Wallis says "Mormon leaders have called me today to apologize and to say they're embarrassed by" Beck's social justice comments
March 12, 2010 10:21 pm ET
From the March 12 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
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.
Good job!
Bobby Jindal fan , you say some of the dumbest things, but you're always good for a laugh.
See, even dumb people have a place in this world!
They're not the ones obsessed with "agendas" being shoved down their throats.
Exactly! You're the ones being persecuted, by gays who are trying to force you not to persecute them! Just like when the blacks were trying to bully the poor white southerners into giving them equal rights.
But in all seriousness, the similarity between the creepy reverse victimhood you express here and that of George Wallace and Strom Thurmond is downright eerie.
You see, you're nothing special, my dear; you're going through what all bullies go through when their victims are close to receiving protection. The bully immediately feels deeply wronged, and blames its victim for bringing this calamity upon it, thus increasing their hatred of and urge to intimidate their target. Hopefully, you and the other gay-haters can one day come to accept the new equal status of your former victims, after we have dragged through the door kicking and screaming of course.
Seriously, asking for equal rights equated with bullying those who already have those rights ? Not very convincing. Too dumb even for an actual Bobby Jindal fan.
So... still a toss-up at best.
BJFan
My marriage was a very private affair conducted at a small B&B in East Texas on a Wednesday afternoon. A preacher, my husband and myself. The only witness was the lady who made us a small cake and some lemonade. Since then it's continued to be a private affair, as all marruages are unless you decide to put them on a TV reality show. So I'm not sure what in Hades you're talking about.
The meme that gays are putting their lifestyles in the faces of heterosexuals is dumb. I work in the interior design business, and was in the travel business before that. Two occupations that are heavily populated by gay indiviudals. Even then I don't feel like any of my brethern are foisting anything on me. They're just being who they are. Like the rest of us.
Try getting out in the world and stop watching so much TV. It's rotting your brain and your perceptions, more accurately, misperceptions.
MARRIAGE.
IS NOT.
A BIBLICAL INSTITUTION.
Now go smash that into your brain pit until you get it.
But you're right about one thing... heterosexuals need no help attacking traditional marriage. They do that just fine on their own.
Marriage is most definitely a biblical institution; perhaps a very elementary level canonical example will provide sufficient biblical proof for you. Remember the 10 commandments? Remember the one about not committing adultery? Remember the other one about not coveting your neighbor's wife? If the institution of marriage were not an institution compelled by, endorsed by, and shaped by the Word of God, then why would He assign two clear commandments to address how one should behave when married? Clearly God is interested, and He has a lot to say on the subject.
Want a bit more direct endorsement? Try Ephesians 5:22, which interlaces the roles of husbands, wives, the Church and Christ. Marriage, as an institution, can be traced to Genesis 2:18-25 and is addressed over and over throughout both the Old and New Testaments.
Marriage has been co opted by the state as an institution it believes it has the vested authority to regulate. From the perspective of taxation, and legal rights and privileges, this is the state's prerogative. The biblically based marriage, however, is distinctly different. It is a union that is based in directives found within canonical texts, but it is also one supported by thousands of years of tradition, but even those traditions trace their roots to a faith-based early history. I suggest that before you dismiss the biblical basis of marriage you pick up a concordance or topical Bible and read some of the multitude of citations on this subject.
Let me try that again for you...
Marriage started before 4000 BC. Religion started around 3000 BC.
Do I need to teach you how to count?
Let me try that again for you...
Marriage started before 4000 BC. Religion started around 3000 BC.
Do I need to teach you how to count?
Background: i'm a proud cafeteria catholic. I have studied scripture, exegesis, church history, canon law and much more, since back in the day when i sought ordination. Got married instead. I remain an Olympic standard amateur. Now...
impersonna Christe
BJFan, you shame yourself. You don't know what in persona Christe means, nor even how to spell it. It has nothing to do with the ordination of women. Nothing at all. And your response has less than nothing to do with the prior post, but that's typical.
Jesus Christ was indeed a Jew - until he he was baptized by John the Baptist at age 30.
As one person of the Holy Trinity, The Son of God belongs to no church, though he is universally accepted as the head of all Christian faiths, including the separated bretheren.
as a matter of faith I know
You show your grade-school level misunderstanding of faith. Even as a part of proper English, you should say: "as a matter of faith, i believe".
Jesus did indeed ortain Peter as Pope.
We'll ignore your spelling error. Ordination, while certainly the privilege of God Incarnate, only advanced St Peter to the priesthood, which was a lay state until the mid-4th century. Bishops did not evolve until the 2nd century. There was no papacy until the 3rd century. The Apostolic succession is less about Rome than about Peter, so get your facts straight.
In the strict technical sense of the term, Orthodox are Catholics.
So are some Anglicans, and many Lutherans. Catholic, as you know, means "Universal", and acceptance into it, even from the Vatican perspective, is less about doctrine than about practise.
Vatican II bastardized 2,000 year old Liturgical traditions.
Vatican II was a fully Papal development on prior practice; everything in it is the law of the church you profess adherence to.
I attend only Tridentine masses (do you know what that is?)
I do, nimrod. It shows you to be a reactionary rat, unable to move with the risorgimento. Do you know what that is?
THis is not dissimilar from the Schism of Avignon.
Now you're just babbling. Avignon wasn't a schism, but a geopolitical dispute, settled by democratic means... which ended up a little unfair because the Italian posse was bigger.
College of Cardinals has remianed consistent from St. Peter to Benedict XVI.
No it hasn't. There were no Cardinals - as the term is understood today - until there was a large and powerful church with the land and power of a king. Cardinals developed as functionaries assisting the bishop of Rome with his secular duties. They were not responsible for electing a Pope until 1059.
Thanks, BJFan, i needed the exercise.
From what I can see Piyush Phan is at least as much a Cafeteria Catholic as the people he derides as such, rejecting Vatican II, recent moves towards ecumenicism, and the like. He's just extra self-righteous about it.
-----------------------------------------------------
@$$hat.
This Wallis guy is United Church of Christ -- do they really even qualify as Christians?
Islam was spread by the sword - Christianity was spread by the Apostles and the faith of the martyrs.
The Reconquista was a DEFENSIVE action to repel an invasion of CHristian land by the Muslims Moors from Africa.
This war basically took place between Charles Martel at Tours and Poiters and lasted until 1492 at Cordoba. The Christian Spaniards occupied the land since the time the Visigoths invaded teh Western Roman Empire and settled in Spain. Spain was originally Christianized by St. James the Apostle (whose remains are in Santiago de Compostela). The Romans colonized Spain and called it Betico. After Constantine, Christianity was the official religion or Betico/Spain.
The Moors invaded in teh eighth century. The Christians from Martel to Diego Gilmenez to Ferdinand & Isabela repelled the invasion. The Spaniards sought no land in North Africa - they sought only to repel the Moors from their land.
The Papal Bull "Exigit sinceae devotionis" promulgated on Nov 1, 1478 by His Holiness Pope Sixtus IV explicitly legitimized the Inquisiton. THere was nothing wrong with the Inquisition - it was perfectly legal under Canon Law.
http://www.the-pope.com/spaninqc.html
This is from Professor Jean Dumont, a foremost authority on teh Reconquista and the Inquisition.
I said that your attempt to contrast Islam with Christianity by pointing to the violent nature of the spread of the former as if to suggest that there wasn't comparable violence associated with the spread of the latter was false and misleading.
You are such a fraud.
Shorter PJ fan: torture is OK if the Pope says so.
Or George W. Bush.
Bud, you're looking stupider and stupider by the post. The ignorance that you just revealed is absolutely breathtaking. You demonstrated yourself to to be totally ignorant of the ruthless and bloody history of western civilization since the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. It is virtually one unbroken horror story of violence, cruelty, and oppression being committed against 'heathens', Jews, women, intellectuals, and apostates, all in the name of Christ.
Are you really this dismally clueless, BJ fan, or are you just so fanatically committed to your talking points that you're willing to coldly deny the overwhelming (though inconvenient) evidence of objective reality?
It's a real coin flip, as far as I'm concerned.
CE? Boy, you are a liberal. I say Anno Domini. You really are beholden to political corectness.
The Hijaz is the Mecca-Medina region.
I can and I have argued precisely that. Christian violence has been DEFENSIVE. IT was the Moors who invaded Spain not the other way around. The Crusades were authorized by Pope Innocent III because the Ottomans were defiling CHristian holy sites. CHristianity has never launched an offensive war of aggression. Can the same be said of Islam?
So when Christians slaughter Christians, both sides are on the defensive? My Huguenot and Orange Order ancestors would get a laugh out of that statement, I'm sure. But as a Catholic supremacist you've no doubt got an answer to that.
Next thing you know, BJ fan will be telling us that the US went to war with Germany to close the concentration camps...oh wait. Never mind!
Yes, there is Christian upon Christina violence (the Thirty Years War comes to mind). However, I would argue that the causes of the THirty Years War owed more to politics than religion. IT was basically German princes wanted more autonomy (I know a gross oversimplification).
My arguement is that Muslims have attacked Christians in wars or agression. The Christians defended themselves. THe Christians make no claims on Muslim lands. However, the Muslims still claim al-Andalus as part of their caliphate. Al-Andalus was NEVER Muslim land. The Moors invaded it and they were repelled.
Even at the times of teh Crusades, the Christians NEVER made a territorial claim on the Holy Land. We believe the land rightfully belongs to the Jews. It is the Muslims who make territorial claims on CHristian lands. They invade using these claims as a justification. Look at the Ottoman battles against the Hapsburgs -- who attacked whom?
BJ Fan, don't you get it? You also "argue" that the United States went to war against Germany to shut down the Concentration camps. That being said, WHO CARES WHAT YOU ARGUE?
You are a dunce, and that's "teh" truth.
BTW, when ARE you going to address the history teacher's questions regarding your assertion that the U.S. went to war against Germany to shut down the Concentration Camps? We've been waiting.
Naturally, and what have you to say about sectarian violence in Northern Ireland? Purely defensive on both sides?
My grandparents were born in Ireland - as a kid every summer we spent a few weeks in Eire. I have spoken with Provo Volunteers, and not one of them ever argued theology with me. The IRA were valient courageous nationalists at the time of the Easter Rebellion and through the 1920s. However, by the time of the 1970s, they were nothing more than a gang. The same applies to Paisley and the Ulster Unionists.
They were not fighting over religion. In the American Civil War, Christians were fighting Christians, but the Civil War was not a fight over religion. Although Protestants fought Catholics in teh Six Counties, they were not fighting over religion.
THeir fight was sectarian.
Troll harder, kiddo.
Please provide a link proving that it is a tax. I've looked and can only find that it is a geographical area as has already stated. I have found no reference, definition, etc. of it being a tax of any kind. So, BJFan, would you kindly provide a link proving your statement about it being a tax of some sort.
Thanks.
from my church-going days many, many
years ago:
Text: Sabine Baring-Gould, 1834-1924
Music: Arthur S. Sullivan, 1842-1900
Tune: ST. GERTRUDE
"Onward, Christian soldiers, marching
as to war, with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against
the foe; forward into battle see his banners go!
Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before."
Seems like some folks believed Jesus was a
warrior.
BULLY... YOU have received 50 Gold stars!
He's not the one who's whining like a child because he disapproves of a freaking SUFFIX.
I always use AD and BC - if it offends anyone, tough.
It's use has nothing to do with "Political Correctness"- seriously, you've GOT to be a satirist. I mean, that is beyond hilarious. It has to do with Accuracy, which is kind of important for science.
"It was relabeled because we don't want to 'offend' anyone." Funny, I don't know anyone who has petitioned for a change in calender design or has stopped using "A.D." when teaching history. I've been teaching for fifteen years and use "A.D." because that's how we measure human history. The science teacher down the hall- an Orthodox Jew (it's an Orthodox Jewish School) uses "C.E." because she teaches the history of the planet.
Do you realize that everyone here is just wondering what you are going to come up with next to amuse us?
How would you defend Columbus coming to America? The Native Americans, Myans and the slaves from Africa all had their religions, but obviously needed to be "saved" and brought to Christianity (that was a satirical comment).
We could disseminate the argument further as I think the generic summary of "Islam was spread by the sword - Christianity was spread by the Apostles and the faith of the martyrs" is too simplistic; as with you having a history degree should well know those in power used religion as a bully pulpit for their own greed and enforced according to their own agenda.
I don't agree with all of their theology, but I have a deep and profound respect for them.
If you want to know who goes to Heaven and who doesn't I would refer you to John 14: 1-14. Christ is the only path to salvation. The Mormons believe in Christ.
They also believe that Lucifer and Jesus are brothers, BTW.
As if you had to ask?
Who founded the Lutheran church? Martin Luther
Who founded the Methodist church? John Wesley
Who founded the Presbyterian church? John Knox
Who founded the Episcopalian/Anglican church? Henry VIII
Need I go on? The Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church because it was founded by Christ Himself. All Protestant churches were founded by men. Men are inherently flawed, hence their creation is less than Divine. Christ was Divine. Ergo, his work was perfect.
He installed St. Peter as the head of His Church. I will take the sucessor to St. Peter ahead of the successor to Jean Calvin or Henry VIII.
Luther had legitimate grievances, but the spread of teh Reformation was the result of temporal political goals whether they be from German prices or the British monarchy.
In the US I respect Evangelical faiths, but faiths like United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church USA, and Unitarians are social clubs at their most benign and Leftist political movements at worst.
The Catholic Church concerns itself with administering Sacraments. The Evangelicals concern themselves with saving souls. The Unitarians and COngregationalists concern themselves with excusing away the klling of preborn babies and advancing homosexual rights.
This is why Anti-Semitism is amongst the most vile of all sins.
Jesus did establish teh Church.
"You are Peter. Upon this rock I shall build my CHurch."
Prior to the Ascension, Jesus was was present when the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles at Pentecost and teh Christian Church was born.
To claim otherwise is a manifestation of ignorance.
Act 1:9 And when he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
Act 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one place.
The verse numbers should be enough...
Christ DID create the church, but he didn't create a denomination. BTW, the definition of Catholic is "universal." Christ created the universal church. Read your Bible, BJ.
Someone should've told him before he had that bigass Passover seder. It was kind of famous, as I recall.
Hating Muslims is a form of anti-Semitism. Nice to see you come clean.
Jesus was born Jewish. Bobby Jindal was born Hindu - today he is a Catholic because he was baptized just as John the Baptist baptized Christ.
Not that I am comparing Jindal to Christ - that would be heresy.
However, as a matter of faith I know all of this to be true. If you don't have faith you could not possibly understand. You are attemtpting to use logic to comprehend events that supercede logic.
This is the definition of faith.
Congratulations, BJ fan. You've just broken your own Stupid meter. Seriously, I've never met a Priest who would agree with you, and I went to Catholic schools throughout my entire upbringing.
"Jesus started the Roman Catholic Church."
Jesus started no church. He created none of the ceremonies or symbols. He never visited Rome.
You are either a prankster (I really hope you are) or are the most profoundly stupid person who has ever posted here.
Christ was born, lived and died a JEW.
A "Christian" is someone who manifests the qualities and teachings of Christ . . . you know, "Christ-like."
Christ wasn't a Christian, he was THE CHRIST.
2) I work on Friday nights.
I don't think you have ANY friends, BJ, particularly among those you consider infidels.
Actually, you troll here on Friday nights. This is a fact.
soze: Actually, you troll here on Friday nights. This is a fact.
There's a difference?
I studied Austrian economics in academia. As a profession I follow Asian markets.
Bobby Jindal fan, the church is the body of believers, or all who profess Christ publicly and follow his commandments. Jesus Himself did not ordain a Pope, make Peter a Pope, or create the office of Pope. The rock upon which He built His church was twofold: First, acknowledgment that Christ is the Son of God. Second, that this knowledge is revealed to us by God Himself. That Christ changed a disciple's name from Simon Barjona to Peter is completely irrelevant. The Pope is an office instituted by men in search of temporal power, and is a tradition of men just like those of the Pharisees that Jesus so roundly condemned.
Really? Because it's not in my Bible. Where do you find this ordination, exactly? I hope it wasn't transcribed off of some golden tablets inside somebody's hat.
I know that you're going to give me Matthew 16:16-18, but that says nothing of Christ ordaining Peter as Pope. That is simply the Catholic belief.
John must have started the church or how else was he entitled to perform a baptism?
Jesus was a Muslim
All we can do is sit back and wait for the next colossal fail. There's no point in responding- BJ fan is that guy who sat at the bar in "Cheers" and bleated utter nonsense with the confidence of an apostle. He can't be taught anything, because he knows everything. That what he "knows" is ridiculously inaccurate simply does not matter.
Yes, and you continue to prove that in hilarious fashion.
That's an understatement.
FIXED
Why didn't you bash the Mormons here? You went out of your way to defend Mormons in this thread and call out churches with much more tradition and many more similarities to Catholics.
You are as big of a hypocrite as they come. Your own church preaches social justice, in fact, the term is a Jesuit one.
Yet, Beck bashes it and you defend him over the teachings of the "one true church?" Who are you worshipping, Jesus or Beck?
By the way, if you are going to call out others for typos, you might want to "teh" spelling in your own.
You would call the Mormons a cult if Beck wasn't one of them
What a fraud you are.
My understanding always has been that Christians in the American sense are comprised of Non-Catholic followers of Jesus. That's why Protestants are so named - they are protesting the Catholic
Church. I believe the Eastern Orthodox are let in on the not-Catholic basis. But that leaves out certain groups who are less than true to the scriptures, like Mormons. I believe though that their non-Catholicity will eventually get them in; that, and also they are prosperous Republicans generally.
My prediction: Jews will eventually be classified as Christians in the American sense of the word. Many American real
Christians already ACT as though the New Testament is inferior to the Old.
None of which was "established" by Jesus, btw. Preach on, ignorant one.
Vatican II bastardized 2,000 year old Liturgical traditions. I do not believe that Mass should be celebrated in English (or any other language) - but only in Latin. I attend Tridentine Masses. Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI is a fan of the Latin Mass and has encouraged people to engage in Tridentine Liturgical celebrations.
Pre Vatican II, the Church never even discussed social justice. I don't want to go back to the Middle Ages as you suggested earlier - I only want to return to the early 1960s (from a religious perspective). By attending a Tridentine Church, I basically have.
-- Bertrand Russell
The Gospel of Luke clearly states that Jesus was a virgin birth. For this reason we adore The Blessed Virgin Mother.
Luke is the third Gospel. Matthew and Mark were directed at Jewish audiences, but Luke was the first Gospel explicitly directed toward a Christian audience. Luke is often referred to as the first "Christian Gospel".
I don't really understand what point you are trying to make regardling your claim of polytheistic influences. If you are claiming that the Christian concept of the Trinity is polytheism I was strongly disagree with that. WE believe the Mystery of the Trinity is that there are three persons in ONE God.
The concept as Jesus as the Messiah emanates from the Transfiguration:
Matthew 17:1-9, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-36)
Peter, James, and John would have been the first to exault Jesus as the Messiah - certainly not Paul.
It's statements like these that make it hard to take you seriously. Paul's father was a Roman citizen and any serious scholar would tell you that in his intellectual consciousness there appears to have been significant interpenetration of Hellenistic and Jewish views.
Alexander the Great, who preceded Roman rule in Palestine, was fascinated by Greek culture and tried to impose it on his subject peoples. This is why the urban patricians of Jerusalem were very Hellenized, which provoked the Maccabean revolt.
Polytheistic influences are particularly evident in Catholicism. The point is that you're attempting to argue that Jesus himself established the Catholic church, which is nonsense.
And I said that Paul was the one who exalted the Messiah to the point of real divinity rather than the kind of Messiah that Pharisees believed would come.
BJFan
Virgin birth accounts were not original to Christianity and did not appear in Christian history until the 9th decade. Makes one go hmmmmn......
[having said, that, I don't care if you "adore" the Blessed Virgin Mother or not, not my place to judge, but it's not part of my faith because it's not Biblical, it's man-created.]
Views of other Churches on transubstantiation
[edit] Eastern Christianity
The Eastern Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches, along with the Assyrian Church of the East, agree that in a valid Eucharist bread and wine truly and actually become the body and blood of Christ. They have in general refrained from philosophical speculation, and usually rely on the status of the doctrine as a "Mystery," something known by divine revelation that could not have been arrived at by reason without revelation. Accordingly, they prefer not to elaborate upon the details and remain firmly within Holy Tradition, than to say too much and possibly deviate from the truth. However, they speak in official church documents of a "change" (in Greek μεταβολή) or "metousiosis" (μετουσίωσις) of the bread and wine. Met-ousi-osis is the Greek form of the word Tran-substantia-tion. Examples of such documents are the Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church (question 340) and the declaration by the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem of 1672:
"In the celebration of [the Eucharist] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present. He is not present typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose. But [he is present] truly and really, so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin, was baptized in the Jordan, suffered, was buried, rose again, was received up, sits at the right hand of the God and Father, and is to come again in the clouds of Heaven; and the wine is converted and transubstantiated into the true Blood Itself of the Lord, Which as He hung upon the Cross, was poured out for the life of the world.[49]
What kind of bigoted nonsense is this? Because the United Church is tolerant of gays and allows women to be ministers, they're not Christians?
This is coming someone who wants Sarah Palin to be President and Michele Bachmann to be Vice President, so good luck calling me a chauvanist.
Palin and Bachmann also hold retrograde views and there's nothing inconsistent about calling someone who supports them a chauvinist, although in your case your chauvinism seems to revolve around the American right and the Catholic church.
You support them because, like them, you are a Christofascist.
As President and Veep, these two ladies would be superb role models for girls of all political stripes across the nation.
Stop, you're giving me nightmares...
Another contemptible assertion.
Okay I'm sorry but that's absolutely rock-bottom idiocy. Half, as in how half the human race is female? Actually it's slightly more than half, so if anything you're saying that male babies are aborted at a higher rate. What utter nonsense. Shaking my head...
Proof please ... I didn't think so.
I'm not sure where you live, but I live in one of the most densely populated areas in the country and your glassy eyed, plastic princesses are reviled by most women around here.
But as a role model? Me thinks not so much.
Glenn Beck is the new messiah...just ask his followers.
Hey BJ fan- why did the US go to war against Germany again?
I thought you claimed I wasn't even Catholic? Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He chose St. Peter to be the head of His Church. Benedict XVI, is the successor to St. Peter and the Vicar of Christ. I believe in the Adoration of the Blessed Virgin Mother. I believe in transsubstantiation. I believe in purgatory. I attend only Tridentine masses (do you know what that is?). Do you still believe I am lying about being a Catholic? Would I say any of the aforementioned if I weren't a Catholic?
I actually think that he's a satirist collecting information for a book. No one is THIS stupid, stubborn, or obstuse.
Nativeofsf
Precisely why I think this goober is our own Barney, aka Another American. That's him in a teacup. Of course he's got his little pinky raised "whilst" he drinks the tea. ;-0)
When you're trying to defend the worst rhetoric of the worst demagogues, your playbook is pretty limited. People are bound to have similar styles and tactics.
How do you explain Benedict IX?
YES!
It's where a bunch of people get together to speak latin and chew sugarless gum. 4 out of 5 roman catholic dentist recommend it for their patients who speak latin.
You are an expert about......?
You are knowledgeabout about.....?
Nothing.
Thought I'd save you the trouble.
Freakin' immigrants.
O and also, who do you like more, Real Madrid or Barcelona? (if you know anything about soccer you should know them two teams are vastly different)
And for once I'm genuinely interested in any response of yours
CAS ruled that if a player is above the age of 25 he can buy out his contract if he has fulfilled at least 60% of it. There was a concern that Cristiano Ronaldo would use the Webster ruling as a pretext to leaven Man Utd (he didn't use the Webster rule to leave - it was a straight transfer).
It is basically the next generation of the Bosman ruling (Jean Marc Bosman - a Belgian footballer who wanted to sign for another club after his contract expired. Basically, the Bosman ruling in 1995 brought the American version of free agency to football.
Barca v. Real. I would recommend that you read "Morbo" by Phil Ball. It is a brilliant description of the rivalry.
http://www.amazon.com/Morbo-Philip-Ball/dp/0954013468/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268508882&sr=1-1
Barca v. Real is basically a reenactment of the Spanish CIvil War. Real is Franco's team and has right wing supporters. Barca is a vehicle of Catalan nationalism. Cap Nou was the only place where the Catalan flag and Catalan anthem were on display during the Franco years.
Politically one would think I would be inclined to support Real, but I love the style of play of Barcelona. The midfield interaction of Xavi and Iniesta is the purest form of football. Messi is the best player in the world and a joy to watch. I wouldn't say I am a fan of Barca per se, but I love to watch them lay.
My La Liga team is Deportivo La Coruna -- simply beacuse I have seen them in person a few times at La Riazor whilst visiting Galicia.
My team is Man United. I went to grad school in England and fell in love with the game. I hopped on board the bandwagon during the 1999 Treble season. I said Messi was the best player in the world while Rooney and Ronaldo were both on United. I became a Messi fan when I saw him inthe 2005 U20 World CUp when he carved apart the Netherlands.
BTW, has your idol, Bobby Jindal, done any more amateur exorcisms lately?
Oops, that's right, he virtually NEVER gives ANY evidence of his allegations.
Whilst at Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar, Gov. Jindal witnessed an exorcism performed by a priest sanctioned by a Bishop. He did not perform an exorcism. He said witnessing the exorcism strengthened his commitment to Catholicism.
http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/bobby-jindal-the-exorcist-pro-or-con/
I'll set your mind at ease and let you know that I'm done trying to penetrate that walnut shell you call a brain case. I'm just going to sit back and enjoy your "look how absolutely certain I am that this particular piece of BS is the gospel truth" posts. And enjoy your ever-lengthening laughably implausible resume.
I'm afraid your concept of Christian theology and history has many gaps. As a Catholic (raised, educated and practicing - you cannot be born a Catholic as much as you can be born an anarchist) I find some of your perceptions embarrassing.
For a start, you have completely ignored the role of Constantine the Great in turning Christianity into an established religion which contravened the gospel exhortation to "render unto Caesar... and render unto God..." - the first proclamation of the separation of Church and State. Much violence ostensibly on behalf of Christianity has been waged by temporal figures (including Popes acting in a temporal capacity - "My Kingdom is not of this world") claiming divine authority. It is much the same for other religions, although they don't have the doctrine of separation of Church and State.
Above all else we must, with all humility, love our neighbours and remember that what we do to the least of our fellow humans we do to Christ.
Question? I am not making a point - I am asking a legitimate question. Does the Church recognize the cross that he saw at Milvian Bridge to be a miracle? Is this St. Helena's basis for sainthood? I tried to look this up, but didn't find anything conclusive - I would welcome an explanation if you are famliar with this.
How about "outraged" or even "scandalised"?
You can't read Beck's words here and tell me he's saying the things Wallis says he said.
Can we stop feeding the trolls on this thread now?
Remember, this article is about how a religious leader expressed the shock, dismay and disbelief at the nonsense Beck spewed.
How close are you to a mirror?
That's what social justice means, you moron. Beck opposes this.
Or did you just mean any church or clergyman that gets involved in any political activism, like that filthy Communist Martin Luther King? I mean, he was black, so he probably had a deep-seated hatred of white culture.
I don't see your reasoning there? It's not some set amount. Churches pay taxes on nothing. Not the variable land they own, not the money the receive in variable donations, not the variable salaries paid to their employees. What's the difference if you get it up front or the back end?
Moreover, churches are given tax exempt status because, as a society, we have deemed that the churches could better use that money to do their "good works". In other words, a betterment to society. The basic tenet of most churches, especially the Roman Catholic Church, is social justice. Look to the Jesuits if there is any question to that. As to other organizations getting tax breaks and write-offs, I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're speaking of here, which is, Beck's statement.
This is my problem with Beck. He tell us he's learning as he's going but makes huge statements of declaration. I've made the analogy before but to me, he's like a second year university student. He's not wrong with bits of information he has, but he's not right either. That's why he constantly has to clarify his declarations. He hasn't finished the course work yet, but is trying to teach the class.
Oof. Mag, you lost me. Look, I know you take a lot of heat around here for defending Beck. I'm not trying to pile on. I won't go into who or what I think Glenn Beck is. I'm sure you don't want to hear it. I will say this though. Glenn Beck is not an original. We've seen his kind before, and the damage they have caused is still written of and talked about. You watch. He'll go down in flames and he's going to take a few or a whole bunch with him.(what's the road to hell paved with again?)
Yeah, that's the problem. People ARE!
So Beck is referring to himself in the second person?
Reminds me of the joke:
I knew I was God when I was praying, and realized I was talking to myself.
Its ok for you to admit that Beck had no idea what he was talking about and is trying to backtrack now.
I know you've called Wright a Marxist, but you do know Marx's thoughts on religion, don't you?
It's not the government telling people who they can and can't marry. Nosiree.
I understand that Beck was linking social justice to fears of a totalitarian big government, Marxism, communism and Nazism. And that's the offensive part, MagCynic. It's offensive and just plain incorrect.
As Wallis has pointed out elsewhere, Archbishop Dom Helder Camara put it well when he said, "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist." Addressing the conditions that produce poverty -- even at the level of the state -- is not communist, and it certainly isn't a slippery slope to Nazism. It's being a moral and thoughtful human being.
You're claiming that Beck's concern here is the intermingling of church and state.
Beck's new pet project is centered around David Barton and the argument that the founding fathers never intended for their to be separation of church and state.
There are two possibilities here: (1) Beck is so dense that he doesn't realize those are contradictory positions or (2) He believes that church can intermingle with state as long as it is a church that HE approves of.
And seriously--stop trying to help him backpedal. Beck said that "social justice" is a code word for communism, marxism, and all sorts of other evil, sinister things. He told his listeners that if they see the words "social justice" on their church website, they should leave the church. The Catholic Church's Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states that, "a large part of the Church's social teaching the Church, states that “a large part of the Church’s social teaching is solicited and determined by important social questions, to which social justice is the proper answer." There is also an entire chapter in the Catechism devoted to the issue of social justice.
Are Catholics all secret, "code" commies? Catholic literature certainly devotes a lot to the discussion of "social justice", that code word for communist, socialist, marxist, nazist, stalinist scary stuff.
You could do the most offensive thing in the world and then sit here and go "oh, I didn't mean it literally."
Like that tea party organizer in Washington who called for the hanging of a sitting U.S. senator and then said she was "speaking metaphorically" and we should have realized that cuz it's not like she actually brought any rope with her.
If you say social justice is code for scary stuff and any church that talks about social justice should be left then guess what? People are going to interpret that as---you think social justice is code for scary communist stuff and any church that talks about social justice should be left!!!
It's like when Don Imus made his offensive comment. Would it have made anyone any less offended if he'd gone on the air the next day and said, "well, what I really meant by nappy-headed h*s was..."
Well, there's Rev. Peg Chemberlin, President of the National Council of Churches, which counts as its members more than 100,000 local congregations...
Now, I could cite this clip from Beck's show in which he states quite explicitly, "Progressives have built up this wall of separation between church and state, and it's nonsense. It's not what we were founded on. We were founded on ten little safety tips [referring to the Ten Commandments]"... But since you reject literal interpretations of what Beck actually says, what would be the point?
You see the problem here, MagCynic. If I discuss what Beck actually says, you would argue that I'm taking him far too literally. If I infer his position from themes and patterns in his shows, you would argue that I'm putting words in his mouth. Since you oscillate between these positions, how do you expect anyone to engage you in serious conversation?
In this case I don't see why we wouldn't take him at his literal word. He presents some valid arguments for the Founders never intending a separation of church and state like the Progressives want. Look at the designs of our country's first seal. You can't miss the religious connotations in it. The separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights is something completely different from the Progressives' version of separation of church and state.
And you can't miss that this seal was rejected by the committee that included Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams. How Beck thinks that the rejected seal supports his argument escapes me.
But let's review for a moment: Beck is of the opinion that the wall of separation between church and state that Jefferson spoke of is not the same kind of separation of church and state commonly understood today, and that in fact the United States government is founded on deeply religious principles. Why then is Beck opposed to churches that argue that government has a role to play in their religious commitment to achieving a more just society?
I'am eager to read the answer to it. Probably something like :"We don't understand and/or you can't take him literally blah,blah,blah..."
When the government uses churches as a political arm to carry out their own social justice? Beck has this completely backwards: social justice as a movement originated from religious communities, not the state. As has been pointed out here several times, the term social justice was developed by a Jesuit and elaborated upon most famously by a Catholic. Churches who advocate social justice are generally critical of the state.
So how exactly do you see the government using churches to carry out its own social justice when the churches that champion social justice are critical of the state's policies?
Show where Reverend Wright was part of the "size and scope of the government" since he mentioned Wright in this diatribe.
Beck calling Obama a racist dealt with the "size and scope of the government?"
If "everything he talks about concerns the size and scope of the government," please explain why he has no problems with the Patriot Act.
If "everything he talks about concerns the size and scope of the government" please explain why he thought the bailouts were too small when they were initially submitted.
If "everything he talks about concerns the size and scope of the government" why is he such a champion of Palin who presided over the state that receives more per capita than any other state in the union from the federal government?
If "everything he talks about concerns the size and scope of the government" why can he not find one specific incident, other than what he is making up with Wright, of a church doing what he fears?
Find just one other church he was calling out, just one.
Do you insult all former Marines by calling them Marxist if you don't like their churches?
Despite mentioning my points you didn't answer any of them.
I would never call Beck's or any other talk show host's show. They cut you off and hang up when its convenient. Its not worth the time.
I think if Beck could have provided another example other than Wright, he would have, but he can't, so he'll throw out his stereotype with Wright.
Can you find me one project done by Wright's church that is an example of class warfare done in the name of social justice?
I certainly do. He was discussing Obama's comments about the arrest of Professor Gates for entering his own house. It's not exactly an intrusive, totalitarian, big-government position to argue that the state probably shouldn't arrest a man for disorderly conduct when that conduct consisted of insisting that he had every right to enter his own home.
But Beck's take on this position was -- get this -- that actually the state deserves the benefit of the doubt for arresting a man for defending his right to enter his own house, and that Obama's a racist. Now where was the defense of personal liberty and property and the critique of big government that you claim is central to Beck?
Wrong end of the GI system.
(guess whether we'll get an obvious erroneous response)
It's if you had read... ugh that one really irks me.
Mark 12:13-17
Caring Americans are okay with the gov forcing the the wealthy to help out more with the threat of jail if they fail to pay their taxes.
Jesus, on the other hand, attempts to force the the wealthy to help out more with the threat of eternal damnation in hell.
Americans are actually soft playing this, as compared to Jesus.
> Cons are mostly identity based. They don't really want those they view as interlopers into THEIR country to be convinced of their latest talking points. They aren't really talking to other side - they're pep-talking themselves up. They want the ethnic/racial/religious outsiders removed physically, or at least socially and economically marginalized. But they can't openly say this, so you see a constantly shifting ideological FACADE mostly unhinged to reality.