Blogger Dissects WashPost's Slam of Her Church

Photo of Ken Shepherd.
By Ken Shepherd (Bio | Archive)
January 4, 2007 - 20:31 ET

Blogger Mary Katharine Ham of Townhall.com was none too pleased with The Washington Post's biased, inaccurate treatment of her church, The Falls Church Episcopal, in a front page article of the January 4 paper.

Big mistake, WaPo.

It's a good read, check it out here.

Of course, it's not like the media in general have a good record of getting religion in general, or conservative, orthodox Episcopalians specifically.


Comments Policy

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

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Safer

January 4, 2007 - 21:17 ET by iveseenitall

Refer to another post today concerning Morely Safer. The philosophy of modern liberalism knows no boundaries on personal behavior. Churches impose boundaries on personal behavior. Therefore, we should never be surprised when the MSM spins its lies about anyone's religion.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

This is nothing new. I have c

January 4, 2007 - 21:40 ET by msh1973

This is nothing new. I have come to expect the msm to trash people of the Christian faith, making them look like total loons. Mary Katharine Ham is one heck of a girl. I read her blogs and have seen her on HotAir.com.

...she nailed it superbly on

January 5, 2007 - 11:05 ET by TruthMonger

...she nailed it superbly on the head! Awesome...

"For a time will come when people will not listen to accurate teachings. Instead, they will follow their own desires and surround themselves with teachers who tell them what they want to hear."

2 Timothy 4:3

Terrorists are not Muslims, Nazi's were not Christians, etc, etc...

You'd think WaPo could at lea

January 4, 2007 - 23:10 ET by Gothampc

You'd think WaPo could at least hire a fact checker who could get their religion facts straight.

Their article says:

"Charismatic, in this case, refers to an ecstatic style of worship that includes speaking in tongues, a stream of unintelligible syllables signifying that the Holy Spirit has entered the worshiper."

 As someone who has been through the experience of speaking in tongues, it is not when the Holy Spirit has entered.  The Holy Spirit enters during the "born again" process which doesn't involve speaking in tongues.  Speaking in tongues comes into play during a later process called "baptism of the Holy Spirit" where the Holy Spirit (already inside) comes "upon" a person.  There are separate Bible references for these events.

___________________

Gothampc - Winner of Time Magazine's 2006 Person of the Year

Of course, it's not like the

January 5, 2007 - 09:20 ET by Dave R

Of course, it's not like the media in general have a good record of getting religion in general,.....

I don't know, Ken, they seem to be completely bowled over by Islam, a "religion" founded by a murdering child-molesting barbarian that has the destruction of Western society as one of its stated goals.

Go figure.

As a Catholic and a charism

January 5, 2007 - 10:05 ET by steviep831

As a Catholic and a charismatic, I'm think I understand what's happening with Ms. Ham church. The Catholic church has had a charismatic revival but you don't
see charismatics wanting to separate from the Catholic Church. That
fact that Ms. Ham's church is charismatic shouldn't even be the focus
of the article. That the greater Episcopalian church can't answer
honestly the question of a child whether Jesus Christ resurrected or
not is the problem and the reason why this church wants to separate.
The author really did a disservice to this church and I think he should
apologize for his mischaracterization.

Though is it just me or does she sound a little ashamed of the charismatics in her church. How many times did she have to say, "I've never ever seen that in my church."?

Or, it might be that she has

January 5, 2007 - 12:34 ET by MikeB

Or, it might be that she has never seen that in her church, a church she has been attending regularly for some time.  It may be that the reporter(s) were making things up to make the story more interesting (a reporter do that?  NAAAAH!), or it might be that this did occur at a service that Ms. Ham did not attend.  In the first case, it didn't happen, and Ms. Ham could not have seen it, or in the second case, it happened, but she wasn't there to see it.  In either case, no, she did not sound "ashamed of the charismatics in her church."  She sounded ticked off that a reporter would misrepresent (at best) or slander (at worst) Ms. Ham's chosen church.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan