Endorsing the Manhattan Declaration, Coulter compares "cultural crisis" to Holocaust, slavery
November 24, 2009 6:44 am ET
From the November 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
And of course, within minutes, Scarborough and an army of others will be right back criticizing the people he just said we are "not allowed to criticize anymore." Groan.
Btw, Hey Snoop!
That being said, Rhode Island hasn't executed anyone since the 1800's, I don't believe.
At least on matters such as poverty, the Catholics are arguably more forward thinking and charitable than goons like Coulter.
Although it seems like the bishops have some autonomy on this, so "they" might not be the best terminology to use. That's why I pointed out that that in RI, the death penalty is illegal, so it's a bit of a non-issue for that bishop.
What a contemptible statement.
I can think of another C word that could be applied to Coulter, but since she lacks both the warmth or depth, it'd be a misnomer.
And she apparently also doesn't know about the role of, most notably, the Quakers and Methodists in the abolitionist movement.
Was O'reilly displaying his true colors when he was settling a sexual harassment suit outside of court? Was he honoring the sanctity of marriage?
Does Coulter realize that she lives in sin each and every day according to the tenets of the Manhattan Declaration?
tsk tsk tsk... where is the true leadership of the Conservative movement on the "crumbling moral culture" in this country? Because it surely can't be found in these two failures.
Also interesting that the guy who drafted the declaration spent time in the federal penitentiary for obstruction of justice. I realize that Colson found Jesus in prison and has tried to straighten up his act, but he has no moral authority over anyone else. He's a sinner just like the rest of us.
Great role models.
But to be berated two wealthy, fawning, pompous, religious hypocrites is way past disgusting.
Here we have two people, who work tirelessly to undermine those less fortunate. Both cry about the coarseness of society, but both write lurid tales of murder and revenge.
Both should go sit on top of O'Reilly's "Bold, Steaming Pile of Shi."
For more, read The Catholic Church and the Holocaust by Michael Phayer. It is frightening how much the pope knew, how little he did, how later he did it and how his own interests in supporting a good relationship with Hitler far outweighed any moral dilemma that may or may not have occurred in his feeble little mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(history)#Vatican_involvement
Ironically Pius XIIs predecessor (Pius XI) was less friendly to Nazism but died shortly before the beginning of WWII.
“Żegota is the story of extraordinary heroism amidst unique depravity – compelling in its human as well as historical dimensions. It is a particularly valuable addition to our understanding of the many facets of the Holocaust because Żegota as an organized effort was tantamount to ‘Schindler’s List’ multiplied a hundredfold.”
"Anthrax is a year or two younger..."
Hey, man, leave Anthrax out of this!! "Among the Living" rules!!!
Bull O'Really? sends Ann Falter a copy of the document in the morning, she goes on television in the evening and tells us what it said.
What is the point? Does having Ms. Falter on give O'Really? a hook to discuss it?
Now that all is arranged just as you'd wish, let me ask you a question: In the land of moral certitude you've created, where is the choice? If we cease to have any ability to make a choice between two different courses of action, how are we still a free country? If we all act exactly the same, and speak exactly the same, and are forced to believe exactly the same, isn't this the very definition of fascism? Aren't you arguing in favor of eliminating the very personal liberty and freedom that you accuse the Obama administration of taking away on a daily basis?
Methinks the talking-points for people like Coulter go as follows (and by "people like Coulter" i mean over-emotional shrills in general); a bit like ad-libs:
(noun or active verb)is bad. (noun pertaining to historical badguy) did this. If you do (noun or active verb), you are like (noun pertaining to historical badguy).
Step 1 - First we indoctrinate our citizens with conspiracy theories and claims of loss of individual freedom and rights not based on fact, to mislead our citizens into thinking our government is taking over.
Step 2 - Appeal to the Moral Majority by feeding more mis-iformation that we are now preventing our citizens from exercising their rights of religious freedom.
Step 3 - Tell these same people it is time to due whatever is necessary, even if it means breaking the law. As long as you are doing it the name of God it is OK.
But conservatives in the early 1800s were completely in favor of slavery, and in the 1930s they thought Hitler was cool, especially because he was anti-Semitic. And in the '40s they thought WWII was something we should just stay out of.
But hey, any thing to make (incredibly cheap) political points, huh?
Religion is at way with people being alive.
What really ticks me off is when a group that has been persecuted for a very long time by religion uses that same religion to persecute others. Humans are so pathetic when they feel accepted and even though they feel the acceptance it doesn't really exist. It is pacification for lack of a better word. The powers that be just figure out a way to shut people up and get on with their scam. They don't like the bad publicity.
From personal experience I just ended up seeing absolutely no value in the label and selected the positive teachings. I know there is no way I could ever really be accepted as a true Christian not because of anything I do but just based on what I believe. I could be a member of any religion because of the way I try to live my life if they accepted what I eat and what I drink. But just because of how I feel about some of the beliefs will make me an outcast regardless of how accepting Christians try to make themselves out to be. An example is the fact that I am not gay but I completely disagree the attitude towards gays regardless of how accepting some denominations of Christianity are. At some level they are not entirely fair to homosexuals.
No religion is different from another except in how badly they deal with various social issues like gender equality. I'm sure Sarah Palin with all her strong woman attitude assumes a submissive role in her marriage. There's also the fact that they would take the opportunity to wipe each other off the face of the earth given half the chance. Even when they try to reach out to each other it seems condescending or has an alterior motive.
More to the point, considering the number of Irish and other Catholics employed at Fox, is Fox not only an arm of the Republican party but a mouthpiece for the Vatican?
I find it interesting that when JFK was running for president the cry from the Repugs was "Will the Vatican be setting U.S.policy?"
How things have changed in a few short years..
.
Good question.
Seeing Coutergiest all the time is like slavery! Anyway religion needs to stay out of politics period! If religion had a right in politics the founding fathers would have made room for it.
The infux of religious kooks, their beliefs, and the damage they will do to this country's politics will send the U.S. into a culture war!
They talk about the NWO, but from my observation and opinion the NWO is the religious kook influience along with the corporations.