First up from the God Machine this week is a look at a new report from the Pew Forum for Religion and Public life, which as Jamelle Bouie noted, found some unexpected results when it came to evaluating the religiosity of the major-party presidential candidates.
The Church of Latter-Day Saints is still a mystery to many Americans, and there were fears that [Mitt] Romney's Mormonism would hurt him with voters unfamiliar with the religion. But the latest [Pew survey] suggests that Romney has nothing to worry about -- of the voters who know that Romney is a Mormon (60 percent), the vast majority say they are either comfortable with his faith (60 percent) or that it doesn't matter at all (21 percent). [...]
Indeed, of the two candidates, religion actually seems to be a bigger factor for President Obama.
Maddow Blog chart based on Pew Forum data
I put together this chart this morning, showing the percentage of Americans who falsely believe President Obama is a secret Muslim, broken down by self-identified political affiliation.
Overall, less than half of Americans (49%) overall, even after three-and-a-half years of Obama's presidency, can correctly identify his Christian faith, while 17% continue to believe he's a secret Muslim. But it's the GOP's far-right base that's throwing off the curve -- more than a third of them get it wrong.
What's more, note the trend -- after getting to watch the president over nearly four years, listening to his speeches in which he's talked about his Christian faith, watching him get inaugurated with his hand on a Christian Bible, more Americans believe Obama's a Muslim now than did so in October 2008, and the number of conservative Republicans who believe this has more than doubled. The more they learned about reality, the deeper they sank into their alternate reality.
The conventional wisdom was that Romney's Mormonism might pose a problem for him in 2012, but that's not the case -- Americans know he's a Mormon and don't care. With 100 days to go before the election, more voters say they're "uncomfortable" with Obama's religion than his rival's.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* Oops: "Mitt Romney is making a big push for the Jewish vote. In classic Romney (i.e., clueless) form, his campaign scheduled a trip to Israel on the Jewish fast day of Tisha B'Av." Gershom Gorenberg added, "It seems no one on his staff checked a Jewish calendar" before scheduling his trip to Israel.
* A tough sentence for a tragic cover-up: "Msgr. William J. Lynn, the first Roman Catholic Church official in the United States to be convicted of covering up sexual abuses by priests under his supervision, was sentenced Tuesday to three to six years in prison." Lynn's efforts to cover up the sexual abuse of children spanned decades, and included shielding predatory priests, transferring them to unwary parishes, and lying to the public (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* In the wake of Rep. Michele Bachmann's (R-Minn.) anti-Muslim witch hunt, 42 religious and secular organizations joined together this week to send a letter to lawmakers, condemning the effort. The signatories included the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The letter comes a week after a similar condemnation from the Anti-Defamation League.
Leave a Comment:
This "Obama is a Muslim" is NOT about his faith, but about the color of his skin.
Since the N word is no longer allowed to show its face in public, a handy substitute had to be found. Foreigner, Muslim, not Anglo-Saxon, food stamp president- all have been deployed by the Romney campaign.
Adele Stan has an excellent piece on Mitt's bigoted attacks, over at AlterNet.
http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/12-bigoted-taunts-peddled-romney-camp-and-allies
I've always said that if Obama looked more like his mother and less like his father then his faith wouldn't be an issue.
Nah. To good white folks, a half n!gger is still a n!gger.
"Sad Old Veteran"......the name fits!
D. Kanz, Veteran wasn't saying HE felt that way, he was explaining the attitude of certain "white folks" for whom race is an issue.
About his (sort of) use of the dreaded "n-word"...we're grownups, we should understand context.
SOV uses the term more than anyone I've heard, from any quarter. It may get used more on some right wing blogs, but I don't go there so I don't know. But SOV uses it a lot, and it can be rationalized this way and that, but mostly it seems to provide shock value.
So what is the context here? It's a progressive leaning blog and everyone knows of course that we're on "their" side, so that makes it OK?
It's a cheap, crappy, loaded word, and sticking exclamation marks in them may provide a soothing balm of political correctness, but it's still the same cheap, crappy loaded word.
I doubt if what the "good white folks" think is any mystery to 99.9% of the people reading this blog.
The common idiot..er..I mean American...now uses the word Muslim instead of the word terrorist. THIS is the problem. Too many of them are too stupid to even know that just because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they are terrorist.
I call it Palinitis, and it is running rampant in America.
Folks, it's a safe bet that when you have to fall back on the race card, your cause is failing.
It's also a safe bet that when more independents think Obama's a muslim, and Democrats are only even, It's Obama that's doing something wrong not the poll respondents.
The poll question that would be most interesting isn't asked... Do you think Obama cares about religion past it's political usefulness? I think the response would be overwhelmingly negative.
Shooter, If I thought you were that smart, I'd think you were trying to be "ironic"!
Those on the right are essentially incapable of true irony.
True!
@Shooter Re: #1.7
From your post:
What the heck are you talking about?
From the Pew Forum Article referenced in the article:
Romney
Got it right = 60% (Mormon)
Got it wrong = 9% (Other)
Don't know = 32% [Note rounding]
Obama
Got it right = 49% (Christian)
Got it wrong = 20% [Muslim = 17%]
Don't know = 31%
-----
Regarding this from your post:
What the heck are you talking about? The question needs to be clarified.
Wingnuts don't get humor, they don't get irony, they are unreflective, they don't do introspection, they have a double-ledger, soulless, monochromatic, literal worldview that assumes learning stopped in the 18th century, and they are inartful at life.
The Presidents grand uncle , the brother of obama's grand father , says Barack is the splittin image of his white grand father , so that kite will not fly either , but I get the jest , and the irony
Day - yes and no. There is more to it than "race" - religion in this case forms an important part. Bachman is a Christian Nationalist with Dominionist leanings. Supporters of Christian Nationalism believe that the Founding Fathers intended America to be a Christian country, governed by Christians for the benefit of Christians with the Bible as the source of law superior to secular law (Dominionism). People of other faiths may be tolerated - as long as they know their place. If the President is a "Muslim" then of course he should not be President - nor should he hold any political office.
What is really interesting is that the Christian Nationalist are now supporting a Mormon for president. Evangelical Christians do not accept the Mormon faith as a Christian religion (issues related to the divinity of Christ) yet here they are promoting a non-Christian (from their doctrinal point of view).
They really, really, really want an Evangelical Christian as president. Think about it.
My suggestion to hopeful Romney is that he select Joe Lieberman, Douglas Campbell or fellow Mormon Jon Huntsman as his running mate.
Hi maphi,
If you look at the chart, you'll see more independents currently think Obama is a muslim than in '08, and Democrats barely less. My own view is that Obama is agnostic at best and more likely atheist. From what I've seen, religion for Obama is a prop in his play. Something to claim kinshp with his constituency.
I'm guessing quite a few other people think the same.
Propaganda works with irresponsibly and proudly ignorant Fox-educated, stupid, racist people. These sort of knuckle-draggers believe what they want to believe, not what reality requires them to believe.
What a surprise.
@Shooter Re: #1.15
The percent for Democrats went down 1%.
The percent for Independents went up 5% (Lean Rep +7 Lean Dem +2)
I didn't check to see what the margin of error is - but there is a link to the PDF of the actual poll results. Depending on sample size it is using around 3-4%, isn't it?
-------
You can hold whatever view of his personal religious beliefs you want.
I wonder what lead you to the conclusion that he is not sincere?
How do you feel about other politicians who claim to be Christian? Is that just a prop for them too? Just claiming it for their constituency? How would you tell?
I personally go more on what a person does than on what they say.
I hear many people "talk the talk" and fail on "walk the walk". It looks to me like President Obama "walks the walk".
------
Finally, you seem to be placing the blame for any rise on President Obama - "It's Obama that's doing something wrong".
Why would this be a logical conclusion? There are no other factors that would influence how the people polled arrived at their conclusions?
That is why several of us yesterday brought up the question of where people get their information from. This is also important in a larger context. If people are getting misinformation about President Obama's religion, what other misinformation are they hearing?
It might be the images of the obama family going to church , or obama leading the national prayer day , or hosting jewish celebrations at the white house
And , how many extremeist gop CLAIM to be INDEPENDENTS ? A LOT!!!!
I am curious why there are so many responses to this thread. It is currently at 247.
@John Re: 1.19
'cus on the weekends there is usually only one post - Week in God.
Well yes just one article but then it is about the only place where freedom to speak out on the zealots is encouraged. (wonder why?)
But Paul it isn't the only place.
I meant why are their so many responses to this particular thread as opposed to the top thread in mphshow (0) or upwithchrishayes (14). Like Maddow, those shows are also not airing today (they were pre-empted by the Olympics). But there is fresh content on both, and they regularly get 6000 responses to their blogs on a weekend.
It goes to the synergistic relation between television and online interactions.
It is an interesting phenomenon full of potential that one might be tempted to think can be more fully capitalized on now due to the shift in ownership of MSNBC. Due to their inexperience in technology, I am extremely skeptical nbc management is institutionally capable of engaging in the technical innovations necessary to take advantage of the opportunities. I have little doubt that NBC will be fiddling with everything having to do with how news and blogging is presented digitally.
@John Re: #1.22
"..they regularly get 6000 responses to their blogs on a weekend."
mphshow and upwithchrishayes don't get that much - single or low double-digit comments per article.
What are you talking about?
[Well - there was that time Chris put his foot in it - "Hero"]
Intersting take John. However you are delving a little too deep into the tech aspects for a non-geek like me. I see this and other "blogs" by MSNBC hosts as complimenting their shows and a boon to the network. I would like to think that NBC sees it this way. As to the numbers I think it might also have to do with Sunday TV being lousy and this particular subject grabs those of us who gave up Sunday go to meeting crap when we awakened to how the Church is far more concerned with self-promotion than "introspective" soul searching or even God.
Besides this site is very user friendly.Heck even brain dead righties know how to get here and post drivel.
Maphi- the level of interactive activity with UP is very high. There are regularly 6000 twitter responses to their show every weekend (source: NYTimes) I wrote blog responses and should have reread it because as a regular contributor there, I do know quite well what you said is correct. The responses to each thread are usually well under a hundred, and some have only 2 to 5 comments. Given that Rachel regularly has 1.5 million viewers, her online blog responses are miniscule. The two could be far more in line with each other, and thereby cross leverage each other as well as double ad revenue.
Paul, I was wondering if there is something interesting going on with the lopsided numbers. Another lopsided number is at Worldnews.msnbc.msn with 1700 "food fight" type comments that are hardly distinguishable the sorts of things people shout in unison at football games. The facebook chatter is about as tribal, and largely as confined to the news junkie/ viewers temporarily energized by the political campaign.
I am more interested with capturing more thoughtful comments outside of that core audience. Progress has been exceptionally slow. Content guys like Benen are able to gain a loyal following, but management is thinking in penny ante terms of more attractive content, rather than game changing approaches. Really, they need surges of traffic that gain millions not a few thousand new views of online or television content. To illustrate- 15 years ago I sat in meetings with television executives hired by Microsoft who asked the questions like "What is the show?" when presented with an argument that Microsoft should provide internet search (this predated Google's existence). These content folks were smart and good at what they knew, and they sort of were clicking on the idea about how advertising could be tailored if you knew the user's interests. At the end of the day, they were as unable to think in terms of new business models as were the smart folks working the software side at MSN. They were strangers in a strange land and were highly risk averse. Now that NBC is in the driver's seat, I just hope they are less rigid in their thinking and capable taking some risks with new approaches.
There are some things that could be done to significantly broaden the online footprint beyond news junkies, but I have little trust in the television guys. They would just as soon pervert it into sideboob/ catnip type schemes.
We have enough food fights and gratuitous/ repetitious remarks about issues.
@johnmesserly comment #1.19
i'd note that there are currently 65 original comments on this thread...everything else is a response....a number of recent ones are treating this like an open thread, not posting"twig" specific comments...
and it's a mix of old benen regulars, like me, from the washington monthly days as well as newcomers and some very persistent trolls [and the resulting flame wars]
ps:
i'd also note i'm reply 26 and we're well off topic now
Geez John, you guys sure know how to turn a fire hose on a sphynx fight.
I just dropped in for comments 247 through 255, not for any "sideboob/catnip" (of which I have my own stash).
The sideboob/catnip journalism thing was a reference to the interview of Hayes currently at the top of his blog: It's the idea of throwing some red meat topic out there that will generate a lot of clicks, but is not especially newsworthy.
Sorry for going way way OT. As far as I know there's nowhere else to ask this sort of meta question, and I thank folks for the responses on what drives the popularity of this sort of thread
I have never heard of Muslims sending out missionaries to the four corners of the Earth to convert non-believers.
Oh and John. It seems to me that you see this Week in God segment to be less newsworthy than "real" issues. I do hope I am mistaken in thinking this since I see a real threat to democracy in what the religious zealots are doing.Maybe I'm just not cerebral enough?
@Paul, I concur with some of John's interests.
I find it frustrating that in this age of social media opportunity, our human impulses result in continued self-segregation and reactionary-ism. If we are reliant on a format like FB for interaction across the ideological lines, reasonable productive discourse will continue to evade us, while blog tribalisms create enough ideological clutter to overcast any serious discussions.
I would like to see UpWithHayes and MHPShow blogs reignite civil discourse. But I can see consumer marketing to maximise viewer engagement could result in more ideological tailoring.
John and all,
I strongly believe that a variety of styles of posting is necessary if the desired result is to get a message across.
I said before, there needs to be communication and speaking the language is necessary.
I agree with John and locknpost that there is quite a bit of food fights and tribalism, which can be fun if you are here for yelling over each other or agreeing on many points.
I think we need to get a large number of exchanges and messaging out there, because we have derailments from message. This election is too important to have people come on and easily derail the messaging.
Speaking to the folks that are truly disenchanted with both Obama and Rmoney is what we need. Topics on jobs and how to get more of them are essential. I am no expert on this stuff about how to reach a person that is "on the fence", so to speak. I find it utterly unbelievable that those "undecideds" can see that Rmoney would be better. I have a friend like that, non political, but unhappy with both candidates.
I read people here possibly "posing" as a former Obama voter and saying no way again, both are evil or the exact same (HUH?) anti war folks. I know one person that is unconvinced to vote for Obama again and does not want to listen to any reasoning, as it is "confrontational".
I believe we need to start now with well reasoned discussions that are in many forms or "languages". The Republicans have been doing that for decades, the pandering to racists, the religious claim to God, vague phrases about moral values.
Well, we have to learn to say the opposite of that, because we do have religious, non racist moral values over here and there is room for people of faith. It's hard to mock peoples' religion or be outright intolerant that people believe n God. But, do not drive away those that ARE moral, but do not believe in God or religion. Take away the myths they put forth without being defensive. Show all the facts, refuse to derail, but come back on track. Show the patriotism of tolerance for "others". But when someone insists on authoritarian absolutes, that is not really freedom.
I think Kent Jones has a great way of humorously mocking, which is effective a la Jon Stewart. I am not very good at that, but it does work to laugh at Bachmann bug eyed and mouth agape. Making her and others look foolish is something they do themselves!
Three to six years for facilitating the rape of children is hardly a tough sentence.
He got off entirely easy. The rest if his life, and spent in the mainline prison community, wouldn't be enough.
It's interesting to compare the reaction to what Msgr. Lynn did (which involved an active and ongoing cover up) versus that of Joe Paterno (a passive non-reaction, where he gave info to superiors and washed his hands of the matter).
The public vitriol toward Paterno may or may not be justified, but Lynn seems to get a relative pass from the public despite the much larger magnitude of the underlying crime.
mpguy,
It could be that MSM didn't follow Lynn and toss it in your face on a daily basis whereas, Penn State was front and center 24/7 and Lynn rarely, if at all, got a mention. I think that is the reason Lynn gets the pass and Paterno doesn't.
@phenner Re: #2.3
Let's assume that the severity of the crime and hence the severity of the punishment is proportional to degree to which the "perp" violated a sacred trust or obligation.
[We can argue about whether that is a valid assumption.]
So - let's compare the punishment for the religious official with that for a football program official, it is clear that the one who should get the more severe sentence is the ...
Um...What?!?!
What are you guys talking about? Does this thread belong to some other article?
@Heartlight3 Re: #2.5
See bullet in article that begins, "A tough sentence for a tragic cover-up
<fix sentence one of paragraph two after the photo>
My fellow Americans holding emotion-laden beliefs defying what is real scare the hell out of me! What torturous brains they must have to erase the real, observable, verifiable events and circumstances of the past four years and hold onto their delusions we have an alien in the White House.
At times like these, Mr. T's words ring true: "I pity the fool!"
Obama haters are a pox on our democracy! -Kevo
Kevo They should have added another qualifier to the survey:
Do you watch Fox News?
I can guarantee that near 100% of those misinformed look to "Fair and Balanced " for their news
As much as I understand the handicap it presents, I am glad that Dems/liberals are holding to the high ground on most all of this campaign. It would be so easy to get down in the mud with the Reps/conservatives and push things like Mitt's religion being "other", or using and twisting all his comments that are so wrong-messaged or elitist-sounding - like his coment about the Olympics in London. Does he think he is the only one who can plan/manage an olympic event, and anything that doesn't include him is sub-standard?
Years ago, in the heat of a divorce, a close friend told me to just keep telling the truth (my soon-to-be ex-wife was spreading lies to my children) and eventually they will understand who is lying and who is telling the truth. He was right.
Can you imagine a mormon dem running for pres ? The right would be screaming faking bible fake christian !!!!! which is what they are doing to a degree with Barack , but they keep it 1/2 under the covers , because the gop know it would out them as nothing but racist , this is why jim crow is not dead after all , now they are applying jim crow to all dems tho , not just the colored folks
I have FAITH that mit the twit will out himself as a full blown racist before the election is over , or immediately after , his disdain for the working class and people like the obama family is palpable imo , you can just feel it , and we are demoralizing him , and getting away with it , remember how freaking mad mccain was after the last election lol , he is STILL FLAMING
Just watched a show on T.V. (H2, the history channel. The program, (10 things you didn't know!), broadcast on July 20,2012. While it didn't mention Robme in particular, it was very interesting to learn a few historical facts about the Mormon religion. I'm not going to repeat what was said in the program, because I don't want a bunch of morons, oops. I mean Mormons filling up this site with a bunch of denials and accusations of spreading untruths about their religion. And I'm not against Nitt because he is a Mormon, any more than I was against President Kennedy for being Catholic or Vice President Biden for being Jewish or even Reagan for being part of the phony "moral majority", I even voted for him the first time (my mistake). I am against Nitt because of the qualities of humanity that he lacks. If you're interested, I'm sure you can probably find the show in the "on demand" part of Comcast service, if you have access to that. I do have to believe that if I were running for President and the facts were false about something as important to public perception concerning my religion I would think some one on my staff would getting be very vocal about it! But then again, with some of the gaffs that Robme makes, you have to wonder if he has a staff, other than Anne.
nitpick--Joe Biden is Roman Catholic, not Jewish. You may be confusing him with former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman.
Right wingers, what are we gonna do with them? I am sorry but just why should we continue to allow these far right talk machines to spread their lies and hatred? Why do we calmly watch as they suppress the vote? Why must we endure religious attacks on any politician when we know church and state are separate entities and the constitution forbids their mixing? Why do we tolerate intolerance from unholy religious sects?
Christ, if you ain't an atheist yet you will be by the time these zealots get done trying to enforce religious dogma through Government legislation.
WE better start pushing back if we want kids to continue to have public education free of religious indoctrination. We need to wake up to the evangelicals who spend more time politicking than preaching if we do not want the USA turned into a theocracy of evil.
Nahhh, we will sit quietly as all that America was built on disappears and we are taken back to Church rule and forced tithes. After all we would not want to seem anti-Christian.
Excuse me but I think I will rejoice by burning a Bible as I re-read The Origin of Species and delve into carbon dating.
Hey, Paul! Don't burn that King James- put it on the shelf, between the works of Shakespeare and Dickens- all three classics of English Fiction.
Hey Paul. What lies are being spread? Ideas you disagree with? Stop spewing venom and have an intelligent conversation
Lies like Obama being Muslim or his not being born in America are lies period. When facts are backed by evidence then contrary reports are lies.
But of course no self respecting republican would ever let fact get in their way. Just like far right zealots simply deny or ignore facts about the age of this planet and the evolution of man. No sir! With no evidence to back their lies they spread the gospel according to their belief.
Right Fromny....I've tried to have an intelligent conversation with many of them and all they want to do is continue to spiel their party line. One said..."I'm extremely Ring Wing and don't want to talk about it" I bring up documented and verified truths and they seem to try and rewrite history....I've given up trying to carry on an intelligent conversation with them...it doesn't seem to be in their nature
Try these sc:
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/07/27/12994571-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxvii?lite
For so much more, make sure you click all the links at the end. You'll need to clean yourself off and get a fresh man-pamper when you're through.
Well, let me see. I'm an independent voter. I believe Obama was born in the US. I don't believe Maddow is all fact. You have to go to various objective sites to get opinions. I also believe Obama is misguided. Keynes doesn't work when u have mega deficits and debt. Only austerity works, and there are consequense. And I also believe Palin is irrelevent/
Malicous misinformation is in no way a "differing opinion" or "point of view". And austerity is murder. Hope this helps.
@fromnytosc Re: #5.6
"Keynes doesn't work when u have mega deficits and debt. Only austerity works, and there are consequence."
This is the very heart of the debate. We must make the correct decision on what direction to go.
By "Keynes" I assume you are referring to "Short-Term Stimulus and Long-Term Deficit Reduction".
I have read quite a few publications (articles, posts, interviews, etc.) that show that government stimulus in response to recession is effective. Empirical data (we have done this in the past) seems to shows that it works.
Where I think we could have done better is the "Long-Term Deficit Reduction". You could argue that we are really really bad at that.
The lessons learned from the austerity policies in response to the current crisis in Europe seem to be that austerity doesn't work.
I have looked for explanations as to why it doesn't work and why "Supply-side" should work. But I have never found anything that sounds fact based.
Perhaps I just haven't looked in the right place. So - please - if you could give some pointers I would appreciate it.
Please note that I do not want more opinion or spin. I want analysis based on real data.
Perhaps the thing to do regarding the religious issue is to start insisting that if churches promote political candidates and/or positions, they lose their tax exempt status. I worked for a 501c(3) educational organization and there were strict limits on what we were allowed to promote lest we lose our tax exempt status. Do they not enforce that with churches? Maybe they should. If the preacher is preaching politics, it is usually pretty obvious.
@Heartlight3 Re: #5.9
Let's suppose the IRS started taking the tax exempt status away from churches.
My guess is that it would blow up into a gigantic "War Against Religion!!!" mess.
Actually, all you have to do is look at Europe to see how well austerity has worked (double dip recession), then look at how past recessions have been solved in this country (Keynesian stimulus spending), and we see by looking at the facts on the ground that austerity is complete horsecrap.
Paul! I have the same worries as you, but all we can do is continue to try and educate the uneducated! And don't you just love how the right likes to bring up that huge deficit, But seem to forget that when Bush took office, we had a balanced budget? Yeah, President Obama ran up the deficit, it have anything to do with 2 unfunded wars, based on false information. (that the vice-president happened to make millions of dollars from) Heartlight! Good idea, I've been saying that for years, even before I left the Catholic church. Schelin! I have the same reactions! Good luck to us all and Obama in 2012 ans Hillary in 2016 and 2020!
Those on the right are essentially ineducable, but their handicap is ethical/moral.
Yes, I have been arguing for many years that "Freedom of Speech" should not be extended to "intolerant speech".
Someone said here a few weeks ago that Canada does not protect "hate speech".
So it can be done.
@lieralbutsane Re: #5.14
But not in the current climate dominated with "Hate speech".
Would require honest debate and compromise.
This country's in deep shhit. When half of the population believes what it wants to simply because it wants to, that's pretty much the end.
I think everyone, if you haven't seen it, should look at this:
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/26/the-washington-post-gives-up/187356
It pretty much says it's as bad as everybody suspects it is. "Journalists" simply buying in to the Republican/Romney make-it-up-as-you-go-along-who-cares-as-long-as-it-paints-the-picture-you-want strategy of obtaining power.
What else is left? The country has devolved into something it's getting harder and harder to respect.
Right. Media Matters. That bastion of free thinking. Why would anyone go there? Just a to the left MSNBC.
The truth is partisan. Very partisan. The only thing that matters is accurate and fair. And once the truth of a matter is found, balance needs to be flushed. The reason this country is in the Republican-caused mess it's in is because people who are always wrong -- Republicans -- are given a voice.
And here's what you can't do, wingnut: you can't go over to mediamatters.org and take apart any single story or item. It's all sourced, it's all fact-driven. And that's not a world you deal in very well.
I think people on this blog live in an alternative universe. Differing opions are not welcome. Why is it that the states with lowest unemployment are run by Repubs? That's what Romney should be running on. And Obama pushes Keynes? Eco 101 in modern society.
Disgusted...,
I agree. Treating "balance" as if it was some sort of magical solution is a sure sign of either a moral coward or a liar trying to put malicious misinformation on an equal footing with objective reality.
@fromnytosc Re: #6.3
Regarding your statement:
I found a list on BLS.GOV of Unemployment by State.
I don't know an quick way to find out which states are "run by Repubs", but found the electoral map - which states when for Obama (Blue) or McCain(Red)
The 10 states with lowest unemployment are split 5 Blue / 5 Red.
The 10 states with highest unemployment are split 6 Blue /4 Red.
So, I question the assumption behind your question. Please back up your assumption.
Please see my response (#5.8) to one of your previous posts regarding Keynes.
BTW:
I and many others on this blog are more than happy to have discussions. What I have a hard time with are statements repeated over and over again that are factually untrue.
Excellent! You think folks here live on an alternate universe. You have a funny way of showing your "real" universe isn't the alternate because you don't dabble in evidence or reasoning. Liberals and progressives do.
Why is it that the biggest freeloader states are wingnut states? As maphi challenged and I noted above, make sure you appeal to facts when you tell the world why that is.
Obama and Keynes? If only. No, what Obama does would be called "listening to banksters" and it's the biggest mistake he could have ever made. It's the same mistake Clinton made. But it's nowhere near the mistake of simultaneously listening to banksters, believing in supply-side economics, and following the dictates of unfettered market absolutism that Republicans have given us and resulted in a worldwide economic meltdown.
Lastly, I note you didn't accept the challenge to choose a mediamatters.org story and refute it. That's because you can't. Like I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with partisan when your partisanship is based on facts and reason. In fact, you SHOULD be partisan when the truth is what informs your partisanship. When your partisanship is driven by faith and ideology, then you are a fraud and should be taken out of the conversation. That sort of partisanship should be shut down. That is hasn't -- because of an incompetent and cowardly press -- is the reason Republicans have been allowed to take this country and world to the brink of not only economic disaster, but physical disaster as well.
@Entropy: Balance is a fraud. Truth is not balanced. Truth is UNbalanced. Balance offends truth. There are only two criteria: accurate and fair. Compare apples to apples and make sure the apples are the same size.
Our press is a damned joke.
maphi
How many times have you corrected that assertion on here? They love that lie , our gop Governor took over in 2010 , Iowa and this part of the midwest was not effected as negatively by the wall st collapse , our new governors policies did not kick in till the 1st of this year for the most part , and our unemployment rate did not go all that negative to begin with , if anything our gop gov made it a bit worse , but our dem senate managed to keep us pretty level , that whole claim is a complete ruse
@Patango Re: #6.8
Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
One of these day you guys are going to understand that the objective of the wingnut troll is not to have a substantive discussion. It is to DISRUPT. It is to AVOID having a substantive discussion. It is to DEFLECT. It is to AVOID determining the facts of a matter. When you learn that, you'll understand how they should be and need to be treated: with contemptuous disrespect. It's all they understand. There is NO discussion to be had with them because you can't have a discussion with someone who is not there to discuss.
Disgusted...,
All too true. I wish the people who run this site would realize that.
Disgusted! Hard to disrespect someone who doesn't seem to respect anything but how much money someone has.
I don't see how that works, Ex. How can you not disrespect someone who cares for nothing but money? Everybody understands when they're disrespected, even on a message board.
@ Disgusted with it all #6.6
Your last sentence, that reads --
"That is hasn't -- because of an incompetent and cowardly press -- is the reason Republicans have been allowed to take this country and world to the brink of not only economic disaster, but physical disaster as well."
Should read "That it hasn't -- because...."
I correct this only coz I don't want a wingnut to be confused, I know that we progressives can figure such things out. Just like my screen name can't be changed, it should read liberalbutsane.
Good News on the This Weekin God front:
Colo. company secures injunction against HHS mandate
By Kevin J. Jones
0 Comments
34
Executives of Hercules Industries, from left to right, James Newland, Paul Newland, William Newland and Andrew Newland. Photo courtesy of the Alliance Defending Freedom.
Denver, Colo., Jul 27, 2012 / 03:23 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- In the first legal ruling against the controversial HHS mandate, a federal judge has granted a temporary injunction protecting a Catholic-run business.
Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado approved the injunction on the afternoon of July 27.
He said the harm of preventing the government from enforcing Congress-approved regulations “pales in comparison to the possible infringement upon plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights.”
The Alliance Defending Freedom legal group sought the injunction as part of its lawsuit on behalf of Hercules Industries, a Colorado-based manufacturer of heating, ventilation and air conditioning units.
“We’re thrilled,” said Matt Bowman, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom.
“This is the first court to answer the question of whether Obamacare can be used to violate religious freedom, and the answer is ‘no,’” he told CNA July 27.
“The very first ruling on the question of religious freedom was a ruling stating that religious freedom prevails over government attempts to force believers to choose between their faith and their livelihood,” Bowman said.
Hercules Industries’ owners, William Newland, Paul Newland, James Newland, and Christine Ketterhagen, all identify as practicing Catholics. The mandate would have affected the self-insured company’s health plan when it renews on Nov. 1.
Under the HHS mandate, companies that refuse to comply face fines of $100 per day, per employee. For a company like Hercules Industries, which employs 300 people, those fines could be millions of dollars each year.
The company and its owners challenged the Department of Health and Human Services rule requiring employers’ health plans to cover sterilization, contraception, and abortion-causing drugs as preventive care for women.
The mandate’s narrow religious exemption does not include many Catholic health systems, charities and colleges, despite Catholic objections to covering the procedures and drugs. It also does not apply to secular businesses.
Bowman said that although the mandate only protects the Newland family and their business, it sets an example for other legal challenges already underway.
“Every judge in these cases is going to look at what other judges said,” Bowman explained.
“The reasoning behind the injunction is that every American, including family business owners, is entitled to practice their faith without the government forcing them to violate their beliefs or face heavy fines or penalties.”
Judge Kane said the government’s arguments against the injunction are “countered, and indeed outweighed, by the public interest in the free exercise of religion.”
He cited a Tenth Circuit Court ruling which said that there is a “strong public interest in the free exercise of religion” even where that interest may conflict with another statutory scheme.
Michael Norton, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, said the lawsuit is “very important” because it determines “whether family-owned small businesses have the freedom to practice their faith as they wish in the public square and in the public arena, or whether they will be obliged to offer health insurance coverage that violates that faith.”
“Our view is that every American should be free to live and do business according to their faith. They should not have to choose between their faith and doing what some bureaucrat or politician thinks ought to be the way they live out their faith,” Norton said in a July 26 interview.
Two lawsuits against the HHS mandate have been dismissed.
On July 17, a federal judge in Nebraska rejected a suit filed by seven state attorneys general, Catholic groups and two Catholic individuals on the grounds they did not prove immediate harm. On July 18, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. dismissed the suit filed by Belmont Abbey College on the grounds it was premature.
Updated at 4:09 p.m. MST. Adds details about fines, comments from Judge Kane and Michael Norton, and background on related cases.
@Irish
According to their website it looks like Hercules Industries is a large company.
It doesn't look like there is a religious requirement for the employees to work at the company. The owners are Catholic - the employees don't have to be (I assume).
From the article you copied and pasted {emphasis added}:
“The very first ruling on the question of religious freedom was a ruling stating that religious freedom prevails over government attempts to force believers to choose between their faith and their livelihood,” Bowman said.
Fine.
Answer this:
This is perfect example of how MESSED UP our health care system is!
And don't bring up that C**P about how it is the "best in the world"!
Please note that the owners are men! I would be interested to know what their female employees think about this.
I could go on but I am too frustrated!!
Do you always have to insult the rest of we Irish, Paddy, by living down to the English stereotype of the Irish moron?
C'mon folks, The Senile Diaper Troll is simply trying to make the comments section utterly unreadable. Note every time this senile tool posts it's some long copy-and-paste or some ridiculous sports garbage that takes up 1/2 the real estate of the page. That in itself should be cause for banning.
I'm just going to all these posts and marking them as 1) no value, and 2) ignore poster. Sheesh...
You have to e-mail I think to get anything done about the trolls like Pattie.
Rachel@msnbc.com
has seemed to work in the past. When a poster like Pattie confiscates something like 1/2 of the physcial page real estate that should be enough in itself as a bannable offense. When it is considered that all he's really interested in doing is irritating, that should make banning certain.
Funny, I was going to post about this ruling as BAD news from the God-Machine. It's merely a preliminary injunction, but it raises some serious concerns for anyone to the left of the far right☺ WonkBlog has a good article with the actual ruling appended.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/28/a-federal-court-ruled-against-the-contraceptive-mandate-heres-what-happens-next/
You'd think a JUDGE would be smart enough to realize the "premise" that the Republicans sold everybody is wrong, but I guess even judges aren't smart enough to see what has happened.
What companies are being asked to pay for is HEALTHCARE insurance - PERIOD. By accepting the false "premise" that when you pay for healthcare insurance, you automatically get to decide what that healthcare is and how it fits into YOUR beliefs - is WRONG!!
Let's get it straight. When you pay for healthcare insurance, you are giving your employee the right to seek whatever treatment the doctor and your employee decide on - they do NOT have to come to YOU for your blessing on that treatment - that is NOT a part of any healthcare insurance policy I have ever seen!!!
You would NOT be able to deny a person a blood transfusion if you were a Jehovah's Witness because that is NOT your decision, you would NOT be able to deny a person a particular drug even if YOU thought that drug was "controversial" because that is NOT your decision, and YOU SHOULD NOT be able to deny your employees access to contraceptives, because that IS NOT YOUR decision!!
The Republicans pulled a fast trick on the American public and got them to accept a false premise - someone had better start clarifying this - AND FAST!!!
Don't you understand the difference between life saving procedures and, for the most part, a life style decision. Please appreciate the religious objection to this decision.
Don't you understand that it is NOT UP TO YOU to determine what "life-saving" and "life-style" medical decisions are?
No one is FORCING someone to get medical treatment that is against their religion!
Yet, some religious people feel that they have the right to FORCE their beliefs about medical treatment on others!
That's the point here: Does a religion have the right to FORCE their beliefs on others?
@fromnytosc
I am usually very tolerant and try to be reasonable - but there are limits.
The decision a woman makes regarding whether to become pregnant or to bear a child is NOT A LIFE-STYLE CHOICE!!!!!!!!!!!!! (sorry to yell but D***)
And it is PRIVATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once...,
I realized years ago that conservative theists in general are totally convinced that they have not only a right, but a duty to force their beliefs on others. That is one reason why making excuses for such people on the grounds of their "sincere religious beliefs" is, at best, suicidally naive.
Of course, Entropy. The reason the wingnuts hate Muslims so much is because they understand how extremists will behave should they get power: like THEY would. And no way, no how do they want other people inflicting their beliefs on them like they would inflict them on others.
The wingnuts simply must be stopped. This isn't a debate because the wingnuts stopped discussion over 20 years ago. It's a war. And liberals/progressives/Democrats better get that through their heads very, very soon or we'll be under the thumb of these knuckle-draggers.
Paul , I concur completely , and I am religious , not in the traditional sense , but I want to see fangs and ball kicking by the dems , obama and all , this should have started happening 20 years ago , the dems just roll over and give the right wing radicals what they want every time , at this point they know the dems will roll over on command , so they demand even more
The pansey X reagan voters , who pollute the dem party now , are fine with the dem pansy's , because it caters to their conserva dem beliefs , I have had it with the lot of them , the dems are going to start kicking ass , if you don't like it , your ass will be 1st
Example 3097 of why debating wingers is worthless
frommy complains about the comment not being specific
People point out what a waste of time it is to engage him as a winger in the 1st place
Then frommys response is about economics and everything BUT the religious bigotry of the gop , which IS the conversation and the op issue
The End
So much for the FREE MARKET , these same wingers try and shove down americas throat constantly
Paul S., I could not agree with you more and I am one of the fools that fell for Reagan's line of B.S. the first time he ran, but then that was when I still considered myself a democrat and a catholic. We live and learn.
Aside:: I wll not buy Chikfila anymore but I might go there on the third of August in support of the Kiss in! I will not of course be there on August first for the intolerance day.
To the deniers that racism is alive and evil, see yesterday's article about The First Baptist Church of Chrystal Springs in Miss. Those devout bigots refused to allow members of their own congregation to get married in their church because the couple is a black man and a black woman. Do they have a separate but equal baptismal?
More to the point, do they have separate but equal collection plates? Oh, wait, sorry... the money is all the same color, right? #sarcasmrus
In the "On Deck Circle" for This Week in God:
Ann Arbor, Mich., Jul 27, 2012 / 08:02 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Lawyers representing a Catholic businessmen’s group are seeking a separate injunction against the HHS mandate in federal court on Wednesday, days before the controversial rule takes effect Aug. 1.
The Ann Arbor-based Thomas More Law Center filed the injunction as part of its lawsuit on behalf of Legatus, the largest Catholic business leader organization in the U.S., the Ann Arbor-based Weingartz Supply Company and its president Daniel Weingartz, a Legatus member.
“Without the court's intervention, the HHS mandate effectively penalizes their free exercise of religion,” Thomas More Law Center attorney Erin Mersino said July 26.
She said the injunction is needed to prevent “immediate injury to our clients’ right of conscience.”
The Department of Health and Human Services mandate requires all employers with 50 or more employees to provide insurance coverage including sterilization, contraception and abortion-causing drugs.
Its narrow religious exemption does not include many Catholic health systems, charities and colleges, despite Catholic objections to covering the procedures and drugs.
Catholic employers who run secular businesses have even fewer protections in the mandate regulations.
The motion for an emergency injunction was filed before Judge Robert H. Cleland of the Eastern District of Maryland. It says the mandate violates rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
Mersino told CNA July 27 that the mandate would have an “enormous impact” on Weingartz and his company.
“If you look at the 170 employees that he has, and at minimum the $2,000 fine (per employee) he faces annually, he’s looking at in excess of over $300,000 a year in fines for non-compliance.”
She expects a ruling on the injunction request before Aug. 1.
A federal judge in Colorado on July 27 issued an injunction against the mandate in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of the Hercules Industries. That injunction only protects the Colorado-based company and its owners.
Mersino said the attorneys’ arguments on behalf of Weingartz and his company are similar to those made in the Colorado case.
“Our clients are similarly situated. They are both for-profit business owners who are Catholic. They oppose the mandate for the same reasons.”
She said if the judge follows the arguments, he will rule the same way but there is “no guarantee” he will.
Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, criticized the federal rule.
“The Obama administration deliberately declared war on the Catholic Church by promulgating the HHS mandate,” he said July 26. “And contrary to what they want you to believe, this case is not about contraception. It is about the religious freedom of Christians, in this case Catholics, to peaceably practice their faith free from government coercion.”
He warned that if the government succeeds, “the religious freedom of all Christians is in danger.”
@Irish
Last sentence:
He warned that if the government succeeds, “the religious freedom of all Christians is in danger.”
This is false!! It is delusional!! It is a lie!!
Oh - unless he means that the freedom of people to impose their religious beliefs on others is in danger.
In that case I would say "AMEN!"
IrishPat,
You simply don't GET IT!!!
NONE of us would FORCE your wife, sisters, daughters to have an abortion or to take contraceptives. We believe that is a choice YOUR wife, sisters, daughters have the right to make based on their beliefs.
YET YOU would FORCE all OTHER women to NOT have abortions or take contraceptives, because YOU do not believe that is a choice other women have a right to make based on THEIR beliefs.
So we would NOT force our beliefs on YOU, but YOU think YOU have a RIGHT to force your beliefs on US!! THAT AND ONLY THAT is the argument here!!
The choice to have an abortion or to take contraceptives is a decision women should make based on their OWN beliefs, NOT YOURS!!
Here's an idea that could help:
Let's have a health care system available to everyone and that covers all medical procedures, treatment and drugs that are approved by the FDA.
Each person is free to decide what options they choose.
We can discuss how this would be paid for.
TAKE THIS ELSEWHERE, IRISHPAT7. This is NOT the forum for this! Start your own pro-life blog, please.
With all this debate about the appropriate way to provide healthcare in this country, it is the height of irony that the British not only love their "government run" health service, but devoted a large portion of the Olympic opening ceremonies to celebrating it. I wonder what they know about "socialized" medicine that we don't? In any case, this was NOT a story about making medical insurance cover contraceptive, but it certainly seems rational to me that organizations whose mission is not religion should not be allowed religious exemptions to any laws just because of the beliefs of the owners. Should jewish doctors who work for catholic hospitals be forced to follow catholic beliefs? Should christian employees of jewish hospitals be forced to eat kosher in their private lives? Should people who work for an organization which has a christian scientist owner not be allowed access to any healthcare even if they are of a different religion? Imposing the beliefs of the owner/founder/CEO of an organization on all of that organization's employees is NOT religious freedom, but is the opposite.
On the contrary, govt should not by law cause a company to violate the Constitution. But, govt can pass laws that impose obligations not covered by the Constitution
The true debate, as it always has been, is the undermining of religious freedoms of Catholic employers by the HHS mandate. The judge in this case is not under a false premise. I am afraid to say, you are. It was not the judge who is incorrectly directed. It is Nancy Pelosi coupled with a intellicetually dishonest testimony by Sandra Fluke, who falsified the debate. It is not about contraception. That, as promoted by Pelosi and msnbc is the "lie". It is and always has been about "religious freedom/liberty." Contraception, abortion, sterilization and pre abotifacs are simply the ends. And no matter how persuasive the argument, no matter what misdirect is employed, the ends simply donnot justify the means. It's an age old moral equivilancy test that your argument fails on.
Reference: Pope John Paul II encyclicals, "Veritatus Splendor and Evengelium Vitae. "
Catholics have a right to the exercise of their personally held beliefs that governed by a "clear, good and well formed conscience" they as employees and or employers do not have to allow the gov't to usurp these rights as defined by the Constitution. In other words, the present HHS mandate would in fact usurp those rights. Imposing on employers the obligation of creating for their employees a defined access to health care exercises which are intrinsically evil. And be subject to fines if they do not comply with the current law. It is that simple. That is how the cases are being heard. The same goes for "employees".
The bottom line is this: it is you who have lied to by Maddow, msnbc and Pelosi's false premises that this is a debate about "women's reproductive rights" or the false claim that this is a "War on Women." The truth is, as explained by the "cut n paste" articles, is about Religious Liberty.
The end,"protecting a womens rght to exercise the use of contraception-abortion-sterilization of women-and abortifac drugs" cannot be justified by the means, the usurpation of religious liberty. You lose the moral argument every time. And in this case there is a very strong chance the adjudication of these cases will prove that the case law as presented by the Obama adminstration on behalf of the HHS mandate will be lost as well. There is Supreme Court president.
All of that is why you cannot understand the situation. It has been falsely framed for you by an egalitarian elite who are lying to you. So you cannot get your hands around the idea that is has exclusively to do with Religious Liberty.
@Irish
No.
The debate is whether the Catholic employers can inflict the employers religious views on their employees.
How many times have I pointed out to you what Sandra Fluke actually SAID!
And while we are at it, a while back, you had the NERVE to suggest that Sandra Fluke's work to support victims of domestic violence was a BAD THING!!!
And don't start quoting Catholic dogma and think that justifies anything for those of us who are not CATHOLIC!!!!
---------------------
Back up in #9.3 I posted this:
Here's an idea that could help:
Let's have a health care system available to everyone and that covers all medical procedures, treatment and drugs that are approved by the FDA.
Each person is free to decide what options they choose.
We can discuss how this would be paid for.
----------------------
You did not respond to that fairly reasonable suggest - one that removes reliance that workers have on Employer provided health insurance.
Of course the other thing we could do is to create a mechanism for "people who are otherwise un-insured" to join up in a group.
The health insurance companies would then market policies to these people at a group rate that is much more affordable than as a single person.
The first option I suggested is - of course - single-payer.
The second is - HEY WAIT A MINUTE - THAT LOOKS FAMILIAR!!
YES!!! The second is in the ACA (ObamaCares) - the Exchanges!!
Bottom line: If you scream bloody murder about religious freedom when it comes to Health Insurance, then BY GOD you had better support either single-payer or the Exchanges!!!!!!!
IrishPat,
What an extraordinary "tap dance". Wordy, but still a "tap dance".
You didn't answer the question so maybe I will rephrase it in a different way:
When an employer buys an insurance policy, NOTHING ON IT says that the employee can get medical treatment SUBJECT to the beliefs of the employer!! And quite frankly, it has NOTHING to do with "morality". It is obvious that your idea of "morality" differs from my idea of "morality".
So, I work for a Catholic Hospital. WHAT gives that Catholic Hospital the right to have my insurance company deny my family access to contraceptives?
OR, alternatively, I work for an employer who believes in Zero Population Growth. WHAT gives that employer the right to make my insurance company insist that my family take contraceptives?
The fact is that simply by providing insurance, an employer DOES NOT have the right to made medical decisions for me or my family!!
Medical decisions should ONLY be made by the family and their medical staff - NOT based on the beliefs of the employers, NO MATTER WHO they are!
You still don't get it that we aren't trying to force our beliefs on YOU, yet YOU are STILL trying to force your beliefs on US!!
WHAT gives YOU that right?
Do you REALLY think I am so stupid that I let ANYONE, including Rachel or Nancy Pelosi or ANYONE ELSE do my thinking for me? Why don't you disabuse yourself of that misconception right now???
These people need to get their stories straight if they expect to get anywhere. In the Colorado case, they claim it will cost them $100 a day per employee if they do not comply. In Michigan, it's $2000 a year per employee. Maybe Helcules Industries should move to Michigan; it would be cheaper, and God knows we need the jobs here.
Irishpat! you conservative wing nuts piss me off, I should not even be trying to respond to you, because it is obvious from reading your posts that explaining anything that, you don't agree with, is like talking to a wall. First off, the right seems to believe that ever since Reagan claimed to be part of the "moral majority", (of which he was neither), you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you can not have any morals. Your arguments for "right to life" are so flawed, it is incomprehensible. You state no one should have the right to abortion, but then you turn around and try to cut any assistance to low income families. BTW, being from a multi-generational catholic family and having been a catholic at one time, I can tell you that there are one hell of a lot of Catholics that practice birth control and even get abortions. Second, I spent years working with homeless and low to middle risk adolescents, and I can tell you that there are way too many children in this world who, it is sad to say, would have been better off if they had not been born. Children who are born to drug addicts, child molesters or have incurable medical problems would be better off and that does not even take into account the damage done to a lot of foster kids, but because you want to shove your beliefs on the rest of us, they should live a life of misery. Have you ever thought about how many people in the third world nations might be able to lead better and more fulfilling lives if they had access to birth control and medical abortion? Maybe the funds the rest of the world spends on just trying to keep the population alive could be spent helping educate them and actually improve their living conditions. I've known women who've had abortions both before and after it became legal and I can tell you that getting an abortion is never a decision a woman makes lightly. Try living your life in a truly christian way and quit telling everyone else how to live and you might be happier.
There are actually POSITIVE This Week in God stories you never seem to catch up to. Let's get with it!
Olympian Becomes a Sister (2247)
London 2012 feature from our July 15 issue. Sister Catherine Holum says, 'I think this is a fantastic opportunity for England and all the Catholics in this country to really utilize the Olympics to share their faith.'
Share
by JAMES KELLY07/27/2012 Comment
Sister Catherine Holum, former Olympian
It has been said that Blessed John Paul was the world’s most famous — and perhaps unlikely — soccer goalkeeper, but even he never participated in the Olympics.
But a speed-skating sister has. A speed-skating sister may seem like a novelty, but she is certainly a reminder that sports and Catholicism have much in common.
Sister Catherine Holum of the Franciscan Sisters of the Renewal in Leeds, England, represented the United States at the 1998 Winter Olympics in Nagano, Japan, when she was a teenager.
Her interest in competition came from her family.
“My mother, Dianne Holum, was an Olympic speed skater and Olympic speed-skating coach,” says Sister Catherine. “She has four Olympic medals, and she coached for 25 years, including three Olympic teams. So, very naturally, I grew up in the sport of speed skating.”
And she continued her mom’s legacy: “I was the youngest ever national junior champion, breaking lots of records. And the following year I competed in the Winter Olympic Games in Japan at the age of 17. I placed sixth in the 3,000 meters and seventh in the 5,000 meters.”
The whole experience “was a very exciting time for me, especially being so young,” recalls Sister Catherine. “Being a young person, the exciting parts of it were just being in the Olympic Village, seeing the Olympians you would see on television. One incident in the cafeteria: My favorite hockey player was breaking bread with me at the same time. As a 17-year-old, it was just very exciting!”
But the excitement was combined with challenges.
“There were a lot of challenges, with it being my first Olympics — it was mentally hard to prepare for my events, even though I had a little bit of experience. But I can look back now and really see that it formed me, in preparing me for religious life and as a person.”
The athletic endeavor paved the way for her current life as a religious.
“The Olympics as an experience has helped me now, in terms of the effort and the discipline. Even the attention that was given to me at the time has allowed me to use that, in terms of vocation: that experience of being able to share things about myself — now being able to share things about my faith specifically.”
Having performed so well at her first Olympics, a speed-skating career looked to be her future.
But Sister Catherine announced her skating retirement because of a pilgrimage. When she was 16, her mother sent her and a cousin “on a pilgrimage to Fatima, and it was there that I had two very powerful experiences: the first being where I received my religious call — I really felt the Lord speaking to me, calling me to be a sister, even though at the time I didn’t know what that meant or how it would pan out. I also had a very powerful experience of encountering Jesus’ presence in the holy Eucharist. So it was very much a life-changing pilgrimage. But I also asked the Blessed Mother to pray for my speed-skating career.”
After retiring from skating, she earned a degree in photography at the Art Institute of Chicago — and fell away from her faith and her religious vocation.
“During that time, I was very much swayed away from my Catholic faith. I didn’t have any Christian friends, let alone any Catholic ones. So, by the time I graduated, I had completely forgotten about my call to be a sister. I moved to live with my mother after that, not knowing what the next step in my life would be.”
The pro-life movement reawakened her calling. “The pro-life movement has always been very much a part of my family, and we’ve always been involved in a lot of pro-life activities,” she says. “When I finished studying and went back home, my mum was outside the abortion clinics praying the Rosary every week. I wasn’t really in my faith so strongly when I graduated, but my mother was going to daily Mass. She invited me, but I wasn’t that interested in going. But the pro-life movement was something I was interested in and looking at getting involved in. I began to go and pray on the weekends. And it was there that I met this group of young people.”
The young people were on a pro-life walk across America. Sister Catherine was “struck by their witness of being young, joyful, zealous Catholics. I had never experienced it before, and I knew it was their love for Jesus that was making a difference to their lives and bringing them so much joy. I really wanted that in my life, so I decided to join them and walk across America.
“I met them on a Friday and began the walk, living in a caravan with 12 strangers, on a Sunday. It was completely life-changing because of their witness of being young Catholics leading a sacramental life: going to Mass every day; praying; going to confession. I felt I was being drawn to join this group of young people, but I have a really impulsive personality, so the Lord was working with that as well.”
That summer, the walk ended at World Youth Day in Toronto, where she met the religious community she subsequently joined. With the sisters, she felt the “same kind of attraction I felt in my heart to those young people.”
Sister Catherine joined the order a year later, in 2003. “It was a big deal for me to move to New York. I never imagined myself living in the city. I never would have pictured being in the Bronx, so I knew it was the Lord. As soon as I got off the airplane and walked into the convent there, I immediately felt at home — just everything about the life: I felt I was created to live this way and that God had created me for it. This was my path to holiness — just the beauty of being a spouse of Christ and desiring that so much in my heart and feeling that was the way to sanctity, to holiness and to draw others to Jesus. What attracted me to the community was their joy and radical Gospel living, the simplicity of the life. I didn’t have any experience of working with the poor, evangelizing or anything, so it wasn’t the apostolate that attracted me. The day-to-day life was very beautiful to me.”
For the past two and a half years, Sister Catherine has been part of the community in northern England, the first community of the order to be founded outside of the U.S. With the London Olympics starting July 27, Sister Catherine says the young people with whom the order works are fascinated by her background. After all, it’s not every day that one sees a former Olympian in religious habit.
“Yes, there’s quite a shock on their faces,” she says with a laugh. “But it’s been a great way to begin to share the faith and say, ‘Look, you see me as a sister, but I had a different life before.’ It’s a way of share the faith in a new manner and get their attention.”
She hopes that the Olympics promotes discussions about faith and sports.
“I was speaking at an all-girls school,” she says. “We’d been asked to come in during a retreat on Olympic spirituality. I did a little game with the girls: comparing sport with our goal of getting to heaven. It was a wonderful way of saying that there is so much we can learn from sport — discipline, motivation, commitment, perseverance, hard work and sacrifice — all these things we need to learn to get to heaven.
“But heaven is eternal glory, where the Olympics — winning a gold medal or what not — is brief glory. Our goal should be to get to heaven and to really share that. To learn from sport how to get to heaven is a really great way to open up for them (the faith) and to look at their faith in a different way, to see what is the goal and purpose of our life. We can learn from the experiences we have on the way.”
Sister Catherine sees the Olympics “as an opportunity for the Church here in England, the beginning of the linking of sport, athletics and our faith and using that as a platform to build up the Kingdom. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for England and all the Catholics in this country to really utilize the Olympics to share their faith.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/olympian-becomes-a-sister/#ixzz21vcTOwEO
Your proselytizing my be appreciated somewhere , but this is not the forum.
I don't believe in your fairytales , but I wont deny you your right to follow them as long as you keep it to yourself.
Go away Auld Sod, you bog-stupid moron. You're an embarrassment to the rest of us, you caricature.
So... what, exactly, does all this have to do with the blog topic? Just don't, okay?
Cartoon Pattie? Paddie? Patty? Paddy? and his diaper-wearing act resurfaces to act out his deep commitment to the man-made stories of his hand-me-down Imaginary Friend. Next up in Diaper Boy's agenda will be to congratulate Rick Santorum on his apology for a child-molesting ex assistant football coach.
Someone has an obsession with dirty diapers. cacca peepee poopy boy.
I don't know any sports analogies in correlation to that "dirty habit".
You need to make a run for another case of LateLife Man Huggies Pattie? Paddy? Patty? Paddy? You're stinking the place up.
You'd think that aggressive, space-wasting self-serving promotion of one's religion would be grounds for banning, but nooooo!
Obama the Muslim...
I used to believe that the difference between stupidity and ignorance is that ignorance can be cured.
No more. We have way too much 'willful ignorance' in this country.
- Obama is a Muslim
- Man plays no part in global climate change
-
Trickle downpiss down economics is valid- Austerity will solve all of our economic problems
- George W Bush and Dick Cheney are not evil
I hold Murdoch and Ailes responsible.
They preach stupidity and willful ignorance every day
and the washington times, too....
headline from this morning's email
"The Islamist in the White House"
Moonie Times please . Not a real newspaper. We must refer to them by their correct monicker, such as The Murdoch Street Journal as the editorial policy directly reflects the owner.
Why do you assume it's ignorance without stupidity, SadOldVeteran?
And as for the Washingtong Times not being a real newspaper, so what? The rest are just like it now. Or nearly indisguishable. They simply believe their purpose is not to determine accuracy, but to go all meta and "report" simply what any body with a voice is saying and whether or not some significant number of dolts buy into it.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/07/26/the-washington-post-gives-up/187356
This country doesn't have a lot left in its tank. If I could leave now, I would.
"I hold Murdoch and Ailes responsible. They preach stupidity and willful ignorance every day"
I agree the Murdoch and Ailes are sleazeballs, but preaching by itself isn't a problem. Even when you have a TV network as a forum. The problem is the wanton, prideful ignorance of the people who take what they say at face value and use it to form their political opinions.
Like Limbaugh's "dittoheads," they're empty vessels for someone else's agenda. The fact that these people allow themselves to be used in that way is the real political "crime."
Sick-n-effen-tired, you left Trump, Rove and the rest of the inmates.
in other "twig" news....
vatican doubles down on their culture war....... in san francisco, of all places
(AP) — A vigorous supporter of California's same-sex marriage ban was named Friday as the next Roman Catholic archbishop of San Francisco.
The Vatican announced that Pope Benedict XVI selected the Rev. Salvatore Cordileone, the presiding bishop of Oakland, to replace Archbishop George Niederauer in October. Niederauer, 76, is retiring.
As an auxiliary bishop in San Diego four years ago, Cordileone, 56, was instrumental in devising an initiative to strip same-sex couples of the right to wed in California and then raising Catholic dollars to qualify it for the ballot.
He also was part of a statewide network of clergy that promoted the measure, known as Proposition 8. Campaign finance records show he personally gave at least $6,000 to back the voter-approved ban.
Since last year, Cordileone has been chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.
In an interview with the National Catholic Register last year, Cordileone said that same-sex marriage is "a very serious social experiment that will have dire consequences." Opposing it is "not a matter of religion," he said.
-----------
uh really? i suspect otherwise.
Catholics , Evangelicals and Mormons unite ! Homophobes forever.
We'll all meet at Chick-a Fil
Russell ... Thank you for the posts you make each week. You do a lot of work to research and compose those entries. They're interesting and educational. I look forward to reading them, as I'm sure do many others.
I've been following this on the SF Chronicle site, sfgate.com. Very controversial in the Bay Area. There has been quite a discussion of this on their boards this week.
This "new" conservative Pope is leading the Catholic Church in a direction that I do not approve of.
Church and state should be separate, except when there can be no doubt such as the slavery issue.
Morals that harm no one except the "sinner" should be enacted into law ONLY when over 85% of the people agree. If just 51% agree then it has no business being a law.
@lieralbutsane Re: #12.3
How do you arrive at the 85% threshold?
I would argue that if it is indeed something that affects nobody but the "sinner", there is no public responsibility to enact ANY law.
Romney = Mormon. Ok.
Obama=Christian. Ok.
But which sect of Christian?
Put a Pentecostal in the middle of a Greek Orthodox mass, and there would be a MAJOR cultural clash. It matters--which sect of Christian??
No, Angeleno, it DOESN'T matter, in this particular context. We're not talking about putting a Pentecostal in the middle of a Greek Orthodox mass, dear. The issue HERE is the attempted demonization of Pres. Obama, in an attempt to make him into "the other."
Any thinking person knows that the campaign to paint the President as Muslim is part of a republican effort to portray him as somehow not American or even dangerous. Ignore the fact that he has done more damage to Al Qaeda in less than 4 years than Bush did in 8, republicans are using muslim as a code word for their racist supporters.
On the other hand, while under normal circumstances most evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon, they would rather vote for anyone other than Obama (mainly because of his race). I do however think that Romney's mormonism will hurt the enthusiasm of his voters keeping turnout a little lower than it would otherwise be. After all, while I believe that any belief in religion takes a lack of ability to think rationally, the teachings of mormon are completely irrational. It takes an extreme lack of ability to reason to believe any of them.
Not trying to be an Obama-basher, just asking a question that naturally arises out of this discussion.
Guess he's a generic Cafeteria Christian. That's ok too; most christians seem to be.
@angeleno213
President Obama attended a United Church of Christ church when he lived in Chicago.
Down below in #49.1, I pasted the text from the UCC website "What is the UCC".
You would think....that in 2012, we could make religion, sex, and skin color irrelevant when it comes to electing a President. These would be irrelevant issue, if the economic forces "that be" would stop trying to MAKE them issues. Governor Romney's LDS faith is not a factor I consider when I'm weighing him as a candidate. However, when he makes idiot comments to Londoners about their preparedness for the games...that IS an issue. Romney's tax returns...that IS an issue. If Romney wants to worship a tree, have at it.
I always thought that religion didn't matter in a candidate, but that has changed with the religions, especially LDS in CA, pouring money into politics. Time to tax them all. If they are going to preach politics from the pulpit and pour money into politics, they need to pay taxes like everyone else. I want freedom FROM religion as much as freedom OF religion and that means they stop trying to run the country.
Having lived in a mostly Mormon city for a number of years, there are some things about the LDS religion that do scare the pants off of me!
For instance, their insistance that when a Mormon gets into a position of power, that he do all he can to make sure that all the people who work below him are Mormons, that he work on ONLY promoting Mormons,that whenever possible, that they shop ONLY in Mormon-owned businesses, that they ONLY care about their own (don't ever try to raise money for ANY charity outside the Mormon Church in a Mormon town - you won't get much). If you need assistance from anybody, including the police, in a Mormon city, you had better be willing to convert!
Then there's their "secrecy". You WiLL NOT get a Mormon to talk about some of the basic beliefs of their religion - what you hear from "missionaries" is just pap - they will NOT discuss their roots nor will they discuss their real "GODS" (yes they have more than one - YOU might be able to become one - its called "exaltation") nor will they discuss the real "role" of women (WOMEN won't ever become GODS).
Are Mormons bad people? No, not at all!!! As they tell you when you learn about some of the inside stuff about their religion and question them on it: "All religions have some strange stuff in their histories"!
But when push comes to shove, they will do exactly what the Church tells them to - and so will Romney! I really don't much care for the idea that the decisions made by our President might come from the Quorum of Twelve Apostles!!
I'm starting to think that anybody that accepts nonsense in religion is part of the definition of a bad person. At the very least it is a person whom you can not trust to be a rational person.
Oncearepublican is entirely right in the experience of living in a majority-Mormon community. Anyone who has lived in the West knows them for what they are. I remember as a kid when my dad had to find a way to transfet to a different unit at his work, when a Mormon was named the head of the laboratory and began the process of "Mormonizing" the unit. Fortunately he was able to not only get away but put in charge of a new unit. But Mormons can only be trusted in places where they are a minority. I am sure this is why most Americans don't think anything about them, because they haven't experienced Mormon control. Fascism with a mindless smile on its face (like Romney and all the rest of them) is still fascism.
Of course there's the little fact that the "founding prophet" of their science fiction religion was a convicted con artist who confessed at his sentencing in 1824 to being a fraud. Reading about Joseph Smith makes L. Ron Hubbard look sane.
Swear to god, I'd vote for the first atheist presidential candidate who had the gumption to admit it.
I would vote for an atheist for president in a second, but then I consider myself a secular jew, which means that I come from a jewish family and culture, but don't believe any of the god nonsense in the "torah." One of the big problems with this country is the level of zeal among our evangelical citizens. Of course mormonism is just as incredible as scientology, but because of the first amendment their rights to believe in this nonsense must be protected. However, many people seem to have the ability to believe ridiculous stories that they would laugh at if presented outside of a religious context. Why this is I will never understand, but I think part of it is societal pressure to fit in and the desire, especially among children, to not question what their elders tell them. If we could get over this obsession with religion in this country and focus on helping people because it is the right thing to do we would all be better off.
I'm agnostic, but I'll give it a go! GrumpyLiberalBastard 2016!
I'll vote for you!
I continually wonder why nobody is telling the American people that Mormons are not Christians. In my opinion, very few people know anything about the Mormon faith. Most people think it is akin to Seventh Day Adventists or Pentecostals or some other fringe denomination of Christianity. But Mormons are NOT Christians. That would scare the pants off conservatives.
Black people scare the wingnuts more, unless they're engaged on an athletic team they cheer. Our backward and ignorant countrymen -- the Republicans -- have simply decided their hate is justifies the means.
Just show them the South Park Episode : All about Mormons
http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s07e12-all-about-mormons
Like Tina Fae using Palins own words verbatim to humiliate her
all the boys do is tell the story of Mormonism.
It comes off as some kind of weird cartoon "you just made that up " Religion
I loved that episode and thought, "that can't be their real beliefs," until I did a little research. That is one reason why I continue to say that anybody who believes in the teachings of mormon lacks the ability to reason. Joseph Smith's stories have even less credibility than the bible, and the bible makes no sense at all.
News paper Headlines for day after Election...!!!! OBAMA WINS AGAIN !!!!
Having the below plant-life IQ people believe Obama is a Muslim or NOT Christian is exactly what the tealiban and Willard wants.
And with the religious organizations getting on the bandwagon with the Anti-Defamation League condemning Batcrazy Bachmann, doesn't Cantor feel at least a little stupid or is it still just him pushing Congressman Crybaby Orange out?
You assume that they listen to the President when he speaks. All they listen to is right wing sources... all information is filtered through that lens. Since none of those sources are news sources, they select bits and pieces for their minions to hear that furthers their ideological goals... which can be summed up in four words: "get rid of Obama". They will destroy whatever lies in their path to reach that goal... including the country.
It would be very interesting to have a crosstab analysis of these opinions vs. most watched source of news... or maybe not.
When I was in college my evangelical campus fellowship group had a whole bunch of tracts about how the LDS church was a cult and thereby evil. I have to wonder now how many of the same evangelicals who were handing out those tracts will be voting for Mitt Romney in November. Being a good Republican seems to have trumped all other considerations for many here in the "Bible Suspenders" (just north of the Bible Belt).
Republicans getting something wrong is par for the course. Do they get anything right should be the question.
The sad thing is that Americans should be worried about Romney being a Mormon. All the fears of JFK being a tool of the Pope - which were not ever close to reality - are the reality with any Mormon, who must follow the dictates of their "prophet" over any laws or other responsibilities, even that of President. The fact that Romney is a Mormon should be as scary as all the rest of him: the constant lying, the vulture capitalism, the toadying to the Right, etc., etc.
As to the "conservative Republicans" belief about Obama as "secret Muslim," this merely continues to demonstrate that "conservative Republican" is a synonym for "drooling racist southernist moron."
It just goes to show that you can still smear a black guy and make it stick for good in the wonderful US of A!
Religion poisons everything! That, and racist @!$%# white people!
I think the term "independent" is not a true distinction at all. Everyone leans one way or the other. I'm a registered independent because I'm a former Rep and later a former Dem. I'm not centrist. I'm me. The president's religion has NO bearing on how I view him. I've met truly wonderful people of all religions but I hold to none of them myself. That this poll is even relevant is about the saddest thing I can imagine given that Americans formerly prided themselves in embracing diversity (yes, "priding" ourselves on, and living it to the letter has always been a problem). We are among the worst finger pointers in the world, now. I'm not sure we'll get a handle on the straight and narrow we once tried to walk in relation to tolerance, understand, compassion and progress. We stalled in the eighties and have waged an internal tug of war with our social conscience aided and encouraged by political rancor. My more recent liberal leaning are a result of this struggle where conservatives claim thing like bootstrap economic policies and fiscal restraint that are lies and their budget spending and their snuggly cuddling to big monied interests is so laughably obvious even as their denial of these truths is an utter farce. And the Dems while a little more likable have swung so far that there there are NO liberals in their house anymore, at least not in any number worthy of notice. That anyone cares what religion the president is or that he needs to proclaim denial of the the allegation shows us all just a whacked out our politics and our nation have become.
I don't know who I am more disgusted with, Republican voters or the Republican congress. All of them seem to not have any bit of integrity or intellectual honesty. We are truly doomed as a country if almost half our population denies facts to suit their twisted ideology and hatred.
Some Republicans are playing Russian Roulette with the "religion issue". If they keep spreading the stupid idea that President Obama is a Muslim because his middle name is Hussein, or some other moronic "reason", they are opening the door, or maybe a can of worms, about Mitt Romney's Mormon Faith. Democrats only have to describe the basic believes and practices of the Mormon faith to create an anti-Mormom reaction on the general populace. Don't get me wrong, I reject all kind of religious bigotry whether is coming from the right or from the left. We just need to remind ourself and actively practice the separation of Church and State.
Once Republicans resorted to the "Obama is a Muslim" strategy, they put religion on the table as an issue in this election. Democrats should feel perfectly free to make whatever they can of Mormonism and Romney's religious beliefs. That includes questions about Mormonism being a cult, references to far out practices of that Church, and its history. Any demonization it--and him--via satire or other means--is fair game.
As a judge would say to an attorney bringing up an issue disadvantageous to his case by asking a question of a witness, "You opened that door, counselor. The other side has a right to walk through it."