Tag Archives: religion

USA Today Reporter: ‘Do You Care About the Nationality’ of Drunk Driver Who Kills a Loved One?

On Sunday morning in northern Virginia, a drunk illegal immigrant — who had previously been convicted twice on DUI charges —  allegedly crashed head-on into a car full of nuns, killing one, Sister Denise Mosier, and injuring the rest. The Benedictine Sisters have since come out to say they are “dismayed and saddened” that the crime “has been politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal immigration agenda.” USA Today religion writer Cathy Lynn Grossman picked up on that angle of the story yesterday, asking readers if they could forgive a drunk driver who killed a loved one of theirs, a perfectly legitimate query for a blog called “Faith & Reason.” But Grossman then gratuitously threw in a loaded question that confuses anger over lax federal enforcement of immigration laws with xenophobia, asking: Do you care about the nationality of the drunk who kills someone you love? Suspect Carlos A. Martinelly-Montano is an illegal immigrant from Bolivia and a repeat DUI offender — two convictions, one in 2007 and one in 2008 — with a revoked license. He doesn’t belong behind a wheel on Virginia roads and should either have been in jail or deported to Bolivia. There is plenty of blame to go around to both the Bush and Obama administrations and there’s also a legitimate concern by the Benedictine Sisters that this tragedy not be crassly politicized.  But isn’t it politicizing the tragedy for Grossman to suggest that it’s bigotry that informs the average person’s anger over the government’s failure to deport Martinelly-Montano? Isn’t it possible to grieve for Sister Mosier while simultaneously seeing her death as an event that would not have happened had Martinelly-Montano been deported two years ago? It’s entirely possible for a Christian to extend forgiveness and pray for Martinelly-Montano’s immortal soul while also expecting the government to do justice by enforcing immigration laws, particularly against illegal immigrants with two DUI convictions. Surely Grossman, a religion reporter, has to understand that.

Continued here:
USA Today Reporter: ‘Do You Care About the Nationality’ of Drunk Driver Who Kills a Loved One?

Nevada Newspaper Smears Sharron Angle With Classic Guilt By Association Technique

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

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

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

Blogger Reports on Radical Imam Visit, Local Journalist Yawns

As most of the country was getting ready for the long July 4 weekend, Pajamas Media blogger and anti-terrorism consultant Patrick Poole wrote a post entitled ” Blue Suede Jihad: Major Hamas Fundraiser in the Land of Elvis .” According to Poole, the Masjid Al-Noor mosque in Memphis posted an event entitled “A Weekend with Mohammed al-Hanooti” for the non-weekend dates of July 13 through 15 on its website . He has a screenshot of the mosque’s event page and says that it is genuine, however, local Memphis newspaper The Commercial Appeal’s Michael Lollar disputed Poole’s findings in an article entitled ” Hamas fundraiser not speaking at mosque .” Lollar only addressed the side of the mosque’s administrators. According to Poole, Lollar made no attempt to contact him and Lollar’s language in the article was dismissive of Poole’s post, to the point of making it seem as though independently verifiable facts used by Poole were merely allegations and suppositions. “Blogger Patrick Poole wrote on the Pajamas Media site (pajamasmedia.com) that Al-Hanooti had raised millions of dollars for Hamas . . .” Lollar wrote, seemingly ignoring the data Poole was able to gather on al-Hanooti, all of it from government documents. That is just plain lazy reporting. The allegation that someone like al-Hanooti, with his very real ties to Hamas, could be on a fundraising tour of the mid-west for them, is one that ought to be taken seriously. Good reporting would have tried to get to the bottom of the controversy, decent reporting would have at least gotten a hold of Poole, but this was just plain lazy reporting. While Poole’s post left out the chronology of events, al-Hanooti has a very interesting history and a tendancy to appear in legal cases involving terrorism and terrorist financing. A Palestinian born in Haifa, he came to the United States in 1978 and first came to the attention of law enforcement in the early 90’s, when he was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator at the trial of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman. In 1993 the FBI learned from electronic surveillance that al-Hanooti attended a meeting of Hamas supporters and fundraisers in Philadelphia where they pledged to ensure the Oslo Accords failed. An FBI source said that al-Hanooti had raised “over six million US dollars” for Hamas by 1993. Additionally, al-Hanooti was Imam of the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Virginia from 1995 to 1999 and seems to have played a role in making it fertile ground for its later radical connections, including two of the September 11 hijackers, the Fort Hood shooter and Anwar al-Awlaki. However, it is important to note that Hamas was not considered a terrorist organization for the purposes of American law until 1995 and there appears to be no evidence he raised money for Hamas since 1993, except for assisting in rasing money to pay for a Hamas leader’s legal defense . None of this excuses the fact that Hamas is a terrorist organization, regardless of weather a government explicitly marks it as such. Al-Hanooti has made radical statements and fundraised for Hamas in the past, though his current opinions are unknown and a repudiation of violence is always something to hope for from anyone.

View post:
Blogger Reports on Radical Imam Visit, Local Journalist Yawns

WaPo Finally Runs Story on NASA Administrator Bolden: Eight Paragraphs On Page A13

In a June 30 interview with “Talk to Al Jazeera,” NASA administrator Charles Bolden revealed that President Obama had tasked him with “find[ing] a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.” The media largely ignored the story, with a few exceptions, such as Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer .  Among the media outlets that blacked out the controversy was the Washington Post, which didn’t cover the Bolden controversy until today. Even then, the paper printed on page A13 a brief 8-paragraph item by the Reuters news wire : White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that NASA administrator Charles F. Bolden Jr. was wrong to say that reaching out to the Muslim world was a top priority of the U.S. space agency. Bolden raised eyebrows in the space community and outrage among conservative pundits by telling al-Jazeera television recently that President Barack Obama had instructed him to work for better outreach with the Muslim world. He said Obama told him that one of his top priorities was to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering.” Improving relations with the Muslim world was a top foreign policy priority for Obama upon taking office last year, and he delivered a major speech on the topic in Cairo in June 2009. Last week, the White House sought to clarify Bolden’s comment, saying Obama wanted NASA to engage with the world’s best scientists and engineers from countries such as Russia, Japan, Israel and many Muslim-majority countries. That failed to end the controversy. Gibbs was asked at his daily news briefing why Bolden had made the comment. “I don’t think — that was not his task, and that’s not the task of NASA,” Gibbs said. The question was posed by CNN’s Ed Henry and can be found at 18:45 on the video linked here (transcript via WhiteHouse.gov ): Q    I wanted to ask you, there are some comments that the NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden, made a couple weeks back that drew some interest, specifically from conservatives who are wondering why we he said that one of the charges that the President gave him when he got the job was that he had to focus on outreach to the Muslim world.  Why is the NASA Administrator doing that? MR. GIBBS:  That’s an excellent question, and I don’t think — that was not his task, and that’s not the task of NASA. Q    So did he just misspeak? MR. GIBBS:  I think so. Q    Has the President spoken to him about that clear it up? MR. GIBBS:  No. Q    Anybody here at the White House? MR. GIBBS:  I’m sure people — people at the White House here talk to NASA all the time.

Follow this link:
WaPo Finally Runs Story on NASA Administrator Bolden: Eight Paragraphs On Page A13

More Anna Chapman Topless PHOTOS: ‘Spy’ Vixen’s Kinky Sex Photos by Ex Husband…

‘Spy’ vixen Anna Chapman’s kinky sex secrets exposed by Ex Husband NY Post By TODD VENEZIA July 5, 2010 Ravishing redhead “spy” Anna Chapman is a sizzling Russian undressing in stunning topless photos shot by her ex-hubby. Alex Chapman, who was married to the undercover — and uncovered — spy for four years, says she loved to pose nude and had a libido worthy of a James Bond femme fatal. The pair orchestrated mile-high airplane bathroom sex romps, used toys for S&M sessions and held love-making marathons he called “incredible.” More Anna Chapman Topless PHOTOS: ‘Spy’ Vixen’s Kinky Sex Photos by Ex Husband…SLIDESHOW… http://ctpatriot1970.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/more-anna-chapman-topless-photos-s… added by: ctpatriot1970

GodBlock, A Web Filter That Blocks Religious Content

What Is It? GodBlock is a web filter that blocks religious content. It is targeted at parents and schools who wish to protect their kids from the often violent, sexual, and psychologically harmful material in many holy texts, and from being indoctrinated into any religion before they are of the age to make such decisions. When installed properly, GodBlock will test each page that your child visits before it is loaded, looking for passages from holy texts, names of religious figures, and other signs of religious propaganda. If none are found, then your child is allowed to browse freely. Why? In the last century, the United States has seen a resurgence of fundamentalist religion. Fundamentalist Evangelicals, Mormons, Baptists, Muslims, and Jews have held back progress in science, human rights, civil rights, and protecting our environment. How can we reverse this trend and join the rest of the world in the gradual secularization of society and government? Most deeply religious people are born into their religion, but even children raised in a secular household are vulnerable to content on the web. That's why we've produced GodBlock. GodBlock is a web filter that blocks religious content. It is targeted at parents and schools who wish to protect their kids from the often violent, sexual, and psychologically harmful material in many holy texts, and from being indoctrinated into any religion before they are of the age to make such decisions. added by: EthicalVegan

Australia’s New Leader Is An Atheist: Americans, Don’t Try This At Home!

When Julia Gillard became Australia's first female prime minister last week she quickly earned international headlines and received a congratulatory call from President Obama for her accomplishment. Now it turns out she's broken another barrier that, for American voters at least, would be far more daunting than her gender: She doesn't believe in God. “No, I don't,” she told an interviewer at Australia's national radio, ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) who asked her point blank if she believed in God. “I'm not a religious person.” “I was brought up in the Baptist Church, but during my adult life I've, you know, found a different path. I'm of course a great respecter of religious beliefs, but they're not my beliefs.” Gillard was a studious Christian as a child, winning prizes for catechism lessons and for memorizing Bible verses. But, she noted, “I've made decisions in my adult life about my own views.” The new Australian P.M. is known for her razor-sharp debating skills and direct answers to direct questions, and that was also evident in her interview with ABC radio in Melbourne about her religion, or lack of it. “I am not going to pretend a faith I don't feel,” she said, according to the audio. “And for people of faith the greatest compliment I could pay to them is to respect their genuinely held beliefs and not to engage in some pretense about mine. I think it's not the right thing.” It's hard to imagine any U.S. politician saying such a thing about religion, or being so straightforward about most anything. Our polls have their reasons, of course. Polls consistently show that even as Americans grow increasingly comfortable with voting for women, racial or religious minorities, or a homosexual, they are still not likely to back an atheist. The latest Gallup poll on that question, posed in 2007, showed that 53 percent of American voters said they would not vote for an atheist for president — the highest negatives of any of the categories. (Gallup has not asked about a Muslim candidate, and odds are that would score even lower. Cold comfort for atheists.) Some 43 percent said they would not vote for a homosexual candidate, and 55 percent said they would be willing to back a gay or lesbian for president. In 2007, the Secular Coalition for America offered a $1,000 prize to anyone who could guess the name the “highest level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of non-theist currently holding elected public office in the United States.” California's Pete Stark, a 19-term Democratic House member from the Bay Area, proved to be the correct answer, as he acknowledged he is “a Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being.” But it's not like he created a rush on atheist candidates, and of course in the next year the victorious contender for president was Barack Obama, probably the most overtly religious Democratic candidate in years. Julia Gillard, on the other hand, was able to say that she shared the values of her fellow Australians, if not their religious beliefs. “What I can say to Australians broadly of course is that I believe you can be a person of strong principle and values from a variety of perspectives. And I've outlined mine to you.” And that seems to be working. An online poll at The Australian newspaper showed that two-thirds of the nearly 15,000 readers who responded to a question about Gillard's beliefs said they didn't care about her “lack of a religious faith.” added by: Stoneyroad

Finally! Detergent Industry Puts Voluntary Ban on Phosphates in Household Dishwasher Detergents

After Years of Saying it Can’t be Done The American Cleaning Institute (ACI, formerly the Soap and Detergent Association), represents most of the soap-makers in the U.S., has announced a voluntary ban on phosphates in household dishwasher detergents. This follows the banning of phosphates in many US states (such as Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin) and similar bans in Europe, and t… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more here:
Finally! Detergent Industry Puts Voluntary Ban on Phosphates in Household Dishwasher Detergents