Tag Archives: religion

Completely Bizarre: NPR Speculates If Historic Cardinal Is Gay, Admitting There’s No Evidence

Mollie Hemingway at the religion-news analysis blog Get Religion caught how the taxpayer-funded liberals at National Public Radio cover momentous events for the Roman Catholic Church: by speculating that a historic Cardinal might have been a homosexual, even though they admit there’s no proof: On the final day of his United Kingdom trip, Pope Benedict XVI formally beatified English theologian and apologist Cardinal John Henry Newman. Let’s look at some of the stories about Newman. NPR’s excellent religion reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty had a piece speculating that Newman was gay. I thought it a completely bizarre approach for the main story the news outlet chose to report on the man. The piece itself acknowledges, eventually, that there’s no actual evidence for the claim. But that comes after the large point headline asks: “Was Cardinal John Henry Newman Gay?” There’s lots of passive voice and two sources — one who has been accused of writing false things about historical figures before — saying that the close friendship Newman had with a man makes it not unreasonable to speculate about his homosexuality. He concedes there’s no evidence of a sexual relationship. This isn’t new. The fact is that there has been a great deal of speculation, in recent years, about the close friendship Newman shared with Ambrose St. John. Now, my main question about this story is the simple angle. Why this angle over all the others? There are so many interesting things to explore about Newman, his writings, his life, his legacy. NPR chose, instead, to speculate about his sexual orientation. Personally, I find it bizarre that so-called historians would read minds and guess that two Catholic priests who’ve taken a vow of celibacy living together — and helping each other through all the mundane details of daily life — adds up to great odds of a sexual relationship. Isn’t NPR here committing exactly what liberals hate if it was applied to Barack Obama, speculating that he could be secretly Muslim? Could Hagerty do that story, admitting she doesn’t have any proof? Or would that be seen as more National Enquirer than NPR?

Read more from the original source:
Completely Bizarre: NPR Speculates If Historic Cardinal Is Gay, Admitting There’s No Evidence

CNN: Vatican Conducting ‘Inquisition’ Against Dissenting Nuns

On Friday’s American Morning, CNN’s Carol Costello followed up on her biased report from the previous day , which promoted Catholic women posing as priests, with a second report on dissenting Catholics, focusing on heterodox nuns inside the U.S. Costello promoted the claim of the nuns, who accuse the Vatican of conducting an ” inquisition ,” or wanting to ” silence nuns when they disagree with the Pope .” Substitute anchor Drew Griffin gave a brief on Pope Benedict XVI’s second day in the U.K. 25 minutes into the 6 am Eastern hour, just before his colleague Kiran Chetry introduced the correspondent’s report. Chetry proclaimed how the Vatican is apparently ” squarely at odds with American nuns ,” and that many of these nuns ” feel they’re under siege from the Church, which is questioning the quality of their religious life .” Costello picked up where the anchor left off: “[T]he Vatican is now conducting two sweeping investigations of American nuns…the Vatican hopes to have a better understanding of how nuns live their lives in the United States. Nuns don’t see it that way, though. Many think these investigations are nothing short of interrogations, designed to take away all they’ve gained .” Costello led her report by featuring Sister Maureen Fiedler, a liberal public radio host who attended the “ordination” of seven women on the Danube River in 2002. Fiedler stated during her first sound bite, “Some of my friends asked me why the Vatican officials suffer from a deep seed hatred of women .” The correspondent continued by describing how “the Vatican ordered two sweeping investigations into the religious views and lifestyles of American nuns- investigations that have alarmed many sisters like Marlene Weisenbeck, whose organization represents thousands of American nuns across the country.” Sister Weisenbeck was president of the Leadership Council of Women Religious until August 2010. She led the organization when it endorsed ObamaCare , contrary to the stance of the U.S. bishops’ conference. Costello played two sound bites from the nun during her report. After reading some of the questions from a questionnaire which was sent as part of the investigations, and playing a second clip from Sister Fiedler, the CNN correspondent described how at “this year’s Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), some nuns say these investigations feel like an inquisition, and are fighting back by boycotting all or part of the questionnaire.” She continued by reading Fiedler’s “fears” over the investigations: “Fiedler says many nuns, who haven’t lived in convents or worn habits since the 1950s, fear the Vatican wants to force them back into both . She also fears Rome wants to silence nuns when they disagree with the Pope on issues like gays in the Church or women’s rights , something the Church now allows them to do.” Later in her report, Costello played two clips from Father Joseph Tobin of the Vatican’s Congregation for Religious, who was also featured in her Thursday report on women “priests.” He again gave mild responses to the correspondent. Near the end of the segment, the CNN correspondent noted how “CNN analyst John Allen tells us he expects the Vatican investigations will wrap up by December, and adds if the Vatican wants nuns to return to more conservative lives, they should just be patient, because young women, who are considering sisterhood, are more conservative than their elders .” But Costello featured none of these more orthodox nuns during her report, such as those represented by another umbrella group of nuns, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious. The president of the Council, Mother Mary Quentin Sheridan, expressed her support of the American bishops’ opposition to ObamaCare , contrary to the stance of the LCWR. Griffin asked Costello a bizarre final question: “You know, Carol, what’s interesting about this is- these women, who are in the Catholic Church, have been fighting with the Church forever for a greater role, in taking part of this. But are there any financial ties between these nuns and the Vatican? I thought that nuns in this country pretty much were financially independent and had to raise money on their own. So, I’m wondering just why they even care what the Vatican says? ” Well, if these nuns want to consider themselves Catholic and appear to be Catholic, they should care what the hierarchy of their own Church says and support its teachings, something that many of the nuns who are part of the LCWR refuse to do. The full transcript of Carol Costello’s report from Friday’s American Morning: GRIFFIN: Welcome back. This is the ‘Most News in the Morning,’ and it is day two of Pope Benedict’s historic trip to Britain. There he is meeting with students at a Catholic school today, and then religious leaders in London. Yesterday, for the first time, the Pope admitted the Church failed in handling priest sex abuse cases. He’s expected to meet with victims tomorrow. CHETRY: Well, in this country, the Vatican is squarely at odds with American nuns. Many of them feel they’re under siege from the Church, which is questioning the quality of their religious life, and the sisters are having their say. Carol Costello is live in Washington with an “A.M. Original” for us this morning. Hey, Carol. CAROL COSTELLO: Good morning- CHETRY: So what’s going on with the Vatican and the nuns? COSTELLO: Well, Kiran, the Vatican is now conducting two sweeping investigations of American nuns. The latest round of ‘visitations’ are now underway, and the Vatican hopes to have a better understanding of how nuns live their lives in the United States. Nuns don’t see it that way, though. Many think these investigations are nothing short of interrogations, designed to take away all they’ve gained. SISTER MAUREEN FIEDLER: Some of my friends asked me why the Vatican officials suffer from a deep seed hatred of women. COSTELLO (voice-over): On Sister Maureen Fielder’s Washington radio show- FIEDLER: Could they be serious? COSTELLO: The role of women in the Catholic Church is a popular one. The talk has been heated ever since the Vatican ordered two sweeping investigations into the religious views and lifestyles of American nuns- investigations that have alarmed many sisters like Marlene Weisenbeck, whose organization represents thousands of American nuns across the country. SISTER MARLENE WEISENBECK, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE OF WOMEN RELIGIOUS: We weren’t quite expecting to walk into this kind of a process that would test our authenticity and our integrity. COSTELLO: One of the investigations involved a two-part questionnaire consisting of 120 detailed questions like, ‘What is the process for responding to sisters who dissent publicly from Church teaching and discipline?’ ‘How does the matter of the dress of your sisters lend to the dignity and simplicity of your vocation?’ And this, ‘What are the procedures for dealing with matters such as civil disobedience, criminal activity, sexual improprieties, et cetera?’ FIEDLER: I think they want to be able to control what nuns do. They- you know, in every aspect of their lives. COSTELLO: (women singing) At this year’s Leadership Conference of Women Religious, some nuns say these investigations feel like an inquisition, and are fighting back by boycotting all or part of the questionnaire. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay. Are we ready for prayer? COSTELLO: Fiedler says many nuns, who haven’t lived in convents or worn habits since the 1950s, fear the Vatican wants to force them back into both. She also fears Rome wants to silence nuns when they disagree with the Pope on issues like gays in the Church or women’s rights, something the Church now allows them to do. FATHER JOSEPH TOBIN, CONGREGATION FOR RELIGIOUS: Some of it might be a very deep seeded misunderstanding. COSTELLO: The Vatican is hoping that Father Tobin, who was just appointed the number two official for religious life, can help calm the fear surrounding these investigations. TOBIN: There is a need for a dialogue, and I think dialogue means that the two parties are honestly conversing in search of the truth. COSTELLO: Sister Marlene hopes that’s true, but- WEISENBECK: There is no turning back. I don’t think that that happens in any kind of living organism. God doesn’t turn the Church- doesn’t turn creation in opposite directions. COSTELLO (live): In other words, there is no turning back the clock for American nuns. Our CNN analyst, John Allen, tells us he expects the Vatican investigations will wrap up by December, and adds if the Vatican wants nuns to return to more conservative lives, they should just be patient, because young women, who are considering sisterhood, are more conservative than their elders. And many, Kiran, are even willing to return to wearing habits, although, convents- maybe not so much. CHETRY: That’s interesting. And what is the fallout, if anything, about boycotting all or part of that questionnaire you were referring to? COSTELLO: You know, we don’t know. Everything surrounding these investigations is quite mysterious. The Vatican isn’t talking much about it. But they’re hoping that Father Tobin can calm fears and get more nuns to answer the questionnaires and also to answer- you know, there are going to be people from the Vatican coming in and having one-on-one conversations with nuns, and they’re hoping that the nuns will feel comfortable doing that if their fears are- you know, calmed down somewhat. We’ll just have to see. We don’t know. GRIFFIN: You know, Carol, what’s interesting about this is- these women, who are in the Catholic Church, have been fighting with the Church forever for a greater role, in taking part of this. But are there any financial ties between these nuns and the Vatican? I thought that nuns in this country pretty much were financially independent and had to raise money on their own. So, I’m wondering just why they even care what the Vatican says? COSTELLO: Well, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head, and the Vatican is certainly aware of that because nuns own universities. They own their own property. They very much- you know, work for charity and social justice issues. They’re very much on their own and independent, yet they’re very important to the Church, because they do a lot of work inside the Church and for Catholicism worldwide. So, the Vatican wants to keep them. The nuns know that they have a certain amount of financial power, and they don’t really need the Vatican. But- you know, they’re loyal Catholics, and it’s not like they want to split from the Church or anything. They love Catholicism. So, hopefully, all will be mended soon. But these investigations- nobody knows exactly why they’re being conducted, and that’s just creating all of this turmoil that doesn’t necessarily have to be there. GRIFFIN: Yeah. Well, thanks, Carol. I mean, there is the faith and then there is the Catholic organization, and I guess that’s where the two are disjointed from each other at the moment. But it’s been an interesting couple of days- couple of [unintelligible]. Thanks so much for that. COSTELLO: Thank you.

The rest is here:
CNN: Vatican Conducting ‘Inquisition’ Against Dissenting Nuns

MRC’s Bozell Addresses Anti-Tax Cut Bias, ‘Islamophobia’ on ‘Hannity,’ Anti-Tea Party Bias on ‘Fox & Friends’

Closing out the “Media Mash” segment on the September 16 edition of his eponymous “Hannity” program, the Fox News host asked for NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell’s reaction to NBC’s Meredith Vieira telling House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) that the Bush tax cuts “didn’t succeed” and asking him “what’s so good about them?”: Memo to Meredith [Vieira]: You can have a debate about what future tax cuts might or might not result in but a record is a record. Under George Bush, 8 million jobs were created with his tax cuts. With Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts there were 20 million jobs created. We’ve done nothing but lose jobs with Barack Obama with the stimulus package. Truth is truth, facts are facts. Don’t go on television saying it didn’t work. It did work! The economy-boosting, jobs-creating benefits of across-the-board tax cuts are not all the media are not telling the truth about. The Media Research Center founder and president also addressed how the media, particularly ABC’s Christiane Amanpour are smearing everyday Americans as “Islamophobic” [Listen to MP3 audio here or download WMV video here ]: There comes a point where the American people should say to Christiane Amanpour, “Please shut up!” I am sick and tired of this. Just like Arizona, Sean.  If you raise a policy question, you’re a bigot for saying it….We did a study on soundbites I think it was the last month, did you know that 93 percent of the soundbites talk about Islamophobia in the news media. They can’t stop talking about it. And when they talk about a handful of people that that pastor [Terry Jones] caused an international incident. No! He did not cause that incident, they caused the incident with the non-stop coverage.  This morning Bozell appeared via satellite on “Fox & Friends” to discuss the media’s anti-Tea Party bias, particularly their recent obsession with bashing Christine O’Donnell [download MP3 audio of segment here or WMV video here] : What was the great story on Tuesday night. It was not just that Christine O’Donnell won, it was that 60,000 votes were cast when it’s normally 30,000 [and] for a candidate who had no money to campaign on. That was the [real] story, but all you got instead was ad hominem attacks.

Original post:
MRC’s Bozell Addresses Anti-Tax Cut Bias, ‘Islamophobia’ on ‘Hannity,’ Anti-Tea Party Bias on ‘Fox & Friends’

What If Pastor Terry Jones Had Called His Koran Burning ‘Art’?

People have asked me my opinion of the Rev. Terry Jones’ threat to burn the Quran this past weekend. Personally I think the best thing to do with this story is to not give this insignificant media-hound with all of fifty parishioners avoice. But it’s way too late for that now. So, of course I find the action in poor taste – I would  never  burn any religion’s sacred parchment. That is just wrong and disrespectful to millions trying to practice their faith and go about their daily lives in peace. But (there’s always a “but” in such testy cases), when I juxtapose this one twisted symbolic gesture against the disregard-and I would argue  contempt -being shown by so-called “moderate” practitioners of Islam who insist on building their mosque almost on top of the ashes of 9/11 victims against the wishes of so many Americans, I can understand the frustration that creates a Jones and his ilk. And the fact is, as Mayor Bloomberg offered up, if there is freedom of speech for the fanatical Muslim goose, it must also be for the crackpot Christian gander. Still, as a matter of common decency I hope this guy tables forever his plans-and there are no copycats. And as a practical matter, I agree with General Petraeus in that the last thing our men and women in the field need is another faux propaganda storm putting them in greater harm’s way… although I do believe that fear of retaliation should not be a reason to quell free speech but rather to fight harder for it. (Easy for me to say as I am not humping a pack in Kandahar I freely admit!) However, something did occur to me this weekend. Jones is going about this all wrong. If he really wants to burn the Islamic holy book, I know a way that he could do it while at the same time have every left wing pundit and mainstream news outlet not decry his act but rather defend and even celebrate it. He should burn it on the steps of the Museum Of Modern Art up here in New York. And instead of calling it a protest, or a statement, he should just call his Quran torching “art.” In the interest of consistency, artistic integrity and fairness, maybe he can even do it in the building, right on the same spot where in 1989 the infamous “Piss Christ” photo was proudly exhibited. You remember that? The piece of “art” that showed a crucifix submerged in urine? As artist Andres Serrano explained his artistic vision in an open letter to the National Endowment for the Arts: The photograph, and the title itself, are ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my art. My Catholic upbringing informs this work which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with God. My use of such bodily fluids as blood and urine in this context is parallel to Catholicism’s obsession with “the body and blood of Christ.” It is precisely in the exploration and juxtaposition of the symbols from which Christianity draws it strength. That seemed just fine and dandy to the free speech warriors and beret crowd back in the day. In fact, Serrano’s inspired piece won the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art’s “Awards in the Visual Arts” competition which was partially funded by that same NEA-your tax dollars at work. So then I submit Jones should just take Serrano’s explanation, re-arrange a few words, and present his action to the creative world this way: The act of immolation itself is ambiguously provocative but certainly not blasphemous. Over the years, I have addressed religion regularly in my sermons. My religious upbringing informs this act which helps me to redefine and personalize my relationship with Allah. My use of such symbolic tools as gasoline and match in this context is parallel to Islam’s obsession with pyrotechnics and flaming destruction. It is precisely in the exploration and juxtaposition of the symbols from which Islam draws it strength. There see? All better now. Sounds like we have ourselves next year’s NEA art contest winner too! At least Jones will have transformed himself from a provocateur into an “artist.” Someone all far lefties can gravitate towards. (Hey and as a bonus, maybe Larry David can pee on it to extinguish the flames like he did a picture of Jesus on an episode of  Curb Your Enthusiasm . What a hoot!) Of course, if MOMA declines the new exhibit, Jones could try the Brooklyn Museum which in 1999 exhibited Chris Olifi’s “artwork” that featured the Virgin Mary splattered in elephant dung. Back then the New York Times  rushed to the defense of the display: To be sure, many citizens of conscience find parts of the Brooklyn exhibition repugnant, and it is understandable that many Roman Catholics would find Chris Ofili’s image of the Virgin Mary offensive.”  But, it continued,  “A museum is obliged to challenge the public as well as to placate it, or else the museum becomes a chamber of attractive ghosts, an institution completely disconnected from art in our time. As an artist myself I grudgingly see the  Times’  point here. So then it would appear, given this take on what constitutes “art,” that what we have in the Quran burning is but the latest chapter in the long, chaotic, glorious march of artistic freedom in defiance of out-moded conventions, intellectually stifling religious dogma, and societal mores. Oh my! What’s a committed lefty to do? One can almost hear the whining robotic cries of  “Error…Error…Error….Does not compute!”  from the First Amendment crowd who until now so craftily hid behind the cover of the Constitution so they could insult the faithful while calling their crass provocations “art” with a straight face. But, why the confusion? Gee, I thought these were the guys who love to wax poetic about the joys of free speech, piously affirming to each other over their third latte: “We may not agree with what he says, but will defend to the death his right to say it!” So clearly then, by donning a black turtle-neck and moving the Quran burning venue from the parking lot of an obscure Florida church to the center of the modern art world, the Reverend Jones can count on some powerful liberal allies to shield him from the inevitable “fatwa” which the courageous Ofili and Serrano need never fear from Christians who have long ago learned to take sucker punches to their faith from the intelligentsia in stride. Don’t hold your breath. These guys only have the mettle to push their “craft” in the faces of those who will not slit their throats. It all depends on whose profit is being gored, and, more to the point, the propensity for violence of those offended. Christians, by the very nature of following Christ’s admonition to embrace thine enemy will always be easy prey for assault and insult… be it in the name of Muhammad or modern “art.” I reject Jones because he is showing the very contempt for another religion that repels me when I see it heaped upon my own in the name of self-promotion and the loosest possible definitions of “free speech” or “art.” The liberals will reject him too, but for a much baser reason… their double-standard is rooted in staying out of harm’s way. Period. The rest is just self-righteous smoke. It certainly prompts one to ask in this latest episode, who are the real cowards in this whole ludicrous non-event? Crossposted at Big Hollywood  

Read more:
What If Pastor Terry Jones Had Called His Koran Burning ‘Art’?

WaPo Implies U.S. ‘Islamophobia’ Emerges in a ‘Vacuum’ of Ignorance, Lack of Diversity

Washington Post religion reporter Michelle Boorstein is generally a careful reporter, not prone to outbursts of liberal bias. But the general liberal-media bias that ignorance breeds “Islamophobia” came through between the lines in a Monday story on the aftermath of the Koran-burning publicity stunt week in Florida:   In fact, like much of the country, Gainesville’s racial and religious diversity is minimal. Personal contact with Muslims is limited. Nationally, more than half of the respondents in a recent Pew poll said they knew little or nothing about Islam. In that vacuum, violence overseas in the name of Islam defines that faith for many. The implication is that truly learned people who have diverse human contacts have no logical reason to be concerned about the negative impact of Islam. (The story is not yet online.) It’s also a little odd to suggest that “violence overseas” defines negative views of Islam, when violence in the United States is more powerfully suggestive, from 9/11 to the Fort Hood shooting. There can be a great difference between questioning a mosque that seems peaceful and a mosque that spreads the “spiritual advice” of imams like Anwar al-Awlaki that inspires terrorism. But the Post and other media outlets can have trouble identifying which is which. What’s underplayed in stories about America’s tolerance of Islam is the question of how tolerant Islamic countries are of other faiths. Boorstein’s piece alluded near the beginning to how “more nuanced and franker conversations” are occurring after the Terry Jones stunt, such as “What was worse to see: churches torched in India or Nigeria or a few books in a remote exurban field?” That was the only sentence in the story that dared to imply that Islam is often not a tolerant faith when it dominates the state. Of course, it should seem somewhat obvious that if the public knows little about Islam, that perhaps might be the fault (in part) of the news media, which generally disdains covering religion except when something (or someone) blows up. For example, in a 2005 study of religion and the networks , Ken Shepherd and I found the networks couldn’t find the time to describe the theology behind the Sunni-Shi’ite “civil war” in Iraq:  “In all of their coverage of Iraq’s religious factions and their political aims, none of the broadcast networks ever gave a basic explanation of the key religious differences between these sects of the Islamic faith. For all their warning of impending civil war, they haven’t explained why their differences on matters of faith have proven a consistent source of conflict. ”

See the article here:
WaPo Implies U.S. ‘Islamophobia’ Emerges in a ‘Vacuum’ of Ignorance, Lack of Diversity

NYT’s Blow Offers Fabulous Opinion on 9/11, Mosques and Koran Burning

New York Times columnist Charles Blow wrote a short piece on the ninth anniversary of 9/11 that should be must-reading for all Americans on both sides of the aisle. In fact, I’m sure liberal Times devotees will be just as shocked by ” A Lesson From 9/11 ” as conservatives that take the three minutes necessary to get through it. After sharing his experience as a New Yorker who was in Manhattan that awful day, Blow marvelously tied it all together with what Americans have fought and died for since our forefathers were colonists: My attitude that day was the same as most Americans: the terrorists must not be allowed to win. America would not be cowed. We would rise, our greatness would shine, and our ideas of freedom would remain a beacon to the world. That is why the debate these past few weeks over Islam in America – from the proposed Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan to talk of the burning of Korans – has been so hard to watch. Too much of the debate seems to be centered around the sensitivities of terrorists a world away who have hijacked the passions of a faith, who would see us destroyed and who want to attract more damaged souls to their cause. I understand, in theory, the idea of not stirring the hornet’s nest while our troops are still in harm’s way. But I chafe at the idea that great American debates, in all their ugliness and splendor, should be tempered for terrorists and their attempts to recruit. Blow then shared results of a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finding the number of people feeling America is currently safer from terrorism than before 9/11 is at a new low. He continued: But we simply cannot allow this new wave of fear to make us into something that we’re not. We are a country of freedoms, a country where religious freedom and freedom of speech hold equal standing, a country in which the construction of a building and the destruction of a book are rights extended to all, even if opposed by most. Free expressions are not always pleasant, but they must ever be protected, with no regard to the proclivities of the enemy. This is America, and the moment we forget that, they start to win. Indeed. Our media today, and much of the cowering Left, operate under the premise that we have to alter our behavior to win the approval of our enemies or else expect violent repercussions. Although Blow didn’t use the word, it’s akin to wartime appeasement. As most Europeans found out during World War II, it doesn’t work. The more modern term that pertains to appeasing radical Islam is dhimmitude, a process by which Western nations enact changes to their culture and their very way of life so as not to create unrest in their growing Muslim populations. This is already happening in Holland, France, Germany, and Great Britain to name a few. With this in mind, what we as a nation have to decide is whether we’re going to follow Europe’s lead and start remaking ourselves out of fear that our enemies will somehow retaliate or enjoy new recruits if we don’t. As Blow surprisingly noted, if we do this, we lose. After England’s Neville Chamberlain made a fool out of himself at Munich, stronger leaders named Churchill and Roosevelt opted to not make the same mistake he did. 72 years later, the United States is once again faced with the option of either following today’s Neville Chamberlains or taking a stronger, less-cowardly, more American approach with our enemies. Of course, some of the recent furor concerning a little-known Pastor in Gainesville, Florida, was stoked by comments made by David Petraeus. Although most Americans have great respect for the General, it is possible he over-reacted to Terry Jones’s Koran burning threat, and may have unnecessarily inflamed the situation with his warning. That, too, is up for debate, or at least should be unless we fear that also will stoke our enemies’ ire. But if a diehard liberal like Blow can see that we shouldn’t be afraid of debates on sensitive subjects, maybe the rest of the cowering media can pull out their pacifiers, take off their diapers, and stop acting like freedom of speech is only a good thing if nobody is offended by it. As Europe learned in 1939, if you give your enemies an inch, they’ll take a mile. If we give up this right to make radical Islamists happy, what’ll be next?

View post:
NYT’s Blow Offers Fabulous Opinion on 9/11, Mosques and Koran Burning

Never Forget – But Have We?

Never forget. Those are the two most prevalent words uttered or typed on this tragically historic day.  Never.  Forget. For many, September 11, 2001, was a day that will forever be seared into the minds of those who were witness.  On that day, the nation was awoken by a harsh reality that some people want nothing more than to destroy our freedom, our way of life.  It was a day that 19 hijackers, four airplanes, two towers, and one deranged ideology brought the threat of terrorism to the forefront in our country. But a mere nine years after 9/11, has the leadership of this nation, both administrative and media related, already forgotten? Yesterday, on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, the President of the United States of America had the tone deaf audacity to ignore the concept of time and place, choosing to defend the building of the Ground Zero victory mosque.  In his news conference, President Obama said that the proposed New York City mosque has run up against the “extraordinary sensitivities around 9/11.”  In other words, he hears the sensitivities, he simply does not care.  Obama elaborates: “As somebody who relies heavily on my Christian faith in my job, I understand the passions that religious faith can raise.  But I’m also respectful that people of different faiths can practice their religion, even if they don’t subscribe to the exact same notions that I do…” This demonstrates Obama’s willingness to cling to the concept that the mosque controversy is based on freedom of religion.  It is not.  Controversy surrounding this building has nothing to do with religious tolerance.  Muslims are not being prohibited from practicing their religion.  They are simply being asked to display a sense of decency by building the mosque in an area not directly involved in such an emotional event for our nation; away from the site where thousands of lives ended in a declaration of war from radical Islam. Americans overwhelmingly oppose this project, because they understand common sense and decency.  It appears our president does not.  And on the eve of 9/11, Obama wasted a major opportunity to stand up and actually play the role of a leader.  To stand up and say, ‘I’m with the American people, not against them .’  Essentially, to start acting like a President.  Instead, he chose to lecture Americans on the legal right for Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to build his mosque.  Unfortunately Mr. President, part of your job is to guide a country still healing from the emotional scars of 9/11.  You’re not teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago anymore.  You’re no longer a community organizer. Most of us remember 9/11 a little differently than our liberal leaders.  We remember being attacked on that day.  We remember watching over 3,000 of our friends and family dying that day.  We remember the screams of the heroes on Flight 93, the screams of women and men, mothers and fathers, wives and husbands, who desperately made an attempt to take back a plane scheduled for a suicide mission which surely would have killed many more. Yet the President would prefer to stand up for the rights of an imam with questionable motives, planning to build a mosque practically on the gravesite of those killed on 9/11.  This isn’t the only example however, of a forgotten tragedy. In 2003, this same imam of current fame, Abdul Rauf, said in the midst of a training session with the FBI that “the U.S. response to the Sept. 11 attacks could be considered a jihad.” Along those same lines, Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek recently penned a steaming column in which he claimed the American response to 9/11 was an overreaction. Zakaria claims that, “September 11 was a shock to the American psyche and the American system. As a result, we overreacted.” Susan Crawford , Convening Authority for the Guantanamo military commissions, claimed in 2009 that some prisoners complicit in the murder of over 3,000 people were (gasp) tortured, and what she discovered in that job left her aghast. What torture tactics left her aghast? Standing naked in front of a female agent; Strip searches; Insults to the detainee’s mother and sister; Threatened (not attacked) with a dog; Forced to wear a woman’s bra; Having a thong placed on the head during interrogation. The BBC portrayed two inmates at Guantanamo Bay, one of whom had confessed to attending an Islamist training camp where he learned how to operate an AK-47, as a real-life Harold and Kumar, innocently sightseeing and smoking dope. Both the media and the administration spent a great deal of effort in trying to portray Nidal Malik Hasan , a man who had contact with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, carried a business card with the acronym SoA (Soldier of Allah), shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’, and subsequently murdered 13 soldiers and an unborn child, as anything but a terrorist. This is but a short list that calls to question the liberal administration and liberal media’s remembrance of 9/11.  Imagine being privy to the knowledge of the above referenced events just days after the actual attack.  You would say that it would be impossible.  It would be impossible, because it would mean that we had forgotten.  Have we? Crossposted at The Mental Recession

Read the original:
Never Forget – But Have We?

CBS: U.S. Muslims ‘Feel Like Strangers in Their Own Country’

Filling in for anchor Katie Couric on Thursday’s CBS Evening News, Early Show co-host Harry Smith introduced a report on opposition to building mosques in some areas of the country: “…they feel like strangers in their own country, Muslims shocked by the growing opposition to new mosques ….building a mosque has suddenly become a hot-button issue in many communities.” Smith expounded on the cause of the protests: “The furor over plans to burn the Koran and the building of the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has had ripple effects all across America.” Correspondent Seth Doane followed by focusing on opposition to a proposed mosque in Tennessee: “About 250 Muslim families live here in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. For decades, they’ve lived in peace and have prayed at a small local mosque. But then trouble started brewing over this site, where they want to expand and build a bigger Islamic center.” Doane described the feelings of one Muslim resident: “[Saleh Sbenaty] says even after September 11th, he didn’t see hatred like this.” Doane added: “Nationwide, more than half a dozen proposed Islamic centers have run into roadblocks, from Temecula, California, to Sheboygan, Wisconsin, to the high-profile one near Ground Zero.” He did not explain what those “roadblocks” were. Doane turned to the Sbenaty’s daughter: “Is this really about a building or is it about something bigger?” Dima Sbenaty replied: “It’s about the growing hatred, you know, against Muslims.” Doane warned: “Dima says for the first time she’s scared.” Near the end of the report, Doane cited more evidence of anti-Muslim sentiment in the form of grade school name-calling: “10-year-old Zaid Abuzahra probably had more on his mind than just school. Last week at recess, some bullies learned that he was Muslim.” Abuzahra explained: “This group comes, and starts calling me terrorist, ‘I hear you’re a Muslim. This is America.'” The report included only two brief sound bites of mosque opponents, with Doane portraying them as a radical fringe: “In June, residents packed meetings in protest….And what some call a vocal minority, got louder….A few weeks ago, construction equipment at the site was set on fire, and with that, the arsonists set nerves on edge, too.” Meanwhile, on Thursday’s NBC Nightly News, correspondent Ron Mott also reported on the building of a new mosque in Tennessee, but took a slightly different approach: Last night’s call to prayer outside Memphis was answered by the Muslim faithful as usual: shoes removed, rugs laid, all bowed east toward Mecca, singing Allah’s praises. But what makes this year’s Ramadan different is where they’re worshiping, a Christian church called Heartsong, a sort of ‘welcome to the neighborhood’ gift while a new mosque is built nearby….Neighbors ever since the Memphis Islamic Center bought 31 acres in the heart of the Bible Belt. Unlike other parts of the country, there have been no signs of protests. Doane left out any mention of that story of religious cooperation elsewhere in the state. Here is a full transcript of Doane’s September 9 report: 6:40PM ET TEASE: HARRY SMITH: Up next, they say they feel like strangers in their own country, Muslims shocked by the growing opposition to new mosques. 6:42PM ET SEGMENT:      SMITH: The furor over plans to burn the Koran and the building of the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero has had ripple effects all across America. There are 2.5 million Muslims in this country, and about 1900 mosques, but building a mosque has suddenly become a hot-button issue in many communities. As Seth Doane reports, that’s just what happened in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. SETH DOANE: Like most 13-year-olds, he’s proud of his school, his soccer trophies, and his country. SALIM SBENATY [MURFREESBORO, TN. RESIDENT]: I’m as American as you get. I’m as patriotic as you get. I mean, I’m America all the way. DOANE: He’s also proud of his religion. Salim Sbenaty is Muslim, and nowadays, this Tennessee town that’s been his family’s home for nearly 20 years, doesn’t feel the same. SBENATY: I’m always afraid for my mom, because there are always a few stupid people out there. You never know what they’re going to do, and my mom wearing that scarf is a symbol saying, ‘hey, I’m Muslim.’ DOANE: About 250 Muslim families live here in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. For decades, they’ve lived in peace and have prayed at a small local mosque. But then trouble started brewing over this site, where they want to expand and build a bigger Islamic center. In June, residents packed meetings in protest. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If construction does begin, I would also encourage contractors to boycott it. DOANE: And what some call a vocal minority, got louder. LARRY ANDERSON [MUFREESBORO, TN. RESIDENT]: They want to make this instead of one nation under God, America, they want to make this one nation under Islam. DOANE: A few weeks ago, construction equipment at the site was set on fire, and with that, the arsonists set nerves on edge, too. Salim’s dad says even after September 11th, he didn’t see hatred like this. SALEH SBENATY: It’s very hard for me to forget what I’ve heard directed toward me from people who don’t know me. DOANE: Nationwide, more than half a dozen proposed Islamic centers have run into roadblocks, from Temecula, California, to Sheboygan, Wisconsin, to the high-profile one near Ground Zero. Is this really about a building or is it about something bigger? DIMA SBENATY [SISTER OF SALIM SBENATY]: It’s about the growing hatred, you know, against Muslims. DOANE: Salim’s 20-year-old sister Dima says for the first time she’s scared. SBENATY: It’s very disappointing. It really is, because this country was founded upon freedom of religion. DOANE: Across town this morning, 10-year-old Zaid Abuzahra probably had more on his mind than just school. Last week at recess, some bullies learned that he was Muslim. ZAID ABUZAHRA: This group comes, and starts calling me terrorist, ‘I hear you’re a Muslim. This is America.’ DOANE: How did it make you feel? ABUZAHRA: Awkward, sad, like, surprising. DOANE: A surprise to many here who watch the news and wonder. SBENATY: First Amendment, ever since I was little and had to memorize it, freedom of religion, it says it. DOANE: In that First Amendment, another right – freedom of speech, for some just harder to hear. Seth Doane, CBS News, Murfreesboro, Tennessee.

Read the rest here:
CBS: U.S. Muslims ‘Feel Like Strangers in Their Own Country’

Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer Unanimous in First CNN Appearance

CNN offered a sneak preview of their upcoming Parker-Spitzer program on Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper 360 with the new hosts, pseudo-conservative Kathleen Parker and “Client Number Nine” Eliot Spitzer agreeing that the “well-spoken” Imam Feisal Rauf changed few minds with his recent interview. The two also forwarded their network’s charge that “Islamophobia” is growing in the U.S . Anchor Anderson Cooper began the segment by asking the two about Soledad O’Brien interview of Rauf, which took place the previous hour. Parker, the ” Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator ,” as Cooper called her, endorsed his appearance and went on to characterize the two sides of the debate over the planned Ground Zero mosque. In her view, those who oppose it “were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was…trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist .” On the other hand, the supporters of the mosque ” understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who’s well-spoken and has something important to say .” The former New York governor agreed with his future co-host: SPITZER: I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in…Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don’t create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. Later, the CNN anchor brought up some of the wider controversies involving Islam in the United States and raised the “Islamophobia” charge: “We’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that?” Spitzer went further than just accusing people of “Islamophobia.” He all but said that the country has always had a streak of bigotry: SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said …..I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do . The Democrat actually erred with his history, as the U.S. wasn’t three years old in 1790, but fourteen years old, if you date it from the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. His future co-host raised another common liberal argument, that many were just ignorant of Islam and Muslims: “We keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’ You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? …I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.'” One might surmise from this appearance, given the former governor’s liberal credentials, and Parker’s swipes at conservatives, as she did earlier in September against Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin , that CNN’s upcoming program is going to be less like Crossfire and more like an Amen corner. The full transcript of the segment from Wednesday’s Anderson Cooper, which began 38 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour: COOPER: Joining me now are Elliot Spitzer, the former governor of New York, and Kathleen Parker, Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist and noted conservative commentator. In October, their new program begins right here on CNN at 8 pm. Welcome, thanks very much for being with us- good to have you here. KATHLEEN PARKER: Thanks, Anderson. Thanks for having us. COOPER: What did you think of the imam tonight? PARKER: You know, I thought it was very good that he came out and spoke and that people could see him in person and hear his voice. I think he probably changed very few minds. I think people are going to see exactly what they were already prepared to see. If you’re against it, you were going to sort of be looking for ways to convince yourself that he was playing some role- you know, in trying to be this, sort of, secret jihadist. And then, if you were for it already, then you understand that he seemed as a reasonable, rational person who’s well-spoken and has something important to say. I doubt that he really changed many hearts and minds, but maybe, it’s a start, as he says, toward a conversation that needs to take place. COOPER: Elliott, do you think he changed minds? ELLIOT SPITZER: No, I don’t think. I think Kathleen got it exactly right. You saw in his commentary- which I found persuasive, thoughtful, and very well-spoken- precisely what you believed going in, and you saw that on your panel earlier in the show. Those who were skeptics heard, in his invocation of national security, a threat. Others, who were more sympathetic to him, understood that, in the context of international affairs, his saying- look, be careful that we don’t create additional reasons for those who are radicals to hate us. And so, you can use this as a Rorschach test, and see in it exactly what you already believe. And I think he was well-spoken, but- COOPER: The lines are so clearly drawn, right? SPITZER: The lines are so rigid, and the views about this are so deeply ingrained and the passion- when you’ve lost somebody on 9/11, and the pain is so real, it’s very hard to change minds. COOPER: So, are we beyond a place where there is dialogue or possibility of coming together to- you know, David Gergen talked about some sort of solution of having- you know, a multi-faith center, is it- or are we beyond that? PARKER: I think that’s a great idea. I think that’s a great idea. I don’t think we’re beyond that. But I do think we have to be so careful as we give attention to these people who are, essentially, crackpots, okay? Let’s talk about this fellow- COOPER: You’re talking about- not the people who oppose the mosque? PARKER: No, no, no. Not, not- certainly not. I mean, look- COOPER: The Koran burners? PARKER: There is some crackpot-ism involved in this. I mean, there was a time when the headlines were fairly rational and straightforward and news-oriented, and you can see that was last December, as he said. And then, if you look at the headlines beginning last May, then they get increasingly inflammatory. And so- you know, I think that the rhetoric has been highly exaggerated in many cases. The media- you know, we all have a role in that and we have to be so careful, because when we do give attention to people like- for example, this fellow in Gainesville who’s threatening to burn the Koran. I was talking to a friend of mine earlier tonight who lives in Gainesville. And I said, ‘Do you know this character?’ And she said, ‘Yeah, my church is about a quarter mile down the road from his.’ His church is a metal building. He’s got approximately 50 followers. COOPER: And sells used furniture on eBay. PARKER: Yeah, and I would like for the Muslim world to understand that this is just one individual who doesn’t represent anyone but- you know, a handful of folks. That’s just- and that feeds, though, and builds this sort of- the sense that this is an awful thing going on. SPITZER: We need for time to pass. When emotions are this raw, you cannot address the issues rationally, because emotion overwhelms rationality. Andy [Sullivan], in your prior panel, said something very interesting and very important. He said this was the last straw for a middle class that is disenfranchised. Now, this issue is one of many that has led to an outbreak of anxiety, anger, venom- in many cases, legitimate because of emotions that derive from 9/11. In other instances, it is just a focal point for an upset with the way our economy and our national politics is playing out. And so, we need to understand this in that context, and I think when you view it that way, you understand how hard it is to bridge this chasm right now. COOPER: There’s- you know, we’ve seen these incidents now moving away from just this mosque, but to opposing- some oppose the building of any new mosque in the United States, or some expose just the expansion in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. And those who support it say, ‘Look, this is Islamophobia.’ Do you buy that? SPITZER: I think there’s a big element of Islamophobia, but I think this is also part of our history, and we need to be careful that we appeal to our better angels, as Lincoln said. COOPER: This is just the newest group? SPITZER: This is (unintelligible)- COOPER: From Catholics to Jews to the- SPITZER: Precisely, the newest incarnation- and, in fact, before I came on the show, I dug out George Washington’s letter to a synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1790, where he addressed this and he said the wonderful thing about this nation, a new nation at that point, three years old- 220 years ago, he wrote this- is that we are tolerant, and we need our political leadership to speak to tolerance. We need to go back to those values, so that everybody can do what the imam wants to do and what David Gergen spoke to, which is to get people together and say, ‘wait a minute, let us not’- COOPER: But that’s not what our political life is about now. PARKER: But we keep hearing this, ‘they’re going to do this, if you let them get in.’ COOPER: Pat Robertson saying that (unintelligble)- PARKER: You let them do this, then they’re going to demand, demand. Who is the ‘they’? I mean, these are Americans, too, and it makes me wonder how many people out there watching tonight actually know someone who is a Muslim? You know, there seems to be- I just feel like this has become a misunderstanding on a broad scale. And while- absolutely, when you talk to people whose families died in this and- you know, on 9/11, you can’t not take that seriously. I mean, that emotion is real, and it’s still raw. But I think we’ve got to stop thinking of Muslims as being ‘them.’ COOPER: We’ve got to take a quick break. Elliot Spitzer, Kathleen Parker, appreciate you being with us. Thanks very much.

See the original post here:
Kathleen Parker and Eliot Spitzer Unanimous in First CNN Appearance

Arianna Huffington Equates Ground Zero Mosque Opponents to Koran-Burning Pastor

Snatching the proverbial low-hanging fruit off the branch, Arianna Huffington compared the vast majority of Americans who oppose the construction of a mosque close to Ground Zero to the thirty members of a Florida church who plan to burn copies of the Koran on 9/11. Appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” today, the liberal publisher criticized the president for not echoing her logical fallacy. “I think the point [President Barack Obama] could have made is to connect [Koran burning] with the opposition of the mosque,” asserted Huffington, publisher of The Huffington Post. “You can’t really completely separate these things.” Huffington then attempted to pass off circular logic as a “teachable moment:” People who are saying we should not build the mosque there are basically denying the fundamental principles the president was talking about in your interview, you know, which is basically freedom to worship your religion on private ground, wherever you are. That’s like an essential part of what America is based on. It was not an afterthought that the Fathers had – you know, religious freedom. Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, founder of The Daily Caller, countered Huffington’s fatuous claims: So if you think that it’s intentionally provocative and an insult to the memory of 9/11 to build a mosque basically on the site, that’s the same as burning a Koran or hating Islam? That’s not even close. They’re not related. After agreeing with Huffington’s illogical parallel, GMA anchor George Stephanopoulos directed a loaded question at Carlson. “Here’s the point I don’t get – and it’s not a mosque it’s an Islamic center with a mosque and an inter-faith center inside – why isn’t it honoring the memories of the victims of 9/11 to put that center there and prove that we’re not going to sacrifice our freedoms?” demanded the former Clinton adviser. A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below: ABC GMA September 9, 2010 8:17 A.M. E.S.T. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: We were talking about the Florida pastor just before we came on the air. Starting with you, Tucker. This had to be kind of a tough call in the White House. You’ve got this Florida pastor, thirty followers, yet pretty clearly from the beginning the week until the president’s interview with me yesterday they were saying “we’ve got to take this on.” TUCKER CARLSON, founder of The Daily Caller: I don’t think he needed to take it on. I think it was foolish to respond to your question – a good question though it was. He should have waved his hand dismissively; this guy represents no one, he’s a lone wacko. I think the president truly believes, and many in his party do, that the center of the country is filled with people just like this, who are intolerant and hateful, and there’s no evidence of that at all. There haven’t been a lot of anti-Islamic incidents. STEPHANOPOULOS: Setting aside what happens here in the United States, which is a hard thing to set aside, I think the danger is that even if he is a wacko, around the world he is seen as representing America? CARLSON: So they’re going to hate us more now? I mean, come on. ARIANNA HUFFINGTON, founder of The Huffington Post: It’s very hard for him not to respond when General Petraeus himself has said that this is going to be putting our troops at risk. I think the point he could have made is to connect it with the opposition of the mosque. STEPHANOPOULOS: That would be doubling down though, wouldn’t it? HUFFINGTON: You can’t really completely separate these things. STEPHANOPOULOS: No, you’re right. HUFFINGTON: And I think that’s really the teachable moment. People who are saying we should not build the mosque there are basically denying the fundamental principles the president was talking about in your interview, you know, which is basically freedom to worship your religion on private ground, wherever you are. That’s like an essential part of what America is based on. It was not an afterthought that the Fathers had – you know, religious freedom. CARLSON: So if you think that it’s intentionally provocative and an insult to the memory of 9/11 to build a mosque basically on the site, that’s the same as burning a Koran or hating Islam? That’s not even close. They’re not related. HUFFINGTON: I didn’t say it’s the same, but there is a continuity. And you can’t just say “this is okay, and anything beyond that is not.” STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the point I don’t get – and it’s not a mosque it’s an Islamic center with a mosque and an inter-faith center inside – why isn’t it honoring the memories of the victims of 9/11 to put that center there and prove that we’re not going to sacrifice our freedoms? CARLSON: Well I guess there are two points. One, there is no mosque or inter-faith mosque, there’s actually nothing, it’s merely an idea and it’s nowhere close to coming to fruition. So the point of this is to provoke. The point of this is to put a stick in the eye of people who are offended by this, which is like seventy percent of Americans. If you truly wanted to honor the memory of those killed on 9/11 why not ask the relatives of those who were killed on 9/11. Shouldn’t they have a say in this? They’re overwhelmingly against this. STEPHANOPOULOS: A say, but not a veto.      HUFFINGTON: Yes, you can’t have a veto and still basically stand up for the fundamental principles of the country and one of them is the freedom to worship wherever you are, on private ground, and whatever religion you believe in. I mean, that’s a fundamental freedom, that was part of the founding of this country. It wasn’t like an ancillary thought that the Founders had. CARLSON: But nobody is denying that. The argument is is it a good idea? Or is it somehow a desecration? And you can believe, as I do, that it is a provocation and a desecration and it’s wrong and maybe even immoral, but that you shouldn’t prevent it legally. There is an argument to be made. And I have to say, conflating people who think it’s wrong to build the mosque at Ground Zero with people who want to burn a Koran.

Link:
Arianna Huffington Equates Ground Zero Mosque Opponents to Koran-Burning Pastor