Tag Archives: christianity

Early Christians Condoned Gay Marriage

Posted on August 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Many of the world's religions — including Christianity — supported same-sex unions, a reality obscured by modern-day shrill, conservative commentary. Through much of history, especially prior to the Fourteenth Century, many Christians did not share the view that marriage was a reward for being heterosexual, nor that a same-sex union was objectionable. An icon from St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai illustrates this point. It shows two robed Christian saints getting married. Their pronubus (official witness, or “best man”) is none other than Jesus Christ. It is a standard Roman portrayal of a wedding. The difference: the two saints are both male, Fourth Century Christian martyrs, Saint Serge and Saint Bacchus, close friends in the Roman army who were purportedly singled out for their secret adherence to Christianity before being tortured and killed. Their unity, considered romantic by some historians and depicted through the image of marriage at St. Catherine’s monastery, was commemorated in many subsequent liturgies. The late Yale historian John Boswell found evidence for other Christian same-sex marriage ceremonies continuing even into the Eighteenth Century. added by: toyotabedzrock

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Time’s Sullivan Defends Obama’s Christianity, Attacks Conservatives for Perception by Some He’s Muslim

Posted on August 19, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The number of Americans from all kinds of demographics who are unsure that President Obama is a Christian have grown since he’s been in office. For instance, “fewer than half of Democrats (46%) know Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009. Barely four-in-ten African-Americans say he’s a Christian, down from 56% last year,” an exasperated Amy Sullivan noted in an August 19 Swampland blog post at Time.com. So who’s fault is that? Conservatives, of course, the religion reporter insisted: It would also be foolish and naive to pretend that conservatives who call Obama a Muslim are doing it in a neutral way and that their intention is anything other than to raise questions about his “otherness.” Sullivan failed to name which prominent conservatives in particular she felt were responsible for moving public opinion on the president’s religious loyalties. But in her zeal to vigorously defend Obama as a follower of Christ, Sullivan concluded by asserting that the White House has to take care to “offset those perceptions [that Obama is secretly a Muslim] with a little more openness about the president’s real Christian faith.”   Perhaps Sullivan was being extremely charitable and wished to avoid rank cynicism, but not once did it occur to her that President Obama might be an agnostic who, like many Americans, nominally associates with the Christian faith because it’s a proper thing to do.   Prior to his presidency, might President Obama have attended — albeit infrequently — Trinity United Church of Christ out of a mix of a vague sense of social and familial obligation and political calculus? Sullivan leaves that possibility unexplored.   To her mind, Obama is unquestionably a Christian and that story must be put out there by the White House PR shop in order to bolster Obama’s connection with the electorate (emphasis mine): I suppose you could call the White House’s complete lack of concern about Obama’s religious image admirable. It wouldn’t be hard to imagine a crafty political adviser marching into the Oval Office and insisting: “Mr. President, I’m sorry, but we have to have you walking into a church every Sunday morning, preferably with a big Bible under your arm.” And i n a perfect world, nobody would give a hoot whether the president went to church or said grace before meals or ever uttered one word publicly about his religious beliefs. But these Pew results suggest that nearly two years after Americans elected Obama, they know less about him than they did when he was a presidential candidate still making his way onto their radar. Forget the question of what that means for 2012– it’s already a problem for a leader who wants to connect with the country. One last note on another finding I found fascinating: Of those Americans who think Obama is a Muslim, nearly one-quarter (24%) told Pew pollsters they think he talks about his faith too much. Which is impossible, of course, because Obama is not a Muslim, so he’s spent exactly zero minutes talking about being one. What the result really illustrates is how thoroughly those who oppose Obama are willing to read everything he says and does through a filter of distrust. Sixty percent of those who think Obama is a Muslim say they got that idea from the media. But interestingly, one-in-ten say they got it from Obama’s own behavior or words. They hear the Cairo speech or see the outreach to Muslim countries and assume, well of course, it’s because he’s Muslim. That doesn’t mean he shouldn’t engage in the outreach–far from it. But it does make it even more important for the White House to offset those perceptions with a little more openness about the president’s real Christian faith.

View post:
Time’s Sullivan Defends Obama’s Christianity, Attacks Conservatives for Perception by Some He’s Muslim

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rick Sanchez: Investigate Vatican, Mormons’ Funding as Well as NYC Mosque?

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

CNN’s Rick Sanchez bizarrely wondered on Tuesday’s Rick List whether investigating the funding behind the planned mosque near Ground Zero would lead to investigations into Catholic and/or Mormon funding: ” If you start going into who is giving money …you’ve got to go to Rome and s tart asking where the money is going into Rome ….and you have to go the Mormons and ask … what are they doing with their money? Sanchez posed that vaguely morally relativistic question as he interviewed former New York Governor George Pataki during the prime-time edition of his program 14 minutes into the 8 pm Eastern hour. Before bringing on his guest, the CNN anchor inquired whether the opponents of the proposed Islamic center/mosque had become extreme: ” Are those against this Islamic center/mosque in New York City going too far these days? I want to you decide as you look at this new ad that’s going to be running on city buses in New York. On one side, as you look at this, you will see that there’s a picture of a mosque- on the other side, a shot of a plane that’s slamming into the Twin Towers, and it poses this question: why there? The ad is being sponsored by a group that’s called The American Freedom Defense Initiative.” After noting former New York City Mayor Ed Koch and current mayor Michael Bloomberg’s support for the mosque, Sanchez introduced Pataki and first asked him, “Why are they [Koch and Bloomberg] wrong and why are you right?” After the Republican explained his opposition, the anchor gave his first hint to his later Catholic/Mormon question: ” Once you start telling someone you can’t worship here because it affects the sensibilities or sensitivities of someone else, you’re starting to go down a slippery slope, and then a lot of people would ask- well, which religion is next? Who else are we going to not let worship where they want, how they want?” Pataki disputed Sanchez’s point and added that “the imam in charge, Imam Rauf…has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization…We also know that he has said, after September 11th, that those attacks were in part a result of American policies.” The CNN anchor then pressed his point with his “asking where the money is going into Rome” question. The two spent the bulk of the rest of the segment arguing over the mosque funding question. Near the end of the interview, however, Sanchez seemed to endorse colleague Fareed Zakaria’s recent claim that Imam Rauf was actually an enemy of Islamism : “We see that Feisal Abdul Rauf has been called ‘al Qaeda’s worst nightmare’- in fact by Fareed Zakaria, just this weekend on his show, because, according to Fareed and according to documents that we have seen- this guy sounds to me like he truly believes in American democracy, and he’s on the record saying that he wants all Muslims to repudiate extremists.” Pataki replied, “He may be rejecting violence. I don’t know that’s the case, when he refuses to renounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. Why will he not do that?” The full transcript of Rick Sanchez’s interview of George Pataki on Tuesday’s Rick’s List: SANCHEZ Are those against this Islamic center/mosque in New York City going too far these days? I want to you decide as you look at this new ad that’s going to be running on city buses in New York. On one side, as you look at this, you will see that there’s a picture of a mosque- on the other side, a shot of a plane that’s slamming into the Twin Towers, and it poses this question: why there? The ad is being sponsored by a group that’s called The American Freedom Defense Initiative. It has set off controversy and lawsuits in New York, and has some pretty big names Tweeting in to ‘Rick’s List’ about this. As a matter of fact, let’s go to the Twitter board. These are tweets I got today. Look who watches ‘Rick’s List’ and decided to send us a Tweet. ‘It is wrong to use the government to stop construction of a mosque where a church or synagogue would be permissible.’ That’s Ed Koch, former mayor of New York. So, that’s what the ex-mayor says. Look, let’s ask the present mayor what he says as well. Take that, if you would. NEW YORK CITY MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property, based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. SANCHEZ: So those are two mayors, and now a former governor. George Pataki is good enough to joins us live. Mr. Governor, thanks so much for being with us, sir. We appreciate your time. FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI : Thank you, Rick- nice being with you. SANCHEZ: Why are they wrong and why are you right? PATAKI: Well, I don’t think it’s a question of religious freedom. You just had your chart where you showed that New York has over 230 mosques, the most in America, and we are certainly a very tolerant society. In this city alone, New York City, there are over 100 mosques. So, it’s not the question of building a mosque. The question is, what is this facility going to be? Who is behind it? How are they funding it? And I think that until those questions are answered, it’s absolutely wrong. And it’s not just a local community neighborhood mosque. This is a facility that’s going to rise 13 to 15 stories high, that’s going to cost $100 million, and we don’t know where that’s coming from. And in the- and what they claim is that it’s in the name of showing respect. Well, out of sensitivity to those of us who care so strongly about the memory of September 11th, why that site? And, Rick, there’s another development today. SANCHEZ: Okay. PATAKI: Governor Paterson just said he would look- if they were willing to look for another site, he would look to use the state to find a more appropriate site further from Ground Zero. It’s, in fact, what they want to do- SANCHEZ: But, Governor, if this is a constitutional issue, which most people would agree it is- I mean, you come to this country- PATAKI: I don’t- SANCHEZ: And one of the reasons we’re different from them is that we have the right to worship wherever it is we want. Once you start telling someone you can’t worship here because it affects the sensibilities or sensitivities of someone else, you’re starting to go down a slippery slope, and then a lot of people would ask- well, which religion is next? Who else are we going to not let worship where they want, how they want? PATAKI: Rick, I don’t think that’s the case at all. It’s not a question of not allowing people to worship. It’s a question of why this site- where is the funding coming from for this site? We have a right to know that. It will be a registered charity, and they’re required to disclose their funding. They haven’t done that. And in this particular case, the imam in charge, Imam Rauf- we don’t know much about him, but we know some things. One is that he has refused to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization, although our government has done that. We also know that he has said, after September 11th, that those attacks were in part a result of American policies, which I reject completely- SANCHEZ Yeah, but let me tell you- but let me tell you- let me tell you, Governor- PATAKI: One of the reason we were attacked is because we do believe in freedom of speech. And- wait: if this is a legitimate house of worship, why aren’t they willing to work with officials, like the governor, and find a more appropriate site, as opposed to doing something that is deliberately, in my view, provocative to those of us who hold the memory of September 11 so reverently- SANCHEZ: You’ve raised some interesting questions and made some excellent points. But the question goes back to who this imam is. And also, if you start going into who is giving money to whom- I mean, then you have to go to my church. I mean, you’ve got to go to Rome and start asking where the money is going into Rome. PATAKI: Yeah (unintelligble)- SANCHEZ: And you have to go the Mormons and ask them-well, what are they doing with their money? I mean, that too becomes a problematic area to go, when it comes to the people’s right to worship constitutionally in this country, does it not? PATAKI: Rick, I disagree with you on that completely, as well. We have a right to know, with a charity, registered in the State of New York, where the funds are coming from, and if they are coming from Iran- if they are coming from Hamas- if they are coming from supporters of terrorism- obviously, this is something that we should be able to factor into whether or not the mosque should be there. SANCHEZ: But this is not- PATAKI: We don’t know the answer to these questions. SANCHEZ: But this is not a charity, Governor. This is a religion, and a religion is different than a charity. Constitutionally speaking, it’s got to be different (unintelligible), does it not? PATAKI: They are subject to the same disclosure laws. It’s not a question of the Constitution. No one is saying that we are looking to deny any Islam- any Muslim- freedom of speech- freedom of the ability to carry out their religion. What we’re saying is that this mega-facility, 13 to 15 stories high- we have a right- particularly, when they are looking to build this so close to Ground Zero- to know who are people behind it, what is the motivation behind it. Is this going to be an Islamist institution- SANCHEZ: All right. Well, let’s talk- PATAKI: That teaches intolerance and teaches violence against America? We don’t have to tolerate that, and we should not tolerate that. SANCHEZ: No, sir. Those are excellent questions, and they should be asked, and you’re absolutely right- PATAKI: And they should be answered. SANCHEZ: And I think everything [sic] in America would probably agree with you. But if you look at some of the facts on the ground right now- we see that Feisal Abdul Rauf has been called ‘al Qaeda’s worst nightmare’- in fact by Fareed Zakaria, just this weekend on his show, because, according to Fareed and according to documents that we have seen- this guy sounds to me like he truly believes in American democracy, and he’s on the record saying that he wants all Muslims to repudiate extremists. It sounds, just from that- I know there could be other sides to the story- but it sounds just from that like this is the type of Muslims that we Americans should embrace, doesn’t it? PATAKI: We should be embracing Muslims, but do you know if he’s an Islamist or not? He may be rejecting violence. I don’t know that’s the case, when he refuses to renounce Hamas as a terrorist organization. Why will he not do that? But is he an Islamist who believes that the Islamic community should work to impose Sharia law, not just on their members, but on the country with whom- wherein they live? We don’t know the answer to these questions, and until we do, I think we have every right to say that this might not simply be a neighborhood house of worship. This might be something aimed at a more political agenda, in which case, not only do we have the right, I think we have an obligation to protect the memory of those who died on September 11th. SANCHEZ: This has been an excellent interview, and I’m so glad that you had a chance to come on and share this perspective with us tonight. Former Governor George Pataki of New York- thank you, sir, for giving us a chance to hear this perspective. We appreciate it. PATAKI: Thank you, Rick- nice being on with you.

More here:
Rick Sanchez: Investigate Vatican, Mormons’ Funding as Well as NYC Mosque?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

HuffPo Columnist Celebrates ‘Slow, Whining Death’ of Christianity

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

It’s not often you see an obituary as snarky and bitter as the one written by British columnist Johann Hari announcing what he called the “slow, whining death of British Christianity” in the UK edition of GQ and online at The Huffington Post. Citing an unlinked ICM study, which is not available on the organization’s website, Hari called on reader to “put your hands together and give thanks, for I come bearing Good News. My country,Britain, is now on the most irreligious country on earth.” Hari called Christianity, “superstition,” “weak,” “cruel,” and based on “intimidation.” He predicted that, “As their dusty Churches crumble because nobody wants to go there” and predicted that “the few remaining Christians in Britain will only become more angry and uncomprehending.” While he mentioned Judaism and Islam twice, Hari focused his ridicule on Christianity and the Church of England. He used the survey to call for an end to government support for Anglicanism. Hari reported that 63 percent of British respondents called themselves non-believers, and “only six percent of British people regularly attend religious services.” While religious believers might find such number disheartening, Hari celebrated. “Now, let us stand and sing our new national hymn: Jerusalem was dismantled here / in England’s green and pleasant land.” He concluded by stating he had “a Holy Lamb of God to carve into kebabs – it’s our new national dish. Amen, and hallelujah.” Hari’s snide obituary may be early, however. A  BBC Religion poll  conducted in March 2010 found 64 percent of Brits identify as Christians – 25 percent identified with no religion, and 22 percent said they were Muslim.  Another poll  conducted in 2009 found that 63 percent of respondents agreed with the statement, “Our laws should respect and be influenced by UKreligious values.” Additionally, the annual  British Social Attitudes Report , published in January 2010, found that only 18 percent of Brits said they don’t believe in God, while 18.6 percent were unsure. More than 62 percent expressed some faith in God. Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by   clicking   here.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Face the Nation’: Supreme Court Upholding Same-sex Marriage ‘Enormous Stretch’

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Analysts that spend their time critiquing the media normally don’t have very good things to say about what they observe these days, but the final segment of Sunday’s “Face the Nation” on CBS was a marvelous exception. Substitute host John Dickerson invited on the network’s chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford and the Washington Post’s Dan Balz for a refreshingly open and honest discussion of two pivotal legal issues facing our nation: a judge’s decision to overturn California’s controversial Proposition 8 which banned same-sex marriages, and; whether or not the 14th Amendment should be revised to address illegal immigration. What ensued was a tremendously informative seven minute report about these two issues without any cheer-leading or accusatory finger-pointing: Crawford gave the facts about both legal matters as she saw them; Balz addressed the political ramifications for both parties as well as the White House, and; Dickerson asked great questions to keep the conversation moving. With that as pretext, sit back and watch – or read if you’re so inclined – the way these kinds of issues should be discussed on a television news program (video follows with transcript and commentary):  JOHN DICKERSON, HOST: We’re back with more on same-sex marriage with Dan Balz of the Washington Post, and our chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford. Jan, I want to start with you. And the question I asked David Boies. This is a big leap for the Supreme Court when it finally gets there, isn’t it? JAN CRAWFORD (CBS News Chief Legal Correspondent): Well, David Boies said it was not. But clearly it is. I mean they are asking the Supreme Court to set aside, essentially, the laws of forty-four states. So that is an enormous stretch. Now, of course, the Supreme Court has taken up issues of gay rights in the past. Justice Kennedy, the key swing vote in 2003, said that states could not criminalize homosexual sex in the privacy of your bedroom. So– but that is an entirely different matter than saying there’s a federal constitutional right to– to same-sex marriage. JOHN DICKERSON: In this case, Judge Walker, quoted Anthony Kennedy fifteen times or so. It was a letter to him. Wasn’t it? And is that going to work writing directly to Kennedy, basically, trying to use his own words to say hey, you’ve go to vote with me. JAN CRAWFORD: No. I mean clearly this decision was written with an eye on appeal. And it’s going to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. The court is so narrowly divided right now in these key social issues, you know, you’ve got your four liberals, your four conservatives and then that man in the middle, Anthony Kennedy, who is kind of like this, you know, human jump ball. And what they are asking Justice Kennedy to do, in this case, is not only, I mean, he’s got to grab the ball, take it down the court, slam it in the basket, and shatter the backboard. I mean this is something that Anthony Kennedy doesn’t do. He’s a very cautious justice. He doesn’t like to get ahead. Like I said, the same-sex ruling that he wrote in 2003, that struck down laws that criminalized homosexual sex. No one was enforcing these laws. This would change the law of the nation. They would be so far ahead of public opinion and that is why this case was controversial from the beginning. Remember, the traditional gay rights groups did not want David Boies and his conservative counterpart, Ted Olsen, to file this case because they think the Supreme Court is not ready. They wanted to see more states pass laws allowing same-sex marriage and then take it to the court and not put that onus and that pressure on the Supreme Court. And I would not be so confident if I were David Boies. JOHN DICKERSON: Dan, let’s talk about the politics of this. It does seem like from the Republican side, you know, George Bush when a Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on– in favor of same-sex marriage, immediately he came out with a constitutional amendment to ban it. This time pretty quiet from Republicans. DAN BALZ (Washington Post): Yes. And I think that– there’s a good reason for that. In 2004, the Republicans needed to do everything they could to motivate their base. Their base this year is highly motivated. They don’t need to do more to crank up the anger, the energy that’s there on the right. The second, I think, and more important reason, is they have very good issues to deal with in this midterm–the economy, the size and scope of government, debt and deficit. Those are issues that unify their entire coalition and also reach out to independents to introduce in a significant and loud way same-sex marriage would threaten to pull away from that– pull that coalition apart. JOHN DICKERSON: Distract. Okay. If it’s going to keep the Republicans quiet on this issue, what about the Democrats? How do they handle this? DAN BALZ: Well, the Democrats are equally conflicted or– or quiet on this. Because while much of the Democratic base favors same-sex marriage, the truth is most elected officials including President Obama are opposed to it. And so, there is conflict within their base. They don’t want to really get into this at this point and stir things up. The President has stayed away from this issue for the most part, as have most other Democrats. So I don’t think you’re– going to see Democrats trying to leap to make this into an issue in the fall. Even in– even in some districts. I think where this will play is in some conservative districts in some red states. Individual Republicans will use it, particularly, through micro-targeting. They will reach to voters not with broad messaging but by direct mail or phone calls things like that. JOHN DICKERSON (overlapping): That’s it. Go on. JAN CRAWFORD: And– keep in mind, though, too. I mean, this is the first ruling by one federal judge and it’s going to be appealed. This case is going to get to the Supreme Court pretty close to 2012. So, you know whether or not it’s an issue in this year’s midterm or not it’s going to be an issue in the presidential election. DAN BALZ (overlapping): I think that’s right. And I think– JAN CRAWFORD: And President Obama is going to have to s– I mean, what does he do? DAN BALZ: And– and I think, as you said, the question is public opinion is changing on this, and fairly dramatically over the last four or five years. But it’s not at the point where there’s majority opinion in a majority of the states in favor of same-sex marriage. The court may end up ruling on this long before public opinion reaches to the conclusion a majority favors same-sex marriage. JOHN DICKERSON: Jan, I want to ask you about another legal issue. The same-sex case is about the 14th Amendment. There’s also been some Republicans talking about the 14th Amendment in another context, in terms of this automatic birthright citizenship in the United States. What’s happening on that front? JAN CRAWFORD: Well, I had about an hour-long talk about this actually on Friday with Senator Lindsey Graham. And this is really kind of one component of what he sees and is pushing is some broader immigration reform. And it– he believes that it is a real problem that people are coming to this country illegally, having babies, and then they’re automatically U.S. citizens. And then they kind of piggy-back, the parents can piggy-back on those kids to stay here in this country illegally. He has all these figures. There’s been a fifty-three-percent increase in births to foreign people, who’ve come here to have their babies in the last four years alone. So, this is a way he wants to look at the 14th Amendment and say maybe it’s time for us to rethink that. Remember the 14th Amendment which is sacrosanct I think to– to so many people was passed to give citizenship rights to the freed slaves. Because obviously the Southern States weren’t going to be doing that unless the federal government stepped in. So he’s saying it’s time to rethink this. When we’re really looking at immigration reform as part of a broader package, securing the borders, giving a path to citizenship for the twelve million people who are here legally now, having some kind of worker ID card, and then also stopping this practice where people can come here illegally or not, have children here, and those children be U.S. citizens. JOHN DICKERSON: Dan, this is an issue, Republicans want to talk about as opposed to the same-sex marriage. DAN BALZ: Absolutely. I mean I think what you’re seeing is that almost all of the elements of the immigration debate that are being discussed now, public opinion tends to be on the side of where the Republicans stand. The Arizona Immigration Law–there are a lot of Democrats particularly, in the west, who are very unhappy that Justice Department and the President decided to step in on that case, feeling that this was a moment that they didn’t want to get into an issue like that that the administration needed to stay focused on the economy. The 14th Amendment issue is another one. I mean we are a long way away from any serious legislating on immigration reform. It died this year. It will– it may come back next year, but we’re a long way away from that. Nonetheless, this discussion is lively right now. And it is helping the Republicans. JOHN DICKERSON: Okay. Dan Balz, thanks so much. We’re going to have to go, Jan. thanks. Bravo, folks. This really was one of the most interesting and informative segments concerning these two issues I saw all week. If television news outlets reported like this more often, I wouldn’t have much to write about. 

See the article here:
‘Face the Nation’: Supreme Court Upholding Same-sex Marriage ‘Enormous Stretch’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rosie O’Donnell’s Staffer: Ground Zero Mosque Opponents Like Nazis

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Wednesday’s edition of Rosie Radio on Sirius/XM satellite radio, Rosie O’Donnell’s staffers sounded more radical than Rosie on the topic of the Ground Zero mosque proposal: “GOOGLE PETE” MELE (staffer): I get very angry at [opposition to the mosque]…It is beyond un-American.   BOBBY PEARCE (staffer): Right. I agree. MELE: …This sort of persecution, blindly, of one group is what was going on in Germany in the 1930s …You can’t say because [Muslims were behind the 9/11 attacks], we can’t have them doing anything in our country. DEIRDRE DOD (staffer): I don’t think that’s what [opponents of the mosque are] saying…They’re saying [that they] want this as a sacred site…They’re not saying, ‘We hate [Muslims].’ Into this fracas came O’Donnell, with the peace offering that radical Islam and radical Christianity are very similar: O’DONNELL: It’s hard that people are associating [Islam] with terrorism. There are radical extremists in every religion, and it doesn’t negate the teachings or the values of the religion, or the vast majority of people who follow the religion.  That’s not to say that O’Donnell doesn’t have a major problem with those radical Christians, as her Nazi roundup talk the next day showed. 

Read more:
Rosie O’Donnell’s Staffer: Ground Zero Mosque Opponents Like Nazis

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Nevada Newspaper Smears Sharron Angle With Classic Guilt By Association Technique

Posted on July 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Here’s a slimy journalistic tactic with which most conservatives are all too familiar: note that two people or groups agree on one point, and then suggest that consequently they must agree on all other points. Chris Matthews (among many others) used this tactic to smear Tea Parties as tantamount to militia groups – both share a distaste for big government, therefore they must agree on all other points. The Las Vegas Sun employed the tactic on Sunday in a front page piece on Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle in an attempt to paint her religious views as radical. She believes that “religion has an expansive role to play in government” and that arguments to the contrary misunderstand the First Amendment. Christian Reconstructionists share this belief (along with millions of Americans), Sun reporter Anjeanette Damon noted. But Damon went on to try to tie Angle to a host of other wacky beliefs that she does not share with the movement. Damon writes: The movement’s more extreme beliefs are based on a strict interpretation of Mosaic law described in the Old Testament and include the execution of homosexuals and unchaste women and the denial of citizenship to those who don’t adhere to Reconstructionists’ religious beliefs. Angle has never advocated those views. Reconstructionists’ primary mission, however, is to “reconstruct” the family, the church and the state according to biblical law. To accomplish that, Reconstructionists interpret the separation of church and state doctrine as a constitutional wall protecting the church from the state. But unlike most interpretations of that doctrine, the Reconstructionists’ envisions a gaping one-way hole in the wall that allows Christian doctrine to infuse government. In other words, government must not interfere with Christians’ efforts to enact God’s law at home or at church and government itself should be run according to biblical law. One leading Reconstructionist describes it as an “institutional separation,” according to Julie Ingersoll, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Florida. “Family, church and state — all are under biblical law” according to Reconstructionist belief, Ingersoll said. It’s unclear how closely Angle’s view of the separation of church and state matches that description. Through spokesman Jerry Stacy, Angle refused to provide any insight into her religious beliefs when asked last week. The sentence “Angle has never advocated those views” is meant to absolve the reporter of any culpability for doing her best to tie Angle to views she does not hold. If she has never advocated those views, why are the next four paragraphs spent extrapolating those positions in an article headlined “Sharron Angle’s take on separation of church and state”? Then Damon drops another old journalistic canard, saying it’s “unclear” whether Angle holds these views. Of course it’s unclear – neither Damon nor anyone else has offered any evidence to suggest she does hold those views! Are there any other views that Angle shares with Reconstructionists? Well, Damon notes, Under Reconstructionist thought, government should have no role in education, safety net benefits such as Social Security or welfare, or in environmental protection. Angle has similarly advocated those positions. So the only actual evidence that Angle even remotely shares Reconstructionist political views is that she espouses…conservative political views. Mark Hemingway, who calls the Sun article ” the most biased news story of the year (so far!) ,” nicely sums up that line of argument: Here all this time you thought you were just a mainstream conservative, but little did you know that you’re really a Christian Reconstructionist! This article is repugnant on just about every level. I guess it could be seen as progress that Angle is running against a Mormon, and he’s the one with less controversial religious views. But I think the lesson we’re learning is that the press is generally hostile to religion — unless they’re talking about Democrat.

Read more:
Nevada Newspaper Smears Sharron Angle With Classic Guilt By Association Technique

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Time’s Padgett Likens ‘Misogynous’ Catholic Church to Segregationists

Posted on July 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Time magazine’s Tim Padgett, who claims to be a Catholic, used the rose-colored glasses of his leftism to mercilessly bash his own church in an article on Monday where he compared Catholic bishops to ” white Southern preachers [who] weren’t ashamed to degrade African-Americans ,” labeled the Church ” misogynous ,” and accused the institution of an ” increasingly spiteful bigotry ” against homosexuals. Padgett, who wrote back in January 2009 that the communist Cuban revolution “deserves its due,” launched a full-bore attack on the Church in the Time.com article, ” The Vatican and Women: Casting the First Stone .” Padgett wasted little time in unleashing his rage against the Church, labeling a recent Vatican document, which listed “grave crimes” according to canon law, ” Rome’s misogynous declaration ,” since, in his view, was an “avowal, as obtuse as it was malicious , that ordaining women into the priesthood was a sin on par with pedophilia.” The document in question , which revised the Catholic Church’s concerning “exceptionally serious” crimes against faith and morals, does no such thing. Philip Pullella of Reuters reported on July 16 that “Monsignor Charles Scicluna, an official in the Vatican’s doctrinal department, said there was no attempt to make women’s ordination and pedophilia comparable crimes under canon…law…. While sexual abuse was a ‘crime against morality ,’ the attempt to ordain a woman was a ‘crime against a sacrament ,’ he said, referring to Holy Orders (the priesthood).” The Time writer used his mistaken premise to further attack the Church’s hierarchy: Rome’s misogynous declaration , tossed into its new guidelines on reporting clerical sexual abuse, did more than just highlight the church’s hoary horror at the idea of female priests… It also pointed up an increasingly spiteful rhetoric of bigotry . When Argentina in mid-July legalized gay marriage, the country’s Catholic bishops weren’t content to simply denounce the legislation; they used the occasion to argue for the subhumanity of homosexual men and lesbians, the way many white Southern preachers weren’t ashamed to degrade African Americans during the civil rights movement . Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio not only called the new law “a scheme to destroy God’s plan”; he termed it “a real and dire anthropological throwback,” as if homosexuality were evolutionarily inferior to heterosexuality …. What’s at stake is the Catholic Church’s ability to salvage any moral authority from the sexual-abuse tragedy. The fact is, it can still do that without ordaining women. But it can’t do it while digging itself a deeper hole like a defendant hurling insults at a judge. It can’t do it by excommunicating a hospital nun, as an Arizona bishop recently did, because she signed off on an abortion that saved a mother’s life. It can’t do it by losing sight of the difference between dogged traditionalism and mean-spirited obscurantism, as it so often does these days . And it’s sounding that way to Catholics as much as it is to non-Catholics. Many if not most of us Catholics remain Catholics today not because of the church’s leadership but in spite of it. In a new Gallup poll, 62% of U.S. Catholics say gay relationships are morally acceptable. Which means we’re not thrilled to have our religion represented by a bunch of homophobes wearing miters …. If the Catholic Church’s perennial teachings on the absolute immorality of abortion and homosexual acts send you in that much of a rage, why is Mr. Padgett sticking around? There are plenty of other denominations that he could join that are more in line with his liberal thinking. They have sold out orthodox Christian teachings and principles in order to stay “relevant” in eyes of the secular world. The heterodox Catholic revealed his just-below-the-surface dissent against Catholic Church teaching on sexuality and embryonic stem cell research more than two years earlier in an April 19, 2008 article to mark Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the U.S. Throughout his most recent piece, the writer made it clear that his objection to Catholic doctrine had reached a new level since the Pope’s visit. He, like many of his fellow travelers, wants to remake the Catholic Church in their left-wing image. That is the source of his outrageous vindictive against the Church. Earlier, at the beginning of his first paragraph, Padgett hinted that he believed the feminist, neo-gnostic theory, popularized by the DaVinci Code, that Mary Magdalene was an apostle: What a rich coincidence we Roman Catholics got to experience at Mass on Sunday, July 18. The scheduled Gospel passage was Luke’s story about Jesus visiting the sisters Martha and Mary of Bethany (who Catholic tradition says was Mary Magdalene). Many biblical scholars believe the narrative shows Jesus encouraging Mary to assume the role of a disciple, like Peter and the guys . Padgett became more explicit in his endorsement of this DaVinci Code theory later in his piece: Its argument for keeping women out of the priesthood — Jesus had no female apostles — is as shamefully bogus as it is unjust. The hierarchy, threatened by claims of Mary Magdalene’s ministerial status, has long tried to identify her with the unnamed “woman caught in adultery” in the Gospel of St. John . When that woman was dragged before Jesus for judgment — death by stoning, the men demanded — Christ famously said, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.” The church wants us to embrace that compassionate teaching when it comes to pedophile priests, and yet it is deaf enough to cast stones at the “crime” of female priests . The writer couldn’t be more wrong if he tried. There is no longstanding conspiracy against St. Mary Magdalene. Father Prosper Gueranger, a 19th century French Benedictine monk and theologian whose cause for canonization opened up under Pope Benedict XVI, quoted from another great theologian, a teacher of none other than St. Thomas Aquinas, to praise the biblical woman: “[Saint] Albert the Great assures that, in the world of grace…God has made two great lights…the Mother of our Lord [the Virgin Mary] and the sister of Lazarus [St. Mary Magdalene]….As the moon by its phases points our the feast days on earth, so Magdalen in heaven gives the signal of joy to the angels of God over one sinner doing penance .” Also, if the Church is trying to be “compassionate” towards pedophile priests, as Padgett claimed, then why is it doubling the statue of limitations from 10 years to 20 years in cases of priests suspected of child abuse, among other tougher guidelines, in the very document that the writer himself maligned? The Time writer concluded his writer with more left-wing condescension toward the Catholic Church: My daughter happened to be serving as an altar girl at Mass on Sunday. She was smart enough to sense that in the gospel reading, Jesus was relating to Mary as if she were a disciple. And she’ll learn that the New Testament is full of other passages that indicate Jesus believed women could be alteri Christi, or ‘other Christs,’ as priests often call themselves. Real Catholicism encourages that kind of enlightened thinking — and it certainly doesn’t call it, as the Catholic Church does, a crime . Mr. Padgett, you have no right or standing to define what “real Catholicism” is. Be intellectually honest with yourself and your audience: your religion is your liberalism, and the Catholic Church is not the best fit for you. Stop trying to change the Church to fit your left wing agenda.

Visit link:
Time’s Padgett Likens ‘Misogynous’ Catholic Church to Segregationists

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Schaeffer: ‘Nuttiest’ Evangelicals Support Israel

Posted on July 8, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Author Frank Schaeffer, son of the late prominent theologian Francis Schaeffer, can’t seem to find anything good about evangelical Christians. In his latest blog on the Huffington Post , Schaeffer criticized evangelicals’ support of Israel. “Some of the nuttiest American religious leaders today (and in the past) have latched on to one form or another of Christian Zionism,” he said. “To put it mildly, the evangelical theological/biblical ‘reasons’ have deformed US policy and made America act against self interest,” Schaeffer wrote. “This has also harmed the state of Israel.” Schaeffer suggested that so-called Christian Zionists “would rather see an innocent Jewish or Palestinian child blown up in a rocket attack as long as the ‘Promised Land’ is ‘fully reclaimed’ to fulfill their harebrained ideas of biblical prophecy.” He suggested that American Christians’ support for Israel was driven by a desire to bring about Armageddon, but downplayed a quote he included from a Texas pastor Rev. John Hagee which seemed to suggest some of that support might stem from Biblical history as much as prophecy. “Israel exists because of a covenant God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 3,500 years ago – and that covenant still stands,” Hagee told The New York Times. “World leaders do not have the authority to tell Israel and the Jewish people what they can and cannot do in the city of Jerusalem.” Schaeffer also took the opportunity to attack what he called evangelicals’ “unhealthy affinity with the idea of religion-based states,” criticizing those who believe America was founded on Christian principles. It’s not the first time Schaeffer has attacked Christians, including his late father. On Huffington Post June 17, he wrote that, “We need to eradicate fundamentalism in all its forms,” specifically targeting fundamentalist Christianity. He called the Bible “nuts in many places” and said “no one” follows it. In 2008, Schaeffer defended President Obama’s controversial preacher, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, by criticizing “right wing white preachers (following in my father’s footsteps) [who] rail against America’s sins from tens of thousands of pulpits.” Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by  clicking   here.

Read the rest here:
Schaeffer: ‘Nuttiest’ Evangelicals Support Israel

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Disappointing, but not Unexpected: HuffPo ‘Comedy’ Celebrates ‘Tea Party Jesus’

Posted on June 30, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

It’s a curious phenomenon to see what the minds at The Huffington Post deem funny, and at least this one wasn’t filed under the category “HuffPo Religion,” but a series of images depicting Jesus Christ making unhinged statements wins the HuffPo’s “Comedy” classification. In a June 30 post , Katla McGlynn wrote that mocking Tea Party protestors by “juxtaposing” “hateful, ignorant, or otherwise nonsensical rants” but at the same time mocking a religious figure many hold very is sacred isn’t only funny but it is also instructive about what she described as “people who claim to be Christians.” “The concept behind the site Tea Party Jesus is simple: Put the words of conservative Christian social and political figures in the mouth of Christ,” McGlynn wrote. “The juxtaposition of hateful, ignorant, or otherwise nonsensical rants with serene photos of JC himself isn’t only funny, but says a lot about the people who claim to be Christians.” According to the Huffington Post story, the creator of Tea Party Jesus impose actual quotes from various conservative figures on someone who according to Scripture led the perfect life, but it is done in a comic book form – which somehow makes this funny. Some of quotes used by the creator were originally meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but somehow it’s hard to imagine one could catch that context when it is used in such a way. Nonetheless, McGlynn included remarks about Guantanamo Bay, the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the earthquake in Haiti and same-sex marriage – all from individuals deemed to be “tea partiers.”

Read more:
Disappointing, but not Unexpected: HuffPo ‘Comedy’ Celebrates ‘Tea Party Jesus’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,