Category Archives: Religion

Last week, I finally saw “The Stoning of Soraya M.” at a special screening.  The film tells the haunting and disturbing tale of an innocent Iranian woman murdered in cold blood in a tyrannical...

View Original Post

If anyone was looking for a self-righteous extreme feminist, they found one in Angie Jackson. This is a woman who was so proud she was aborting her baby that she announced she would "tweet" her chemical-cocktail abortion live, as it happened, on Twitter. The liberal media found this made-for-TV slaughter fascinating, and not at all a controversy worthy of discussing with two sides.

Newsweek’s Sarah Kliff proclaimed: "One hundred thousand people have watched Angie Jackson's abortion. Late last month, Jackson posted a video of herself to YouTube, recorded after she took RU-486, a medication used to end pregnancies." Kliff asked only "why shame remains" about the act of killing one’s baby. Jackson was honored for her courage in "demystifying" and "destigmatizing" the procedure: "We need 10,000 more of her," proclaimed Peg Johnston, chair of something called the Abortion Care Network. This desire for 10,000 more unashamed abortions is what "pro-choice" is all about.

Overall, this was just another classic tale from the "news" magazine that lamented 20 years ago that "Sadly, many home [abortion] remedies could damage a fetus instead of kill it." What about the pro-life side?

Newsweek devoted just one sentence to Silent No More, a website where women tell a different abortion story, and now speak publicly of their shame and regret. But women are increasingly coming forward everywhere, just like the original "Jane Roe," Norma McCorvey, publicly admitting the horror of their actions, genuinely penitent – and genuinely forgiven. But their stories aren’t deemed "newsworthy."

CNN interviewed Angie Jackson on the morning of March 8, and they were explicit in rejecting any notion that Jackson deserved a rebuttal. Anchor Kyra Phillips declared after the interview that "as you can imagine, we received a lot of response about even doing this story because abortion is such a controversial issue, and we really didn't want to get into a debate about abortion, but rather, look at what people are doing now, using social networking."

That’s a unique concept: abortion is so controversial that we feel it’s best to only let one side talk, the side that’s taking a child’s life on camera.

CNN claims these days that they are the sober and neutral center between MSNBC and Fox News, but there was nothing neutral about their sympathy for Angie Jackson. Phillips rushed to proclaim that the most savage part of Jackson’s abortion was the pro-lifer comments.

"These are really harsh," the anchor warned. "But people wrote in and said – they called you all kinds of names, from being a whore to someone who just couldn't keep her legs closed. They called you a baby killer. I mean, it's even hard for me to say these things because some of those- the e-mails and the responses were so brutal."

As brutal as an abortion? Worse than that, Phillips never acknowledged that pro-lifers most certainly filled Twitter (and the heavens) with their hopes and prayers for her. CNN cannot deny those e-mails were there.

CNN also showed some of Jackson’s horrific YouTube video, where she admitted that her baby had the "potential" for life, "but it [it!] was more likely to kill me, and you're not going to shame me....I do not feel sorry that I saved my life. I do not feel sorry that I stayed here for myself, for my boyfriend, for my kid that I've already got."

CNN didn’t define that sentiment – or lack of it – as "really harsh." CNN never told their viewers that Jackson’s nom de plume on Twitter is "Anti-Theist Angie." Nor did CNN consider the "brutal" contents of Jackson’s Twitter page to be worth commentary. Here are some examples of statements Jackson "retweeted" as worthy comments about Jesus after she popped up on CNN:

"Who would Jesus do? He’d totally do Anti-Theist Angie just to prove a point to those who sully his/her name."

And: "Where would Jesus donate? To science-based education, and better abortion techniques!"

And: "Jesus hates the little women, all the women of the world."

To their credit, when ABC’s "World News" hyped this story on February 28, they at least allowed conservative Cathy Ruse of the Family Research Council to declare "Your heart breaks for this woman. And I hope that it doesn't encourage, I hope that what she's doing won't encourage others to take this path." ABC’s online story also allowed a few paragraphs of pro-life argument.

ABC weekend anchor Dan Harris noted Jackson was an "outspoken atheist," and quoted her saying "I hope everybody on YouTube has a great and godless day. Peace."

Jackson said she was four weeks pregnant when she aborted her child. The technology now exists to see just about every human feature – eyes, hands, feet, even the human nipple – on a "fetus" one inch in size, and only two weeks older. Peace.

CNN's Kate Bolduan aired a slanted report on Catholic Charities of Washington's decision to no longer offer benefits to spouses of new employees on Saturday's Newsroom, playing four sound bites from proponents of same-sex "marriage" and none from opponents. Bolduan also omitted the liberal affiliation of one of the homosexual "marriage" advocates.

During the report, which first aired 11 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour (and reran during the 1 pm Eastern hour on Monday), the correspondent noted how homosexual couples could get their civil marriage licenses in DC starting on Tuesday, and that there was "controversial fallout" from the move: "Catholic Charities, the social services arm of the Archdiocese of Washington, just announced it will no longer offer health benefits to spouses of any new employees or current employees who aren't already covered under its plan. As a result, the nonprofit is effectively avoiding having to give benefits to same-sex partners, keeping with the Church's opposition to same-sex marriage."

Bolduan spent the rest of her report playing the four clips from the supporters of legal homosexual "marriage." Three came from Chris Hinkle, who was labeled a "gay Catholic activist" on-screen and described by the correspondent as "gay and a practicing Catholic" (who admitted he wasn't practicing the Church's teaching on sexuality by maintaining a relationship with her "partner" for 10 years), and the remaining one came from Chris Korzen of Catholics United. CNN mentioned Korzen's organization on-screen, but Bolduan didn't mention their liberal affiliation, nor that he served as an organizer for the left-wing Service Employees International Union.

BOLDAUN (on-camera): How long have you and your partner been together?

CHRIS HINKLE, GAY CATHOLIC ACTIVIST: We've been together for 10 years.

BOLDUAN (voice-over): Chris Hinkle is gay and a practicing Catholic. He lives in Virginia and worships in Washington. Hinkle views the developments in D.C. as two steps forward, and quickly, two steps back for the gay and lesbian community and its strained relationship with the Catholic Church.

BOLDUAN (on-camera): Why is it disappointing to you?

HINKLE: It's a slap in the face. Yeah, it's prejudice.

BOLDUAN: Catholic Charities declined to comment, but the Archdiocese of Washington made a point to say that less than 10 percent of Catholic Charities employees take part in its health insurance program, suggesting that a small portion of the staff will be affected by the change in policy.

BOLDUAN (voice-over): And in a statement, the archdiocese says, 'This approach allows Catholic Charities to continue to provide services to the 68,000 people it now cares for in the city, to comply with the city's new requirements and to remain faithful to our Catholic identity.' A stance some Catholics say is damaging the Church's public image.

CHRIS KORZEN, DIRECTOR, CATHOLICS UNITED: They're getting a view of the Church that isn't necessarily consistent with our values. We don't say that people don't deserve health insurance because they happen to be in a certain kind of marriage or a certain kind of relationship. That's just not what we teach.

BOLDUAN: The very same message Chris Hinkle is trying to send as he fights for acceptance.

HINKLE: I want people to treat others with justice. That is a message that I think Jesus Christ himself had exemplified.

BOLDUAN (on-camera): And in today's world, you think that applies to health care, as well as the right to marry?

HINKLE: Absolutely it does. Absolutely.

The CNN correspondent did read the excerpt from the Archdiocese of Washington's statement, but she couldn't seem to find any orthodox Catholics who would vouch for the Church's teaching on marriage and sexuality.

-By Warner Todd Huston For the Independent Weekly of Durham, North Carolina, writer Sam Wardle proves that he hasn’t a clue how the phrase “religious extremist” is properly defined. But, I’d suggest that his confusion is endemic in the far left and proves to show why so many in the west don’t understand how to face [...]

The 2010 Oscar ceremonies have come and gone without a word spoken about “The Stoning of Soraya M.” The searing drama, based on true events, follows the torture of an innocent Iranian woman charged...

View Original Post

Perhaps this was a cry out for relevancy - something she hasn't been since the Clinton administration, but comedienne Roseanne Barr is showing her social commentary knows no bounds.

In a March 4 post on her blog, Barr used the suicide of Marie Osmond's son, Michael Blosil, to go on a sick and twisted anti-religion screed. According to the former sitcom star, any underlying issues that led to Blosil taking his own life were a result of "his church and the people in it":

"marie osmonds poor gay son killed himself because he had been told how wrong and how sick he was every day of his life by his church and the people in it. Calling that ‘depression' is a lie!"

Barr, with a total disregard for the rules of grammar, capitalization and punctuation, continued her rant by doling out criticism against the Mormon faith, ironically in the same way she seems to indicate that particular church acts toward homosexuality.

"Yet, even though the people they say they love the most in all of their public displays and speeches (THEIR KIDS AND FAMILY!!) are gay,-- their own children,for crying out loud- these people cannot find the christian decency and compassion within themselves to stop their hypocritical gay bashing!!" Barr wrote. "How sickening. I know so many mormon kids who were gay and committed suicide, and I just cannot and will not stay quiet in order to not offend bigots anymore."

To fix the situation - Barr declared it is time for Marie Osmond to denounce her Mormon faith because in her view it is what God wills.

"Marie please don't talk about how your faith in your church has helped you get through this one!" Barr wrote. "Please get some integrity and tell that church of yours that you will leave it and stop giving it ten percent of your money if they don't stop trying to destroy your kids' and all gay people's civil rights and dreams and hopes!! G-d is trying to use you for something good and this is your opportunity! Your church is wrong and on the wrong wrong wrong side of things!"

Barr has come back and praised Marie Osmond, but has shown no remorse for her previous anti-religion comments in a post dated March 6.

"I have no more tolerance for any religion in any way," Barr wrote. "They are all obsolete and harmful."

Osmond is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Huffington Post writer and White House adviser Eboo Patel asked who deserves to be called something greater than an “American patriot?” Even a “faith hero” – something Patel only bestows upon the “true giants of history?” Van Jones. Yes, Jones, the former “Green Jobs” czar who resigned in September when controversies surrounding him, such as him being a communist, began to emerge.

In a March 5 article on Huffington Post Religion, “Van Jones, Faith Hero,” Patel, however, put all of Jones’ troubles aside and put him on a pedestal. Although if Patel was only receiving his news from the traditional media it would be understandable because they largely failed to report Jones had his name on a petition that questioned if 9/11 was orchestrated by the U.S. government.

Patel is new to Huffington Post and, according to his bio, he is the founder and Executive Director of Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC), a Chicago-based institution building the global interfaith youth movement. He “is also a regular contributor to the Washington Post, National Public Radio and CNN” and a “a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council of the White House Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.”

So perhaps he missed the efforts of Fox’s Glenn Beck to report on Jones’ past. In Jones’ acceptance speech for the President’s Award from the NAACP he mentioned Beck, whom Patel labeled as a “chief hounder.” Jones stated, “To my fellow countryman Glenn Beck, I see you and I love you brother, and you cannot do anything about it ... Let's be one country.”

That was simply too much for Patel to handle. He fawned, “Did he really say that? I thought to myself. Did he call Glenn Beck ‘My fellow countryman’ and tell him ‘I love you’? Are you kidding me? I went back in the video and listened again. He really did it. I took a deep breath, and closed my eyes, and thanked God for that glimpse of grace.”

It didn’t stop there. “What Van displayed is what religion is all about to me - to give love in the face of hate, to show mercy to your tormentors, to have a vision of unity that embraces those who violently pushed you out.”

Patel didn’t explain why exposing the truth about a member of the administration was equivalent to being a tormentor. Nor did he say how exactly Beck supposedly used violence.

And it got even worse. Patel listed people who have forgiven those who have wronged them, implying that Jones belongs in the same category as Nelson Mandela, the Prophet Muhammad, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. After all, “To offer roses to those who throw stones is a rare and remarkable quality.”

Just in case that wasn’t enough for Jones to earn the prestigious “Faith Hero” award, Patel offered another example from his NAACP acceptance speech. Apparently Jones invoked in a “Biblical image” by stating, “For a country that beautiful, that prosperous, that innovative, that united, I am willing to walk through fire and brimstone.”

But really none of the controversies were supposed to be Jones’ fault. Patel lamented how “he was a victim of arson.” He also quoted NAACP’s Ben Jealous as calling Jones “an American treasure and the most misunderstood man in American.” Patel failed to mention even once why Jones resigned.

That may partially be due to Patel’s affiliation with the White House.

But really, what’s not to love about Jones after all? After all Patel exclaimed that Jones, “has no interest in fighting back.” Hmmm….wonder why? Patel also described how Jones will be teaching at Princeton and was also, “too busy planning a prayer pilgrimage to Jerusalem.” How touching.

Having closely examined this week's slanted coverage by the Washington Post of the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington's decision to end spousal health care benefits, GetReligion.org's Mollie Z. Hemingway zeroed in on the heart of the media bias present in today's piece, "Catholic Charities' health-plan change called 'devastating'"*, which begins with a former Catholic Charities officer lamenting the organization's decision to not grant health insurance to spouses of future employees in order to avoid having to cover same-sex couples married in the District of Columbia:

The narrative on this story could be framed as one where the Catholic Church is doing everything in its power to be able to continue serving the poor here in DC against an oppressive government crackdown on religious freedom — even changing its benefits structure so that it won’t be in violation of church teaching. Instead, it’s basically framed as a choice that the Archbishop decided to make so as to mess with gays. The power to frame a story is huge and largely unseen by readers.

Hemingway did an excellent job breaking down the coverage. You can read the whole post here.

*That was the print headline. The digital version headline reads, "Ex-executive of Catholic Charities criticizes health-plan change."

Nicholas Kristof rightly celebrates a new book highlighting the evils of the forced marriages of pre-teen girls to older men. Kristof is also right to reveal the sordid truths about the practice of marrying off pre-teen girls and the abuse they invariably seem to suffer in the arrangement. But one word was conspicuously missing from [...]

A reader recently sent me an email admonishing me for not being more supportive of President Obama. For reasons that were not immediately clear, he also raised the issue of my confessed Christianity....

View Original Post

Today is the Jewish holiday of Purim. (Unlike the biblically-based Jewish holidays, this is one, like Chanuka, on which orthodox Jews such as myself are allowed to blog!) As well explained in the Book of Esther, it’s the holiday of turnabout, surprises, false identities, intrigue, perhaps some emotional legerdemain, and not a little [...]

“Is the ecstatic truth actually a religious term?” That question was posed to Werner Herzog a few weeks ago in an interview with the German broadsheet Die Zeit (The Time). Those of you who tuned in...

View Original Post

Would you like some religion with your brie?

“Huffington Post” and “religion” may sound like an oxymoron, but the two are attempting to go together. The liberal blogspot – which regularly features Bill “Religulus” Maher – announced on February 24 that the website was launching HuffPo Religion. Founder Arianna Huffington touted it as being, “a section featuring a wide-ranging discussion about religion, spirituality, and the ways they influence our lives.”

While that may have been the intention, in reality HuffPost Religion’s discussions are based on promoting the liberal agenda toward religion.

Editor of HuffPo Religion, Paul Raushenbush, also explained the purpose of the new site in his article, “Dear Religious (And Sane) America.” He wrote, “HuffPost Religion will provide a more accurate representation of the wide range of concerns held by religious people, and dispel the myth that religious people have only one stance on the controversial issues of the day such as health care, immigration, abortion and gay rights.”

Fittingly, on the day it was launched, Sister Joan Chittister was one of the featured columnists. Though a Catholic nun, Chittister is known for agitating for women to become priests, and she couldn’t resist writing about it in her blog post.

“Churches that cling to sexism in the name of God will find themselves ignored on other issues. Young women will begin to wonder how it is that churches that teach equality are the last bastions of sexism in the modern world.”

But Chittister’s agenda is more ambitious than that, and she didn’t even give a backward glance to Christian humility. “Finally, theology itself, in the light of evolution, will need to be rethought, revised and reshaped to honor a God big enough to believe in, a God beyond the maker of a child's heaven and more an impelling force than the laws of those who take literalism as the measure of the spiritual life.”

Finished with Chittister, the reader could move on to “Harvard Prof Questions Origins of Religion,” or “Religion, Politics and Africa’s Homophobic Fears.” And it wouldn’t be the Huffington Post if it didn’t look to celebrities for wisdom. Accordingly, readers could also peruse Elton John’s interview with Parade, in which he declared that Jesus was a gay man.

Of course, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” had to be included. Author Brad Hirschfield explained “religious influence is not the same as religious coercion, and what policies are dictated by one's faith can range from denial of a gay person's right to serve to it being a religious mandate to assure an openly gay soldier's right to serve. Ultimately though such theological debate is a distraction from the only thing upon which policymakers should be focusing.”

Only time will tell if HuffPo Religion will be a success. But if its inauguration is an indicator, it will entertainin us with left-coast ideas on faith for as long as it lasts.

The Washington Post was curiously silent about the ideological and/or partisan bent of blogs that prompted its coverage of a controversial statement made last Thursday by Virginia Delegate Robert Marshall (R), who suggested, the Post reports, "that women who have abortions risk having later children with birth defects as a punishment from God."

Kunkle noted that Marshall couched his controversial comments in reference to a study by Virginia Commonwealth University that "was published in 2008 in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health and suggested that there is a higher risk of premature birth and low birth weight in children born to women who have had an abortion."

"Few seized on the remarks at the time Marshall made them," the Post's Fredrick Kunkle noted in his page B2 February 23 story, "[b]ut outrage built on social networking sites and political blogs after some Virginia newspapers picked up the story from Capital News Service, a program at VCU's School of Mass Communications."

But which blogs, exactly? It's not a stretch to imagine it was mostly left-wing or Democratic blogs seeking to hype a controversy to make Virginia Republicans -- who control the House of Delegates -- look bad, particularly in an election year in which the Democratic majority in the state senate is in jeopardy.

Yet Kunkle failed to inform readers which blogs tipped him off to the story and what political axes they have to grind.

Kunkle then cited an ostensibly apolitical man-on-the-street to express his disgust:

"I am amazed that someone has been able to slander my child, my wife and my God in one comment," said Brett Wills, 38, a Staunton paint salesman who is the father of an 8-year-old boy with autism. "To imply that someone's disabilities are an act of God to punish women in an immoral society is just the most outrageous thing I've ever heard." 

Wills is entitled to his opinion, but how did Kunkle, based in Washington, come across a random guy from a city in Virginia 160 miles to the southwest?

It turns out Wills is hardly an apolitical Joe Sixpack. A January 8, 2010 story on WHSV.com quoted Wills's anger about proposed budget cutbacks laid out by outgoing liberal Gov. Tim Kaine (D-Va.):

City and county governments across Virginia are facing the grim prospect that 2010 may be worse than 2009.

Leaders in the public and private sector, along with hundreds of other concerned citizens, met at James Madison University Thursday for a regional hearing on Gov. Tim Kaine's proposed budget for the 2010-2012 biennium.

A survey conducted by the Virginia Association of Counties and the Virginia Municipal League found that nearly 60 percent of local governments initiated hiring freezes or cut funding in 2009. About 45 percent dipped into reserves to close budget gaps, and 70 percent reduced or eliminated projects.

City and county leaders hope their budgets will balance come June 30, the end of the fiscal year, but where state funding will be further slashed is still unknown.

Kaine has proposed cuts in a wide variety of areas, but one that drew significant concern from people attending Thursday's hearing was health care.

For Brett Wills, caring for his autistic son can be a challenge.

"This tightrope here represents what us families with special-needs kids and special-needs adults walk pretty much our entire lives and their entire lives," says Wills, who lives in Augusta County.

During the public hearing, he visually demonstrated with a tightrope, a safety net and a puppet what cuts in state funding mean to families like his.

"The Medicaid waivers are the stabilizing influence that keep them out of that inadequate safety net. We do not need a shorter stick," says Wills.

Kaine proposes cuts to waiver programs that pay for care. People currently on the waiting list would stay there.

Kunkle then noted that "[a]n online petition called for Marshall's resignation, but failed to note the role left-wing blogs -- such as Blue Commonwealth -- are playing in promoting the petition.

To his credit, Kunkle did note that Marshall has apologized for his "poorly chosen words" and noted the Republican legislator is such a champion of government spending on children with disabilities that he was threatened with expulsion from the Republican caucus last year due to his stand in favor of a mandate that insurance companies cover "specialized therapy needed by autistic children."

That being said, Kunkle poorly served readers by portraying the Marshall gaffe as an incident that bubbled up the media food chain without the concerted effort of liberal activists.

What's more, while there are plenty of conservative Christians who would strongly disagree with Marshall's theology, Kunkle devoted just one paragraph -- the 18th in a 20-paragraph story -- to a conservative activist who dismissed Marshall's statement while emphasizing the validity of the VCU study that prompted Marshall's remarks:

"I think there are studies medically demonstrating that there are future health risks to abortion," said Chris Freund, a spokesman for the conservative Family Foundation of Virginia. "To say that's evidence of God's judgment goes too far." 

Anyone can disagree with Marshall's personal religious beliefs, but the scientific study that prompted them is harder to dismiss outright, which is why drowning out the study with noise about Marshall's alleged insensitivity is the tack of the media here.

On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann singled out Texas to mock the religious beliefs of the state’s residents during one of his regular "Quick Comments." He began the segment by mocking the majority of Texas residents: "A mind may be a terrible thing to waste, but if you waste 15 million of them, apparently you get Texas."

After detailing statistics which show that most Texans did not realize that dinosaurs became extinct before humans existed, or that only about half believe in human evolution, Olbermann seemed to lament that he could not use the statistics to attack Republicans exclusively since the numbers are similar among members of both major parties: "I’d love to be able to pin this on political affiliation, but it’s almost a tie – 51 percent of Democrats said they either never go to church or only go once or twice a year; 45 percent of Republicans said they either never go to church or only go once or twice a year."

Below is a complete transcript of the second "Quick Comment" from the Monday, February 22, Countdown show on MSNBC:

And now, the second of tonight’s "Quick Comments," and a mind may be a terrible thing to waste, but if you waste 15 million of them, apparently you get Texas. If a University of Texas poll is correct, that is how many Texans – 60 percent of the population – either believe humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, or are not sure. Oh, this gets much worse. Evolution does okay in Texas – 68 percent believe in it with or without the, quote, "guiding hand from God." Human evolution? Not so much. Fifty percent with or without.

I’d love to be able to pin this on political affiliation, but it’s almost a tie – 51 percent of Democrats said they either never go to church or only go once or twice a year; 45 percent of Republicans said they either never go to church or only go once or twice a year. When pollsters asked Texans if they disagreed or agreed with the statement, "God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago," 38 percent of Texans agreed. Okay, the joke that goes with that statistic is so obvious, I’ll just skip it. Conclusion: Ultimately, Texas may not have to secede from the union, it may just collectively drop off like a vestigial tail.

The New York Times is pro-voodoo, or perhaps they are just an informal Voodoo Anti-Defamation League. On Saturday, religion writer Samuel G. Freedman wrote a story headlined "Voodoo, a Source of Comfort in Haiti, Remains Misunderstood." For political junkies, this passage was the most indulgent:

In American political rhetoric, "voodoo" functions as a synonym for "fraudulent," going back to George Bush’s description of supply-side economics. Would any public figure dare use "Baptist" or "Hindu" or "Hasidic" in the same way?

Freedman also lamented this religion’s mistreatment at the hands of Hollywood movie executives (not a normal complaint from the Times if the movies are raucously caricaturing Christianity). The intolerance emerged from a 1929 book titled Magic Island:

The resulting image of voodoo as sinister sorcery has, amazingly enough, survived into the present multicultural age. A sensitive book about voodoo in modern Haiti, "The Serpent and the Rainbow" by the ethnobotanist Wade Davis, was transformed by Hollywood into a fright movie that recycled every intolerant cliché about the religion.

In the past year, the animated film "The Frog and the Princess" featured a voodoo magician as its villain. The movie was produced by Disney, which if anything has been relativistic to a fault. But voodoo, apparently, does not even merit the condescending sort of exoticization that Disney afforded American Indian polytheism in "Pocahontas."

Freedman began by deriding Pat Robertson’s commentary about Haiti being cursed by the devil, and included Beliefnet columnist Rod Dreher suggesting that it’s arguable "Haitians would be better off at the Church of Christopher Hitchens rather than as followers of voodoo."

Freedman then lines up a cast of voodoo-sympathetic college professors to rebut the Dreher dismissal: Diane Winston of USC, Leslie Desmanges of Trinity College in Hartford, and Patrick Bellegarde-Smith of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, who is an "expert in voodoo as well as a voodoo priest."

Their complaint: "For scholars whose expertise runs somewhat deeper, such words have understandably provoked indignation. Worse still, the dismissive attitude about voodoo follows a tawdry history of misrepresentation in American journalism and popular culture."

Freedman ended with leftist author Amy Wilentz for a cherry on top of the Voodoo Sundae:

"I’d tell reporters to go into the shanties and find the local voodoo priest," said Amy Wilentz, the author of an acclaimed book on contemporary Haiti, "The Rainy Season." "Voodoo is very close to the ground. It’s a neighborhood to neighborhood, courtyard kind of religion. And one where you support each other in time of need."

A group made up of some of the biggest names in contemporary conservatism got together a few days ago and crafted what they are calling the “Mount Vernon Statement,” a manifesto of sorts meant to give direction to today’s conservative movement. Put succinctly, it fails to fill the bill. Taken as a whole this statement is [...]

Uniquely among Friday’s broadcast network evening newscasts, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams gave his viewers a glimpse into the undignified exit from the White House endured by the Dalai Lama, who was made to walk past a number of trash bags as President Obama sought to keep the Chinese government from noticing the meeting. A photograph of Tibet's Buddhist spiritual leader walking past the bags was shown as Williams read the piece.

Below is a transcript of the news item from the Friday, February 19, NBC Nightly News, as read by Brian Williams:

How do you ask the Dalai Lama to leave the White House if you’re trying to keep his visit from becoming too public? Well, judging from the trash bags that he had to walk around, the Obama White House had him exit through a door seldom used by anybody but household staff. It’s where the West Wing meets the main residence. China, however, did notice the visit and called in the U.S. ambassador to China today to protest.

In November 1974, Werner Herzog received a most distressing phone call. Lotte Eisner, the beloved doyenne of German cinema, was dying. Part film historian, part published critic, part heroic...

View Original Post

The storyline of the movie The Book of Eli is a cross between I Am Legend, Fahrenheit 451, and a B-movie western. In post-apocalyptic American wasteland, a strange wanderer named Eli (Denzel...

View Original Post

He's made some crazy statements in the past, but pop singer Elton John now claims Jesus Christ was gay.

In an interview scheduled to be published by Parade magazine this Sunday, John says, "I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems."

This of course seems absurd coming from a man who in 2006 said, “I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people,”

Regardless of the incongruity of such remarks, John is further quoted as saying according to FoxNews.com (h/t Story Balloon):

"On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don't know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East -- you're as good as dead."

Compare this to what NewsBusters reported in 2006:

Associated Press reports openly gay pop-music legend Elton John offered his opinions on religion:

Organized religion fuels anti-gay discrimination and other forms of bias, pop star Elton John said in an interview published Saturday.

“I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people,” John said in the Observer newspaper's Music Monthly Magazine. “Religion promotes the hatred and spite against gays.” [...]

Here's the larger statement in context from the actual interview in the Observer Music Monthly, as Shears said he likes integrated dance clubs with both gay and straight people, and John replied:

I just find it more human. We should all be together. I've got this really naive idea of what life should be like - it's an idealistic idea but it's completely integrated. We can't keep thinking of gay people as being ostracised; we can't keep thinking of Muslim people as being [ostracised] because of the fundamentalism that occurs in Islam. Muslim people have to do something about speaking up about it. We can't judge a book by its cover.

From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it. I love the idea of the teachings of Jesus Christ and the beautiful stories about it, which I loved in Sunday school and I collected all the little stickers and put them in my book. But the reality is that organised religion doesn't seem to work. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it's not really compassionate.

So, if religion turns hatred towards gay people, how could Jesus have been gay?

I'm sure media members that cover John's statements in the coming days will ask this question.

Vice President Joseph Biden's very public wearing of ashes, a Lenten practice for Catholics, on Wednesday led to several befuddled reactions from the mainstream media. Sky News's Kay Burley had to apologize after confusing the ashen mark for an injury. More egregiously, ABC News's Karen Travers omitted the past controversy over his support for legalized abortion, and portrayed him as a devout Catholic.

The Vice President bore the ashes on his forehead as he introduced President Obama at a White House event celebrating the one-year anniversary of the so-called Recovery Act. Burley asked Greg Milam, Sky News's US correspondent, about the mark as they monitored Biden's remarks: "What's happened to his head? I'm sure that's what everybody's asking at home." After a short pause, Milam replied, "Yes, I don't know. It's a simple answer. Maybe we'll get a chance to find out a little later." Burley then remarked, "It looks like he walked into a door, doesn't it? I'm sure that's one of the questions that the networks will be asking him." (video clip above is from Thursday's Morning Joe on MSNBC; audio available here).

Moments later, the Sky News correspondent apologized on-air for her confusion: "I know that I am a very bad Catholic. I know now that it is Ash Wednesday, and I know that those are ashes on his forehead. I hang my head in shame."

Apparently, Ms. Burley went much further than noted by MSNBC. Several news outlets in the UK, including the Daily Mail and Metro, reported that she later said in jest, "I've said three Hail Marys, everything is going to be fine."

ABC News's Travers also reported on the Vice President's ashes on the Political Punch blog on Wednesday, and took some effort to portray Biden as deeply Catholic:

Biden, the nation's first Catholic vice president, regularly attends mass back in Wilmington. Last month his mother, Jean Finnegan Biden, had a Mass of Christian Burial at Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church in Wilmington, the church she attended since 1955.

It has been fifty years since John F. Kennedy became the first and only Catholic elected president. Catholic political candidates have faced significant criticism from within the faith community over questions of whether their political positions align with their religious ones.

Biden said in 2007 that that his political views "are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine.”

"There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that," Biden told the Christian Science Monitor for an extensive piece on the role his faith plays in his life.

"I get comfort from carrying my rosary, going to mass every Sunday. It's my time alone," Biden said.

The ABC News correspondent only vaguely referenced the longstanding criticism the Vice President has faced for his support for legalized abortion. During the 2008 presidential campaign, several Catholic bishops publically corrected then-senator Biden for remarks he made on the September 8, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet the Press. Biden answered, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at conception. But let me tell you....to impose that judgment...is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

Despite these missteps on the part of both Burley and Travers, they are not the most egregious statements made on the topic of Ash Wednesday. Almost a decade earlier in 2001, media mogul Ted Turner bashed ash-bearing Christians during a February 28 retirement party for CNN personality Bernard Shaw (as reported in the March 15, 2001 CyberAlert): "'I was looking at this woman and I was trying to figure out what was on her forehead. At first I thought you were in the earthquake' in Seattle that day. As puzzled staffers furrowed their brows, the cable tycoon unleashed this zinger: 'I realized you're just Jesus freaks. Shouldn't you guys be working for Fox?'"

Kathy Griffin is once again gunning to be the most crude, offensive, and downright disturbing comedian on air.

On Feb. 16, she appeared (appropriately enough) on Headline News Network's "The Joy Behar Show" to promote as much of herself as humanly possible: her recently released stand-up DVD "She'll Cut a Bitch," her appearance in an upcoming Law & Order episode as a lesbian rights activist (which she claims will garner her an Emmy), and her live comedy act at Madison Square Garden where she'll be "worse than she's ever been."

Behar and Griffin squeezed in as many offensive statements as possible in the excruciating hour-long advertisement, and were feeling especially spiteful toward religion last night (but when isn't that the case?).

Griffin told Behar that her new Madison Square Garden act is full of "gifts from baby Jesus," her phrase for new jokes. The act, she said, is going to "offend a lot of groups," but the group most likely to be targeted will be religious people. They're the "most fun" to tear apart, Griffin said, because they "sell the most tickets and books." Behar was quick to jump on that bandwagon, saying that they're also "self-righteous" and "the most angry." Griffin readily agreed and added "hypercritical" for good measure.

Behar, of course, never misses an opportunity to belittle Christians and conservatives, and traditional ideas of morality, sexuality and marriage.

In a CNN video posted at Story Balloon, left-wing comedian Sarah Silverman expressed her disgust at the nation’s rejection of same-sex marriage as she declared that she is "starting to get appalled by anybody who would get married in this day and age." She went on to compare getting married to joining a racially exclusive country club in the 1960s. Silverman: "I mean, it’s like, if you say, if you joined a club, a country club, you know, in the 60s that, where no blacks or Jews were allowed. Why would you want to join that country club? ... I find marriage has a very ugly mark on it right now, and I would not want to be a part of it."

And, as she made a distinction between her Jewish ethnic heritage and her religious beliefs, she described herself as agnostic, and related that she is only religious when "I’m very, very sick, and, like, on the bathroom floor." Silverman: "I’m not religious. I mean, the only times I’m religious are when I’m very, very sick, and, like, on the bathroom floor, like in sweat, I will definitely find God, or in incredible amounts of turbulence."

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the video, which can be seen at Story Balloon:

I’m not Jewish by religion. I don’t, I’m not religious. I mean, the only times I’m religious are when I’m very, very sick, and, like, on the bathroom floor, like in sweat, I will definitely find God, or in incredible amounts of turbulence.

I don’t think I’m an atheist. I’m not an atheist. I just, I’m just agnostic. I don’t know the answers.

But, ethnically, in the ways that I cannot control, I’m Jewish. It comes out of my pores. It’s beyond my control.

(RUBBING HER FACE) Oh, wow.

Not only would I not get married until everyone can, I kind of am starting to get appalled by anybody who would get married in this day and age. Anyone who considers themselves for equal rights, to get married right now seems very odd to me. I mean, it’s like, if you say, if you joined a club, a country club, you know, in the 60s that, where no blacks or Jews were allowed. Why would you want to join that country club? It’s already bizarre. There’s nothing wrong with just a nice commitment, maybe a nice civil ceremony. But yeah, no, I find marriage has a very ugly mark on it right now, and I would not want to be a part of it.

The strange tribal rituals of dancing to prevent global warming...

Last May, The Washington Post highlighted Patricia McGuire, the president of Trinity Washington University, for a speech lashing out at the "snarl of hatred" of pro-life protesters of President Obama’s commencement speech at Notre Dame. McGuire is the cover girl of Sunday’s Washington Post Magazine, and her vicious liberal speech is a mere footnote in a puff piece by education reporter Daniel de Vise.

The cover said "The soul of Trinity: For two decades, Pat McGuire has been consumed by turning a Catholic college into a model for urban higher ed." [Italics theirs.] As is typical in the Post, McGuire is a raging liberal, but the reporter never uses the L word. They simply suggest that at some point, she found the "right" side of history:

She enrolled in fall 1970, "a conservative kid from a Nixon household," still wearing skirts and knee socks. She didn't own a single pair of blue jeans. A faculty member gave her until the end of her first semester to "get radicalized." It didn't take that long: By the second month of school, she was buying her clothes at Sunny's Surplus, and by November she had joined the antiwar movement.

In paragraph 9, after celebrating her showing up at every Trinity basketball game, taking photographs, de Vise briefly and incidentally touched on her pro-Obama speech:

She is an introvert at heart and had had to learn to cope with the very public demands of the job. Yet, publicly, she is outspoken -- lashing out last May in a commencement address at the "religious vigilantism" of fellow Catholics who had tried to disrupt President Obama's speech at Notre Dame, and pushing the limits of what a university president is permitted to say in blog postings and op-ed pieces about such delicate matters as collegiate rankings and graduation rates.

For an "introvert at heart," McGuire displayed a very extroverted style of political attack against pro-lifers last year:

The real scandal is the spectacle of ostensibly Catholic mobs camping out at Notre Dame for the specific purpose of disrupting the commencement address of the nation's first African American president. This ugly spectacle is an embarrassment to all Catholics. The face that Catholicism shows to our new president should be one marked with the sign of peace, not distorted in the snarl of hatred."

What the Post really had no interest in addressing was at the very heart of McGuire’s impassioned pro-Obama speech: what is a Catholic college? Does it have a Catholic identity? Does it have to feel some sense of unity with the church, or can it become the very "radicalized" opposite of church teaching....that is only "ostensibly Catholic"?

The Post also published McGuire's liberal broadside around Pope Benedict's visit to Washington in 2008, denouncing the "mindless dogmatism" of the orthodox, threatening to demonstrate a caricature of "mindless adherence to theocratic rulers."

It could be easily guessed that the Post is much fonder of this liberal college president than whatever religious ideals the college once had. Near the end of the story, we see the Post’s boss offering his endorsement of the Post’s subject:

She received the coveted Leader of the Years award from the Greater Washington Board of Trade. At that 2007 ceremony, Washington Post Chairman Donald Graham offered this tribute: "How often can you say of a president: 'Without her, that college probably wouldn't be there at all'?"

To merge classroom and journalism metaphors, Patricia McGuire is clearly the publisher's pet.

If it’s anti-west, anti-British, Anti-American, Anti-Israeli… well, be sure that Amnesty International supports it. Here’s another bit of proof for that bromide with AmNasty International’s suspension of human rights specialist Gita Sahgal. Why was Sahgal removed from her AI position? Because she criticized AI for supporting Moazzam Begg, Britain’s biggest supporter of al Qaeda, [...]

Hollywood actress Anne Hathaway has come a long way since her innocent breakout role in Disney’s “The Princess Diaries.” In a recent interview with British GQ, Hathaway stated that she and her family left the Catholic Church after her older brother announced that he was gay. USA Today, New York magazine and The Huffington Post used the public break as an opportunity to scold the Church.

Hathaway supposedly considered becoming a nun in childhood, so deep was her Catholic faith. But it wasn’t deep enough to get in the way when the “whole family converted to Episcoplianism.” USA Today reported Hathaway stating, “Why should I support an organization that has a limited view of my beloved brother?”

Chris Rovzar of New York magazine, who reported about the British GQ article, first explained how Hathaway has long been a champion of gay rights, even before starring in “Brokeback Mountain.”  Rovzar then sympathized with Hathaway. He wrote that, “Having a gay family member was enough to make them, like many other families, feel unwelcome.”

USA Today criticized the Catholic Church and explained that Hathaway and, “her family left the Catholic Church over its intolerant views on homosexuality.” The Huffington Post also echoed that characterization, saying, “Anne Hathaway’s family left the Catholic Church because of its intolerance of homosexuality.”

But apparently, the Episcopalian thing didn’t work out too well for Hathaway. The Huffington Post reported her saying, “So I’m nothing … F--- it, I’m forming. I’m a work in progress.” A work in progress indeed.

Charlie West went to bed one night an ordinary high school student. He woke up a hunted man. Terrorists are trying to kill him. The police want to arrest him for the stabbing death of his best...

View Original Post

Anti-Catholic bigot and Obama faith-based initiative advisor Harry Knox must be fired, Media Research Center's Brent Bozell and numerous other conservative signatories demanded in an open letter to President Barack Obama.

Picking up on the story, "Hannity" substitute host Tucker Carlson had Bozell and fellow signatory American Papist blogger Thomas Peters on the Friday, February 5 show to discuss Knox's record of anti-Catholic rhetoric, including his refusal to apologize for saying that the Pope's opposition to condoms was "hurting people in the name of Jesus."

Said Bozell [audio available here]:

This is a man who is, let's make it clear, he's an activist with the Human Rights Campaign. He's an activist homosexual who hates the Catholic Church. He's an anti-Catholic bigot. He has a long history of making these kind of comments.

That's not the only thing this man has said.

He has said, "The Catholic Church is guilty of behavior that is immoral and insulting to Jesus."

So he's not only insulted the Holy Father, he's insulted the Catholic Church.

[...]

He has called the Knights of Columbus the "foot soldiers in the discredited army of oppression." This man is an anti-Catholic bigot. What in the world is he doing sitting on the advisory council of a faith-based initiative on neighborhood partnerships?!

Charlie West went to bed one night an ordinary high school student. He woke up a hunted man. Terrorists are trying to kill him. The police want to arrest him for the stabbing death of his best...

View Original Post

Harry Knox is not exactly a household name, and the media elite have no interest in making hime one. The media are in the controversy-making business, but not when Barack Obama picks "spiritual advisers" who think condoms are holier than the Pope.

Most media outlets have reported nothing on Knox, despite his view that Pope Benedict is "hurting people in the name of Jesus."

Some could say Bush's faith-based initiatives office didn't get much ink, either. But back in July 2001, the networks picked up and promoted gay-left groups like Knox's group (the Human Rights Campaign) in complaining about the Bush faith-based initiative. They made the Salvation Army a target of political criticism. (Here and here.)

A Nexis check shows that since Obama selected Knox last spring, there is nothing from ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, Time, Newsweek, and USA Today.

The Washington Post briefly noted the appointment (without critics) in April, and then used Knox in a story about the Episcopal Church in July. The New York Times only mentioned Knox last year in a profile of Bill Donohue (last May):

And Mr. Obama’s appointment of Harry Knox, a gay human-rights activist -- ''an anti-Catholic bigot who has called the pope a liar'' -- to the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships had Mr. Donohue in overdrive.

''This is fantastic,'' said Mr. Donohue, 61, with a gap-toothed smile that he rarely shows on television. ''I can't get enough of it.''

CNN captured John Boehner condemning Knox in live coverage of a press conference, but never in an actual news story they produced. MSNBC's Nexis search (their transcripts are only from parts of their schedule) found a defense of know on Ed Schultz's show last April.

Several networks (NBC and NPR) talked to Knox in December 2008 as he protested....Barack Obama, or more precisely, Obama's decision to invite evangelical pastor Rick Warren to offer the invocation at the Inauguration. The NPR show was Tell Me More:

HARRY KNOX: Well, we were outraged about this decision, Michel, because he could have chosen so many other people to serve in this role. But he chose a person who has used the most divisive and hateful language you can imagine to talk about lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people like me and my husband, Mike.

MICHEL MARTIN, NPR: What do you consider hateful?

KNOX: Well, when he compares us to people who practice bestiality and pedophilia, to be called a pedophile is the most insulting thing I can imagine. If I were a violent person it would get him a punch in the nose. But this is the sort of speech that's used about LGBT people with impunity by folks all the time, and we're standing up to say that is unacceptable and it certainly shouldn't be done by a person who's going to be invited to be the preacher at the inaugural.

MARTIN: Harry Knox, if I could just continue with you for just a minute. There are some 62 million evangelical Christians in this country. Is it your view that they should have no representation in this inauguration, or is it something about Rick Warren?

KNOX: Absolutely not. It's Rick Warren. It's the choice of this person that's so hurtful to us.

Evangelicals who completely accept the LGBT agenda -- he wouldn't have minded one of them praying for Obama and the country. Once again, the forces of "tolerance" want anyone who disagrees with them silenced.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has joined Media Research Center President Brent Bozell, Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) and a coalition of Catholic leaders today in an open letter to the White House demanding that President Obama fire Harry Knox (depicted at right*), an appointed member of the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

This week Knox once again boldly and shamelessly showcased his hatred for the Catholic faith, its teachings and leader by reaffirming his belief that the Pope “is hurting people in the name of Jesus” by not promoting the use of condoms as a means to control the spread of HIV.  As first reported by the MRC's CNSNews.com who documented the attack with video footage, Knox reaffirmed the charge he made against the Pope in March of 2009 by declaring “I do” when directly asked by CNS News if he still stood behind those words. 

The outrage has spurred Catholic leaders from across the country to convene and issue the following open letter:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500-0003

Dear Mr. President,

The self-proclaimed anti-Catholic bigot you appointed to head up faith-based partnerships has reiterated his deep seeded prejudice against the Pope and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and your failure to remove him from office speaks volumes about how much you really value respect for diversity and religious differences.

We first warned you in a May 2009 letter that Knox’s long and tainted history of bashing the leader of our faith stood in direct opposition to the community he was tasked with building.

But you never responded. You never acknowledged that his appointment to the Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships stood in sharp contrast with the Council’s mission to “bring everyone together – from both the secular and faith-based communities.” 

In fact, you never even acknowledged that Knox’s comments were the least bit offensive, even when we gave you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you were unaware of Knox’s prejudices before appointing him.

Now that Mr. Knox has again offended millions of Catholic Americans – standing behind his brazen assertion that the Pope “is hurting people in the name of Jesus” – we can only interpret your continued silence and complicity with his grave offense as wholehearted support for this bigot and his words of hatred.

We are now forced to demand the firing of Harry Knox. It is the only remaining action you can take to dissuade faithful Catholics that your Council is not a sham and that your “commitment to diversity” is an absolute mockery.

Sincerely,

John Boehner
House Republican Leader
Member of Congress

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter
Member of Congress

L. Brent Bozell, III
Founder and President
Media Research Center

Alfred S. Regnery
Publisher
The American Spectator

Richard Viguerie
American Target Advertising

Thomas Peters
American Papist Blog

Dr. Kevin Roberts
Executive Director
Catholic Families for America

Larry Cirignano
Faithful Catholic Citizens

*Photo via Catholic News Agency, which has a February 4 story on Knox here.

When tens of thousands gather in Washington to protest legalized abortion, The New York Times has in recent years mostly ignored it – which seems especially odd when they spotlight tiny liberal protests as newsworthy. It happened again on Thursday, as the Times ran a photograph of about ten protesters of the National Prayer Breakfast – outside the Capitol Hill house of "The Family," the secretive evangelical group that sponsors the event.

Times religion reporter Laurie Goodstein offered a story loaded with liberal Prayer Breakfast critics, and no supporters. (A spokesman for "The Family" offered several comments on the group and its secrecy, but not on the breakfast.) The headline was "Prayer Breakfast, Long a Must in Washington, Draws Controversy." She began by suggesting the breakfast is a longtime networking event of "scrambled eggs and supplication."

She then described how Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), described only as an "ethics group" and a "government watchdog group," advocated that government leaders should not show up, and that C-SPAN cameras should go away, all because of the "a combination of the intolerance of the organization’s views, and the secrecy surrounding the organization."

The Times didn’t notice that it might seem ironic for people to address "intolerance" by advocating censorship of C-SPAN coverage.

Goodstein highlighted critics of "The Family" and their "accusations that it has ties to legislation in Uganda that calls for the imprisonment and execution of homosexuals." Group spokesman J. Robert Hunter rebutted that about 30 Family members from America "recently conveyed their dismay about the legislation."

Goodstein also highlighted leftist author Jeff Sharlet (with no ideological label) and publicized his book "The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power."

The story ended with more publicity for liberals, but at least the L-word finally made an appearance, in paragraph 16: "Liberal members of the clergy and gay rights leaders organized the alternative events in haste this year, calling theirs the American Prayer Hour."

Wayne Besen, a radical gay activist with the group Truth Wins Out, went unlabeled as he wrapped up the story: "They have symbolically taken the mantle of religion...and I think it’s time to take it back. And the American Prayer Hour is a step in that direction."

They didn’t quote what Besen wanted to ask the Prayer Breakfast crowd: "Would you like a glass of fresh blood with your bacon?"

The Times didn't find anything controversial at the Truth Wins Out press conference, but Karen Schuberg of CNSNews.com did:

Obama Adviser Stands by Assertion That Pope Benedict XVI Is 'Hurting People in the Name of Jesus'

And: First Openly Gay Episcopal Bishop Says St. Paul Was Condemning Homosexual Acts by Heterosexuals

As has been amply demonstrated by others, Howard Zinn was an anti-American secular humanist with heavily Marxist leanings.  As I have already written, teaching the Zinn Education Project in public...

View Original Post

Forget six more weeks of winter. It's possible Hell has frozen over.

In the Groundhog Day edition of the Washington Post, liberal, pro-choice sports columnist Sally Jenkins took direct aim at the National Organization for Women (NOW) for its campaign to keep a pro-life ad featuring Florida Gators quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother.

Jenkins slammed NOW, mocking it as one of the few "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep" (DOLL) that is coming off more "pro-abortion" than pro-choice with its anti-Tebow crusade (emphasis mine):

I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on. 

As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.

I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.

Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.

Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikini selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't.

In a less direct manner, Jenkins later directed some fire at her sportswriter colleagues for their befuddlement -- perhaps even chagrin -- at Tebow's aim to abstain from sex until he's married (emphasis mine):

You know what we really need more of? Famous guys who aren't embarrassed to practice sexual restraint, and to say it out loud. If we had more of those, women might have fewer abortions. See, the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not get the sperm in the egg and the egg implanted to begin with, and that is an issue for men, too -- and they should step up to that.

"Are you saving yourself for marriage?" Tebow was asked last summer during an SEC media day.

"Yes, I am," he replied.

The room fell into a hush, followed by tittering: The best college football player in the country had just announced he was a virgin. As Tebow gauged the reaction from the reporters in the room, he burst out laughing. They were a lot more embarrassed than he was.

"I think y'all are stunned right now!" he said. "You can't even ask a question!"

That's how far we've come from any kind of sane viewpoint about star athletes and sex. Promiscuity is so the norm that if a stud isn't shagging everything in sight, we feel faintly ashamed for him.

The Obama family's continued lack of church-going in Washington was spun by ABCNews.com into something cute and positive, at least from the sound of the headline: "Holy BlackBerry! Obama Finds Ways to Keep the Faith During First Year in Office."

ABC’s Devin Dwyer recycled the tidbit from Terry Moran’s Nightline interview with Obama last July where Obama said he keeps the faith by getting daily devotions on his BlackBerry.

No one in the ABC piece is allowed to question if Obama now has a phobia about church attendance due to his 20-year membership in the church of radical-left Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Dwyer can’t even bring himself to mention Wright’s name, only that Obama quit "Chicago’s embattled Trinity United Church of Christ." He couldn’t get any more specific than that.

Dwyer’s first sentence sounded more negative than the story as a whole: "If church attendance is one measure of a man's faith, then President Obama may appear to have lost some of his." He’s only publicly attended services three times in the past year, "even bypassing the pews on Christmas Day."

Dwyer’s sources are all Obama staffers and friends:

But sources familiar with the president's personal life say Obama remains a faithful Christian while in the White House, practicing his beliefs regularly in private with family and the aid of his BlackBerry.

"Barack Obama is a Christian. He's always been clear and unapologetic about that, and he's comfortable with his own faith," Rev. Jim Wallis, an Obama friend and spiritual adviser, said. "But I think the president, particularly a president, needs the kind of pastoral care or spiritual counsel with people who don't have a political agenda. And it's hard for a president to get that."

Here’s what’s odd about that sentence. Obama needs spiritual care without a political agenda. So he gets his spiritual care from his own political staff?

"My Faith and Neighborhood Initiatives director, Joshua DuBois, he has a devotional that he sends to me on my BlackBerry every day," Obama said. "That's how I start my morning. You know, he's got a passage, Scripture, in some cases quotes from other faiths to reflect on."

It’s possible DuBois finds all the reflections on his own. But it’s also possible that he’s cribbing from their friend and adviser Jim Wallis. His magazine, Sojourners, sends out a free daily e-mail to Sojo.net subscribers called "Verse and Voice." It typically has a Bible verse and a quote from a spiritual leader or writer.

Dwyer concluded: "Keeping the faith in quiet moments of worship may be the best Obama can do given the realities of the presidency that make it nearly impossible to join a church without inflicting a heavy burden on taxpayers, fellow churchgoers and his own spiritual life, sources say."

Mollie Hemingway at Get Religion summed it up nicely:

The story is actually quite charitable toward the president, citing the heavy burden on taxpayers and fellow churchgoers due to security concerns. One of the readers who sent in this story thought the reporters could have done a better job of exploring why the Obamas continue to engage in social outings (such as attending basketball games, going golfing or having dinner at local restaurants) while not attending church. There were a few points in the story where such a comparison should have been noted. However, the story hinted at what I believe is the biggest burden for presidents....

Sure, security is a problem. But it's a problem wherever the president goes. I rarely think media navel-gazing is a worthwhile task, but in this case I wish the media would be a bit more reflective about how they have contributed to the problem of presidential worship life. We hear all the time about how the media used to let politicos chase skirts with immunity. I hope that permitting politicians to worship in peace isn't also a relic of the past.

It's certainly true that other presidents haven't attended a church on 52 Sundays a year. But Obama's long relationship with the poisonous Rev. Wright makes him a unique case -- and the media are still trying to perform damage control all around that with "Holy BlackBerry!" stories.

Networks like ABC have hyperventilated about the "outrage" of "endangering" soldiers with rifle sights with "secret Bible codes" on them. They worried about Christian proselytizing on the campus of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Will these TV reporters notice as the Air Force responds to the liberal-media complaints by opening an outdoor chapel space for Wiccans and Druids?

If Christians in the military were emblematic of George W. Bush, would the media suggest that this great Pagan Opening is symbolic of the Obama era?

From an offical Academy press release:

The Air Force Academy chapel will add a worship area for followers of Earth-centered religions during a dedication ceremony, which is tentatively scheduled to be held at the circle March 10....

Tech. Sgt. Brandon Longcrier, NCO in charge of the Academy's Astronautics laboratories, worked with the chapel to create the official worship area for both cadets and other servicemembers in the Colorado Springs area who practice Earth-centered spirituality...

The presence of diverse worship areas reflects a sea change from five years ago, when reports surfaced alleging religious intolerance at the Academy. Sergeant Longcrier became Pagan shortly after arriving at the Academy in 2006 and said he believes the climate has improved dramatically.

"When I first arrived here, Earth-centered cadets didn't have anywhere to call home," he said. "Now, they meet every Monday night, they get to go on retreats, and they have a stone circle. ... We have representation on the Cadet Interfaith Council, and I even meet with the Chaplains at Peterson Air Force Base once a year to discuss religious climate."

Earth-centered spirituality includes traditions such as Wicca, Druidism and several other religious paths that, while relatively new, trace their roots to pre-Christian Europe, Sergeant Longcrier said. Gerald Gardner founded the first Wiccan tradition in England in 1952, with neo-Druidism following in the early 1960s.

Some Earth-centered traditions involve the worship of gods and goddesses, whereas others may involve only one deity or none at all. Reincarnation is a popular concept, as is rebirth and celebrating the cycle of the seasons.

I got a very hysterical form letter from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. What’s impressive about it is that Barry Lynn, the Executive Director who purportedly authored this fevered screed, is totally uninformed about the nature of America’s Constitutional mandates regarding religion. Here’s what the First Amendment says: Congress shall make [...]

U.S. troops in Afghanistan are having a hard time understanding what is a strange Afghan cultural practice to them. The practice can be summed up in the ages old Afghan phrase, “women are for children, boys are for pleasure.” Yes, that phrase means what you think it means. It has been well known for a long [...]

Mother Teresa was probably literally a saint. Even the leftists with whom our president surrounds himself have been known to give her public props to balance out their devotion to demonic figures like Chairman Mao. If there is one person in recent history no one could object to, it’s her. But then they tried putting her [...]

For some atheists, a person should not be honored for decades of humanitarian work if she also happens to be a professing Christian.

That's the only conclusion one can draw from the recent uproar of the Freedom From Religion Foundation over the U.S. Postal Service's commemorative stamp featuring 1979 Nobel Prize winner Mother Teresa.

"There's this knee jerk response that everything she did was humanitarian," griped FFRF spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor, according to a Jan. 28 Fox News article. "And I think many people would differ that what she doing was to promote religion, and what she wanted to do was baptize people before they die, and that doesn't have a secular purpose for a stamp." She also asserted that this is part of the Roman Catholic "PR machine" to "make [Mother Teresa] a saint."

Just to clarify: the Church does not consider a commemorative stamp issued by the U.S. Postal Service a necessary step to sainthood.

An action alert sent last week by FFRF urged atheists to "Protest [the] Mother Teresa Stamp." Despite the insistence of Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts that "Mother Teresa is not being honored because of her religion, she's being honored for her work with the poor and her acts of humanitarian relief," FFRF claimed the Citizens Stamp Advisory Committee, which decides who will be commemorated on U.S. Postal stamps, violated its own regulations by choosing Mother Teresa to appear on a stamp in 2010.

FFRF complained in particular that the choice of Mother Teresa violated the committee's sixth regulation, which states "Stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor fraternal, political, sectarian, or service/charitable organizations."  The organization argued it "should have been a stumbling block" because "the organization she ran and was inextricably identified with, Missionaries of Charity, was both sectarian (Roman Catholic) and a service/charitable organization."

Yet this is not the first time the Postal Service has honored a person affiliated with a particular organization. In 2003, the Advisory Committee approved a stamp bearing the likeness of Cesar Chavez, the Mexican-American labor leader who co-founded the United Farm Workers. Malcolm X, closely affiliated with the Nation of Islam, was honored with a stamp in 1999.

FFRF grumbled that the Advisory Committee also violated the ninth regulation, "Stamps or stationery items shall not be issued to honor religious institutions or individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings or beliefs," in honoring Mother Teresa, but this is not the first time people known for their religious roles have been commemorated either.

St. Francis of Assisi, a Catholic saint, received a stamp in 1982. Gandhi, the Indian leader known for his Hindu beliefs, was honored by the Postal Service in 1961. Father Flannagan, the Roman Catholic priest who founded the Boys Town orphanage was honored in 1986. And both Jesus and His mother Mary have been featured on stamps over the years. Civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. also received a stamp in his honor.

According to Fox News, "Gaylor said the atheist group opposed Father Flanagan's stamp but not those for King and Malcolm X, because she said they were known for their civil rights activities, not for their religion."

"He's not called Father Malcolm X like Mother Teresa," Gaylor elaborated. "I mean, even her name is a Roman Catholic honorific."

Gaylor also voiced her opposition to Fox News about the "anti-abortion rant" Mother Teresa inserted into her Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1979. Her organization's alert labeled it a "gratuitous tirade against abortion" and called the speech itself a "disturbing, befogged religious rant" in which she "blamed moral decay on abortion and minimized the suffering of starving children by comparison."

Discounting the pro-life argument of a planned Focus on the Family Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow's mother, Joy Behar told the audience of the January 26 "View" that the Florida quarterback just as easily could have been a "rapist pedophile." [audio available here]

"What are people flippin' out about," bewildered moderator Whoopi Goldberg -- herself an ardent pro-choice activist -- asked.

"The only argument against any of it is, that, you know, he could just as easily become some kind of a rapist pedophile. I mean, you don't know what someone's going to be," Behar answered, adding:

In this case, he turned out to be great, but it's not an argument about abortion or not abortion [sic], it's just, this particular case, this particular woman decided not to do it, and this is the wonderful result. There are others who decide to do it [commit abortion], and they're glad that they did it. You know, I mean, it's a very individual choice.

Told ya so. When reports first surfaced a few weeks ago that Focus on the Family was planning to run a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl broadcast featuring University of Florida quarter back Tim Tebow, the Culture & Media Institute predicted liberals would be upset.

Like clockwork, an article in the Huffington Post on Jan. 25 reported that "a national coalition of women's groups" that includes the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority is demanding that CBS reconsider its plans to run the ad.

Tebow, a Heisman Trophy winner who led the Gators to an NCAA championship, is a famously outspoken Christian noted for wearing Bible verses on his game day eye-black. He is also a walking pro-life story: the Super Bowl ad will relate how Tim's mother, against the advice of doctors, carried him to term in a dangerous pregnancy while on a church mission to the Philippines.

While Tebow is wildly popular with Gator fans and a broad swath of college football fans in general, he's predictably garnered critics on the left. Huffington Post's own Mark Axelrod wrote last month, "So, am I to believe that Florida beat Oklahoma because Tim Tebow had John 3:16 painted beneath his eyes?"

Tebow's Christianity was bad enough, but an ad countering the secular left's pro-abortion orthodoxy was sure to mobilize the activists. And it has. The Huffington Post article quoted Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center, as saying, "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together."

Each year, the Super Bowl broadcast is almost as anticipated for its ads as for the game itself. Many of them tastelessly use sex and the objectification of the female body to attract attention. You'd think "women's groups" might have something to say about that. But they reserve their censorship calls for what they really care about.

CBS has reportedly approved the ad's script, and doesn't appear to be backing off. And that's to its credit, especially in light of NBC's refusal to air an inoffensive pro-life ad last year.

Told ya so. When reports first surfaced a few weeks ago that Focus on the Family was planning to run a pro-life ad during the Super Bowl broadcast featuring University of Florida quarter back Tim Tebow, the Culture & Media Institute predicted liberals would be upset.

Like clockwork, an article in the Huffington Post on Jan. 25 reported that "a national coalition of women's groups" that includes the National Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority is demanding that CBS reconsider its plans to run the ad.

Tebow, a Heisman Trophy winner who led the Gators to an NCAA championship, is a famously outspoken Christian noted for wearing Bible verses on his game day eye-black. He is also a walking pro-life story: the Super Bowl ad will relate how Tim's mother, against the advice of doctors, carried him to term in a dangerous pregnancy while on a church mission to the Philippines.

While Tebow is wildly popular with Gator fans and a broad swath of college football fans in general, he's predictably garnered critics on the left. Huffington Post's own Mark Axelrod wrote last month, "So, am I to believe that Florida beat Oklahoma because Tim Tebow had John 3:16 painted beneath his eyes?"

Tebow's Christianity was bad enough, but an ad countering the secular left's pro-abortion orthodoxy was sure to mobilize the activists. And it has. The Huffington Post article quoted Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center, as saying, "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together."

Each year, the Super Bowl broadcast is almost as anticipated for its ads as for the game itself. Many of them tastelessly use sex and the objectification of the female body to attract attention. You'd think "women's groups" might have something to say about that. But they reserve their censorship calls for what they really care about.

CBS has reportedly approved the ad's script, and doesn't appear to be backing off. And that's to its credit, especially in light of NBC's refusal to air an inoffensive pro-life ad last year.

The story behind Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow's arrival into this world is remarkable.

So-called "women's groups" would seem to prefer that as many Americans as possible not know the story about the courageous and faith-based decision Tebow's mother made to carry her pregnancy to term. That's the only plausible reason why they are opposing a 30-second Focus on the Family (FOTF) ad scheduled to air during the Super Bowl. So far, it seems that CBS, which will air the Super Bowl on February 7, seems disinclined to buckle.

David Crary's coverage of the story at the Associated Press (from which the photo at the top right was obtained) labels FOTF "conservative," but does not apply any descriptive label to the "women's groups" objecting to the ad.

As you'll see in the final excerpted paragraph, Crary's coverage included an over-the-top statement from the objectors:

CBS urged to scrap Super Bowl ad with Tebow, mom

A national coalition of women's groups called on CBS on Monday to scrap its plan to broadcast an ad during the Super Bowl featuring college football star Tim Tebow and his mother, which critics say is likely to convey an anti-abortion message.

"An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year - an event designed to bring Americans together," said Jehmu Greene, president of the New York-based Women's Media Center.

The center was coordinating the protest with backing from the National Organization for Women, the Feminist Majority and other groups.

CBS said it has approved the script for the 30-second ad and has given no indication that the protest would have an impact. A network spokesman, Dana McClintock, said CBS would ensure that any issue-oriented ad was "appropriate for air."

The ad - paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family - is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987 with a theme of "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child and gave birth to Tim, who went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy while helping his Florida team to two BCS championships.

The controversy over the ad was raised Sunday when Tebow met with reporters in Mobile, Ala., before beginning preparations for next weekend's Senior Bowl.

"I know some people won't agree with it, but I think they can at least respect that I stand up for what I believe," Tebow said. "I've always been very convicted of it (his views on abortion) because that's the reason I'm here, because my mom was a very courageous woman. So any way that I could help, I would do it."

... "By offering one of the most coveted advertising spots of the year to an anti-equality, anti-choice, homophobic organization, CBS is aligning itself with a political stance that will damage its reputation, alienate viewers, and discourage consumers from supporting its shows and advertisers," the letter said.

Since when is telling the story of a key part of someone's life -- namely its beginning -- a "political stance"? NBC turned away a celebration-of-life ad during last year's Super Bowl. I hope that CBS holds firm.

Also missing from Crary's coverage: any indication of how many members and supporters FOTF has compared to the membership rosters of the so-called "women's groups." 

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Rush Limbaugh is so reviled by the left, that even when he agrees with liberals and issues facts supporting their arguments, they criticize him and demand an apology.

The latest such group to deride Limbaugh for supposedly offensive comments that they themselves have supported is the Anti-Defamation League. The ADL has called on Limbaugh to apologize for suggesting that the Obama Administration's anti-banker populism has troubling anti-Semitic undertones. He did not suggest that Obama is an anti-Semite, nor that is policies specifically single out or target Jews. He did suggest that Jews who voted for Obama may be feeling "buyer's remorse" now that the administration is using language that has so often--historically--been used to demean and discriminate against the Jewish community.

Here is the quote in question: "To some people, banker is a code word for Jewish; and guess who Obama is assaulting? He's assaulting bankers. He's assaulting money people. And a lot of those people on Wall Street are Jewish. So I wonder if there's - if there's starting to be some buyer's remorse there."

The ADL was furious at Limbaugh, and issued a press release saying he "reached a new low with his borderline anti-Semitic comments about Jews as bankers, their supposed influence on Wall Street, and how they vote."

To the latter claim, Rush was not speculating about how Jews voted in 2008; it is a fact that they overwhelmingly supported Obama. According to Jewish news service JTR, "Obama received 78 percent of the Jewish vote - about 25 percent greater than Obama's percentage of total support nationally." So the ADL has no grounds for criticism here.

But ADL demonstrated profound hypocrisy in criticizing Limbaugh for simply recounting stereotypes of the Jewish community used throughout history as the basis for often violent campaigns against Jews. ADL itself has recalled these stereotypes since the beginning of the financial crisis in lamentations that the crisis had given "fodder" to bigots who were quick to lay blame for the nation's economic woes at the feet of Jewish bankers. History is replete with such shows of hatred and ignorance.

ADL lamented that Bernie Madoff's exposed $50 billion ponzi scheme had "given anti-Semites fodder for their bigoted views." ADL President Abe Foxman echoed this statement, telling MSNBC that the Madoff scheme had become "fodder for the bigots."

In discussing the financial crisis more generally, Foxman wrote, "concerns arose about possible anti-Semitic reactions. Our antennae were up because the most prominent elements of anti-Semitism are the charges that Jews have too much power and they are primarily concerned about money."

So, basically exactly what Limbaugh said.

Big Journalism's Ben Shapiro notes the utter hypocrisy in ADL's criticisms:

It is obvious that Obama's hatred of "bankers" can clearly be construed by anti-Semites as coded language indicting Jews. It's no more ridiculous to suggest that Obama's emphasis on "bankers" is code that will embolden anti-Semites than to suggest that Nixon's emphasis on "states' rights" was code designed to embolden racists, as so many leftists do.

Indeed, while the notion of States' Rights is fundamental to the system of federalism institutionalized by our nation's Constitution, it has been perverted by those who would invoke the rights of the states to perpetuate racism, segregation, and subjugation. So too is Obama's populist language rooted in a sincere, if misguided, distrust of the wealthy. But like the language of states' rights, Obama's anti-banker rhetoric can be--and has been--co-opted by anti-Semites who use it as political cover for their hatred of the Jewish community.

Shapiro adds,

And many Jews, indeed, have adopted some of Obama's terminology. It is hardly anti-Semitic to say, as Rush does, that Jews have picked up on Obama's borderline lingo. In fact, Rush's statements are precisely the opposite of anti-Semitic, as Foxman and the ADL should recognize - Rush is indicting those who would seize on Obama's "bankers" language to hurt Jews. And he is indicting Obama for using such incendiary language...

The Jews don't have many friends outside the conservative movement in the United States. When Foxman attacks those friends, he endangers Jews far more than he protects them. And that is a betrayal of his mission and the trust that so much of the Jewish community has placed in him.

Limbaugh has managed to engender criticism even from those with whom he agrees and whose causes he champions. The average person couldn't do that.

The top of the Metro section in Saturday’s Washington Post carried the headline "Defiantly devout" to describe women who’ve attempted to ordain themselves Catholic priests. Inside, the headline was "Faithfully, if not obediently Catholic."

Would the Washington Post describe Joe Lieberman as a "defiantly devout liberal"? Or remember how the Dulles Area chapter of the National Organization for Women decided to endorse Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court? Was that "defiantly devout" feminism? If liberals would suggest that's a "rogue" NOW chapter that doesn't count, how does it explain this story?

The Post’s reporter on this story loaded the story chock full of feminist "womenpriests" and their hard-left fellow travelers. But her credit line simply read "Katie Balestra is a freelance writer based in the District." The Post didn’t explain that Balestra studies at Georgetown University, or more suggestively that she’s written for leftist media outlets like Sojourners magazine and the Center for Public Integrity.

Balestra sells the "womenpriests" not as a fringe movement, but as a budding feminist trend:

The group, which has about 70 women, is one of several nationwide gaining support among U.S. Catholics as more of them begin to question the Vatican's stance on women's role in the Church.

"Our goal is to bring about full equality of women in the Roman Catholic Church," said Meehan, 62. "We love the faith. We love the spirituality. That's why we remain Catholic. We are holding disobedience to an unjust law that discriminates against women. We're willing to go the whole mile with the institution on this."

The movement has a strong following in the Washington region.

Stories like these beg the reader to accept the idea that the Catholic Church is something that you can defy, decry, disobey, and disrespect, and yet still be considered "faithful." Perhaps the Unitarians don’t require any kind of obedience or agreement on a creed or rule of faith, but that’s simply not true of Catholicism. Journalists can wish it were not so, but to pretend it is not so is willful ignorance of a very politicized kind.

Balestra touts the far-left activist Roy Bourgeois not as a radical but as a potential Nobel Prize winner:

Bourgeois, a Vietnam War veteran, social justice advocate and Nobel Peace Prize nominee, has been trying to recruit other priests, many of whom agree with his position but fear excommunication. "I understand your fear about going public with this," he told them, "but you and I are card-carrying members of this all-boys club, and our silence simply sends the message very clearly that it's okay to have women sit in the back of the Catholic bus."

The drivers on this metaphorical bus get a measly three sentences, and then are dismissed by the rest of the story's experts as "totally untenable" in their analysis:

But in 1976, the Vatican said women couldn't be priests, in part, because of the belief that Jesus chose only male disciples. It also said the priest represents Jesus during Mass, so only a man can fill the role.

Nearly 20 years later, in 1994, Pope John Paul II issued a letter solidifying the Church's stance. The next year, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, wrote that the position was based on "doctrine taught infallibly by the Church."

The only religious idea that's infallible to the Washington Post is feminism.

Updated [14:30 EST, see bottom of post]: Nearly 6-out-of-10 young adults are pro-life a new survey finds.

Every January, hundreds if not thousands of busloads teeming with teenagers and college students, many of them young women, descend on the nation's capital for the annual March for Life.

But if one were to believe Newsweek's Krista Gesaman, the March is an aging senior citizen affair that is hurting for attendance by young women (emphasis mine):

Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court case legalizing abortion, and droves of women are prepared to face rainy weather to support their positions during the annual Washington, D.C., demonstrations. But there will be one major difference with the demonstration route this year—it’s shorter.

“The organizers are getting older, and it’s more difficult for them to walk a long distance,” says Stanley Radzilowski, an officer in the planning unit for the Washington, D.C., police department. A majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case, he says.

So this raises the question: where are the young, vibrant women supporting their pro-life or pro-choice positions? Likely, they’re at home.

At this point, Gesaman turned to a feminist professor from the University of Maryland who sees an equal lack of energy among young pro-choice and pro-life women:

“Young women are still concerned about these issues, but they’re not trained to go out and protest,” says Kristy Maddux, assistant professor at the University of Maryland, who specializes in historical feminism. 

Instead of painting a sign and taking to the streets, the modern feminist is probably discussing her views on a blog or in a chat room, Maddux says. “I don’t want to frame young women as lazy, but they don’t have any reason to believe that it matters if they go out and protest. Instead, they talk about their positions to friends and neighbors.”

Yes, pro-life young women raised in the age of Facebook and Twitter and blogs are likely taking to those media daily to argue the merits of the movement, but that doesn't mean they have no use for en masse, in-person demonstrations of the presence and clout of the pro-life movement. What's more, as I and some of my colleagues can attest from personal experience, it is the pro-choice counter-protests in January that are sparsely attended and lacking for youthful vibrancy.

As with any opposition movement -- say anti-war protests on the left and the Tea Parties on the right -- much organizing is done electronically, but there's no matching the dramatic statement that on-the-ground rallies, marches, and organizing has for a given cause.

Nonetheless, Gesaman closed with Maddux hinting that the March for Life's days are probably numbered:

“I would say that memorializing Roe v. Wade will continue to happen, I just don’t know if it will always take the form of a march,” Maddux says. 

The pro-choice movement and Newsweek can only hope.

On a closing note, I'd like to update this post with pictures of attendees at the March for Life, particularly pictures featuring the young women Gesaman thinks are NOT there and/or pictures of counter-protesting pro-choicers that skew heavily towards the geriatric set.

Please send me a message to my inbox here at NewsBusters or e-mail me at managingeditor.newsbusters -at- gmail.com

Update (14:30 EST): A new survey finds that 56 percent of all Americans and 58 percent of persons aged 18-29 view abortion as "morally wrong." [h/t my colleague Colleen Raezler]:

NEW HAVEN, Conn., Jan. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On the eve of the 37th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the United States, a new survey shows a strong majority of Americans believe abortion to be "morally wrong."

"Millennials" (those 18-29) consider abortion to be "morally wrong" even more (58%) than Baby Boomers (those 45-64) (51%). Generation X (those 30-44) are similar to Millennials (60% see abortion as "morally wrong"). More than 6 in 10 of the Greatest Generation (those 65+) feel the same.

The most recent Knights of Columbus – Marist survey – conducted in late December and early January – is the latest in a series of such surveys commissioned by the Knights of Columbus and conducted by Marist Institute for Public Opinion. In October of 2008 and July of 2009, the survey has

been tracking an increasing trend toward the pro-life position – a trend confirmed by Gallup and Pew surveys in mid-2009. K of C – Marist surveys are available online at www.kofc.org/moralcompass.

As anyone in the entertainment industry will tell you, it is a miracle that any film actually gets made.  From the moment a writer sits down with an idea to the first time the movie actually graces...

View Original Post

CNN’s Jack Cafferty blasted the Defense Department’s report on the Fort Hood massacre as a “joke” on Thursday’s Situation Room, singling out how there was “no mention in the report of the suspect’s [Major Nidal Hasan] views of Islam.” Cafferty also highlighted a recent Gallup poll that found that “43 percent of Americans admit to feeling at least a little prejudice toward Muslims.”

The CNN commentator wasted no time in criticizing the 86-page report released by the Pentagon on the Fort Hood shootings: “The Pentagon report into the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas that left 13 people dead- it’s a joke. No mention in the report of the suspect’s views of Islam- none- in fact, the 86-page report doesn’t even once mention Major Nidal Hasan by name. It lumps in radical Islam with other fundamentalist religious beliefs, and instead, focuses on things like military personnel policies and the emergency response to the November shootings.”

Cafferty later read a quote from 9/11 Commission member John Lehman, and continued his attack on the report: “Lehman...told Time magazine the Pentagon’s silence on Islamic extremism- quote, ‘shows you how deeply entrenched the values of political correctness have become,’ unquote. What a shame....The Pentagon acknowledges it did not focus so much on Hasan’s motives, as on what it called ‘actions and effects.’ The report says they didn’t want to interfere with the criminal probe into Major Hasan. Garbage.”

read more

The left has a long tradition of bowing down to dictators and others they fear. No, I am not talking about President Obama stooping to kings and other foreign leaders. That is just another example of...

View Original Post

When you breach the sacrosanct wall between church and state, and use religion to promote policy, bad things happen. At least, that's what the left has been telling us for years.

But Rev. Jim Wallis, editor-in-chief of Sojourners magazine and author of "Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street and Your Street," sees it differently. Wallis used his interpretation of religion, particularly the Bible, to play the populist card and categorize portions of the American private sector as greedy on MSNBC's Jan. 21 "Morning Joe."

"These bank bonuses, I would say, are a sin of Biblical proportions," Wallis said. "But to pick on the banks alone misses the point. It's a symptom, I think of a real erosion of societal values because new maxims have taken us over - ‘greed is good,' ‘it's all about me and I want it now.'"

read more

Ever notice that the chronically poor nearly always share one thing in common? They are some of the most greedy SOB’s on the planet. I know it seems sacrilegious to say so. You’re just not supposed...

View Original Post

Nightline’s Brian Ross on Monday filed a hyperbolic report on "secret Jesus codes" that are on the sights of rifles used by the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Ross featured two voices highly critical of the fact that Bible versus can be found on these weapons, but no clip of the opposing side. Ross repeated, "Michael Weinstein runs the Military Religious Freedom Foundation which claims thousands of members in the US military who he says are endangered by the secret Bible codes."

On the MRFF website, the organization trumpets, "MRFF breaks major news story." Ross featured Weinstein in four separate clips, but never once mentioned whether he was fed the information, nor does he note the harshly anti-religious tone of the group. The website currently touts this fund-raising pitch: "The wall separating church and state in the U.S. military has collapsed. MRFF desperately needs you to Help Build The Wall!"

Ross also highlighted retired Major General William Nash. Summarizing the opinion of Trijicon, the gun company that produces the rifle, Ross explained, "The Trijicon spokesman said there was nothing wrong or illegal about adding the Biblical references to the military sights." Then, instead of allowing viewers to actually hear from the company, he included this clip from Nash: "But I find something wrong with it and I think our government should find something wrong with it."

Ross described the "secret" code: "...The sights on their gun, including this one used to train soldiers in Iraq, contain a secret coded reference to New Testament passages about Jesus Christ. Here, JN 8:12, a reference to the Book of John, 8:12, which reads in part, ‘Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying I am the light of the world.’" 

The reporter proceeded to expand the topic into other examples of a "clash in the U.S. military over Christian symbols and preaching in Iraq and Afghanistan." He added, "Two years ago in Afghanistan, American documentary filmmaker Brian Hughes saw boxes of New Testament Bibles published in Afghan languages."

ABC managed to allow comment from Trijicon in its online story. Wouldn’t it only be fair for Brian Ross to have done that on Nightline?

A transcript of the January 18 segment, which aired at 11:45pm EST, follows:

MARTIN BASHIR: It was during his first overseas tour as president to the Muslim country of Turkey that Barack Obama said the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam, which is why our next story is provoking so much controversy. It concerns inscriptions that refer to biblical texts on weapons being deployed by American forces. Here's our Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross. Brian?

BRIAN ROSS: Martin, to prevent the suspicion, the United States is conducting a Christian crusade against Muslims, members of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan are strictly prohibited from proselytizing, promoting any religion, faith or practice. It's called General Order One. But apparently one of the Pentagon's big suppliers never got the memo. Some soldiers call them Jesus rifle. That's because the sights on their gun, including this one used to train soldiers in Iraq, contain a secret coded reference to New Testament passages about Jesus Christ. Here, JN 8:12, a reference to the Book of John, 8:12, which reads in part, "Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying I am the light of the world."

MICHAEL WEINSTEIN (MILITARY RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOUNDATION): They know it's wrong and it's not just wrong. It's an outrage.

ROSS: Michael Weinstein runs the Military Religious Freedom Foundation which claims thousands of members in the U.S. military who he says are endangered by the secret Bible codes.

WEINSTEIN: It is a big deal. We've had many, many soldiers reach out to us. Some are oblivious but many, many others, in the thousands, aware well aware that it's there. They described it as a sick and a very scary joke and that it allows the Mujahadin, the Taliban, al Qaeda, the insurrectionists and Jihadists to be claiming that they're being shot by Jesus rifles.

ROSS: Others sights have references to the New Testament Books of Matthew, Revelation and the Corinthians such as this scope used by Special Forces encoded with another reference to a verse about the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The rifle sights are produced by the Trijicon Company of Wixom, Michigan which has at most $1 billion in Pentagon contracts. A company spokesman says its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian, began the practice years ago and it has continued since Bindon's death in 2003. The Trijicon spokesman said there was nothing wrong or illegal about adding the Biblical references to the military sights.

MG WILLIAM NASH (RET): Well, that's fine. But I find something wrong with it and I think our government should find something wrong with it.

ROSS: Retired Major General William Nash commanded the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Armor Division during Desert Storm in Iraq. He is now an ABC News consultant.

NASH: There's a lot of organizations that provide Bibles to soldiers and Torah and other, and even copies of the Koran are given out to our soldiers. I have no problem with that. But I do have problems with military equipment being labeled in such a way that it seems like it's our God against their God.

ROSS: General Nash says the Pentagon should make the company remove the biblical codes.

NASH: They should fix them all. They do a modification on the sights and take off those inscriptions. And, and if they fail to do that, they should be penalized monetarily.

ROSS: At the Pentagon, the Army and the Marines told ABC News they were unaware of the biblical codes until we contacted them.

GUN REVIEWER (YOUTUBE VIDEO): One of the really cool things that I like about this sight.

ROSS: But on gun enthusiast and military websites, the presence of the New Testament references seem well known, as this gun reviewer pointed out the passage from the Book of Job.

GUN REVIEWER: I love it. I love it. Yes, Trijicon, those guys are Christians and, you know, they, they're just - on all of their different sights, they have verses on there. So just a little neat side note. And for those of you who aren't Christians, well you know, whatever, get over it. All right, so anyway.

WEINSTEIN: We received information just very recently from one of our clients indicating that the rifle was referred to as the spiritually transformed firearm of Jesus Christ.

ROSS: Even with the general order against religious proselytizing, the Biblical references on the rifle sights is only the latest example of a clash in the US military over Christian symbols and preaching in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two years ago in Afghanistan, American documentary filmmaker Brian Hughes saw boxes of New Testament Bibles published in Afghan languages.

BRIAN HUGHES (DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER): It was clear that those Bibles were there for the purpose of being distributed to the Afghan people, not to other soldiers, not to other people on the base but to Afghan civilians. So it was clear that they were prepared to operate outside the boundaries of General Order One.

ROSS: Filmmaker Hughes recorded US Army Chaplain Gary Hensley in a provocative sermon at Baghram Air Base.

LTC GARY HENSLEY (US ARMY CHAPLAIN): You know, the Special Forces guys, they hunt men basically. We do the same as Christians, we hunt people for Jesus. Hunt them down. Gets the hound of heaven after them. So we get them in the kingdom. Right? That's what we do. That's our business.

ROSS: Now the tiny Biblical codes on the U.S. military rifle sights used by the Army and the Marines as tiny as they are, seem certain to raise the issues again.

WEINSTEIN: We're training the Iraqis and the Afghans, the members of the military on these very same weapons. They're training on weapons with biblical references from the New Testament on there. It's unbelievable. This is how we're going to win friends.

ROSS: It's not known precisely how many of the rifle sights with the secret Bible codes are now in use by the military. But the Trijicon Company just received a $660 million contract to be the sole supplier to the US Marine Corps and its sights are the preferred choice of the US Special Forces. As of tonight, the military was still trying to figure out what if anything it plans to do about that. Martin?

While the broadcast and cable news media have paid plenty of attention to Martha Coakley's embarrassing Curt Schilling gaffe, much less attention has been paid to more serious matters that exemplify Coakley's hard-left campaigning tactics, such as her insulting devout Catholics as unfit for working in emergency rooms or insisting that Scott Brown wants to "turn away" rape victims from hospitals. [image at right via William Jacobson's Legal Insurrection blog]

It's that sort of insane, false hyperbole that has even Democrat-friendly media outlets like Time magazine reeling, even if the broadcast networks are asleep at the switch.

Take for example Michael Scherer's January 17 blog post at the magazine's Swampland blog (emphasis mine):

The pressure is intense in Massachusetts, and the stakes could not be higher for all Democrats. But Martha Coakley and the Democratic Party have begun to push the boundaries of fair play. Here is what we have gotten in the last week from Democrats who are trying to tarnish Scott Brown's reputation among women voters:

--A direct mail piece from the state Democratic Party that announces: “1,736 Women Were Raped In Massachusetts in 2008; Scott Brown Wants Hospitals To Turn Them All Away.”

--An ad by Coakley that flashes the words, “Deny rape victims care,” with a voiceover that announces, “Brown even favors letting hospitals deny emergency contraception to rape victims.”

Policy differences regarding emergency contraception for rape victims are, without question, fair game in a political contest. But on issues of such sensitivity, politicians have a responsibility to hew to the facts, and not inflame with false suggestions. Here is the amendment Scott Brown supported in April of 2005:

Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.

If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.

The amendment failed, and Brown went on to vote for the underlying bill anyway.

Two key points to make here. First, nothing in the amendment says that hospitals should “Turn Them All Away.” In fact, the amendment requires that all hospitals either provide the emergency contraception treatment or arrange to provide it, on site or by referral at no cost to the patient. Second, the sort of care that Brown supports potentially delaying in deference to the religious views of health providers is limited to emergency contraception, which is not what the screen shot in the Coakley ad implies.

[H/t NewsBuster P.J. Gladnick.] How panicked is the MSM at the prospect of a Scott Brown victory tomorrow? So much so that Chris Matthews has stooped to seeking to use Scott Brown's Protestant religion against him in heavily Catholic Massachusetts . . .

The Hardball host made his despicable pitch during a Morning Joe appearance today.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: But this election's interesting.  I don't even know what religion--religion seems to play no role in this election, which is so unique in Massachusetts. Brown is a Protestant. Nobody's even mentioned it—I guess I just did.  And Coakley's I guess a Catholic, although I don't think that she sort of squares away that way in terms of her politics.  So I mean it's just so interesting: it's so post-tribal.

Matthews' smirking little laughter revealed he knew precisely what he was up to: attempting to stir up those "tribal" passions.  Can Matthews and the MSM sink much lower? Can you imagine the howls of liberal protest if a Republican pundit tried a similar stunt?

Shame on Chris Matthews.

Note: NB editor Ken Shepherd points out it's odd of Matthews to tout Coakley's Catholicism, given the way she looks down on devout Catholics.

Note Deux:  Another irony.  Remember then Sen. Obama's speech to the 2004 Dem convention? The one that put him on the political map, the one where he said: "even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin masters and negative ad peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes. Well, I say to them tonight, there's not a liberal America and a conservative America; there's the United States of America."

Now we have the squalid spectacle of one of PBO's most ardent supporters attempting to divide us in the most vile kind of way.

 

Lamenting how Nancy Pelosi's archbishop has "slap[ped] her down," in an online statement addressing the House Speaker's excuse-making for her pro-abortion record, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift used a January 15 Gaggle blog post to praise Pelosi, no stranger to pastoral rebuke, as both a good pro-choice Democrat and a good Catholic:

It's anybody's guess whether in the new world of Internet media the archbishop's online commentary rebuking Pelosi falls under his pastoral duties, or public advocacy. Either way, Pelosi remains unshaken in her views, and in her Catholic faith.

For the benefit of her readers, Clift quoted on piece of Archbishop George Neiderauer's rebuke:

"Free will cannot be cited as justification for society to allow moral choices that strike at the most fundamental rights of others. Such a choice is abortion, which constitutes the taking of innocent human life, and cannot be justified by any Catholic notion of freedom."

Yet Clift left out another key excerpt from Neiderauer's "archbishop's journal" column (emphasis mine):

It is entirely incompatible with Catholic teaching to conclude that our freedom of will justifies choices that are radically contrary to the Gospel—racism, infidelity, abortion, theft. Freedom of will is the capacity to act with moral responsibility; it is not the ability to determine arbitrarily what constitutes moral right.

The archbishop's point is precisely that Speaker Pelosi cannot distort the doctrine of freedom of the will to claim that Catholicism allows individuals to "determine arbitrarily what consistutes moral right," in this case abortion.

Rather than issuing a disjointed collection of moral edicts, the Church preaches a morality ground in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and condemns many freely chosen actions undertaken that "are radically contrary" to the same, not just abortion.

Pelosi may be unshaken from her commitment to abortion on demand, but she is, at best, on considerably shaky ground when it comes to being considered a faithful Catholic.

File this under "WWJD FAIL."

It's one thing for a sainted icon of the secular Left like Keith Olbermann to wish perdition on a controversial American televangelist, but a Christian preacher?

Yet that's exactly how Huffington Post religion editor and ordained American Baptist minister Paul Raushenbush went off on Pat Robertson for his controversial "pact with the devil" remarks about this week's devastating Haitian earthquake in a January 13 blog post:

Haiti is suffering, and the only response from Christians and other decent human beings is compassion, love, and all the concrete support we can supply. [...] Instead, Pat Robertson opined on his TV show, the 700 Club that this happened because, in order to gain liberty from the French, Haiti (read: black people) made a pact with the Devil. [...]  Go to Hell, Pat Robertson -- and the sooner the better. Your 'theological' nonsense is revolting. Don't speak for Haiti, and don't speak for God...

Raushenbush's anger is understandable, but in the midst of bellowing his condemnation, the HuffPo religion editor seems to have forgotten the imperative Christians have to watch themselves when calling someone on the carpet for sin:

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. [Galatians 6:1]

Robertson is just plain wrong, true, but shouldn't Raushenbush's aim be to urge him to publicly repent and recant, rather than to coarsely dismiss him as someone who should just "go to Hell"?

After all, another preacher by the name of Paul once eloquently urged Christians to:

Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience,  bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. [Col. 3:12-13]

Not a sermon, Rev. Raushenbush, just a thought.

Where’s the ACLU when you need them?  On Sunday, the New York Post reported that the Metropolitan Museum of Art “quietly pulled images of the Prophet Mohammed from its Islamic collection and may not...

View Original Post

"Radical cleric" is a term many news outlets, including the Associated Press, have used to describe Islamic clerics who encourage and/or train radical Muslims for jihad against civilians in the West. Case in point: Anwar al Awlaki, who reportedly inspired Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan's shooting spree.

But a commenter on Time magazine's Swampland blog seems to have convinced writer Karen Tumulty that the term is appropriate to apply to Pat Robertson, given his loopy pronouncement that a long-ago "pact with the devil" made by Haiti has cursed the Caribbean nation and resulted in yesterday's devastating earthquake:

Amy: Per your post below, Swampland commenter Trifecta55 has a proposal for how we should deal with this:

Don't you mean "radical cleric" Pat Robertson Michael?
.
I am semi serious. When crazy muslim preachers get that title, why don't those of you in the media use that on Pat Robertson. I am serious, and politefully request a response if you have time.

UPDATE: CBN offers an exceedingly lame clarification of the radical cleric's comments.

Granted, Pat Robertson's pronouncements should be denounced by political conservatives and protested by Christians who recognize the deficiencies of Robertson's theology from an orthodox, biblical perspective. They are definitely outside the mainstream of orthodox Christian thought and deserve to be disputed and condemned.

That being said, to hint that Robertson is equivalent to a terrorism-inciting radical imam is both a sop to left-wing anti-Christian hysteria and a disservice to journalism.

Heidi Montag, the actress from MTV's pseudo reality show "The Hills," is a run-of-the-mill Hollywood personality. She has unnaturally large breasts (along with at least nine other surgical "touch-ups"), overprocessed bleach blond hair, skimpy clothes and even skimpier bikinis. She's married to an equally immature prima donna, Spencer Pratt, who throws random fits and says things like, "We're the most famous people in the world."

But Heidi doesn't just claim to be a "super-celebrity"; she also says she's a devout Christian and a "modern Mother Teresa." And that's entirely plausible, if Mother Teresa had a thing for singing lyrics like "eat my panties off of me."

Montag's debut pop album - which she calls "quality" entertainment - hit the shelves yesterday. The album, titled "Superficial" (which featured her on the front cover in cheeky underwear), doesn't cut any crudity corners. As Us Magazine put it, "Adam Lambert has some new competition in the sexually charged singer department."

Montag tweeted yesterday that she put her "heart and soul" into this album. So, what do her heart and soul look like?

Well, her first single is called "I'll Do It," and it goes like this:

"I brought some treats / I know that you gon love em / Come eat my panties off of me / Do whatever you feel comes naturally."

Eek. That's quite the leap from the girl that once compared herself to the clean cut boy band the Jonas Brothers and was rumored to be working on a Christian music album.

Of course her husband couldn't be prouder of her accomplishments. Pratt tweeted yesterday, "Heidi Montag Best Pop Album."

Pratt's supposedly a devout Christian as well, who was actually baptized in a Costa Rican river on national television last year by fellow Christian actor Stephen Baldwin.

"I feel like I just took a 10-year bath," he said afterward.

Pratt has also declared that he knows God answers prayers because he once prayed to hang out with Miley Cyrus - and it happened! (Perhaps that also proved to him that God supports gay marriage since he and Montag wanted to "meet up" with Cyrus in order to form a Bible study group that supports same-sex marriage.)

Well, Pratt can be excused for his ridiculous statements, being that he's new to this whole Christian thing. Montag, on the other hand, has been blabbing on about her deep religious roots for a long time now.

Two years ago, for example, she told People magazine that she was "reading the Bible, beginning to end."

"I'm very religious," she added. "That's how I've gotten to where I am."

And where has she gotten to, exactly? Oh yes, in front of a Playboy camera.

Montag, who was featured in the magazine last September, said that posing for Playboy should be "a huge honor" for anyone. She also said during an MTV interview that she wasn't concerned her racy photos would conflict with her religion.

"I think we're born naked," she said. "We die naked. I don't think it's something to be ashamed of. I think the body is a beautiful piece of artwork that God created. I have nothing to be ashamed of."

Hmmm ... perhaps Montag missed that part in Genesis where God gave Adam and Eve animal skins to cover their "nakedness." Or that part in 1 Timothy where it says that women should adorn themselves "in modest apparel."

Maybe Montag should try that whole "reading the Bible" thing again.

The week-old story of Brit Hume's Christianity vs. Buddhism remarks is apparently still fodder for a good laugh, and comedienne Wanda Sykes attempted to squeeze out one more. The late-night talk show host arguably stepped over the line with a skit this week when she jokingly entertained the notion that Jesus was willing to give Tiger Woods crabs.

The Jan. 9 broadcast of Fox's "The Wanda Sykes Show" featured a sketch in which two actors playing Jesus and Buddha appeared as "guests" on the Fox News Channel show "The O'Reilly Factor" during which the former Fox News anchor expounded on his comments.

"This week, Brit Hume went on ‘The O'Reilly Factor' to talk about the statement he made that Tiger Woods should become a Christian," Sykes said. "And I'll say this about the interview - it was really fair and balanced."

Transcript below the fold

BILL O'REILLY: On ‘Fox News Sunday,' you got into a subject that was pretty interesting. It's non-political. It's a social embarrassment for Tiger Woods. And you said this -
Tape of BRIT HUME: He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, Tiger turn your faith - turn to the Christian faith.
O'REILLY: Was that proselytizing?
HUME: I don't think so, I mean...
JESUS IMPERSONATOR: I'm sorry, can I jump in here, Bill? Isn't the definition of proselytizing trying to convert someone to your religion? Don't ask me. I'm just the son of God. I'm not a dictionarian.
HUME: I was really meaning to say in those comments yesterday more about Christianity than I was about anything else. I mentioned the Buddhism only because his mother's a Buddhist.
BUDDHA IMPERSONATOR: Your mother's a Buddhist.
JESUS IMPERSONATOR: Oh that's funny.
BUDDHA IMPERSONATOR: Thank you so much. But please, Buddhists are know for absolving people, no matter how famous they are or how bad their transgressions. We forgave Richard Gere for ‘Dr. T & the Women.'
JESUS IMPERSONATOR: Sweet me. That movie sucked.
BUDDHA IMPERSONATOR: It was unwatchable.
JESUS IMPERSONATOR: It just wasn't good.
BUDDHA IMPERSONATOR: I was on a date.
JESUS IMPERSONATOR: Anyway, back to you Brit, please.
BUDDHA IMPERSONATOR: Please Brit.
HUME: I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs.
BUDDHA IMPERSONATOR: What Tiger badly needs is a good ass-kicking. But that's just my karma talking.
JESUS IMPERSONATOR: I'm more of a turn the other cheek kind of guy. Maybe I could just give him crabs and fun. I'll see what I can do.
O'REILLY: Thanks very much. We appreciate it.
JESUS IMPERSONATOR: Love you Buddha.
BUDDHA IMPERSONATOR: Love you Jesus, Brit, Bill..

There exists a fine line between tasteful religious jokes, and ones that blatantly offend the sensibilities of any reasonable/average/rational human being. With more than three-quarters of Americans identifying themselves as Christian, Sykes risked a lot with a sexually charged Jesus joke.

This risky content is not new for the comedienne. She made multiple off-color remarks at last year's White House Correspondent's Dinner when she suggested that she hoped conservative talk show titan Rush Limbaugh's kidneys would fail him.

Some might argue that the Sykes skit pushed the boundary with the suggestion that the humble Jewish savior would willingly inflict genital lice on the world's greatest golfer merely as an alternative to "a good ass-kicking."

A British news site reports that elderly pensioners have taken to burning books for warmth during the brutal English winter, in a story that ties together not just Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451", but multiple chapters of Jonah Goldberg's best-selling "Liberal Fascism", which celebrates its second year in print this month, and more timely than ever...

The first rule of dinner-table conversation is no hot talk about politics or religion. Apparently there’s a rule regarding the discussion of religion during political talk shows, too.

On "Fox News Sunday" on January 3, the panelists had advanced to that light part of the discussion where they focusing on movies and crime novelists. Venerated news man Brit Hume turned to sports, and predicted Tiger Woods would return to success as a golfer. But if he really wanted to recover as a person, Hume suggested, he should consider Christianity. Woods is a Buddhist, he said, but Christianity offered the forgiveness and redemption that could really make Woods a powerful role model for faith and recovery.

Ka-boom. Oh, what a reaction erupted.

Some in the secular elite acted like Hume had set the national house on fire and broken all the fine china. Some TV talk show hosts quite seriously compared Hume’s comments to those of "Islamic extremists" waging a "holy war."

Asked about this reaction, Hume told CNSNews.com he was "not surprised" by the backlash and accused the media of having a "double standard" when it comes to religion: "If I had said, for example, that what Tiger Woods needed to do was become more deeply engaged in his Buddhist faith or adopt the ideas of Hinduism, which I think would be of great spiritual value to him, I doubt anybody would have said anything."

No one in the secular media is supposed to assert his religion is true, or that his is best, or even that his faith can heal a father and a marriage and a family. These suddenly manners-conscious secularists insist that religion be a "very private matter," and by that they mean – something neither seen, nor heard, and for G—‘s sakes, it’s something you certainly don’t put on national television. "I think it’s been true for a long time in many cultures," said Hume, "It is certainly true in secular America today that the most controversial two words you can ever utter in a public space are ‘Jesus Christ.’"

They want to build a very high brick wall, with barbed wire on top, separating church and TV studio.

The sudden arrival of these punctilious Emily Posts of religious discussion is strangest because Christianity is so routinely and thoroughly mocked and denigrated across our news and entertainment outlets without an ounce of concern for offending the average Christian. Brit Hume’s chat is intolerable, yet "South Park" or "Family Guy" can put Christianity through a shredder, and they are cheered for their "irreverence."

Speaking of which, there is also the matter of who Hume is: a sober, respected news man’s news man. It was jarring to hear him talk of Jesus Christ in the opposite way from "South Park," in reverent terms, offering hope to Tiger Woods. To the TV tastemakers, it sounded like a bad commercial for a very artificial product.

Tender concern for the soul of Woods has not been the dominant cultural theme. The discovery that this very talented golfing legend was severely cheating on the mother of his young children came first as a shock. But it very quickly turned into a punch line. Within days, Tiger became a conventional piece of gossip-sheet meat, like Paris or Lindsay or Britney, a scandalous figure that we are all supposed to enjoy mocking and disparaging. Maybe he deserved that. But Hume aimed higher – and very quickly became much more judged than Woods.

Many cultural analysts didn’t real want Woods to be judged, and found wanting. His adultery was his business, and his golfing talent was almost a license to misbehave.

At the epicenter of our secular cultural media is a writer named Jenny Block, who argued at Newsweek’s website it was not surprising to learn of Tiger’s multiple affairs because his "entire life is based on winning; on having, doing, and being more...why on earth would anyone think ‘settling down' was even in his vocabulary?"

Block declared without reservation that she had cheated on her husband with another woman, and she was the norm, not the exception. Now they were in one of those fabulously open marriages with no judgmental God and no real vows or commitments. "Monogamy just isn't always realistic. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. It simply doesn't work for some. And just as people choose different religions, eating habits, and places to call home, I believe we should be able to choose different ways to live out our relationships."

This kind of evangelism doesn’t cause the cultural elite to explode at the national dinner table. How does any culture build strong families and strong children if that chaotic and abnormal view dominates? If America lived in less of a morally upside-down world, it’s Jenny Block who would be sitting in Brit Hume’s corner, wearing the dunce’s cap

(I know William already posted the story, but allow me a second to rant…) Get ready folks because this is the world of terrorist coddling that Barack Obama is setting up for us from now on. A left-wing, multicultural-loving, half-wit federal judge has sided with those who would kill us all by throwing out most [...]

Winning is part of sports and often God is praised by athletes when that happens. Rarer though, is the athlete who praises God even in the midst of crushing disappointment.

But Colt McCoy, quarterback for the University of Texas Longhorns, took the opportunity to speak about his faith last night when ABC's Lisa Salters asked him how it felt to watch the BCS Championship game against Alabama from the sidelines.

"I always give God the glory. I never question why things happen the way they do. God is in control of my life. And I know that if nothing else, I'm standing on the Rock," McCoy stated.

McCoy had every reason to express frustration and disappointment last night. The senior took a hit that damaged his shoulder during his team's opening drive, ended his college career and, if it didn't doom Texas to defeat, it certainly had a hand in the team's 37 - 21 loss to Alabama.

This isn't the first time McCoy publicly expressed his faith in God. He participated last year in the I Am Second movement, a ministry that is based on the principle of keeping Jesus the primary focus in people's lives, and reminding people that God still loves them even when they make mistakes.

"I want people to know that having a personal relationship with Christ is probably the biggest decision that any of us will make. It goes deeper than going to church, than just acting like a Christian," McCoy wrote for the group's Web site. "It goes with really deeply knowing and coming to know Jesus and having a personal relationship with Him."

McCoy holds the NCAA records for highest career completion percentage and most wins for a starting quarterback.

McCoy isn't the only big-time NCAA quarterback to speak and act publicly on his faith. Florida's Tim Tebow is well-known for having Bible verses written in his game-day eye-black. And nobody is suggesting that Colt McCoy should be held up as perfect role model; Americans have witnessed far too many superb athletes not live up to that title to suggest such. But it sure is refreshing to see an athlete appeal to God even when his big game didn't play out in the fashion he hoped it would.

Last week I posted an article from the Washington Post asking… “Hollywood Gets More Religious?” When the author of that piece used the planet-worshipping “Avatar” and...

View Original Post

Finally, a movie where the Americans are the bad guys, and it's making a KILLING at the box office.

Yes, Time columnist Joe Klein is pumped about "Avatar."

It's not because he's a fan of special effects or blockbuster action flicks, but because the "timely" liberal message of the movie could "ripple" through the culture in a manner favorable to, wait for it, "enviro-theism" (emphasis mine):

[The 3-D presentation] wasn't the most amazing thing about the movie: the Americans were the bad guys. They were a mercenary army working for corporate villains who wanted to strip-mine a tribe of alien, cerulean nice-guy, enviro-theists. The dialogue was awful; the characterizations were crude...and I'm sure that conservatives will dismiss this as another excretion of the Hollywood left. But still, it was something for a mainstream--indeed, a blockbuster--motion picture to have you rooting for the blue dudes flying about on birds painted like Chinese fans...and rooting against the humans, none of whom had the requisite Eastern European or Arab villain accents.

The message that big trees are good and bulldozers are evil seems rather timely. The message that God is Green is fascinating stuff to be peddling in the shopping malls of middle America (I particularly liked the moment when the mercenaries chuckled about the fact that the primitives believed in a tree god). Movies are usually overrated as agents of social or political change--I remember when The Right Stuff was going to launch John Glenn into the presidency--but the zeitgeist is a subtle thing and the impact of Avatar is bound to ripple in all sorts of lovely, little enviro-theistic ways.

Note to budding enviro-theists, one green resolution for 2010 might be to cancel your dead-tree edition Time subscription. Sure, it's full of bulls***, but only in the metaphorical sense, and hence it won't serve as a useful organic fertilizer for your backyard garden plot.

Newsweek religion reporter Lisa Miller, no Bible-thumping fundamentalist she, doesn't understand why the heathen rage against Brit Hume. From her January 5 post at the magazine's The Gaggle blog:

I'm not at all sure why the liberal left is always so shocked that evangelical Christians want other people to become Christians. The outrage that followed Fox News anchor Brit Hume's  plea to Tiger Woods to find Jesus has been totally disproportionate to the statement itself. The usual suspects—MSNBC and The Huffington Post—and indeed the whole liberal left blogosphere leapt all over Hume for his arrogance and conservatism.

[...]

The word "evangelical" comes from the Greek word for gospel, or "good news." Evangelical Christians are those who want to spread the good news. They aren't pretending to believe in salvation through Jesus Christ. They actually do believe that it—and yours, and mine—comes through him. 

While Miller derided Hume's counsel as unprofessional and unwelcome, she doesn't understand the level of vitriol that has been expended by Hume's critics, reminding readers that relief is just a click away:

In the ridiculous, gratuitous world of nonstop news, Hume was using his platform and his airtime to give Tiger some free advice, just as a recovering alcoholic might recommend a 12-step program. Hume's pronouncements might not be the most edifying television. They might lead viewers to wonder about his journalistic neutrality when it comes to delivering the news, but that's all. You have the remote control. If you don't like it, you can turn it off.

On Tuesday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann twice claimed that FNC contributor and former anchor Brit Hume’s public recommendation that Tiger Woods convert to Christianity to help solve his personal problems amounted to trying to "threaten" Woods into conversion. Previewing a segment focusing on Hume’s Monday appearance on The O’Reilly Factor to clarify his words from Fox News Sunday, Olbermann teased the show: "Brit Hume and the attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity. He does it again."

Olbermann also plugged the segment before a commercial break: "Brit Hume has tried to force Tiger Woods into becoming a Christian again. That in a moment."

The Countdown host introduced the segment, contending again that Hume had tried to "threaten" Woods into becoming a Christian: "Brit Hume of Fox News has not only not apologized for his bizarre on-air attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity, he`s actually gone further."

Notably, in December 2005, Olbermann distorted the words of former FNC host John Gibson from Gibson's radio interview on the Janet Parshal Show and compared the program to "an Al-Qaeda show on Al-Jazeera talking about infidels."

And a bit earlier in November 2005, he even attacked proponents of intelligent design theory, which he labeled as "nonsense," and compared its supporters to those who believed the world is flat and who supported burning scientists at the stake.

And in September 2008, he mocked then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin because she had talked about her pastor praying that she would win the governor's election in Alaska. Olbermann: "Just like voters in the presidential election. This begs the question, of course, why bother? If you want to get something done, ask the Lord. He or she probably doesn't have much else to worry about besides oil pipelines."

Olbermann compared Palin to the notorious character Elmer Gantry from Sinclair Lewis's 1927 novel of the same name, and to a famous evangelical Christian leader from the early 20th century named Amy Semple McPherson, who was believed to have faked her own kidnapping in the 1920s. Olbermann: "Listening to her, and this doesn't just apply to the tape we just saw, but throughout the last, the 10 days of Sarah Palin, she's Elmer Gantry. She's Amy Semple McHockey Mom."

Below is a complete transcript of the relevant segment from the Tuesday, January 5, Countdown show on MSNBC:

KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: Brit Hume and the attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity. He does it again.

BRIT HUME, FROM THE O’REILLY FACTOR: You speak the name Jesus Christ, and, I don’t mean to make a pun here, but all hell breaks loose.

...

OLBERMANN: BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK: Brit Hume has tried to force Tiger Woods into becoming a Christian again. That in a moment.

...

OLBERMANN: Brit Hume of Fox News has not only not apologized for his bizarre on-air attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity, he`s actually gone further. Before we detail Hume`s double or nothing bet on this subject, for context, here was his original statement: "He is said to be a Buddhist. I don`t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Now, let`s change just one word in there and try to guess what the reaction in there would be if his remarks had been these: "He is said to be a Buddhist. I don`t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption offered by the Islam faith. So my message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn to the Islam faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

And yet, when Billow (Bill O’Reilly) asked Hume whether he had been proselytizing, he said, I don`t think so. The more he spoke, the more apparent that his original comments were merely a warm-up.

BRIT HUME, FROM THE O’REILLY FACTOR: -and my sense about Tiger is that he needs something that Christianity, especially, provides and gives and offers. And that is redemption and forgiveness. And I was, I was really meaning to say in those comments yesterday more about Christianity than I was about anything else. I mentioned the Buddhism only because his mother is a Buddhist and he has apparently said that he is a Buddhist. I`m not sure how seriously he practices that. But I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs.

OLBERMANN: Badly needs? Hume left it at that, right? Oh, no.

HUME: What I`m saying is if Tiger Woods were to make a true conversion, we would know it. It would show through in his being. And he would know it, above all. And he would feel the extraordinary blessing that that would be. And it would shine because he is so prominent. It would be a shining light. And I think it would be a magnificent thing to witness.

OLBERMANN: A magnificent thing from a prominent figure, you know, kind of like when Tom Cruise displayed the magnificence of Scientology when he trashed Brooke Shields for her treatment of postpartum depression. When asked by Mr. O`Reilly what drives the negative comments about Christianity-

HUME: It hasalways been a puzzling thing to me. The Bible even speaks of it, that, you know, you speak the name Jesus Christ, and, I don`t mean to make a pun here, but all hell breaks loose. And it has always been nuts. It triggers a very powerful reaction in people who do not share the faith and who do not believe in it.

OLBERMANN: Let`s turn to the president of the Interfaith Alliance, host of Air America`s State of Belief, Reverend Welton Gaddy. Reverend, good to talk to you again, sir.

REVEREND WELTON GADDY, AIR AMERICA HOST: Glad to talk with you. Sorry about your friend.

OLBERMANN: Oh, thank you kindly. Mr. Hume, I think, missed a point here that really is one of those wonderful days when a cliche comes to life. He`s not being attacked for his specific religion. If he had said, you know, Tiger Woods needs to convert to Judaism or to the Mormon faith, the reaction would have been similar if not identical. This is literally about somebody being in public holier than thou, isn`t it?

GADDY: Yeah, I think it`s part of that, Keith, and it`s also, I would defend the right of Mr. Hume to confess his faith however he wants to. But all of us know that with rights and freedom come responsibility. And he`s talking on a national news program. He`s giving his opinion, as he has the right to do. But anybody who is pro-American, who loves liberty in this nation, wants to support the unity of religions and not contribute to their divisiveness. And his statement, though he backed up on it a little bit last night, his statement was still a judgment about another religion, a judgment he really doesn`t have the authority to make.

OLBERMANN: And the irony on that judgment, is it not correct on theories of religion, he`s got his facts wrong. I mean, he said Buddhism does not really have a vehicle for forgiveness? If you`re going to go out on this limb, if you really feel you want to do that and take whatever the blowback is, I`m in agreement with you, good for you and good for your faith and what you believe in. But if you`re going to speak about somebody else`s religion, are you not obligated to know enough about their religion not to make a big mistake?

GADDY: Absolutely, Keith. And I wish everybody abided by that principle. The fact is that Judaism has a strong doctrine of forgiveness. Other religions practice forgiveness as well. What`s interesting in this instance is that I personally was offended by the way in which Mr. Hume talked about forgiveness and repentance within Christianity. He described a situation in which it was almost like, here`s a marketplace of religions from which Tiger Woods can draw, and the best one to go to, where forgiveness seems to be cheapest (OLBERMANN LAUGHS) and redemption cheapest, is Christianity. That is a striking sign that he doesn`t understand the pain that goes with forgiveness and that always accompanies redemption within Christianity.

OLBERMANN: Yeah. It`s like he`s car shopping at that point. But the other thing in here that this immediately get converted into, no pun intended, was the conversation between Hume and O`Reilly about the war on Christianity. O`Reilly asked what drives negative comments about Christianity. Hume made the reference to every time you speak the name Jesus Christ, hell breaks loose. It`s not a war. Why is there so much defensiveness about this right now?

GADDY: Because there is this persistent rumor among the religious right that somehow Christians are persecuted in the United States. They don`t understand religious persecution. If they`d look around the world, they would. The fact is, Keith, I`ve been a Christian minister for 50 years almost. I talk about Jesus. I talk about Jesus with people who are members of other faiths, but I do that with respect for them, ready to listen to them, as well as them listen to me. What Mr. Hume was doing was trying to impose a kind of pseudo established religion on someone else. And that is not in the spirit of religion generally or Christianity specifically.

OLBERMANN: The Reverend Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance and Air America, it’s always a pleasure and an education, sir. Thank you again for your time.

GADDY: Thank you, thank you.

Editor's Note: The following is republished from a January 5 entry at Big Hollywood.

On "Fox News Sunday", panelist Brit Hume offered a hopeful New Year’s message for the fallen Tiger Woods: 

“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question… the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist, I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be: ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’” 

As an avid golfer, Christian man, and therefore a witness to the historic fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Mr. Hume clearly offered his message in good faith with honest concern for both Tiger’s future and for that of his family, friends, fans and business associates. 

Sadly however, some drones of Secularism have reflexively stomped on their Political Correctness brakes; stinging at Mr. Hume with personal demonization, as if he’d somehow committed a sin against their totalitarian faith: 

Keith Olbermann: “This crosses that principle [of keeping] religious advocacy out of public life, since, you know, the worst examples of that are jihadists, not to mention, you know, guys who don’t know their own religions or somebody else’s religion, like Brit Hume.” 

[Sex columnist and author] Dan Savage: “Whenever we have a discussion in our country about jihadism and radical Muslims, you always hear, ‘where are the moderate voices? Where are the moderate Muslims? Why don’t they speak up?’ Where are the moderate Liberal Progressive Christians when something like this happens?… American Christianity’s been hijacked by the lunatics [including] people like Brit Hume.” 

Comparing Christians that preach the Word to actual lunatic jihadists whose sole mission is to kill those who are non believers is beyond reprehensible. It’s almost as if they want make Mr. Hume an "Un-person."

Forgiving all that for now as merely clumsy bombast, their point — and others’ like Tom Shales is clearly to intimidate Americans. It is to thwart and punish people who speak publicly in Jesus’ name. It is to force people into adhering to Secularism’s unwritten rulebook and principles, not the Bible or First Amendment — whither the Free Exercise Clause? 

Remember the uproar in the Ivory Towers when candidate George W. Bush dared to claim that his favorite philosopher was Christ? Here, there, samey-same. 

Secularism conveniently provides its followers a comfort of religious (and/or political) false-neutrality.   

But, Secularism is not an impartial philosophy, it is an ardent competitor in the arena of ideas, and must be treated accordingly. 

Hunter Baker defines Secularism as “a radical concept that involves the privatization of religious belief: [i.e.] when we are together in the public square, if we are ‘virtuous and civil’ then we will not speak of religion at all, we will confine it to our private lives and presumably – many elites believe – when we do that, religious belief will eventually disappear.” 

From their scornful pedestals, Secularism’s faithful entitle themselves to preach intolerance towards varying viewpoints as a means to stifle civil public discourse into one party rule. 

Mr. Savage scolds, “we’ve got to stop, we’ve got to deescalate this rhetoric and the rhetorical war pitting one religion against another religion,” yet his radical rhetoric is self-inoculated because he somehow believes his secular faith to be the referee. 

Mr. Olbermann smarts, “is it not in the interest of people of faith to avoid this kind of public proselytizing, I mean, the smart ones get that it just makes them look bad no matter what the thought might be?”   

How smart is that, really?

Perhaps when Messrs. Olbermann, Savage, et al. next gaze in their mirrors, they’ll realize their vulgar jihadist comparisons and smug rhetorical hypocrisies are both illogical, and utterly self-defeating. 

How did America arrive at the disgraceful crossroad where “Elton Trueblood’s Cut Flower Civilization thesis may well be in danger of fully manifesting itself”?

I sure hope we make the right turn.

If you're going to call out someone for hypocrisy, make sure you're not guilty of the same thing. Guest columnist Welton Gaddy, a pastor for preaching and worship at Northminster (Baptist) Church in Monroe, La. and MSNBC regular, apparently had no qualms with calling out former Fox News "Special Report" anchor Brit Hume in a Jan. 4 column, but is committing the same transgression.

Gaddy took issue with the Fox News senior political analyst's 39-second spiritual commentary on redemption for the recently disgraced Tiger Woods. And although Gaddy failed to mention that Hume publicly stepped out of his role as anchor/reporter in 2008, Gaddy revealed his disgust with the apparent preachy hypocrisy emanating from the "reporter" (emphasis added).

"The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit Hume's words struck me as contradictory," Gaddy wrote. "Just below the image of the reporter's face, the insignia 'Fox News' appeared in three different places. Yet, the content of Mr. Hume's comments was not that of a news reporter so much as that of a televangelist."

Gaddy harped on Hume for sounding like a "televangelist" but later chided Hume for not thoroughly reporting the "truth to people of all religions." One might ask how is it that Hume can be accused of being a televangelist, but simultaneously be accused of failing to preach the "truth to people of all religions?"

Gaddy's hypocrisy didn't stop there. Gaddy, a Christian minister, admitted he is "delighted to see [his] faith discussed in public" and not three paragraphs later, is puzzlingly disgusted to see his "faith used in a utilitarian manner."

Hume was speaking as an invited guest, a panelist during, by Gaddy's own admission, a commentary segment of the program, but still labeled him a "news anchor," which isn't true.

"Even though Mr. Hume's remarks occurred during a portion of the program devoted to commentary, a news anchor should not assume an authority to compare ‘redemption' in various religions," wrote Gaddy.

And, not only was Hume not wearing his anchor hat during the segment, it seems a bit presumptuous of Gaddy to accuse Hume of assuming an authority on redemption.

One could argue that Hume, a well-respected and award-winning journalist, in fact practiced restraint from delving into spiritual depths on a news program. Had Hume expounded on his comments and continued to preach the "truth to people of all religions" as Gaddy suggested he do, wouldn't he just be sounding like a televangelist on a news show?

As a Christian minister, one could ask, shouldn't Gaddy be happy to hear his faith discussed in a positive light in a public forum?

On Fox News Sunday, panelist Brit Hume offered a hopeful New Year’s message for the fallen Tiger Woods:  “Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very...

View Original Post

The decay has reached the point that merely being a Christian around a rapist is regarded as a human rights violation: An atheist rapist has complained that his human rights were breached by having to share a prison cell with a Christian inmate. Barman Steven Relf, 40, was jailed indefinitely after admitting raping two women he targeted [...]

The decay has reached the point that merely being a Christian around a rapist is regarded as a human rights violation: An atheist rapist has complained that his human rights were breached by having to share a prison cell with a Christian inmate. Barman Steven Relf, 40, was jailed indefinitely after admitting raping two women he targeted [...]

The decay has reached the point that merely being a Christian around a rapist is regarded as a human rights violation: An atheist rapist has complained that his human rights were breached by having to share a prison cell with a Christian inmate. Barman Steven Relf, 40, was jailed indefinitely after admitting raping two women he targeted [...]

A left wing narrative has for some time been developing centered on abuse of Iran’s democratic demonstrators at the hands of Iranian officials. You may have seen the shocking news about forced rapes and torture of Iranians imprisoned by the Mullahs in Iran but it is how the story is being sold to the west [...]

With his unconventional pass delivery and a physical style that seems just as comfortable running the ball anyway, some wonder if University of Florida star quarterback Tim Tebow will achieve NFL glory. But football fans just may get to see the story of the Heisman Trophy winner and unapologetic Christian impact the pro sport's biggest game of the year.

Colorado-based conservative group Focus on the Family reportedly may buy a Super Bowl spot for an ad about how Tebow’s mother carried him to term despite a difficult and dangerous pregnancy.

If true, it would be just another example of Tebow annoying the secular left. The quarterback is as famous for wearing Bible passage citations on his game-day eye black as for winning an NCAA championship. As NewsBusters has detailed, that practice – and the faith it symbolizes – is irksome to some commentators.

Almost a year ago, CBSSports.com columnist Gregg Doyel wrote, “Tebow’s religion is seen as good because it is the religion of the majority. But it’s not the religion of everybody. It’s exclusionary, and just because you share Tebow’s faith, that doesn’t mean you're right.”

This past October, Sam Cook of the Fort Myers [Fla.] News-Press, picked up from USA Today’s Tom Krattenmaker and slammed the “far-right theology” of Tebow’s evangelical Christian father.

As recently as mid-December, Mark Axelrod, a blogger at the liberal Huffington Post sneered, “So, am I to believe that Florida beat Oklahoma because Tim Tebow had John 3:16 painted beneath his eyes?” Axelrod certainly knows that nobody is suggesting God takes sides in football games, and at the end of his piece he got to his real objections:

What I find rather disturbing is that he has to bring that religious faith onto the playing field as a way of testifying to it, as a way of letting people know just how deeply religious he is. The irony of making faith a kind of religious highlight reel is that belief in God isn't a spectator sport nor is a football field a venue for religious politicking.

The elite liberals at the Huffington Post and elsewhere in the media are embarrassed that Tebow insists on publicly testifying to his faith and using his high profile to exercise his Christian duty to evangelize.

Focus on the Family has refused to confirm whether it has purchased the space or produced the ad. Given the estimated $4 million price tag of a 30-second spot and NBC’s rejection of a pro-life ad for its Super Bowl Broadcast last year, an ad featuring the football player’s mother is no sure thing.

Given his character, courage and the consternation he whips up on the left, we hope the odds for Tebow’s professional career are better.

A couple arguments surround the Brit discussion: One, should anyone be talking about Tiger’s relationship to God? Two, can Buddhism “save” Tiger like Christianity can save Tiger? Charlie Martin and I both write pieces for Pajamas Media today talking about this issue. Here’s a bit of what I say: There was a time when discussing one’s Christian [...]

On Monday's Countdown show, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann slammed FNC's Brit Hume for advising Tiger Woods to convert to Christianity while appearing on yesterday's Fox News Sunday panel, where Hume has regularly appeared for years and contributed his opinions to the discussion in a way that differs from his manner of moderating discussions in a more neutral way when he used to host Special Report with Brit Hume. Although Olbermann later backed away from likening Hume to radical Muslims, during the show's opening teaser, Olbermann did make such a comparison: "An organization proselytizing, trying to force others to convert to its faith alone, you know, just like Islamic extremists."

At one point as the Countdown host plugged a segment in which he discussed Hume with author Dan Savage, the words "Hume's Holy War" were shown at the bottom of the screen as Olbermann spoke: "So Brit Hume tells Tiger Woods he can be forgiven, but only if he converts to Christianity. Fox has given up all pretense, hasn’t it?"

As Olbermann and Savage went on to make fun of Christianity, the MSNBC host at one point quipped: "'WWJDIHS,' which is: What would Jesus do if he strayed?" Savage brought up fringe religious figure Fred Phelps, who has become infamous for holding protests at the funerals of American soldiers, and lumped him in with Hume, Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer. Savage:

American Christianity has been hijacked by the lunatics, by the Pat Robertsons, and by the Phelps family, by the Gary Bauers, and by people like Brit Hume, and it’s an insult to Christianity, it’s an insult to Christians. I'm not a Christian. I was a seminarian once upon a time, but I'd like to hear from moderate Christians, not just radical sex advice columnist faggots, about this.

Below is a complete transcript of the segment with author Dan Savage from the Monday, January 4, Countdown show on MSNBC:

KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: And Fox News drops the pretense: Tiger Woods can be forgiven, but only if he renounces his religion.

BRIT HUME: My message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.

OLBERMANN: An organization proselytizing, trying to force others to convert to its faith alone, you know, just like Islamic extremists.

...

WITH THE WORDS "HUME’S HOLY WAR" ON SCREEN:

OLBERMANN: So Brit Hume tells Tiger Woods he can be forgiven, but only if he converts to Christianity. Fox has given up all pretense, hasn’t it?

...

OLBERMANN: "Brit Hume of Fox tells his audience Tiger Woods can be forgiven, but only if he renounces his Buddhist faith to instead join Christianity. Well, I think Brit Hume can be forgiven if he renounces whatever it is he’s doing now to instead join journalism."

...

OLBERMANN: It was the rote answer from Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes whenever anybody pointed to Fox News and called it, well, what it is. Why belabor the point? Yeah, but we got Brit Hume at 6:00, he’s not partisan, he's not selling anything, he's not proselytizing. Oops.

BRIT HUME: Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question and it's a tragic situation with him. I think he's lost his family. It's not clear to me whether he'll be able to have a relationship with his children. But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn your faith, to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.

OLBERMANN: Wow! Hume's attempt to inject religion into a discussion of the Woods mess and then setting one religion as superior and more forgiving to another even got a mention from Don Imus on the Fox Out of Business Channel, quoting, "Well, we checked this morning, and unfortunately or perhaps fortunately if you're a Buddhist there is a path to recovery and redemption. Right? Well, yes there is. The idea of redemption – nirvana under Buddhism – is achieving the state of being freed from greed, hate, and delusion." Let's bring in activist Dan Savage, author of "The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family." Dan, good evening.

DAN SAVAGE, AUTHOR: Good evening, Keith.

OLBERMANN: Wow. When the brakes of political correctness are applied on you by Don Imus, you're in trouble. But let me start with the premise. Being Christian is the best religion for adulterers because you can be forgiven, and we have lots of many fine examples of that, I suppose.

SAVAGE: We do – Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter. What's hilarious about it is there’s Brit Hume on Fox News suggesting that people should be Christians or adulterous straight men should be Christians not because Jesus is the way and the light, not because Jesus is the Son of God, not because it is the one true religion, but because it offers the best deal. [OLBERMANN LAUGHS] It gives you the get-out-of-adultery-free card that other religions just can't. That seems like an insult to Christianity, as my mother would point out if she were still alive.

OLBERMANN: Isn't this the classic thing that your mother probably also pointed out to you about never discussing religion in public? I mean, you can discuss religion in public. It's like this that you're not supposed to do it. This crosses that principle: Keep religious advocacy out of public life since, you know, the worst examples of that are jihadists, not to mention, you know, guys who don't know their own religions or somebody else's religion like Brit Hume.

SAVAGE: What's really telling, though, is just as, you know, I'm not comparing the American religious right to jihadists. They throw rhetorical bombs. The other guys throw real bombs. There’s a big difference.

OLBERMANN: Mm-hmm.

SAVAGE: But whenever we have a discussion in our country about jihadism and radical Muslims, you always hear, "Where are the moderate voices? Where are the moderate Muslims? Why don't they speak up?" Where are the moderate, liberal, progressive Christians when something like this happens? Why don't they speak up in defense of their own faith? American Christianity has been hijacked by the lunatics, by the Pat Robertsons, and by the Phelps family, by the Gary Bauers, and by people like Brit Hume, and it’s an insult to Christianity, it’s an insult to Christians. I'm not a Christian. I was a seminarian once upon a time, but I'd like to hear from moderate Christians, not just radical sex advice columnist faggots, about this. I'd like to hear them speak up.

OLBERMANN: "WWJDIHS," which is: What would Jesus do if he strayed? Beyond the mere advocacy of religion in public life, this notion that we can counter religious fundamentalists who – as you note, aptly – are different from religious fundamentalists here, they want to blow us up, but somehow we can defend ourselves with our own vigorous religion. Is this sort of Peter Pan quality here? If we all just think hard enough, our god can beat up their god?

SAVAGE: That has been going on and that needs to be checked. General Boykin who was one of the generals in charge of the invasion of Iraq gave a speech where he said our God is bigger than their god. And we've got to stop, we’ve got to de-escalate this rhetoric and the rhetorical war pitting one religion against another religion, particularly as inoffensive a religion as Buddhism.

OLBERMANN, LAUGHING: We haven't heard any threats from radical Buddhists lately in this country.

SAVAGE: There are no Buddhists with bombs in their underpants on airplanes, I don't think.

OLBERMANN: I'm going to avoid a bomb in the underwear joke about Tiger Woods for God's sakes, but is it not in the interests of people of faith to avoid this kind of public proselytizing? I mean, the smart ones get that it just makes them look bad no matter what the thought might be?

SAVAGE: The smart people of faith set an example through their lives. They don't go on Fox News and bloviate and lecture other people and hector people. You know, Brit Hume is on his second marriage. Tiger Woods is on his first. Brit Hume really isn't in a position to be lecturing Tiger Woods about marriage or about the one true path or about the deal that Christianity offers adulterous men.

OLBERMANN: Well, you know, I'm going to assume this is true. I haven't done any research on it, but I don't think Brit Hume used to be a Buddhist who then converted to some Christian faith and found this path already. But if he did, and he is actually speaking from experience, I guess we owe him an apology, but I tend to doubt it.

SAVAGE: I doubt it, too, very highly.

OLBERMANN: Dan Savage, author of "The Commitment," great thanks for your time tonight, Dan.

SAVAGE: Thank you for having me, Keith.

OLBERMANN: That's Countdown for this, the 2,440th day since the previous President declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq.

A 15-second television ad for CNN’s iPhone app uses an instrumental version of the well-known Christian spiritual “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands.”

The spot, which has been running for the past weeks, highlights some of the capabilities of the app, shows pairs of hands accessing video clips, weather reports, and CNN live video. A short electric guitar and drums rendition of Christian hymn played as the hands moved across the screen. The slogan, “CNN: In Your Hands,” flashed across the screen at the end of the commercial.

A blog of the Burlington Free Press reported on October 14, 2009 that Aaron Flinn, a musician from Charlotte, Vermont, “sold his ukulele/vocal version of ‘He’s Got the Whole World In His Hands’ to CNN for commercials for their new iPhone application. He says they were looking for some ‘unique, stylized versions’ of that tune.” In another version of the commercial for their iPhone app, CNN uses a hip-hop rendition of the spiritual.

It’s interesting, to say the least, that the left-leaning network (which launched its iPhone app in September 2009) would use a song about God having the entire world in his hands in one of its commercials, since it has also promoted the latest book by militant atheist Richard Dawkins.

A 15-second television ad for CNN’s iPhone app uses an instrumental version of the well-known Christian spiritual “He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands.”

The spot, which has been running for the past weeks, highlights some of the capabilities of the app, shows pairs of hands accessing video clips, weather reports, and CNN live video. A short electric guitar and drums rendition of Christian hymn played as the hands moved across the screen. The slogan, “CNN: In Your Hands,” flashed across the screen at the end of the commercial.

A blog of the Burlington Free Press reported on October 14, 2009 that Aaron Flinn, a musician from Charlotte, Vermont, “sold his ukulele/vocal version of ‘He’s Got the Whole World In His Hands’ to CNN for commercials for their new iPhone application. He says they were looking for some ‘unique, stylized versions’ of that tune.” In another version of the commercial for their iPhone app, CNN uses a hip-hop rendition of the spiritual.

It’s interesting, to say the least, that the left-leaning network (which launched its iPhone app in September 2009) would use a song about God having the entire world in his hands in one of its commercials, since it has also promoted the latest book by militant atheist Richard Dawkins.

During the 3PM ET hour of live coverage on MSNBC, anchor David Shuster claimed that Fox News political analyst Brit Hume "denigrated Christianity" when suggesting that scandal-ridden golfer Tiger Woods convert to the faith.

Shuster made the comments while discussing the issue with MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, asking: "Doesn’t it also denigrate Christianity when you do that on a Sunday political talk show? This isn’t church, this isn’t some sort of holy setting, this is a political talk show....Doesn’t that minimize the significance of Christianity, when you bring a discussion of Christianity into a conversation about politics?"

Buchanan replied: "He’s not denigrating Christianity....A lot of us feel that there ought to be more discussion of religion in politics and religious beliefs and what’s moral and right and wrong." Shuster pressed him: "And you don’t think this diminishes Christianity in any way?" Buchanan shot back: "What do you think, the religion’s dropped a peg or two now?" Shuster sarcastically responded: "I do think it diminishes the discussion of Christianity....This wasn’t the ‘700 Club,’ this wasn’t ‘Theocracy Today.’"

Shuster’s fellow anchor, Tamron Hall, not only attacked Hume, but Christianity as well as she remarked to Buchanan: "Pat, do we need to run down the list, just in the past year, of so-called Christian politicians who’ve been accused, or in many case flat-out had to admit because they were backed up against the wall, that they had affairs and other discretions?....is it just not good advice to do something like this, whether you’re Brit Hume or anyone, to hide behind a religion that certainly can be thrown right back at you."

Shuster later concluded the discussion by proclaiming: "...people turn to TV to get informed opinions about politics and not uninformed opinions about religion." Hall added: "David, we can skip church for the next two months after that segment."

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

SHUSTER: That comment has prompted a firestorm of criticism. And here to discuss the latest remarkable turn in our nation’s discussion about Tiger Woods, Pat Buchanan is an MSNBC political analyst, two time former candidate for president. Pat, is it ever, ever a wise idea for a political analyst to essentially anoint themselves somebody’s spiritual adviser, denigrate that person’s religion, and do so on a Sunday political talk show?

PAT BUCHANAN: Well, I’m a – consider myself a friend of Brit Hume and I think he was being candid and honest. And I don’t know what the Buddhist religion is, but there’s no doubt that Christianity is a religion of mercy and forgiveness and it’s conditional, of course, upon people altering their life and being sorry for what they’ve done. And I’m not a spiritual adviser to Tiger Woods, but-

SHUSTER: But would you ever volunteer that without being asked, I mean, it just seems-

BUCHANAN: No, well, it’s not done, quite frankly, religion in that terms isn’t really discussed. But I don’t – I’m not bothered by Brit Hume doing that. I think he means well, I just heard that for the first time, basically, I’ve read the transcript, and he was just sort of giving some kind of personal – his personal thoughts on it. I don’t really have a problem with Brit doing that, quite frankly.

TAMRON HALL: Pat, do we need to run down the list, just in the past year, of so-called Christian politicians who’ve been accused, or in many case flat-out had to admit because they were backed up against the wall, that they had affairs and other discretions? I mean, to the heart of what David is saying, if this is just about religion, all are flawed. Isn’t that what the Christian Bible says?

BUCHANAN: Well sure, all are flawed and all have failings, there’s no doubt about it. And I don’t think Brit was saying-

HALL: ‘And Judge not lest ye be judged.’ I mean, I can roll them all down, but is it just not good advice to do something like this, whether you’re Brit Hume or anyone, to hide behind a religion that certainly can be thrown right back at you.

BUCHANAN: Well first – well, I don’t think he was saying hide behind it. And I don’t think he was saying all Christians are not flawed and no Christian sins. I think what he was saying is religion is a – I mean, Christianity is a religion of mercy and forgiveness but it is not unconditional, things are required-

SHUSTER: But Pat, he was denigrating Buddhism in the process. And people who are Buddhist say that’s simply not true. I mean, look, here’s a statement from somebody who’s a Buddhist-

BUCHANAN: There are not a lot of Buddhists watching Fox, maybe.

SHUSTER: Right, well that may be true, but here’s the reaction from one of the Buddhist bloggers today. ‘Could Hume get away with saying something like this about Jewish people or the Muslim faith? You betcha he couldn’t. Why should he be able to skate away Scott free when speaking about Buddhists?’

BUCHANAN: I don’t agree. Let me say, suppose you said certain things about the Muslim faith and saying that it tends to be, in a lot of areas, very intolerant of other Christ – of other religions. And it does. I don’t know the Buddhist faith, as I said, but I think this is Brit Hume’s view of it. I don’t know if he’s right or wrong about it. The Shinto religion’s a little tough on guys that had their failings, as you know, in Japan, in places like that.

SHUSTER: But why volunteer this? Why go there? Why – I mean, look, we all respect Brit’s view, the faith works for him, it work’s for you, my faith works for me. But why go on a political show and anoint yourself the adviser to a celebrity in trouble and say ‘my faith is the right one, his is a failure for him’?

BUCHANAN: Because I think that’s his view. And do we really want political correctness or do you want Brit Hume to tell, when you ask him, what he thinks?

SHUSTER: Right, but-

BUCHANAN: He doesn’t think Buddhism-

SHUSTER: But doesn’t it also denigrate Christianity when you do that on a Sunday political talk show. This isn’t church, this isn’t some sort of holy setting, this is a political talk show.

BUCHANAN: He’s not denigrating Christianity. He’s saying it’s a religion-

SHUSTER: By talking about it on a Sunday political talk show. Doesn’t that minimize the significance of Christianity, when you bring a discussion of Christianity into a conversation about politics?

BUCHANAN: A lot of us feel that there ought to be more discussion of religion in politics and religious beliefs and what’s moral and right and wrong.

SHUSTER: And you don’t think this diminishes Christianity in any way?

BUCHANAN: No.

SHUSTER: Wow. Okay.

BUCHANAN: What do you think, the religion’s dropped a peg or two now?

SHUSTER: No.

BUCHANAN: Because of a comment-

SHUSTER: I do think it diminishes the discussion of Christianity. My Christian friends have said as much, that it diminishes the discussion of Christianity and faith when you have a conversation out-of-the-blue on a political talk show. This wasn’t the ‘700 Club,’ this wasn’t ‘Theocracy Today.’

Bonnie Erbe of U.S. News and Report praised Kathleen Kennedy Townsend’s efforts to change the Catholic Church’s perennial teaching against abortion in a December 23, 2009 blog entry, calling her a “modern-day Crusader of sorts” and outlandishly predicted that the Church would eventually “recognize the wisdom of...[her] approach.” Erbe would even go so far as to liken Townsend to St. Joan of Arc.

The left-wing contributing editor to U.S. News began her editorial with the “Crusader” label for the former Democratic lieutenant governor of Maryland, even going so far as to quote from the early 20th century Catholic Encyclopedia: “Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is a modern-day Crusader of sorts. As defined by the Catholic Encyclopedia, crusade means, ‘all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels.’ I use the term Crusader figuratively, not literally, as she’s speaking out publicly, she’s not leading a war. She’s trying to change the minds of her own church leaders—she’s not directing her rhetoric toward infidels. Nonetheless she’s leading a crusade for her church that many clergymen see as blasphemous.”

After boldly predicting that “Townsend may one day be rewarded for her efforts by church leaders, but not today and not anytime soon,” Erbe outlined that the Democrat’s “crusade” was being fought on two fronts: “Townsend is pressing her political party not to cede the religious vote to the GOP and at the same time trying to prevent the church from using its considerable clout to write its morality into federal law.”

As you might expect, Erbe is championing Townsend because, like most other members of the Kennedy clan, she has taken an outspoken pro-abortion stance, and is challenging the Catholic Church to change its longstanding position against this murderous procedure. Predictably, the U.S. News editor repeated leftist talking points about the Catholic bishops supposedly violating the separation of church and state with their involvement in the health care “reform” debate, and played the standard Galileo card against the Church:

She [Townsend] is urging progressive Catholics to reject an aggressive power grab by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The conference is vehemently opposed to healthcare reform unless the final version contains a considerable expansion of anti-abortion verbiage. The group has lobbied heavily for an amendment to force private insurers to stop providing coverage for abortions if they want to participate in government plans. Versions are contained in the package approved by the full House and the one headed to a Senate floor vote on Christmas Eve.

As Peggy Simpson writes at the Women’s Media Center, Townsend considers it “crucial for progressives from within religious groups who had fought for women’s rights and gay rights to be ‘more articulate’ about their faith.” She quotes Townsend as saying, “We progressive religious people have our backs against the wall. We allowed it to happen.”

She has a point. The bishops in recent years have been extremely vocal in their campaign against Catholic politicians who cross the church’s party line on abortion. Most recently, Rhode Island Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy, one of Townsend’s cousins, was asked by Most Rev. Thomas Tobin, Roman Catholic bishop of Providence, not to take communion due to Kennedy’s pro-choice vote on healthcare reform.

As Simpson points out: The bishops . . . threatened to defeat the overall healthcare bill unless the amendment was adopted to replace what had been seen as compromise language on abortion coverage....If that’s not a meteor-sized hole in the wall between church and state, or what little is left of it, what is?

Considering how its positions waver depending on who’s in power, my guess is some day the church might modify its anti-abortion stance. After all, this is an institution that took a mere half-millennium to recognize that Galileo was right and the Earth really did revolve around the sun and not vice versa.

Erbe concluded her editorial by repeating her earlier prediction about a future vindication of Townsend’s pro-abortion position inside the Catholic Church, and invoked the name of the celebrated French saint: “The Inquisition is over and ecclesiastic courts no longer order heretics burned at the stake. Lucky for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, she will not meet the same fate as poor Joan of Arc. But just as church elders later rescinded Joan’s excommunication, some day they might recognize the wisdom of Townsend’s approach. Not in my lifetime, but maybe some day.”

What’s bizarre about Erbe’s comparison is the fact that it was a Catholic pope, Callixtus III, who authorized a posthumous retrial of St. Joan, which cleared her of any wrongdoing. Then again, this is the same woman who declared that the current pope, Benedict XVI, was “horrifically ignorant” on the spread of AIDS in Africa.

Lefty author Margaret Atwood has created, in the form of a novel, the environmentalist's bible. "The Year of the Flood", as it is titled, is not merely a figurative bible for a dispersed and sporadic collection of greenies, but rather a sacred testament (the author says as much) for a movement that, every day, looks more like a church--complete with sin, salvation, and saints (one of whom is--you guessed it--Al Gore).

In an interview with Atwood, National Public Radio's Steve Inskeep described "The Year of the Flood" as gloriously melding science and religion into a harmonious enviro-theology. Atwood "thinks that in the future we could see a religion that combines religion and science," Inskeep states.

But the more the listener learns about Atwood's novel, the more he or she realizes that the book does not meld science and religion. Rather, it does away with religion and replaces it with radical environmentalism. Here is an excerpt from the NPR interview (h/t CATO's David Boaz):

[RICH] KLEFFEL: ["The Case for God" author Karen] Armstrong sees the role of religion as a guiding force for ethical behavior. Margaret Atwood brings that notion to life in her newest novel, "The Year of the Flood." It's set in a dystopian near future where genetic engineering has ravaged much of the planet. The survivors have created a new religion.

Ms. ATWOOD: This group, which is called God's Gardeners, has taken it possibly to an extreme that not everybody will be able to do. They live on rooftops in slums on which they have vegetable gardens. And they keep bees. And they are strictly vegetarian, unless you get really, really hungry, in which case you have to start at the bottom of the food chain and work up. And they make everything out of recycled castoffs and junk. So they're quite strict.

KLEFFEL: Atwood points out that the beginnings of her religion of the future have already appeared in the present.

Ms. ATWOOD: Indeed, we now have the Green Bible among us, which I did not know when I was writing this book, which has tasteful linen covers, ecologically correct paper, the green parts in green. Introduction by Archbishop Tutu. And a list at the end of useful things you can do to be a more worthy green person.

KLEFFEL: Atwood created a new pantheon of saints, including Rachel Carson, Al Gore and Dian Fossey, the murdered conservationist, as well as hymns, which have been brought to life by Orville Stoeber… But even though God's Gardeners feels like a real religion, Margaret Atwood is not ready to step up to the pulpit.

Ms. ATWOOD: Well, not quite in the same way that L. Ron Hubbard did. I don't have any adherents yet. But, who knows?

No one is chanting Margaret Atwood's name, but given that she has just written a holy text for what could be the largest secular religion on the planet, she may be selling herself short on that last point.

As Matt Sheffield wrote in 2007, the utter failure of socialism during the 20th century left the radical left with no supernatural force for salvation. Historical determinism and righteous revolution were out, but environmentalism swept in just in time, and gave Gore, Atwood, and the rest of the religious greens a divine purpose to rally behind. Atwood's novel is but a logical step in the progression towards a full-fledged Church of the Earth.

…so says Robert Butler in yesterday’s Washington Post:  It’s everywhere at the multiplex these days: religion. Or if that word makes you uncomfortable, you can go with the more...

View Original Post

…so says Robert Butler in yesterday’s Washington Post:  It’s everywhere at the multiplex these days: religion. Or if that word makes you uncomfortable, you can go with the more...

View Original Post

Tolerance is a virtue the Left loves to trumpet, except when the intolerable is set forward. In this instance, the intolerable is a gentle Christian evangelistic overture to a celebrity caught in sexual scandal.

Yesterday, Fox News analyst and professing Christian Brit Hume expressed his spiritual concern for Tiger Woods and urged the golf superstar to turn to Christianity for grace and forgiveness during a segment of the January 3 edition of "Fox News Sunday."

For that, Hume is being lambasted by some liberal bloggers, including Atlanta Jounal-Constitution's Jay Bookman who unleashed this venom in a brief three paragraph blog post yesterday afternoon:

Kinda makes you wonder why God allowed that darned Buddhist to win so many golf tournaments over good Christian men. Then again, He also allowed a Muslim to be elected president of HIS country, the United States of Christian America.

But seriously, I do not understand and can’t begin to comprehend the arrogance it takes to publicly anoint yourself someone’s spiritual adviser, and to then lecture them about their faith and its alleged inadequacies. This was a prepared, considered remark by Hume, not some off-the-cuff aside.

A person’s faith is a private matter between that person and God, and is not a matter to be judged by some pompous TV anchor.

But was Hume really pompous in his pronouncement? The video Bookman himself embedded suggests otherwise, as Hume hints that he has found grace and forgiveness in Christ and wishes the same personally for Tiger Woods, a man whose sexual sins have found him out.

While Bookman may be unaware of this, Hume's embrace of the Christian faith has been a great comfort to him in the 11 years since his son's death.

From an interview with The Hollywood Reporter (THR) prior to his retirement from "Special Report" in 2008:

THR: WHAT OTHER THINGS WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO IN RETIREMENT?

Hume: I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I'm not claiming it's impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it's a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you're not really living it.

It seems clear to anyone without an ax to grind that Hume was aiming to not be a "part time" Christian but use his public profile to urge a fellow sinner to find grace and peace in Christ much the same as Hume has found himself.

Of course, it's probably no skin off Brit's back, who would probably rejoice at being slandered for the sake of Christ (Luke 6:22-23) and say a little prayer for Bookman:

“Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven; for so their fathers did to the prophets.

Jonah Goldberg in The Los Angeles Times: In short, “Avatar” tells the tale of a disabled Marine, Jake Sully, who — through the wonders of movie magic — occupies the body of a...

View Original Post

Jonah Goldberg in The Los Angeles Times: In short, “Avatar” tells the tale of a disabled Marine, Jake Sully, who — through the wonders of movie magic — occupies the body of a...

View Original Post

My family and I have been big fans of NCIS since it began.  So this Christmas break, one afternoon we sat down with my daughter home from college to catch up on the Christmas episodes of both NCIS...

View Original Post

Time Magazine reported that President Obama and his family didn’t attend a church service this Christmas Eve or Christmas Day. He is, to my knowledge, the first president to skip a Christmas Eve service for a long, long time. But, while it is interesting to note that Obama is quite unchurched in a position where profession [...]

Over the last weekend, I had the privilege of seeing “Avatar.”  This is a film of epic proportions and although I had some problems with it cinematically, from a technological standpoint, I recommend...

View Original Post

View Original Post

View Original Post

At face value, it seems harmless enough. According to ABC "Good Morning America" co-host Robin Roberts, every Christmas the show features various "spiritual leaders" to talk about the role of faith in their lives. And this year's Christmas Day broadcast was no exception.

"And now, it is a ‘GMA' tradition on Christmas Day, to talk about the role of faith in all of our lives," Roberts said. "We gathered a group of spiritual leaders from different traditions to talk about the importance of belief, in good times and belief in bad times, too."

Roberts' panel featured Father Edward Beck, an ABC News contributor and author of "Soul Provider: Spiritual Steps to Limitless Love," Francine Rivers, author of "A Lineage of Grace," Pastor Max Lucado of Oak Hill Church in San Antonio and author of "Fearless: Imagine Your Life Without Fear" and Pastor Miles McPherson, of San Diego's Rock Church and author "DO Something!: Make Your Life Count."

Roberts assessed the current climate of Christmas 2009 to be almost hopeless, with war and a bad economy.

"This is something so important, I think, especially on this day. And it is a very difficult time, when you look at us at war," Roberts said. "Is this the eighth Christmas we're waking up and we're at war? And the economy at such."

But later in the segment, Roberts asked Lucado what his congregation at Oak Hill Church was asking about, primarily what their concerns were. But Lucado's response, assuming it wasn't contrived, was a sad indication of the power of the anthropogenic global warming alarmism movement's ability to manipulate the media - by spreading a message that has heightened the fears about global warming (emphasis added).

"They're frightened," Lucado said. "They're talking layoffs at work and slowdowns in the economy, upswings in global warming. You know, people are nervous. They're just kind of nervous."

And to overcome these "nervous emotions" induced by things like "upswings in global warming," Lucado offered the following advice.

"And I think what they need to be reminded of is that God uses difficult times to make better people," Lucado said. "He'll take the challenges of our lives to strengthen us and to help us."

Merging global warming and/or climate change with spiritual faith is something that isn't uncommon. In 2008, then-Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean suggested using the issue of climate change to lure the support of Christian evangelicals. That is ironic for an issue, as "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace pointed out, ascribes a "religious certainty" with the language alarmists have used to describe those skeptical of the phenomenon.

Part 1: – Part 2: – Part 3: – Part 4: – Part 5:

View Original Post

Peter Hannaford of the American Spectator reports that the ACLU has suddenly found some tight budgeting times with the announcement that one of its long time patrons said he couldn’t donate the tall cash he usually donates because of his own harsh economic realities. Apparently the ACLU sent out a letter that told its followers that [...]

So Disney spends $200 million on the production of screenwriter/director Robert Zemeckis’ computer-animated adaptation of Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” a story of...

View Original Post