BREAKING NEWS, via Gateway Pundit:
The Daily Caller reported:
Klein also said Wright told him he “made it comfortable” for Obama to accept Christianity without having renounce his “Islamic background,” which Klein said he has on tape.
Here is Ed Klein on Hannity talking about his interview with Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
One Franciscan University employee said:
“But there you have it: thanks to the government’s firm desire to make sure the one or two women left in the country who did not have easy and cheap access to contraceptives, abortofacients [sic], and sterilization procedures, our 2,500 students will no longer have an insurance plan ready and waiting for them.”
[….]
Franciscan’s refusal to comply with the HHS edict shows that this issue will not go away quietly for Obama among Catholics and members of other faiths less inclined to vote Democrat. As more Catholic institutions opt out, the issue will get more and more acute for Obama as bishops press hard for freedom of religious conscience.
Earlier (Feb 6, 2012), the Archdiocese of Boston said it may stop offering insurance:
The Archdiocese of Boston says it may stop offering health insurance for its employees if the Obama administration does not relax a new rule that requires many church-affiliated employers to cover the cost of birth control in employee health plans.
In a sharply worded letter sent to parishioners, Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley called the rule a violation of Catholic consciences. Citing the Church’s longstanding opposition to contraception, O’Malley wrote:
In its ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.
O’Malley’s letter was one of many sent out to parishes across the country at the behest of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
What a rotten consequence of Democratic leftism! It — liberal ideology — makes many unintelligent to the real problems and ways to fix them with common sense (like inter-state insurance competition, tort law reform, and the like).
Here is a great example from 2006 of how leftists ideology harms the people they purport to say they help. In this example, children:
(Washington Times, 2006) The recent decision by Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese to stop offering adoption services to avoid placing children with homosexuals is reverberating through child welfare circles and sparking fears that other Catholic Charities agencies may follow suit.
“Everyone’s still reeling from the decision,” Marylou Sudders, executive director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC), said yesterday.
“Ultimately, the only losers are the kids,” said Maureen Flatley, a Boston adoption consultant and lobbyist. If other Catholic Charities agencies withdraw from public adoption, “you can’t even begin to talk about what the impact of that will be nationwide,” she said.
[….]
A spokeswoman for the state DSS said it was already working to “transition” hundreds of foster children to new agencies. The Boston Catholic Charities’ contract expires June 30.
[….]
Ms. Sudders of MSPCC said that by not renewing its state license, Boston Catholic Charities will be opting out of myriad services, including recruitment of adoptive parents, training, home studies, managing adoption placements and working with special needs adoptions. She said the loss of the state’s biggest and most experienced adoption agency is “a very big deal for Massachusetts and a very big deal for the kids.”
The Democratic Party, enslaving, hurting, and killing the innocent since 1812!
Andrea Mitchell (MSNBC) turns to anti-christian “sex columnist” for input on Catholic issues:
NewsBusters has this GRAPHIC and UNNERVING post about who the public schools allow into our kids minds. Someone whom the Obama administration supports in their blind politically correct egalitarianism:
….Savage’s book, “Savage Love,” collects his column of the same name. On page after page the author and gay rights advocate scoffed at monogamy and recommended and condoned a range of aberrant sexual activities. Savage enthused about bondage, shrugged at child molestation fantasies and incest, and even encouraged a reader to indulge in his fantasy to lie in an empty tub and have a woman defecate on him.Even the introduction to “Savage Love” was riddled with filth. “Mostly I give advice to breeders – eating pussy for boys, sucking dick for girls, buttfucking for everybody – which is an odd job considering I’m one of those boys who doesn’t sleep with girls,” Savage wrote.
The word breeder is an offensive term for heterosexuals, and Savage often tells his readers so. “Once upon a time, ‘breeder’ was an insult – our little derogatory term for you heterosexuals. We whispered ‘breeder’ behind your breeder-backs, and some people are going to call you breeder whether you like it or not,” Savage said. The word breeder is found 80 times throughout the book – a particular irony coming from the most high-profile anti-bullying advocate in the nation.
But to Savage, bullying gays is about the only thing that’s out of bounds. “In my opinion, child molestation fantasies do not make you an evil person,” Savage replied to a reader’s inquiry.
To another, he condoned incest between a mother and son, saying, “But hey, you’re consenting adults. If you wanna bone ma, and she wants to bone you, well, more power to you.”
Long before the “50 Shades of Grey” became a popular sensation, Savage hyped BDSM. An entire section in “Savage Love” was dedicated to “Kink.”
“People once thought bondage to be an unspeakable perversion, and anyone interested in bondage was sick. These days, outside my immediate family, it’s hard to find someone who hasn’t done bondage or doesn’t want to give it a try!” Savage wrote.
Savage’s perversion isn’t confined to sex acts. He regularly goaded readers to have affairs touting “If you’re going to cheat, then cheat honest,” and responded “Fuck the sanctity of marriage, what you’re really getting is a heap of social and financial benefits. Marriage is about rights, not monogamy.”
He continued that “Only fools would build marriages with monogamy as their foundation (and only a foolish society would demand such a behavior.)”
His answer to homosexuality was a clear mockery of traditional values. “Men are not straight because they think being gay is “morally wrong,” they’re gay cuz they wanna, gotta, fuck women. What your boyfriend, as a Catholic, was taught to believe about homosexuality (no! no!) is a conflict with what his dick is telling him (yes! yes!).
Drugs and prostitution aren’t off-limits topics for Savage either. “Drugs, alcohol and sex don’t mix? Really? Get out much? Not all substance abuse is abuse,” he wrote. Elsewhere Savage stated that “The human desire for psychoactive drugs is never going away – the war on drugs, however, can and should go away.”
Prostitution? “Every problem moralists and virtuecrats cite as an argument for keeping prostitution illegal – violence, disease, child prostitution – is a problem that is either created or made worse by keeping prostitution illegal,” he said.
This is the man who is able to reach millions of children via his “It Gets Better” bullying campaign. Although Savage is a zealous bully himself, he is endorsed by President Obama and the White House, and has said, chillingly, that he will spread his message to children whether their parents want him to or not. Instead of hailing Dan Savage as an anti-bullying hero, the world need only read a sentence from any of his five books to see how foul the real Dan Savage is.
From Gateway Pundit:
You just can’t make this stuff up… Liberal 60 Minutes reporter Leslie Stahl calls it “Orwellian” that terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammad was forced to drink Ensure.
From The Blaze:
Limbaugh laughs over this exchange, saying “These liberal newspeople can‘t believe he’s forced to drink Ensure. That’s torture to them.” Limbaugh goes on to explain a time when he was in the hospital and given Ensure for its nutrient value. He says:
For those of you who don’t know what Ensure is, it’s a dairy-based beverage that’s loaded with calories and nutrients, primarily for cancer patients who can’t eat. It is a compassionate product. It’s a product designed to keep people alive.
Michelle Obama’s Daughters Malia and Sasha “Have a Set Diet”
Speaking to Access Hollywood‘s Billy Bush in Des Moines, Iowa, Thursday, the 48-year-old First Lady said her daughters Malia, 13, and Sasha, 10, aren’t allowed to pig out in the White House kitchen.
“They can’t pick up the phone and order anything. They’re kids,” Michelle explained. “That’s the point that I make to them: You live in the White House, but you’re a child.”
I was challenged after I noted that every religious and moral leader of note never endorsed or supported same-sex marriage. Here is the response to this challenge.
A point Dennis Prager makes is that this is the first time in human history where a “liberal elite” thinks it knows better than all previous religious, political, and moral thinkers before them. I have been challenged on this point and so I enter here a response to some of it. But first the audio portion in which discussion took place over:
(To follow up on Plato and Aeschines’ thoughts, read this.) Here is the small portion of one of the conversations that emboldened me to post this information:
Initial “Religious” Challenge:
Also, this is not just a matter of discrimination based on sex. It is also a matter of religious persecution. There are religious institutions where gay marriage is condoned and officiated just as heterosexual marriage is. To list a few, Buddhism, Satanism, Wicca, Paganism, the Metropolitan Community Church, the Old Catholic Church, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ, the United Church of Australia and there are even more!!! Just as they would not dare to tell you what to do with your religion, so should you not dare to tell them what to do with theirs. If you believe in freedom of religion, you cannot be against gay marriage. You cannot control what others do with their religion. That is one of the founding principles of this nation. And that is what this really boils down to in the end. It is a matter of control. You seek to control others. You seek to tell others how they are supposed to live their lives. That is the antithesis of freedom. For someone as obviously intelligent as you are it is extremely disheartening that you cannot see something this simple.
After I refuted the world religious challenge of Buddhism (see beneath this conversational example that took place here), I got this response:
…I listed a lot of churches that condone gay marriage. One of them was mistaken and you spend how long arguing against it while ignoring every other one? I made a mistake on buddhism. What of the rest I listed and the many more that I didn’t?
To which I responded:
I wish to clarify something I said. In the historical past, same-sex marriage has never been accepted. While polygamy, concubines, and the like have been accepted in cultural practice. Homosexuality being on equal footing with other forms of marriage has never, never been a practice accepted by any religion or culture. Wiccan, Satanism, and liberal forms of the world religions (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and the like) have only recently endorsed such a view. Since the “sexual revolution” of the 60’s when radical Marxist ideals were injected into Western thinking, writ large. So even your list is a new phenomenon.
I did mention paganism in the past. What I was saying is that men in historic pagan thinking/actions controlled women so that they were prostitutes at the local temple and a place for men to stop and “give sacrifice” to the gods. Other aspects that paganism and other cultures practiced that were harmful to women that Christianity helped cure were (below — partial list) only made possible by a faith that lifted women up. Something modern day feminism and radical gender equality movements do not do, or cannot do… since Wiccan practices do laud – for instance – the older pagan prostitution practices that subjugated a whole swath of women to serve men in horrible ways:
Paul, who often gets a bad rap for his perceived low view of women, considered at least twelve women coworkers in his ministry.* Paul clearly had a high view of women: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The earliest Christians recited these remarkable, countercultural words as a baptismal confession. Widows, far from being abandoned, were cared for, and older women were given a place of honor. In light of all of this, is it any wonder “the ancient sources and modern historians agree that primary conversion to Christianity was far more prevalent among females than males”?
In recent history, Christians were responsible for the banning of three despicable practices inflicted upon women around the world. Christian missionaries pressured the Chinese government to abolish foot binding in 1912. This practice was done for the sole reason of pleasing men—”it made a woman with her feet bound in an arch walk tiptoe and sway seductively.” In 1829 the English outlawed the Indian practice of suttee, in which widows were burned alive on the funeral pyres of their husbands, because of Christianity’s teaching regarding widows and women. Finally, Western countries influenced by a Christian view of women and sexuality have condemned clitoridectomy (female genital mutilation), a gruesome practice that is still common in Muslim countries in Africa and the Middle East.
Sean McDowell and Jonathan Morrow, Is God Just a Human Invention? And Seventeen Other Questions Raised by the New Atheists (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2010), 230-231.
Historian Alvin Schmidt points out how the spread of Christianity and Christian influence on government was primarily responsible for outlawing infanticide, child abandonment, and abortion in the Roman Empire (in AD 374); outlawing the brutal battles-to-the-death in which thousands of gladiators had died (in 404); outlawing the cruel punishment of branding the faces of criminals (in 315); instituting prison reforms such as the segregating of male and female prisoners (by 361); stopping the practice of human sacrifice among the Irish, the Prussians, and the Lithuanians as well as among other nations; outlawing pedophilia; granting of property rights and other protections to women; banning polygamy (which is still practiced in some Muslim nations today); prohibiting the burning alive of widows in India (in 1829); outlawing the painful and crippling practice of binding young women’s feet in China (in 1912); persuading government officials to begin a system of public schools in Germany (in the sixteenth century); and advancing the idea of compulsory education of all children in a number of European countries.
Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010], 49-50.
My goal is not to refute every example [you give]. Yes, extreme leftism in Christianity is nothing new. In fact, the term “fundementalist” was coined in the 1920’s. In fact, a free book about this movement by one of its founders is here, “Christianity & Liberalism“
And of course Paganism is [against treating people with humanity]. At least historical paganism, [modern paganism in the West adopts the Judeo-Christian ethic]. Of course I deal with this in my book as well.
With that example of a conversation, I wish to officially give my readers an insight in how to refute such thinking (that major world religions supported same-sex relationships). A proper understanding of Buddhism regards all marriages as mundane. In fact, even love in Buddhistic understanding is mundane and is rejected as anything based in reality — which is also key to this discussion. Here are some actual historical cases that the Buddha interacted with as well as more recently the Dalai Lama dealing with the issue.
….there was a case of a gay monk who was overcome by sexual desire and could no longer restrain himself. He was seducing his friends and novices to have sex with him. They rejected him so he left the monastery and had sex with men who were elephant keepers and horse keepers. When news spread around the entire Buddhist community that he was homosexual, the Buddha was alerted to the problem and he issued a rule for the community not to give any ordination to a homosexual, and those ordained gays are to be expelled. (Vin.I, 86).
The Buddha was more tolerant of lesbianism than male homosexuality. Nuns who were caught in lesbian practices were not expelled from the order. They must confess to the fellows about their practice, and then the offense will be redeemed. (Vin. IV, 261)
The monastic rules do not guarantee Buddhist monasticism is entirely free from homosexuals. Indeed, they only say that monks and nuns are required to live a celibate life. Often in history, the monastic community has been plagued by homosexual scandals.
In Thailand, the worst such scandal took place in 1819, during the reign of King Rama II, when a high-ranking monk, a Somdet who was also the abbot of Wat Saket who had just been promoted to take the position of the Supreme Patriarch, one day was found guilty of enjoying homosexual activities with some of his good-looking male disciples.
It was a shock to all Buddhists of the time, and the case was considered the scandal of the century of Buddhism in Siam.
Interestingly, the graveness of the mistake was not severe enough to defrock him, although the King had him removed him from his position of honour and ordered him to leave the royal monasteries.
As for the lay homosexual people, the Buddha gave no rule or advice as to whether they should be allowed to marry or not. The Buddha posted himself simply as the one who shows the way. He did not insist that he had any right to enforce on others what they should do. With this principle, the original teachings of the Buddha do not cover social ceremonies or rituals. Weddings and marriages of all kinds are regarded as mundane and have no place in Buddhism.
Another authoritative source mentions that “in practice, Theravada Buddhist countries are not terribly open to homosexual practice. This has much to do with … the notion of karma, which remains strong in countries such as Thailand. From this viewpoint, a person’s characteristics and situations are a result of past sins or good deeds. Homosexuality and other alternative forms of sexuality are often seen as karmic punishments for heterosexual misconduct in a past life. Thus far, the gay rights movement has not had great success in Theravada Buddhist countries.” So one would have to reject the core of this religion in order to supplant it with a personal view and new model of sexuality. Obviously, ripping the core of an ancient religious belief out in the name of tolerance is what the Left is all about! The article continues:
In a 1997 interview, the Dalai Lama (the leader of Tibetan Buddhism and a widely-respected spiritual figure) was asked about homosexuality. He did not offer any strong answer either way, but noted that all monks are expected to refrain from sex. For laypeople, he commented that the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural. He said that sexual desires in themselves are natural, perhaps including homosexual desires, but that one should not try to increase those desires or indulge them without self-control.
In a 1993 talk given in Seattle, the Dalai Lama said:
The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals. At a press conference the day before the meeting, he said, “From a Buddhist point of view, [gay sex] is generally considered sexual misconduct.“
So we see in Buddhistic history and theology a firm denial of homosexuality being approved of (or endorsed, like the Left wants done with same-sex marriage). Even at its best there is no universal Buddhist position on same-sex marriage. In other words, it was never endorsed (if forgetting the above) by the Buddhistic religion or state — like the Left wants in this case.
In all religious understanding, if the practice wasn’t frowned upon, it was never endorsed. Bottom line. Nor was it even thinkable until about a generation ago.
This is imported from my MRCTV acocunt (February. 5. 2012) In talking to Professor Geoffrey Kabaservice about his new book, Michael Medved makes a great point (and challenge to Kabaservice) about the shift of culture and how the Republican Party is still trying to hold to its original principles. In other words… when the left paints conservatives as extremists, the only thing “extreme” about our [conservatives or religious conservatives] positions is that the Left are the ones who have moved extremely to one political worldview. If anything, Republicans have moved slightly to the left of the spectrum — keeping the tent big.
