http://tinyurl.com/clxnsl
This is an article about Newt Gingrich's latest thoughts.
Obama has appointed Harry Knox to the WH Advisory Council Faith Based Initiatives. He is a former Methodist Pastor and is currently the Director of the Human Rights campaign (an outspoken activist for the LGBT community).
Based on the Obama appointing this guy to the committee, Newt feels that the Obama Administration is "anti-religious". This is a far stretch to make. The man used to serve God, maybe not as a Christian, but nevertheless...
This just goes to show you how intolerant the Republican Party can be. This so-called "Big tent" they are trying to say they have... as long as you aren't against/question anything that the Catholic Church stands for, then you can be included in this "Big Tent".
I think it is wonderful for Obama to include all faiths on this council as we are a multi-denominational country, then all citizens should have someone at the table representing them. I'm sure that there will be Jewish and Muslim representation as well.
You don't have to belong to a religion to have faith. I think it's high disingenuous to say that the administration is anti religious just because they don't follow your religion!
ADDENDUM: Newt Gingrich's sister Candace tells him to back off of this guy. Read it here!
http://tinyurl.com/cvr9qg
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
"You don't have to belong to a religion to have faith."
Thank you!!! I couldn't agree more. I have been frustrated, and frankly disgusted, by the evolution over the past decade or so of a pervasive attitude in this country that patriotic = evangelical Christian = Republican. Last I checked, this country was founded by some very wise men who thought it prudent to clearly separate church and state.
In addition, I thought one of the primary principles of a democracy is the idea that we have the freedom, no...the obligation to challenge and question the policies our government makes in the name of its citizens. It seems to me that over the course of the reign of the House of Bush II, one was accused of being anti-American and unpatriotic if one was neither Christian nor Republican. And God forbid one actually say the words, "I don't think I agree with our policy on..."
Oh wait, that's all changed now...
With Obama in the White House, it is now our duty as good little sheep to question everything and disagree with everything. Or so the right would have us believe.
Sorry for spewing venom all over your comment page. It's just such a relief to see there's someone else out there who ponders the hypocrisy like I do.
haha, no problem. Very well said!!!
I love it how they say that Obama is the most polarizing president and what happened to his idea of bipartisanship... because to the republicans... to be bipartisan means that you have to do what THEY want...
Michelle, right on! The last 8 years have made me resolute in my decision to forgo any and all religious activities. My very Catholic parents are upset, but I don't understand why I should feel forced to practice religion when the people who do are so hypocritical and judgemental. I thought that was NOT what Jesus would do.
Did anyone see The Daily Show the other day? Watch this, it's hilarious, and it talks all about Hannity and Bachmann and Limbaugh and Beck, and how they are mistaking tyranny with losing. http://tinyurl.com/dakbro
On the plus side, I think that nomination was actually meant to appease the religious right a bit. I mean, he was a Methodist pastor. That's Christian. I would think more Christians would realize that hating gays/lesbians is not what is taught in the Bible. Love one another and all that.
I need to clarify that I am not necessarily against religions, or those who choose to follow. I have been so turned off by those who claim to be Christian and then do the opposite of what they're supposed to do, according to their faith, that I can't differentiate anymore between those that are true believers and those that do it when it's convenient. I do not want to offend anyone who truly believes. I'd just like to see more love and less hate.
CM - I feel the same way. I'm agnostic... but some of the religious things don't make sense to me because they do seem so hypocritical.
Amen Sister! I think it is pathetic of the right to continue to harp on this. Why is being inclusive of people with different viewpoint offensive? And when did Republicans start to have the corner on all things religious. As a Christian, I despise the fact that so much of what the right spews can seem to be respresentative of all Christian thought. It is certainly not. I was so pleased when Obama made reference to including all views - including atheists/agnostics - in his administration. Our political leaders should accurately represent the citizens of our country - all of them - without shutting out certain groups due to their beliefs.
What I just don't understand is why religion has any place in governmental policy at all. The government is supposed to be secular (hello establishment clause), but secularism is not "anti-religion" as the far right would like us all to think. While the government does need to consider the opinions and attitudes of all Americans, it does not, should not need to appease any one group. The troublesome thing about Newt's attitude (and many other like-minded individuals) is the "you're with me 100% or against 100%" stance he is taking.
I just had to read "One Nation Under God, How the Left is trying to erase what made us great." by Dunbar, for this class I am taking. Her views are S-C-A-R-Y and that is putting it mildly, but it really gave me some insight as to the inner workings of the mind of a HARDCORE right wing "christian." Interesting, to say the least.
Oh, and as an atheist, I must say (to Newt and anyone else who might imply otherwise) that a person does NOT have to believe in God to be an upstanding, concerned citizen!!!
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTNlNDc1MmMwNDM0OTEzMjQ4NDc0ZGUyOWYxNmEzN2E=
I'll summarize:
‘We have found no consistent associations between condom use and lower HIV-infection rates, which, 25 years into the pandemic, we should be seeing if this intervention was working.”
So notes Edward C. Green, director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, in response to papal press comments en route to Africa this week.
“The pope is correct,” Green told National Review Online Wednesday, “or put it a better way, the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments. He stresses that “condoms have been proven to not be effective at the ‘level of population.’”
“There is,” Green adds, “a consistent association shown by our best studies, including the U.S.-funded ‘Demographic Health Surveys,’ between greater availability and use of condoms and higher (not lower) HIV-infection rates. This may be due in part to a phenomenon known as risk compensation, meaning that when one uses a risk-reduction ‘technology’ such as condoms, one often loses the benefit (reduction in risk) by ‘compensating’ or taking greater chances than one would take without the risk-reduction technology.”
Green added: “I also noticed that the pope said ‘monogamy’ was the best single answer to African AIDS, rather than ‘abstinence.’ The best and latest empirical evidence indeed shows that reduction in multiple and concurrent sexual partners is the most important single behavior change associated with reduction in HIV-infection rates (the other major factor is male circumcision).”
So sorry to tell you this, but the Pope is correct. Distributing condoms is making the AIDS problem worse in Africa.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that I liked...
The last time we mixed religion and politics, people got burned at the stake
I love it.
I am a strong believer inthe seperation of chuch and state, but I do have to say that as a Jew I thought it was pretty cool for the White House to celebrate their first Seder.
And if we are going to get into good and bad Catholicism..........how many times has Newt been married and divorced? Are his kids talking to him again? I know they were estranged for awhile. His opinion means nothing to me.
And I don't think I am smart enough to follow Patrick's comment.
I'm lost about Patrick's comment too. I must, as a researcher, say this much, a positive correlation does not imply a causal relationship.
Now I'm going back to read old posts and comments to figure out what that comment is in response to.
Hi Larry... Are you new here? Glad to meet you.
You and Charlotte need to know that it is impossible to make sense of Patrick's rants most of the time. Don't bother trying. :D
Post a Comment