VIEW MY LATEST SLIDE SHOW

VIEW THE OBAMA COLLECTION

VIEW MY HILLARY COLLECTION

VIEW MY DEMOCRATIC PARTY COLLECTION





Archive for the ‘Religion’ Category

Residents Angered by Group’s Distribution of Korans

Thursday, July 3rd, 2008


firepit.jpg
(Story Link) Some Houston residents are upset after Korans were left on the doorsteps of hundreds of homes in their neighborhood as part of a campaign to educate people about Islam.Residents of Braes Timbers in southwest Houston began finding the holy books two weeks ago, MyFOXHouston.com reported. The Korans came with a note saying they had been left by the Book of Signs Foundation, which claims to have distributed 30,000 free copies of the texts to residents throughout the city.

“If we went into a Muslim country and left a Bible, we would be in prison and then decapitated a few years later,”

Sue Ann Pieri, a resident who chose not to destroy the book, as other neighbors did, told.

DITTO Ms. Pieri!  

If someone left a fucken Koran on my doorstep I would immediately use it as kindling in my fire pit.
The easiest way for religious types regardless of religion to irritate yo boy Snoop is to shove your fucken religion and your way of thinking in my face and in this horrifying case to my doorstep!

Now on the other hand when Jehovah’s Witness folks use to slink around in my neighborhood I quickly got on their “do not visit” list because I would have some really poignant conversations with them. Just think of my blog commentary on steroids as I was particularly focused on making my true and honest feelings about them and their racist cult very clear.

Yes, I’m a cranky Negro bastard, Duh I know…

Sphere: Related Content

Phony Pflegerism

Friday, June 6th, 2008

1v.bmp

By George Neumayr at the American Spectator

The very left-wing Catholic clericalism from which Obama hopes to derive votes in the fall served as the pretext for his leaving the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Just as Jeremiah Wright’s over-the-top sermons could not have come as a surprise to Obama, so Father Michael Pfleger’s hyper-partisanship would have been known to him as well.

But Father Pfleger’s timing and choice of a target were poor: his antics hit the Internet just as the Wright furor had begun to dissipate and instead of attacking a Republican for racism he selected Hillary Clinton. Maybe at another moment in the campaign this wouldn’t have mattered — Geraldine Ferraro’s comments saying Obama had an unfair advantage due to race might have even lent the sermon some plausibility — but as Obama began his courting of Hillary’s support he found it all very annoying.

Yet normally the Democrats encourage priests and religious to misuse their office, to treat the binding teachings of their church as debatable while treating the platform and causes of the Democratic Party as doctrine; to put on their religious garb at political meetings, then take it off for catechesis.

The Drinans and Pflegers can’t muster up much enthusiasm for the magisterium of the Church but left-wing politics brings out their zeal. Disagree with Church teaching? That’s okay, they think.

But disagree with the Democratic Party’s specific proposals for this or that tricky, prudential issue on which reasonable people could disagree? That’s not. Dissenters inside the Church brook little dissent when it comes to left-wing politics.

READ THE REST HERE

Sphere: Related Content

Belief in God ‘childish,’ Jews not chosen people: Einstein letter

Tuesday, May 13th, 2008


 einstein.JPG
The father of relativity, whose previously known views on religion have been more ambivalent and fuelled much discussion, made the comments in response to a philosopher in 1954.

As a Jew himself, Einstein said he had a great affinity with Jewish people but said they “have no different quality for me than all other people”.

“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.

OUCH!

more here

Sphere: Related Content

Pat Condell: The Curse Of Religion

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

Found this clip on Barking Moonbat Early Warning System

Not too far off from what I said below on the Rev Wright stuff. Although I’m not quite as contemptuous as this dude.

Sphere: Related Content

Segregation Sunday’s, Rev Wright, The Black Church, Racial Rhetoric Profiteering

Monday, April 28th, 2008


wrightbill1.jpg
Mrs. Snoop is my witness. She knows that I have said for as least long as I have known her - and I promise you long before that - that Sunday is the most segregated day of the week.Faith is personal; faith is deeply engrained in the soul. And I’m not talking about Faith. I’m talking about how one goes about expressing ones faith. How one chooses to worship and publicly express that Faith.I have always believed that who you choose to worship with is a far more important aspect of your individual character than just about anything else. In most cases, Blacks and Whites (and just about every other race and creed)have specifically chosen to keep their specific worshiping practices separate.

As far as I’m concerned, churches are nothing more than clubs, fraternities or sororities; a religiously sanctioned excuse to congregate with “your own kind.” And everyone who regularly attends a church does it.

People of different races may work together, play together, eat together, etc., and have no problem. But, sharing the gospel under the same roof is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of individuals who practice their faith.

Because we are blinded to the possibilities of other realities and points of view is exactly why we have more religious denominations than people to populate them.

Far too many people live their daily lives bogged down by religious and spiritual dogma. They relegate themselves to what I would call spiritual and intellectual jail cells.

It could be something as silly as barring themselves from eating certain foods or engaging in what they might call “secular” no-nos because they have convinced themselves that God Almighty actually gives a shit whether or not you celebrate a birthday, or light a candle on a certain day or whether or not you are able to recite a church or a denominationally sanctioned prayer.

Individuals become spiritually and emotionally handicapped by human dogma emotionally hogtied to specific religious convictions that restrict God given emotional and spiritual growth. God must do a lot of laughing, or crying, at how human beings have screwed up everything, including and especially worshiping their creator!

I have attended a fair number of worship services from Mormon to Methodist from Seventh Day Adventist to Catholic. I have always been amazed at the number of creative ways each have decided to craft their ceremonies and rituals and even how each decides how to decorate their house or worship. Even the rules surrounding how individuals should conduct themselves outside the church walls varies from denomination to denomination.

I could be wrong on this, but I have always believed that all of these “rules” are specifically designed to present an air of individuality to that specific congregation. A lot of people badly want or need to feel “special.” The goal not to simply honor God or religious symbol of choice but to present a feeling of isolation or separation from those who are not members of that specific club. Being part of your specific congregation is somehow “special” or “superior” ‘to those heathens who attend that rival church down the block.

Rev Jeremiah Wright, who is now on his personal money making and legacy crusade, is using this self induced racial religious isolation to his own personal advantage. Using the “mystery” of the black church experience in order to charge that the reason white folks around the nation misinterpreted his remarks is because no white person could understand the distinct disadvantages faced by black Americans and the black church. Oh, and he is uniquely qualified in educating black folks (and now white America) to the realities of American injustice. He says that this is a constant message preached in black churches around the country. If you are White, or Black and not attending church regularly, how the hell would you know otherwise?

A small percentage of white people might want to venture to a black church to see first hand what actually goes on. But most are too occupied with healing their own spiritual wounds from the previous week to go out looking to be further abused. Most people don’t go looking for abuse while attending a church service.

This Wright controversy serves as a stark reminder that the problem of the color line still divides the U.S. and its churches. Rev. Wright is simply taking advantage of that ignorance and taking it upon himself to be the misunderstood voice of the black church and black people.

I have read a number of Negro apologists say that this debate “obscures the rich and necessary prophetic role of the black church,” as one writer puts it.

Rev. Otis Moss III, the new Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, has said “that we do a grave disservice by boiling down over 207,000 minutes of Dr. Wright’s preaching into a handful of 30-second sound bites,” (and in his mind) “most taken out of context.” However you don’t need to have a self-promotion tour to explain yourself when you are speaking the word of God to your congregation. Of course white people could never understand the context of Rev Wright’s words because supposedly black folks process the truth differently than white folks. We do? You mean the truth is not the truth universally?

All of this nonsense further promotes the racial divisions that had been slowly eroded over the years, not to mention the perceived acceptance of white Americans to Obama’s presidential bid.

Again although I’m not a regular church attendee I have no beef with those who use the church forum to speak out about the health of our democracy. Or to call their flock, or the world over, on the carpet for not leading better lives. Prophetic speech is characterized by an overwhelming sense of an encounter with God and a message of moral and political judgment that a prophet feels divinely compelled to proclaim. I don’t believe that biblical prophets, preachers, pastors, priests should mince words or shy away from controversy and I understand that many prophets and preachers are often misunderstood. Years ago many were persecuted, and sometimes even killed for their words.

However, “religious” leaders who pretend to foretell the future in the name of God, who attack the humanity of others, or who set up manmade rules and pretend they are from God do not speak out against injustice while calling folks back to God’s word and his kingdom. They are people who want to merely make a buck (or millions), get attention, have power over others, or simply be big wheels in some fish pond.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. himself pronounced judgment against America for the sin of racism and the cancer of Jim Crow segregation. King called on America to become the “beloved community, ensuring that God’s demands for dignity and justice and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution were afforded to all Americans.”

Remember King also described his issues with the war in Vietnam when he said

 “America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money, like some demonic, destructive suction tube. And you may not know it, my friends, but it is estimated that we spend $500,000 to kill each enemy soldier, while we spend only fifty-three dollars for each person classified as poor, and much of that fifty-three dollars goes for salaries to people that are not poor. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor, and attack it as such.”

In his Beyond Vietnam speech delivered at New York’s Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 a year to the day before he was murdered King called the United States “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.”

So yes, it is possible to speak up against the actions of your country and still be a person of Faith. Because of white guilt America likes to romanticize the Dr. King of Montgomery and Selma, but often ignores the “King of Memphis” that demanded a living wage, or the King of Riverside Church who declared silence around the Vietnam War as betrayal.

I’m certain that Rev Wright and other pretenders to the “black throne” see themselves as King disciples. However I don’t see sincerity in the rhetoric Wright spews.
Wright is not interested in healing America nor the reconciliation he spoke about this morning.

Negros like Wright are only interested in seizing the monetary gains that Anti-American rhetoric provides. Wright is not likely to be gunned down by some angry gunman. Rather, it is more likely that some very liberal (is there any other kind?) university will pay him a handsome salary to rant about the ills of America to a bunch of young white skulls of mush while sipping red wine in his soon to be finished $10 million home in an all white community. Dr. King I doubt saw a lucrative future in speaking out about American injustices. In fact, Dr. King gave away the money he won when given the Nobel Peace Prize, and insisted that his family live where they always had – with the common people. Rev. Wright is not likely to ever do that. 

I’ve been watching the news all day and the legions of political commentators appear on TV trying to explain Rev Wright when it is so clear to me that why he is on this speaking tour, the almighty EVIL American dollar.

While some pastors truly devote themselves to bringing people to God, Wright as I have said sees a cash cow. Why it is so hard for others in the media to see this is mind-boggling to me.

Meanwhile, if you personally want to end racism, how about crossing the most important race barrier still in existence. The church line is alive and well, and living it up in America!


bigmouthwright.jpg

Sphere: Related Content

University newspaper: God tells Mary, ‘You’re fucked’

Tuesday, March 18th, 2008

bj.jpgCartoon mocking Christians met ‘publishing’ criteria

The student newspaper at the University of Virginia published a cartoon mocking Christians and Christianity after determining it met its own “criteria” but later removed it and has been backpedaling ever since.The illustration – and another previous cartoon – were the subject of an alert from the American Family Association, which urged readers to use its website to send an e-mail to Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, with a copy to Daniel LaVista, the executive director of the state Council of Higher Education for Virginia.

“Last week, the University of Virginia’s student paper, The Cavalier Daily, ran a cartoon depicting a naked man smoking a cigarette in bed. Standing beside the bed, a woman in her underwear buttons up her shirt and asks, ‘Come on God, be honest – Did you really get a vasectomy? I can’t let Joseph find out about this.’ The man replies, ‘Well, Mary, you’re f—-d,” the AFA said.

A previous cartoon portrayed a crucified Jesus telling jokes onstage, AFA said.

More here

Sphere: Related Content

My Church is better than your church…

Tuesday, March 4th, 2008



spiritual_fruit.jpg

By Mrs. Snoop



Having been a church going person all of my life, and having attended religion classes for at least 20 years, I like to think I know a lot about my particular church. I was blessed to be surrounding by a lot of people who not only knew information and history, but who could impart that knowledge in a way that made sense. They also tried hard to live what they preached (although many failed, many times). So, even though I am aware of the foibles and flaws in the human being that make up my church home, I am comfortable and happy enough that I do not intend to leave it. It helps me be a better happier person. Because
it makes me happy and a better person, I stay. But I do not presume that it would make everyone a better or happier person.I am aware that some people of my faith (including its leader) and those who belong to other faiths have alienated others by claiming that we are the “one true faith” or writing books about how much better we understand “The Truth” or have stayed on the true path.

There are others who, at the mere mention of a particular religion (no matter what it is) either start attacking it or act like they have smelled something real bad. And then they wonder why people think they are judgmental or worse!

I am not going to attack or defend people (of my faith or any other) who do or think such things. Nor am I going to try to figure out why they feel compelled to make such statements (but I am pretty sure it has something to do with the need to compete and/or feelings of inferiority). Rather, I am going to frankly give my opinion on the chances of influencing anyone by assuming or asserting that you or your church are superior.

First and foremost, I want to just say that Faith is a gift that is offered to everyone, but does not have to be accepted! Those who do not accept the gift, or believe what I do, have their own reasons. Just as I have mine. I might not agree with or understand their reasons, but if I want other people to respect my choices, and me, I must do the same for all people. Otherwise, I am a hypocrite.

Secondly, I fail to comprehend how anyone who purports to believe in Jesus the Christ, whose grand commandment was to Love and serve others, would then in turn think it is perfectly fine to act or speak in an unloving manner towards anyone else. Including and in particular towards those who do not share their belief in Jesus.

The quickest way to prove to people that the words and life of Jesus have no real meaning is to behave in an unloving manner towards other people. And by speaking or acting unloving I mean being judgmental, unkind, snobby, or cliquish.

While it is fine to privately pray for someone’s conversion, to do so in front of them (as a way of showing off or influencing them, I guess) smacks of patronizing superiority. Very few people find that kind of treatment appealing and I highly doubt that anyone’s mind or heart is every changed by someone treating them as if they were some kind of mental midget! If you want them to believe as you do, fine – but realize they may feel the same way towards you. How would you want them to approach you with the possibility of changing to their way of thinking/acting/believing? Attacking them, even in a passive aggressive way, is surely the wrong approach to influencing a change.
We may be able to force a lot of things to change. But not people’s souls. That is a choice only they can make.

Third, if someone wants to debate religion with me, I ask that they have their facts straight. It is not an effective or particularly
endearing approach to attack my faith (or anyone else’s) armed with falsehoods or half-truths! Assuming you know “the truth” does not carry much weight if your comments about someone else’s choices reveals your ignorance! If you are going to attack someone’s beliefs, first know what they are! There are a lot of classes given, in all kinds of religions. Why not take one before you decide you know all you need to know about a specific religion. To say with certainty that something is true, when you actually know little to nothing about the matter (except what you have been told by someone who is equally opposed or ignorant) is a little like deciding you don’t like the taste of a food you have never touched, let alone put in your mouth!

Finally, why not let your life be the lesson? If you want to change someone’s mind, do it with your actions. Your conduct says all that anyone needs to really know about you. And whatever church you belong to!

“History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.”

Robert Heinline.

Sphere: Related Content

Huckabee: The Intolerant Christian

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

jesuspalshuck.jpgThis from Riehl World View

Believe it or not, this latest on Huckabee can actually be used to shed light on the Dumond affair and his clemency issues. Think about it.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”

Via Powerline we now know that Huckabee was aware of the impassioned pleadings of several victims of Dumond, yet his heart was not moved, someone involved claimed he was actually arrogant about it. And we also now know that his rationale for abetting the release of a convicted serial rapist and murderer was that said rapist had a jail house conversion.

The file contains 12 letters written by eight different women, three of whom reported being raped or sexually assaulted by Dumond.

What this all suggests is that Huckabee is a you’re with me, or against me type of guy. And the only way to be with Huckabee is to be born again. That may be fine for someone in their private affairs. It is unacceptable for a man seeking to lead a nation comprised of so many different faiths.
The final piece of evidence is the increasing number of revelations as regards his intolerant remarks regarding homosexuals.

Huckabee may be a Christian, but he is far from a tolerant man. And this diverse nation cannot afford such as its President. It simply can’t.

While you’re there also check out: Hillary: Bill???? - Huckabee Finally Mis-speaks?

Sphere: Related Content

At least Mormons don’t do crack!

Wednesday, December 12th, 2007

Passed-Out Catholic Priest Busted for Crack Cocaine in Pocket

“Not exactly what that means”

Thursday, December 6th, 2007

romneyhunt.jpg

This from my buddy El Borak

Mitt seems a bit confused about the Constitution:

COLLEGE STATION, Texas (AP) - Republican Mitt Romney declares in a speech being delivered Thursday that he shares “moral convictions” with Americans of all faiths, but should not have to explain his own religion just because he’s striving to become the first Mormon elected president.

“To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution…,” Romney said in remarks prepared for delivery at the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum.

Article VI of the Constitution reads, in part, “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” But Romney seems to share the typical politician’s misunderstanding of the purpose of the Constitution, which is to limit the government, not the people.

Many governments have legally excluded people from holding office for religious reasons. In fact, the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 said that only Protestant Christians could be elected:

all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect…shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature…

READ THE REST HERE

Sphere: Related Content

Bishop accused in beating blames Satan for his woes

Monday, August 27th, 2007

I don’t particularly give a shit about these people. I however always find it amusing when religious scamster types get into trouble they always blame that “Satan” dude.
Seems to me that particular excuse would be played out by now.

satansouthpark.jpg

(Link) Bishop Thomas Weeks III, now charged with beating his estranged wife, the nationally known evangelist Juanita Bynum.Members of Global Destiny Church in Duluth urged people to cautious about taking sides in the dispute between Bishop Thomas Weeks III and his wife, Juanita Bynum.

Most congregants approached for interviews after Sunday’s 8 a.m. service declined to comment on the marital problems of Weeks, 40, and Bynum, 48.

Those who did urged caution in taking sides in the issue and passing judgment on two people they consider spiritual giants, but also human.

“There are three sides to every story,” said Clarkston’s Shannon Mayers, a frequent visitor. “Nobody has the right to judge anybody. God is in the midst of that and will work it out.”

Member Maurice Adams, 26, of Atlanta said he was disappointed to hear the news but still considers Weeks his bishop.

“We all make mistakes. He deserves another opportunity,” Adams said. “I’m hurt, but I do respect him for being man enough to show his face today.”

Weeks took the pulpit two days after his surrender to authorities in connection with the alleged attack on Bynum. His remarks included appreciation for the prayers and support that he said have come in for him and his wife and thanks to those in attendance in spite of the controversy.

Weeks sparked thunderous applause and cheers when he asked members to tell those seated next to them: “We’ve got certain things going on right now, but I refuse to stop coming to the house God built.”

Weeks, wearing a dark suit and his customary bow tie, blamed the devil for the accusation that has him facing two felony charges. He didn’t, however, offer any specifics before introducing a guest minister who preached in his stead, then exiting the room.

The bishop is charged with aggravated assault for allegedly choking, kicking and hitting Bynum on Tuesday night in a parking lot at the Renaissance Concourse Hotel and with making terroristic threats to kill her. Both are felonies.

After turning himself in, he spent six hours in the Fulton County Jail before being released on $40,000 bond Friday.

The couple reportedly met at the Renaissance to talk about reconciliation after having been separated for several months.

Bynum, known for her fiery sermons that empower women, has been in seclusion since the attack and was not present at Sunday’s 8 a.m. service.

Sphere: Related Content

Dutch Roman Catholic bishop: For the sake of harmony, let’s call God “Allah”

Thursday, August 16th, 2007

allahvsgod.jpg

Found on Sister Toldjah

Via Fox News:

A proposal by a Roman Catholic bishop in the Netherlands that people of all faiths refer to God as “Allah” is not sitting well with the Catholic community.

Tiny Muskens, an outgoing bishop who is retiring in a few weeks from the southern diocese of Breda, said God doesn’t care what he is called.

“Allah is a very beautiful word for God. Shouldn’t we all say that from now on we will name God Allah? … What does God care what we call him? It is our problem,” Muskens told Dutch television.

“I’m sure his intentions are good but his theology needs a little fine-tuning,” said Father Jonathan Morris, a Roman Catholic priest based in Rome. Morris, a news analyst for FOX News Channel, also called the idea impractical.

“Words and names mean things,” Morris said. “Referring to God as Allah means something.”

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based Islamic civil liberties and advocacy group, backs the idea as a way to help interfaith understanding.

“It reinforces the fact that Muslims, Christians and Jews all worship the same God,” Hooper told FOXNews.com. “I don’t think the name is as important as the belief in God and following God’s moral principles. I think that’s true for all faiths.”

Much more here

Sphere: Related Content

“I’m not running as a Mormon” - Sure we will all just ignore that little detail…

Wednesday, August 8th, 2007

“Mitt takes the gloves off” and politico.com, Romney became aggressive with staunch conservative Mickelson after some back and forth.  Here is the transcript of that discussion: Video can also be seen hereMickelson: “I hope we can do this so we can expend some quality time on here rather then the sound bytes.”

Romney: “No, I don’t like coming on the air and having you go after me and my church.”

Mickelson: “I’m not going after your church, I agree with your church!”

Romney: “I’m not running as a Mormon, and I get a little tired of coming on a show like yours and having it all about Mormon.”

Mickelson: “See, I don’t mind about it being all about that.”

Romney: “I do, I do.”

Nobody is going to vote for a Mormon in a national election anyway…. oh, get a grip people you know I’m right, I always say what others won’t.
I checked out this PBS documentary on Mormons and there was one section that talked about excommunication and how people who would question the Mormon faith would basically tell anyone who would dare question doctrine to “get the fuck out” you can’t be part of OUR religion anymore. Forcing family member to shun each other because some brainwashed old white guys could maintain control over the flock.
Free thinking is strongly discouraged.

Again, Romney is a non factor in the race, but I find it interesting that he would be upset that individuals like me want to focus on his religion. A religion basically pulled out of one dudes ass with a history of racism, subordination of women and isolationist tendencies and you want to be president representing ALL Americans? Plez!

In case you did not know…..

From Brigham Young
Journal of DiscoursesShall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed.

Just as I said about Ron Paul, racists are automatically disqualified from running for public office, “but Snoop Romney doesn’t believe that, Mormons are not like that anymore.” C’mon, ole Snoop is not boo boo the fool, any good PR effort can burry crap like this and help an institution put on a more public friendly face.
You can’t be part of a religion that taught this racist crap for many years and all of a sudden say, “never mind, Negros are good people too.”

Sorry I’m someone who looks deeper at issues than most folks, I’m just wired that way.

The video:

Cartoon banned by the Mormon church

Sphere: Related Content

L.A. Archdiocese to Pay $600M to Victims

Saturday, July 14th, 2007

priestsgonewild.jpgLOS ANGELES (AP) - The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles will settle its clergy abuse cases for at least $600 million, by far the largest payout in the church’s sexual abuse scandal, The Associated Press learned Saturday.Attorneys for the archdiocese and alleged victims are expected to announce the deal Monday, the day the first of more than 500 clergy abuse cases was scheduled for jury selection, according to two people with knowledge of the agreement. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because the settlement had not been made public.

The archdiocese and its insurers will pay between $600 million and $650 million to about 500 plaintiffs—an average of $1.2 to $1.3 million per person. The settlement also calls for the release of confidential priest personnel files after review by a judge assigned to oversee the litigation, the sources said.

It wasn’t immediately clear how the payout would be split between the insurers, the archdiocese and several Roman Catholic religious orders. A judge must sign off on the agreement, and final details were being ironed out over the weekend.

Tod Tamberg, an archdiocese spokesman, did not immediately return a call for comment.

The settlement would be the largest ever by a Roman Catholic archdiocese since the clergy sexual abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002.

Among the largest total payouts was $100 million in 2004 by the Diocese of Orange, Calif., to settle 90 claims. The Diocese of Covington, Ky., last year agreed to pay $84 million for 552 cases. Facing a flood of abuse claims, five dioceses—Tucson, Ariz.; Spokane, Wash.; Portland, Ore.; Davenport, Iowa, and San Diego—sought bankruptcy protection.

Last month, the Archdiocese of Portland agreed to pay about $52 million to 175 victims, while setting aside another $20 million for anyone who comes forward in the future.

The Diocese of Spokane, Wash., also recently emerged from bankruptcy protection after agreeing to pay $48 million to settle about 150 claims.

Sphere: Related Content

Discussion of God and religion, Christopher Hitchens

Friday, July 6th, 2007

Go to my RepubBlackCon profile on You Tube to see parts 2-4

6/28/07 Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton on Hardball

Thursday, June 28th, 2007

Pretty interesting discussion on religion, politics, God, no God.
No big fireworks but worth the watch if you missed.

I have this in 3 parts. Will post the others on my You Tube profile RepubBlackCon later.

My internet is real slow this evening.
FYI - Hitchens wrote a book entitled, “God Is Not Great”

Sphere: Related Content

Opinion: How Falwell resembled Farrakhan

Tuesday, May 22nd, 2007
falwell.gifBy Clarence Page The Detroit News  Speak not ill of the dead. That’s easy advice to follow until you are remembering those who spoke a lot of ill while they were alive.

Yes, I am talking about the late Rev. Jerry Falwell.

The founder of the Moral Majority was found dead last Tuesday at age 73 in his Lynchburg, Va., office. Reports that his heart had failed were greeted with grim irony by those who thought it had failed years earlier.

This, after all, is the preacher who declared back in the 1980s that, “AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.”

Of “feminists and all these radical gals,” he scoffed, “These women just need a man in the house. That’s all they need.”

After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, he said on Pat Robertson’s “The 700 Club” that, “The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this, because God will not be mocked.”

During South African Bishop Desmond Tutu’s rise as an antiapartheid leader, Falwell said, “I think he’s a phony, period, as far as representing the black people of South Africa.”

On Islam, “I think Mohammed was a terrorist.”

And the bleats go on.

Falwell was the sort of newsmaker who kept us wondering what he would say next, if only to find out whether it was nuttier than what he said in his previous eruption.

Yet although he may have said nutty things from time to time, he wasn’t nuts. He backed away from his imprudent Sept. 11 remarks, for example, when many of his fellow social conservatives thought he had gone too far.

And on those occasions when I encountered or interviewed him, Falwell seemed surprisingly friendly and gracious, compared to his bombastic TV image. After all, he did not build his Thomas Road Baptist Church into a megachurch with 24,000 members — plus Liberty University with 9,600 resident students and 17,250 distance-learning students — by acting like a grump or a goof. Even his fiercest adversaries learned better than to underestimate him.

In that sense his rise is instructive for students of politics, social movements and show business. He always had two Jerry Falwells to offer to the public. There were really two Jerry Falwells — one angelic, the other pugnacious. The face he presented to the public was whichever would do him the most good.

In that sense, I am stricken by his similarities to another conservative religious extremist I have known for more than two decades: Minister Louis Farrakhan.

At first glance, the Chicago-based Nation of Islam minister could hardly have less in common with the Lynchburg Baptist preacher. But look deeper. Farrakhan billed himself as “The Charmer” in his days as a calypso performer before he joined the Nation in the 1950s. And he can be quite charming in person or on the pulpit. Or he can sound like a hater, depending on whether he feels like making news.

Sen. John McCain touched on this ironic similarity during his 2000 presidential campaign. In a hot-blooded moment of candor that he later came to regret, he said, “Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”

Actually that’s not quite fair to Minister Farrakhan. He might be an agent of intolerance from time to time, but he does not belong on the left. The social, political and economic values of the 77-year-old Nation of Islam lines up remarkably close to those of Falwell’s conservatism. Both favor self-help, oppose big government and attract charges of thinly veiled bigotry toward other groups.
farra.jpg
Yet Farrakhan has never been invited to the White House and probably never will. Falwell became a featured visitor. McCain agreed to be last year’s commencement speaker at Falwell’s Liberty University. “Intolerance?” What intolerance? All is forgiven. This year’s speaker is former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Actually McCain already did Falwell a big favor back in 2000. The senator made Falwell sound like someone who mattered. Falwell’s political influence had ebbed in recent years, partly because of his penchant for shooting from the lip. He was asked to address the Republican National Convention in 2000, but not again in 2004.

Yet if it is any consolation for those of us who seek a sensible political center, Minister Farrakhan’s brand of religious extremism seems to have limited appeal these days, too. He provided security for the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s first presidential campaign in 1984. But not many major candidates clamor to be photographed with him now.

If that means the politics of addition are rising up and the politics of division moving down, that’s a blessing for us all.

Sphere: Related Content

Can a Mormon be president? Is this a trick question?

Thursday, May 10th, 2007

Since the comments made by Sharpton abut Mitt Romney is all over the airwaves, I though I would recycle another old post that I put up when Mitt first announced his presidency bid.
Nobody dislikes Sharpton any more than I do, but him mentioning the racist past of Mormons is legit, and anybody who either wants to sweep it under the rug or ignore the racist past of Mormons is frankly full of shit!

mormon1.jpgSince Mitt is launching his presidential campaign I though I would recycle this post from last summer by Cal Thomas.
I know some folks will say “damm Snoop give dude a break, Mormons are not the evil people you portray them to be, times have changed”
Oh man I could not event type that with a straight face… 
After the article I have some racist examples that I know most Mormons still believe in. No individual can be president when the religion he practices entire history has doctrine supporting racist sentiments. If you’re a fucken racist you don’t just snap your fingers and your racist beliefs just fade away.

There are still 70-something plus white people that still believe schools should be separated by race, that racial housing covenants are a good thing, that interracial marriage is wrong and blacks need to go back to Africa…hell there are 20 something white people that think that way… anywho…
Besides after the South Park Episode I will never be able to take Mormons seriously again. I rank them right up there with Scientologists.  

By Cal Thomas

Consider the following scenario: four candidates are running for president in 2008. One is a pro-choice Protestant who believes in balanced budgets and would cut spending and lower taxes, but is divorced and remarried to someone who has also been divorced. The second candidate is a Catholic, who is pro-life, but who believes in tax increases and more government spending to help the poor. This candidate is married, but during the ’60s he smoked dope and lived in an ashram with two women. The third is Jewish and supports the Iraq war and Israel against those who wish to destroy it, is married to a gentile and thinks same-sex marriage is OK. The fourth candidate is a Mormon, who is married to the same woman he started out with, is pro-life, opposes same-sex marriage, wants taxes and government spending cut, would put more conservatives on the Supreme Court and appears consistent in his private and public behavior.
According to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, if you are a conservative Christian voter, you are more likely to vote for the Protestant, Catholic or Jewish candidate before you would vote for the Mormon, though he is more in line with your political philosophy.
The poll found that while anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism are fading among voters, anti-Mormonism is not. Thirty-seven percent of those questioned said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution forbids a “religious test” for those wishing to serve in public office, but it can do nothing about voters who wish to apply a religious test to candidates.

The impetus for the poll appears to be the likely presidential candidacy of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon.

I am reminded of a comedy bit by the late Steve Allen. Allen would take a camera and microphone into the street and ask people, “Could you ever vote for an openly heterosexual person for president?” The shocked interviewee would fervently respond, “Oh, no, I could never do that.” It was funny, but it also said something about the ignorance of the individual being quizzed.     If Romney runs, he might consider following the example of another son of Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, who addressed the issue of his Catholicism in a speech to the Houston Ministerial Association during the 1960 campaign. Kennedy said: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president — should he be Catholic — how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.”

(more…)

Sphere: Related Content