Time’s Amy Sullivan seems to have a special assignment to try and play up the religiosity of liberal Democrats despite their libertine policy stands, from Barack Obama to Ted Kennedy. On Thursday, Sullivan underlined "Ted Kennedy’s Quiet Catholic Faith." How does that match with his ultraliberal political record on abortion and homosexuality, his perfect 100-percent scores with NARAL or the Human Rights Campaign? Sullivan simply ignores that obvious problem.
(HRC’s YouTube channel proudly shows Kennedy suggesting Jesse Helms might be in Hell at a March 2008 dinner. So much for Christian charity.)
Kennedy "fully embraced" the Catholic Church, Sullivan claimed:
Kennedy only fully embraced Catholicism later in life, particularly after marrying his second wife. Vicki Kennedy was one of a handful of prominent Catholic Democrats who strongly urged John Kerry to defend questions about his faith during the 2004 presidential campaign, and she served as a surrogate for the Obama campaign in 2008 in heavily Catholic areas.
Sullivan played up Kennedy’s life of prayer and Mass attendance, and that is certainly important, but it doesn't define a "full embrace." (A politically conservative Catholic who publicly opposed abortion and homosexuality, but didn’t pray or attend Mass wouldn’t be "fully embracing" Catholicism, either.) The closest Sullivan came to Kennedy's complete rejection of Catholic teaching on sexuality came next:
The now retired Monsignor Thomas Duffy remembers the Senator and his wife becoming regular fixtures at the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Washington's Chevy Chase neighborhood. "He and Vicki used to come to Mass rather regularly when they were in town," says Duffy, noting that her children also went to confession and attended religion classes. "We sometimes didn't agree on certain issues, but we would always chat."
Those "certain issues" are rather central to Catholics, especially abortion, leaving Sullivan with an article that reads like "Ted Kennedy's Quiet Life of Meat-Eating Vegetarianism." But she's insistent on revealing Kennedy's "deep faith" in God and his church:
But while they were famously Catholic, the hard-living Kennedys weren't known for being famously devout. So it might come as a surprise that faith played a deep and important role for many of them, including Ted Kennedy. The Rev. Patrick Tarrant, who was at the Senator's bedside the night he died, told ABC News that Kennedy was "a man of quiet prayer." Said the priest: "The whole world knows a certain part of his life very well, but I think there's another part of his life that very few people know, and that is his deep faith."
Strangers can hardly judge Kennedy's prayer life or discussions with clergy. But if a politician's public speeches and stands obviously contradict church teaching, then it's hard to push him or her as a "devout Catholic." In political terms, if a politician claimed to be a "devout liberal" in their personal life, but voted with liberals only half the time, the liberals would choke on the "devout liberal" line and protest it wasn't accurate. Even Amy Sullivan would probably avoid her usually ridiculous labeling in that case.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Kennedy was what he did
August 28, 2009 - 07:24 ET by FeynmanFanActions speak louder than words. The press can spin it however they want, but Kennedy revealed his true self through what he did.
Can we move on to another topic now?
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
Can't justify the abortion, let alone the other immoralities
August 28, 2009 - 07:29 ET by dvdaughtryCan't spin is correct.
Here's where he stands on the issues.
He's pretty much distgusting.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
faith played a deep and
August 28, 2009 - 07:28 ET by motherbeltfaith played a deep and important role for many of them, including Ted Kennedy.
Really? And just what was that role?
I am a strong believer that one goes to Mass, not because one "deserves" its graces, but because one needs them. But one has to wonder how Kennedy could profess to place so much importance on his Catholicism, and yet publicly stand against his church's teachings on abortion.
Kennedy only fully embraced Catholicism later in life....
Fully, Ms. Sullivan?
I do not think it means what you think it means -Inigo Montoya
Time Magazine
August 28, 2009 - 07:35 ET by nyyankee55Does anyone know someone who still reads Time magazine? These writers for these magazines don't seem to realize that print media is in it's last days.
They write these left bent articles to whom? Do the people they think the illegals or the welfare recipients that they want to give our tax money to buy magazines.
Conservatives don't buy these rags. Who are they preaching to?
Time Magazine - only in special places
August 28, 2009 - 07:42 ET by FeynmanFanI only see Time Magazine in special places - like the doctor's office and the dentist's office.
"I support the President but not his policies" - Blonde
Barack Obama Has Decided for YOU
August 28, 2009 - 07:42 ET by Retired GeekThat any money 'Wasted' on the Health and Well being of American Citizens over 60, could be better utilized Teaching Grade School Children that Homosexuality is Natural, Normal and Healthy.
August 28, 2009 - 07:51 ET by jessieHKennedy was a devout murderer.
No Surprise Here
August 28, 2009 - 07:57 ET by TexndocYou can Google "Amy Sullivan" "TIME" and "Sarah Palin" and get what you'd expect. Sigh. You see, Sarah Palin's religious beliefs are ..... a problem.
Conscience and Dissent
August 28, 2009 - 08:15 ET by KC MulvilleIn the next couple days, you'll hear several discussions of Kennedy's Catholicism, trying to reconcile his liberal political stands that oppose the church, helped along by sympathetic comments on his practice of his faith. You can safely dismiss any comments about the practice of his faith, because it's none of our business anyway. We Catholics are warned not to judge someone personally, as that belongs to God alone.
Instead, we need to counter any media suggestions that such a "good" Catholic like Kennedy should be respected for opposing the church's stands on morality. We're entitled to address that. So while they try to convince you that it's OK to oppose the church on moral matters, make sure you remember two things (this applies to Catholics):
Your conscience is not just your somewhat-educated speculations on theology. You don't have the right to pop off on birth control and call it conscience. On the contrary, you have (as a Catholic) an obligation to form your conscience according to the church's teaching. That's not the same as just believing whatever the church says, of merely being obedient. It's a dynamic, interactive process. And what's important in that process is that you, as an individual, aren't the driver of that process. The church has the authority in that process.
It's not the same thing as political freedom. For example, in this country you can vote however you want, and you don't owe anyone a justification for your vote. If you want to vote for Obama simply because he's black, it doesn't matter how stupid a reason that is, we still count your vote. You don't have to justify anything to anyone. However, in the Catholic church, that same freedom doesn't apply to moral judgments. You don't have the right to believe whatever you damned well please. You have an active obligation to build your conscience in accordance with the church. It doesn't mean to roll over, but it does mean that you must respect the church's authority.
In the next few days, you'll hear a lot of sympathetic Catholics try to praise Kennedy for his opposition to church stances on sex, abortion, etc. Conscience is a lot more complicated than what they'll portray.
Conscience is a lot more
August 28, 2009 - 09:39 ET by motherbeltConscience is a lot more complicated than what they'll portray.
Of course it is. And they never talk about the obligation to form a "right conscience." To them, conscience is what you "feel" is right. And of course, you are allowed to follow it.
Funny, they don't have the same idea about secular laws. Just take a look at anyone whose conscience tells him he shouldn't pay taxes!
Ah, ~~
August 28, 2009 - 10:10 ET by kilrod[" However, in the Catholic church, that same freedom doesn't apply to moral judgments. You don't have the right to believe whatever you damned well please. You have an active obligation to build your conscience in accordance with the church. It doesn't mean to roll over, but it does mean that you must respect the church's authority."] >(KC Mulville)
I agree with you and enjoyed your post.(i am not Catholic) I am assuming the Church's moral athority and teachings come from the moral athority and teachings of God. There-in lies the rub for liberals, humanist, reletavist, etc.. They refuse to accept any moral athority if it interferes with their on self centered personal desires and they don't want anyone shaming them, are saying they are wrong, are passing laws based on the moral athority of God( which is what our constitution and laws were founded on.) Thus the removal of prayer, legalized abortion, "gay rights", etc. etc.. The removal of Gods moral athority and replacing it with the "state" is the extreme danger of socialism/marxism/communism. And with 0=Dumb-uh, his thugs, the media, the liberals, the dimocraps, that is the war we are engaged in today. Will our country remain free, guided by Gods moral athority, are will we succumb to some form of socialism to be enslaved by the "state".
kilrod
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Authority
August 28, 2009 - 11:32 ET by KC MulvilleFor Catholics, the key is the apostles. Their authority came from the fact that Jesus personally taught them. As they fanned out after Jesus' death & resurrection, they would go to towns and establish Christian communities. When they left one town to go to another, they left behind people who were empowered to make judgments in the apostles' name. In some towns, the apostles appointed one person (called a bishop), and in other places, they left the authority to a committee (called the presbyters, from which we get priests). Eventually, they merged into the current form, where bishops supervise priests.
The point is that Jesus specifically and intentionally taught the apostles, so that they could teach others. If you want to decipher morality on your own, go right ahead. But if you call yourself Catholic, that means that when you want to know what Jesus would have taught, you start by asking the people whom Jesus deliberately trained in his teaching. (I mean, that was the whole point of teaching them.)
Now, if you're not Catholic, and you think that you can discover Jesus' teaching through the Bible by yourself, or if you're Muslim and you want to look in the Koran, or if you're an atheist and you want to follow your own opinion ... that's fine. But if you call yourself Catholic, you must follow the Church.
I certainly agree with you on the state: no matter where you find morality, it ain't in the state!
The Apostles
August 28, 2009 - 22:35 ET by kilrod[" For Catholics, the key is the apostles."]
Yep, i think the Apostles are the key to most if not all of Christianity, American Christianity anyway. I don't know a lot about Catholicism but i know some fine folks who are Catholics. A Church that makes a stand against abortion has my respect.
kilrod
If an unborn child cannot trust you, why should I,??
Anullment
August 28, 2009 - 09:34 ET by jaywlI think his phoney anullment of the marriage to Joan is the best
indicator of this man's devoutness. I always wondered what it cost the
family to get a long term marriage with three children anulled. A
church? Hospital wing? Whatever it was it must have been worth the cost
because without the anullment we could never have paid homage to his
embrace of the faith. This coward who couldn't bring himself to knock
on a door to rescue a young woman must have figured he needed a phoney
anullment to enable a "knock, knock on Heaven's Door" later in life
(along with the political benefits). His explanation that when he took
his wedding vows he knew at the time that he wouldn't be able to keep
his pecker in his pocket must have set off rounds of laughter at the
Vatican. When my wife mentioned Kennedy's wife yesterday I asked her:
"Which one? The one who never was or the one who shouldn't be?"
That annulment was one of my
August 28, 2009 - 09:42 ET by motherbeltThat annulment was one of my biggest disappointments in the Catholic Church.
10 Commandments???
August 28, 2009 - 09:51 ET by sawing battaAmy, did you forget about the 10 Commandments?
you know, that stuff about:
Killing, Adultry, using the Lord's name in vain, Dishonoring your parents...etc? Just because he got too old to break many of them anymore doesnt qualify him for being devout.
Time should have gone silent on his "deep faith" vs trying to revise history...it discredits their once great brand.
Luke 6:26 -
August 28, 2009 - 09:52 ET by gregfahey"Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."
That Bible book there seems
August 28, 2009 - 10:05 ET by dvdaughtryThat Bible book there seems to have an answer for everything.
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?
Silence From the Pope?
August 28, 2009 - 10:27 ET by slickwillie2001It seems that the Pope's silence on Kennedy's death is notable. I don't know the protocol for this but here's the article:
Silence From the Pope: http://news.yahoo.com
This little statement from
August 28, 2009 - 12:09 ET by celatorThis little statement from your link says it all:
"Here in Rome Ted Kennedy is nobody. He's a legend with his own constituency," says the Vatican official. "If he had influence in the past it was only with the Archdiocese of Boston and that eventually disappeared too."
This statement from a Vatican official is extremely revealing.
I read it as " We want nothing to do with this man."
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Amen! Obama's a Community
August 28, 2009 - 12:14 ET by bigtimerAmen!
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
The effort to create a law
August 28, 2009 - 12:40 ET by celatorThe effort to create a law allowing Obama to take all private computers off the internet is only one more step toward totalitarianism. The dictatorship is coming, and it will be the fight of our lives to maintain our freedoms.
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Whoops, meant to post this
August 28, 2009 - 12:42 ET by celatorWhoops, meant to post this in another place. Oh, well. ;+}
No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.
Another little priceless jewel from Ann Coulter...
August 28, 2009 - 11:20 ET by MightyMouthThe Lyin' of the Senate -
Some people see taxes and ask "Why?" I see things that have never been taxed and ask "Why not?"
- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
MM... Once again Ann's
August 28, 2009 - 12:15 ET by bigtimerMM...
Once again Ann's right on the $$$!
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
She had me going there. At
August 28, 2009 - 12:24 ET by MightyMouthShe had me going there. At first I thought it was a real quote sooo I googled the phrase and bingo! the top hits where KOS and DUmmies crying about how classless Ann is! All I could do was LMAO!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Real winners aren't
August 28, 2009 - 12:34 ET by bigtimerReal winners aren't they?
Talk about a bunch of loons.
...every so often I go to the other sites to see what the hell they are bitchin' about now...it's always something.
I have to admit, it is entertaining at times....especially late at night.
Obama's a Community Agitator, a walking, talking destroyer. ~ Rush Limbaugh
The unmitigated irony...
August 28, 2009 - 12:24 ET by lotrHad Ted's "pro-choice" political activism been prevalent prior to 1973, "Ted Kennedy" (not to mention younger Kennedy siblings, including his sister Eunice) would most likely never have existed.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
How so? The presence of
August 28, 2009 - 12:27 ET by balboaHow so? The presence of pro-choice activism does not mean suddenly that all democrat families would have terminated all their pregnancies.
nope
August 28, 2009 - 12:40 ET by lotrThe Kennedy's (Joe and Rose) had 9 children, the youngest of which was Edward. This is more than 4 times today's fertility rate (and probably 2-3 times the fertility rate of their era). In fact, such family sizes are almost unheard of today. You cannot tell me for one second that they would've achieved the same in today's era of "choice" (or, as I've worded it, if today's Democratic Party promulgation of the virtue of "choice" were prevalent during their era) -- therefore, it follows that "Ted Kennedy" would very likely never have come into being.
While I'm at it, let me go on to say that one of the major factors behind the Kennedy family "dynasty" was precisely the large size of Joe and Rose's family.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
That's not very good
August 28, 2009 - 17:41 ET by balboaThat's not very good reasoning. Abortion would exist, therefore, Ted would've been aborted.
it's impeccable reasoning
August 28, 2009 - 18:19 ET by lotr"Pro-choice" would've been advocated and encouraged, therefore Ted (and those siblings preceding him up to the mean American fertility rate of ~2) would not have come into being (whether it was by abortion or by contraception -- it matters not -- both are considered sins by the Church that he professed communion in). There simple would be no "Ted Kennedy" were it not for the pro-life dispositions of his parents. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
""Pro-choice" would've been
August 28, 2009 - 18:41 ET by balboa""Pro-choice" would've been advocated and encouraged"
Understood. That doesn't mean it would have been chosen.
"therefore Ted (and those siblings preceding him up to the mean American fertility rate of ~2) would not have come into being"
Lost me. Simply because something exists doesn't mean it would be used. There does exist in America, in this era of pro-choice, families with more than 2 children. I grew up with friends from families of 9 and 15 children, just as an example.
I grew up with friends
August 28, 2009 - 19:56 ET by lotrAnd these families had parents who actively promulgated, as a matter of party loyalty, the ideal of abortion-on-demand as a "fundamental human right"? It's possible, I suppose; but unlikely, which was my original verbage.
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
You're saying Ted Kennedy's
August 28, 2009 - 20:35 ET by balboaYou're saying Ted Kennedy's parents, in an era of choice, would suddenly have decided to "actively promulgated the ideal of abortion-on-demand as a 'fundamental human right'" as opposed to continuing to live their lives the way they were?
I think it simplistic to
August 28, 2009 - 18:48 ET by QueenMumI think it simplistic to say that Joe and Rose Kennedy had all those children because the era of pro-choice had not yet begun. I think it would be more accurate to say that they had all those children because they were good Catholics. And in there day, a large family was a way to insure that the family name was carried on. Not everyone who had large families in their day did so simply because they didn't have any choice.
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
I agree.
August 28, 2009 - 18:55 ET by balboaI agree.
I'm not saying that they
August 28, 2009 - 19:50 ET by lotrI'm not saying that they "had all those children because the era of pro-choice had not yet begun" -- I am sayting that they most certainly would NOT have had all those children HAD they lived in the era of pro-choice, an era that their YOUNGEST son had devote his post-1973 life to ushering in (and thus pointing out the irony).
It is a well-known fact that fertility rates around the world have drastically fallen since Joe and Rose Kennedy -- the mean in the US is ~2 (give or take a point). Are you honestly suggesting that this is due to "non-anthropogenic forcings"?
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
People also had many
August 28, 2009 - 20:42 ET by Radical1979People also had many children because so many used to die from diseases we now no longer die from (and that's without government health care). Mother's could give birth to 10 children only to have two survive to adulthood.
Abortionist
August 28, 2009 - 14:40 ET by rightwingchefA serious Catholic or any Christian for that matter, don't kill babies.
I'm Going Out On A Limb Here: Are You Guys Sponsored By Opus Dei
August 28, 2009 - 15:57 ET by The7SticksI'm going out on a limb here: Are you guys sponsored by Opus Dei or something? As a secular Jew myself, I can't really understand why those who subscribe to this partisanship of the Catholic faith is so bitter? I mean, why support a group like the Vatican that has in the past supported Nazism and Adolf Hitler? Just read Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell so you can understand why. We secular Jews have rather bitter feelings towards any organization who has, in the past, supported Nazism (unlike President Obama.) and that includes the Vatican, so why not just say, "To Hell with whatever the Vatican says, they love Nazis" or something? Try to break the American Catholic Church off from the Vatican and try to reform some of these dogmas? I don't know, it's just a thought to make you feel better.
trollish
August 28, 2009 - 17:14 ET by lotrOpus Dei -- you mean that sinister group of rosary-wielding albinos?
When commenting on the impact of Catholicism and Christianity on the world, you might want to expand your reading repertoire beyond Dan Brown, pal. All I see in your posting is a bunch of mythological accusations made by powers opposed to the Catholic-Christian faith.
Just read Pius XII and the Second World War by Pierre Blet and you'll realize that the Church was brilliant in effecting its opposition to the Nazi regime (which, BTW, also had its sights on Catholicism, which it saw as an "invention of the Jew").
"Let's wrap him up, alright?" -- Keith Olbermann
yawn
August 28, 2009 - 17:27 ET by candanceI mean, why support a group like the Vatican that has in the past supported Nazism and Adolf Hitler?
Darn that whole society of Germans - Catholic, Protestant, and atheist - who fell for Adolf Hitler. Sure he had some weird ideas and surrounded himself with criminals...but he was charismatic, and he promised hope and change!!
Just read Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII by John Cornwell so you can understand why.
There was a pope who did something wrong 60 years ago?? OMO! Smoking gun! Next you'll be telling us America is evil because Ronald Reagan was once in charge.
We secular Jews have rather bitter feelings towards any organization who has, in the past, supported Nazism (unlike President Obama.)
But you have no problem with a president who has anti-Semite friends like Rashid Khalidi. Having that (D) after your name makes all the difference, doesn't it?
Try to break the American Catholic Church off from the Vatican and try to reform some of these dogmas?
Libs know all about destroying old traditions, don't they?
Once again
August 28, 2009 - 17:43 ET by Kelly72Does Newsbusters have any limit on how many times the same pack of lies can be posted by the same person? Just wondering.
The hatred on display and the utter lack of any concern for truth is hard to fathom.
Once again, I respectfully suggest a diligent study of historical evidence.
Here are some quotes concerning the Pope and the Church during WWII:
Albert Einstein: "Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth."
Chief Rabbi of Rome, Israel Zolli: "What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts... Volumes could be written on the multiform works of Pius XII and the countless priests, religious and laity who stood with him throughout the world during the war."
Grand Rabbi of Jerusalem, Dr. Isaac Herzog (February 29, 1944): "The people of Israel will never forget what his Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundation of true civilization are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history. Which is living proof of divine Providence in this world."
Rabbi Safran of Bucharest, Romania, (April 7, 1944): "It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the Supreme Pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews... The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance."
Albert Einstein (December 1940 edition of Time): “Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then, I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they like the universities were silenced in a few short weeks... Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone had had the courage and intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I had once despised I now praise unreservedly.”
Golda Meir, Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, representative to the United Nations (first delegate to react to Pius XII’s death), later Prime Minister of Israel: “We share with the grief of the world over the death of his Holiness Pius XII. During a generation of wars and dissensions, he affirmed the high ideals of peace and compassion. During the ten years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims. The life of our time has been enriched by a voice which expressed the great moral truths above the tumults of daily conflicts. We grieve over the loss of a great defender of peace.”
Dr. Nahum Goldmann, President of the World’s Jewish Congress: “With special gratitude we remember all he has done for the persecuted Jews during one of the darkest periods in their entire history.”
Leonard Bernstein: Conducting in New York’s Carnegie Hall, he learned of Pius XII’s death and paid personal tribute to the Pontiff responsible for saving the lives of thousands of Jews by tapping his baton for a moment of silence.
Leo Kubitsky, Secretary-General of the world Jewish Congress presented a donation of two million liras (present value over a million dollars) on behalf of grateful Jews.
Richard Breitman, authorized by the United States Government to study World War II’s secret espionage documents, observed they proved the extent to which Hitler distrusted the Holy See because it hid Jews.
Dr. Joseph Nathan, who represented the Hebrew Commission: “Above all, we acknowledge the supreme Pontiff and the religious men and women who, executing the directives of the Holy Father, recognized as their brothers and with great abnegation, hastened to help them, disregarding the terrible dangers to which they were exposed.”
Pulitzer prize winner John Toland: “The Church under the Pope’s guidance...saved the lives of more Jews than all other churches, religious institutions, rescue organizations combined."
7sticks I haven't read the
August 28, 2009 - 20:47 ET by Radical19797sticks I haven't read the book you mention. Last year I was at a dinner with my husband's uncle, a WWII vet and the subject of the Catholic church during the war came out. Someone brought up acts by the church during the war that were pro Nazi. My uncle asked where he got his information and was answered "I've read several books about it..." My uncle said he was there and that was bull$%^&. He said there wasn't Catholic collaberation with the Nazi's.
Are you now embittered by the Scots?
How many times are you going
August 28, 2009 - 23:14 ET by dvdaughtryHow many times are you going to tell us you are a Secular Jew? Then enlighten us how that is not an oxymoron?
You trying to say Jesus Christ can't hit a curveball?