On his HBO show that aired over the last week, Bill Maher joked that last Friday, "President Bush spoke at a Catholic prayer breakfast, and you could tell this was a Catholic prayer breakfast because [Maher laughs] it was in the morning and he said 'I'm dying for a little joe' and they brought him an altar boy." The crowd laughed and applauded, and Maher said, "See, I'm not afraid!"
Aside from the fact there are craven bishops who still deserve this joke, isn't this show supposed to be "topical"? Isn't this a little like cracking jokes about that wacky Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle?
A week after we heard endless lectures about how hard-working ethical heroes like the Rutgers women in no way deserve the humor Don Imus dished out, can't we also suggest that hard-working ethical heroes like the nation's Catholic priests in no way deserve Maher's line of "ho" humor?
But for Maher, this isn't about humor. It's personal. It's about his hatred of religion, a hatred so raw that when he went on ABC's The View the other day with his usual rant that religion is "childish destructive nonsense," and Joy Behar lamely suggested maybe he shouldn't be harsh on old ladies who go to the church to light a candle, he replied, "They are certainly better than people who fly planes into buildings, yes. But they are enablers for some thing that is worldwide and winds up killing more people, distracting us from more good works."
As for good works, I can only suggest a new motto: "Annoy Bill Maher. Pray for him."
PS: At the end of this show, in a "New Rules" segment, Maher joked over a picture of Keith Richards, who joked he snorted his father's ashes with cocaine: "New rule. Snorting your father is not crazy. Eating your father, that's crazy." Maher showed a picture of a priest offering a woman the Holy Eucharist. Earth to Maher: Catholics teach the Eucharist is the body of Christ -- the son -- not the Father.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Time to start a national camp
April 20, 2007 - 19:41 ET by ex buff e-dubTime to start a national campaign to get Mr. Maher pulled from the air. If he really is unafraid, let's see him make disparaging comments about Islam and Mohammed. If Imus can get canned for his comments, then something this egregious most certainly qualifies.
I canceled my subscription
April 20, 2007 - 19:43 ET by Free StinkerI canceled my subscription to HBO because of that Jack@$$
Bill Maher
April 20, 2007 - 19:53 ET by shawn228I realize you want to make a statement but missing the last season of the Sopranos is a big price to pay, when you can just change the channel. Umm i guess I should ask, do you watch the Soprano's?
Vince
April 20, 2007 - 19:56 ET by Free StinkerThe only thing I'm missing is the last season of Entourage. (EDIT: And Big Love)
As if it won't be on Bravo or A&E next year ;-)
Besides which you can buy the
April 20, 2007 - 19:58 ET byBesides which you can buy the whole season at Frys (with a little patience)
I had HBO for 20 years, the
April 20, 2007 - 21:01 ET by Night WatchmanI had HBO for 20 years, then the cable company said I had to get this
monster box under my TV for an additional $120 a year. All it did was
enable me to get HBO and pay per view, so I fired them. I rent the
Sopranos from NetFlix. HBO and Maher are pretty much bullet proof with
no sponsors. I'm a big South Park fan and can't help but notice that
"Girls Gone Wild" is their only sponsor. When will the people at GGW be
offend enough to yank their ads?
Okay, Free....Get out your gu
April 20, 2007 - 20:09 ET by BlondeOkay, Free....
Get out your gun. Shoot me if you dare.
I watch both the Sopranos, and Entourage (and, of course, as we all know here, Nip/Tuck).
Fortunately, I get free HBO on my non-box cable (not that the cable company knows about it...but I've not pirated it, so if they are too stupid to pipe it in w/o the cable box...oh well).
And I would be bothered that
April 20, 2007 - 20:12 ET by Free StinkerAnd I would be bothered that anyone else still has HBO because . . . ?
:-/
Free,You should only be bothe
April 20, 2007 - 20:15 ET by BlondeFree,
You should only be bothered if someone bothered to pay for it!
Since the cable company streams it for free....hmmmm....I watch it occasionally.
Having to pay for it would be a horse of an entirely different color, however.
:D
P.S. Who is going to get whacked on the Sopranos this year?
My vote is Christopher.
The only NJ based show that
April 20, 2007 - 20:23 ET by Free StinkerThe only NJ based show that I watched was That's Life
Chg the channel
April 20, 2007 - 20:09 ET by shawn228I know Free Stinker, but this is one of the main things I disagree with the publisher of this site. If you don't like whats on. Just change the channel. No reason to drop a great Cable channel because of someone you don't like. Ever since the whole Janet Jackson thing, people are scared to put things on TV that are a considered indecent. This takes away from more choices on TV
The left is no better. They have definately shown their hypocricy with the whole Imus thing.
It's only TV.
April 20, 2007 - 20:13 ET by Free StinkerNo reason to drop a great Cable channel because of someone you don't like
Actually, there was a great reason. I don't want to help pay that Jack@$$'s salary.
It's only TV.
TV is my biggest Vice
April 20, 2007 - 20:22 ET by shawn228I take my TV very seriously. TV and internet are my drugs of choice. DVR is the best present I ever had. Not easy to watch all my favorite showsl, being a father and all.
Isn't Rosie O'Donnels propaga
April 20, 2007 - 20:24 ET by ahusserIsn't Rosie O'Donnels propaganda piece for gay and lesbian parents cruise on HBO? Who really owns that Cable network. I vote with my remote finger.
He is very afraid and he will
April 20, 2007 - 20:15 ET by Trix RabbitHe is very afraid and he will never make any disparaging remarks about Islam because it's as I've said before, he does not have the testicular fortitude.
Liberal: a power worshipper without power. George Orwell
Catholic-bashing doesn't ha
April 20, 2007 - 19:43 ET by motherbeltCatholic-bashing doesn't have to be "topical". It's always open season on Catholics, and good for a laugh. hahahaha
The number of abusive priests has been estimated at about 4% of the total number of priests. With an estimated 10% of Muslims believing in violent jihad, we are cautioned not to tar all Muslims with the militant brush. But apparently 4 % of priests is a majority, a large enough number to impugn them all.
Maher obviously hates religion, and Catholics especially. And I'm sorry, I'm just not a good enough Catholic to pray for him right now.
I honestly haven't figured ou
April 20, 2007 - 20:27 ET by ahusserI honestly haven't figured out why any Christian (especially catholics) would ever vote Democratic. Jews for that matter either. The way the left continuously bashes them.
I can't either. I think it
April 20, 2007 - 21:17 ET by motherbeltI can't either. I think it has to do with the fact that the Democrats usually favor social programs, which Catholics see as a form of "charity." You would think that the Democrat support of abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc. would turn off Catholics, but old habits die hard.
Did you hear the Pope blast
April 20, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Night WatchmanDid you hear the Pope blast the Iraq war?
He's a refined Bill Maher when it comes to the war.
Did you hear the Pope blast
April 20, 2007 - 21:35 ET by Free StinkerDid you hear the Pope blast the Iraq war?
Nope. Wasn't paying any attention.
NW - You remind me of someone . . .
FSI'm the guy who sits here
April 20, 2007 - 21:57 ET by Night WatchmanFS
I'm the guy who sits here till midnight, playing on the computer, and
calls 911 if the alarm goes off. Then I run like hell. I actually do a
mock drill once a month, I get tired thinking about it. I just found
this site, forgive me if I get mud on the carpet. I'm all over the map
on my views and flip flop like a trout on dock.
An accute case of Liberalism
April 20, 2007 - 22:46 ET by Free Stinkerflip flop like a trout on dock.
Ah, yes. An accute case of Liberalism. All you Libs sound alike.
Please read P.J. O'Rourke's book Eat the Rich, and take a statistics class. That might help.
don't exaggerate
April 20, 2007 - 22:05 ET by tumbler_2007The Pope wasn't blasting anything. He spoke out for peace. It wouldn't matter, really, if he HAD; but he doesn't have to do that. Please DON'T refer to the Pope as Bill Maher in any way, shape or form. Refer to me as Bill Maher if you like. Please respect the Pope.
Pope Benedict XVI says:
April 20, 2007 - 22:22 ET by Night WatchmanPope Benedict XVI says:
".......nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees."
Bill Maher would agree.
President Bush should tell them both how the surge is working.
Me either ahusser.
April 20, 2007 - 22:49 ET by bigtimerMe either ahusser.
How do you which are the 4%
April 20, 2007 - 21:30 ET by Night WatchmanHow do you know which are the 4%, and how do you keep them away from your kids?
How do you know which guys
April 20, 2007 - 21:56 ET by motherbeltOh, I see, because 4% of priests abused kids, they are all suspect? How do you know which guys at the gym are gay, and how do you keep them from making a pass at you?? Do you just assume they are all gay, and stay away from men altogether?
motherbelt,My YMCA is like
April 20, 2007 - 22:07 ET by Night Watchmanmotherbelt,
My YMCA is like a private club, 95% of the time I'm alone in the locker
room, the other 5% of the time no one ever hit on me. I do have to
fight off the ladies, very girl's crazy about a well built guy. And how
did you know I work out?
night watchman
April 20, 2007 - 22:34 ET by misterbillI know who you are and the reason the locker room in the Y is empty 95% of the time is because the rest of us pass the word that you are in there!
HA! Motherbelt, Get him !
April 20, 2007 - 22:47 ET by tumbler_2007Here is a hunk who holds a job as a night watchman. Of course he's so handsome he stops traffic in an empty YMCA. To hear him tell it, hahaha!
Over HERE, Girls ! He's in the Y !
Y...M...C...A...The Village P
April 20, 2007 - 22:52 ET by bigtimerY...M...C...A...
The Village People?
LOL!
tumbler,your may be a watch
April 21, 2007 - 01:45 ET by MightyMouthtumbler,you may be a watchman and defender of kids, but there is no way you are Handsome, at your age! :=)
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
strange characteristic
April 21, 2007 - 11:20 ET by tumbler_2007About the handsome or attractive man. He is praised all the time by others. He won't venture any opinion. Yes, youth has its advantages.
When is the Catholic communit
April 21, 2007 - 00:23 ET by TRHWhen is the Catholic community going to stand up and defend itself? The priests involved in abuse are not pedophiles, they are gay. The overwhelming number of victims were teenage boys. It is easy for the media and comedians to bash priests as pedophiles. Nobody defends a pedophile. It is another to bash them for being gay. There would be a backlash.
One small problem
April 21, 2007 - 00:45 ET by Cool ArrowOne small problem: Homosexual acts are also a breach of chastity vows.
The Catholic community instead should stand up and demand priests the right to marry.
I guarantee you Mrs. Priest wouldn't allow Mr. Priest to spend so much time alone with little boys. It's one of those things he couldn't hide from a woman very easily. Not one with whom he's intimate
Celibacy is an open invitation to perverts seeking an avenue to cure their disgusting predilictions.
Here's how it goes down:
No, they're stuck with being waht they are.
nonsense, riled
April 21, 2007 - 12:05 ET by tumbler_2007First things first:
"Catholic community instead should stand up and demand priests the right to marry.
I guarantee you Mrs. Priest wouldn't allow Mr. Priest to spend so much time alone with little boys. It's one of those things he couldn't hide from a woman very easily. Not one with whom he's intimate." ......................................................................REPLY: The Catholic Church has never denied anyone the right to marry. However, only a single man or widowed can be ordained a priest. Deacons can be married.
If an ordained priest wants to marry he has the right to apply for laicification (proper term ?) JESUS CHRIST IS CELIBATE, and a priest vows to act in Persona Cristi, not in Persona Hubby or Daddy.
PLUS, the flock has no authority to "demand" anything from its shepherds. A community of God is a hierarchical communion with all authority coming from ABOVE. Almighty God >>>Vicar of Christ Popes)>>> Prelates (bishop >>> Presbyter (priest) >>>> and ME + YOU, who are authorized to worship, pray and love one another; not demand. If there comes a controversy, it's passed upwards to an authorized minister (bishop).
Bishops have messed up badly. Their penalty is from above. If the popes fail in policing them adequately, God will demand an account in due time. They also pass from this life and immediately come before Our King and Judge. Many may be found derelict in their duty. Many will be made saints in His kingdom. As we sow, we shall all reap. The flock as well as its shepherds.
You proclaim, as if you are the authority:
"Celibacy is an open invitation to perverts seeking an avenue to cure their disgusting predilictions." NOT SO. God calls priests, They don't choose God. When a pervert infiltrates, it's like in the great parable of the wheat & the thistles; "An enemy hath done this." ( Matt, 13 :27-28 ) We must be watchful, not judgmental. And if the Church prays, God protects his people. The faaithful never PRAY as much as they could. Do penance, give alms to the poor, have an effect ! PRAY !
--You go on: "Here's how it goes down:
Young man feels attraction to young boys
Young man knows this is a Mortal Sin
Young man believes solemn vow of Chastity will stop his urges.
Young man becomes a Priest.
Young man finds more men who joined for the same reason.
Young man becomes old pedophile enabled by a corrupt system bent on holding on to its earthly treasure."
Yes, it may occasionally happen that way. A faithful seminary can weed out the evil ones. You may not see it, but many thousands or young men are turned away, it's not an open door for bad boys. During the history of our Church, many abuses go unreported, we're all sinners ! There have been hundreds of bishops too worldly and afraid of consequences to kick out a sinner priest. That is a grave sin ! But it doesn't mean "the system is corrupt." For every faulty individual, the Church has produced a thousand saintly, devout ones. A "corrupt" system, or hierarchy could never result in saints like Mother Theresa, Padre Pio, St Maxillian Kolbe, and hundreds of thousands more heroic souls.
You have to remember this lifetime is a PILGRIMAGE. Many good souls lag far behind. But just as many and MORE, reach salvation and it's by way of CHRIST'S HOLY CHURCH that they achieve that. Not by luck, Riled One.
Are you serious?
April 21, 2007 - 14:25 ET by Cool ArrowInteresting Paul refers to forced celibacy and forced abstinence from meat as "Doctrines of devils" Evidently the Church is more learned and closer to God than Paul was.
1Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
How many people were damned to hell because they had the unconfessed Mortal Sin of eating meat on Friday on their soul?
How many Godly men were called to the Priesthood but feared they could not live up to man's law of celibacy.
Include in that small percentage of pedophiles the silent enabling heirarchy and peers who participated in the shell game of "hide the pedophiles" (see also "millstone around their neck."
You may not think it is your business to judge idolatry and abomination among Church leaders, but I'll take Scripture rather than Canonical doctrine, thank you.
Scripture rather than Canonical doctrine,
April 21, 2007 - 14:51 ET by tumbler_2007Riled, do what you please:
But find us the text where Jesus says: "Blessed are Bible scholars who shall supercede my apostles." I figure you must've read that in your Bible.
Or, find Jesus saying in the Bible, "I shall build my Church, but the Bible shall keep her OUT of my peoples' lives." I need that verse, so I can tell the Pope to shove it.
Next, look up a verse, Matt, 18 :17, "If he refuses to hear them, apppeal to the Church. But if he refuse to hear even the Church let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen, I say to you (His Church) --whatever YOU bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven." Bind or loose is referring to authority. He gives the Church His own authority to command us.
This authority serves to tell me, if we abstain (voluntarily, not "forced" as Christ's Church) from eating meat during Lent, it's because we are not allowed to disobey Christ and his Church. Celibacy is not "man's" law; but the DISCIPLINE approved for priests by Christ's Holy Church. We call it "self-denial."
Doctrines of devils means your insistence on "reforming" what Jesus gave the world; HIS Church. It's the heighth of pride and arrogance to assume authority from nowhere to CHANGE what the Son of God instituted. You are simply in rebellion against His Holy Word, Riled. (Now- find the verses I'm requesting above. Please.
Luke 4:38Jesus heals Peter's
April 21, 2007 - 15:21 ET byLuke 4:38
Jesus heals Peter's wife's mother, Peter (the 1st pope?) was married
Gal 2:11
Paul withstood Peter (the 1st pope?) to his face "because he was to be blamed"
In Acts the apostles choose another to replace Ischariot but God chooses Paul
absolutely not, botg
April 21, 2007 - 17:00 ET by tumbler_2007Peter had a wife. But he left everything behind to follow and serve Our Lord. Or do you think he needed anything more?
Paul did rebuke Peter; we know Paul is Christ's apostle. Nevertheless, Jesus appointed Peter the Shepherd over all His lambs. That included the others, "Simon, Simon; behold Satan has desired to have you; that he may sift you (the Church) like wheat. But I have prayed for THEE (Simon Peter) that thy faith may not fail; and do thou when once thou hast turned again (after the 3 denials) > > >
Strengthen thy brethren." (Luke, 22 :31-32) --Only Peter was to called specifically by Jesus to strengthen the Church.
Paul was not a Pope. He wasn't given primacy, but Paul was called to another great mission. We celebrate the same day, Sts Peter and Paul, as one feast, to acknowledge the two greatest saints in the Church.
The point being that Paul did
April 21, 2007 - 17:18 ET byThe point being that Paul did not contact those in Jerusalem for at least fourteen years plenty of time for Peter to be strenghtened after his 3 denials. Paul did not ascribe to the infallibility doctrine. Also if Peter was married why not all the popes? The apostles choosing a 12th while God appoints a different should be amply reason to wonder if Our Lord intends to have centralized universal authority until His return. He has promised His church another Comforter who will teach you all things. Where did Our Lord say "I will have you to elect a man to oversee"? (BTW catholic means universal thus the catholic church in its true interpretation would be the saints)
you're off on a tangent
April 21, 2007 - 18:25 ET by tumbler_2007"Paul did not contact those in Jerusalem for at least fourteen years plenty of time for Peter to be strenghtened after his 3 denials." Reply: You're confused. Go back and read what I quoted, Peter confirms the brethren, by Christ's authority. Jesus PRAYED for Peter, so his faith would not fail, and it didn't.
"Paul did not ascribe to the infallibility doctrine." Yes he did; in Galatians 1 Paul clearly pronounces anathema any gospel which controverts the one HE (in the Church) has preached, even if you hear it from an angel of light! THAT'S INFALLIBILITY ! He speaks for the Catholic Church.
" Also if Peter was married why not all the popes?" Reply: If the conditions for ordination were changed by the Pope, all priests COULD. He has the authority. But he hasn't; we do NOT require married priests. --That is what YOU want, not God. God asks for priests in the image of His SON, a celibate, holy man who serves the Lord. Jesus has never had a wife.
"The apostles choosing a 12th while God appoints a different should be amply reason to wonder -- Reply Again, you're confused. God allowed the apostles to select a substitute for Judas. His name was Thaddeus, or JUDE. You'd better go back and correct your distorted interpretation of this scripture, God did NOT "appoint" Paul to replace Judas. Jesus simply called Paul as one besides the original twelve. Don't invent or calculate what God should be doing; it's not yours to judge. God spoke to Ananaias, (Acts 9, :15) saying Saul (Paul afterwards) was a CHOSEN VESSEL; He said nothing whatever about Judas or the original twelve. Note his name was changed as well, same as Christ changed the name of Simon Bar Jonah to Peter, Rock.
A name change for the people of God signified God's power and authority imparted to His servant, with subsequently greater responsibility and rank.
"He has promised His Church another Comforter who will teach you all things." Reply: Yes, the comforter or Advocate is God the Holy Spirit. He descended on the CHURCH --His apostles and disciples (including MARY) on Pentecost, 33 A.D. It's in the Bible. See Acts 2, Chapter 2, :1 to :4
Christ still said in John 17 :17, [Father] "Sanctify them in the truth. Thy word is truth. Even as thou hast sent me into the world, so I also have sent THEM --" He sent his CHURCH. --YOU are disputing with her, a mere human being without any authority, botg !
A man oversees because Jesus ordained it so. Why are you disputing Jesus ? The Church is Catholic and you and mere men have changed it to some scattered 28,000 disparate little sects. These were never ordained or equipt by Jesus for such a monumental task. None of them received the fulness of His Spirit. But you HAVE it for the asking in the Catholic Church. --Nobody's taken it away from you, you rejected it. It's called throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
-- Where did Our Lord say "I will have you to elect a man to oversee"? Reply: In Matt 16 :18 & on: I say to thee, thou art Peter (changed of name from Simon to Cephas, Rock) --upon this rock (His apostle Peter) I will build my Church." Not Peter's confession of faith, Peter the MAN. He stated He would give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If that hasn't convinced you,
What MORE do you require in order to to believe ? He gave Peter charge over his Church. And you call yourselves "believers"-- O ye of little faith ! You dispute the words of Jesus Christ for the false preaching of men. It's tragic or it would be laughable.
Paul did not ascribe to the i
April 21, 2007 - 20:34 ET byPaul did not ascribe to the infallibility doctrine." Yes he did; in Galatians 1 Paul clearly pronounces anathema
Are you saying Paul was infallible, i thought it was only the popes and you said Paul was not a pope
we do NOT require married priests. --That is what YOU want,
You don't allow married priests, as for me i don't care one way or the other but the doctrine is of men as you say the pope could change it if he wanted
Jesus simply called Paul as one besides the original twelve. Don't invent or calculate what God should be doing; it's not yours to judge
I don't invent, Paul called himself an apostle and Revelation tells us there are Twelve
He sent his CHURCH. --YOU are disputing with her, a mere human being without any authority, botg !
We (the believers) are the church, the saints. In another post you called Mary the church here you say her.
Why are you disputing Jesus ? The Church is Catholic
I have been telling you the Scripture what Jesus said not disputing Him. You are the one who must reconcile what you say with the Word. And yes the church is universal.
I say to thee, thou art Peter (changed of name from Simon to Cephas, Rock) --upon this rock (His apostle Peter) I will build my Church."
"Thou art Cephas, upon this Petros I will build my church" My Lord ever good and wise knew to use two different words here to avoid the confusion you seem to have.
You dispute the words of Jesus Christ for the false preaching of men. It's tragic or it would be laughable.
I have brought His words in context you seem to think they are to be used for special pleading to backup doctrines which men have brought which contradict the Word.
Tumb does not start at the start
April 21, 2007 - 21:14 ET by Cool ArrowJesus starts the conversation with:
Jesus: Peter, who do you say I am.
Peter: You are the Messiah, the son of the Living God.
Jesus: Not man, But My Father has revealed this to you. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock (the statement You are the Messiah is the Rock upon which the church is built)
Catholics erroneously claim Peter as the Rock in order to claim ownership of Christianity.
Jesus does not say "The gates of hell shall not prevail against you, Peter".
then the correct exegesis wou
April 21, 2007 - 21:29 ET bythen the correct exegesis would be the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (The church founded on true knowledge of Christ------as expressed by Cephas)
Not too hard to understand is it?
April 21, 2007 - 22:36 ET by Cool ArrowThat's my take on it.
Beware those who refuse you the right to a literal understanding of Scripture.
Peter had a wife. But he left
April 21, 2007 - 17:20 ET byPeter had a wife. But he left everything behind to follow and serve Our Lord
Are you implying that Peter abandoned his wife?!!
Nonsense
April 21, 2007 - 17:32 ET by Cool ArrowPeter was never appointed pope. He also is not the figure of infallibility the papacy has evolved into.
You are being disengenuous.
April 21, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Cool ArrowYou are trying to tell me that a man who has a desire to become a priest is not required to take on the yoke of celibacy to do so?
Please explain how man's law is not restricting God's law.
God never said a Priest should not be married. In fact, you might note the New Testament gives requirements for all sorts of church offices, but never mentions popes or priests.
I have an advocate with The Father. He is Jesus Christ. No other man in the middle is necessary. I thank God I'm no longer living under the bondage of Catholicism.
Read this and decide whether your church or the Gospel of Matthew is lying:
Matt 1:24
24Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
25And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
There's your tradition calling itself greater than Scripture again.
Tumbler, having problems?
April 21, 2007 - 17:49 ET by Cool ArrowWhy aren't you explaining to me how "Blessed Mary ever virgin" can exist when the Scripture denies it?
Matt 1:24&25
Struggling with it aren't you?
struggling with what ?
April 21, 2007 - 18:40 ET by tumbler_2007"Why aren't you explaining to me how "Blessed Mary ever virgin" can exist when the Scripture denies it?" Reply: --Show where the scripture denies she is His mother? Or that she isn't a virgin ? --Matt 1 :24 & 25 doesn't say Mary has stopped being a virgin.
It has no bearing on her virginity. She bore a son as VIRGIN and remains one. Joseph married her, but not to give her children; only to serve God. He never had relations with anybody; Joseph lived a chaste man and husband. God gives saints GRACE for the impossible, Riled.
Mary bore her firstborn son. That is no cause to conclude more came after Him. Because we KNOW there weren't any. (This is no struggle. You don't know your scripture, that's all.)
MT 12:47 Mk 6:3 speak of Ou
April 21, 2007 - 18:59 ET byMT 12:47 Mk 6:3 speak of Our Lords brothers and sisters
not to worry, botg
April 21, 2007 - 19:36 ET by tumbler_2007Mary had NO other children after Jesus. Those called brothers are "family"-- the brethren related to Mary either in her immediate family, or to Joseph, who also didn't have children after Jesus. Tradition says he may have been a widower. His offspring (if any) would not have been Christs' siblings but rather His cousins.
We know this, on account of a particular FACT.
At His crucifixion before dying, Jesus entrusted his holy mother to the apostle John; "Son, behold thy mother," and "Mother, behold thy son (John)." From that day she went to live in the house of the apostle. Mary went with a man who was not her kinsman. --WHY ? Jesus knew she had no other sons or daughters.
If Mary were also mother to Jesus' --"brothers and sisters" -- He can't have sent her elsewhere to live after His departure. Mary would have been absolutely given to her own sons or daughters. Otherwise, the Israelite community would have been scandalized.
Mary was all alone. Jesus knew this and He gave her to John for safekeeping. In this wonderful act of love and reverence for His mother, Jesus is seen giving Mary to all of His faithful; therefore we ALL receive her as Our Blessed Mother. As she belonged to John after Jesus, she was to belong forever to the Church. TO US, and that means YOU as well, botg. If you truly love Jesus, Mary is your Blessed Mother forever.
True Jesus did entrust his mo
April 21, 2007 - 19:50 ET byTrue Jesus did entrust his mother to John. The rest is conjecture and the Scripture is clear on His brothers and sisters. Changing the meaning of the words is not an apologia. (Usually the answer from the KofC would be brothers and sisters is meant spiritually or followers) Either way a 'just-so' story doesn't provide proof of an assertion and you are the one making the assertion that the Scripture (Holy Spirit) does not speak plainly.
As to Mary, what an amazing women, to be chosen of God to be the bearer of Our Lord.
Ps. a word for you from Mary&
April 21, 2007 - 19:53 ET byPs. a word for you from Mary
"Whatever he (Jesus) says to you do" Jn2:5
She does know where to direct us after all.
botg - Thank you
April 21, 2007 - 20:06 ET by Free Stinkerbotg - Thank you. I was foaming at the mouth when I read bumbler's post, but you took care of it. :-)
Tumbler I did show you
April 21, 2007 - 21:05 ET by Cool ArrowRemember where I asked you to explain
Matt 1:24&25
That's where it states Joseph knew her not till Jesus was born.
Let me explain to those who feign ignorance in the face of Scriptural fact:
Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born. This passage is more than mere suggestion.
Granted you can stall till tomorrow when you can ask the priest how you are supposed to understand this passage, but I was hoping for something more than a canned response from you.
David Koresh and Jim Jones told their congregations how to understand Scripture. Those sheep followed blindly also.
Acts 17:11Now these Jews were
April 21, 2007 - 15:04 ET by Cool ArrowActs 17:11
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessaloni'ca, for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
You are commanded to test doctrine against Scripture to see if it's true. Yes you may choose to do the opposite, but there is no such license in scripture.
The "Rock" upon which Jesus built his church are these words:
you're failing to interpret
April 21, 2007 - 15:26 ET by tumbler_2007The Thessalonican only had written scripture coming from Moses & the prophets. Our Bible wasn't in existence until many years later. What's more, the Holy Bible was certified by the authority of the Holy Spirit who is the Church's Advocate promised by Christ. Every canonically genuine text came from the saints whom He inspired; IN the Catholic Church. Without them we wouldn't read anything but the Old Testament, like they did at Thessalonica. You aren't authorized to intepret privately but in communion with Christ's saints & apostles. Your gospel is described by Paul in Galatians 1, :6 to :9 . . . "Anathema."
not so sure about your versio
April 21, 2007 - 15:37 ET bynot so sure about your version of the Jerusalem Bible but mine has two letters from Paul to Thessalonica
You curse yourself
April 21, 2007 - 15:44 ET by Cool ArrowBy definition, Paul says any gospel that is made up after that which the apostles preached is accursed.
Your observance of days, Your devotion to Mary, Your doctrine of infallibility, all evolved after the passing of the apostles.
You are using the very Scripture that indicts you to condemn me.
observances and authority
April 21, 2007 - 17:21 ET by tumbler_2007Maybe you never read it, but at the end Matthew's gospel, Chapter 28 :19 &20
Jesus told His aposltles and disciples: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. --teaching them to observe ALL that I have commanded you, and behold I am with you all days even unto the consummation of the word."
Two points to ponder:
The apostles were not ordered to give commands in writing; and He said they should teach ALL he had commanded them to observe.
That includes infallibility (in the Holy Spirit's guidance) devotion to His holy mother and His saints, observing holy days, and just about every aspect of our faith. JESUS authorizes it all in that verse as well as Matt: 16, :19 "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," Whatsoever is taught in and by his Church is done with His authority. No authority was allowed self-ordained protestants or Bible Christians. Nor has Jesus ever prophesied his Church was to be "reformed" by men. That would be absurd, judged by the scripture which says "I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world." Galatians 1 is a direct anathema of false ministers who think they're "reformed" Christians.
Furthermore, Riled One; nobody has "condemned" you or any other Bible Chrisitan. I only tell you the truth; and it's to help you, not condemn you. Jesus loves us all. But He founded only ONE CHURCH, My Friend.
Read up
April 21, 2007 - 17:40 ET by Cool ArrowYou really need to investigate the contemporary nature of the doctrine of infallibility. It wasn't proclaimed until somewhere around 1880 when the Church incidentally proclaimed one of its greatest heresies. (Immaculate Conception)
You're telling me there was this doctrine of perfection that existed for almost 1900 years that the church was not aware of? And that the church discovered after that same Period this new revelation about Mary?
Wake up.
Nonsense, Riled One
April 21, 2007 - 19:17 ET by tumbler_2007Infallibility is revealed from the start. Many verses in scripture attest. You're confusing the DOGMA with the doctrine.
Dogmatic pronouncement makes a belief mandatory under penalty of sin. It's necessary in many instances because a doubt arises; about teachings going back to the beginning, questioning if they're absolute truth or not. The Church must take on whatever divides her faithful, making the "judgment call." It's definitive after "Peter and the Holy Spirit" have spoken. It removes all doubt, because the Holy Spirit is never able to deceive or be deceived. The Pope is infallible in faith and morals. His word is infallible because ex cathedra he is sustained in the truth by God the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of infallibility of the popes was always extant from the days of the apostles. In modern times the need to certify its truth led to that proclamation. But nothing new was invented. You don't have to invent anything Jesus Christ taught us. His words will never pass away. Same with the Immaculate Conception. Far from being a heresy or false; this was clarified by the Pope because men had challenged her sinless soul, imparted by God to Mary by a special grace. This was and is today, chalenged by people like just like you (incidentally sinners.) In making the doctrine DOGMA, it put the matter to rest for faithful Catholics.
For others, we can pray. They have nothing they can call Vicar on earth who can settle questions of faith or morals. They try by themselves and it results in fractured sects, each one going its own way, the blind leading the blind. If the Bible could settle everything, they'd be united as one fellowship. But the Bible stumps everybody who has no Holy Spirit. Thus the confusion and lack of unity.
Why do you think denominations now number in the tens of thousands, all claiming to teach the truth? All doing their own thing, oblivious of God's Will ? They have no apostle to correct them. No PETER !
Then the council of Nicea was
April 21, 2007 - 19:26 ET byThen the council of Nicea was the first of the false teachings since the pope did not attend.
Seeing that you have cleaned your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit to unfeigned love of the bretheren love one another with a pure heart being born again, not of corruptable seed but of incorruptable, by THE WORD OF GOD which lives and abides forever. Peter(the 1st pope?)
1st Peter 1:22,23
tumb
April 21, 2007 - 19:31 ET byps. you have i think five other points i've made still left unanswered
scripture talks of Jesus' brothers and sisters
Paul withstood 'the infallible one'?
why don't popes follow Peters example and have wives
catholic means universal and the church is the believers not a building or institution
the apostles elected but God chose differently
so add to the list is the cou
April 21, 2007 - 20:10 ET byso add to the list
is the council of Nicea valid? if so how is it God works the major statement of faith for the church without the pope who you say is God's arbitar and vicar?
How is it Peter tells us to follow the word of God to be born again?
How is it you say Thessolonica had no New Testament writings when 2 Epistles were addressed to them?
Again you're not being truthful
April 21, 2007 - 17:53 ET by Cool ArrowYou use Scripture to refer to my Gospel as "anathema" when it in fact refers to "added thought" after the consolidation of Scripture.
My Gospel?
April 21, 2007 - 15:35 ET by Cool ArrowThe Gospel "Good News" I follow does not create mortal sins just to keep fishermen happy.
My Gospel doesn't seek constantly to heap power on its leaders rather than Christ. It does not require the observance of feasts upon pain of Mortal sin as yours does. In fact, my Gospel commands against it. But again, the church that promoted the segregation of the "perfidious Jew" into ghettos (the Germans just picked up where the pope left off) is the same Church that claims infallibility in matters Jesus indicated strongly against.
Ex Cathedra has been invoked twice. Name them.
(the Germans just picked up w
April 21, 2007 - 21:32 ET by dahliatravers(the Germans just picked up where the pope left off)
Can't let that pass, Riled. While the Vatican has bordered on anti-Semitic in some of its statements, there is a world of difference between segregating a group of people and murdering them.
Why not
April 21, 2007 - 21:50 ET by Cool ArrowPerhaps you should research it. You are being much too kind when you say the Vatican has bordered on anti-Semitic in some of its statements.
I guess condoning the kidnaping of Jewish children for purposes of making Christians of them is OK and not anti-semitic, but if I were a Jew, I'd probably call it something more than "bordering on anti semitism"
And, yes, the first Jewish ghettos were sponsored by the Vatican to deny Jews the right to conduct business.
Through the Vatican, Europe understood the concept of "ghetto" and "perfidious Jew" long before Nazism.
I stand by it.
I stipulate all of your chara
April 21, 2007 - 21:57 ET by dahliatraversI stipulate all of your characterizations of the Vatican's statements.
But are you saying that the Vatican sponsored the ghettos deliberately and knowingly as a prelude to mass murder?
Are you comfortable with this analogy?
April 21, 2007 - 22:10 ET by Cool ArrowWill you stipulate that a Supreme court ruling denying the humanity of fetuses is not a prelude to mass murder?
dear dahliatravers
April 22, 2007 - 01:09 ET by tumbler_2007Ironically, Riled wanted to see me "struggling" against his/her impudence and blindness. They always flatter themselves, Pharisees. -- Recall when one good man said, "Let's leave Jesus alone; He might be a holy man," -- But the Pharisees answered him: "Are you too a Galilean? Search the scriptures and see, out of Galilee comes no prophet!" Instead of the scripture revealing the truth to them; all it did was make them even prouder and above correction.
Just pray for these souls.
A coalition, Tumbler
April 22, 2007 - 17:55 ET by Cool ArrowTumbler, now, rather than explain how Scripture can state Joseph and Mary had sex after Jesus was born, Rather even than refute my above claim that Antisemitism was promoted by the Vatican. (Pius XII was so pius in fact that he sold 53% of Germany over to Hitler in exchange for a foolish title)
Rather than debate, you call Dahlia aside and try to build a coalition ? I would have thought you'd come back from church this morning with a complete arsenal of pretzellian treatise explaining away the awful simplicity of the Bible. Surely you invited Father Bother over for Sunday dinner and drinks just to pick his brain?
Try reading Scripture literally and you might understand how many of these practices you follow from rote are comdemned by The Savior.
What are you talking about?
April 21, 2007 - 15:25 ET by Cool ArrowI don't find the word "Bible" anywhere in Scripture. And I seriously doubt either of the quotes you mention are in Scripture.
Matt 18:17 does not address a Church which refuses to deal honestly with its followers. The Church chose to protect its money and deal deceitfully with its grievants.
riled one
April 21, 2007 - 16:59 ET by misterbill"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD"
Some input about your post and the mighty churchman who challenges you.
1. "The Catholic Church has never denied anyone the right to marry. However, only a single man or widowed can be ordained a priest. Deacons can be married." That's a duh if I ever read one. They deny priests the right to marry. That was the first wrong statement.
2. "PLUS, the flock has no authority to "demand" anything from its shepherds." Really??? So the church has never changed to keep their congregation???
(guitar masses, masses in English, etc.
3. "You proclaim, as if you are the authority:"
Indeed you are, for yourself and free choice.
4. "Young man becomes old pedophile enabled by a corrupt system bent on holding on to its earthly treasure."
Perhaps this is the problem with your challenger.
5. Celibacy is not "man's" law; Horsefeathers!!!!!
RO, I am sorry you feel that you had to break free to be free. But you are honoring God and Jesus as all good Christians must do.
More importantly, once again, a blogger who imagines he is THE expert on salvation is turning a blog site concerned with the work of the Media and political issues into his own private proselytizing instrument.
I am a Catholic--but there are times when I am embarrassed by other Catholics in their "righteousness".
As a fellow Christian, I say God bless you, I am confident you have already or will find your way to eternal salvation without the prating of obnoxious people.
Thanks
April 21, 2007 - 21:53 ET by Cool ArrowThanks
misterbillmight i add that Go
April 21, 2007 - 22:58 ET bymisterbill
might i add that God knows His people: there are saints in the Roman Catholic church and in other denominations for salvation is as complex as all creation and as simple as "peace to men of goodwill"
botg
April 21, 2007 - 23:09 ET by misterbill"might i add that God knows His people" indeed sir, indeed!
After 12 years of Catholic school and an "almost" entry into the seminary (forgive me, but at a young age I knew that celibacy would be harder to learn than abc). I must have gone to a different church than some of the other bloggers on this site. I learned from my confessor that I should never be so vain as to criticize other religions and to insult other peoples' beliefs.
Having said this, I hope I can keep my resolve and not post on religion any more. I am convinced there are many paths to Heaven. I am equally conviced they all go through Jesus. Arguing any other issues is pointless, unless you are trying to convert someone. I am not. May you all find salvation in any sect and any way you can.
Lsastly, I am convinced that this is not the venue to argue these points unless we peel off to a forum.
Lsastly, I am convinced that
April 21, 2007 - 23:21 ET byLsastly, I am convinced that this is not the venue to argue these points unless we peel off to a forum.
Precisely what i PM'd to Tum and copied to the open thread. And then it's a one time through not going round and round. All are free to accept or reject and well it is written 'My sheep hear my voice'
just don't resolve to end the the poetry.
Thank-you and goodnight
My problem is figuring out
April 21, 2007 - 07:02 ET by vravaMy problem is figuring out how to get the 4% to make a pass at me.
That's a crude, insulting post, vrava
April 21, 2007 - 09:31 ET by RJYou may think you're being cute, vrava, but that's a crude, insulting post. Please do not feel free to go there.
Save it for your appearance on the Bill Maher show, where it will undoubtedly receive a laugh.
RJ -perfect analysis and reply!
April 21, 2007 - 12:18 ET by misterbillRJ -perfect analysis and reply!
Nuff said!
Why is it crude and insulting
April 21, 2007 - 20:52 ET by vravaWhy is it crude and insulting? Is there something evil about flirting with people at the gym?
Nor I motherbelt--
April 20, 2007 - 22:21 ET by misterbillNor I motherbelt--I may not be a good Catholic for it, but I save my prayers for the good guys and gals.
Let God forgive him.
distracting us from more good
April 20, 2007 - 19:56 ET bydistracting us from more good works."
And what would those good works be? Leveling the field by
Racist Affirmative Action
Making sure everyone has National Health Care so for twice the price we can get half the care.
Making abotion available to all for free?
Well you get the point, as long as our good works are done with other peoples money
"Annoy Bill Maher. Pray
April 20, 2007 - 20:03 ET by Buford"Annoy Bill Maher. Pray for him."
Got a better idea......ignore him, no-one watches.
The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program...........Ronald Reagan
Imagine if Maher instead of s
April 20, 2007 - 21:13 ET by Gat New YorkImagine if Maher instead of saying an alter boy said an African American boy.
Exactly how quickly would he been fired and barred from television?
Different standards. It’s enough.
And while he was telling his
April 20, 2007 - 21:26 ET byAnd while he was telling his stupid joke, he missed the real issue; and that is that Bush is not Catholic and is wrong for having attended a Catholic prayer meeting in the first place. ...Debra
Debra, there would be noth
April 20, 2007 - 22:02 ET by motherbeltDebra, there would be nothing wrong with Bush attending a Catholic prayer meeting, at least not to Catholics. Whether his own church would approve, I wouldn't know. But Catholics pray with non-Catholics all the time.
motherbelt, the type of Chris
April 21, 2007 - 02:28 ET bymotherbelt, the type of Christian that Bush puts off to be, would not be part of a Catholic prayer meeting - if the person was walking true to his faith-beliefs. But then again, this is not the first time that Bush did not walk true to (what he puts off to be) his faith beliefs. I also recall hearing him give respect to the Muslim 'faith' after 9/11. ...Debra
Why Debra ?
April 20, 2007 - 22:08 ET by tumbler_2007Is Bush wrong to have attended the Catholic prayer meeting ? And why ?
tumbler, If Bush is of the fa
April 21, 2007 - 02:32 ET bytumbler,
If Bush is of the faith-belief that he puts off to be, then, yes, he is wrong for attending a Catholic prayer meeting. Why? Well, how about if you answer that one yourself? Would you be wrong to attend prayer meeting of a faith-belief that was not Catholic and actually against Catholicism -- if so, why?
Debra...
Nonsense, Debra
April 21, 2007 - 12:13 ET by tumbler_2007Bush represents us just as he represents Baptists or Evangelical sectarians.
By joining with Catholics at the table and praying in their midst, Bush calls down Almighty God's blessings on our entire nation. He does a greater service to God THERE than in the midst of your community, IMHO.
God knows, but you think you know.
tumbler,If Bush is a true Chr
April 21, 2007 - 16:45 ET bytumbler,
If Bush is a true Christian, then his first loyality is to Christ. It is Christ who he is represent, before anyone else. He needs to get off the fence.
And you did not answer my question.
But, I have another question for you. Would you say this if Bush had gone to a Muslim prayer meeting?
Debra...
There you go again Debra,Tell
April 20, 2007 - 22:19 ET by bigtimerThere you go again Debra,
Telling everyone how wrong they are when it comes to religion, even the President...everyone that is except you.
Who are you to tell or even to think what and where someone should be able to bow there head and pray?
In my opinion you are so wrong..but hey, that's just me.
I am a child of the Living Go
April 21, 2007 - 02:35 ET byI am a child of the Living God, bigtimer.
Debra...
Debra may be only one of five beings in Heaven.
April 21, 2007 - 12:28 ET by Dave RDebra,
After reading much of what you have posted here at NB, as well as on your own site, I have come to the conclusion that, if your standard is, in fact, THE standard to which we will all be held to, then I think the eventual population of Heaven is going to be quite small.
It will be occupied by God, Jesus, Moses, Elijah and you. :-)
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
Dave,Now, you're getting it.
April 21, 2007 - 16:49 ET byDave,
Now, you're getting it. There will be far more people in hell, than in heaven.
It is written: "Many are called. Few are chosen."
Why?
Because God knows who will and won't want to be with Him.
It is like choosing teams for basketball. Would you choose those who you know do not want to be on your team?
Debra...
not acting like a child of god
April 21, 2007 - 15:14 ET by tumbler_2007Debra: --I am a child of the Living God, bigtimer.
Stop acting the drama queen and pharisee.
I marvel at this fact. Never yet have you expressed your LOVE for Jesus Christ, or for your neighbor. It's consistently about You, your blog, and your love of scripture. God being hung out to dry in favor of your self-absorbed Bible study. When do we ever see you proclaim, "I love Jesus Christ, enough to give my life for Him."-- ???
In our Church, all hearts are turned to JESUS. Every prayer to our saints is aimed ultimately at HIM. He is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. We are joyful being His beloved Church --destined for one day entering His wedding feast as His BRIDE, the Church who adores Him. His Church who serves Him and places nothing before Him. And, guess what, Debra ?
The Blessed Virigin Mary is Mother of His Church. She is in the Catholic Church, in His kingdom. She's one level below her divine SON, and over every angel and saint. This is Mary's level of holiness in the kingdom of heaven; having been chosen as Mother of God.
Tumbler, I have posted my res
April 21, 2007 - 17:45 ET byTumbler, I have posted my response to you on the forum that was made for you and me:
Click Here ....Debra
Debra...WE are all God's Chil
April 21, 2007 - 15:34 ET by bigtimerDebra...
WE are all God's Children...not just you.
All true believers are God's
April 21, 2007 - 17:49 ET byAll true believers are God's children, bigtimer. Those who reject Christ, are children of Satan. Can and will some of them come to be saved and be children of God's? Yes... All of God's children are adopted into His Kingdom.
Debra...
I was speaking believers Debr
April 21, 2007 - 17:57 ET by bigtimerI was speaking believers Debra...in the first place and you know it.
I am so glad you know every little thing that God has planned for all of us.
What would we do without you telling us?
bigtimer,You asked me who I a
April 21, 2007 - 20:35 ET bybigtimer,
You asked me who I am to say where someone should or should not pray (something like that, you asked). I was simply answering you.
Debra...
No Debra,You put this on the
April 21, 2007 - 20:49 ET by bigtimerNo Debra,
You put this on the board for anyone to respond to...which I did.
And while he was telling his stupid joke, he missed the real issue; and that is that Bush is not Catholic and is wrong for having attended a Catholic prayer meeting in the first place. ...Debra
With all due respect Debbie,
April 23, 2007 - 18:47 ET by 4arrowWith all due respect Debbie, worry about the large stick in your own eye before you judge the hockey puck in other's.
If we are going to get outr
April 20, 2007 - 21:31 ET by vravaIf we are going to get outraged at comedians who make Catholic priest jokes, then we're going to have to spread our outrage a little thin here.
nobody is outraged
April 20, 2007 - 22:20 ET by tumbler_2007It isn't a question of outrage, vrava. People merely want to go on record as opposed to that. We have no wish to sue, or to send anyone to hell. We simply assert our belief and the love we have for Christ and his Church.
Where our priests have been evildoers, (That's right, OURS) we don't avoid the disgrace. We deplore every sin. The seriousness of that offense is hardly a matter for gags. It's not amusing to God either. Many souls are going to face some awful consequences for this crude celebration of the evil men do. They partake in the sin of those priests because of this "hilarious" impiety. This is plain to anyone with spirituality. It doesn't have to be argued.
I understand and respect yo
April 21, 2007 - 04:56 ET by vravaI understand and respect your sentiment.
It’s bad management, ya kno
April 22, 2007 - 04:36 ET byIt’s bad management, ya know.
vrava--actually there was some humor
April 20, 2007 - 22:25 ET by misterbillvrava--actually there was some humor in what he said. With me it's the whole picture --how we Christians are fair game, but these folks would not dare to make a Muslim joke. And especially Bill Maher who has consistently and constantly maligned Christians and Catholics in particular. The same old vitriol gets old and offensive on the 56th go around. It ain't funny no more!
Maher isn't against just Ch
April 21, 2007 - 05:48 ET by vravaMaher isn't against just Christians, he has antipathy for ALL religions. He doesn't hide the fact that he has complete disdain for fundamentalist muslims. One of his points in a recent show was that Muslim society was just plain inferior to ours for the way they treat women, gays, etc. And no, he doesn't make as many jokes about Islam or Judaism, but Christians control this country and so they are the target of most of his indignation. I watch (well, listen to) Maher a lot, so let me give you a few snippets of things he's said about Islam:
"But you have been reading about what's going on with the writing of the
constitution, and the fact that women may be taking a giant step
backward in Iraq, because the theocrats may very well be taking over.
For example, in the southern city of Basrah, I read that the police
department is really just... the religious belief. Like in Saudi
Arabia. They've just been enforcing the Shiite mentality, which is
that, you know, any woman who wears makeup gets her head cut off."
"I mean, maybe one day we will live in a more optimum world where
terrorists come in every color of the rainbow. But the truth is, now
they don't. I mean, the people who are trying to get us are young
Muslim men, period."
Here is an interview with Scarborough where he discusses his view of religion:
http://www.youtube.c...
whoopee now I love him??
April 21, 2007 - 11:51 ET by misterbillSir, you are an apologist for a man who has stirred hatred in many American people. Since you continue to defend his position , which is clearly an attack on basic American values, I can only come to the conclusion that you endorse it. Therefore, you are in the same league with him., So, I do not watch him and I will not (watch) communicate with you.
That's your choice, of cour
April 21, 2007 - 20:55 ET by vravaThat's your choice, of course. I was responding to the comment that he doesn't attack Muslims, which he clearly does. If you want to attack a person, at least do it for reasons which are accurate.
vrava
April 21, 2007 - 22:09 ET by misterbillYou are correct--I reread your post. I extend my apology.
Maher's crudeness is unbounded
April 20, 2007 - 22:16 ET by misterbillMaher's crudeness is unbounded. How can he call himself a comedian???
easy he's a lib, ergo he lies
April 20, 2007 - 22:20 ET byeasy he's a lib, ergo he lies
it's worse than Lib
April 20, 2007 - 22:31 ET by tumbler_2007Dear botg,
Maher is a rare bird. Others can be abrasive and stupid and liberal. He's all that and evil as well. This is a perverse man, IMHO. Every word he speaks denotes a dark soul.
If the guy were actually talented or magnetic in some way, it would be tragic. He would be a malignant influence. Thank God he isn't even interesting to watch. Like a Herod wanna-be; neutered, impotent and stuffed full of ca ca --
Never much watched him. tho
April 20, 2007 - 22:40 ET byNever much watched him. though, as a liberal viewpoint leads one to do things that are the exact opposite of what you would do to actually achieve the goals you purport to have (because its what 'feels' good not what is good) the liberal must distort reality in order to maintain their viewpoint. Therefore he's a lib, ergo he lies
Imbedded in them...seared, I
April 20, 2007 - 22:45 ET by bigtimerImbedded in them...seared, I tell ya seared!
Fight we must....
Aye, that and the narcarcism;
April 20, 2007 - 22:53 ET byAye, that and the narcarcism; think they must save us all they do!
The same way Dennis Miller
April 21, 2007 - 05:49 ET by vravaThe same way Dennis Miller does.
Are you saying Dennis Miller
April 21, 2007 - 11:34 ET by RJAre you saying Dennis Miller uses the same crude shock langage as Maher? Nonsense.
Did you watch Dennis Miller's
April 21, 2007 - 20:57 ET by vravaDid you watch Dennis Miller's old HBO show? Pretty crude and shocking if I remember correctly.
Bill Maher is one of the many
April 20, 2007 - 22:35 ET by bigtimerBill Maher is one of the many that make up the evil within...therefore the enemy within we must fight.
Period.
excellent point!!!
April 20, 2007 - 22:37 ET by misterbillexcellent point!!! he is that and he has a public podium from which to preach!!!!
Bill Maher
April 21, 2007 - 10:54 ET by shawn228Bill might make some pretty outrageous remarks, they pale in comparision to Ann Coulter.
Ann's a bomb thrower it's tru
April 21, 2007 - 10:58 ET byAnn's a bomb thrower it's true. Unlike Howard Dean however, the points she makes are usually valid.
Coulter says things that libe
April 21, 2007 - 11:18 ET by RJCoulter says things that liberals isolate out of the context of a larger subject. With Maher, that doesn't have to be done, since he just throws out naked hate-bombs for effect.
botg
April 21, 2007 - 11:26 ET by shawn228If you are truly wanting expose the liberal media botg, then please be objective if you say what Ann Coulter says is usually valid
911 Widows
These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.
On Dalfar
These people can't even wrap up genocide. We've been hearing about this slaughter in Darfur forever — and they still haven't finished. The aggressors are moving like termites across that country. It's like genocide by committee. Who's running this holocaust in Darfur, FEMA? This is truly a war in which we have absolutely no interest.
The New York Times
My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building.
New York
If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have cared. What was stunning when New York was hit was how the rest of America rushed to New York's defense. New Yorkers would have been like, 'It's tough for them; now let's go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows
Women
I think [women] should be armed but should not vote...women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it...it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care.
Last but not least check out her remarks about Canada
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmcZG87Fmxc
Who said i was exposing the m
April 21, 2007 - 12:24 ET byWho said i was exposing the media here? And your listing some bombs disproves my saying Anns a bomb thrower HOW? Note i did qualify with usually when it came to the point of the bombing. Also you tend to have an incredible lack of discernment for hyperbole for an otherwise intelligent person. You also fail to see the PLATFORMS (read official acceptance) given to the bombers by the MSM and DNC.
botg
April 21, 2007 - 12:30 ET by shawn228I am not denying Ann Coulter is bomb thrower, I am disputing what you said about her points being valid.
In that case we'd have look a
April 21, 2007 - 12:58 ET byIn that case we'd have look at what she has said say over a one month period (or maybe take the top twenty points out of Godlees) and see which are valid and which are not. Then we can if usually they are.
botg
April 21, 2007 - 17:49 ET by shawn228I have never read Godless. That does not mean I cannot form an opinion of her because I have not read her book.
I cannot debate the top 20 facts from her book, but what do you think about her remarks in my 2nd post, would you say they are "valid?"
shawn
April 21, 2007 - 17:56 ET bynot even going to touch them as they may be all the unusual ones, maybe you are correct or maybe you've had cherry picked information fed to you. I have not read her book either so all i was doing was offering a criteria by which we might judge correctly. Seems like we are both too busy to do the proper follow-up on this point. What of the platform given the liberal bomb-throwers by the DNC and MSM?
MSM
April 21, 2007 - 18:16 ET by shawn228I would not go as far as saying those are the more unusual ones. They are typical for her. Howard Dean is a nutcase and so is Rosie.
shawn
April 21, 2007 - 18:32 ET by. Howard Dean is a nutcase
And yet he gets promoted by the DNC? Anyway Shawn i'll see you around i'm not fond of chasing comments on the second page and it seems you don't particularily like Ann but i really am not an apologist for her.
shawn, Ann is a highly
April 21, 2007 - 12:38 ET by Dave Rshawn,
Ann is a highly educated person (Constitutional Law attorney). Bill is an uneducated, illiberal ignoranus. How you could put Ann in the same place as Bill requires mental gymnastics much too vigorous for most of us.
Besides, anyone who can write a column about president Billy-Joe-Bob White Trash and tile it "Moby's Dick" has my eternal respect. :-)
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-
Neal Boortz.
daver
April 21, 2007 - 17:36 ET by shawn228IMO it does not matter if you went to Harvard or Harlem Community college. When remarks are way out there, like the 911 widows, it s distasteful.
Also since she has a great education she should know that Canada never sent troops to Vietnam. "my youtube link"
What was"distasteful" was that group of 9/11 widows
April 21, 2007 - 18:10 ET by RJTo many of us, what was distasteful was that group of 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls. They became politically ugly and aggressive and then whined "no fair!" (along with every boo-hooing leftist on the planet) when Ann pointed out exactly what they were doing.
Those disgusting widows were using the positions of grace given them by Americans to further their political ideology. They deserved what Ann said and more.
Yep...Matthews had them on ad
April 21, 2007 - 18:19 ET by bigtimerYep...
Matthews had them on ad nauseum...ooohing and ahhhhing over them, you know the drool trick he does so well...lol!
I was so sick of the leader of the leftist gang (can't remember her name, just her looks and hair-do), I got very weary seeing them at all the hearings the House and Senate had, let alone the 9/11 Commission.
The Jersey Girls were the leftist msm cup of tea for too long.
RJ
April 21, 2007 - 18:21 ET by shawn228I Dunno RJ, thats kind of harsh doncha think? These are women lost their husbands. It was more sorrow than whining
Go back and read what I said, shawn.
April 21, 2007 - 18:35 ET by RJGo back and read what I said, shawn. Those women USED the state of grace given them by all Americans to pursue their political agenda, and deserved scorn for doing so. They ABUSED what was given them. They had no right to expect preferental treatment at that point.
You are full of it. I have pe
April 21, 2007 - 18:46 ET by mandrakeYou are full of it. I have personal knowledge of Canadian troops in Vietnam. No, I don't have an allmighty LINK to prove it...just memories.. believe me or not. I couldn't care less!
Mandrake
April 21, 2007 - 20:57 ET by shawn228Not trying to flame you Mandrake and I'm not doubting your personal knowledge, but committing troops to Vietnam is a pretty big deal..
When someone says i am full of it, I usually need at least some form of proof. I hope you are not offended if I don't take you on your word and no allmighty link, but you said you could not care less so I'm assumming "no harm no foul"
shawn, well I shouldn't have
April 21, 2007 - 21:57 ET by mandrakeshawn, well I shouldn't have gone off the handle without proof. It's just a very sensitive memory for me. A friend died. Canada also has troops in Afganistan right now...though I cannot 'prove' it. Do you believe that?
mandrake
April 21, 2007 - 22:11 ET by shawn228Mandrake i am very sorry to hear about your friend. Canada is our largest trading partner and friendly neighbor to the north. After 911 they allowed us to use their airports and their residents took Americans citizens into their homes.
Canada sent troops to the first Desert Storm and currently has troops in Afghanistan for humantarian purposes. Canada has never sent any troops to Vietnam or Iraq "operation freedom"
shawn & Mandrake,Well you
April 21, 2007 - 22:18 ET by Blondeshawn & Mandrake,
Well you are both right and wrong about Canadians in Vietnam.
A quick search on "Canadians in Vietnam" produced multiple results. This is just the first one I opened.
shawn, here is a link.http://
April 21, 2007 - 22:22 ET by mandrakeshawn, here is a link.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/
It states that a number of Canadians joined up with US forces..maybe that's where I am confused.
Canadians
April 21, 2007 - 22:33 ET by shawn228It looks like the Canadians that were there went voluntarily. Looks like you are right when you say there were Canadians in Vietnam and Ann Coulter is wrong when she said that Canada actually sent the troops in.
shawn, so the point of this e
April 21, 2007 - 22:46 ET by mandrakeshawn, so the point of this exercise was to score a point against Ann Coulter? Bravo, you win. I just pray all those who are out there voluntarily right now fare better.
mandrake
April 21, 2007 - 22:57 ET by shawn228I was just defending what I said mandrake. You said I was full of it, and I digressed. I'm sure if you made a point which you though was accurate and I said your facts were wrong........
Anyways mandrake, this is a silly argument. I also pray for those who are out there defending our country.
billy
April 21, 2007 - 07:17 ET by charlietexasBill Mahar shouldn't talk about Priest's, when he goes after teenage women with fake boobs. Hes a pig and I don't know why anyone watches him. The only thing that HBO had on that was good was "ROME". HBO sucks.