New 'Faith-Based' Obama Advisor Says Pope Is 'Discredited,' Knights of Columbus Are 'An Army of Oppression'

New 'Faith-Based' Obama Advisor Says Pope Is 'Discredited,' Knights of Columbus Are 'An Army of Oppression'

By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
April 7, 2009 - 06:43 ET

Here’s another story that underlines how ludicrous the media have been in insisting Barack Obama was a natural choice for traditional Catholic and evangelical Christian voters: CNSNews.com correspondent Fred Lucas reports Obama finished stocking the advisory committee of his faith-based initiative with a bang: one new selection was Harry Knox, director of the "religion and faith program" of the gay-left Human Rights Campaign. Just last month, Knox described Pope Benedict XVI and certain Catholic bishops as "discredited leaders" because of their opposition to same-sex marriage.

In addition to his remarks about the Pope, Knox also criticized the Catholic Knights of Columbus as being "foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression" because of the Knights’ support of Proposition 8 in California last year:

Knox told CNSNews.com that he "absolutely" stands by his criticism of the pope. "The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use," Knox said on Monday. "We are eager to help him do that. Until he is willing to do that and able, he's doing a great deal more harm than good -- not just in Africa but around the world. It is endangering people's lives."

On March 19, Knox told the San Francisco-based gay newspaper The Bay Area Reporter, "The Knights of Columbus do a great deal of good in the name of Jesus Christ, but in this particular case [Proposition 8], they were foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression."

The newspaper further reported: "Knox noted that the Knights of Columbus ‘followed discredited leaders,’ including bishops and Pope Benedict XVI. ‘A pope who literally today said condoms don't help in control of AIDS.’"

....According to the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) Web site, the religion and faith program run by Knox has created “a weekly preaching resource that provides scriptural commentary to ministers and lay people interested in an ecumenical gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender perspective on the Bible."

The site further states that the program has set a goal of doing “faith-based transgender education in 40 diverse congressional districts across the country. Clergy participating in the program will take their congregants to Capitol Hill on May 4 and 5 as part of the ‘2009 Clergy Call for Justice and Equality,’” an event sponsored by the HRC.

Last December 19, Knox took to The Huffington Post to decry the "anti-gay" disappointments of the new Obama regime:

Yesterday, our last hope of an openly-LGBT cabinet appointee faded away. President-elect Obama has said he aimed to build a Cabinet that reflects the diversity of America. But after all his bold, first-time-ever mentions of LGBT equality -- in his legendary address at Invesco Field, during his historic first speech as president-elect before a rapt crowd in Chicago -- have we now disappeared? Are we not part of his America?

What can we conclude from Reverend Warren's presence other than that inflammatory anti-LGBT viewpoints are -- unlike racism, sexism or religious intolerance -- an acceptable part of President-elect Obama's vision of political discourse? Let's face it: a religious figure -- admirable works fighting poverty or disease notwithstanding -- who had advocated that the California Constitution should bar interracial marriages, or women working outside the home, or Jews holding public office would never share the inaugural stage with the President of the United States. But for LGBT people, the standard remains different.

The media standard for Obama appointees is to downplay or ignore any controversy over harsh speech against traditional religions, unlike the way they played up what they saw as "fringy" Christian associations on the Bush team.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Correct me if I'm wrong but....

April 7, 2009 - 06:53 ET by supercon

Didn't gay marriage get crushed in California....?

Who now is really the group that was discredited? This guy is just another angry gay activist trying to bully his way to what he wants.They can only get their way when they go around the voters.

Because with a name like Obama... you know it has to be good.

Yeah, it got crushed in

April 7, 2009 - 08:16 ET by mattm

Yeah, it got crushed in Sodom and Gommorah, too...

KOOK LEFTIES STATE

April 7, 2009 - 17:15 ET by reelman46

THE KOOK LEFTIES STATE

The Vermont Quiz

Which state has less religious men and women than any other? Vermont.
Which is the only state to have a socialist senator? Vermont.
Which state has the second lowest birth rate in the nation? Vermont
Which state has the second highest proportion of whites? Vermont.
Which state legislature was the first to legalize gay marriage? Vermont.

In other words, Vermont is a lily-white state populated by left-wingers who are anti-traditional marriage and anti-family.
Exactly what we would expect of a population where more people believe in nothing than anywhere else in the nation.
(April 7…….the Catholic League

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

LOL

April 7, 2009 - 07:05 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls

Well who is the biggest anti-gay out there? Why the much beloved Gaia, who abhors homosexuality so much so that (s)he made it so homosexuals cannot procreate. So, being pro-gay is being anti-green. How do you like them apples?

BWAHAHAHA!

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

The lifestyle is in reality a

April 7, 2009 - 17:20 ET by reelman46

The "lifestyle choice" of homo-marriage is actually a deathstyle choice for humanity or animals...all the aggressive behavior by homosexuals to get approval can't hide that natural fact...always remember the homo-activist agenda is 3 stepped:

1...tolerance (done deal)

2...acceptance (half done deal)

3...APPROVAL (the challenge goal now, nothing less)

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)

first things first, the Obama way

April 7, 2009 - 07:08 ET by SickofLibs

So Obama has finished stocking his faith advisory committee, and got a gay in there. Great.

NOW MAYBE YOU CAN CONCENTRATE ON STAFFING TREASURY, MORON!

Yeah, gotta round out that

April 7, 2009 - 07:21 ET by motherbelt

Yeah, gotta round out that "faith-based" committee with a Catholic-basher!

Well, I don't know about "rounding out".....who are the rest of the committee and what are their views on homosexual activity and gay "marriage?" Is Knox just one more voice in support of both?

They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

delete

April 7, 2009 - 07:13 ET by motherbelt

delete

The Pope is

April 7, 2009 - 07:20 ET by motherbelt

The Pope is discredited???

By whom, pray tell????

I guess Knox missed this: The Pope Was Right

Dr. Edward Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies says that the science actually supports the Pope's claim.

None of that matters to Knox or any other gay activist, though, because AIDS has long since ceased to be a health issue and become a political one. Health matters not to these people.

Every man in California has the right to marry any woman he wants. Same for women marrying any man. No "civil rights" are being violated.

They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

Discredit the pope, but welcome suicidal sex ???

April 7, 2009 - 10:11 ET by KC Mulville

Apparently the pope failed to measure up to Knox's standards. No word from the pope on how he took that news.

Condoms save lives, only if you assume that people must have sex, even if the sex infects their partners with a fatal disease. I've always found that to be laughably incongruous:

One group of people will have sex, even if it kills them and their partners
The pope opposes condoms

But who do the activists attack? The pope. But in order for the attack on the pope to make sense, you have to take #1 for granted. These gay activists apparently see nothing wrong with the idea of having suicidal sex; their only answer is condoms. Seems to me that someone ought to say something to the first group, don't you think? A mild criticism, or a helpful suggestion that suicidal sex is, well, I don't know... stupid?

You are SO right.

April 7, 2009 - 12:44 ET by freecitizen

You are SO right. I've mentioned this in other threads on this topic.

They are so sure of what they know based on what seems like common sense to them that actually backing that up with statistics and history is just unnecessary. If they bothered to do the research they would find out that, like usual, reality doesn't quite match the model they have built in their head.

Start with moderate, take away everything that's right, and this is what's left.

This is "typical" of Obama.

April 7, 2009 - 07:16 ET by nadadhimmi

This is "typical" of Obama. Appointing a no talent activist to a vocal position. This guy is a hate filled, perverted atheist to administer "faith based" organizations. Bill Ayers taught Obama communist and subversive activities very well. Contrast this: Obama bows to, and kisses the ass of a lowlife, murdering muslim king. And he agrees with his appointee calling the Pope vile names. Obama is a stealth muslim and an open communist, a usurper out to destroy our coutry. And he has plenty of help now with the likes of so called GOP Senator Lugar openly kissing Castro's ass.

Stem cell research....

April 7, 2009 - 07:40 ET by adamsmith

I pray that stem cell research advances far more quickly than at the rate that it's going. I will post something here now that I posted at Snuffington Post(snuffing as they constantly censor me for ideas that don't fit the "hive-collective" groupthink)and they actually posted it- to the chirps of crickets as I stumped those Moonbats really hard. It went something like this as they were demeaning Bush for no embryonic stem cells.....

The day will come when stem cell research will be able to find the gene that results in the child being gay. As no parent wants a gay kid anymore than they would a Down's syndrome baby or a child with severe birth defects, Gays will become extinct if you will...

That day won't come soon enough for me. I was fine with the "Mary"s in the closet. I learned to deal with the lispers on "Queer eye for the straight Guy". I vacation in Key West and was never offended as I was on "their" turf. But the militant marriage movement and putting gay oriented textbooks in 3 grade classrooms is over the line. Their agenda is to get everyone to accept them for being normal-never going to happen....So, let's get the stem cell technology out there, and gays will be extinct....

I like your gene premise

April 7, 2009 - 08:09 ET by SickofLibs

... but then we'll have gays engineering their own offspring to guarantee they grow up gay, because they really believe they are superior.

Except for that pesky we-can't-reproduce-on-our-own thing thing.

They never think of the law

April 7, 2009 - 08:30 ET by motherbelt

They never think of the law of unintended consequences.

Just like pro-abortion women, who soon found out that more girl babies than boy babies were being aborted, these gay acitivists, if their "gay gene" theory is found to be correct, could end up hoist on their own petard.

Oh, and don't worry, there will always be a few women who would willingly carry a "created gay" baby for them. The first step down that slope has been taken with deaf people being allowed to choose to give birth to deaf children.

See here and here

They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

deaf on purpose???

April 7, 2009 - 09:29 ET by SickofLibs

That is one the sickest things I ever saw.

I guess if the genetics selection approach doesn't work out, there's always the surgical option.

→ I hear ya' SoL

April 7, 2009 - 09:35 ET by Cool Arrow

I hear ya'

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

They never think. Period.

April 7, 2009 - 21:16 ET by CKA in Red State USA

Scheme, plot, whatever--but think?

They're not capable.

This discussion is already

April 7, 2009 - 09:59 ET by moderncommentaries83

This discussion is already out there. A year or two ago, Law & Order did an episode on that subject. Here's what I wrote at the time:

The plot focused on a pregnant woman, working security, who was hurt in an explosion while delivering packages.

The woman slipped into a coma but was kept on life support for her child.

The investigation soon realizes the true target of the bomb was a doctor and researcher working in the building, who was working on locating a "gay gene" in unborn children, and the lab said doctor worked in also did other tests - blood tests, amniocentesis, etc.

One of the potential suspects interviewed was a 40-something couple who'd had an abortion after the lab incorrectly ran an amniocentesis and indicated their child had Downs syndrome. The pregnancy was terminated, and the couple sued after finding out the test was wrong. One detective, Ed Green (Jesse L. Martin's character) kind of took the father to task, telling them they should have played the hand they'd been dealt.

He was later reprimanded by Lt. Van Buren (S. Epatha Merkerson) for his comments, and it is revealed that one of Green's former girlfriends also aborted a child with a disability.

The message, however, was clear: do not question people who abort children with disabilities.

As the episode unfolds, it's revealed that the victim's brother-in-law is gay, and struggled with being harassed and teased and abused because his father, and the neighborhood they grew up in, wasn't "tolerant" of gays.

So the brother-in-law was trying to kill the doctor, who was working to identify the "gay gene" in unborn children, so as to prevent a "gay holocaust" - where unborn children screened for the gene prior to birth would be aborted.

Turns out the victim's father - who despises both his daughter's husband and brother-in-law - also is a "homophobe" and decides to lie under oath as an alibi for the brother-in-law *if* his son-in-law agrees to have the unborn child, who was screened as having the "gay gene", aborted.

The tone of the show turns from "Thou shalt not question those who abort (potentially) disabled children" to "We cannot allow someone to abort a (potentially) gay child".

And, naturally, one of the first suspects investigated was a generic Christian college student, later described in the episode as a "religious zealot", who disagreed with the doctor's work while the doctor was at that student's university - a plot line that was clearly unnecessary, and designed to bash Christians.

The student in question made a good point, when asked if the "gay gene" would make homosexuality a part of God's design - he said something to the effect of, if there's a gene that predisposes someone to alcoholism or drug addiction or obesity, does that justify them going out and doing something immoral because to fight alcoholism (or drugs, or overeating) goes against nature? It was a great question, but lost amongst the obvious bias toward traditional religious teaching and natural law.

Anyway, the point of the post is this - normally, after they went down the "blame the Christian" path, I would have turned off the show.

But I stuck with it.

It's fascinating to see how moral relativists turn themselves into knots trying to justify something like abortion in Instance A, but not Instance B.

There was no mention of the fact there is a real "holocaust" against children with disabilities - especially Downs children - who are aborted after pre-natal screenings indicate there *might* be a disability. No mention of the fact that, of those abortions, there may be several wrong tests which lead to the wholesale murder of healthy children. No mention of the fact children are aborted for minor defects like cleft lip and cleft palate, which are easily fixed with surgery after birth.

The almost fanatical way that new Assistant DA Michael Cutter (Linus Roache) worked to prevent the abortion of the victim's unborn child, and his fears of a "gay holocaust" was both interesting and revealing.

And I marvel at the fact that, all along, Christian teaching - the teaching that's supposedly so bigoted, so oppressive, and so wrong - would look at the situation and simply say, "It's wrong to abort a (potentially) disabled child just as it would be wrong to abort a (potentially) gay child."

So the discussion - if such a gene is found - will find ardent pro-aborts suddenly becoming pro-life. But the target will be those "evil" right wing homophobes who'd abort a gay child...never mind that pro-life people are pro-life regardless of if the child has a disability, is a boy or a girl, has brown eyes or blue, or is (possibly) gay.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Well said, that . . .

April 7, 2009 - 21:22 ET by CKA in Red State USA

"Obama is a stealth muslim and an open communist, a usurper out to destroy our coutry."

I'd add that it's that it's not just that he's not an American citizen, he is not an cultural American. He knows nothing of our country.

And it seems that the longer he goes in this office, the more he seems to reveal some real hatred for America.

Is he getting even with his Marxist parents, especially the father who abandoned him?

Barack Obama is one very dangerous man. He seems pathologically deranged, hellbent on doing whatever he can to dismantle the very country that gave him an education and tolerated his b***s*** as a state and federal legislator--and that 's now given him the keys to its house.

There is an uncleanness about him, spiritual and moral and intellectual and behavioral, that is very creepy.

Knox has created “a

April 7, 2009 - 07:33 ET by Massage_Master07

Knox has created “a weekly preaching resource that provides scriptural
commentary to ministers and lay people interested in an ecumenical gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgender perspective on the Bible."

Now I'm no expert on the Holy Bible, but inhospitality was just ONE of the sins that the Lord God judged Sodom and Gomorrha(?) guilty of in the Book of Genesis. He destroyed those two cities for a LOT more than inhospitality toward strangers. Homosexuality was running rampant in those two cities, along with I'm sure, lying,theft, murder, rape whether it be men raping men and/or women, women raping men and/or women and beastiality. Also I'm sure idolotry was included in the sins against those two doomed cities.

As far as the pope is concerned... He has the right of it. Homosexuals do NOT have a "right" to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. If a line is NOT drawn as to what is and isn't acceptable for marriage, then WHERE is that line drawn? Next we'll be able to marry brother and sister? Will we be able to marry our dog? horse? donkey? Where is the cut off line? If perverted sexuality is allowed to marry, then why stop at homosexual marriage? Why can't I marry my neighbor's wife? C'mon people, the line HAS to be drawn somewhere.

an ecumenical gay, lesbian,

April 7, 2009 - 07:56 ET by motherbelt

an ecumenical gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender perspective on the Bible."

IOW: misinterpreting Scripture in order to support their own beliefs on those matters.

They might say "Wow, that sucks!" But at least they'll say "Wow!" -Duff Goldman, the Ace of Cakes

Try this for an ecumenical

April 7, 2009 - 09:44 ET by Texasteacher

Try this for an ecumenical perspective: THE BIBLE SAYS IT'S WRONG!

obama's notion of bi-partisanship is telling conservatives to shut up and do what he wants.

as mentioned above they

April 7, 2009 - 11:04 ET by TruthMonger

as mentioned above they will find that perspective in soddom and gammorah

who's worst prez ever now?!!

The Pope is doing more harm than good????

April 7, 2009 - 07:48 ET by The Smokin Frog

The Pope is doing more harm than good???? As opposed to the sodomy of the homosexual community that spreads disease and depravity around. I would say this is "endangering people's lives."
As I recall the one with the racial slurs at the inaugruation of Obama was his 'unbiased' buddy Rev. Lowry, a true racist. Apparently if we are not for unbridled depravity and the shaming of Whites in general, we are bigots, homophobes, racists. My goodness Knox may be right, we are a danger to the public. What is the matter with us? Times have changed and Obama is here now to show us the way.
TSF Protests!

according to the satanic

April 7, 2009 - 11:05 ET by TruthMonger

according to the satanic crowd he most definitely is...

who's worst prez ever now?!!

discredited?

April 7, 2009 - 07:49 ET by theduck6

sez who? a loud mouthed, partisan ,agenda driven douche bag.

stop trying to redefine words and take the equivalent and call it whatever you want to.

For 125 years, the Knights

April 7, 2009 - 08:00 ET by SickofLibs

For 125 years, the Knights have been known as "the strong right arm of the Church", and have unequivocally professed solidarity with the Pope since the founding of the Order.

So Knox actually believes they should now start taking marching orders from, say, GLAAD or NARAL? What epic stupidity.

This is yet another outrageous example of Obongo's complete failure to lead by appointing the worst possible, least suited person he can find to any given position. Oh yeah, he's real CEO material - let's him take over everything.

- A Proud Knight

Bravo! Thank you for your work in charities, Sick.

April 7, 2009 - 13:32 ET by BO STINKS

Tho I am not of your faith, have always had huge respect for the works of the Knights.

Also, love the new nickname for BO - O'bongo! LOL!

The great Socio/Economic Experiments of the 20th cent. (communism, socialism, fascism) only killed a few hundred million. Let's give 'em another try! - me

Let's connect the dots here

April 7, 2009 - 08:28 ET by moderncommentaries83

In the two and a half months since Obama's become president, this blog has cataloged how many stories bashing Catholicism, the Pope, Catholics and Catholic organizations?

Lots.

Don't you see a pattern here?

They are engaging in a systematic attack on Catholics, much in the way the Nazis ginned up fear and loathing toward the Jews in the 1930s and 40s, before they rounded them up and exterminated 6 million of them. This includes Obama's attempt to infringe on the rights of pro-life medical personnel to opt-out of abortion procedures and prescribing contraceptives. Jews were systematically stripped of their jobs, their civil rights, and their lives.

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but the similarities for those of us who know our history is alarming.

It starts by saying "Catholics are a threat to civilization" and ends in the gas chambers.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Modern....well said. Stalin

April 7, 2009 - 10:00 ET by celator

Modern....well said. Stalin also challenged the Church by asking, "How many Divisions does the Pope have?" after the Pope criticized his actions. Last I looked, Stalin was feeding the worms and the Church is still attending to its mission in the world.

Evangelicals and (obviously) Jews were also targetted by dictators and communists of all stripes and are to this day. Try setting up a synagogue or a Berean Church in Riyadh or Jedda. Your head will be separated from the rest of your body in short order.

It is a very old battle, isn't it?

And in the end, the Communists, Nazis, Pol Pots of the world slaughter hundreds of millions of people in pursuit of their sick Utopia. There are killing fields in play as we speak today.

All the while, we stand in their way and, indeed, are criticized for obstructing them from achieving their maniacal goals. But we will not ever give up.

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

Jesus said there were would

April 7, 2009 - 17:22 ET by msh1973

Jesus said there were would be days like this. As we go into the Holy Week, we remember that Jesus faced the same hatred, mocking and the ultimate, giving of His life. Pray hard and often.

MSH.. amen to that! No

April 7, 2009 - 19:21 ET by celator

MSH.. amen to that!

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

For the benefit of those who have yet to noodle this out...

April 7, 2009 - 08:35 ET by R D Helm

Barack Hussein Obama is a M*U*S*L*I*M.

He even said so himself.

The only reason he has people like Knox around is to kiss up to the pervs and freaks who make up a sizable chunk of the hard left, which is his main base of support. Otherwise, gays would be mixed in with all the others that now find themselves under the bus.

-Dave

This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.

The time for complaining is OVER

April 7, 2009 - 08:49 ET by sam12663

As a Catholic, and a member of the Knights of Columbus, what Knox has to say is baseless, ludicrous and just plain stupid. With that said, the time for complaining about all the far left ideaology at play with the Obama administration is over; IT IS TIME TO ACT! Call your senators and congressmen EVERY DAY, make it known that you will not stand for your representative to simply follow in lock step with this administrations direction. Let them know that many of your neighbors feel the same, and that if they wish to remain in congress, they'd better start abiding by the Constitution of this nation. Join one of the many groups forming to oppose any politician that votes with this administration; participate in townhall meetings when your representative is giving you the opportunity. You must do all that you can to make you voice heard. THE TIME FOR COMPLAINING IS OVER, RAISE HELL!

President Obama is nothing more than a empty suit; a Hollywood style special effects smoke and mirrors show that has shown itself to be a total fraud.

WAKE UP AMERICA! SAVE OUR CONSTITUTION!

Raise Hell

April 7, 2009 - 09:14 ET by rightwingchef

Right on Sam, my thoughts and actions are the same. Raise Hell, kick ass and take names.

Sam.. yes they are coming

April 7, 2009 - 10:08 ET by celator

Sam.. yes they are coming after us. It begins with the comments of the Knoxs of the world and grows stronger and more violent if they are not challenged. As I suggested in a post above, there are forces at play that want us out of the way.

And I agree about the Knights. They have done good work since their founding.

I am not a Knight, but every time I see them, they are collecting funds for the poor, or setting up food banks, or fighting against the demonic forces of abortion, or helping the Red Cross set up blood banks, or visiting the sick in hospitals, sponsoring youth activities to keep kids off the street, creating educational materials for Catholics and any number of other good activities.

Any one of those is more good than those who criticize the Knights have ever done.

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

I'm sure Knox is personally

April 7, 2009 - 11:05 ET by SickofLibs

I'm sure Knox is personally big on 'community service' (as long as it's strictly gay-focused).

If he or any of his friends have ever needed a blood transfusion, odds are that blood was collected via a KofC blood drive. (400,000 units in 2007)

In the last 10 years, KofC has donated $1.28 billion to charity, and members have provided 612 million hours of volunteer service to their communities.

SOL.. if I may add a little

April 7, 2009 - 14:56 ET by celator

SOL.. if I may add a little bit to your post: the Knights have been actively involved with veterans also. See link:

http://www.bio-medic....

And a little more info: when Knox shows his bigotry toward the Knights, he should realize there are 1.7 million Knights in 15,000 Councils around the world. That's a lot of insults to these dedicated men coming from the Obama administration. They are taking on the wrong group.

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

Obama-Knox can't handle the truth

April 7, 2009 - 08:58 ET by lotr

"The Pope needs to start telling the truth about condom use,"

You mean like hard statistics? How about this one:

The probability of a woman getting pregnant after 1 year of consistent condom usage is 15%. This number monotonically increases toward 100% with each succeeding year of condom usage.

The probability of being exposed to HIV (assuming an infected partner) during this time is greater than the probability of pregnancy for two reasons: (1) due to the female fertility cycle, the possibility of pregnancy is 0% about 75% of the time, and (2) condoms have been shown to leak fluid, and may also leak HIV, which is much smaller than sperm.

For reference, the probability of "losing" a game of Russian Roulette using a 6-shooter revolver loaded with a single round is 16.667%.

It is therefore immoral (and a lie) for the Pope or anyone else who genuinely cares about the health and welfare of others to advocate condoms as a means of "safe sex." I agree with this bigot on one thing though: The truth about condoms and HIV should be proclaimed from the mountaintops.

But, apparently, the few

April 7, 2009 - 09:28 ET by moderncommentaries83

But, apparently, the few minutes' pleasure derived from sex with condoms is worth the risk of getting pregnant (you can always have an abortion) or contracting an STD including fatal HIV/AIDS.

It's all about sex.

Nothing, apparently, can get in the way of the groin. And it's disgusting.

On another blog, people are all up in arms because the blogger suggested that the local "No condom? No way!" bus ads should be "No ring? No way!"

We're all told we're "oppressive" and "telling others what to do" and "people should make a choice without your religious nuttery".

So I simply replied that if that's how you feel, fine, but those who make the CHOICE to engage in risky behavior should not have taxpayer support to back them up when they want an abortion, or contract an STD or want "free" condoms/birth control. If they want to make a choice with disregard to the facts about contraceptive use and the risk of pregnancy/STD infection from condom use, then they can be responsible and pay for it on their own.

It's ironic that liberals want to control smoking and junk food (obesity) to "reduce healthcare costs", and have no problem telling people what they can put into their bodies, but completely lose it when we say, "What about risky sexual behavior? That increases healthcare costs, too!"

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Excellent points

April 7, 2009 - 09:56 ET by KC Mulville

I especially like your last point; if the government feels empowered to protect us from "unsafe" behavior, like smoking or obesity, why can't the government protect us from "immoral" behavior, like reckless sex? After all, if healthcare cost is the standard, we can outlaw or promote anything.
I think you phrased that perfectly to capture the point.

Let's not frame this from a "morality" perspective

April 7, 2009 - 10:38 ET by moderncommentaries83

why can't the government protect us from "immoral" behavior, like reckless sex?

While I completely agree, let's frame this in language the liberals use. "Moral" and "immoral" mean nothing to them, so let's turn their logic back on them.

If smoking and eating unhealthy foods leads to increased healthcare costs, liberals are for taxing or banning these items in order to save money and "improve health."

Sex - even sex with condoms or birth control pills - is not 100% effective or failsafe. It can lead to an unplanned pregnancy, which costs money (either through prenatal/maternity care or abortion), or STDs, the treatment of which also costs money.

So, applying the logic that if smoking leads to health risks and junk food leads to health risks and those behaviors need to be discouraged, why do we not discourage casual sex, even sex with condoms and birth control pills, both of which fail?

That's how we must frame the argument. No one "needs" sex anymore than they "need" to smoke or "need" to eat a Twinkie and the logic is irrefutable. All three deal with legal activities pertaining to one's body. In the case of eating, even, no one else is affected. Smoking and sex affect at least one other person.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

the cigarette smoking analogy

April 7, 2009 - 12:40 ET by lotr

I think this is a great analogy, one that I'll repeat here.

Consider that at one time the incidence of lung cancer was on the rise, with the disease becoming pandemic and a top-10 killer of adults.

Following the politically correct, but morally bankrupt logic, the Government, with the help of the MSM and Hollywood, launches a massive propaganda campaign advocating "safe smoking" through the use of the so-called "light" cigarettes (e.g., Marlboro Lights, Camel Lights, etc.), which have been shown to have reduced carcinogenic tar/nicotine via the cigarette filter, which acts as a "barrier." The argument goes that people, especially adolescents and young adults, are going to smoke anyway (which they do) and that it is "puritanical" to suggest otherwise. In fact, Congress and the White House become so zealous in their promotion of light cigarettes that they begin advocating that they be freely distributed in schools (at taxpayers expense), both here and abroad, because teenagers are going to smoke.

Funny thing about the above scenario is, were it true, I would find myself suspicious as to what kind of crooked wheeling and dealing might be going on between the "pro-light cigarette" party and the "cigarette industry."

angry gay activist

April 7, 2009 - 09:06 ET by nolotrippen

"Angry gay activist." Isn't that an oxymoron?

Then there's "gay pride." Two sins at once

→ Angry gay

April 7, 2009 - 09:11 ET by Cool Arrow

Hadn't thought about it, but you're right.

Maybe "angry gay activist" is a misdiagnosis for "spastic colon"

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

THIS KNOX CHARACTER IS HE GAY?IF SO HE NEEDS TO RECLUSE

April 7, 2009 - 10:41 ET by JIMMY1660

himself from anything close to the church. he is an extremest. he can be as gay as he wishes. do not cross the line and force yourself on me.

if he has a stated agenda before taking this job, he needs to be jailed in IRAN. oops that means he dies.

BHO- POTUS, is a Liar and Socialist

Is he gay?

April 7, 2009 - 11:09 ET by SickofLibs

Yeah, but you wouldn't know it by the name of his organization: the "Human Rights Campaign".

Advocating for the 'true' humans.

It doesn't matter . .

April 7, 2009 - 11:08 ET by 1611LilacLady

. . . who is appointed. We know Pres Insane is a Muslim, makes the devil look moderate and whose loyalty is to the King of Saudi Arabia.

I'm waiting for the Islamic flag to start flying at the White House.

ps Harry Knox looks eerily like slimy James Carville.

Isaiah 5:20a Woe unto them who call evil good, and good evil. . . KJV

Idiot is appropriate

April 7, 2009 - 14:16 ET by Ozark_Sunshine

This so called advisor is a moron. The Knights of Columbus for years have raised millions of dollars through Tootsie Roll sales to help the mentally retarded and Special Olympics, while liberals, gays and Democrats spend more than that to abort these precious lives. So who is discredited as the Army of Opression? Seems like this idiot and Democrats, liberals and gays.

This sad sack is so lost and

April 7, 2009 - 17:16 ET by msh1973

This sad sack is so lost and he doesn't even know it.

Given that Obama's declared Ameica is no longer a . . .

April 7, 2009 - 21:14 ET by CKA in Red State USA

. . .a Christian nation, why not get yet another pretend-Christian to advise him?

After all, there's Jeremiah Wright and priest Pfelgar.

It appears, too, that pretend-Christian Obama is doing all he can to stick his middle finger in the eye of true American Christianity.

But, then, why should he be different now than when he was campaigning or when he said on those racially separatist pews in TUCC?

CKA... I am telling you I am

April 7, 2009 - 21:21 ET by bigtimer

CKA...

I am telling you I am hoping for a blog post about this here sooner rather than later...I have been trying to cool myself off after hearing this early today from the empty-suited Black Nationalist puppet..and where is the outrage...

What is the matter with people?!

Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart

→ Outrageous, bt

April 7, 2009 - 21:26 ET by Cool Arrow

The elected head of our Government lied about us to make a political point.

Let's pray the Judgement is upon him, rather than those who put God above country.

LYDSEXICS UNTIE!

I don't think that prayer is needed for that . . .

April 7, 2009 - 21:35 ET by CKA in Red State USA

He's playing with spiritual fire and judgment about which he has no clue. Nor do Wright or Pfelgar or any other of his so-called spiritual advisers.

I do not think that he has any clue of how he's instigated the Second American Revolution by what he's done already.

And I'm sure he doesn't understand that this Anti-American, America-is-no-longer-a-Christian-nation, suckup-to-Europe--and-Muslims tour has created even more ill feeling against him in our country.

He's very creepy. And dangerous.

I'm with you on that outrage . . .

April 7, 2009 - 21:31 ET by CKA in Red State USA

What's the matter with people?

$64-gazillion question.

Honestly, I do not know why people are not in the streets, burning things, marching on the White House and the Capital at this very moment.

This man is a Marxist, an Ameican-hating Marxist who -- and I have never said or written this before -- I believe really is a Muslim.

I know by his actions and words that he is not a Christian.

I wonder: When's the next phase of the Second American Revolution?

The first began last Nov. 4 for some; Jan. 20 of this year for others.

This man is so very dangerous.

As I heard Savaage say tonight on his radio program, there is greater voter remorse in the U.S.

Were the election held today, McCain-Palin would win.

Anyone but Obama. ABO.

If we make it to 2010, I believe that unless Obama has tampered with the Constitution, the Demockacrats/Dementocrats will suffer their worst loss in modern history.

I also think that Obama knows exactly what he's doing.

He knows he's good for one term.

And do do his puppeteers.

That is, unless they do something stupid and declare martial law and stage an actual coup.

Should they, they will be very surprised what will be coming back at them.

I don't think it'll be applause and thanks, though.