Biased Media

Death Threats Towards Palin at Unprecedented Levels-Left To Blame for Mood of Nation?

Published by Papa Giorgio



HotAir is reporting an aid saying that the death threats to Palin have increased dramatically:

An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor’s team has been talking to security professionals.

Since the shooting in Tucson, Palin has taken much heat for her “crosshairs” map that targeted 20 congressional Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was the main target of Saturday’s attack.

Friends say Palin, a possible 2012 contender, was galled as suggestions of her role in the tragedy have swirled.

Is the Left responsible for this spike in hatred? What is — God forbid — Sarah Palin is hurt? Do the pundits, personalities, etc., have any responsibility for this — using their own thinking displayed with connecting Palin to this tragedy? Here is a conversation from FB I had on this topic. I posted the following statement with a link to a post I had:

If the Arizona shooter was influenced by national hatred, which rhetorical side do you think he was influenced by: [quote from story] As we all know, the Tea Party movement is teeming with Bush-hating, 9/11 truther, antiwar, Christian-hating, “Left-wing pothead” zealots

RPT Jared Loughner Opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan~Of Course (LR & Townhall.com h/t)

Here is the first comment I agreed with, so here is the second comment and this kicks off the discussion in earnest. (Keep in mind all people that comment mean no malice and are friends, albeit from the other side of the political — and religious — spectrum) Misspellings included:

sorry, but liberals don’t affiliate themselves with supremacist orginizations like American Reniassance as Jared did – all the “news” agencies that “report” Jared a leftist are extreme conservative sites, while the actual newsworthy sites (AP, even Fox) paint him as unstable with ties to a racist orginization. Being back in college for Biotech we are constantly reminded to vet internet info …But I agree with Reagan, time to STOP blaming society and blame the individual. You gotta admit, when an extremist Right winger goes off the deep end, bombs and guns are involved Federal Agents are killed, Abortion Dr’s are perforated, Federal Buildings blown up, offices and people attacked- when a liberal goes off the deep end, they move to the forest and build a teepee to live in.

Me:

Yes, he was crazy, bottom line. But if he was influenced by something, it was by people who

a) hated Bush

b) 9/11 truther

Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

c) antiwar

d) hated Christians

e) was an atheist

f) Left-wing pothead

[added later]

g) fixated with Giffords 3-years ago ~ before Obama, Health-Care, and the like

h) didn’t listen to radio

i) didn’t watch TV

His affiliation with American Reniassance was a “Like” on FaceBook. If I, for instance, went on a killing spree the press would have a field day with all the orgs I “liked” on my FB. Unfortunately, most of the vitriol is on the left:https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/2011/01/tony-blankley-schools-ed-schultz-and-bill-press/

Michael Moore hates the following as his movies record:

  • Anti-health care system= Sicko
  • Anti-Capitalism= Capitalism, a Love Story
  • IRS cronyism with businesses= Capitalism, a Love Story
  • Anti-Bush= Fahrenheit 9/11
  • Blames Big Corporations for job issues= The Big One

The IRS plane guy believed this;

  • Hates George W. Bush and his “cronies”
  • Hates Big Pharma
  • Hates Big Insurance
  • Hates GM executives
  • Hates organized religion
  • Refers favorably to communism
  • And in his last words before dying, denigrates capitalism.

I have more bios here:http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/search/label/Crazed%20Gunmen%20Bios

Also see Democrat call Bush a Nazi: http://religiopoliticaltalk.blogspot.com/2007/07/democrat-calls-bush-hitler-says-behind.html

The commentator that I first agreed with hops in:

you are ridiculous… and stubborn….and obviously care more about pointing fingers and making yourself feel better, than actually taking a step back and looking at what political rhetoric in this country is coming to. in stead of spurring healthy debate, politicos (on both sides) obsession with the mass media outlets, and their attempts to cater to every fringe constituent they can, has created a media monster that has more to do with “I know you are but what am I” and less to do with developing policies and legislature that reflect the peoples’ best interests…. good thing you cant own guns or I else I would be waiting for the day you finally cant take anymore from your leftist friends and the liberal media and make a list and start picking off libs…..don’t get any ideas.

My response:

My point is that the only people making rhetorical attacks — to which my blog (for those not aware of it: https://religiopoliticaltalk.com/) is responding to — are from the left. Please, tell me whom on the right that are equal to Senators and MSNBC pundits are making rhetorical claims about Sarah Palin being behind this (via crosshairs) or calling Tea Partiers Nazi’s and fomenting the national mood that makes someone shoot people. YES HE WAS A NUT… but if Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, Andrea Mitchell, Sheriff Dupnik, Ed Schultz, E. Steven Collins, Michael Smerconish, Woopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Mark Shields, Bill Maher, Matt Bai, Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva, Democrat Rep. Bill Pascrell, Democrat Rep. James Clyburn, Democrat Sen. Bob Kerrey, ETC, ETC

Of course I cannot forget Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (who caucuses with the Democrats) fund raising letter just a couple of days after the shooting:

Given the recent tragedy in Arizona, as well as the start of the new Congress, I wanted to take this opportunity to share a few words with political friends in Vermont and throughout the country. I also want to thank the very many supporters who have begun contributing online to my 2012 reelection campaign at www.bernie.org. There is no question but that the Republican Party, big money corporate interests and right-wing organizations will vigorously oppose me. Your financial support now and in the future is much appreciated. What should be understood is that the violence, and threats of violence against Democrats in Arizona, was not limited to Gabrielle Giffords. Raul Grijalva, an old friend of mine and one of the most progressive members in the House, was forced to close his district office this summer when someone shot a bullet through his office window. Another Democratic elected official in Arizona, recently defeated Congressman Harry Mitchell, suspended town meetings in his district because of the threatening phone calls that he received (Mitchell was also in the cross-hairs on the Palin map). And Judge John Roll, who was shot to death at the Giffords event, had received numerous threatening calls and death threats in 2009.In light of all of this violence – both actual and threatened – is Arizona a state in which people who are not Republicans are able to participate freely and fully in the democratic process? Have right-wing reactionaries, through threats and acts of violence, intimidated people with different points of view from expressing their political positions?

Remember this by all the same people and then some?

….On November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire at a troop readiness center in Ft. Hood, Texas, killing 13 people. Within hours of the killings, the world knew that Hasan reportedly shouted “Allahu Akbar!” before he began shooting, visited websites associated with Islamist violence, wrote Internet postings justifying Muslim suicide bombings, considered U.S. forces his enemy, opposed American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as wars on Islam, and told a neighbor shortly before the shootings that he was going “to do good work for God.” There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not “jump to conclusions” about Hasan’s motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

“The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions,” said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

“We cannot jump to conclusions,” said CNN’s Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. “We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever.”

“I’m on Pentagon chat room,” said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. “Right now, there’s messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam.”

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, “I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president’s remarks.

“We can’t jump to conclusions,” Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a “transparent” investigation into the shootings “so the American people don’t jump to conclusions.” And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN’s John Roberts was quick to intervene. “Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions,” Roberts said to Hoekstra. “By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/journalists-urged-caution-after-ft-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte#ixzz1AmqNr4AC

My point is that most of the rhetoric I have seen (and still is coming from the Left) are from liberal pundits. And this card often used by them:

The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as “racist.” And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill “xenophobic.”

Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

One-word put-downs of opponents’ ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual — their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors — liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.

This is easy to demonstrate.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

  • Racist
  • Sexist
  • Homophobic
  • Islamophobic
  • Imperialist
  • Bigoted
  • Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

  • Peace
  • Fairness
  • Tolerance
  • The poor
  • The disenfranchised
  • The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

This psychological hatred from the Left towards Bush and now Sarah Palin is what is making the mood of the nation bitter. And it may have bad consequences that I am sure the Left will accept as warranted — ate least some.

Nobel Prize Winning NYTs Journalist-Paul Krugmans Language Gap

Published by Papa Giorgio


This is a great story from NewsBusters. It shows how Nobel Prize winner can lie to his readers, forgetting any semblance of real journalism. You know, I think journalism needs a good dose of what hermeneutics teachers. In fact, may I say this generation of graduates have been taught how not to think.

Michele Bachmann was given the Krugman treatment in a column on Monday. Krugman had this to say:

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

Krugman defined “eliminationist rhetoric” in this context as “suggestions that those on the other side of a debate must be removed from that debate by whatever means necessary.” Bachmann’s statement was the only example he provided.

But true to form, Krugman quoted Bachmann out of context, and completely turned around the meaning of her statement in the process. What did she actually say? Here’s PowerLine’s John Hinderaker:

As it happens, I–unlike Krugman–know all about Michele’s “armed and dangerous” quote, because she said it in an interview with Brian Ward and me, on our radio show. It was on March 21, 2009. The subject was the Obama administration’s cap and trade proposal. Michele organized a couple of informational meetings in her district with an expert on global warming and cap and trade, and she came on our show to promote those meetings. She wanted her constituents to be armed with information on cap and trade so that they would understand how unnecessary, and how damaging to our economy, the Obama administration’s proposal was. That would make them dangerous to the administration’s left-wing plans…

For the record, here is what Michele said: “I’m going to have materials for people when they leave. I want people armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax, because we need to fight back.” Yes, that’s right: she wanted Minnesotans to be armed with “materials”–facts and arguments–not guns. If this is the best example of “eliminationist rhetoric” that the far left can come up with, you can see how absurdly weak the claims of Krugman and his fellow haters are.

Bachmann wanted her constituents to be engaged and knowledgable in the political process. This, apparently, was the only example Krugman could come up with, and it doesn’t actually support his point.

…(read more)…

I think seminary grads have a LOT to offer these political “mavens” (really, red herrings). For instance, what does the typical Bible student learn about how to interpret properly. Here is some of a larger paper I wrote a while ago entitled, “Biblical Inerrancy Defined,” on this topic:

The internal test utilizes one Aristotle’s dictums from his Poetics. He said,

They [the critics] start with some improbable presumption; and having so decreed it themselves, proceed to draw inferences, and censure the poet as though he had actually said whatever they happen to believe, if his statement conflicts with their notion of things…. Whenever a word seems to imply some contradiction, it is necessary to reflect how many ways there may be of understanding it in the passage in question…. So it is probably the mistake of the critics that has given rise to the Problem…. See whether he [the author] means the same thing, in the same relation, and in the same sense, before admitting that he has contradicted something he has said himself or what a man of sound sense assumes as true.

LANGUAGE GAP

…Consider how confused a foreigner must be when he reads in a daily newspaper: “The prospectors made a strike yesterday up in the mountains.” “The union went on strike this morning.” “The batter made his third strike and was called out by the umpire.” “Strike up with the Star Spangled Ban­ner.” “The fisherman got a good strike in the middle of the lake.” Presum­ably each of these completely different uses of the same word go back to the parent and have the same etymology.[1] But complete confusion may re­sult from misunderstanding how the speaker meant the word to be used…. We must engage in careful exegesis in order to find out what he meant in light of contemporary conditions and usage.

[….]

[….]

Eight Rules of Interpretation ~ …the Eight Rules of Interpretation used by legal experts for more than 2500 years.

1) Rule of Definition: Define the term or words being considered and then adhere to the defined meanings.

2) Rule of Usage: Don’t add meaning to established words and terms. What was the common usage in the cultural and time period. When the passage was written?

3) Rule of Context: Avoid using words out of context. Context must define terms and how words are used.

4) Rule of Historical background: Don’t separate interpretation and historical investigation.

5) Rule of Logic: Be certain that words as interpreted agree with the overall premise.

6) Rule of Precedent: Use the known and commonly accepted meanings of words, not obscure meanings for which there is no precedent.

7) Rule of Unity: Even though many documents may be used there must be a general unity among them.

8) Rule of Inference: Base conclusions on what is already known and proven or can be reasonably implied from all known facts.

  • [1] Etymology: “the study of the origins of words or parts of words and how they have arrived at their current form and meaning” (Encarta Dictionary).

Paul Krugman could use a fat dose of what journalism SHOULD BE, maybe by going to a seminary.

Chris Mathews Should Self-Reflect

Published by Papa Giorgio

“They work at the five yard line from either the left or the right and they do see the other end of the field as evil, as awful. Not just disagreeable but evil. And they use that language, when they talk about the other side, isn’t that part of the problem?” ~ Chris Matthews ~ NewsBusters

AGAIN:

BLANKLEY: Well, if the last 240 years is any indication. But let me make a point here. Because in fact, it is on all sides. You talked about Sarah Palin’s gun site stuff. I’ve seen a democratic national committee posting, where in 2004, they had gun sites. They had it called “behind enemy lines,” the same phrase that you were quoting in the previous segment. I quoted Pelosi, calling people who’ve opposed Obama-care Nazis, et cetera.

[….]

BLANKLEY: The fact is that Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Senator Reid, all used the words “Nazis,” “dissenters,” “un-Americans” to describe their opponents. This is part of the American politics. We all know that this is an ugly.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: Harry Reid’s used the term Nazi?

PRESS: Again, show me when.

BLANKLEY: No Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid used to call people who were opposed to him, evil. That’s the word. And I have it from a column that I wrote late last year. This is a reality. We all know that this is an ugly part of American politics and it always has been. I hope it changes — I hope it changes but I don’t think that it’s going to.

YES for investigations?!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Andrew Marcus over at BigGovernment has some excellent ideas for investigations in toning down rhetoric that Democrats are calling for:

….we think that Progressive Democrats are 100% correct when they call for action against factors leading to our toxic political climate…

…We are therefore openly calling for public hearings to look into the actions of political agitators in this nation.

Democrats have made it clear that they want to investigate and restrict Fox News, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Andrew Breitbart, and others to be sure. In fact, there are so many conservatives to investigate, we need to come up with a strategy to tackle the work.

We propose that any investigation begin with events that led to criminal behavior, like say the WTO riots in Seattle. Or the RNC riots in St. Paul. Or the angry mob protests that have taken place at the home of Bank of America executives. Or the Kenneth Gladney beating. That should provide a good start.

When would the Progressive Democrats like to schedule these hearings?

We even have a handy list of 5 easy steps the Government can take right away, steps which will have an immediate effect on the toxicity of our body politic:

…(read it all and the comments)…


Tony Blankley Schools Ed Schultz and Bill Press

Published by Papa Giorgio

NewsBusters h/t:

 

Verums Serum has this post:

In last Thursday’s column, Paul Krugman admitted to having fun watching “right-wingers go wild.” One of the things that apparently delighted him was this map which Sarah Palin posted on her Facebook page:

Each of the cross-hairs represents a Democrat from a conservative district who voted in favor of health reform. Immediately after highlighting the map, Krugman wrote:

All of this goes far beyond politics as usual…you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials….to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president.

Really, Paul? I’ll search in vain?

The map appears on this page of the Democratic Leadership Committee website (dated 2004 during the Bush years). I guess we could argue over whether the DLC counts as “senior party officials” but they’re certainly as much a part of the party as Palin who, after all, currently holds no elected office.

[….]

But wait, there’s more!

When Palin’s map became an issue, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, leader of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), rushed on MSNBC to denounce it, telling Chris Matthews:

I really think that that is crossing a line…In this particular environment I think it’s really dangerous to try and make your point in that particular way because there are people who are taking that kind of thing seriously.

Really, Chris? So what do you think about this map?

Each one of those red targets represents a “Targeted Republican” like this one:


…(read more)…

Gateway Pundit has the View’s take on this, it goes as expected, after this video I want to post a few more videos:

Here is Nina Totenberg of NPR speaking about Republican Jesse Helms — take note she still works at NPR, but Juan Williams was fired for saying “less than this:”

Joy Behar herself has said many inflamatory things about Republicans:

Joy Behar repeatedly called Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle a “bitch” on “The View” Tuesday, and said that she is “going to hell.”

Behar’s comments came during a discussion of an ad that Angle released earlier this month. The ad, which focused on immigration and contrasted smiling white children with scowling Latinos, was called “the most overtly racist” ad of the entire campaign by Rachel Maddow on Sunday’s “Meet the Press.” The “View” co-hosts were no less outraged by it, with Elisabeth Hasselbeck criticizing Angle for using children to stoke fear.

But it was Behar who really let loose on Angle.

“I’d like to see her do this ad in the South Bronx,” she said. “Come here, bitch! Come to New York and do it!”

“I’m not praying for her,” Behar shot back. “She’s going to hell! She’s going to hell, this bitch!”

Nancy Pelosi called Tea Partiers Nazi’s, even though no symbols were found like the one she describes:

Captain’s Quarters documented a time when Democratic Senator Byrd called Republicans Nazi’s:

Byrd Compares Republicans To Nazis On Senate Floor

Senator Robert Byrd, defending the minority’s right to filibuster on the Senate floor today, wound up his speech by comparing Republican efforts to eliminate the hijacking of the Senate on the Constitutional duty of confirming federal judges to Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. Not only did Byrd imply that the GOP equates to the worst mass murderers of the 20th century, he’s so proud of doing so he’s posted the speech to his own website:

Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that, “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

And that is what the nuclear option seeks to do to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate.

…(read more)…

Michelle Malkin in 2009 said,

I just received an un-freaking-believable e-mail from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The entire Democrat machine has been tarring Tea Party activists and townhall protesters as Brown Shirts and fascists…and now they’re whining about Rush Limbaugh challenging their own fascist behavior. When in trouble, bash Rush.

…(read more)…

I will post [above this post] another portion of todays Dennis Prager Show, as he is the clearest on this issue.

Media Bias Against Religion versus Teacher Unions

Published by Papa Giorgio

I have written on this prior (see bottom), but NewsBusters did a bang-up job on bringing this issue to light again in order to show the “zeitgeist” behind these reporters:

1. “A [newly released] General Accountability Office (GAO) investigation has found that people with histories of sexual misconduct are still getting hired by school systems across the [United States] … The biggest problem may be ‘passing the trash.’ These were cases GAO found in which school systems just let suspected sexual offenders resign, and even wrote them glowing letters of recommendation, so they could find teaching jobs elsewhere.”

2. “The Dublin (Ireland) Archdiocese should have taken action years earlier against Tony Walsh, probably the most notorious child sexual abuser among its priests, according to [a] commission investigating clerical child sex allegations in the archdiocese.” The Church laicized Walsh (removed him as a priest) in 1995.

Which story did the New York Times completely ignore? Which story returns 110 results and 507 news articles on Google News, while the other returns only 6 results and 43 news articles?

Those who have been following this issue already know that the media gave far more attention to the decades-old case about the ex-priest across the Atlantic.

Here is my portion I include in some responses

NUMBER TWO, I wish to discuss this issue of molestation by priests that you intimated about.

School counselors, dentists, Buddhist monks, foster parents, and the like — all have abused children. Men who are pedophiles look for positions of AUTHORITY OVER [*not yelling, emphasizing*] children that afford MOMENTS OF PRIVACY with these same children. Dentists do not violate children or women in the name of dentistry. Buddhists monks do not sodomize children in the name of Siddhartha. School counselors in the name of psychology, foster parents in the name of Dr. Spock, etc, … you get the point.  Likewise, priests do not violate children in the name of Christ. (The many terrorist attacks are in the name of something… can you tell me what Nora?)

So I hope you can see that mentioning churches next to schools is a non-sequitur, I think we can agree that any church moving priests (Catholicism) or pastors (Protestantism) from one parish or church to another is a problem that has to be dealt with. Just like teachers who have the same issues levied towards them are moved from district-to-district (N.E.A.).

Read more: RPT Discussing Mosques and Men

And this more in-depth listing as examples:

In hour one, near the beginning, Lobdell starts out with the sex abuse cases that have hit the Catholic church. He seems to be saying that these abuse cases made him begin to deconstruct his faith. I will deal with this issue in two ways: first, I will make the case that atheists, Buddhists (atheists), and others commit these crimes, which should make the skeptic ask if he or she is rejecting an ideology for this reason seems to be just as strong for atheism as it is for Christianity. In other words, if the rejection of Christianity is because of the evil it produces, then what about the evil seemingly produced by atheism. A deeper explanation of this will come shortly. Secondly, to judge an act “evil,” one would have to have a metaphysics, excuse me, a coherent – non-self-refuting – logical worldview in order to judge some act on a scale that says an act is morally wrong while expecting another person to know (inherently) this scale by which to judge an act and agree with said person. Okay, here we go with the critique.

Sexual Abuse — Catholic Church. Other religious and non-religious organizations practice this abuse… wherever there is a person of authority over children and the chance to be alone with such a person, you will find people who fill these positions for the direct purpose of abusing these young victims. For instance:

1) Religious News Online reports from an original India Times article, another source that cites this is Child Rights Sri Lanka:

Two Buddhist monks and eight other men were arrested on Wednesday, accused of sexually abusing 11 children orphaned by the island’s 19-year civil war, an official said.

Investigations revealed that the children, aged between nine and 13, had been sexually abused over a period of time at an orphanage where the men worked, said Prof. Harendra de Silva, head of the National Child Protection Authority….

2) Washington County Sheriff’s Office Media Information reported the following:

Mr. Tripp was arrested for sexually abusing a former 15-year-old foster care child.

The investigation started when the Oregon Department of Human Services was contacted by a school counselor who learned that there may be sexual abuse involving a student and Mr. Tripp. DHS workers then contacted Sheriff’s Detectives who took over the investigation.

Detectives learned that Mr. Tripp has been a foster parent since 1995 and has had at least 90 children placed in his home during that time. Sheriff’s Detectives are concerned that there may be more victims who have not yet reported sexual contact involving Mr. Tripp….

3) A therapist who worked at Booker T. Washington Middle School in Baltimore was arrested in Catonsville and charged with molesting a 13-year-old boy, Baltimore County police said yesterday.

Robert J. Stoever, 54, of the 1500 block of Park Ave. was arrested Sunday night after a county police officer saw him and the boy in a car in a parking lot at Edmondson Avenue and Academy Road, said Cpl. Michael Hill, a police spokesman.

Stoever was charged with a second-degree sex offense and perverted practice, according to court documents. He was sent to the Baltimore County Detention Center, Hill said….

4) A Bronx dentist was arrested yesterday on charges that he twice raped a 16-year-old patient whom he had placed under anesthesia during an office visit on Thursday, police said.

The girl, a patient of the dentist for several years, was hired for a summer job as his receptionist on Thursday, and had an appointment with him for treatment that afternoon, said Lieut. Hazel Stewart, commander of the Bronx Special Victims Squad.

[….]

“She went in and she changed into a little uniform that he gave to her, and he gave her some files to work on,” the lieutenant said. “Then he said that it was time to take a look at her teeth.”

At that point, Lieutenant Stewart said, “he used some type of anesthesia on her and he allegedly raped her.”

The young woman told officers that she was never fully anesthetized, Lieutenant Stewart said, but that “the effects of the anesthesia were strong enough to render her helpless to such a degree that he was able to rape her again.”

These folks are atheists, Christians, Buddhists (which are ontologically speaking, atheists), and every other ideology and stripe of life and culture in the world. The argument is as strong as this:

There have been many cases of dentists’ drugging men and women and groping them against their will, therefore, I do not believe in dentistry.

The conclusion just doesn’t follow the premise. In the case of religious comparisons, you would have to isolate the founders and their lives in order to properly judge a belief, not the followers. I would engender the reader to consider well this quote by Robert Hume:

The nine founders among the eleven living religions in the world had characters which attracted many devoted followers during their own lifetime, and still larger numbers during the centuries of subsequent history. They were humble in certain respects, yet they were also confident of a great religious mission. Two of the nine, Mahavira and Buddha, were men so strong-minded and self-reliant that, according to the records, they displayed no need of any divine help, though they both taught the inexorable cosmic law of Karma. They are not reported as having possessed any consciousness of a supreme personal deity. Yet they have been strangely deified by their followers. Indeed, they themselves have been worshipped, even with multitudinous idols.

All of the nine founders of religion, with the exception of Jesus Christ, are reported in their respective sacred scriptures as having passed through a preliminary period of uncertainty, or of searching for religious light. Confucius, late in life, confessed his own sense of shortcomings and his desire for further improvement in knowledge and character. All the founders of the non-Christian religions evinced inconsistencies in their personal character; some of them altered their practical policies under change of circumstances.

Jesus Christ alone is reported as having had a consistent God-consciousness, a consistent character himself, and a consistent program for his religion. The most remarkable and valuable aspect of the personality of Jesus Christ is the comprehensiveness and universal availability of his character, as well as its own loftiness, consistency, and sinlessness.

From, The World’s Living Religions (New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1959), 285-286.

Read more: RPT “Love” ~ Mariano (TrueFreeThinker.com)