First up from the God Machine this week is a look at an unexpected political/theological fight that may have 2012 electoral implications. It's one of those rare controversies in which a high-profile conservative policymaker is facing intense criticism from religious leaders on a high-profile moral issue.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has been on the defensive since the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized his agenda and his religious justification for punishing the poor. The right-wing lawmaker addressed the issue this week at Georgetown University, where several dozen Jesuit scholars and other faculty members had also condemned Ryan's budget. He was met by throngs of protesters -- including "GOP Je$us," who read "Blessed are the rich" from the "Me-Attitudes" -- before arguing that his "reforms" would actually benefit those struggling most. Ryan's pitch included claims that simply weren't true.
But what about the electoral implications? What happens when the political debate over moral issues goes beyond marriage and reproductive health, to include Republican efforts to punish those Americans struggling most? Eliza Newlin Carney reported yesterday on the landscape.
A widening rift between House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Catholic bishops and activists over federal spending captures the power and unpredictability of the Catholic vote this year. [...]
White, politically moderate Catholics will hold the cards this time, said University of Akron political science professor John Green. Although Latino Catholics tend to vote Democratic and highly observant Catholics generally side with the GOP, "middle-of-the-road Catholics are very much up for grabs," Green said, noting this bloc is well-represented in battleground states such as Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Wisconsin. [...]
"Many of those centrist Catholics would probably agree with Catholic intellectuals and with bishops that there are a lot of things wrong with Paul Ryan's budget from a Catholic perspective," he said.
For political observers who immediately connect the Catholic vote with contraception, it's time to consider these issues beyond a narrow culture-war perspective. Ryan appears to be learning this lesson the hard way.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* Rick Perlstein highlights the right's ongoing efforts to make "secularism" a dirty word in 2012 (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, who caused quite a stir with a homily comparing the president to Hitler, is under intense pressure from the faculty at the University of Notre Dame (thanks to reader R.B.).
* And religious right leader Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, flirted with Birtherism this week, calling questions about President Obama's birthplace "legitimate." Perkins remains an influential figure in Republican politics.
Leave a Comment:
Catholicism is NOT a Christian denomination. In fact, Catholicism has absolutely NOTHING to do with Jesus the Christ. Inform yourselves.
skymanhill,
I see you signed on in November but this is your first post - welcome.
Just out of curiosity, perhaps you can tell us how we can identify true Christian denominations - kind of the purpose of these blogs - we try to help out other posters by sharing our knowledge. I remember my old friend mika used to share a lot.
Adam_Selene
Project much, skymanhill?
Chris Christofferson It was nice chatting with you monkey, and I mean that in a nice way.
Most protestant denominations are not "christian" either.
Rastafarianism is the only true christian faith.
Zoroaster was the first and only prophet who got things right. The three Abrahamic religions- Judaism, Christianity, and Islam- are only corruptions of Zoroastrianism.
All of these false religions are only corruptions of Pastafarianism. The Flying Spaghetti Monster pre-dated the earliest mentions of any of these so-called Gods.
I have evidence, it feels true, that's evidence enough for me.
You should all embrace the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you worship him and it turns out he does exist, than you win big, and if he doesn't exist then you haven't lost anything, but if you don't worship him and it turns out he does exist than you will suffer eternally as a spirit, wandering in an endless labyrinth where you are hunted mercilessly by a giant yellow devouring beast. That's Pacman's Wager, and it's irrefutable logic.
Vox
Thank you for re-introducing us to Pascal's Wager
I will however pass on the vermicelli (tasty be it's name) and stick with the wager I made many years ago.
Adam
I do have a curiosity that I was wondering if anyone out there could answer. I really wish Maddow was more open to viewer suggestions because I'd love to hear Melissa Harris Perry discuss this.
I have a feeling that all this rampant anti-abortion stuff, while it having to do w/ other things as well, is in part because the right wing is terrified of the non-white state. I believe that they are also doing this because they have no substantive policy ideas and because they are simply pandering to angry voters, but I also believe there's an element of fear that has swept over the right wing. The black man is in power and may very well a second term in office. If that's the case then in 2016 we may have another brown or black person or some other minority- like a gay. And I think that's a scary prospect for them. I mentioned Melissa Harris Perry because she wrote an article (and I believe she talked about this w/ Rachel on TRMS as well) in which MHP explains that there is this prevalent attitude that if women just stopped aborting there would be more white people. And that the white race is declining as a result of there being less white babies born every year. I often wonder if there isn't at least SOME element of that freak out spilling over into all this vehement anti-abortion legislation because people are terrified that white power may no longer exist beyond the PBO presidency. Hell it might even explain why they act like he's this terrible awful thing threatening the very fabric of freedom....when in reality he's a moderate who has done a 50/50 job. That's because the "freedom" he's threatening....is white power.
Just a curiosity.
I really thought they were just pandering to the pro-lifer religious zealots out there. (There's being pro-life and then there is assassinating a doctor.. which ends a life, thus if you supported that you no longer can call yourself 'pro-life'.) I wasn't thinking about it that way myself until after seeing the talk about how those two who wrote that new 'model for america' papers please law felt. That the "minority-majority" was a threat and the reason we need tougher immigration was to keep america "more white".
It's a sick sad realization that as a country we still need to get passed the entitlement that just because "you're darker" you get less and less and deserve to be mistreated and only "white males" get to lead our country. This core group is just stuck in their retro-bubbles and will never see pass their own empty contempt. I feel as though they're struggling more because of all the effort they tried to "prove" to others that how 'the blacks' are far less superior and intelligent then 'the whites'. We're not playing this game no more. We're not buying it cause there is nothing to be sold. It's absolutely untrue and insulting to the Human Race as a whole to continue to put other groups of people into that superficial reality.
Sadly, I'm sure we'd only be having a slightly different discussion if Hilary Clinton won the nomination to go on to be our next President.
They'll have to get over it or they're going to have to wage their own personal, corporate backed war against the rest of a nation who has moved on and will never go back to empty-hatred days.
There is that. There is also the contradictory meme that abortion is genocide against blacks perpetrated by liberals who both want to keep black people voting Democratic while at the same time trying to exterminate them. For anyone who hasn't heard that one before, it originated among anti-abortion whites although anti-abortion black people are happy to repeat it. Anti-abortion whites are motivated by a lot of things, which includes racial fears, although they have no problem faking a concern for other racial and ethnic groups if that helps push the agenda.
Demographic fears push a lot of things on the right, apparently. We have the recent 'revelation' that state-level anti-immigration laws are motivated by white demographic fears. There is also the 'quiver-full' movement which encourages religious-right whites to have very large families in order to out reproduce other groups.
So, apparently babies are weapons. Just pull out the pacifier, spank ten times, and throw at target.
This is exactly the way that I had been thinking, Tessy. I had believed that it was just because they had no policy ideas and so they were just pandering to the religious zealots out there. Now I still DO think that element is in play- do not mistake me I'm not pretending like you can't have multiple agendas in work at the same time- but once I heard that statement about how he's worried about the "white race" disappearing it just kind've clicked into my head. And then I remembered MHP talking about how there is this attitude prevalent w/in anti-abortion circles that somehow abortion is to blame for the decline in the white population and if you could just get women to stop aborting you'd be able to bring more white babies into the world. So now I am thinking that while those other 2 elements are in play....that there is also this 3rd racial element.
That's why I said I kind've wish that Maddow would take viewer suggestions...I mean I get it's her show and I don't mean to be a bossy ass....I would just loooove to hear Maddow and MHP discuss this, you know?
Pampers would make such a fortune....
Mouzer
The projections do suggest that whites will become a minority in this country in about 2050 - so I'm sure that some whites may be looking at abortion as factor in reducing the white population. Kind of screwy logic going on though - as people become more affluent they tend to want to postpone or forego children to enjoy their better life style. So if you create a situation where minorities can see upward mobility as a real possibility, they will elect to have fewer children reducing the pressure on the white "majority".
Abortion is just part of the GOP package. At least a portion of the Republican party is fixed on creating a nation of church going “model” families – based apparently on Leave it to Beaver. Abortion, divorce, homosexuality, unmarried couples using contraception, single moms, over educated – over paid – overly ambitious – feminist leaning women – these do not contribute to the model family. If you are correct in your assumption then substitute "model white families" for model families.
I'm a bit of a broken record on this since I see state abortion and contraceptive laws as simply a small tactic in the long range strategy of weakening Federal law and trying to reduce Federal First Amendment "rights" protected by the Constitution and subject to revision only through a lengthy intentionally inefficient process to State controlled "privileges" - that can be determined by simple majorities over night (and perhaps in the dark of night) by politicians who may not even reflect the desires of the majority of their constituents.
So in my opinion, abortion is the "short" game, "de-federalization" is the "long" game.
Adam_Selene
In Ultima VII, you could use soiled diapers against NPCs. The diapers wouldn't kill, but they would make your victim's run away. Children themselves, alas, could not be used as weapons.
God just loves all his children
Anything but secularism is a very dirty word, stained with blood, tears and suffering. As words go, secularism is as pure as the virgin's birth canal.
Good Morning Viet Nam Occupy Field of dreamers It's time to dance and carry flowers Love you all Peace be with you today
I doubt Mr. Benen will, but I challenge him as a member of the news media to back up this assertion.
My online search resulted in under 20 protesters despite a call from Catholic United to show up. Let me tell you where I get my 20 so we won't double count.
There are about a dozen at the 50 foot banner. The Washington Post article mentions a group of protesters hung a banner inside, a photo only shows 2. You can see the balcony seats in the photo but maybe the "group" is behind the sign. And then of course, GOP Je$us.
Now, somebody help Mr. Benen out and find a documented source of "throngs."
If this doesn't convince you that this blog is simply a campaigning avenue for Obama and that they don't care about the truth in the process, then nothing will...
Yes because even though this protest had to do w/ a member of the US Congress the blog's slant clearly is to benefit Obama. Why not take john's position and state that this is a slant against religion? Or a slant in favor of the Democratic Congress? Or a slant against this particular organization? Sheesh.
I could've otherwise met you half way and said that the description of "throngs" was certainly misleading. I personally felt that way when I read it and was going to comment on it, but decided to discuss the other issue I posted about instead. Then you just had to add the arbitrary political jab.
Ah, RobDon
Don't you EVER get it??? If we want to know what is being said on Foxnation or Redstate or any other right wing blog, we DO know where to look!!
We all know what this blog is - for the most part the posters are intelligent commentors on issues and yes, it does have a liberal bent - DUHHH!! Do you think we are all so stupid we don't realize that??? Didn't YOU realize that???
Thank you for trying to correct Steve's English, but do you really think you are qualified? Exactly what is YOUR definition of a throng? Is it more than 10? Less than 100? Smaller or bigger than a crowd????
And then parroting the red herring: Obama is a liar just like MItt because Steve used a word the Right Wing blogs don't approve of - go figure!!!!!
Come on, RobDon. You really ARE better than this, aren't you?
It isn't as if suddenly only this blog ever used more grandiose words to describe an outcome. No one even says they don't. We don't hang on every descriptive word as if it's our Bible. It doesn't work that way. Considering the hundred of thousands of rally goers for Glenn Beck's rally a while back that Fox News promoted.. Which fell short of the hundreds of thousands by the way. It's just, colorful wording.. and all mediums of media and journalists use it, period.
Campaigning for Obama though? Ya know, it really wouldn't look that way if the other side of the aisle stopped screwing things up and needing to be fact-checked on a daily basis. Or another lesson in History.. or another lesson in why we even have rights.... etc... etc... I find it interesting that an Athiest-Follower is finally being called out for being one and lying to his base. I think the Republicans need a wake up call and stop letting guys like these lead them off cliffs.
There was a time where we disagreed but we managed to get along and get the work done. I know it's hard to believe but seriously, plop out a history book.... er.. oh wait.. those were liberally indoctrinated books.. *sighs* Oh well.
Nice try though, RobDon. Conspiracy Theorists called; They want you to stop making them look bad.
Hey, there was a reason "throng" was chosen instead of a group, several, a few, some, many,...it was meant to imply an overwhelming number.
My political jab is that so many here knock Fox News for being bias, misleading, etc. but yet they do not seem to see anything wrong with MSNBC or the like.
As long as we are on the same page, then I do not need to point this out any more. Just the realization that the reporting here is greatly slanted and, at times, misleading in favor of the Left. I thought most here did not realize that.
I'm glad to know that is not the case. Thanks.
RobDon,
I check facts - I do it for ALL programs I watch and you KNOW I've been doing it here.
You want to know the reason I watch Rachel, Chris, and Melissa? It is because I have NEVER been able to catch them in a lie or even a "slant".
I used to watch FOX until I started fact checking, and I have caught EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM lying TIME AFTER TIME. Not "slanting"; LYING! Greta Van Susteren even lied about the Chilean miners. She claimed they were all out of the mine so that she could announce it on HER show before it ended when in fact one of them still hadn't been rescued. I was surfing between all the news channels, American AND international and was watching live feed. If you are willing to lie about something that could so easily be checked, you are willing to lie about anything!
So, yea, go claim MSNBC is just like FOX if it makes you feel better, but I'll keep watching Rachel, Chris, and Melissa because I know I will hear the facts from them. When you find just ONE who tells the truth on FOX, let me know!
Then you aren't watching close enough. Here's a link to the first one I caught. Jon Stewart even referred to it during Rachel's interview of him. Ms. Maddow claimed Bush said one thing but if you listen to the complete clip, it provides a totally different context.
The first link is to my original comment. The second one is regarding Jon Stewart using the same "catch." One of TRMS staff members even commented.
Comment challenging a clip used out of context.
Jon Stewart challenged the same clip.
If you can't find even a slant, you aren't trying hard enough.
Dude,
What stupid game are you playing now? Both links take me to a couple of YOUR old posts - NOT to anything factual.
You are BORING me!! Come back with some facts.
Whose it gonna hurt to believe in Jesus come on now Jesus is just alright with me Learn how to pretend
oncearepublican,
Let me see if I can help. If you watch one minute of the video on the first link starting at 4:00 then you will hear Ms. Maddow say George Bush admits the rationale for the war on Iraq was because Saddam was gaming the system in the UN oil for food program and not because of weapons as he'd said before.
But if you read the transcript or watch the full video of Bush's comment, you find the very next sentence out of President Bush's mouth (not included in the Maddow clip) is:
So, Bush was being consistent (even if you don't buy his argument). He was still convince Saddam was on the way towards weapons of mass destruction.
Ms. Maddow completely took the video/quote out of context. I called her on it and then Jon Stewart called her on it and Will Femia, a TRMS staffer acknowledged it.
Still convince that TRMS never slants or misrepresents the facts towards the Left?
RobDon, you have a REAL PROBLEM understanding so let me explain this to you:
I looked up the WHOLE interview because your link, as usual, was useless!
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/12/5452832-the-maddowstewart-interview-uncut
First, Jon Stewart called Rachel out on "shutting down the debate" and raising the "hate" level in the country of those who want to believe Bush was a war criminal. He DID NOT IN ANY WAY state that she lied or misrepresented ANYTHING!!
Oh, and that Will Femia "acknowledgement"? Have you REALLY lost your mind? This was his comment to you:
I can't find any evidence that he acknowledged that Rachel made any errors or even took anything out of context (or apologized or anything else your screwy brain came up with).
I also watched Rachel's show where she had the Bush clip AND I actually WATCHED the Bush clip and I can't see that she misrepresented anything. Bush stated: "Sadaam was systematically gaming the system....."
So it was BUSH that forgot to say: "The Dueffler Report said...." So it was BUSH you must be claiming was plagerizing, NOT Rachel!!!
I read your comments on those days and because nobody really challenged you, THAT DOES NOT MAKE YOU RIGHT! You were WRONG then and you are WRONG now!
I do have some suggestions to you though:
1. You need to practice LISTENING so that you actually HEAR what people say and not what you want to believe they say, and
2. You need to practice reading comprehension so that you actually READ what is on the paper in front of you and not what you wish it said.
But I do thank you for that Maddow-Stewart interview. I missed it the first time and I enjoyed it tremendously today!
Please be patient, I will be much more direct and your link to the full 50 minute interview will help. I can tell from your comments you are an intelligent and thinking individual. I hope from mine you can at least tell I have some education.
I, too, enjoyed the Maddow/Stewart interview. In the 50 minute clip in your link, at the 33:30 point Mr. Stewart says "if you follow that sound bite for another 15 seconds he (Bush) does say so he can reconstitute his weapon program."
Then Ms. Maddow defends her use of the clip, to which Mr. Stewart in essence says she is representing her opinion or belief as fact.
Now, you can disagree that she slanted or misrepresented the truth, but it is clear Mr. Stewart thinks that she did.
No, it was Ms. Maddow who did not include that in the clip nor did she include the following 15 seconds as Mr. Stewart points out. Here is a link to the full text of what President Bush said.
Lastly, I do have a challenge listening at times and I work hard to correct that, but I assure you I watch enough of Ms. Maddow and MSNBC to know they slant a lot of their presentation just as Fox News does in the other direction. This, in part, was the point Mr. Stewart was making as well.
Thanks for the dialog. Feel free to have the last word. If you'd like a response on you comment from me, you will need to include that request, otherwise, thanks!
I find Bishop Jenky's concern for the closing of Catholic schools and churches rather surprising, since that has been part of his agenda in the Peoria diocese for the last few years. Quote from the article linked above:
He closed all four parishes in my home town, with much opposition from the parishioners, and pretty much tore the town apart. His pie in the sky dream is to build a brand new church on the outskirts of town, again, with much opposition to the parishioners, who will have to foot the bill for said church and be inconvenienced by the new location. He refused to hear any opposing views on the matter, turning down meeting requests from local groups who just wanted some face time with the guy who gets their weekly donations. Come on, Bishop. Even Jesus sat for hours on a hillside and fed thousands of people who came to hear him speak. Not even a courtesy wave from the office window? Not even a peek from behind the
ironcurtain?He also has exhibited great disrespect for the local Catholic school kids. It used to be customary, and a big honor, to have the bishop visit with the Confirmation class. Apparently there is a critical mass that must now be met, since the kids had to travel to other towns to be graced by the presence of the bishop. Pilgrimage, anyone? I've also witnessed how poorly this bishop treats retired nuns and priests, so it doesn't surprise me at all that he would oppose anyone who dare tries to take care of the least of their brethren.
This blog captures the local sentiment about the church closings quite nicely:
http://frbkirk.wordpress.com/2010/10/02/bishop-closes-all-4-churches-in-streator-illinois/
There is more from the local My Web Times. Here are a couple to get started:
http://www.mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/print_display.php?id=413260
http://mywebtimes.com/archives/ottawa/display.php?id=434215&query=Streator%20Churches%20closing
If government does too much for the poor, “you make it harder” for churches and charities to do that work. (Ryan according to the Washington Post - A faith based lesson for Paul Ryan)
I'm trying to follow Ryan's logic on this - can anyone help me? If my neighbor is poor and I give him $100 how does that prevent you from also giving him $100 dollars?
Oh- wait a minute -
"Biblical charity is local" When churches take care of the poor they reclaim from the liberal humanists the moral high ground and "also reclaim from them the leverage of benevolence."[1]
Obviously, if you are going to replace the Federal Government in caring for the poor - you would need to look at church based charity on a larger scale. Just exactly what would nation wide Faith Based "Welfare" look like? Well it would still be local - OK - so churches in well to do neighbor hoods would have a great deal of money available for local charity but few applicants. Churches in poor neighborhoods would have few funds but many applicants. Could the churches nation wide pool their money and distribute it to individual churches based on need? Sounds good to me "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" - has a nice ring to it.
Now you would not want the poor to "church hop" maxing out the charity of one church and then moving on to another. You would need a nationwide database to compare SS numbers and track total charity received. You would also need a nationwide database to vet those who applied for aid - and case workers to investigate and help the applicants fill out the necessary forms.
Since a reliable stream of funds would be needed - you could not count on the voluntary contributions of church goers - you would need some means of requiring and recording tithes - and a means of enforcing non-compliance. Finally, why should only the religious be required to shoulder the entire burden of caring for the poor - some means would need to be devised to force non-believers to tithe the churches.
I can see now that I was wrong to doubt - nation wide Faith Based Charity can be made to work.
[1]The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press
Adam_Selene
Funny how that incompetent, can't do anything right government is always chosen over the vastly superior, does everything correctly church.
It just absolutely astonishes me how people will willingly choose to receive government money as opposed to receive church money. I mean it's not like they're forced to receive either and yet they consistently choose one over the other. If both entities were private that would be called "the free market." But, again, it's only "freedom" if everyone is forced to make the same decision. More than 1 option = tyranny.
I wonder what that "too much" is supposed to look like. Is it something resembling "anything at all"? I really get the feeling, not simply from Ryan but from everything I've ever heard from wingers about social justice, that what they really want is not to help the disadvantaged but to be in a position to refuse help and make it stick. If we use government to foster social justice, then people like Ryan aren't in a position to refuse help to those they feel don't deserve help. Which is an interesting position for people who claim to be Christians to make, particularly in light of the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, in which those who show compassion are welcomed into the kingdom of heaven while those who don't are sent to the other place.
Mouzzer,
There are actually two reasons for that:
1. The government is impersonal and doesn't make judgements - churches unfortunately do! People who have to ask for support aren't proud of that fact and I can't imagine that they want gossipy Church types to talk about their private problems.
2. A person always knows exactly what they are going to get from the government and they can make budgets and plan. You can't do that if you don't know what you are going to get. Churches don't even know from week to week how much or how many they can support. I don't know about you, but if I were in that position, I'd want to know exactly how much I had - there would at least be SOME security in that!
They are poor and hungry because either they or their parents sinned. If they had repented and sent in their "seed" money to the appropriate "prosperity" pseudo Christian Television Evangelist - they would have been blessed 100 fold and have a big house and designer clothes just like Jesus had during his ministry on earth. All they have to do is "name it and claim it" - their failure to do so is the source of their poverty.
(hummm - this is actually pretty good Troll material - I wonder if I could find someone stupid enough to buy it? Darn - there's never a troll around when you need one.)
Adam_Selene
@Monk- Well it seems to me that they want to be able to dictate punishment and reward on the basis of what they arbitrarily have decided is right and wrong. This is part of why they hide behind the belief of moral objectivism. They know what is right and wrong because they are saved and since they are saved they have God's divine knowledge. And since they know everything that God knows they can therefore dictate God's divine punishment.
Now I find myself remembering the story of Job when his supposed friends came to his side after he had been stricken w/ boils and the like and they insisted that he was being punished by God. If Job just repented then he would be cured of all his diseases and be given wealth, but surely he had sinned or else terrible things would not be happening to him (just world hypothesis/divine justice hypothesis). And then they immediately went on to contradict themselves by stating that noone can ever truly know God's purpose, that God works in mysterious ways, and that we humans must be humble when it comes to God's divine plan.
@Oncearepublican- I was somewhat talking tongue-in-cheek. If you looked at things from the lens of consumer freedom then a person who takes food stamps feels more free when they can choose between a place of faith, a secular organization that helps the poor, and the federal government. This a. gives them more avenues to gain support than they would otherwise have had and b. gives them the option of picking and choosing which avenues, thereby ensuring things like that pesky 1st Amendment aren't being violated. But yet people like Ryan make it sound like the government forces you to receive federal benefits. As if Uncle Sam is pinning you down and jamming SNAP or WIC cards down your throat. And because of this you are made helpless to the Democratic voting machine and you just will repeat the cycle of poverty in never ending misery.
Somehow when a private entity does it = freedom
Somehow when a public entity does it = oppression
My point was from the person take food stamps in they really don't give a @!$%#. I have never used government assistance beyond student related aide and public housing, but I have many friends who have used WIC and other assistance programs. I really don't want to hear lectures about how they were ungrateful and lazy people when in fact they often worked 80 hours a week doing HARD labor. Labor that someone like Paul Ryan would never be caught dead doing. Like a friend of mine used to work for a meat company. He started out on the assembly floor in charge of checking the meat for quality. His hands would bleed constantly from how dry they would get packaging the meat. Then he moved out to where they hold the cows in stalls prior to slaughter. He was kicked in the chest and broke 3 of his ribs. He went to the hospital, his company insurance refused to treat him because he hadn't been working there for 90 days so he had to pay for treatment out of pocket, and then he had to return to work immediately because (since he hadn't reached the 90 day mark) he wasn't considered a full hire yet. Another friend of mine on WIC used to work for a film company rolling paper that you print pictures on. The environment was so humid (to keep the paper healthy) that she'd break out in hives constantly. Her husband also worked there and he developed carpal tunnel (sp?). He still has it today, although he no longer works for that company. He now works as a machinist for minimum wage and has no health insurance at that job. They'd make them work 12 hour shifts at a time for 5-8 days at a time w/ 3 days off. And they were not allowed to be paid overtime or to unionize. And that was a minimum wage job w/ no benefits. The whole time she and her husband worked there they both were on food stamps and WIC. Yeah soooo lazy.
It just seems to me it's all an excuse so that someone can say "look how much better than you I am." It's like these are the schoolyard bullies who grew up and said 'ya know I really just can't be happy in life unless I know that someone else is more miserable than I am.' I just don't get it.
Mouzzer,
My apologies! I have been reading enough of your posts - I should have known you were "speaking" facetiously!! Mea culpa!!!
And yet, in John's gospel, when encountering a man born blind, the disciples ask who sinned, the man or his parents, and Jesus replies that neither sinned. @!$%# just happens. Which doesn't stop the Pharisees, ancient or modern, from judging or assigning blame.
re: Job
In the end, God tells Job's friends that they'd better ask Job to intercede for them, or else.
The funny thing about Job's experience is that he suffered (and his first batch of children died) because God was proving a point to Satan. Nobody sinned, nobody was being punished, nobody was more righteous than another. Transcendent @!$%# just happens; and clueless, self-righteous humans invent nonsense to try (badly) to explain it.
So, nothing much has changed. Job is long gone, but his 'friends' are apparently immortal.
MeddlingMonk,
Sadly - Amen and Amen.
If government does too much for the poor, "you make it harder" for churches and charities to do that work.
Republicans make a big deal of personal charity as opposed to government charity. In this way they are Muslim since one of the five Pillars of Islam is zakat or alms, the personal giving of charity.
The more you examine right-wing morality they more they converge on Islam.
Those with no money or no job have the same rights by law as everyone else. Republicans deny this. They claim only those who are "successful" deserve government benefits, which is aristocratic elitism.
Read "The more you examine right-wing morals they more they converge on Islam." That is, right-wing morals stem from the Old Testament, mostly the same in Islam, and which forms the basis for Shari'a law. That is why right-wingers always say "the Bible says" instead of "the gospel says" and want to put the Ten Commandments on courthouse walls, the same Ten Commandments as in Islam. Jesus broke with the Old Testament morality which is why right-wingers deny Jesus.
Chris Christofferson has all the answers
Well, the "week in gawd" sure does fill up the weekend comment slot Mr B. Nothing stirs more cause for debate than the current charlatans in charge of "spiritual well-being" (no matter where you live)!
^Some of the comments I don't quite "get" but what the Hell, I'm an equal opportunity misanthrope.
Trollop - funny name by the way
This week in God - does stir up plenty of - mostly honest controversy. I mentioned to a poster on one of the other blogs that trolls are basically redundant here - we have at it without the need of "instigators". I kind of like that - it's not the fighting itself I like - it's all of the loose change that ends up on the floor by Monday morning.(Yes I snitched that line.)
Adam_Selene Luna will be free!
How widely circulated were the Jesuits comments? If it's just liberal blogs that are reporting it then the people who need to know about it aren't getting the message.
Circulated enough for Ryan to pull a Romney apparently.
.
It's odd that Ayn, the staunch anti-christian, has become the patron saint of the party that likes to wrap itself in the christian religion. I think the religious right should have this contradiction shoved in its face often and hard. http://aynrandhatedjesus.blogspot.com/
I like to think of them as one person, Ayn Rand Paul Ryan.
rachel i would love to see more on that meeting the republicans had
i would love to hear more on tht meeting the republicans had on the day the president was sworn in i think the country needs to know why the president cant get anything done .
No wonder why Rachel can't get Republicans on her show. She totally annihilates them with facts. Good job on Meet The Press today!
The Christian Wrong has done more to drive people away from God than atheists. These politicians are self serving monsters. Please don't assign their values to all Christians.
'Christian Wrong'...nice one.
As Paul said of the self-righteous hypocrites he had to content with, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." When people are aggressively acting contrary to their own self-professed ideals, that serves to discredit those ideals in the eyes of others. I'm not talking about simply not living up to one's ideals. It's the 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude that turns people off, to say nothing of advocating hate and judgement under the guise of love and forgiveness.
But I don't think that atheists drive anyone to or from anything.
"Open up the gates of the church and let me out of here!
Too many people have lied in the name of Christ
For anyone to heed the call
So many people have died in the name of Christ
That I can't believe it all"
Chorus excerpted from the song "Cathedral", by Graham Nash, from the album 'CSN' 1977
Unfortunately for the right wing you just can't cure stupid
Heres an idea, all the 1 persenters not paying taxes, would pay insted of waisting alllllllllll that money on the fish out of water flipping anf flopping,(republican communist party fish)why not just pay their fare share of taxes. It would be a savings
Paul ryon prays to only one god. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
I just want to tell everybody that I met God in person on 02-15-2011 in Phoenix AZ at the AZUZA CHURCH. A young lady was standing behind me saw him too. It was an awesome experience. I will always remember that night. I knew he would come if I wanted him to because I am the man of God evidence of the Holy Ghost. I also met the Holy Spirit. I'm working on the dvd to tell the world about my unique experiences with the Almighty Father. Many people for many years have watched him do all sorts of supernatural acts to my body. So I have proof I'm NO LIAR. I will tell you what kind of vehicle he drives. An electro charged chariot that is invisable. A long device is attached to the chariot that hums like a transformer. The electrical power is strong and dangerous. If you get too close to it you have a sense of death be upon you. I was smiling from ear to ear when he showed up for me. I love him alot. He is the Master and we must praise our Lord. He has alot a work for me to do. He wants me to tell my story to save many souls. It has been hard but it will be done. Please belive me people because i have no need to lie about it. People have asked me what does he look like. The closest somebody I thought would be President Andrew Jackson on the twenty dollar bill. You see he is invisible. He did extended his face to me with an emotional plea. I will never forget the feeling it was like please. I must do the work because many souls are on my hands and I am afraid if I do not do what he wants he will send me to hell.