It never ceases to amaze me to see how ignorant The Washington Post is about Catholic teaching---the latest example being staff writer Peter Slevin's liberally biased slam against Abp. Raymond Burke on p. A2 of the May 29 edition. The ignorance (or anti-Catholicism?) is clear in the very first sentence, which is false, in the first paragraph. "When it comes to expressing his views of church values, Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke has a habit of making headlines, not always to the satisfaction of his flock," writes Slevin. These are not, of course, "his views." They are the views and stipulations of the Catholic Catechism, the Code of Canon Law, and numerous papal encyclicals that often teach definitively on certain matters. Slevin apparently never cracked the Catechism, and he apparently never Googled it because it is online, as is the Vatican, with all the relevant documents.
Abp. Burke has spoken out against abortion; against politicians who support abortion; against entertainers who support anti-Catholic teachings but also want to perform at Catholic functions; against using embryonic stem cells for research; and so on. And this is what apparently ticks Slevin and his editors off: A Catholic Bishop who actually tells his flock the Truth about Catholic teaching and how Catholics must strive to seek holiness and save their souls.
Slevin further reveals his ignorance and liberal bias by relying on several liberal and wayward Catholics to comment on Abp. Burke. For instance, Slevin calls on Geri Redden, "a pro-choice former Catholic" to tell Post readers that Burke is "archaic and kind of an embarrassment. He seems to think he is back in the old days when he could really tell people how to live their lives." ... Hmm. It seems that the same could be said of Jesus Christ; he was "archaic ... old days" and He actually did "tell people how to live their lives." Sorry to disappoint Redden and The Post but that is what Christianity is all about: following the teachings of Jesus Christ as given to the world by Him, the apostles, and the Bible.
Slevin also relies on wayward Catholic Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.), who, in one of his essays, says that Abp. Burke threatened "to use his ecclesiastical authority to punish me if I did not conform my voting record to his view of what Catholic dogma required." Again, "his view"? Apparently, the fine Congressman Obey doesn't know his basic Catechism either.
Slevin and his Post editors could have easily found many solid, faithful, honest and straightforward bishops and priests and laity to comment on Abp. Burke and the Church's moral teaching. But they didn't. They went the liberally biased route and left the false impression that religious figures are somehow not supposed to speak about public policy issues--------a long-held liberal view in direct contradiction to the Founding Fathers and to the precedent set by Christ Himself and the apostles.
Raymond Burke is a bishop, a shepherd. He has to tell his flock the way it is. He has to try to bring the lost sheep home. That is his duty. He cannot remain silent. The Washington Post and the liberal media don't like that, but they shouldn't expect Christians to shut up anytme soon---go ask the martyrs of the Coliseum.
Editor's Note: Photo of Abp. Burke via Wikipedia.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I am not catholic, but I do b
May 29, 2007 - 14:48 ET by bassndudeI am not catholic, but I do belive and try to follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. Sometimes I wish I could call down lightning to strike these unbelivers. After all , that is what they are. As with Sgt. York, a little lightning strike might go along ways.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Amen bass...The majority of
May 29, 2007 - 14:55 ET by bigtimerAmen bass...
The majority of leftists in this country along with the print and regular televised media agenda, only agree with the ACLU type of religion.
My way or the highway....
Which is non-religion if they have their way.
Despicable agenda IMHO.
It will eventually be their own down-fall...one way or the other.
They just don't get that the
May 29, 2007 - 16:38 ET by Chris NormanThey just don't get that the Catholic Church isn't a democracy, where members get to vote on the teachings of the Church. They may not like it. But, that's the way it is.
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
They don't get it because th
May 29, 2007 - 16:59 ET by mattmThey don't get it because they have their own religion, which is an amalgam of various humanistic philosophies with one basic tenet: "The only absolute is that that those who believe in absolutes, other than this one, are evil."
Couldn't agree more, Chris
May 29, 2007 - 17:01 ET by terrigChris, your comment brought back memories of 25 years ago when I graduated from Andrean High, (Catholic) in Merrillville, IN and at our "Senior Dinner", one of the students was complaining about something with the Mass the Thursday before graduation and Sister Christopher in her big, booming, obnoxious voice said to this kid "Look Eric, this is not a democracy here and neither is the church and if you don't want to show up then fine, don't show up on Sunday either!", and she wasn't kidding. This kid showed up halfway through the Mass and he wasn't allowed to walk on Sunday. If I remember correctly, he was po'd that other ministers would be taking part in the service dragging it out in downtown Gary at the Cathederal (even though it was a Catholic school, at that time it was about 55% Catholic). Knowing this kid, I would venture a guess he would be late for his "bong party", everybody has them!
I always do laugh at the press who don't get the fact that they can't have their way, although there are plenty of "cafeteria Catholics"-like my silly cousin who is part of some group called "Catholics for Choice". But she's the type the newspapers like.
Terri,Your story brought back
May 29, 2007 - 17:08 ET by Chris NormanTerri,
Your story brought back memories of my parochial school days. If I had said something like that at Christ the King, Sister Lucina would have broken a year's supply of pointers over my head, before switching to rulers. Then she would have sent me to principal, Sister Beatrice (nickname "Beat Us"), to let her have a crack at me... :)
The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
- Arabian Proverb
Wow, where do I sign up?!
May 30, 2007 - 15:14 ET by JasonCWow, where do I sign up?!
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Bellevue
May 30, 2007 - 20:25 ET by acumenI think Bellevue would work out nicely for ya Jason.
Facts, shmacts
May 29, 2007 - 17:07 ET by QueenMumthreatened "to use his ecclesiastical authority to punish me if I did not conform my voting record to his view of what Catholic dogma required."
This statement pretty much sums up the liberal interpretation of how the Catholic church operates. "punish me", "his view" - these phrases suggest that it is the Archbishop himself who determines when a Catholic politician is acting in opposition to Catholic doctrine.
You are correct, Michael. "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" is available to anyone who wants to bother to read it in order to provide an insight into Catholic teaching. I find that the most vociferous critics of the Catholic church are those who were once practicing Catholics, but have since "fallen away". And the secular libs are more than happy to latch on to such people rather than actually doing the research for themselves. It doesn't matter who you are or what your position may be in American society - if you profess to be a Catholic, you should be faithful to the teachings of the Church.
I am a Christian- I am a Catholic--
May 29, 2007 - 18:15 ET by misterbillI am a Christian- I am a Catholic--can someone get Slevin to play Christian and lion with me in a stadium somewhere? Oh, what fun we will have!
A little lightening up--on this thread
May 30, 2007 - 16:34 ET by misterbillA little lightening up--on this thread
A Parrot Named Moses A burglar broke into a house one night. He shone his flashlight around,
looking for valuables. He picked up a CD player to place in his sack,
when a strange, disembodied voice echoed from the dark saying,
"Jesus is watching you."
He nearly jumped out of his skin, clicked his flashlight off, and froze.
When he heard nothing more after a bit, he shook his head and
continued. Just as he pulled the stereo out so he could disconnect
the wires, clear as a bell he heard, "Jesus is watching you."
Freaked out, he shined his light around frantically, looking for the
source of the voice. Finally, in the corner of the room, his
flashlight beam came to rest on a parrot.
"Did you say that?" he hissed at the parrot.
"Yep," the parrot confessed, then squawked, "I'm just trying to
warn you that he's watching you"
The burglar relaxed. "Warn me, huh? Who in the world are you?"
"Moses," replied the bird.
"Moses?" the burglar laughed. "What kind of people would name a
bird Moses?"
"The kind of people that would name a Rottweiler Jesus."
LOL misterb...I have heard th
May 30, 2007 - 16:41 ET by bigtimerLOL misterb...I have heard that long ago, forgot about it though.
Good one...
Nothing like laughter to soothe the soul.
I have come to understand the
May 29, 2007 - 18:24 ET by balboaI have come to understand the bias of certain stories, certain statements, but...seriously. Liberal bias because of the word "views"?
And did he threaten "to use his ecclesiastical authority to punish me if I did not conform my voting record to his view of what Catholic dogma required"?
Bal,What if i had a complain
May 29, 2007 - 18:44 ET byBal,
What if i had a complaint about my instructor and his views because i said 1+1=3 but my instructor said no 1+1=2; would the Post be biased if they reported both myself and my instructor as equally valid?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Religion is not math. There i
May 29, 2007 - 18:52 ET by balboaReligion is not math. There is more than one religion.
Bal, are you saying they ar
May 29, 2007 - 18:57 ET by Free StinkerBal, are you saying they are all correct?
Balboa
May 29, 2007 - 18:59 ET byWell, just for fun, lets say we were counting in base 10. As you know there are many bases available in mathematics. Also for funsies, lets say we were talking about a Roman Catholic Bishop who was talking to a Roman Catholic politician.
Try again, the point is that the doctrine of the church is objective just as is the math. It's not just a point of view, it's doctrine. Now there is no one twisting the politicians arm forcing him to continue to claim to be a Catholic, he can join another religion.
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
Please read the article Bal
May 29, 2007 - 19:09 ET by acumenBal - Please read the article linked by Michael. It's a pure slam-fest. It is everything Michael stated in his title - WashPost Slams Archbishop, Distorts Catholic Teaching. That is the only point Michael was trying to make - and if you read the article it is obvious that is what Slevin did. It's really a shame. I have read a great deal of the Archbishops writings and what other good folks in the Church have had to say about him. He is a very decent human being and very much Christ-centered and I find it amazing that anyone writing in the "On Faith" section would pursuit this insulting, erroneous angle that Slevin chose to take. I really don't see any reason to be upset with Michael. He just wrote a factual piece using text from the slanderous article. Thanks for hearing me out -Hugh-
I'm gonna read it, but "views
May 29, 2007 - 21:34 ET by balboaI'm gonna read it, but "views"? A writer is "slamming" the Catholicism by using the word "views"? I'm just saying if you're going to write about this article slamming Catholicism, don't present your argument with word choice. Gimme something I can hang my hat on.
balboa - read the other paragraphs above, you mook
May 30, 2007 - 13:47 ET by SportPoliticsbalboa - read the other paragraphs above, you mook. I understand your boogling eyeballs focused on the darker highlighted text in the lead in (then likely stopped reading)- how about parapgraphs 2,3,4 and 5 for " the PIN to hang your hat on " ? (so it conforms to the shape of your head of course).
Then you claim, after you're lying in your complaint about "view" being what the lead in uses for it's criticisms and outline of the bias ( being one of ten or twenty things pointed out)....
Ya see more than the word "view" in those lead in paragraphs above, you insane burbling doofus ? There are multiple paragraphs with differentiated complaints.
Gawd, how did you get it down to the word "view" ?
I'll say, it's likely the PIN SHAPED HOOK you need for your hat.
Really, what the hell is wrong with you ? I keep telling myself, you're not really that stupid, you cannot actually be that stupid. I mean when it comes to movies you actually make comments that appear to have some sort of intelligence surrounding them.
Are you just TRYING so hard to be a smart aleck, or are you really that dense ? That's all I really want to know. I want you to confirm that you are not trying to be a smart aleck jerk, and are really having what appears to me to be severe problems in comprehension. Well, are you goofing off, or are you serious ?
Ignorance
May 29, 2007 - 19:00 ET by iveseenitallThe Catholic Church in America and elsewhere began to crumble many years ago when it bent on its core principles. As can be seen from this story and some of the comments here, the church is viewed by many as an open society in which the individual can make up his/her own mind and live by his/her own rules. The Archbishop says "no", either you are a Catholic or you are not a Catholic, make your choice. The "progressives" hate this and, therefore, dislike the Archbishop. After all, he appears to represent a "conservative" point of view. We can't have that now, can we?
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
God Bless Cardinal Burke
May 29, 2007 - 18:46 ET by acumenLast time I remember Bishops caving in to pressure from secularists, the Church later found itself having to explain why so many pedophiles had slipped through the ordination process. Yeah, lets make that mistake again Slevin.
God bless Cardinal Burke. He is an incredibly humble servant of Christ while at the same time, due to his gift of wisdom, a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature (highest court of appeal in matters concerning the Church's tribunals) - a rare combination only possible through a long prayerful life coupled with self-sacrifice and grace. One would think that bit of background would have somehow found it's way into an article about Burke in the "On Faith" section. But no, this was an all out slam fest - Slevin is playing with fire.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mr. Chapman.
Michael Chapman
May 29, 2007 - 19:06 ET by Tito the NormanThat was a very well written rebuttal to that liberal diatribe.
The Archbishop is not imposing his views, just simply following the teachings of Jesus Christ which is so eloquently spelled out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Another Fidei Defensor!
Hurrah!
"The Truth is absolute.", Pope Benedict XVI
Realitive vs Absolute Morality
May 29, 2007 - 19:50 ET by cruiserThis is a perfect example of the new wishy, washy, relative morality vs. the Church's absolutes. The Church does not change its doctrines on a whim. Just because something is trendy today, doesn't make it right. The Bishop does not need to take a poll on which sound bite to use. He is doing his assigned job, which is to teach Church doctrine. The church is not a democracy. Get over it.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --- Groucho Marx
Look, I am sick to death of
May 29, 2007 - 20:13 ET by motherbeltLook, I am sick to death of all these "Catholics", like those quoted in the story, who want the Church to cater to their views and allow them to do whatever they want and still be Catholics. No one is forced to join the Catholic Church or to stay there.
When you want Italian food, you go to an Italian restaurant. You don't go to a Chinese restaurant, and complain because they don't serve Italian food! The teachings of the Catholic Church are not secret; they are well-known. Why someone would join the Church and then complain that they want women priests, married priests, divorce and abortion is beyond me. And why someone would join or stay in a Church whose teachings they disagree with is even farther out of my realm of understanding.
The people who complain are the ones who want to do what they want and still call themselves Catholics. Well, Abe Lincoln once posed the riddle: How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? The other person said 5. Lincoln said: Wrong. Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one. People can call themselves Catholic, but if they arent' following the teaching of the Church they are not Catholics. The Catholic Church is just the place they choose to go on Sundays.
motherbelt.......thank you, t
May 29, 2007 - 20:24 ET by bigtimermotherbelt...
....thank you, thank you, thank you.
You said it all...
Plus I hope I remember that great info. you posted about President Abe Lincoln...that is beautiful....too bad the leftists in this world do not or cannot or refuse to grasp that simple fact.
motherbelt, I think the probl
May 30, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Conservative Voicemotherbelt, I think the problem is these Catholics in name only are born into a church, and see it as a social place...but are embarressed by some of the beliefs. They don't have a testimony, but don't want to lose the social aspects so wish to change the church. You hit the nail on the head, if a church took a poll on what they should believe, then its worthless.
Just a couple points, and a q
May 29, 2007 - 23:16 ET by KC MulvilleJust a couple points, and a question ...
An old Jesuit once said to me that the worst thing to happen to the clergy was Hollywood. Years ago, Hollywood always portrayed priests as kind, meek, and gentle. As the old fellow said to me, that describes the sheep, not the shepherd. Sometimes the shepherd has to lead the sheep where they don’t want to go, and that’s why shepherds have those big sticks.
Also, some people claim they left the church because they didn’t like the priest. These same people would abandon their baseball team because they didn’t like the catcher. (Or my example: they would abandon America because they didn’t like the president. We’ve heard a lot of that recently, haven’t we?) That kind of person was going to leave anyway.
What I can’t understand is what the writer, Peter Slevin, thought he was accomplishing with this piece. First, Burke is in St. Louis, and this is a Washington Post article. Was Slevin encouraging St. Louis Catholics to oppose their bishop, or was he warning the DC diocese how good they had it? Burke is a hard ass. I know plenty of hard asses, and truth be told, I like most of them. What was the point of this piece?
What was the point of this
May 30, 2007 - 05:18 ET by motherbeltWhat was the point of this piece? - KC Mulville
The point was simply to badmouth the Catholic Church and one of its leaders. And like most of the MSM, Spelvin wants to show how "out of step with the times" the Church is. It drives them nuts that the Church doesn't change her teaching on divorce and abortion (I believe those are the two biggies) just because of public opinion. For me, the only surprise in that article was that he didn't have a quote from Frances Kissling (I think that's her name), the "spokesperson" of Catholics for Free Choice.
Folks let me get in, and sinc
May 30, 2007 - 06:05 ET by Senior ChiefFolks let me get in, and since we're discussing a specific religious doctrine, here are a couple two cents q's: Are Catholics Christian? Is Christianity a religion? Are the Seven Sacraments Biblical doctrine? Outside of the Seven Sacraments, will the Roman Catholic church function? How about excommunicating catholics, is it Biblical teaching? Did Jesus really made water into wine? Is the Pope really infallible?
This is a good start...What's next, Islam? Mormonism? Lot's to talk about. And if our basis to answer these questions are just "views" without any reference, I think we will be serve better if we're "silent". Bible- New and Old Testament should be our text, hence CHRISTianity. But then again, this is a forum where all are encouraged to practice Freedom of Expression. Who knows, you might be the next "convert"...
Regarding Lincoln's comment about calling a dog's tail a leg
May 30, 2007 - 07:32 ET by judahisWhen I was a teenager, I wrote this poem, one of my best, that addresses this:
To name a name
And say the name is true
Is not to name
The breath
that gave it due.
To name a name
And say the name is true
Is not to name
The
breath that gave it do.
To name a name
And say the name is true
Is not to name
The
BREATH that gave it dew.
(Sorry cannot get the formatting correct)
Not a Democrap or a lip-brawl, mostly a conserve-a-tiff. Famous words of elderly from movie "Moonstruck: "Somebody tell a joke" .judahisbenheard.com
What's worse: the deliberate
May 30, 2007 - 08:25 ET by kathleenirishWhat's worse: the deliberate use of a non-story by the WaPo to bash Catholics and Catholicism or the supposedly Catholic politician who uses the Catholic Church's teachings and faith to further his ambitions?
That's more sinful, Mr. Obey, to USE your church and abuse it with the express purpose of helping yourself, than supposedly just 'questioning' tenets of faith.
Rather sleazy, just like a pol, huh?
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Jesus is God. Jesus can tell
May 30, 2007 - 10:01 ET byJesus is God. Jesus can tell people how to live. We can tell people, but there should be some humbleness to what we say. And we should point out when we are telling someone what God says, that God says it, that we are just repeating what God says. No one is God and no one is a stand in for God.
I do not agree that it is liberal bias to speak against a faith-belief. I speak against any faith-belief that is not of the true 'born again' in Christ Biblical Christian faith-belief, which includes speaking against Catholicism. And I am the furthest thing from a bias-liberal.
We all must realize that in order for someone to be "fully whatever" faith one is, one is going to be fully against all faiths that go against that faith.
Debra...
And this site is not the place to broadcast your bigotry
May 30, 2007 - 10:04 ET by RJAnd this site is not the place to broadcast your "special" bigotry, Church Lady.
"I speak against any faith-belief that is"
May 30, 2007 - 10:17 ET by misterbill"I speak against any faith-belief that is not of the true 'born again' in Christ Biblical Christian faith-belief, which includes speaking against Catholicism."
Your soul must be black, you will sleep in eternity with the devil--you have no tolerance and no love. The only difference between you and a jihadist is that you have not yet resorted to violence. I am bloody sick and tired of you and the things you post. You are a messenger of hate and intolerance. God has not struck you down, but, you hateful woman, you will stand before Him and He will ask you why you felt you were ordained by Him to spread your lies and hate. You will spend eternity in damnation.
You turn every post into a thread of YOUR faith-belief--you egotistical woman!
Go somewhere else and spread your message of hate and do not even try to rebut that it is hate. If you insist on staying here, please place your faith-belief hate messages in a forum, where they SHOULD be ignored.
I have avoided posting to you for months now. I will , after this post, return to that position
You are Jezebel!.
I am not the topic here. .
May 30, 2007 - 10:45 ET byInteresting responses from such "Tolerant" people. I am to only be tolerant of that which God is tolerant of. However, I am not the topic here. ...Debra
However, I am not the topic here. ...Debra
May 30, 2007 - 10:59 ET by misterbillHowever, I am not the topic here. ...Debra
FALSE--you make YOURSELF the topic with your "faith-belief" hate filled statements.
And you really tick me off with your unbelievable, hypocritical statement about "tolerant" people,as I have expressed on NB before and I am sure that many other bloggers who are not blinded by religious bigotry and hate, as you are, will remember from my previous posts.(Months ago, before I refused to participate in turning this site into the Debra/Tumbler religious combat zone). Between you and Tumbler I have read enough intolerance , bigotry and hate to last me all of my days.
Goodbye!!!!!!!!!!!! Jezebel!
PS One last thought--for Heaven's sake --SHUT UP about religion. Discuss media matters, please.
misterbill, My comment that I
May 30, 2007 - 11:08 ET bymisterbill,
My comment that I am not the topic here, was directed at those who wish to make me the topic. Of course I will be in my posts, because one naturally posts that which one believes.
You however have crossed a line with personal attacks and are in need of growing up. Until you do, I will ignore your post --I have no need to speak with people who behave as you are behaving.
Debra...
Your arrogant bigotry makes you the topic, Church Lady
May 30, 2007 - 11:11 ET by RJYour constant arrogant bigotry makes you the topic, Church Lady. Your religious intolerance does not belong on this media bias board.
Be careful RJ. Without into
May 30, 2007 - 11:23 ET by LeonBe careful RJ. Without intolerant Christians like her, W would have never won the 2000 election.
Like or not these people are deeply intertwined with your side. Debra's no different than Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or James Dobson.
Not worried about Debra
May 30, 2007 - 11:29 ET by Cool ArrowShe's less likely to suck up to radical Islam than the Muslicrats are.
Conservatives will hand over an Eric Rudolph in a heartbeat. The same can't be said for the Left and their apologist, head in the sand mindset.
Gore lied. Nobody fried
Unlike the knee-jerk Democrats, Leon
May 30, 2007 - 11:33 ET by RJUnlike the knee-jerk Democrats, Leon, those who vote Republican have a history of debate and disagreement. I strongly disagree with her approach, but I'll take her voting choice over that of the anti-American Socialists you favor...
Actually, Debra and her ilk a
May 30, 2007 - 12:33 ET by LeonActually, Debra and her ilk are the definition of Anti-American.
Hating other Americans based simply on their religious beliefs goes against the fundamental tenents upon which our country was founded.
show me the hate
May 30, 2007 - 12:39 ET by LionKingWhere has she ever explicitly said she hated anybody? I am not talking about lifestyles, I mean actually people.
Hating other Americans based simply on their religious beliefs goes
against the fundamental tenents upon which our country was founded.
That's funny...what tenet is that?
Leon we agree, bigots goes ag
May 30, 2007 - 12:40 ET by Conservative VoiceLeon we agree, bigots goes against the fundamental tenents upon what our country was founded...however, part of freedom is allowing bigots to be bigots...a paradox yes?
Sure I have no problem with s
May 30, 2007 - 12:42 ET by LeonSure I have no problem with somebody being a bigot. It's their personal choice.
But we should always call them out as such and make it clear that they are bigots.
Leon...r u the judge
May 30, 2007 - 12:51 ET by LionKingLeon, are you the one that gets to decide who is and is not a BIGOT? By what standard and terms?
Yes, I decide for myself who
May 30, 2007 - 12:53 ET by LeonYes, I decide for myself who I think is a bigot. Doesn't everyone make their own decision on this matter?
Leon..what? ... part II
May 30, 2007 - 12:59 ET by LionKingSo if you believe someone is a BIGOT, then you feel that it is okay to call them such. Sounds kind of hateful and intolerant.
Also, you never answered by what measure you choose to judge people to assign them the status of BIGOT.
and and and, as rational Amer
May 30, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Leonand and and, as rational Americans, we should never ever defend any sort of bigoted speech (we shouldn't prevent it, but we really shouldn't ever excuse it). Again, this includes Pat Robertson, Falwell, Dobson, etc. I've seen rampant excusing of their bigoted speech on this site.
To me bigots are not the problem. They are easily identifiable and thus, easily marginalized. I'm more terrified of the people that profess to be tolerant, but then defend bigoted speech, like on Newsbusters.
Leon - your hatred and bigotr
May 30, 2007 - 12:53 ET by florida_chadLeon - your hatred and bigotry of all things conservative is shocking. Don't you see anything wrong on the left??? No bogotry there at all huh?
Specifics, Leon
May 30, 2007 - 12:54 ET by RJ"...like on Newsbusters"
Specifics, Leon, instead of generalities....or slink away.
Uh, how about the myriad of p
May 30, 2007 - 12:56 ET by LeonUh, how about the myriad of posts defending Falwell's hate speech following his death.
I.E. in response to the direct, hateful quotes I posted twice.
Can you be more specific as w
May 30, 2007 - 13:01 ET by Conservative VoiceCan you be more specific as what he said, and how it is bigotry?
Oh, so you're just speaking of "some", Leon
May 30, 2007 - 13:04 ET by RJOh, so it's just "some" people, not "Newsbusters", as you implied in your attempt to paint all with the same brush. Got it.
Well, heck, if you want to play the game of guilt by association, NB must be really dirty...it even lets Trolls like you, LeftWing, j. faux wilson, etc, post here at will......
RJ,I never said it was all of
May 30, 2007 - 14:43 ET by LeonRJ,
I never said it was all of Newsbusters. I said and I quote "like on Newsbusters".
Once again in your haste to morph into an attack dog, you've created a nonexistant argument.
weenie words, leon
May 30, 2007 - 15:00 ET by RJWeenie words, leon. Your implication was clear in the context.
So Leon
May 30, 2007 - 15:10 ET by SportPoliticsSo Leon, do you outright condemn Hillary Clinton for her " You f*ing JEW bastar* ! " spew ?
I also want confirmation that you condemn democrat Moran for his " Well it was a jewess" as he put down the questioner publicly with his racist screed against her.
Let's add in your condemnatrion concerning Al Sharpton's "Heime town " remarks, and his attacks on jews.
I also want you to say you vehemently condemn all the hispanic racist hatred lines that include their words for "whites" - which are pure racism as well.
Let's not forget the general " I hate zio-jews" and the "jewish cabal of PNAC" - and the general hatred the democrats all together spew - take Jimmy Carter for instance - let's hear the condemnation there.
So, you can start with HILLARY - and end with Jimmy Carter. I'm waiting for your condemnations instead of your silent or more public support as I've seen in the past here.
Do Americans have to overreact ?
May 30, 2007 - 12:46 ET by tumblerLeon:
I have to inform you that up to now you've been guilty only of smearing the Virgin Mary --for whatever personal reasons of yours. May God forgive the offense.
But here you smear an American who indeed has freedom of speech. No matter how she may exploit it, or what for. -- You make an uncalled-for personal attack.
She NEVER expressed hatred for anybody. She has called other faiths false, believing that hers is the true faith.
I don't think Debra's main flaw is hating; it's Pride. We all have this fault, up to a point. But, since she equates her faith with a divine truth; her pride is out of control. You cannot communicate with a person like Debra. Her mind is made up.
Tumbler,You'll have to jog my
May 30, 2007 - 12:50 ET by LeonTumbler,
You'll have to jog my memory. I don't remember ever saying anything about the Virgin Mary, so I have no clue what you're talking about.
I didn't attack Debra, I merely pointed out that she was intolerant. I am right on this fact.
Calling other faiths false is being intolerant and close-minded.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Dear Leon:
May 30, 2007 - 13:18 ET by tumblerI could have confused the post I'm thinking about with one of yours. It's in words to this effect; Mary went on to have sex after the birth of Our Lord. It was a CRUDE post; the offender said, "Why couldn't Mary "get it on."--? Puke !
But if you don't remember saying it, I surely have confused you for "Lion King."
If it was really him I sincerely apologize for saying you did it. (He is just the feeble-minded sort to make statements like that. Debra herself was complicit in that stupidity.) Forgive me if I thought wrongly of you.
Tumbler,Definitely wasn't me.
May 30, 2007 - 13:56 ET by LeonTumbler,
Definitely wasn't me. I don't think I've ever even typed the word 'Mary' on this site.
No need for apologies, it was just some simple confusion. I'll live.
still, I was mistaken
May 30, 2007 - 14:05 ET by tumblerOK, but I am sorry. I called you for one of "Lion King's" great blnders.
tumbleweed...it wasn't me either
May 30, 2007 - 14:23 ET by LionKingtumbler...it wasn't me either...I guess by your standards, does that make you a liar or just mistaken?
[be careful how you answer lest you be confused for a hypocrite]
tumbler...waiting...
May 30, 2007 - 15:26 ET by LionKingCare or dare to answer?
Was Mary a virgin, before or
May 30, 2007 - 13:16 ET by Senior ChiefWas Mary a virgin, before or after she begat Jesus? Was mary still a virgin after she delivered Jesus? Did Mary had more children after Jesus? Did Mary needed a Saviour when cousin Elisabeth visited her, carrying John in her womb? Was Mary the mother of God...So then, God is not eternal. Which Mary are you talking about?
I knew between the "I-am
May 30, 2007 - 16:14 ET by kathleenirishI knew between the "I-am-a-better-Christian-than-you" Debra, the "holier-than-thou-bigots", Leon, and the rest of the crew who get off-topic would muck up the point of this thread.
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.
Exactly, kathleenirish. I'
May 30, 2007 - 16:23 ET by motherbeltExactly, kathleenirish. I'm sure there are other forums where people can bring up any subject they want, and hash it to death. I've been at work all day and just popped in, and when I see where this thread has gone, I think there is justification for the administrators, at some point to close a thread. This looks like one of those times.
KI and MBelt
May 30, 2007 - 16:31 ET by misterbillKI and MBelt --if only they would close the thread!!!!!!
misterb...I see Debra got her
May 30, 2007 - 16:37 ET by bigtimermisterb...
I see Debra got her mission accomplished with help from a few of her pals.
I saw this early this morning, saw where she said she didn't want this to be about her....
Yeah right...when pigs fly.
I really like NB--best site around--
May 30, 2007 - 16:44 ET by misterbillI really like NB--best site around--but I often go to other sites the past few weeks. I cannot stand the arguments about religion. They are senseless and foolish. Not the content, there are many learned people here--the concept that this is a religious forum. It is not.
gotta go--just got babysitting duties.
Do Americans have to overreact ?
May 30, 2007 - 12:48 ET by tumblerLeon:
I have to inform you that up to now you've been guilty only of smearing the Virgin Mary --for whatever personal reasons of yours. May God forgive the offense.
But here you smear an American who indeed has freedom of speech. No matter how she may exploit it, or what for. -- You make an uncalled-for personal attack.
She NEVER expressed hatred for anybody. She has called other faiths false, believing that hers is the true faith.
I don't think Debra's main flaw is hating; it's Pride. We all have this fault, up to a point. But, since she equates her faith with a divine truth; her pride is out of control. You cannot communicate with a person like Debra. Her mind is made up.
tumbleweed...get your facts straight
May 30, 2007 - 13:28 ET by LionKingget your facts straight
Tumbler,Mary was married. Fac
Submitted by DebraJMSmith on May 26, 2007 - 03:30.
Tumbler,
Mary
was married. She had other children, like James. And you cannot show me
a place in Scripture saying she remained a virgin. There is, however,
Scripture that says that Josheph did not have sex with her till after
Jesus was born.
Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Face
it, Tumbler. The woman 'got it on.' You are 68 years old, Tumbler. It
is time to grow up and not get grossed out at the thought of sex. Sex
is a beautiful thing between a husband and wife and it is Biblical for
a woman to give herself to her husband. Had Mary not, she would have
been sinning.
Debra...
:o)
the blind leading the blind
May 30, 2007 - 13:54 ET by tumblerMary is the mother of God. She is a Virgin even now; because God chose her, a virgin, to become the mother of His divine Son. She had NO MORE children.
TILL-- is not proof or even relevant to her subsequent married life; and the marriage to Joseph has never been consummated; it never will. It's called CHASTITY, my ignorant friend. Mary had taken a VOW before God; to be ever a virgin. If she had NOT, He would not have called her to become mother of His Son. That's a no-brainer. Christ's Church refers to St. Joseph as her "chaste spouse, and it's a revealed truth, Son. --Definitely NOT a sin, as Debra believes. Because His Church declares it, you lose.)
Opinions of your sort are purely stupiditiy posing as wisdom. Jesus gave His mother into the care of John the evangelist, because she had no children to take her in subsequent to His death on the cross. How can you think her "other" son James would not have gone after his mother ? Are you're dumber than I thought ?
As for SEX, my dumb heretic; it is sacred between two spouses in its ordinary mode. But even married couples have taken vows of chastity and offered it up to God. They're called to sainthood !
If sex is all this megillah you propose as INDISPENSABLE and NECESSARY, why did JESUS choose celibacy for Himself ? --Was Jesus "sinning ?" Or have you swallowed that crap about the Da Vinci Code ? (That would be your kind of faith, all right.)
the marriage to Joseph has ne
May 30, 2007 - 14:08 ET by dscottthe marriage to Joseph has never been consummated;
You might want to read: 46While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
Another reference in John: 2But when the Jewish Feast of Tabernacles was near, 3Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do. 4No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world."
Are you denying James is the brother of Jesus? 18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother. 20I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.
On the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact will be confirmed.
Now I ask you, how did Jesus get brothers if Joseph didn't consumate his marriage to Mary???? No where does it say Joseph married another woman other than Mary. I think you overstepped this one. In fact, doesn't the Catholic Church acknowledge Jesus' brothers?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
dscott: are you sincere ?
May 30, 2007 - 14:53 ET by tumblerDear Dscott,
If you're sincerely interested in the truth, here goes:
Mary as I said above is a Virgin, and the Church teaches this as an infallible truth.
The words "brother, sister" and "brethren" in ALL the semitic languages of the time did NOT always mean SIBLING. --Sure, we accept the clear words Joseph had eleven brothers, -- (Joseph of the coat of many colors,) But in less obvious verses it also meant any KIN, a brother was just a cousin. Or even an uncle ? The translation is incorrect if we try to say Jesus had siblings, seeing all the contextual truths of His life. We definitely know there were no siblings of His at the foot of the cross when He died.
Do you really THINK He would've dismissed their absence as a coincidence? Do you think He would've entrusted Mary to the care of anyone BUT His brothers and sisters the siblings ? Of course not. She had no other sons; and Jesus knows that !
But the really important fact has to be the testimony of his ONLY Church. No denominational church or sect has any link to the apostles and Jesus Christ. All these "authorities" are NOT Christ's Church. The Catholic Church IS .
And she is endowed with the Holy Spirit, who keeps Catholic doctrine free of any error. We rely then, on the testimony of God's Holy Spirit, when we accept the teaching of the Church. AS JESUS COMMANDED US. Knowing this, we need only the testimony of the Church to ascertain any truth, no matter how ambiguous; and particularly when it comes to settling true meanings of scripture open to misinterpretation. The Holy Spirit cannot allow any deception to enter into the deposit of faith; Jesus promised us. It's in the BIBLE, and I can give you proof-text if you insist. Therefore, when she teaches Mary and Joseph were chaste, and she ever-virgin; the matter isn't open to any dispute. --Especially when those who dispute have their clear confict of interest: by discreditng the teaching of Christ's Church, they further their OWN means. They exist to oppose the Catholic faith ! That's how come DEBRA will always say it's false if taught by the Catholic Church. To admit it's true is to confess her own faith is suspect. She will insist that only from the Bible can she believe a "faith-belief." Despite the Bible never having told us such things. The Bible upholds all Catholic doctrine, bar none.
"The Bible upholds all C
May 30, 2007 - 15:02 ET by vrwc13"The Bible upholds all Catholic doctrine, bar none." That is your opinion, are you tolerant of millions of Protestants that do not agree?
no, I'm tolerant
May 30, 2007 - 15:18 ET by tumblerMillions of faithful protestants will arrive at salvation, despite their many errors. But that's not because they believed anti-catholic doctrine. It mostly will come about because they truly LOVE Jesus Christ. Believe me. it will NOT all be because of what they took from the Bible.
What would it matter if I were intolerant of protestants, of ANY sinner; as I live in the Church Christ has given us,
If I die in mortal sin ? If I allow the devil to mislead me ? This life is a TRIAL; we must persevere in faith or we'll be damned. Thank God, He places me in a situation where the Church guides me every day of my life. I have the sacraments, the infallible teaching, the faith !
I don't have to die in sin the way many unbelievers shall. --I can repent and have Christ's grace restored to me in confession and penance. It's not over till it's over ! How about you ?
I am ok with my beliefs. The
May 30, 2007 - 15:42 ET by vrwc13I am ok with my beliefs. The "church" I believe in is comprised of its believers not a building, sect, demonination or religion. I also have peace in knowing that Jesus saved me once and for all, His grace is complete and secure.
25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[d]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30I and the Father are one." John 10
that's your problem, vrwc13
May 30, 2007 - 15:50 ET by tumblerYour church is your church.
My concern for you is that you are not a member of Jesus Christ's Church. You can paste texts all day; but when the day is done you've come no closer to the Church. I feel very sorry for those who roam the wilderness instead of being in the fold of the Good Shepherd. Lost sheep. You've heard Jesus' voice and took off after the men who oppose His sheep. And whatever produced your "peace" it is not the Truth.
How do you know who is and wh
May 30, 2007 - 15:55 ET by vrwc13How do you know who is and who isn't, I thought that was God's call?
Rather presumptious on your part.
vrwc13...U have been judged
May 30, 2007 - 15:57 ET by LionKingvrwc...You have been judged by the self-righteous tumbler. He is God's voice on this site by his proclamation. He is the always right on all issues and everyone else is WRONG. </sarc...
LionKing...tough day out here
May 30, 2007 - 16:03 ET by vrwc13LionKing...tough day out here all around. tumbler's been playing god again and I see that you and RJ got into it. He (RJ) bodyslammed me for butting in. Me thinks his underwear might be a bit too tight today.
vrwc...true
May 30, 2007 - 16:09 ET by LionKingRJ really missed my point and would not accept my apology. I did not intend to offend. I would have liked to have responded again, but, I would have acted hypocritical since I said that it was finished. I was hoping that RJ would act a little more dignified and classy...all we can do sometimes is hope and pray.
Hang in there, buddy. Fight the good fight.
Moved the discussion, LK?
May 30, 2007 - 16:21 ET by RJMoved the discussion over here, LK? Well, we wouldn't want you to be "hypocritical" (but with YOUR illogic, I don't know what you call slyly continuing on a different thread), so here's your chance to respond: I didn't miss your point. Anytime you write a short sentence with "you" and "hypocrite" in it, you're calling someone a hypocrite.
And better go back and check your "apologies." Every one of them came with at least one swipe. Not very dignified or classy of you.....
Leon,I have come pretty close
May 30, 2007 - 14:19 ET byLeon,
I have come pretty close to hating some people in my life, but never have such feelings lasted. And those feelings have never directly had to do with a person's faith-beliefs. Perhaps their faith-beliefs were at the core of what caused the person to do what they did that upset me, but that is just because faith-beliefs make us who we are.
Debra...
____________________________________________________________
Psalm 11:5 says, "The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth."
Leonovitch Trotsky,Do I det
May 30, 2007 - 11:55 ET by Dave RLeonovitch Trotsky,
Do I detect an anti-Christian bigotry orgasm on your part?
If it weren't for secular humanism, which is the religion of the left, the Hildebeast would still be toining away at some un-heard of law firm, figuring out new and more inventive ways to screw the American taxpayer.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
Nope, I'm not anti-Christian.
May 30, 2007 - 12:37 ET by LeonNope, I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-intolerance, from any group/individual.
You lie, you do not tolerat
May 30, 2007 - 12:50 ET by MightyMouthYou lie, you do not tolerate right wing conservatives.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sure I do. I disagree on mo
May 30, 2007 - 12:52 ET by LeonSure I do. I disagree on most issues, but I've never tried to silence anyone.
Disagreement is different than intolerance.
I respect your right to your beliefs, I just happen to think I'm more right.
Leon..what?
May 30, 2007 - 12:56 ET by LionKingIf Debra disagrees with other religions, she is intolerant. If you disagree on issues, it is not intolerance.
Care to explain the difference besides one is you and the other is Debra.
Its all in tone and delivery.
May 30, 2007 - 13:08 ET by Conservative VoiceIts all in tone and delivery. Though to be intolerant requires a disagreement, having a disagreement doesn't mean you are intolerant. I am not Catholic...there are things I disagree with them on, but I respect the Catholic Church, I don't spread lies about the Catholic Church or create threads dedicated to bashing the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and I can work for a Catholic, vote for a Catholic, and have a Catholic babysit my kids.
CV...Would you tolerate a Cat
May 30, 2007 - 14:58 ET by vrwc13CV...Would you tolerate a Catholic babysitting your kids if you knew they would try to explain the possible falsehoods of your religion to them?
vrwc13,I believe I have answe
May 30, 2007 - 17:52 ET by Conservative Voicevrwc13,
I believe I have answered this question. If I know that they would undermind me, then I am no longer prejudice, because I have knowledge. To be a bigot requires to things. Prejudice and intolerance.
To answer your question...I would be OK with sending my kid to a Catholic private school where they are required to learn how to be a Catholic, as long as they didn't try and teach my kid what I believe and how they are wrong. I would be OK with a Catholic baby sitter to teach my kid what Catholics believe, as long as they didn't try to tear down my religion. A Church that has to spend so much time to convince the people in the pew that they are the true Church because they aren't Mormon or Catholic isn't much of a Church. I plan on teaching my kids to judge people by their fruit...not the tree.
"...judge by the fruit..
May 31, 2007 - 07:38 ET by vrwc13"...judge by the fruit...not the tree". This is precisely the point I try to make of just the opposite. The Mormon and Catholic church teach fruits or works plus faith to achieve salvation. My faith is secure in that by God's grace alone we are saved, by responding in faith to accept Him. The resulting faith will produce good works/fruit. I teach my kids that "good fruits" are an indicator of possible faith in Christ but not necessarily so. Bill Gates and his wife come to mind. I do not claim to know his/her faith, but all the charity giving in the world won't buy you a ticket to heaven. One can gain the world but lose his soul.
It is a "right" faith in Him that gives you eternal life, not fruits, they are a result.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do " (Eph. 2:8,9).
vrwc, I was not saying you sh
May 31, 2007 - 13:13 ET by Conservative Voicevrwc, I was not saying you should play God in judging people who will go to heaven or hell...no wonder you come across as holier than thou. First off, you do not understand faith, with your statement "by responding in faith to accept him" that is an action, thereby work...your words (and also ignore the scripture faith without works is dead...faith requires action...but I don't want to get into a religious debate on what is faith and what isn't). Second, I believe that we are saved by grace, and I'm Mormon (so you don't know what you are talking about) nothing we do deserves heaven, but we should still obey his commandments. Having Faith in Christ causes us to repent of our sins, make covenants like Baptism and the sacrament (works). But the works themselves will not can not save us, as only Jesus Christ can. So enough with telling me what I believe. (This is why you should look at my fruits, because an unhealthy tree can not produce good fruit.)
Lastly, I was talking about how to judge one another with righteous judgement on who to associate ourselves with...not who is going to hell, as I can not make that call. For all I know Hitler has a better chance than I. It is bigotry when we see people's tree and judge them (ie see their religion, color, gender) with intolerance, but it isn't bigotry if you observe their fruit and then make a discrimination (every choice discriminates)...because judging their fruit removes the pre-judgement.
I respect your right to your
May 30, 2007 - 13:19 ET by dscottI respect your right to your beliefs, I just happen to think I'm more right.
Interesting thought, I wonder when the left in general will actually practice what they preach???? So Leon, do we understand you correctly then that when some MSM type calls Christians worse than terrorists or equates conservatives with NAZIs or calls Bush a Hitler that you disapprove of such comments??? I don't seem to remember you being very vocal about this, maybe I missed it???
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
"but I've never tried
May 30, 2007 - 13:41 ET by MightyMouth"but I've never tried to silence anyone."
Who said intolerance requires that action? Besides isn't that what the dems want to do to Conservative Talk radio with the bogus "Fairness Doctrine"?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sir Leon
May 30, 2007 - 12:55 ET by misterbillSir Leon- thou art indeed a noble man, worthy of the love of mankind.
All of us have some kind of intolerance. I have an intolerance for disrespect. Also, cursing in front of women, demeaning another's religion. I am intolerant of scoff-laws. There are many things I am intolerant about, so shoot me--they're my feelings and my choice.
Oh yes, although I am often guilty myself, I am intolerant of people who say they are anti-intolerance. I am sure they did not mean they are perfect. One must be near perfect to be totally tolerant or else peyote is a happier substance than I thought.
PS Unfortunately there are even more things I am impatient with. Such as my ending the last sentence with a preposition.
Leonovitch,Tolerance for th
May 30, 2007 - 13:02 ET by Dave RLeonovitch,
Tolerance for the sake of tolerance can be a bad thing. Just ask the ancient Romans. They tolerated the barbarians form the north to come in live amongst them. It cost them their country. Need a more modern example? Look at the French.
BTW, as a libertarian, I am far more live-and-let-live than most all liberals, but my tolerance ends where my wallet begins. Too many liberals define tolerance as being where we all have to put up with whatever certain groups want, even if it costs us money. B.S.
As long as people live their lives without harming or interefering with the rights of others, I care not what they do. However, once they decide to go to the government because they have decided they have more of a right to my money or property than I have, (and this includes liberals who are themselves intolerant and use the government to interfere with the rights of Christians and others they don't like) that is the end of my tolerance, and they can go to hell at that point, as far as I care.
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
Dave R
May 30, 2007 - 13:21 ET by Conservative VoiceDave well said.
loll... Leon,Do you see the c
May 30, 2007 - 14:25 ET byloll... Leon,
Do you see the contradiction in your post? If you are truly anti-intolerance from any group, then you are anti-yourself. Reason? You are intolerant of Christians.
Now, I never claim to be tolerant of everyone or of everything. I am tolerant of many types of people and many types of things, but not all people and not all things.
Debra...
Debra,What have I said that's
May 30, 2007 - 14:35 ET by LeonDebra,
What have I said that's intolerant of Christians? Nothing.
In fact, I've clearly stated I'm against INTOLERANT CHRISTIANS such as yourself.
Don't put words in my mouth to create a disingenuous argument.
PS I've visited your website. I wonder how God feels about his followers profiting off his religion.
Leon,Yes, you are very agains
May 30, 2007 - 18:50 ET byLeon,
Yes, you are very against Christians who are not tolerant of 'all' that you are tolerant of, which makes you intolerant of such Christians.
Hey, I am fine with you being intolerant of those who believe as I believe. I am simply pointing out that you contradict yourself by speaking against intolerance when you are intolerant as well. You see, I never claim to be tolerant of everything.
As for what you said about my website and profiting from it. I do not profit from my activism work. I do not even take donations. I pay for all that I do for my activism work with my own money.
mmm... I may write a book some day, however. Yes, I was thinking about writing about intolerant people who claim to be against intolerance. umm... I could call it, "Leon's Inconsistency."
:o)
Debra...
a question to all Debra bashers?
May 30, 2007 - 11:49 ET by LionKingYou accuse her of intolerance, but what are all of you doing? She expresses her opinions as does everyone. If you do not agree, that is fine, but I find it hypocritical for you to be intolerant of her views.
I suppose you thing we should be tolerant of radical Islamic views which include the murder of innocent woman and children?
[Next time look in the mirror before you respond.]
Are you nuts?
May 30, 2007 - 11:53 ET by RJAre you nuts? The Church Lady CONSTANTLY throws her religious bigotry in our faces, but WE are the ones who are "intolerant" for calling her on it?
LionKing - she does more than
May 30, 2007 - 12:05 ET by florida_chadLionKing - she does more than just express her opinion. She is also quick to tell you if you don't believe in her "truth" then you will go to hell. I missed it in the bible when God appointed her the final authority.
2 wrongs do not make it right
May 30, 2007 - 12:11 ET by LionKingtruthfully, I have not been involved in many of her threads. If she is indeed judgmental and self-righteous, I agree that is wrong. It is equally as wrong to behave in that same manner towards her ... Don't Feed the Self-Righteous.
I did not come here to codemn, only to opine!
"I did not come her to condemn"
May 30, 2007 - 12:15 ET by RJ"I did not come her to condemn"
Gee, "hypocritical" sounds to me like a pretty good example of condeming.....
LK, this site is about Media Bias. It is not a platform for Debra to preach her bigotry. Many, many people have asked her, nicely, to stop. She ignores everyone. Would you have us ignore her ugliness?
RJ...wrong
May 30, 2007 - 12:19 ET by LionKingHow is that condemnig? Did I pass judgment and say that you are going to Hell. It was merely an expression of my opinion. I never said being a hypocrite was right or wrong ... any condemnation you feel is because you feel being a hypocrite is wrong.
Lion King, arguing with you is like arguing with a child
May 30, 2007 - 13:35 ET by RJIt's not condemning unless you say I'm going to Hell? And it's up to me to decide if I feel being a hypocrit is wrong...or if I dislike being called that? Whew! Interesting rationalization you have there. Say anything you want and it's the other guy's fault if he doesn't like it.
Lion King, arguing with you is like arguing with a child.
Wait.....using your logic, I say you're being silly and childlike in your arguments....but I insist I'm not being condescending about your obvious lack of mental abilities. Hey, it's not my fault if you decide you don't like it.
You're a real trip, Loin King. ;^>
rj...really???
May 30, 2007 - 14:18 ET by LionKingI never called anyone a hypocrite. I merely cited that actions of some seemed hypocritical to me. If a person is hypocritical in one instance, I do not necessarily assume that they are always hypocritical.
I believe it is better not to label people or classify people by their actions.
Again, I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks since I have no tolerance for that behavior. I sincerely apologize to you and anyone else that I may have offended. As I stated in another post, I was merely trying to invoke a little introspection.
"I never called anyone a hypocrite."
May 30, 2007 - 14:55 ET by RJ"I never called anyone a hypocrite."
Oh, really? When I said Church Lady is intolerant, you responded specifically to my post in this way...
"You accuse her of intolerance....I find it hypocritical for you to be intolerant of her views."
Looks pretty clear to me, but, hey, you said that's just "my opinion", right?
I suppose you'll now say you were speaking generally....but let's say we accept that excuse: it would mean that you applied the label of "hypocrite" to ALL who said Church Lady is intolerant.
Of course, you could continue insisting that it's up to the reader to decide if being a hypocrite is good or bad....
rj...speaking of childish behavior
May 30, 2007 - 15:00 ET by LionKingDo you not understand the difference between referring to actions appearing hypocritical and calling someone a hypocrite?
You are entitled to opinions, but it would be helpful if you based your opinions on facts.
Lion King, those are weasel words
May 30, 2007 - 15:25 ET by RJ"appearing hypocritical"
Sorry, those weasel words are not what you said, LK. You said "I find it hypocritical of you to be intolerant of her views" and you've spent all afternoon childishly denying that you did. Sad.
rj...I did not deny anything
May 30, 2007 - 15:36 ET by LionKingI do not deny calling those actions hypocritical. I do deny calling anyone a hypocrite. If you believe that you are defined by your actions, then since were are born of sin and are sinners, then we can never be redeemed.
1) I never said being a hypocrite was wrong, so why the offense
2) Even if someone behaves in a hypocritical manner I do not assume they always behave that way (well, with the exception of a few with a long track record)
Finally, I was sincere in an earlier post about not intending to offend anyone, just trying provoke some introspection. I am sorry if you cannot deal with that or get past being offended. You truly missed the intent of what I meant and I feel we have both wasted too much time mincing words. As far as I am concerned...
Lion King, you are pathetic
May 30, 2007 - 15:57 ET by RJThe only word "mincing" has come from you, LK. You can use all the weasel words you want, but when you use the words, "you" and "hypocrite" in the same short sentence, then you are calling someone a hypocrite.
Your denial makes you either a fool or a liar. And, frankly, I find it disgusting when someone tries to hide behind religion. It doesn't protect you from your own words.
As for intent, my original post said that Church Lady's constant bigoted intolerance doesn't belong on a blog about "media bias", and I stand by that sentiment.
But Jesus said you are going
May 30, 2007 - 14:37 ET by vrwc13But Jesus said you are going to hell if you do not believe in Him..."No one comes to the Father except through Me." Was he being intolerant or a hypocrit?
Yeah, logic, reason, facts play less of a role now in the way we make decisions in America. – Al Gore
I don't need your self-righteous preaching, vrwc13
May 30, 2007 - 15:34 ET by RJI don't need your insertion of self-righteous preaching into this conversation, vrwc13. This discussion between LK and myself has nothing to do with religion....yours, mine or anyone else's.
Thought this was an "ope
May 30, 2007 - 15:46 ET by vrwc13Thought this was an "open thread"? A rather intolerant comment on your behalf RJ in a discussion of tolerance.
vrcw13, I don't need you and your fellow sect members inserting
May 31, 2007 - 09:29 ET by RJThat this is an open thread doesn't give you the right to turn it into yet another religious thread as your and your fellow sect members are wont to do.
Re-read my post, vrwc13. If you want to add something pertinent to the discussion, feel free. What I don't need is the instertion of your religious point of view into a secular discussion. Take it to your religious site.
rj...do U know pathetic?
May 31, 2007 - 10:38 ET by LionKingDo you what is pathetic? Your lack of understanding is pathetic. Do you know the difference between criticism and condemnation? Get a clue.
You're a real trip, Loin King. ;^>
May 31, 2007 - 11:09 ET by RJHa. Thought you were "finished", LK.
That must be a fascinating conversation you have with yourself. You need to start writing down your goofy arguments posted here and those you have with yourself. You denied condemning anyone...but no one accused you of condemning anyone...
You're a real trip, Loin King. ;^>
rj...in your own words
June 1, 2007 - 15:35 ET by LionKingIn your own words, RJ
RJ
Says:
May 30, 2007 - 13:15
"I did not come her to condemn"
Gee, "hypocritical" sounds to me like a pretty good example of condeming.....
"If she is indeed judgme
May 30, 2007 - 14:33 ET by"If she is indeed judgmental and self-righteous, I agree that is wrong."
If <---- being the operative word here. :o)
And there is some judgment that God calls the believer to do. But self-righteous? I am "Christ-righteous."
Debra...
Christ-righteous?? Only if it
May 30, 2007 - 14:39 ET by florida_chadChrist-righteous?? Only if it is the version of Christ that you approve.
No, self rightous was the correct description based on your postings here.
And that is your right to bel
May 30, 2007 - 14:40 ET byAnd that is your right to believe that, florida_chad.
Of course it is. Just like it
May 30, 2007 - 14:45 ET by florida_chadOf course it is. Just like it is your right to be intolerant of someone's "faith-beliefs".
As it is your right, florida_
May 30, 2007 - 14:49 ET byAs it is your right, florida_chad, to be intolerant of someone's "faith-beliefs."
I'm not intolerant of someone
May 30, 2007 - 14:54 ET by florida_chadI'm not intolerant of someone's "faith-beliefs." Believe whatever you want. You are and have made that very clear over and over again.
Debra
May 30, 2007 - 10:49 ET by QueenMum"We all must realize that in order for someone to be "fully whatever" faith one is, one is going to be fully against all faiths that go against that faith. "
Sounds a lot like the teachings of radical Islam. Otherwise, your statement makes little sense.
QueenMum,Actually, my stateme
May 30, 2007 - 10:53 ET byQueenMum,
Actually, my statement makes a lot of sense. Think about it. If a person believes that his way is the only way, then how can he be "for" that which goes against what he believes. That is like saying up is down.
Debra...
Debra: You were correct when
May 30, 2007 - 11:01 ET by QueenMumDebra: You were correct when you said that the discussion is not about you. Please refrain from questioning the "tolerance" of others when you show little yourself. You are perfectly free to espouse your personal interpretation of what does or does not constitute a "true" Christian. However, you have not been assigned by God to condemn others. "Speak the truth in love."
Respond if you must. However, I personally am finished with this particular sidebar.
QueenMum,Now, that was funny.
May 30, 2007 - 11:11 ET byQueenMum,
Now, that was funny. Thanks for the laugh.
Debra...
So to clarify what you're say
May 30, 2007 - 13:47 ET by dscottSo to clarify what you're saying, a true believer in whatever religion of necessity is mutually exclusive of other belief systems? Yes and No, and maybe that's were many of the posters are reacting strongly to your statement.
Yes, e.g. if Christ is the only path to God then of course those who are Muslim, Jews, Buddhist or Hindu are not saved in the means God provided for in Christ. The mutual exclusivity of any Religion toward others is self evident when you closely examine the tenents of that faith to say otherwise means you haven't really examined what they said to believe, which is the usual liberal pablum.
No, e.g. Catholism, Coptics, Lutheranism, Baptist, etc. are not mutually exclusive sects of Christianity, they disagree on non vital issues of mere (but strongly held) opinion, hence the Apostolic Creed which all Christian sects accept. The same could be said of the Shiite, Sufi and Sunni in the Muslim Faith, they may call each other heretics, but such name calling is more over a power struggle of leadership than actual mutual exclusivity of their sect's beliefs.
But none of this is to say that Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus Buddhists can not peacefully co-exist or that they can't disagree with those of other religions to the point of intolerance. The issue here is of intolerance, not disagreement. Intolerance does not mean disagreement any more than tolerance means agreement. Tolerance means agreeing to disagree, it means respecting the rights of others by not forcing, coercing, or intimidating them to submit to your line of thinking. Simply stating your beliefs is not intolerance as liberals would have everyone believe. In fact, those who are offended at the statement of the beliefs of others are themselves intolerant for trying to coerce silence
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
dscott,If a person believes t
May 30, 2007 - 14:37 ET bydscott,
If a person believes that his way is the only way, then all that goes against his way, to him, is wrong.
Debra...
Be back later. Hopefully ther
May 30, 2007 - 11:11 ET byBe back later. Hopefully there will be some people who wish to talk about the topic, not me.
Debra...
good morning to my friends
May 30, 2007 - 11:47 ET by tumblerDebra says the subject here is not herself; but on many ocassions she's given us her "faith-belief" as the key to all our daily problems; and exclusively Debra's faith belief.
Which means she feels entitled to denounce the Church Jesus founded, as if it were merely some devils' association. How is a "faith-belief" that starts off with this false premise supposed to save anybody ? Frankly; THAT'S the true topic; because she is taking the same tack the liberal newspaperman takes, and reinforcing it.
I have to express my approval of the reproaches of one or two of this group, which place the truth foremost; that Debra is intolerant. We know she'll refuse to understand.
I know a hypocrite like misterbile associates me with Debra, but his charge of intolerance does NOT stick to me. Because I never approached any discussion of faith here in the blogsite from my personal perspective. I only corrected a number of false impressions that non-Catholics (and a few bigots) have believed about the Catholic faith. I have no authority to teach; I can only pass on what the Church teaches. Therefore, I have no need to defend anything I've said here in discussions of religion. --It's to be expected that a hypocrite and bluff like misterbile has to take gratuitous shots at me; as if I'd been proclaiming much the same thing as Debra does. He lies. You all know my effort has been to inform the misinformed. Not proselytize.
In one post of mine I tried to be very clear: I can't convert anyone; not in a million years. I can speak of the truth as I received it and God has the power to convert, if He wills. I would convert any Debras of this world immediately; if I could. But only God can make her see. So far He is not offering her His hand. But I can pray for her, and for poor souls like misterbile. (Which I've done, right in this site.) I prayed for him seriously before. He continued to hate me. I'll keep praying; what else can a believer do ?
I'll also pray today for Senior Chief; a man who repeated his grossly uncharitable thoughts about the Catholic Church today. Even after I'd previously tried to help him. He apparently won't change either.
Human pride resists God. It's always been so.
I second that tumbler. You
May 30, 2007 - 12:05 ET by Conservative VoiceI second that tumbler. You are vocal on your beliefs, but they are in defense to others who try to paint the Catholic Church is a bad light. I think most people associate you with Debra because of your style, but I haven't seen you attack other people's religions as she has.
Question would you vote for a Mormon [ insert faith of choice ] in an election? If the answer is depends on how the person conducts themselves, then you aren't a bigot...but if you said no, I could never work for...elect....or let them babysit my kids etc. because they are members of that Church, then you are a bigot.
CV...r u a bigot?
May 30, 2007 - 12:07 ET by LionKingCV...Are you a bigot?
Would you let a sword-wielding radical Islamist babysit your kids?
I wouldn't let a sword wieldi
May 30, 2007 - 12:10 ET by florida_chadI wouldn't let a sword wielding anyone babysit my kids. But I know a couple of muslims that are very nice people and they could watch my kids.
chad?
May 30, 2007 - 12:13 ET by LionKingSeriously, how many sword-wielding Christians do you know? None. You have automatically excluded them because you are an anti-sword BIGOT !!!
;-)
Dam - you busted me. I belong
May 30, 2007 - 12:19 ET by florida_chadDam - you busted me. I belong to FAS - Families Against Swords.
People don't kill - swords do. Just like SUVs and guns. ;)
Re-read what I said...I said
May 30, 2007 - 12:36 ET by Conservative VoiceRe-read what I said...I said if it depends on how the person conducts themselves, then you aren't a bigot. But if the answer is No because they are Muslim. Mormon, Catholic, whatever...then you are a bigot.
A sword wielding death to America falls under the depends category.
CV...r u a bigot?
May 30, 2007 - 12:43 ET by LionKingSo if they conduct themselves in a homosexual manner, it is okay to discrimnate based on those actions?
Homosexual manner is an actio
May 30, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Conservative VoiceHomosexual manner is an action and behavior, not a belief...it isn't bigotry.
CV...so the answer is yes
May 30, 2007 - 13:04 ET by LionKingCV...so your answer is yes.
Some might accuse you of being a homophobe or worse...a gay basher. Sounds like intolerance of a particular lifestyle.
btw, I am merely speaking rhetorically to all to bring to light that intolerance is not necessarily wrong.
I beleive that has been part of the theme on this thread that intolerance is inherently wrong...this is not true. We do not tolerate murder.
There are two criteria for bi
May 30, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Conservative VoiceThere are two criteria for bigotry: prejudice and intolerance. If I am observing behavior that I deem as not good to have my kids to be around alone from a person who would be in a position of authority...then I am not being prejudice, hence not a bigot. If I pre-judge the person will molest my kids because they are gay...then I am being prejudice and thereby a bigot.
Nicely done CV.........
May 30, 2007 - 13:20 ET by acumenNicely done CV.........
All people of this world has
May 30, 2007 - 13:23 ET by Senior ChiefAll people of this world has intolerant and prejudicial behavior- it depends where and when it hits your nerve.
Jesus would say, "Love t
May 30, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Senior ChiefJesus would say, "Love the sinner, but not the sin".
Tumbler---You misunderstand me----
May 30, 2007 - 12:24 ET by misterbillTumbler---You misunderstand me----and if I misstated, I apologize. No--you are not religiously intolerant--Yes--you have expressed your Catholic beliefs here. So, I do not intend to tar you with an "intolerant" brush. My charge is that you and she spend too much time arguing about religious differences on a site that is intended to be a topical issue site. (Specifically for MSM falsehoods.)
There are many, including me, that have jumped in to the debate netween the two of you. We are as wrong as you are to spend the time on the religious issue. I too, am a Catholic, nothing I read here will ever change that, even the words of another Catholic. I know enough about myself, that were I of another religion, I would be content there too. I have always had God in my thoughts. Nobody will be converted by anyone else on this post. Let us go back to the issues of the day, Iraq, GW, Immigration, crime, foreign policy, mideast and the ways things are reported by the MSM. That is what we should be debating/arguing about, IMHO.
"...but only God can mak
May 30, 2007 - 13:18 ET by RESTLESS 1"...but only God can make her see. So far He is not offering her His hand."
You are a Catholic? I am Protestant myself ( Lutheran), but it seems to me you are in error. God offers His hand to all. It is up to the individuals to grasp it.
That being said, I agree that this is a media bias website, and religion should be discussed in the appropriate forum.
So says you, Tumbler, on all
May 30, 2007 - 14:39 ET bySo says you, Tumbler, on all points of your post. ...Debra
Then you are a bigot.
May 30, 2007 - 12:11 ET by Airforce_5_OThen you are a bigot.
I am okay with you feeling th
May 30, 2007 - 14:42 ET byI am okay with you feeling that way, Airforce_5_0
I don't care if you are or no
May 30, 2007 - 14:50 ET by Airforce_5_OI don't care if you are or not Debra. Your intolerance has gone beyond the pale for me. This is the last time I speak to you. I forgive you but I will not speak to you again.
I am okay with that too, Airf
May 30, 2007 - 19:21 ET byI am okay with that too, Airforce_5_0. Your intolerance of those who are not tolerant of 'all' that you are tolerant of is a bit annoying to watch.
Debra...
You are the one that is annoy
May 30, 2007 - 19:37 ET by bigtimerYou are the one that is annoying to watch... 'I do not want this to be about me' Debra....what a joke.
Period.
Debra, this thread explains h
May 30, 2007 - 12:26 ET by Conservative VoiceDebra, this thread explains how it is liberal bias. It isn't liberal bias to speak against another faith...its just bias. (And being bias for your own faith is normal and appropriate...where it becomes inappropriate is when you are rude, spread falsehoods, and act like God in declaring with authority that the other faith is blasphamy...or act like a pharisee.)
I know you are taking offense that people are making this about you, but your second paragraph is about you..you have invited the topic change to go from this thread to you.
I disagree with your last paragraph. I have my faith, which means I believe all others are false...but that doesn't mean I think they are 100% false, nor am I against those faiths. Otherwise Debra, you would have to be against everyone who isn't of your faith...and chances are that even if someone is sitting next to you at your Church, they don't see everything as you do.
Its liberal bias because the media went out of their way to paint the Catholic Church wrongly...not a preacher, a reporter, telling falsehoods and opinion passing it off as news, because of the Church's conservative stands on abortion and such.
David (CW), I don't take offe
May 30, 2007 - 13:53 ET byDavid (CW),
I don't take offense easily, and I don't take offense at what was said here. It is to be expected that people will get vile over that which is right. I do however wish that people would talk on a topic and not me because such makes it hard to continue on a thread. My post was right on topic. I do not believe that a person is a liberal bias person because he/she speaks against a particular faith-belief. You and I speak against each others faith beliefs and neither of us are liberally bias.
Debra...
please, reverend debra
May 30, 2007 - 14:00 ET by tumblerCut it out.
There's no thing such as a "faith-belief,"
There is TRUTH and the UNTRUTH, and the two cannot be reconciled. What you refer to as your "faith-belief" is your private opinion. You base it upon your misconstrued and foolish reading of Scripture. Theologically you haven't a basis for any of your beliefs. I'm sorry, but you must be told: God has NOT revealed a number of the things you believe in.
Tumbler, you and I have been
May 30, 2007 - 14:48 ET byTumbler, you and I have been down this road before. Scripture is not for private interpretation. Scripture interpretation is not by any man, not even the head of a church -- because it is Spiritually discerned.
Debra...
assuming that's true:
May 30, 2007 - 15:04 ET by tumblerDebra,
You're defeating yourself. Because NOW it's clear you're still in spiritual darkness, at least up to a point.
You believe certain key truths; Baptism, Jesus is God, some clear truths in scripture. But do you have spiritual discernment ? NO.
You also discard may truths important to your slavation. You dismiss MANY things Christ Himself has taught us, and substitute things you're being taught by mere men. It's called heresy. It's called UNBELIEF. You deny some important things Jesus actually said !
:::: Smiling at you, Tumbler
May 30, 2007 - 19:25 ET by:::: Smiling at you, Tumbler ::::
Breathe....
:o)
thanks, debra
May 30, 2007 - 19:32 ET by tumblerI appreciate that.
Rome was so beautiful ! The faith of our Fathers, Deb, yours and mine. Paul was right, "Your faith is famous all over the world." (Romans 1 :8-9)
aww... I bet Rome is beautifu
May 30, 2007 - 19:57 ET byaww... I bet Rome is beautiful, tumbler. Maybe when Jesus comes back to rule and reign, He will let me go over there for a while. And yes, my faith is famous all over the world.
I'm glad you had a nice trip.
:o)
Playing "Telephone"
May 30, 2007 - 13:42 ET by PahlavanAs I read the comments, it is clear that there is a tendency to digress off topic. I love discussing sola scriptura and other elements that define and describe the various Christian denominations - but none of that is relevant here. What is relevant is the demonstrable bias and anti-Catholic views of the WaPO writer. All journalistic norms were set aside so that the author could achieve his goal of slamming Catholic authority. One can easily challenge Catholic doctrine honestly and critically; this jeremiad in the WaPO was neither.
Pahlavan, I do not believe th
May 30, 2007 - 14:01 ET byPahlavan,
I do not believe that a person should have to separate what he writes from his faith-beliefs.
Faith beliefs are what make up the very core of who we are. A good writer will put some of himself into his writings and will be true to himself in that which he puts down on paper.
Debra...
That sounds benign, Church Lady
May 30, 2007 - 14:06 ET by RJThat sounds benign, Church Lady, but you don't stop at that. You routinely go the extra mile of condemning other faiths, and THAT does not belong on this "media bias" site.
Reporters vs Journalists
May 31, 2007 - 14:33 ET by PahlavanDebra, you miss the point entirely. A reporter's job, his essential duty to the reader, is to REPORT not editorialize. Today we have too few reporters and way too many journalists. My definition of a journalists is an individual who does not believe it is his duty to report events; rather, he has a mission to "make the world a better place". With this do-gooder vision, the journalists is thereby permitted to put white hats on those he favors and black hats on those with whom he disagrees. A reporter constantly engages in serious introspection to avoid projecting his biases. A journalist has no such need since he is on a mission and, after all, the end justifies the means.
So it is very important that a REPORTER leave himself out of the story as much as possible - after all, it isn't supposed to be a story about the writer but about occurences that he observed but do not touch him.
If he wants to change the world then become a columnist or write the great American novel, but don't parade around claiming to be what you aren't.
Pahlavan,But are we being log
May 31, 2007 - 20:26 ET byPahlavan,
But are we being logical, believing that someone can be a computer and just dish out info without any of himself in it?
I realize that there is a need for people who 'just report the news,' but can anyone really report it without anything of himself in it? And should we really expect people to not stay true to their beliefs, in order to report the news?
Isn't the true biasness of the left, those who are like prostitutes, just saying what everyone wants to hear and not putting any of themselves into what they do?
Look at the liberals posing as conservatives here on this thread who are trying to force people who wear their Christian beliefs on their sleeves, into the closet. This is what liberals do, they try to force everyone to be carbon copies of what 'some' people believe is politically correct.
Debra...
No Debra, first off, asking
June 1, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Conservative VoiceNo Debra, first off, asking you to do something is not the same as forcing you. Second, its one thing to talk about your Christian beliefs, its another to be a Pharisee. So you comparing us to liberals is nonsense.
On the point of the writer...he is a reporter, thereby should work really hard to be impartial and just report the facts. No one is a computer, sure...but there should be a difference between an opinion and news, especially since that is how they sell it...don't forget its these same reporters who couldn't wear an American Flag on their shirt because that might tell people they are picking sides when 9-11 happened.
I sure don't see the writer a
May 30, 2007 - 14:08 ET by balboaI sure don't see the writer as "Slamming" this guy. Pointing out criticisms? Yup. Not slamming. And if Obey's allegations are true, then he seems to be a bit of a bully.
There's a surprise. Bal doe
May 30, 2007 - 16:23 ET by kathleenirishThere's a surprise. Bal doesn't see anything.
The media lap up anything they can use to bash Catholics and its conservative teachings. That is their mission here.
Obey's mission is to use his so-called faith and misuse it in order to score political points. I find this disgusting and offensive. He will probably continue to use the Church as a means to an end. There's a new one for libs, huh??
Anyone who says they support the troops but not the mission is a liar.