Leftist hate speech against Catholics in Wisconsin
We read:
"In Monday's Baraboo News Republic, political commentator Bill Press crossed the line between commentary and hate speech with reference to Catholics who objected to President Obama speaking and receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame.
Press referred to 74 bishops and 350,000 petition signers as "a bunch of small-minded, ignorant and intolerant religious zealots ..." because they pointed out to the University's president and Board that they were violating a direct order of the church by giving an ardent abortion supporter a scandalous speaking platform.
This "bunch" Press refers to is comprised of good Catholic citizens who are faithful to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and they number far more than Press counted.
Source
31 comments:
What do you expect. Baraboo is only 40+ miles from Madison, Wisconsin, the "Athens" of the Midwest. The Ultra extreme liberalism of Madison has a way of spilling over to other surrounding communities. Quite a few in Madison now call Obama a betrayer to liberalism for not marching to the exact liberal party line...
I look forward to the day when a left wing protest group is referred as 'a bunch of secular fanatics'.
No surprise here. Bill Press is a well-known ultra-socialist. Do you think he'd say the same thing if, for example, jews were protesting someone they considered anti-semitic?
" a bunch of small-minded, ignorant and intolerant religious zealots ..."
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Ahhhhh, love is spoken once again.
/sarc
Pretzel logic - Anon 10:23
Although I am pro-choice, I think it's a shame that pseudo-catholic university invited Obama. Where are their principles?
I guess pleasing all the obamaphiles is more important than having a little dignity. Notre Dame is a shameful school,
DUBLIN—After a nine-year investigation, a commission published a damning report Wednesday on decades of rapes, humiliation and beatings at Catholic Church-run reform schools for Ireland's castaway children.
The 2,600-page report painted the most detailed and damning portrait yet of church-administered abuse in a country grown weary of revelations about child molestation by priests.
Cases of Clergy Abuse
Case of Shlomo Aviner (Rosh Yeshiva, Ateret Cohanim Yeshiva, Rabbi of Beit El, Israel)
Case of Rabbi Lewis Brenner (Convicted of child molestation. The original charges included 14 counts of sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of a child. He agreed to plead guilty to one count of sodomy in the third degree, a Class E felony, in exchange for a sentence of five years' probation.)
Case of Rabbi Ephraim Bryks (Accusations about sexual inappropriate behavior with children started surfacing in the 1980's. Rabbi Bryks is currently a member of the Vaad Harabonim of Queens. The Vaad is a Rabbinical committee that makes important decisions within an orthodox community.)
Case of Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach (Accused of several cases of child molestation, and sexual assault of young women)
Case Rabbi Perry Ian Cohen - Montreal and Toronto Canada (Accused of sexual abuse of a seventeen year old. Fired for sexual impropriety with congregants)
Case of Rabbi Yitzchak Cohen (Accused of sexually harassing students at Bar-Ilan University)
Case of Rabbi Ephraim Goldberg - Boca Raton, Flordia (Pled guilty to one misdemeanor count of exposure of sexual organs in a washroom at a Palm Beach Mall.)
Case of Rabbi/Cantor Sidney Goldenberg (Convicted of molesting children. The first complaints came in 1971. He was finally convicted in 1997.)
Case of Cantor Joel Gordon (Convicted of having keeping a house of prostitution and involvement in a prostitution ring.)
Case of Rabbi Israel Grunwald (Accused of molesting a 15 year old on a 1995 plane flight from Australia to LA. The charge against him were dropped after agreeing to perform 500 hours of community service and to seek counseling. Grunwald was the chief rabbi of an Hungarian Hasidic congregation in Brooklyn, known as the Pupas).
Case of The State of Israel Vs. Sex Offender (Convicted of repeated rape and forced molestation of his graddaughter.)
Case of Yehudah Friedlander - Rabbi 's Assistant (Accused of molesting a 15 year old on a 1995 plane flight from Australia to LA. Friedlander was the assistant to the chief rabbi of an Hungarian Hasidic congregation in Brooklyn, known as the Pupas)
Case of the Rabbi at Hillel Torah, Chicago, IL (A teacher at the Chicago school was accused of child molestation. His name was not released. The school did everything correctly in attempting to keep the children safe once accusations were made.)
Case of Rabbi Solomon Hafner (Accused of sexually abusing a developmentally disabled boy)
Case of Rabbi (Alan J.) Shneur Horowitz (Convicted and sentenced to 10 - 20 years in prison for sodomizing a nine-year-old psychiatric patient. Allegedly, he has assaulted a string of children from California to Israel to New York in the past twenty years. Alan J. Horowitz is an Orthodox rabbi, magna cum laude, M.D., Ph.D. A graduate of Duke University, and was a writer for NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).
Case of Jacob Frank and the Frankist Movement (Accused of cultic type practices and sexual offenses)
And on, and on, and on...
Yes, yes, we know that there have been problems in the Catholic Church. Now, please indulge us with your equivalent diatribe of the crimes of the atheists.
Religious people are supposed to be more moral - yet even priests and rabbis think they can get away with abusing their positions of power and influence - obviously they don't fear the wrath of God!
"Yes, yes, we know that there have been problems in the Catholic Church. Now, please indulge us with your equivalent diatribe of the crimes of the atheists."
NO. This is about " a bunch of small-minded, ignorant and intolerant religious zealots ..." and their crimes against humanity.
"Pretzel logic - Anon 10:23"
Really? What part was wrong? Or was the name calling meant to be something other than hate speech?
Anon 11:17,
So religion is wrong because some people who claim to be religious violate their own religion's teachings? Talk about pretzel logic!
Even if such evil was condoned by the religion (and the Bible does not condone evil acts), pointing out the sins of some believers has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of that religion's truth claims.
For example, if Islam's god is the real god, then it doesn't matter that the Q'ran tells them to murder unbelievers, because it would be a true and valid command. But the arguments showing that Islam is not true have nothing to do with the behavior of its followers—both militant and peaceful—and everything to do with the credibility of its truth claims.
"NO. This is about " a bunch of small-minded, ignorant and intolerant religious zealots ..." and their crimes against humanity."
NO, it's about a bunch of small-minded, totally ignorant, and highly intolerant, atheist zealots! Cretins who never stop trying to force people into believing in nothing, as they do.
Doesn't the Bible itself say something about judging a tree by the fruit it bears - so religions should be judged by their members.
"Doesn't the Bible itself say something about judging a tree by the fruit it bears - so religions should be judged by their members."
So when the Bible says "You shall not murder" and someone who claims to be a Christian commits murder, that makes the Bible wrong?
What kind of "logic" is that?
Here's the passage you took that quote from:
“Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravaging wolves. You’ll recognize them by their fruit. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes or figs from thistles? In the same way, every good tree produces good fruit, but a bad tree produces bad fruit. A good tree can’t produce bad fruit; neither can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn’t produce good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So you’ll recognize them by their fruit.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord!’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of My Father in heaven. On that day many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in Your name, drive out demons in Your name, and do many miracles in Your name?’ Then I will announce to them, ‘I never knew you! Depart from Me, you lawbreakers!’”(Matthew 7:15-23 HCSB)
There are two primary points here:
1) It is the individual who is judged by their actions, not the religion (or other group) as a whole. If one particular fruit tree produces bad fruit, that does not make all fruit trees bad.
2) Those who violate the tenants of Christianity are not actually christians, even if they seem to do a lot of amazingly good things.
You are just ending up with the situation where people accuse each other of not being "true" Christians/Muslims/or whatever. Each sect or denomination (and almost every single member of them) interprets his/her respective "holy book" in their own way while claiming it's the correct way. Who to believe?
It is said "handsome is as handsome does" and that has the same meaning as "judge a tree by the fruit it bears".
In this you are choosing to regard the "trees" as individuals producing good or bad fruit; whereas others could regard the "trees" as religions or sects producing good or bad members.
So let me see if I've got this right.
If a religion teaches something good, but someone disobeys, the entire religion is wrong.
If a religion teaches certain things, and someone believes something incompatible with those teachings, they're still part of that religion in spite of the fact that they don't fit the definition of that religion. (That's like saying a poodle is a cat because it has fur, 4 paws and a tail.)
Is this right?
So does that mean I'm justified in calling all atheists stupid and anti-science just because there are some atheists who actually are stupid and anti-science? Just how far do you want to carry this tactic of making general claims based on characteristics of a subset or exceptional instances?
All cars are red because some are? All airplanes have jet engines? All blacks are basketball stars?
I've been implying it up to now, but I'll say this straight out. You are being intellectually dishonest. You're taking outliers and exceptions to the rule and trying to turn those exceptions into The Rule. That is completely illegitimate and irrational. And it would not surprise me one bit for you to continue using your double standard in an attempt to continue rationalizing your hate.
Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
What some here have not mentioned is that all men are sinners by nature. We all still have the 'old man' within us. When we become Christians we recieve the 'new man', that is the nature of God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. These two natures are constantly in conflict which each other. Paul explained in Romans 7:Rom 7:14-21 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. (15) For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. (16) If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. (17) Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (18) For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. (19) For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. (20) Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. (21) I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
An old Indian described this conflict as having two dogs within us. One white dog and one black dog. They are constanting fighting. When asked which one wins the old Indian said "The I feed the most."
4:26 AM - what are you talking about "my hate", etc. You miss the point that any religion does not have a clear set of teachings that all agree on, but are constantly being interpreted, not only by officials within each religion/sect/denomination, but by the members, who will maintain that their own views are the correct ones. Why do you think there were religious wars and schisms. Just to take your own example of quoting one of the 10 commandments - "Thou shalt not murder". It sounds simple enough with little to argue over, but then some christians say that command extends to not killing people in time of war or even in self defence, and that you should be a pacifist, or that capital punishment is therefore wrong, while other christians would disagree. Therefore who's to judge whether someone is being a "true" christian or not. I hope you see what I'm getting at, and please there's no need to be rude.
Dear 7:51 AM - That was not my comment! signed by previous 7:15 AM
"You're taking outliers and exceptions to the rule and trying to turn those exceptions into The Rule."
That's standard operating procedure when christians diss atheists, comparing them to the likes of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
Well anon 11:36, truth hurts, doesnt it?
Anon 7:46,
How are we supposed to know that?
Anon 11:36,
Really? How about some examples?
5:27 PM - You know it by following the contents of each post (re 7:46 PM)
Anon 1:26 said that Anon 11:04 should not demean Anon 9:23, Anon 10:14 and Anon 9:05 while chastizing Anon 10:23. Anon 10:28 and Anon 11:17 and Anon 5:27 appear to be off message. Anon 3:03 and Anon 2:48 did provide some facts while Anon 1:06 cannot grasp the concept of logic. And that's all I to say about that.
-Anon
10:28,
And when the content from two different posters appears to be the same? That's why this stupid "Anonymous" stuff doesn't work.
Annon 11:04 never did make a case for what was wrong with the logic of 10:23. Part of logic is building an argument. 10:23 was a logical argument, but no case was ever made that any of the premises was wrong, or that the argument was incorrectly assembled, or that a logical fallacy was used. (Yes, formal logic has a formal list of errors.)
So how can you claim 1:06 "cannot grasp the concept of logic" when no logic was ever employed by 11:04, merely hand waving?
The same goes for 11:36. Bald assertion, hand waving, but no logical arguments.
Confused yet?
Post a Comment