painting it as something that the right is opposed to. In New York State, the Democratic governor and the Democratic speaker are opposed to it. Harry Reid has come out against it. There is bipartisan opposition, and by the way, the vast majority of Americans think it is the wrong center and the wrong site at the wrong time. Exactly. The polling data on this issue finds huge bipartisan opposition to this mosque. Yet, Matthews and his ilk continue to blame this on conservative talkers like Limbaugh: MATTHEWS: Right. PATAKI: And just commenting on Eugene`s analysis that it`s making the U.S. look bad in the Islamic world, if the people who proposed building this in fact wanted to reach out, wanted to build bridges, they would understand the nature of the opposition. They would understand the emotion involved around September 11, and they would have taken up a Democratic governor`s offer to relocate that site. They won`t do that. So, it makes me question, not just question, but doubt seriously, if in fact this is about building bridges, as opposed to just sticking — poking a stick in our eye at one of the hallowed grounds and the scenes of one of the greatest tragedies in American history. And I have to tell you that you — I am not anti-Islam. I am very strongly anti that mosque. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Well, you think that`s the message, Gene, that we`re sending here as a country? (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Is that the message that we`re sending, we`re not anti- Islamic? (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: It`s not the message you`re sending, Chris, when you say that the right is anti-Islam. MATTHEWS: I`m looking at the poll data. PATAKI: We`re in favor of tolerance across the political spectrum. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. I have just cited a major national poll that says most Republicans don`t like Islam, period. I have just quoted Rush Limbaugh from today`s broadcast where he is making it sound like we have elected a guy who is Islamic, and therefore we`re not anti-Islamic, playing that old game again, that canard that he`s really not a Christian. I would think if I were a guy sitting in a Cairo cafe right now, I be would thinking, I don`t really want to go to Michigan State and study engineering because those people don`t like me. Nicely set up, Pataki whacked the ball out of the park: PATAKI: Well, you know, you always manage to get a clip from Rush. I would love to have one from Keith Olbermann or someone, because you can always take — MATTHEWS: Well, I`m looking for Republican opinion here. Exactly! Matthews is always looking for Republican opinion to bash, which once again set Pataki up nicely: PATAKI: — take positions — let me give you a Republican opinion. (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: We believe in freedom of religion. In New York City, there are over 100 mosques. In New York State, there are over 300 mosques. MATTHEWS: Right. PATAKI: We believe that religious tolerance is an important part of our Bill of Rights and of our country. But that doesn`t mean that we have to tolerate building a center with questionable sources of funds, questionable leadership so close to Ground Zero. It is the wrong thing to do at the wrong site. MATTHEWS: Gene, your last word here, please. EUGENE ROBINSON, WASHINGTON POST: Well, I believe the organizers of the mosque will refuse, as all of us do, to be classified as second-class citizens of this country. PATAKI: That`s right. ROBINSON: I believe the governor forgets that innocent Muslims died in the collapse of the Twin Towers, along with Christians and Jews and everyone else. And — and I just think it is an outrageous violation of what we as Americans hold sacred, freedom of religion, and the fact that we are all equal to say, yes, sure, we like Islam, but we don`t like you here. Brace yourselves, for Robinson was about to get schooled: PATAKI: You know, I think it`s an incredible violation of our freedom of speech if you think that by expressing an opinion that differs from yours somehow, it is in any way treating people as second-class citizens. Ouch! Even Matthews recognized Pataki was right: MATTHEWS: OK. I`m with you. I`m with you. PATAKI: It`s not. MATTHEWS: Governor — Governor, you rang my bell. I agree. Both sides — I respect your opinion. I respect the other guy`s opinion. What I don`t respect are people talking about blacklisting the construction companies, talking about we`re going to get those people and run them out of business who do try to build this center. That is bad Americanism. That is not American to say, all right, you have a right to do it, but we will ruin your business if you do it. Is that freedom of speech or is that something else? PATAKI: No, it`s not. No, it`s not. And I agree with you. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: OK. Then we`re together on that — (CROSSTALK) PATAKI: We have to follow the law. But let me raise another point here. The developer, so-called developer of this project, earlier, about a year or so ago, plunked down $4.9 million in cash to buy the site. A year-and-a-half before that, he was a waiter. He then plunked down $5 million to buy the second site and got a mortgage in excess of $20 million or $30 million, a guy who was a waiter as a restaurant a year-and-a-half ago. People are asking him the source of that almost $10 million in cash. MATTHEWS: OK. PATAKI: He won`t answer the questions. And I think it`s — the American people and certainly the people of New York have a right to know the source of the funding, because that goes to what this center is going to be used for. I have grave doubts. I think it should be moved. And if they were really serious about reaching out and building bridges, they would listen to those of us who respect Islam, but who don`t believe that center should be there. Outstanding, Governor. Absolutely outstanding. Now watch Matthews further make a fool of himself: MATTHEWS: OK. Seven years ago, the man who is building this center was speaking at Danny Pearl`s funeral. I`m not sure he`s a bad guy, like you say he is. This is why folks like Olbermann don’t allow conservatives on their programs, for Matthews was seriously about to get owned: PATAKI: Well, I can tell you, Danny Pearl`s father has said that it should not be built there. Game, set, and match Pataki. Bravo, Governor! Bravo!

Read more:
Pataki Smacks Down Matthews: You Bash Limbaugh, How About Olbermann?