Bill Donohue Defended Bush Catholic Outreach Staffer Who Was Outed As Sexual Predator
Bill Donohue Defended Bush Catholic Outreach Staffer Who Was Outed As Sexual Predator
During the 2004 presidential campaign, George Bush’s Catholic outreach coordinator, 54-year-old Deal Hudson, was outed as a sexual predator for taking advantage of a drunken 18-year old while he was a professor. The National Catholic Reporter reported:
According to documents obtained by NCR, Hudson invited a vulnerable freshman undergraduate, Cara Poppas, to join a group of older students for a pre-Lenten “Fat Tuesday” night of partying at a Greenwich Village bar. The night concluded after midnight in Hudson’s Fordham office, where he and the drunken 18-year-old exchanged sexual favors. The fallout would force his resignation from a tenured position at the Jesuit school, cost him $30,000, and derail a promising academic career.
Following the report, Hudson resigned from the Bush campaign, withdrew as a White House adviser, and was forced to step down as publisher of Crisis magazine, a D.C.-based conservative Catholic monthly.
Yet at least one prominent right-wing figure came to Hudson’s defense: the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, who has spent the last several days calling for the heads of two John Edwards bloggers. Donohue ardently defended Hudson in a statement, even invoking the Virgin Mary in downplaying his sexual assault:
In a press release, Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic League, minimized the charges against Hudson and attempted a joke at the Virgin Mary’s expense. “Effective today,” Donohue wrote, his organization had “a new requirement for all future employees: all candidates must show proof of being immaculately conceived, that is, they must demonstrate that they were conceived without sin.”
The American Spectator reported later, “Responding to complaints, the Catholic League has removed the press release from its website.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
127 Responses to “Bill Donohue Defended Bush Catholic Outreach Staffer Who Was Outed As Sexual Predator”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sorry wingnuts, you said Clinton is a sexual predator for what he did too. Under that qualification, so is "Deal" Hudson.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThe hypocrisy of the 'religious' right truly knows no bounds.
Breathtaking.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:41 pmDonohue, typically, forgets the young woman involved.
Isn't this the guy obsessed with butt sex?
February 9th, 2007 at 12:46 pmWhile you're at it, Billy Let's put a convicted rapist in charge of a rape councelling outreach program.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:46 pm"Father Vivian O'Blivion,
resplendant in his frock,
was whipping up the batter,
for the pancakes of his flock...
He was looking rather bleary,
he forgot to watch the clock,
cause the night before,
behind the door,
a leprechaun had stroked it......"
Frank Zappa,
February 9th, 2007 at 12:49 pmSt. Alphonso's Pancake Breakfast
Cathilic Preist, butt-sex, why yes there is a corrolation.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:50 pmIt's my hope that the current strikes against Donohue will continue from blogposts to contacting news agencies and more. Letting this sick bastard drive our national debates is disgusting and dangerous.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:52 pm“Effective today,†Donohue wrote, his organization had “a new requirement for all future employees: all candidates must show proof of being immaculately conceived, that is, they must demonstrate that they were conceived without sin.â€
Uhh, exchanging sexual favors usually does not result in conception.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:53 pmbut hey, had it involved a president, well hell, we'd be all over that like flies on turd, condeming him....eh, Mr.sneaky backdoor man Donohue?
This is sickening. No wonder I left the Church 10 years ago.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:57 pmA deceitful and hypocritical political activist heading up an organization hiding its agenda beneath an umbrella of religion?
Shocking, I tell you. Just shocking.*
* If you are an ignorant inbred who has never read or learned any history outside of the cartoonish blurbs on the back of a box of Fruit Loops, that is.
February 9th, 2007 at 12:59 pm“Effective today,†Donohue wrote, his organization had “a new requirement for all future employees: all candidates must show proof of being immaculately conceived, that is, they must demonstrate that they were conceived without sin.â€
I hope like hell that he's serious.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:01 pmSince they won't be hiring anyone else, ever, they'll go out of business as their existing employees die off or retire.
Good riddance!!~~
Caption Contest: "If only you could see what I'm doing with my hands."
February 9th, 2007 at 1:03 pmWhat does this 12-year old sexual harassment suit and this two-year old idiotic press release have to do with the John Edwards campaign hiring a bigoted anti-Catholic blogger?
February 9th, 2007 at 1:05 pmBill Donohue and the GOP:
February 9th, 2007 at 1:13 pm"Standing Behind Our Children."
the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, who has spent the last several days calling for the heads of two John Edwards bloggers.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:16 pmHypocrisy.
Hope this helps, Exley #13
What does this 12-year old sexual harassment suit and this two-year old idiotic press release have to do with the John Edwards campaign hiring a bigoted anti-Catholic blogger?
Comment by Exley
Um.....nothing. Yeah, that's it -- nothing.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:22 pmwow
February 9th, 2007 at 1:25 pmDRxJ,
It is an attempted deflection from the underlying story; namely, the Edwards campaign's hiring of an anti-Catholic blogger. ThinkProgress has not even mentioned that story until the site found some way to try and bury it in this non sequitur.
Back on Jan. 29, 2007 ThinkProgress rightly ran a thread that justifiably criticized TheVanguard.org for hiring someone (Jerome Corsi) who had made bigoted, anti-Catholic statements. (http://thinkprogress.org/page/9/)
Yet, we have not heard anything from ThinkProgress about the Edwards' campaign's retention of someone who has also made bigoted, anti-Catholic comments.
That is hypocrisy, DRxJ. And a double-standard.
Is TP saying that it is unacceptable for a right-leaning organization to hire someone with a history of making anti-Catholic comments, but a left-leaning candidate like Democrat John Edwards gets a pass for doing the same thing?
February 9th, 2007 at 1:29 pmMeanwhile, U.S. forces mistakenly bomb Iraqi Kurd soldiers, and Secretary of War Gates is trying to drum up proof of Iranian armaments being used in Iraq.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:30 pmSomeone should ask him his estimate of the amount of U.S. weaponry in the hands of insurgents.
My guess it is considerably greater.
Oh, and let's not forget the tons of shrink-wrapped $100 bills that can't be accounted for.....
Ex-Lax,
February 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pmI don't recall anyone on Edwards' campaign staff 'exchanging sex favors' for blogging rights.
And your point is...
#18,
Since I am new to the story that you are pushing so hard on, what specifically are the "bigoted anti-catholic" statements to which you refer? (Sourced information only, please)
February 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pmYou know, it would be a lot easier to defend Catholics from the stereotype of pederasty if people like Donohue didn't work so hard to reinforce that stereotype.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pm.
Yes, Donohue is a hypocrite and deserves to be outed. But he does NOT represent the views of most Catholics, who hold progressive values on health care, the war, the environment, etc.
I had hoped the left would learn from this unfortunate event that when they insult the Catholic Church they insult many would-be allies. Sadly, there still appears to be a lot of Catholic-bashing going on here.
Lose the butt sex comments and focus on the issues. That's the best way to beat Bill.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:36 pmBut Exley sir,
February 9th, 2007 at 1:38 pmthis thread isn't about hiring bigotted bloggers, is it?
It's about the hypocrisy of a pseudo-christian, who can forgive a sexual sin, even joke about the ultimate conception (if you're a Christian), but can't forgive others.
Yessir, hypocrisy
Wasn't it the Catholic Church that came up with George Bush's slogan: No Child's Behind Left? That still doesn't ALTAR the facts said Donohue, who continues to force the hard questions on the young boys.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:39 pm“Effective today,†Donohue wrote, his organization had “a new requirement for all future employees: all candidates must show proof of being immaculately conceived, that is, they must demonstrate that they were conceived without sin.â€
So now Donohue has mocked the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? Wow, isn't that what Exley's "anti-Catholic bloggers" are accused of doing?
Game over, rightards.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pm.
Donahue is apparently more hung-up on sex than he is knowledgeable about the Bible. It doesn't take immaculate conception to be conceived without sin. All it takes is marriage. Sex within marriage is not a sin, even by the fairly constrictive doctrine of the Roman Catholic church. Mentally healthy Christians believe that sex is one of God's great gifts. That Donahue suggests all sex is sinful indicates that Donahue has issues that stretch well beyond religion.
But then, that's obvious.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:41 pmIsn't blogging about mortal sins a mortal sin in itself? When we blog, the Holy Spirt departs from us and we lose our sanctifying grace.
But hitting on 18-year-olds is cool!
February 9th, 2007 at 1:43 pmWe'll just have to wait and see how the Virgin Mother, Mary Cheney, feels about this controversial matter. Will she side with her biological father, the evil lord Dick Cheney, or with her real father in heaven?
February 9th, 2007 at 1:46 pm"All it takes is marriage. Sex within marriage is not a sin, even by the fairly constrictive doctrine of the Roman Catholic church."
Back to CCD class, Tom @ 1:41 p.m.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
http://www.tsrocks.com/e/elvis_costello_texts/im_not_angry.html
February 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#26 great point. Kind of goes against all Christian teachings doesn't it? Wouldn't you agree Exley? Donohue is making a mockery of the immaculate conception to protect a sexual predator. How anti-catholic is that.
I believe the rug you've been standing on has been effectively pulled from under you. You hold no moral high ground attempting to force a debate on the Edward's campaign while ignoring the subject matter of this thread.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#s 26 + 31- Well done, Watson!
February 9th, 2007 at 1:52 pmReichwing Christofascist Prayer: Father, forgive me for I know well what I do and by confessing it to you, I am absolved and can go right out and do it again!
February 9th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#24 Bill Donohue & the GOP "Standing behind our children" or is it "no Child's behind left"?? Which is it? Either way it's repugnant and disgusting!
February 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pmChicago Catholics still recall how Joe Bernadin was persecuted by a troubled young man who had congered up false memories of adolesent abuse by the then Archbishop of Chicago, who then taught us all a lesson in humility by forgiving and embracing his accuser. Donohue does not speak for enlightened Catholics who outright reject his racist and anti-semitic statements, while at the same time feeling compassion for him as a human being whose soul has been polluted by the quazi-fascist crowd he's associated himself with.
February 9th, 2007 at 1:55 pmBut Exley sir,
this thread isn’t about hiring bigotted bloggers, is it?
It’s about the hypocrisy of a pseudo-christian, who can forgive a sexual sin, even joke about the ultimate conception (if you’re a Christian), but can’t forgive others.
Yessir, hypocrisy
Comment by DRxJ — February 9, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
And Brave Sir Exley ran away. Bravely ran away, away.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:01 pmDonahue's views are not from the Catholic perspective.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:08 pmThey're solidly rooted in Neoslut smear & fear philosophies.
Neosluts use all religion as a sales tool. They can't possibly win wingnut support by practicing religion. No. They use fear of God as the kool-aide to remove any rationality left in their flock.
This is why they fear Agnostics. Without fear of God trembling in their consciousness Americans are less apt to believe the bullshit.
True Christians know war is against the word of God. Neosluts don't want Christian support. They want complete allegiance to their 'side', right or wrong.
Donahue is about as real & trustworthy as that plastic smile on the above photo. (And WHAT is he doing with his hands?)
Deal is a done deal.
Veritas, good prayer! I always wondered what's up with the confessional booth.
“Effective today,†Donohue wrote, his organization had “a new requirement for all future employees: all candidates must show proof of being immaculately conceived, that is, they must demonstrate that they were conceived without sin.â€
February 9th, 2007 at 2:09 pmOoooh, sarcasm. Someone call Wolf Blitzer.
As practicing Catholic of many years I must say to those who are not Catholic or Christian that Donahue does not speak for the Catholic Church or for most Catholics. He is what he is. His views are to the far right. They are not rooted the the Gospel of Jesus. Jesus never treated people the way Donahue and those of his ilk do. One can only feel deep sorrow for persons like this. Ultimately, they will have to answer for the sins they have committed.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:15 pmConehead!
February 9th, 2007 at 2:15 pmEffective today,†Donohue wrote, his organization had “a new requirement for all future employees:[. . .] they must demonstrate that they were conceived without sin.
And as Bill will personally be inspecting hymens, please tell your mother to douche the night before . . .
February 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pmJohnTheElder sez:
Then you're a better Christian than I...I can feel a variety of emotions for people like this...most of them far less charitable than sorrow.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:22 pm#24 THAT'S exactly the point, DRxJ,
Again, TP posted no thread on the topic of the Edwards' campaign's hiring of an anti-Catholic blogger over the past week, BUT TP did post a thread back on Jan. 29 on the topic of TheVanguard.org hiring an individual who has a past of making anti-Catholic statements.
So, again, why does TP rightly criticize and publicize the hiring of a anti-Catholic bigot by a right-leaning organization, but ignore a Democratic presidential candidate's hiring of an anti-Catholic blogger?
Oh, and HiB, if you look at my original posting you will note that I called Donohue's statement from two years ago "idiotic."
February 9th, 2007 at 2:22 pmgeez - another pulpitperv - imagine my surprise. makes me wish christianity wasn't mythology, so jesus could come back and assess the works of his followers.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:24 pmSo, again, why does TP rightly criticize and publicize the hiring of a anti-Catholic bigot by a right-leaning organization, but ignore a Democratic presidential candidate’s hiring of an anti-Catholic blogger?
February 9th, 2007 at 2:36 pmComment by Exley — February 9, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
Not sure, as I've not kept track of either criticism nor either bloggers. I'm sure this would be a great discussion on an open thread
But, in reference to this particular thread, how do you feel about a so-called Christian not forgiving someone who made anti-Catholic remarks, yet not only forgave one who had pre-marital sex, but made jokes about perhaps the second most important event in Christianity (the Resurrection being the first)?
#21 Tuber, Here is some information on the controversy (Note: It does not surprise me that you are unfamiliar with the story. ThinkProgress has failed to cover it):
"A bit of a tempest is brewing over the strident and profanity-laced writings of John Edwards' official campaign "blogmaster," Amanda Marcotte. She joined the Edwards campaign last week, and she's already gotten a lot of attention.
At issue are Marcotte's comments on her own blog, Pandagon (http://www.pandagon.net/), which has staked out a prominent place in the left-wing blogosphere. It's pretty strong stuff; her comments about other people's faiths could well be construed as hate speech.
Questions: What, if anything, does it tell us about Edwards that he's joined up with this blogger? Is Edwards' association with a person who has written these things a legitimate issue for voters, as they wonder--among other things--whom he might appoint to high office if he's elected? If a Republican candidate teamed up with a right-wing blogger who spewed this kind of venom, how would people react? Is the mere raising of this issue a kind of underhanded censorship, a way of ruling out of bounds some kinds of opinion? Are we all just going to have to get used to a more rough-and-tumble, profane, and even hate-filled public arena in the age of the blogosphere?
ON THE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON BIRTH CONTROL:
Last year, Marcotte blasted the Catholic Church's position on birth control: "Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology." (Side note: Would there be a different reaction if John Edwards "blogmaster" had insulted Islam to this degree? Is it "okay" to trash Catholicism--but not Islam?)"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/terrymoran/2007/02/does_john_edwar.html
February 7, 2007
February 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pmEdwards’s Bloggers Cross the Line, Critic Says
By JOHN M. BRODER
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/07/us/politics/07edwards.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fB%2fBroder%2c%20John%20M%2e
Satan's in the White House and the Church as we see most are saying one thing but doing something else. Sad to see so many good people following Satan while using God's name. The Bible said open your eyes and you will see the truth I guess people have their eyes closed.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:37 pmExley, is Edwards for or against abortion?
February 9th, 2007 at 2:48 pmJackie sez:
While I'm not entirely convinced that Chimpy is in fact the AntiChrist, it certainly seems as if he believes he is, and is acting accordingly.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:50 pm#45 DRxJ,
I do not defend Donohue statements or conduct in making light of either the Immaculate Conception (Although his comments were not nearly as vulgar as Amanda Marcotte's ) or Deal Hudson's behavior. While I think the Catholic League as an organization serves a useful purpose in illuminating some of the pervasive anti-Catholicism that still exists in our society, I am defending neither Donohue nor Hudson.
I am simply suggesting that ThinkProgress should be more consistent in its condemnations. As I said, TP rightly publicized and criticized TheVanguard for retaining a person with a history of anti-Catholic comments. It should here been equally critical of the Edwards campaign for doing something very similar.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:52 pmHellinaBucket,
Edwards is pro-choice. I would think he would say, however, he is not pro-abortion.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:54 pmHmmm. It just gets worse. Apparently, Bill Donohue also mocked the Virgin Mary as well.
Oh, well. So much for his complaints about people mocking Catholic doctrine.
February 9th, 2007 at 2:59 pm.
ON THE CATHOLIC TEACHINGS ON BIRTH CONTROL:
Last year, Marcotte blasted the Catholic Church’s position on birth control: “Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.†(Side note: Would there be a different reaction if John Edwards “blogmaster†had insulted Islam to this degree? Is it “okay†to trash Catholicism–but not Islam?)â€----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I haven't kept up with this whole tempest in a teapot (and that isn't just because TP hasn't been covering it - it's simply not anymore newsworthy to me than the death of Anna Nicole Smith), but is this seriously the best example you could muster of this blogger's supposed anti-Catholic bigotry?
I don't know who this Amanda Marcotte is, but that sampling is so obviously satirical that one would have to suffer from sense of humor cancer not to recognize it as such.
Good to Great satire generally requires a lot of genuine anger at the target to really work. This sometimes confuses and angers less perceptive readers/listeners/viewers. But don't worry Exley, obviously there is no need for you to feel lonely.
Obviously Ms. Marcotte (who, again, I know nothing about and really shouldn't probably being commenting upon at all) does not appreciate the Catholic Church's stance on conception and expressed that derision in a very pointed manner that I thought was pretty incisive.
I mean, c'mon Exley, you do know that Christianity is a load of horseshit, right?
You must be a blast to watch Borat or the Colbert Report with.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:02 pmCaption contest....I'm Carl Rove's daddy, can't you see the resemblance.? LOL....
February 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pmAgain, TP posted no thread on the topic of the Edwards’ campaign’s hiring of an anti-Catholic blogger over the past week, BUT TP did post a thread back on Jan. 29 on the topic of TheVanguard.org hiring an individual who has a past of making anti-Catholic statements.
Uh, no. There's no comparison between the two statements.
“Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal pressâ€
Marcotte took on doctrine. This guy is talking about Catholics themselves. I know the difference and everybody else does too, but it's over Exley's head.
Then again, If Exley weren't so busy insisting that al Qaeda had ties to Iraq, he might be able to pay attention to the difference between anti-contraception and pro-rape.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:03 pm.
Hey, Exley: what did Bill Donohue have to say about Corsi?
[crickets]
He's a publicity whore who speaks for no-one but himself. The scandal is that he's treated by the MSM as if he's the Pope.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:05 pm#46,
I see. So these bloggers used provocative language to illustrate their points. Which is not a new approach, by the way, and is how Fox News has a viewership at all. They are successful enough that they get hired by a political campaign. So, what are you afraid of? That they will lose the campaign for Edwards, or that they will be successful?
Looking over what they have said, I find nothing offensive in the content. The tone is, as noted, provocative and rough around the edges, but nothing scandalous. Not like condoning pedophilia or anything.
Because, I would hope, if that were the case then you would be all over it, correct? Regardless of affiliation, right?
February 9th, 2007 at 3:13 pmGrand Moff,
Perhaps if you spent just a little less time watching "Star Wars" movies, you would understand that using vulgar terminology to deride an event held as sacred by members of a faith is an expression of bigotry and intolerance.
Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said that anti-Catholicism is "the one form of bigotry which liberalism curiously seems to tolerate."
February 9th, 2007 at 3:20 pmThis from MSNBC.com
"When Mel Gibson got drunk and made anti-Semitic remarks, he paid a price for doing so. When Michael Richards got angry and made racist remarks, he paid a price for doing so. ... But John Edwards thinks the same rules don't apply to him, which is why he has chosen to embrace foul-mouthed, anti-Catholic bigots on his payroll," Donohue said.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:20 pmEdwards has never met the two bloggers and his first conversation with them came when he called to discuss the uproar. The 2004 vice presidential nominee told reporters in South Carolina: "It will not happen again. That you can be sure of."
Well, Mr.Donahue, since Mr Edwards actually did not make the remarks, and had never meet the bloggers, your examples don't stand! Now, let's discuss this immaculate conception thingy again
I do give John Edwards credit, however. Here is his statement posted on his blog regarding the anti-Catholic remarks of his staffers:
"The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte's and Melissa McEwan's posts personally offended me. It's not how I talk to people, and it's not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it's intended as satire, humor, or anything else."
Edwards goes on to say that he spoke to the two bloggers and that they claim that they did not mean to malign anyone's faith. Therefore, Edwards said he was going to give them a second chance.
Good for Edwards.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:26 pm#58,
When you eat a hamburger, are you an anti-Hindu bigot?
No, of course not. Making fun of religious rituals or ceremonies is not bigoted, it's disrespectful. And, since respecting any religion is not a requirement to be a citizen of the USA, there is no issue here.
Except the one "issue" that your trying to make which is, in all its absurdity: It is wholly unamerican to be an American.
Good luck to you pushing that line.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:28 pmBill Donohue is a loudmouth, obnoxious, bullying, cowardly creep with a diarrhea of psychobabble gobbledygook pouring out of his vile maw and yap-trap but a woeful constipation of ideas. Donohue is always going around with his big foot stuck in his even bigger mouth. Sure and as me name's Seamus Funamoto, William Donohue, May the Divill cut the head off ye and make a days work of yer neck! Six horse-loads of graveyard clay on top of ye! May the snails devour yer corpse And the rains do harm worse May the divill sweep the hairy creature soon! May Dewer's Seven Whist Hounds of Hell sit on the spool of yer breast and bark in at yer soul-case! May the Divill damn you to the stone of dirges or to the well of ashes seven miles below hell and may the divill break yer bones into dust!!!!!
February 9th, 2007 at 3:35 pmTuber,
"When you eat a hamburger, are you an anti-Hindu bigot? No, of course not."
Agreed.
But if you were to deride Hindusim as "cow-worshiping," that would be ignorant, intolerant and bigoted.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:41 pmu all are proving his point. if u wrote any of this regarding Jews or Muslims or a minority race, u'd all be considered bigots. And so u r. And defending somebody because they did something wrong in his/her past is different than defending someone who currently holds anti-semitic, racist, or anti-catholic beliefs, as do the two women Edwards hired. If they said such derogatory things about Judaism or Islam, forget about it - they would be gone!!
February 9th, 2007 at 3:43 pmI've not seen any footage of the man, but that photo makes my gadar go off the meter! Closet case?
February 9th, 2007 at 3:49 pmPerhaps if you spent just a little less time watching “Star Wars†movies, you would understand that using vulgar terminology to deride an event held as sacred by members of a faith is an expression of bigotry and intolerance.
But isn't it curious that it only becomes directed at the event itself once you've interpreted it for me?
You're really good at producing bigoted content. I wonder why that is?
Anyway, it doesn't matter. I've read it and that's not what she was after. You're either ignorant or lying ...
... again.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:50 pm.
Not an idiot: supposition contrary to fact.
Got any other fallacies you'd like to call arguments? Maybe you and exley could divide them up and pretend to be saying something.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:51 pm.
Grand Moff,
John Edwards himself said the remarks were intolerant and offensive. Here ya go again:
“The tone and the sentiment of some of Amanda Marcotte’s and Melissa McEwan’s posts personally offended me. It’s not how I talk to people, and it’s not how I expect the people who work for me to talk to people. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that kind of intolerant language will not be permitted from anyone on my campaign, whether it’s intended as satire, humor, or anything else.†John Edwards
The fact that you continue to defend the intolerant comments says a great deal about your character...or lack thereof.
February 9th, 2007 at 3:55 pmBut if you were to deride Hindusim as “cow-worshiping,†that would be ignorant, intolerant and bigoted.
Comment by Exley — February 9, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
Basics of Hinduism: Why do Hindus worship the cow?
The cow represents the giving nature of life to every Hindu. Honoring this gentle animal, who gives more than she takes, we honor all creatures.
I'm not sure if that is consider deriding, Exley
February 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pmI'm just sayin'
DRxJ.
Basics of Hinduism (Longer answer): Hindus regard all living- creatures as sacredÑammals, fishes, birds and more. We acknowledge this reverence for life in our special affection for the cow. At festivals we decorate and honor her, but we do not worship her in the sense that we worship the Deity. To the Hindu, the cow symbolizes all other creatures.
I think it is a pretty safe bet to say that if you personally addressed a Hindu as a "cow worshipper," it wouldn't go over very well....
February 9th, 2007 at 4:10 pm#63,
But the bovine is sacred to the Hindus. So, actually, saying that they are “cow worshippers†is over simplified, but not inaccurate and therefore not bigotry. Right?
February 9th, 2007 at 4:20 pmI'm glad the world got to know this Donohue character better in this recent Edwards' blogger episode.
We can't let guys like him operate from the safety of their anonymity any longer.
February 9th, 2007 at 4:20 pmExley,
February 9th, 2007 at 4:21 pmWhat about cow honoring? would that be deriding? Just curious, not being a smart ass. I enjoy learning about all religions
Oh, and Exley, I'm curious about something.
Since the Iraq invasion is against Catholic doctrine ("thou shall not kill" and all that jazz), and even da Pope spoke out against it (I don't know about the new Nazi Pope), isn't Ms. Donohue's actions and positions anti-Catholic? In fact, would that not make him the worst kind of bigot there is, one that pretends to believe in something just to forward an agenda that is intent on destroying what they purport to believe in?
I am interested in your thoughts on that.
February 9th, 2007 at 4:33 pmTuber,
As I said earlier, I am not here to defend or carry a brief for Bill Donohue. He is irrelevant to my point that TP seemingly had a double-standard when it came to publicizing and criticizing organizations who retain the services of people who have made offensive, intolerant anti-Catholic remarks.
TheVanguard.org (whatever that is) hires an individual who made anti-Catholic remarks on the Web and it warrants a rebuke and thread from ThinkProgress (justifiably, in my opinion).
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards hires an individual who made anti-Catholic remarks on the Web and it warrants silence from ThinkProgress (inexcusably, in my opinion).
As I said, a double-standard. Some might even call it hypocrisy.
February 9th, 2007 at 4:47 pm#73....DRxJ,
While I am hardly an expert on Hinduism, I would think that addressing a Hindu as a "cow-honorer," while technically not inaccurate, would still be considered offensive since it simplifies a complex and nuanced spiritual philosophy to something like a bumper-sticker description. There is much more to being a Hindu than honoring cows, just as this is much more to Catholicism than its position on abortion.
February 9th, 2007 at 4:53 pmI am getting sick of Catholic leaders preaching about right and wrong......they have a lot of explaining to do, before anyone should pay any attention to their moral advice. Mr. Donohue clean up your act concerning the abuse of young men and women in your church. Now.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:01 pmAnd then maybe we'll listen to your opinion.
#75,
I understand what you are saying, though I do not know of the TP post that you reference so I an unqualified to offer an opinion on that. Although that does illustrate precisely why no one should ever get all of their news and information from one source (site).
But the larger issue here, actually, is that this is not an issue at all. What does religion have to do with a political campaign? I don't think that Edwards is running for pope. Plus, what's next, we start evaluating businesses by their religious stance and not their products or services? If my mechanic is an atheist and thinks that all religions suck, is he or she not entitled to that opinion? Of course, and if it offended me then I just wouldn't utilize his services. Seems silly to me to insist that the mechanic adopt my beliefs before he or she can have the honor of changing my spark plugs.
If only our founders were smart enough to insist on the separation of church and state...
February 9th, 2007 at 5:28 pmTuber:
The Iraq war is not against Catholic Doctrine... but thank you for that statement - it shows how ignorant you are of our religion.
The commandment is "thou shalt not murder." Just war and capital punishment can be "just" and they are not absolutes. One can differ on the opinions of a just war or the necessity of capital punishment. We can disagree with the Pope on these issues if we like, on a case-by-case basis. Abortion, however, always murders innocent human beings at its youngest stages in a targeted manner. We cannot disagree with the Pope on this issue because it is so stated that "thou shalt not murder" - and we cannot additionally disagree with science for that matter - since scientifically speaking, life does start at conception. He/she just looks different at birth than he/she does in the womb - kind of like how I look different now than I did at birth - but I am the same entity. The abortion destroys this scientifically-defined human entity - a human life.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:36 pm#78,
It goes to the character of the candidate. Would you vote for a candidate that keeps a racist or sexist or anti-Semite on his staff? You'd want a president or senator or what have you that respects all people, regardless of color or creed, wouldn't you?
Like I said, I applaud former Sen. Edwards for his comments criticizing the bloggers comments. He was not the issue. My issue was TP's double-standard.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:54 pmSomeone mentions butt sex yet Daryll doesn't appear? Talk about firsts!
February 9th, 2007 at 5:55 pm#79,
Being raised catholic, attending catholic private schools, and spending time at retreats and even seminaries, I would consider myself at least mildly knowledgeable of the catholic "religion". So let's see if I can help you out there scooter.
The Iraq war is NOT justifiable under catholic doctrine. It involves murder, torment, oppression, deception, and lacks compassion. All of these are in direct contradiction to the core elements of Catholicism. Don’t believe me? Look at the brochure, it’s right on page 1.
The commandment is "Thou shall not kill". "Murder" is a judgmental phrase and therefore allows for exploitation through justification. One is allowed, obviously, to defend one's self. But, the Iraq invasion was not an act of self defense, even IF the WMD and AQ claims were true. It is exponentially worse, by the way, that the claims were not true. There is that whole “false witness†thing.
And in regard to abortion, you are a hypocrite and a liar. We can debate all day whether life "begins" at conception, but there is no debate that life CONTINUES after birth. Therefore, to wet your panties over an abortion due to it extinguishing a life and then to cheer acts of murder (Iraq invasion) is as hypocritical as it is heinous. Your position is not reconcilable, which is going to be interesting for you to explain to the ultimate auditor. But I'm sure that she will understand that you placed less value on her children in Iraq simply because you chose not to like them.
And you are right, you are not an idiot. Monumental moron would be a far more accurate description.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:56 pmExley: "I am simply suggesting that ThinkProgress should be more consistent in its condemnations."
Why should they? Can you name any conservative site which is "consistent in its condemations?"
Chris, I agree that there are many progressive Catholics and I understand that there is a long tradition of progressive action in some parts of the Catholic faith. William Donohue is a very bad spokesperson for your religion. If I were a Catholic, I would also be very troubled by the fact that Bush went to the Vatican and asked the Pope for help during his last campaign. When Bishops told their congregations that people who voted for Kerry wouldn't get to receive communion, my only thought was - if you want to get that far into the political process, maybe it's time to start paying taxes.
February 9th, 2007 at 5:57 pmWhile I am hardly an expert on Hinduism, I would think that addressing a Hindu as a “cow-honorer,†while technically not inaccurate, would still be considered offensive
Comment by Exley — February 9, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
One of my bestfriends is a Hindu from Mumbai. He isn't offended by words, and he occasionally does eat beef, by the way. However, he is offended by Christians who offer food to starving people in his country ONLY if they will convert. And he's offended by Christians who judge others while murdering thousands of poeplein Iraq.
He's a smart and rational person.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:00 pmIdiot: "The commandment is “thou shalt not murder.â€
Funny. When I was a kid, it was "thou shalt not kill." When did the wording change? Who changed it?
February 9th, 2007 at 6:00 pmWhen Bishops told their congregations that people who voted for Kerry wouldn’t get to receive communion, my only thought was - if you want to get that far into the political process, maybe it’s time to start paying taxes.
Comment by Bluedog49 — February 9, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
A friend of mine stopped going to mass after the one in Georgia told them you weren't a good Catholic if you voted for Kerry.
More people give to churches than schools. Tax them.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:05 pmThe abortion destroys this scientifically-defined human entity - a human life.
Comment by Not an idiot — February 9, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
But you guys reject Science in favor of fairytales. Just read Genesis for proof.
And the Bibles say that life begins at BREATH.
It also, in reference to a fetus being aborted purposefully, does not consider it murder - just an inconvenience punishable by a fine - unlike the punishment of death imposed on damn near every other thing people did back then.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:10 pmNumber of times the Bibles reference abortion:
Sorry. No results found for "abortion" in Keyword Search.
http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=abortion&qs_version=31
February 9th, 2007 at 6:11 pm#80,
I tend to make judgments on actions, and not perceptions. In the world you seek, as long as a candidate and their staff have "clean" records then you would vote for and support them. This is the kind of thinking that got the current administration into power. Look not at what they do, but rather what they tell you they will do.
Remember, Bush said he was a compassionate conservative (ask New Orleans about his "compassion" song that he was playing on the guitar while they were drowning). He also said that he was a Uniter and I'll leave it up to you to try and defend that. Then, of course, “no nation building†(Iraq, Afghanistan). But gosh, he tells us that god tells him what to do.
It seems to me that you are chasing minutiae so that you can avoid the bitter reality of the heinous atrocities that are occurring all around you and in your name. If you are so intent on exposing deception, why aren't you bitterly attacking the current administration? I don't think that any catholics have suffered or died from the comments by the bloggers, but there are 600,000 plus murdered Iraqis who I'm sure would have preferred if you just called them "Whacky Muslims" instead of blowing them to bits.
Some perspective for you there chief.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:15 pmAgain, the Iraq War, the choice to go to war, is not against Catholic Doctrine, despite what you say. You have to separate the CHOICE to go to war from the results. What resulted are bad things, but in theory, one can decide whether or not the war was justifiable when it began, and whether or not it still is. By the way everyone, i never said I was either for the war or against it, just that it is up to each individual whether or not a war is justifiable. But the Catholic religion does allow for just wars - and whether this war is just is up for u and i to separately determine - but it is not against Catholic Doctrine if one thinks so.
The commandment is "thou shall not murder." Just do your research on your own as to the actual hebrew word used in the Bible and what it means. You all will see it means murder.
I don't reject science... I love science! But Genesis is a mythology that describes creation - it is true, but not literal. It dipenses the truth, but in allegory. I am not an evangelical literalist! Everything science has proved, I believe... and none of it destroys my faith. In fact, the Big Bang only helps it - there was a moment of creation! What caused it? And science additionally defends the idea that life is extinguished by an abortion. I LOVE science!
Abortion in the Bible?? "thou shall not murder!"
Tuber?? "Hate them"? "cheer acts of murder"? U assume way too much. Again - i never once defended the War - I just corrected you on your claim that the war is against Catholic Doctrine. And no Iraqi life is more valuable than an unborn baby. They are equal in dignity. But the practice of abortion is evil, and war can be justifiable. We can only debate whether the war is just, not whether life is any different in the womb than it is now. We were both once a fetus - how are we different now other than in appearance and intelligence?
February 9th, 2007 at 6:43 pmDonahue is a Republican operative pretending to be a Catholic. Has he condemned Guiliani or Gringrich? How about Cheney? How about any Republican? Of course not...and he never will. Because his values are relative. It's OK if you are a Republican.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:45 pm#46 - I love Amanda Marcotte and her site Pandagon. She's brilliant, and certainly not limited to potty mouthed ways. She'll be a real asset to Edwards' campaign.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pmAbortion in the Bible?? “thou shall not murder!â€
Comment by not an idiot — February 9, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
Again - the Bibles say that life begins at BREATH, therefore it's not murder, and the commandment, regardless of its interpretation, doesn't apply.
Secondly, only 33% of the world use the Bibles as their authority on abortion. Therefore, a minority opinion, especially one based on irrational religious dogma, is not applicable to the majority.
Don't want an abortion? Fine, then don't have one. But keep your hypocritical ideals out of my womb. As long as you support a religion that supports violence in any fashion, you have no legs to stand up.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pmIt's so easy to wax poetic about the sanctity of life and how "evil" abortion is. It's much harder to explain just how our system would work if it were illegal.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:58 pmPapist: "But the Catholic religion does allow for just wars..."
Were the Crusades "just?" Because the Pope initiated that little exercise in futility.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:00 pmI don’t reject science… I love science! But Genesis is a mythology that describes creation - it is true, but not literal. It dipenses the truth, but in allegory. I am not an evangelical literalist!
If you believe the Creation story is not literal, then why do you believe the rest of the stuff written in the Bibles is?
And, if you believe the Creation story, then you reject Science. Science is Evolution. Science is Occum's Razor. Science is the Big Bang. Science is plants requiring a light source.
Genesis is not, in any form, anything other than the presumptions of some desert nomads with serious delusions of grandeur. If it were an allegorical description, it still would have gotten the Science right (that plants came AFTER the sun). It doesn't. Therefore it's not allegory. It's just wrong.
Everything science has proved, I believe… and none of it destroys my faith.
You don't 'believe' in Science. You either accept it on its merits or you reject it.
No one I know who is Science minded accepts everything Science has proven, as sometimes Science diputes itself. It's why it is Science. It's an evolving and changing format for facts.
In fact, the Big Bang only helps it - there was a moment of creation!
Nonsense. The Big Bang disproves creation. For, if a god can just be, so to can a universe... And Occum's Razor validates the universe sans god.
Besides, if Creation is the premise, then your god had to have been created. And its god had to have been created. And so on, into impossible infinity of creators.
What caused it? And science additionally defends the idea that life is extinguished by an abortion. I LOVE science!
Comment by not an idiot — February 9, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
That's your opinion. Not a fact. And considering theother nonsense you've typed, it's not very credible.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:01 pmunbelievable: "You don’t ‘believe’ in Science. You either accept it on its merits or you reject it."
Thank you. And, let me add that the fastest way to become famous as a scientist is to DISPROVE something.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:07 pmLast time I checked, the Vatican was another country. It has ambassadors, territory, wealth and power. It has a leader. When JFK was running for president, conservatives called him a "papist" and said he would be taking orders from the leader of another country. They claimed this would be "treason." Bush actually requested that this foreign leader try to influence American elections. Many conservative catholics seem to be saying that they have more loyalty to the Pope than our representative republic. That doesn't sound very patriotic to me.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:40 pmI didnt say i believe in science - i said I love it. I said I believe in what it proves. And true, its proofs can be disproved, and if it is, I will accept that too. I am no scientist and trust them to do the work.
Look at a scientific definition of life and when scientists say it begins.
My belief is that God is eternal. Science claims the universe was created at the Big Bang - and i can accpet that.
U assume too much with allegory. As a whole it is allegorical - it presents the truth, we believe, but literally and not scientifically accurate. And u assume I take everything else literally... "eye for an eye?" Noah's flood, cutting off hands and plucking out eyes - no not literal.
Crusades, in those times, were seen as just. But, many sins were committed during the Crusades, and the Crusaders did a lot of bad things. But the Crusades initiated by the Pope, the CHOICE for them - yup, just war to those living in those times.
Life was breathed into man by God - Gen 2. Not "life begins at breath."
I only brought up abortion to compare it to the claim that the war was against Catholic Doctrine. The war is not, and abortion is - not meant to start a debate on this. Only got involved to say that anti-Catholicism is tolerated while anti-semitism, racism, and anti-muslim remarks are not. Edwards' helpers would have been fired if they said similar things about Jews or Muslims, and many many great religious leaders from these two great religions will be siding with Bill Donohue on this issue. Wait and see.
I see now that most of you who dislike religion dont really know what we really believe. You make too many assumptions. Why not study our religion and see what we truly believe? It might interest you. I invite you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If anything, you will increase in wisdom, whether or not you agree with what is said.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:45 pmThank you. And, let me add that the fastest way to become famous as a scientist is to DISPROVE something.
Comment by Bluedog49 — February 9, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
I've accepted that you cannot reason with people who believe...
The hope is that the youngest generation is less religious. One of my students asked me if I am an Atheist. I casually said yes. He didn't even flinch. Said that he knew a lot of people who are. We live in a very red area of the country. He said that he believed in god, which I told him was his right, but said that he hadn't been to church in 5 years because his father was sick of the hypocrisy of the church. He said he hates people who try to force their religion on other people.
Organized religion is shooting itself in the foot.
February 9th, 2007 at 7:53 pmUnbelievable, every generation for the last 100 years is less religious than the one before it. The lastest generation to come of age is the least religious of all.
The Founders would be happy about this as they were almost universally skeptical and suspicious of organized religion.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:01 pmI didnt say i believe in science - i said I love it.
Yes, you did:
Everything science has proved, I believe… and none of it destroys my faith.
Comment by not an idiot — February 9, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
How do you not understand that once you hit post, your words are visible for as long as TP exists?
I said I believe in what it proves.
Again, there is no believe in Science. Hello?
Science is NOT a belief system. It's an acceptance system.
And true, its proofs can be disproved, and if it is, I will accept that too. I am no scientist and trust them to do the work.
I get it - you're treating Science as a religious cult- you just take what they say and you believe it... That's NOT Science it's religion. Only religion requires blind faith.
sci-ence
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Look at a scientific definition of life and when scientists say it begins.
They don't all agree. And they don't base it upon religion.
My belief is that God is eternal. Science claims the universe was created at the Big Bang - and i can accpet that.
Science also accepts that "Intelligent" Design (i.e. Creation) doesn't exist. Crack open a Biology book,and then explain me the intelligence in male nipples, the human appendix, the coccyx, the 'backward' eye, mensrual cycles, and the host of other unintelligent aspects of the human body.
U assume too much with allegory.
It has nothing to do with assumption. It's about logic. And the fact that allegory is simply a poetic version of the facts - not a reorganization of them. The Bibles say plants and the light. That's not allegory - it's misformation.
As a whole it is allegorical - it presents the truth, we believe, but literally and not scientifically accurate.
LOL! Did you read that after you typed it? LOL
You contradicted yourself twice in the same sentance.
Something cannot be true yet not accurate (i.e. FALSE).
You can try to rationalize it, but you are making a laughing stock of yourself to thinking people who know actual (not allegorical) definitions to words...
And u assume I take everything else literally… “eye for an eye?†Noah’s flood, cutting off hands and plucking out eyes - no not literal.
You said "Thou shall not murder" is a literal fact. Yep. Just scroll up, and re-read what you wrote.
Crusades, in those times, were seen as just. But, many sins were committed during the Crusades, and the Crusaders did a lot of bad things. But the Crusades initiated by the Pope, the CHOICE for them - yup, just war to those living in those times.
And your point? Confuse and obsfucate?
Life was breathed into man by God - Gen 2. Not “life begins at breath.â€
You mean:
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Breathing requires air. Fetuses do not breathe. They are suspended in liquid.
Further proof that breathing = living:
Deuteronomy 20:16
But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
Joshua 11:11
And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire.
Genesis 7:15
And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life.
I only brought up abortion to compare it to the claim that the war was against Catholic Doctrine. The war is not, and abortion is - not meant to start a debate on this.
Then you shouldn't post nonsense you cannot support. Around here, we don't like misinformation.
Only got involved to say that anti-Catholicism is tolerated while anti-semitism, racism, and anti-muslim remarks are not.
I detest all god religions equally, so you might want to quantify your statement rather than broadly paint us all with the same brush.
Edwards’ helpers would have been fired if they said similar things about Jews or Muslims, and many many great religious leaders from these two great religions will be siding with Bill Donohue on this issue. Wait and see.
Great religious leaders is an oxymoron... There is no such thing.
I see now that most of you who dislike religion dont really know what we really believe.
It is you who assumes too much. I was Catholic until about 4 years ago when I gave up organized religion. I read the Catholic Bible. That's the best argument against the religion that exists. Try it and see what I mean.
Clearly, we know more than you...
You make too many assumptions. Why not study our religion and see what we truly believe?
I did.
It might interest you. I invite you to read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If anything, you will increase in wisdom, whether or not you agree with what is said.
Comment by not an idiot — February 9, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
I agree. I did read that and I increased in the wisdom that organized religion is irrational, pointless, and violent.
In return, you should read non-fiction books on actual Science and expand your fear-restrained brain. Allow it to think. But, we know you won't - because you hypocrites never do what you demand of others.
Typical ignornant nonsense. Sheesh...
February 9th, 2007 at 8:19 pmevery generation for the last 100 years is less religious than the one before it. The lastest generation to come of age is the least religious of all.
Then there is hope for mankind yet. :)
My student asked me about Evolution. He told me he thought it was true as well. He's smart. I give him a few years to figure out the rest...
The Founders would be happy about this as they were almost universally skeptical and suspicious of organized religion.
Comment by Bluedog49 — February 9, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Agreed. And with good reason.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:21 pmi said i believe in what it proves - or shall i say accept what it proves.
i leave science to the scientists, and accept what they prove - not blindly follow what they say. I dont blindly follow religion - i found myself in the Catholic Church only 4 years ago - looks like we did a switcharoo. How can i blindly follow when i was never lead. I found it myself.
science cannot explain away creation - only when it happened and how we the universe evolved.
contradiction?? I said true, meaning truth presented allegorically, but not scientifically accurate. it is a creation story, not a scientific history of facts.
it was said i take all things in the bible literally. stories/mythology is not literal. the laws are literal. it is a mix.
someone else asked about the crusades.
lesson: breathe, the hebrew definition of the noun = spririt, not air to breathe. man was given his soul at this moment, not air. when used to describe leaving no one the breathes means dead - for when u no longer breathe u die. U got what we get with breath, oxygen, from ur mother when u r in the womb. it has nothing to with breath (air).
i'll pray for u to return to the church. take care all. it has been fun.
February 9th, 2007 at 8:48 pmChrist, Exley, why do you bother? You defend a total moron just because he is a righty. I used to have a smidgeon of respect for you.
February 9th, 2007 at 9:52 pmnot an idiot...are you kidding? You feel you are qualified to decide what is literal and what isn't in the bible? Your own kind would stone your dumb ass.
February 9th, 2007 at 9:55 pmyes, i am a phd student in biblical studies.
February 9th, 2007 at 10:06 pm#107 That means something, I am guessing? You are studying what, in the bible, to take literally? I am guessing your seminary doesn't offer that class (unless you are a sourthern baptist).
February 9th, 2007 at 10:14 pmDoctorate in religion. Kind of an oxymoron, isn't it?
February 9th, 2007 at 11:02 pmJPark,
You have clearly not read all of my posts on this thread. Please review the thread and then comment again. Thank you.
February 9th, 2007 at 11:41 pmi said i believe in what it proves - or shall i say accept what it proves.
There is a difference. A BIG one.
You should say accept. But, then you have to be specific about what you are accepting, as there is not always one theory.
i leave science to the scientists, and accept what they prove - not blindly follow what they say. I dont blindly follow religion - i found myself in the Catholic Church only 4 years ago - looks like we did a switcharoo. How can i blindly follow when i was never lead. I found it myself.
Tripping over the curb is not the same as finding it.
So you switched from one absurd dogma to another. Big deal. It's like changing from one big box grocery store to another. Doesn't require much intellect...
You may say many things - but it doesn't mean you act in accordance with your opinions. Because, frankly, you don't walk your talk. And you cannot defend it either.
science cannot explain away creation - only when it happened and how we the universe evolved.
Yes it can. It's why most scientifically minded people are Atheists and Agnostics. Because Science gives better explanations that don't rely on suspending reality.
contradiction?? I said true, meaning truth presented allegorically, but not scientifically accurate. it is a creation story, not a scientific history of facts.
You're still not getting this. Allegory is a poetic representation of the facts, not a complete fabrication of them. In no way is Genesis an allegory. It's speculation that Science has disproven.
it was said i take all things in the bible literally. stories/mythology is not literal. the laws are literal. it is a mix.
It is a fairytale.
lesson: breathe, the hebrew definition of the noun = spririt, not air to breathe. man was given his soul at this moment, not air. when used to describe leaving no one the breathes means dead - for when u no longer breathe u die. U got what we get with breath, oxygen, from ur mother when u r in the womb. it has nothing to with breath (air).
You can make it up as you go, but I'm NOT falling for it. The problem with belief systems is that you can make stuff up. That is CONTRARY to Science where you have to offer proven facts that you cannot spin and twist to fit your pre-conceived mold.
Science starts with a blank slate and then, after examining the facts, draws a conclusion. Religion starts with a conclusion and then twists reality to support it. They are diametrically opposed.
i’ll pray for u to return to the church.
You are wasting your time. I'd sooner go back to the hypocritical, irrational and violent church than a free man would go back to the gulag.
Besides, free will (and reality) assure that your prayers cannot affect me. No more than my knowledge can affect your willful ignorance.
take care all. it has been fun.
Comment by not an idiot — February 9, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Not really.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:29 amyes, i am a phd student in biblical studies.
Comment by not an idiot — February 9, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
Either from a home-schooled university, or he/she is lying.
This person doesn't possess the reasoning or logic skills to support him or her being accepted into a valid university system.
February 10th, 2007 at 9:32 amDoctorate in religion. Kind of an oxymoron, isn’t it?
Comment by JPark — February 9, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
Just 'moron' works too :D
February 10th, 2007 at 9:34 amwhats with the denegration and hateful speech and name-calling? i am just telling u what we believe. u obviously do not know, and think that you do. here's whats been posted thus far that is incorrrect.
Iraq war- against catholic doctrine
Immaculate conception - a few times completely defined inaccurately
catholics take the bible literally
we dont accept science
murder and war are the same
many times words/phrases from the bible not understood - i.e. breath, murder/kill, Genesis
that we accept intelligent design and not evolution
i could go on...
as for science... i said i accept proofs, not theories. science cannot explain why the universe was created and if did expel God, certainly many many scientists didnt get the memo, since many, if not most, of them believe in God.
again u assume i dont read non-fiction science books. those are my favorite.
February 10th, 2007 at 10:56 amwhats with the denegration and hateful speech and name-calling?
What's with the making crap up? I've not been hateful. Hateful is typing complete sentances in all caps and using exclamation points. If you're assuming that, then well, you know what they say about ass-u-me...
This is such an obvious trick when you religious people have painted yourselves in a corner - throw yourselves into the fetal position and cry foul play like a coward. The only person insulting you is you.
Your views denegrate themselves. It's part of being religious.
i am just telling u what we believe. u obviously do not know, and think that you do. here’s whats been posted thus far that is incorrrect.
I know exactly what you believe. Fairytales that go against reality. Again, you've only been Catholic for a few years. I was Catholic for about 35 years. I know more about it than you.
You are delusional. That's not an insult, it is a fact. Facts aren't always pleasant.
i could go on…
Why? You're so far behind in this disccussion that you'll never catch up. Better to quit while you're just at "not credible" troll and before you become "raging lunatic" troll.
as for science… i said i accept proofs, not theories.
No, you didn't specify. That's my point. That you don't know what you are talking about.
Most of Science is based on theories. You can't accept Science if you reject Scientific theories (or even know what one is... which from your response proves you don't).
science cannot explain why the universe was created and if did expel God, certainly many many scientists didnt get the memo.
Science accepts that their is NO WHY, and doesn't waste its time with such nonsense. There is no prupose or reason, and the fact that you need one shows how fragile you are, and therefore why you need a sky daddy to placate your fear of reality.
since many, if not most, of them believe in God
That's a blantant lie. Most of them do not believe in any god.
again u assume i dont read non-fiction science books. those are my favorite.
Comment by not an idiot — February 10, 2007 @ 10:56 am
Oh really... What have you read?
February 10th, 2007 at 11:25 amhateful is calling someone names.
my views may denegrate myself, but why must you? i dont question ur intelligence b/c u believe what u believe, why must u? Intelligent people can disagree on many things.
but u dont know really what we believe, or maybe u werent taught ur fatih correctly. u claim to know what we believe. just scroll up and see what u have accused us of believing and then actually go and research and find out - u obviously wont believe me.
"i am delusional" - that is a fact? now that kind of is unscientific.
science - i did specify, but indeed i only said i accept what science proves. most of science is not theories. most of science invloves proofs. scientific method. it may start with a theory, a hypothesis... but mostly science results with proofs, not unprovable theories. but i can accept scientific theories as well... i'm not ignorant. i understand there can be much scientific basis for an unprovable theory to be viewed as true. but we would have to get specific when discussing which ones i accept.
exactly - science cannot explain why. U have the right to deny God because science cannot prove its existence... but i have faith in God, so the why is answered. Science has not extinguished God, and u can google any survey of scientists and belief in God to see the results.
read, most recently - "Big Bang", Singh.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pmnot so recent... Darwin, Hawking, alot of unfication theory books/articles.
hateful is calling someone names.
What are you 12? That is such a juvenile thing to say.
Besides, no it isn't. And I didn't call you any names. I only pointed out that you are not that bright. Sometimes truth hurts.
And you can keep crying about it like the pretend victim you think you are. But it won't help your credibility, which is fastly approaching zero.
my views may denegrate myself, but why must you? i dont question ur intelligence b/c u believe what u believe, why must u? Intelligent people can disagree on many things.
I don't denegrate you. I just am tired of people like you thinking you are better than others (don't deny it), and therefore have the right to force your beliefs on them/us - so I am simply pointing out the gaping holes in your absurd belief system, so you will think twice before spouting your smug and patronizing rhetoric to others.
Jesus said keep it to yourself. So until you do - it's fair game for dissection.
You don't even know why you believe what you believe. I know exactly why I think what I think. Just having a conversation with me about religion, when you don't know what you're talking about makes you look like a fool.
Wanna stop looking like a fool? Stop making up crap and expecting a thinking person of logic and reason to buy it.
but u dont know really what we believe, or maybe u werent taught ur fatih correctly.
I get that your reading comprehension is lacking, but for the fifth time - I know more about what the Catholic church believes than you.
You can try tired cliches over and over thinking that repeating yourself somehow makes you honest. It doesn't work here.
u claim to know what we believe. just scroll up and see what u have accused us of believing and then actually go and research and find out - u obviously wont believe me.
I don't have to believe you. I expect proof. As you seem incapable of getting - I don't do believe.
And I have proof - 35 years in the Catholic Church.
I know EXACTLY what you believe. I just reject it. It's the fact that I get it and still reject it that you cannot accept. And so you keep trying to rationalize why I do not accept it. I've heard your inane postulates all before... So get this - I get it. I know 110% what you believe. I just reject it because it is NONSENSE.
“i am delusional†- that is a fact? now that kind of is unscientific.
Not at all. Your posts are hard facts that you are delusional. The fact that you can't see it is further proof of your delusional state.
science - i did specify, but indeed i only said i accept what science proves. most of science is not theories. most of science invloves proofs.
No, you didn't. It's posted in black and white that you did not. Are you that forgetful or just a really bad liar?
You don't even know what a theory is. LOL.
Seriously, how much of a fool do you wish to be?
scientific method. it may start with a theory, a hypothesis… but mostly science results with proofs, not unprovable theories.
LOL. You are cracking me up with your own bad definitions of theory. Ever hear of a dictionary? Or are you too lazy to open one?
Here:
theory
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
but i can accept scientific theories as well… i’m not ignorant. i understand there can be much scientific basis for an unprovable theory to be viewed as true. but we would have to get specific when discussing which ones i accept.
You are ignorant (need a definition on that one also?). You can't even type the word 'you'. Yet you expect us to think you're a phD student? Come on, you might be gullable, but I assure you, we aren't.
exactly - science cannot explain why.
I didn't say that. I said that Science does not waste itself with why, because there is NO WHY.
U have the right to deny God because science cannot prove its existence…
Again, I am not "denying" god(s). It would be like denying other things that don't exist like flying invisible unicorns, talking dragons and other such biblical fabrications. That would be silly.
I don't believe in any god. That's different.
The fact that you do not comprehend is further explanation for why you believe in things that do not exist.
but i have faith in God, so the why is answered. Science has not extinguished God, and u can google any survey of scientists and belief in God to see the results.
You have faith in make-believe characters? That gives you a why? And you don't get that you are delusional? LOL Everything you post is devoid of reality - that's the very definition of delusional (www.dictionary.com).
Science has not extinguished herpes either... LOL
read, most recently - “Big Bangâ€, Singh.
not so recent… Darwin, Hawking, alot of unfication theory books/articles.
Comment by not an idiot — February 10, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
ROTFL. And I bet a million dollars you don't even know why...
Okay, I'll explain... ruin the joke... but there will be others... you can't seem to help it.
You claimed to LOVE Science (no one rational LOVES Science like that), yet you've recently read just one elementary undergraduate level book on one aspect of Science by one author/entertainer. That is exactly contrary to Science!
You might be fooling yourself, but you DEFINITELY aren't fooling me. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Most religious nuts don't.
February 10th, 2007 at 12:38 pmu r such a nice person. u dont happen to live in nyc do u? would u like to get together for a beer?
February 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pmNice is subjective, and judgmental.
Read posts 86 & 100
February 10th, 2007 at 1:28 pmthats a "no" on the beer?
February 10th, 2007 at 1:36 pmYou have one there and I'll have one here.
February 10th, 2007 at 1:47 pmdeal. but i think i'll have to drink more than just one. nyc party rules. anyways... enjoy.
February 10th, 2007 at 1:59 pmYou too
February 10th, 2007 at 3:04 pmUnbelievable: Please stop speaking for atheists, you're giving us a black eye. If you wanted to make atheists look like a bunch of angry, hate-filled, ranting nuts, congratulations: you succeeded.
Re: "Thou shalt not kill" / "Thou shalt not murder". Kill is well established by tradition, but the original Hebrew does not agree. Indeed, without going into language, it should be enough to recognize that they had many crimes for which the penalty was death to show that they did not ban all killing.
But, to go into the language, Wikipedia says:
The Greek of the Septuagint has "ου φονεÏσεις" (phoneuseis). (It looks like the smooth breathing sign over "ou" got lost -- I hope the unicode characters don't otherwise get too messed up.)
According to the Middle Liddell (via perseus.tufts.edu), phoneuseis is a form of phoneuw: to murder, kill, slay, which in turn is derived from phoneus: a murderer, slayer, homicide. They are related to the words phoneuths, phoneutria: murderer, murderess.
Someone upthread asked, isn't it "kill", and when had it been changed. The answer is, it was changed when the Hebrew word for murder was translated by the Septuagint (q.v.) into a Greek word which normally means murder, but can also simply mean kill or slay, and then when that Greek word was translated into Latin and into English.
For what it's worth, I'm an atheist and don't get my ethics out of the writings of the ancient Hebrews, but just because you've always heard "thou shalt not kill" that does not necessarily mean you should refuse to exchange your old mumpsimus for this new sumpsimus. Verbum sap.
February 12th, 2007 at 3:16 pmBill Donohue defended sexual predator...
During the 2004 presidential campaign, George Bush’s Catholic outreach coordinator, 54-year-old Deal Hudson, was outed as a sexual predator for taking advantage of a drunken 18-year old while he was a professor....
February 15th, 2007 at 8:40 amI think some folks are missing an important fact here. Part of agnostic and atheist belief is that ridicule of a religion is a sacred act, therefore whomever mentions it in a negative light is in fact a complete and undeniable bigot. I would like to know why the people ridiculing such acts by calling them bigotry feel their bigotry is acceptable?
February 15th, 2007 at 6:54 pmQuite a lot of America's Catholics have Irish names , not just Donohoe, Geoghegan, or McCarthy, but hundreds and thousands. The Catholic Church has owned the Irish Free State adn the Republic of Ireland and could do as it pleased since the Eucharistic Congress in the '30s. While was meant to be neutral in WW11, it ratlined the German monsters through and into Ireland, where the Church, at a time of great emigration guaranteed them them a prominent place in Irish life.
Bill Donohue's guff is par for the Irish course. Quite recently the Irish Parliament , the nearest thing to a Vatican camp for fairies, decided to yoke the taxpayer with the expenses of the widespread clerical paedophilia promoted by the Irish Bishops.
And if you ask them why they would not help the poor Jews? Why they ratlined the Nazis? Why the Bishops lied about pedophilia? And why did the Irish State decided to pay for the clerical buggers? The answer is ever the same: a kind of Bill Donohoe joke and a sneer, secure that Opus Dei and the Knights of Columbanus or the Knights of Malta, or some other secret shower of old farts are running the country.
If all the secret members of Opus Dei were to declare their subvertion of the secular state and were asked to resign beccasue of it, there woiuldn't be a Judge, a Minister, a Professor, a Police Chief or a Senior Civil Servant left in the land. Dan Brown doesn't know the half of it.... but Bill Donohoe might!!!
Seamus Breathnach
http://www. irishcriminology.com
February 16th, 2007 at 12:30 pm