As "This Week in God" settles in on Saturday mornings, the God Machine has plenty to offer again this week.
First up is a story about how the culture war is beginning to shape the Roman Catholic Church's charitable support in ways the social-service community never expected (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
The Catholic Campaign, which doles out $8 million annually to about 250 groups nationwide, has been under increasing pressure from conservative Catholic groups to ensure that it is not unwittingly aiding organizations that run afoul of church positions on issues like birth control and marriage. While the amount lost is often relatively small, it can account for a significant chunk of a group's budget. And it is not happening in a vacuum, coming at a time when other nonprofit organizations, like Planned Parenthood, also find themselves under fire from social conservatives trying to choke off their financing.
Since 2010, nine groups from across the country have lost financing from the campaign because of conflicts with Catholic principles, according to [Ralph McCloud, director of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, an arm of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops devoted to ending poverty.]
This is no small shift. The New York Times noted a small nonprofit organization in rural southwestern Colorado called Companeros, for example, which received money from the church "to help poor Hispanic immigrants with basic needs including access to health care and guidance on local laws."
Companeros, however, found itself cut off from aid this year -- it had partnered with a local coalition that had joined forces with an LGBT-rights group, which The Catholic Campaign said was unacceptable. The church wanted to help poor Hispanic immigrants, but not if it meant aiding a group that also supported a gay advocacy coalition. The same thing happened to a group that helps the homeless in Maine, among others.
What does alleviating poverty have to do with LGBT rights? Not much, but The Catholic Campaign now appears eager to create funding litmus tests: adopt the church's line on other culture-war issues, even if a non-profit group's work has nothing to do with those culture-war issues, or lose funding.
As McCloud put it, "We can't in any way have groups who are collaborating with other groups whose main focus is objectionable or contrary to Catholic teachings."
Also from the God Machine this week, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Monday delivered these remarks in Wisconsin, in which the former governor, while condemning President Obama, complained, "[T]here is a desire to establish a religion in America called secularism."
Two days later, President Obama spoke at length about his faith at an Easter Prayer Breakfast at the White House, and this morning, used his weekly address to argue, "Christ's triumph over death holds special meaning for Christians. But all of us, no matter how or whether we believe, can identify with elements of His story. The triumph of hope over despair. Of faith over doubt. The notion that there is something out there that is bigger than ourselves. These beliefs help unite Americans of all faiths and backgrounds. They shape our values and guide our work. They put our lives in perspective."
Obama didn't sound eager to establish secularism as America's religion.
Leave a Comment:
It already is, Steve.
'Government as provider' - and, ultimately, 'money-waster.'
I think what you ought to establish is 'This Week In Secularism.' You can start if off with the current GSA scandal.
I'd like to see those who forever clamor for higher taxes and more government spending defend that idiocy....
do you think wasting money is a symptom of being non-religious?
I forget, have the many preachers who have been exposed of wasting and mis-using church funds come out as secularists?
you're really reaching at straw here buddy to try and vilify people you don't like.
Also, are there liberals, "leftists," secularists, or even democrats that you've found defending the ridiculous GSA spending? I'd love to hear about it, because as far as I can tell, everyone agrees that was a boneheaded move by the organization.
GSA's scandal was an arrogant waste of money. To put it into a decent perspective, how about remembering a major tax cut while starting two wars. GSA cost about 830,000 dollars, not chump change, while by 2010 these 2 wars cost over a trillion dollars. Selective memory works both ways.
No....
....but having this remarkable faith that paying forever higher taxes is noble, that the government is the best entity with which to solve problems IS a symptom of that worldview.....and all it does is lead to the nonsense typified by the behavior of the GSA - and, for that matter, a 15 trillion dollar national debt.
No, I remember very well. You go to war to kill people who are murdering innocents; that's the only reason one goes to war. I realize that many on the left don't care about that - but that IS why we went to war.
I'll take your word that the wars cost a trillion dollars. I'm actually surprised it's that low.
Interestingly, that's close to what President Obama borrowed from China in early 2009 to create the 'stimulus' - which, of course, was nothing more than the most colossal government spending program of all time; the term 'stimulus' being about as disingenuous a description for that debacle as one could muster.
I don't know how long you've been on Maddow Blog, I don't know if you've seen Steve's graphs, but the things you're complaining about don't line up with reality. The 15 trillion debt is mostly attributed to Bush, the guy who looked to God for guidance. The stimulus wasn't a failure, it wasn't big enough. "If a starving man is fed some crackers, he ate, but he may still be hungry" Since the stimulus, all measures of the economy have gotten better, and you can align all the bumps in the road with stimulus ending, with states laying off workers and with austerity measures.
I'll take your word for it because I heard it was to make sure they don't fight us over here. I was told it was because Saddam harbored Al Qaeda, I heard it was because they bought yellow cake... ya know, many reasons that WEREN'T 'murdering innocents.'
I guess we severly disagree on what constitutes "a problem."
I think unregulated industries having kids work 16 hour days was a problem. I think having to rely on a local municipality for clean water or a volunteer police force was a problem. I think institutionalized racism and violations of civil rights is a problem.
Hoping, praying, and waiting for the powerful and rich to allow the rest of us to get ahead, or for wealth to trickle down, or for them to make good paying jobs for us-- is OBVIOUSLY a problem.
and only the government has been able to help.
why does it have to be all or nothing for conservatives? "gov't messes up, so shrink it, get rid of it!" "gun laws don't stop criminals, so get rid of them too!" "having emissions regulations is annoying so get rid of them!"
I don't know of many liberals that love government 100% of the time and turn a blind eye to the problems with it... maybe you can show me some of those, ya know while you pull up the ones cheerleading for the GSA (still waiting)
Why can't you recognize problems, and want them fixed, without needing scorch the earth.
do you really think the 1890s was a shining era in american history? you really think 'everyman for themselves' is the best way to live?
P.S. the countries that tried to keep taxation down are suffering because they had no coffers when the economy crashed, and their trying to cut their way to prosperity. The highest taxing countries are still ok and have richer, smarter, healthier, happier people than us...
When President Obama took office in 2009, the national debt was approximately 9 trillion dollars.
His immediate leadership response to this very obvious crisis was to borrow an additional trillion dollars from China.
The national debt is now almost 16 trillion dollars. 16 - 9 = 7.
In three years, this man and his political party has almost doubled what it took the country to amass from 1776 to 2008.
'Heinous' comes to mind - but I'm truly at a loss for words to describe the indescribable lack of leadership by this man.
Paul Ryan is the ONLY one up on Capitol hill attempting to act like an adult.
Again, these are people dealing with OTHER PEOPLE'S money - not their own. That's why they behave the way they do. They would NEVER be this foolish and this asinine with their own money. They couldn't be that stupid.
Yet, the left keeps voting them in with the naive belief that an ever larger government is the answer. It completely boggles the mind....!!
Saddam Hussein was a butcher who murdered several hundred thousand of his own countrymen. Nobody knows for sure. That's why we went to war.
Your 'yellow cake' comment diminishes the magnitude of the purpose of the war - but, sadly, I expect that from the left. They don't want to acknowledge REAL evil - they're more comfortable with make-believe 'evil' (global warming, conservative Christians, etc.).
so you say Obama borrowed a trillion from China (he didn't) and then you did math for me and showed me that he's responsible for 7 trillion? hows that?
what specifically did Obama spend 7 trillion on? besides the 700 billion, was it Bush's tax cuts? was it Bush's wars? hmmm, what spending is Obama specific spending? please enlighten me.
Having a man craft a ridiculous budget that no one takes seriously-- only to double down when he gets another chance the following year. While complaining about the president picking on him and calling the pentagon a bunch of liars is not very adult.
you didn't answer any of my questions...
I answered yours, if you like "acting like an adult" you can at least answer me. your position is thumbs up unregulated 1890s?
Ryan's budget is exactly an 'everyman for themselves' you like that type of governing?
my yellow cake comment was what they told us. it wasn't "he was a butcher" until every other reason of theirs was proven to be false.
He'd been killing his people for decades, why'd Bush wait until 2003? why'd he blame the ties to Al Qaeda? why have the hearing with all the spy shots of their nuclear sites?
you go ahead and selectively defend what you want, but "murdering innocents" was never one of the reasons for going to war, it became a rationale of why we WENT to war.
Countries go to war to advance their political aims. There is no such thing as a "Just war", there is only necessary or unnecessary.
Then enlighten me on why we went to war with Japan and Germany in 1941.....
Korea in the early 1950's....
Vietnam in the 1960's.....
There were no just reasons for our involvement in those countries?...just 'political gain?'
President Bush didn't become president until 2001. We went to war with Iraq that same year after 9/11.
The so-called 'stimulus bill' was paid for via money we borrowed from China - almost a trillion dollars...so, yes, Obama spearheaded the effort to borrow from the Chinese - and played the deceitful position that we just 'had to have that money right now,' moving with such speed that nobody was allowed the time to even read the thing (!)
Here's a superb clarifying article by Dennis Prager written at the time.
http://www.dennisprager.com/columns.aspx?g=c8cfbda4-217f-44c2-b711-b0fb0793b0f5&url=the_madoff_bill
How's he responsible for an additional trillion dollar debt? The national debt keeps running up under his watch - and he chooses to do absolutely nothing about it. In fact, he submits annual spending budgets that fall short over a trillion dollars (!) of annual spending!
For the uninitiated, that means he wants to spend a trillion dollars more than he takes in.
Does anybody on the left view this as sane? Does anybody on the left handle their household budgets this way?!?
It's sheer lunacy.
Johnlorican
"You go to war to kill people who are murdering innocents; that's the only reason one goes to war. I realize that many on the left don't care about that - but that IS why we went to war."
Well - that's the reason that young men and women in the service go to war - but it's not the reason that old men send them.
Seriously - political leaders - left or right - have always gone to war to either acquire, control, or protect critical assets or to deny others free access to them.
Saddam was our buddy until 1991 and as long as he was killing Iranians - we turned a knowing but blind eye to his domestic slaughter. So no - we did not attack Saddam because he was killing his own people. The real reasons probably had something to do about increasing our strategic control over the area.
The Taliban were our - well not buddies - but big oil was willing to give them 5 star treatment in Texas in the 90's (UNOCAL) and the Clinton Adm. supported them for a short period of time - why - Google TAPI - a proposed big honking pipeline. The Taliban were to supply the security. (Now we are going to supply that security for the oil companies - ever wonder what Afghanistan has that needs a 400,000 man security force to protect and how Afghanistan will be able to pay their salaries?)
I'm trying to think of any time in the Old Testament when war was waged to kill people who were murdering innocents - one or two might have slipped past me - on the whole war was waged to acquire or protect territory and portable assets. A time or two it was waged to eliminate the possibility of religious contamination - killing men, women, children, animals and leaving no stone upon another.
Sun Tzu would give your comment a big chuckle - so would Clausewitz
"War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means"
www.brainyquote.com/
Again - John - bummer about Corner winning the Navy Pier Competition.
Adam_Selene
Really.
So when the Allies liberated the Jews from the concentration camps in Nazi Germany - freeing innocent people from one of the most ruthless murderous regimes in history - that was because we to wanted 'acquire, control or protect critical assets?'
When American went to war with North Korea because the communists were rampaging through Asia murdering people by the thousands - because that's what communists do - that was for cynical, selfish purposes?
The same rationale for Vietnam?
C'mon....you've got to leave the hopeless cynicism of leftist thinking.
The United States of America has done MORE and has freed the GREATEST number of people at its own sacrifice than any other country in the history of civilization. Period.
I have no clue as to what you're talking about....
Why did we wait until 1941? If it was only about the murder of innocents, why did we not go to war with Japan in 1937 after the rape of Nanking? Why did we not go to war with Germany after they invaded Poland in 1939?
Also. I said political aims not gains.
Easy answer. Like today, we didn't have the collective political will - although we're far more divided today than we were then. In the 1930's, you had the 'isolationists' - those that didn't want to get involved in foreign wars (at the time, Charles Lindbergh was vocal about it) - but, of course, once we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, all of that ended.
You couldn't keep the boys from not signing up as soldiers. Every male in the country wanted to serve.
The problem today is that you have a left wing that's far, far more leftist than it was in, say, 1940. After the advent of the '60's revolution, leftists have had a 'blame America first' mentality. It became virtuous to impugn America in almost every way...and that was NOT the mentality of liberalism prior to the 1960's.
COME ON!!! You are arguing with johnlorican and NONE of you even checked his facts!!!!!
Statement 1: "I think what you ought to establish is 'This Week In Secularism.' You can start if off with the current GSA scandal."
Fact: There is NO relationship between "Secularism" and any federal misappropriations. If there were would the $8 BILLION in improper travel payments made by the Department of Defense in 2006 be a result of Bush's "religion"?
Statement 2: "No, I remember very well. You go to war to kill people who are murdering innocents; that's the only reason one goes to war. I realize that many on the left don't care about that - but that IS why we went to war."
Fact: If that were true, then we would have gone to war in Cambodia, Somalia, Nigeria, Rwanda, etc. Murdering of innocents has NEVER been a cause for going to war. The causes for going to war are considerably more complex and have reasons that are more due to economics than any "matters of conscious".
For example: We went to war with Germany, NOT because they were murdering millions of Jews (we were still trying to pretend we didn't know about that at the time), we went to war to protect our economic status with Great Britian and the rest of Europe.
We went to war against Japan, NOT really because of Pearl Harbor - we would have gone to war with Japan anyway had they not done the bombing, because again Japan's need for energy was threatening OUR balance of power in the Asian region.
We went to war in Vietnam, NOT because the Viet Cong were killing millions of people, but because we believed at the time that if Vietnam went Communist, the rest of Asia would follow suit.
I could go on and on, but it would be better if all of you dug out a history book and looked at it every once in a while.
Statement 3: "Interestingly, that's close to what President Obama borrowed from China in early 2009 to create the 'stimulus' ", "His immediate leadership response to this very obvious crisis was to borrow an additional trillion dollars from China."
Fact: You really need to know where this originally came from: President Obama, in his 2008 campaign, made the statement that Bush was borrowing billions from China to support his wars. The "new" Republicans have just done a rubber-glue thing and are claiming the same thing about President Obama.
What is true is that a President doesn't borrow money from anyone for the United States Government. The money was raised by the Federal Reserve when it sells US bonds.
The top five holders of US debt are: 1) The Federal Reserve at $6.328 Trillion, 2) China at $1.13 Trillion, 3) Other investors/Savings Bonds at $1.107 Trillion, 4) Japan at $1.04 Trillion, and 5) Pension Funds at $842.2 Billion. China only holds about 16% of our debt.
And since this is ACCUMULATED DEBT, President Obama, nor the US could have borrowed a Trillion dollars from China last year.
I could go on, but you get the point: If you are going to argue with an idiot, THE FIRST THING TO DO IS CHECK HIS "FACTS"!!!!!
Ooops!!! I made an error in calculations. China only owns about 10% of our debt!!!
We are already a secular nation. We have always been a secular nation. Once again secular does not mean atheist. Secular means neutral or non-committed. We have always been a country that respects religious diversity and does not enforce particular religious views on people.
As for John's statements- this is all people need to understand. John does not like to discuss topics at hand, but rather likes to derail conversations to attack a point that he finds to be easier for whatever random reason. Logically this is known as a red herring, but in the vernacular it's known as trolling.
War, Good God, you all what is it good for?... absolutely nothing , say it again . War Woooooe
Shumuwada - War! – Good one – thank you Democracy Now for broadening my musical horizon – or I would have missed it.
Oncearepublican – we all have things in our past we regret – I mean, he was so good in Bedtime for Bonzo and as a host for Death Valley Days – I just assumed he would make a great president...
Mouser – Have mercy on Jonlorican (John). He is actually a decent fellow and has endeavored to lead a moral life for 33 years. His record is certainly better than mine. His view on American history is distorted by the work of the “historian” David Barton and this puts his views in line with the Christian Nationalists – whether he is aware of it or not.
I do however suggest that some of the Founding Fathers would have been quite happy to set up a state religion – as long as it was their particular denomination. Religious neutrality and a limp concession to slavery were probably considered to be the compromises necessary to get the broad support necessary for a strong Federal government.
So I do not agree with your statement that the United States has always been a secular nation and a respecter of religious diversity – we have always been a “religious” country and we have never been a respecter of religious “diversity.” Many of the colonies were founded by those seeking religious freedom – but only religious freedom for their particular denomination. Roger Williams and the Baptists got pretty tired of being run out of colonies – the Baptists still had problems after the Constitution was in effect.
The Founding Fathers were shrewd enough to realize that left unbounded, existing internal religious denominational intolerance could be an immediate and fatally divisive issue to the federal governance of the nation. Sadly, but accurately, they estimated that the issue of slavery could be deferred – at least until the nation was firmly established.
If you have not checked it out before – read Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1830’s book, Democracy in America to get a feel for how religion and government found a balance in America. Chapter 9 Vol I is quite interesting.
Adam_Selene
The Mouzer - my apologies for the inadvertent "s" in the above post - I should learn how to turn off the auto-correction in my word processor.
Ah_dumb_Selene
in other catholic news...
The fiercely pro-life Roman Catholic Church in the United States is finalizing a special Vatican-approved prayer dedicated to unborn children, its national association of bishops said Tuesday.
"Rite for the Blessing of a Child in the Womb" should be available in English and Spanish at Roman Catholic parishes from coast to coast in time for Mother's Day on May 13.
"This new blessing gives thanks to God for the gift of life and imparts his blessing on the development child and his or her family," spokesman Don Clemmer of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops told AFP by email on Tuesday.
He added: "As the blessing was requested by the US bishops and approved by the Vatican as a blessing for use in the Church in the United States, it can only be used in this country.
http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-church-us-readies-blessing-child-womb-222211970.html
and
(Reuters) - A Catholic bishop in Kansas City must stand trial on charges that he failed to report a priest found with pornographic pictures of young girls on his Church computer to police, a judge said on Thursday.
Bishop Robert Finn, head of the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, faces one misdemeanor charge that he failed to tell authorities that Church officials had found disturbing pictures of unclothed little girls that appeared to have been taken by a popular local priest, Father Patrick Ratigan.
His trial is set to start September 24.
Finn's lawyers had asked that the case against him be dismissed and argued in a hearing last week that Missouri statutes requiring clergy, school teachers and others to report suspected child sexual abuse were "vague."
They also argued that even if the bishop suspected abuse he had no duty to report the situation to authorities, because he was not the "designated reporter" within the diocese and could rely on someone else within the diocese to notify authorities.
But Jackson County Circuit Judge John Torrence rejected those arguments, ruling Thursday that the case would go forward.
"The court finds that the evidence in this case is sufficient to allow a jury to conclude that Bishop Finn was a designated reporter as defined by Missouri law," the judge wrote.
source
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-refuses-drop-charges-against-u-catholic-bishop-200151279.html
Secularism is a religion like bald is a hair color,
like not collecting stamps is a hobby,
like abstinence is a sexual position,
like not smoking tobacco is an addiction,
like transparent is a color,
If we have to endure this type of stupidity every week, maybe it should be called "This week in secularism."
It's just a tragedy that we're surrounded on all sides with serious problems, that demand serious policy, and instead we have our leaders engaging in this holier than thou farce, trying to prove that they are each the most devoted follower of a fictional character.
No, apparently the problems of the natural world aren't enough, we have to pile on supernatural hypothetical problems as well.
Secularism is, by definition, not a religion. Whether Romney is displaying ignorance or mendacity is perhaps unknowable; however, if an illustrated edition of Harry Frankfurt's "On Bull@!$%#" is ever published, Romney's portrait would make a fine frontispiece.
People can argue all they want about America, but America's government, by deliberate design of the framers of the Constitution, is secular.
I have a suspicion that for the religious right, 'secular' also serves to cover religions they consider to be wrong (every one but their brand of Christianity) plus all strands of the Christian tradition that they deem to be wrong as well. I don't know of any figure on the religious right who has explicitly defined 'secularism' in that way, but it seems to be the only way to make sense of the religious right's claim that Obama and the left wish to make the US both secular and Islamic.
If wrong or inauthentic religious traditions are included in the religious right's definition of 'secular', then it is more than ironic that Romney is echoing this line of attack since his own religion is squarely in the crosshairs for the religious right as well. He should know better but, as we know, he apparently does not. Or he doesn't care.
"Secularism is, by definition, not a religion. Whether Romney is displaying ignorance or mendacity is perhaps unknowable . . ."
Given Romney's record, both are probably applicable. His attempts to classify Obama as an atheist were duplicitous and foolish. They were a weak attempt to show that it's Obama that has a problem with religion, in an attempt to distract people from his own problems with Mormonism.
Further evidence that he's not really ready for prime time.
If we do not want religion to interfere in our Governing we should not interfere with religion as long as it is not hurting anyone. They can donate or give their money to whomever they want. We can choose to donate to whomever we want. But, when the donations support hate groups or murderers then attention should be brought to the forefront of such donations. People need to know which cause they are donating to. Thus our current situation where people had no idea they were supporting the cause of White Supremist Groups or the NRA. The NRA should be held responsible for all Hate crimes where a gun was used. Due to the recent unleashing of selling guns to everybody. If that's not inciting a riot I don't know what else it is.
of COURSE there is a "funding litmus tests". all groups have one or more. would the NRA, give money to folks wanting to ban guns. would women's groups donate money for groups that help men. would GLAAD donate money to groups that don't support gays getting hitched. would NAACP donate money to groups that don't support minority right. OF COURSE NOT. what should the catholic church be any different.because it's a religion, well would jewish groups donate money that went to helping hamas...nope. point made I think.
I'll agree to that when they all start paying property taxes. Freedom isn't free after all right?
Steve, of course we can't help homeless people if they help goes to any LGBT people! duh. Don't you know those people only have sex indoors, ergo, you keep them sleeping on the streets and we rid the world of homosexuality. Same for hispanics, only the ones ignorant of local laws turn to same sex relationships.
C'mon-- clearly the church has this all figured out. They're a infallible, sacred institution with a history of doing the right thing for a millenia.
Continuing to give to these groups would be a slippery slope, the next thing you know the church will turn their back on all of their pious principles... imagine! The next thing you know they'd be openly supporting and aiding child molesters-- oh. um, nevermind.
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others,
you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to
you." Matthew 7:1-2
Way to go Catholic Church. You have shown your hypocrisy in ALL measures. It is why people are falling away in droves. You were the structure of my childhood and it all turned out to be lies.
First Obama was part of a terrible Christian church, but we found out that didn't matter because he was actually a secret Muslim. But he seemed to not be doing a good job of that-- the beer drinking (on the lawn with the cop and the professor), and then eating hot dogs, killing Jihadist... all in the public eye, oh my!
But now we know, he seems to be a terrible Muslim because he's actually really a secularist (just play along for arguments sake that it's a "religion"). But he's mucking that up, with all his Christ talk.
For being an evil, anti-American, ruler of a 50 year old conspiracy to breed an African Muslim (really secularist) socialist tyrant-- he really messes up on the small details doesn't he.
I bet all those "he's a Muslim" people have egg on their face, are ashamed now, and will apologize forthwith, no?
And the bishop's are putting on a full court press. Since birth control = abortion, their literature now has the federal gov't and Obamacare supporting abortion (no mention of birth control).
Steve, you need to correct the story about Compeneros. They do not have any position on LGBT rights. They do have an association with a broad umbrella group, as do many charities, and that other group includes some that support the LGBT community.
The real story is just how far reaching the bishops have become in their war against secular charity.
BTW, how come no coverage of the trial of the predator priests in Philadelphia? One of the three has already pleaded guilty and will be the first ever priest to go to jail for these crimes. Why isn't that getting coverage?
I've got a good question, with all these other complete lunatics running around with their exclusive tomes of fairy tales, WTF is wrong with a little secular humanism? I'd guess it would be rather refreshing than the same tired old BS!
Does secular humanism allow you to be holier than thou?
Apparently. When I hear or read things like what Trollop has said, I always have a suspicion that they are being said by a right winger posing at a leftist. It fits too neatly into the winger caricature of the left to seem truly authentic. It would be very bad if it is, because that would make one of their slanders actually true in at least some cases.
Yeah right, I propose an interest in humanities and I'm labeled a wrong-winger.. And I am anything but holy, you can stick your "holy" where they stuck the holy ghost.. So, wrong and really wrong. Next.. ..
You've got a lot of hostility there. Get help. Seriously.
Oh honey, I don't get you. Hostility? You take your Haldol and play nice with the other Jebites..
Troller, that wasn't very nice. Name calling isn't very nice. Our government is doing this, Bullies are doing this in schools. Our nation is doing this to other nations. Candidates are doing this based on no facts. We can do without the name calling. We can discuss issues in a more grown-up and mature manner, please. If people start name calling then the more important discussion on matters ends and we are left right where we were nowhere.
in other "twig" news...a little bit of that ol' time southern religion..
Mississippi traveling evangelist accused of videotaping women
Darren Barbee | The Fort Worth Star-Telegram
A Mississippi traveling evangelist who often spoke to Texas youth groups -- including several times at a Southlake church -- is accused of secretly filming women and girls as young as 17 as they undressed in bathrooms, police agencies said.
Samuel Nuckolls has been accused of capturing video of as many as 18 females. In February, he was indicted in Mississippi on 13 counts of video voyeurism, said Steve Jubera, assistant district attorney for DeSoto County, Miss. Police in Arkansas said they are also pursuing charges, as are authorities in Texas.
Gosnell, Ark., Police Chief Bobby Trump said that in October, the wife of a youth minister with whom Nuckolls was staying noticed a pen camera in the family's bathroom. She later found that it contained a flash drive and looked to see what was on it. "Lo and behold, there's her on the video getting undressed," Trump said.
Trump said Nuckolls admitted making videos of three females, including two in Mississippi, without their consent. However, Trump continued to investigate, eventually turning over evidence to authorities in Mississippi. "I guess he figured he's from a bigger city, we're small-town people, we'd just take his word" for it, Trump said. "He just thought we were a bunch of hillbillies here."
Mississippi authorities identified some victims from Texas and eventually alerted police in Seymour. Officials there said they are handing over information concerning accusations of improper photography or visual recording of two females to the district attorney for presentation to the grand jury.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/04/03/143952/mississippi-traveling-evangelist.html
Since he chose not to watch nudity on line, he must have gotten his kicks being a sneaky, hypocritical pervert. I wonder how he will like the thrill of prison?
There are more than we know.
I'm still trying to figure out how those people voted in someone that looks like Eddie Munster.
I gave up on the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church many years ago. These bishops are just trying to divert attention from the fact they are a big part of the pedophile problem in the church. Gotta make sure those those mouthy women know their place and pop out those babies for the priests to molest.
because he's so gosh darn cute.
he does p90X ya know! he's probably ripped.
I honestly just don't get the perception that the guy is good looking at all. Not at all. ugh.
I've followed Steve's "This Week in God" from the Washington Monthly over to The MaddowBlog, and while I appreciate the attention paid to religious hypocrites and bigots, there's likely to be an equal number of hypocrites and bigots found in the secular or atheist world. By the same token, there's a lot of religious people who "walk the walk" by showing their faith in their public policy and private actions. I'd suggest that Steve could find positive stories for "This Week in God" from the Reform Judaism and mainstream Protestant traditions. Examples might include the current story at The Washington Monthly about the reason Jews are Democrats, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/why_jews_are_democrats036548.php, or a Portland, Oregon church's message (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/06/god-prefers-kind-atheists-over-hateful-christians_n_1408519.html) saying God prefers kind atheists to hateful Christians. By that standard, God probably loves Steve more than the fools he regularly features.
A secular hypocrite needs partisans to follow. He does not speak with the alleged authority of God or a church. I believe more secular people believe in the fallibility of man, than highly religious folks would acknowledge the fallibility of their church leaders from pastors or priests on up. I acknowledge there are lots of sheep both religious and not. Who has the potential for the most harm?
I also followed Steve, and my impression of Week in God isn't just to bash religiosity. The pointing out of hypocrites and bigots is that for the most part its what their hypocrisy affects.
Usually the stories are about policy, or in this case decisions by the church that affect people. It's not just anti-religion pieces, it's the effect of zealotry and (usually) powerless people.
Atheist don't have much room for hypocrisy because they don't align their lifestyle to a philosophy. Pious people can be hypocrites because they decry sex, homosexuality, hate, sometimes wealth-- and then they end up doing abnormal sex acts, sneeking around in gay relationships, being hateful or racist or mysoganist, and misusing church funds.
the only thing I can think of for atheist is for them to go home and secretly pray. where else could they be hypocrites? Maybe if they generalize that all catholics are pedophiles and it's because of their vow of celibacy, IF they just stopped believing in God they'd have normal sexual relationships-- and then that atheist turns out to be a pedophile... but again, that's not a hypocrisy because of his beliefs, just his morals, which have nothing to do with atheism, whereas morals have everything to do with religion.
/I hope I didn't ramble too much just now.
there are more positive stories out there but pointing out the hypocrisy IS a larger policy issue. The Catholic Church and the attack on 'religious liberty' is what the Republicans are hanging their hats on in the 'War against Women'. They are using it in every single argument that 'women don't care about contraception' and 'this is a fake war dreamed up by the Left'. No it's not.
It is the self-righteous Christians that set themselves up for public humiliation, e.g. Newt Gingrich. The most strident Christians are usually the biggest hypocrites. Secularists do not claim moral superiority by reason of a divine being unlike those who profess to be Christians. That is why the public devours the holy rollers who pontificate and get caught in a scandal.
You may have noticed that Steve covers hypocrites and bigots of all stripes regularly on this blog (and previously.) The point of "This Week in God" is not that all religious people are hypocrites and bigots, it's to point out people using religious cover in the service of their hypocrisy and bigotry, particularly in the political arena. So unless you're inclined to complain that he doesn't spend enough time on good public servants the rest of the week, there's really no cause to complain about the lack of positive religious folks in this feature.
I think Steve used very poor research and low standards of providing us viable information.
For example: One Ohio county has only one entity (religious based charity) providing any assistance to the homeless. Laity have remodeled closed school in a downtown area and receive only 30 day temporary zoning permits. The surrounding blocks of rustbelt leftovers have a few saloons, stores and family houses. The staff are volunteers and do provide cost effective assistance.
The church / charity cannot gain government zoning approvals through normal boards, mayor or council.
From here, looks like God's work being done for the least of his children.
We didn't start the fire!!
Religion ... in ANY form ... has NO place in Government. PERIOD!
The USA is NOT a Christian country - it is home to a multitude of religions, all of which should be held in the same respect as every other.
Religions are equal, men and women are equal, gay and straight are equal, republican and democrat are equal and everyone deserves to be treated with tolerance and respect. If any one religion, gender, sexual orientation or political view bullies another, it should not be accepted - we all have a duty to speak out against it.
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum spend all their time weeping "poor me" while condemning religions, women, gays and anyone left of them.
It is beyond time to stop this idiocy. Let Americans celebrate whatever religion they want ... ensure that men and women are equal ... pass laws guaranteeing gays all rights afforded straights ... and bring mainstream politics back to the middle so we can vote on left and right, rather than extreme right and a little to the left.
Welp, there goes the only remaining redeeming part of Catholic social teachings. Something about Samaritans and prostitutes comes to mind.
The main thing is of course that Frothy Mixture wants to turn the country into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.
If a God created us in His image, He wanted us to smile and laugh. If He wanted no one to masturbate He would have made it painful or impossible to orgasm without the other sex's hormones present. If He wanted sex only for making babies, He easily could have made sex pleasurable only during ovulation. Because someone who denies himself (allegedly) feels more righteous (or not) is no reason to deny anyone else. Sorry you missed the seventies Mr Santorum.
Santorum clearly believe that we only have the right to do things, and to make choices, that he finds acceptable. That we have the right to refuse to make use of contraception, but not the right to make use of contraception. The Roman Catholic church's dogma of free will apparently means, to people like Santorum, only the freedom to make the correct choices (which are determined by an external authority, not by individual persons).
But as another Catholic (JRR Tolkien, "Mythopoeia") has written:
The "used or misused" is key. The right to do a thing (in the broader context of Tolkien's words, the right to create myths in the face of cold hard fact) is not diminished by the possibility of making the wrong choices in exercising that right. Free will is meaningless without a plethora of options, including options that another person may disapprove of.
The Iron Crown refers to the crown of Morgoth, who sought to subject everything everywhere to his will. Santorum and those like him similarly wish to impose their will, their judgments, on everyone else. Like Morgoth, they set themselves up as self-proclaimed kings of all.
Tolkien was speaking of not giving up his right to tell stories and invent myths, not making a political argument, but there is an applicability. We are all the kings and queens of our own lives, and no other person, no matter how righteous they are in their own estimation, has the right to take that individual sovereignty away from us. Only in Santorum's world does limiting choice increase freedom.
Monk, I think I love you for that comment.
Thank you. (Any day that let's me quote Tolkien for cause is a good day.)
Where do we find the true meaning of the word Freedom? What was the intent of our Forefathers when they used the word Freedom? I don't believe it's too late to refresh or remind everyone about History. Is everyones definition of Freedom different? I'm sure when writing the Constitution ,our Forefathers had no idea about how progressive we would become. We need a mature open-minded individual to lead, someone who knows how to keep the peace and investigate both sides of the story. We have to learn very quickly how to agree to disagree for our childrens' sake. Rules are made to be broken. Our Public officials need to step back a minute and come up with a plan that helps everybody not only our country, but, every country. We can't become World Leaders if we're too busy beating the drums. We can't lead this world if others are not willing to follow because they see all of the injustices taking place on our soil. World Leaders can be either evil or good. Who will set the example? Who can really define what good is? Everyone agrees what evil is. If it hurts even 1 single person than it is evil. What hurts? Abuse. Abuse against mind, body and soul. Emotional, physical and spiritual. I pray that our President doesn't revert to name calling. I pray that he uses only the facts that he now has before him. The odds are in his favor.
If our nation believes in freedom of religion; then there should be no problem with people following a "religion" called secularism.
"President Bush didn't become president until 2001. We went to war with Iraq that same year after 9/11. "
John, Check your facts. We did not invade Iraq in 2001.
While I would like to believe all our wars were righteous, anyone paying attention knows better. Ho Chi Minh ask us for help getting the French colonials out of his country, but France was an ally and we refused. Nixon started his "plumber" problem with breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's office to stop the 'pentagon papers' release since they showed the faking of the Gulf of Tonkin attack, and the fact that the CIA warned Pres. Eisenhower that this was a war we could not win. It was a big boon to people involved with any military related industry and a disaster for those of us who served there. John apparently reads only 'talking points'.
Yes, this Country is based on Religious Freedom. The problem is that those of Religious Faith cannot accept that it also means Freedom from Religion as well.
Religious Freedom means that we are free of a state religion, because, as one example, the Church of England dictated England's politics, and punished people of non-government sanctioned religions. World history is full of incidents of people being persecuted for practicing their religion of choice, and, thankfully, our Founding Fathers put a stop to this practice. We don't have to follow a state-sanctioned religion. That's why Romney is wrong. Secularism cannot be our religion, it is our freedom.
The story about the Church creating litmus tests for social service funds is important -- and it's just the tip of the iceberg. As a now-disaffected Catholic myself and a convert 25 years ago, I've seen the Church in this country shift from middle-of-the-road blandness with a mildly liberal social justice flavoring to, increasingly, a hard-right, doctrinaire, members-only club. The social justice teachings are still there, but are now generally interpreted through a Tea Party lens. The result has been, to me, astonishing: it's now routine for lots of sensible, intelligent Catholics to spout off far-right nonsense as if it were self-evident. I know one highly-visible theologian, Robert Barron, who used to promote nonviolence, Dorothy Day and inclusive language. Now he describes the Obama administration as "totalitarian" and compares them to Nazis because of the HHS regulation on contraceptive coverage -- and he doesn't even have to raise his voice to do it.
The Church seems to be deciding to curl up in a little ball and forget the rest of the world. I think the immediate catalyst was the pedophilia scandal of the past ten years. The bishops feel they were attacked unfairly but relentlessly, and now they're fighting back. In truth they were attacked unfairly -- the media were often highly sensationalistic and simplistic -- but what the bishops won't admit is that the truth, if it had been widely reported, would have shown them in an even more unflattering light than what did get reported.
Sadly the Church thinks it has to choose because false alternatives -- self-indulgent liberal universalism or dogmatic stridency, and it's choosing the latter. And it's doing so at precisely the moment when, in the wider culture, the bloom is finally off the rose when it comes to the attractiveness of right-wing attitudes popularized by Reagan and his devotees.
I suspect it may be another 30 years or so before another movement will be able to arise in the Church to challenge this insanity.
I only recently realized that neo-Catholics or neo-conservative Catholics have begun using the language of the Protestant Christian Nationalists.
For more information Google:
David Barton, Christian Nationalism, Theocratic Right, Christian Theocracy, Christian Reconstructionism, or Christian Dominionism. You might also look up The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press. Grant pretty much lays out the road map for Evangelical Christians to create and use Political Action Committees. They have been following this plan with increasing success for many years - you are only now really seeing their impact in Republican controlled state legislatures. It's not so much about religion as it is about making Federal 1st Amendment rights into State controlled "privileges".
I saw the original clip of Romney asserting "Obama wants to establish a new religion called secularism...it's been discussed in the White House" that was broadcast a few days ago. Did anyone else happen to notice Romney's almost subliminal use of the phrase "based on reports?" You might well ask, "What reports, by whom?" Perhaps more interesting, though, is that this seems a lame defense: "See, I'm not lying. It's based on reports!" It reminds me of the meaningless weasel phrases used in some commercials: "Some reports suggest [our product] may help reduce cholesterol in some people." Once you parse that out, there's nothing left. Same with "based on reports."
Or the ever popular Fox News "some people say". Or Santorum's "I read a report" about the absence of American History courses at California universities. They're not lying -- it's the absolute truth that they read it somewhere!
Are there any members of the Catholic heirarchy who remember Jesus saying, "Love one another as I have loved you"? And then there's that other one that I can't remember exactly, something about, "Whatsoever you do for these, the least of <something>, you do unto me."