Jill,

The truth that abortion is murder everywhere, everytime, for everyone is universal because God is omnipresent, whose character does not change, and is not man that He should lie.

This Easter Sunday is a celebration of life everlasting, the very resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christianity would crumble into dust save for this fact.

My hope is that any reading this post and contemplating an abortion would see in Easter what God sees when He looks at each one of us. That is, Jesus Christ in us, the hope of glory, not only for themselves but also that little bundle of a miracle inside their bodies, the infinite potential of a human spirit.

God Bless All and enjoy this most blessed of holidays. Amen and amen.

Have a safe and wonderful holiday everyone!!!

Happy Easter, everyone. I wish all of you many chocolate bunnies and good will. *hugs to all*

Easter isn't about Jesus. :-x

Now that I have you attention and I'm sure that some people are shooting fireballs out of their eyes at such blasphemy, it is untrue that this belief is twisting and perverting it's "real" meaning. It's actually started as a celebration called Eostar and was a celebration based around fertility (aka it was a pagan holiday as was Christmas).

http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art10467.asp

And a funny article about people getting all twisted up trying to explain why eggs have anything to do with Jesus at Easter

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1610495.ece

And of course,Eddie Izzard highlighting Christianity stealing pagan holidays:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJfRzNOJNE

Danielle,

Wrong again.

Easter may have had its origins as you state, however, no Chrisitian in his right mind would associate Easter with paganism.

The Bible says that Christians are not to make rules about days or forbid one man to hold one day special over another. Simply this is not important as long as the emphasis is on Christ.

As a collective group, it is perfectly fine and Biblical to commemorate Easter which is the celebration of the resurrection of Christ. The very foundation on which Christianity is built.

God would be more concerned about the attitude of one's heart, i.e., the hatred and bitteness it contained against His chosen and their views on abortions and whose only focus is their destruction and the destruction of their faith.

Have a glorius Easter Danielle. But most of all be ecstatic that Christ lived, died and was raised for you, to save you from yourself. Will be looking forward to your comments on Christmas as well.

His Man, the point is that Christianity is not nearly as original as most churches try to claim. Easter for one, Christmas (Jesus birth) for another. Halos came from Egypt, the wise men came from the story of thew birth of a Persian deity. The giving of gifts for Christmas most likely originated from Saturnalia. The list goes on and on. The holidays as celebrated today are far more pagan than christian. The thought and the practice are two completely different things. Christianity essentially "stole" the way their holidays are practiced from pagans. Its nothing new.

Have a Happy Zombis Jesus Day, HisMan! ^_^

oh, Give me strength. I am about drained.

Explain why it matters what religion had what day first? Did it never occure to anyone that many of the converts were pagans and they just used the days that were comfortable with them? Why is this never discussed? Why is everything a 'conspiracy'?

One of the reasons why you may believe that the holidays today are far more pagan is because as Christians we are not allowed to discuss this anymore. If we do it outside our homes or ourside of our Churches we get rediculed. Marketing has taken over the holidays. Comercials have taken over the holidays. Christians did not do this. The growing population that thinks that 'wants' are needs and 'receiving' is better than giving is what changed the images. (Pro-Choice and Pro-life included, so no reading something that isn't there.)

Anyway -

Happy Easter to everyone. I hope everyone has a peaceful weekend and gets to spend it with family and/or friends.

So, even though we don't all agree on various issues, I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Easter.

BTW, Mom, when is your baby due? I hope all goes well.

Happy Easter, everyone. I sadly enough have an early flight back to school on Sunday afternoon so I'll be going to ol' 8am mass. I wish I could spend some more time wiht the family but it's all good. Going to a Jesuit school I get more time off than anybody else I know, but my sister had to go to school today! (to make up for snow day).

Did anyone see the recent South Park episode about easter? "Okay, Bill [Donohue], that's enough. I'm pretty sure that killing Jesus isn't the Christian thing to do!"

prettyinpink,

I saw that last night! Haha, it was hilarious.

Jill here's an interesting thing for you:

Christian Mother Cuts Off Daughter's Arms
Dallas, Texas (where else?), USA
L.A. Times, OC Edition, 11/24/04

Dena Schlosser, 35, chopped the little arms off her eleven month old daughter Margaret. Dena, no doubt a Pro-Bush staunch "right to lifer" out to prevent any one from having an abortion, didn't think twice about killing her own child. She had calmly cut her baby's arms off while listening to Christian hymns playing on her stereo. When police arrived, the devout Christian was sitting in her living room, holding a knife and drenched in blood with the church music still playing. Her baby was in the bedroom, armless and bleeding to death. She later died at the hospital, safe from her mother's Christian care. Her husband John told police that the night before she had said she wanted to "give her children to God" because that's what the Bible said to do. They attended the "Water of Life Church" in Plano, Texas, where the preacher Mr. Davidson teaches that doctors aren't necessary because people can be healed if their faith is "in the right place."

------------------------------

She was found not guilty due to insanity.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060408/ai_n16187675

Interesting that woman so religious and against abortion went through the pregnancy then killed the child afterwards... :-/

Danielle, I find it amusing that you bring this up after I brought it up in reply to you girls a few days ago in the Terri Schiavo debate.

You write the above as though we Christians would support the actions of an obviously insane individual. I know you are not this ignorant, so please don't pretend to be.

And why wouldn't you as a Christian (I presume) want the poor woman to go to live with God, with a new perfect body. The "life" she had wasn't a real life, it was laying in a bed gorked out and being fed through a tube. If YOU had the choice would you choose to be a gorked out nursing home patient or a spirit in heaven where you can spend time with God and Jesus?
I replied:

It is not my choice to make. God has a plan for everyone, and I truly believe that. I believe God had a plan for Terry, and just because "I" can't understand why she has to go through years with just feeding tubes, I am not God, and do not think that I should play God by taking a life. That is His call.

Maybe what Terry needed was those extra years with emotional bonding with her parents. You don't know. Maybe this is what she needed and maybe in those years while she had her parents love and devotion, she was healed from the sadness she had before going into the coma.

If sending someone to heaven is a good excuse to kill, then wouldn't it be ok for me to kill any random person that I see, who looked like they might have the slightest amount of suffering, under the guise that I was doing it to "send them to Heaven"?

Actually, I seem to remember a woman cutting her baby's arms off and letting the baby bleed to death while saying she was sending the baby to heaven. Does this sound like the action of a sane person to you?

A Sane and rational person does not kill people to put them in Heaven.

Anyway, answered your question.

Bethany,

Oops, didn't realize it's already been talked about. I found it on this website today:

http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/cults/victims_of_religion.htm

It just struck me as odd that a Christian woman who was avidly against abortions would cut off her child's arms.

"I couldn't help but reflect on the poignancy of the Easter season and what it means to a nation fighting to protect the unborn. This weekend, Christians from all over the world will celebrate the One who came so that we might have life and have it more abundantly. Despite our political struggles and human agendas, this Sunday we celebrate the ultimate victory for life--purchased by Christ's own blood and guaranteed to all who put their trust in Him. Though we grieve the loss of so many innocent lives, we're reminded that their story does not end in death but resurrection! The Son of God, who took our sufferings upon Himself and bound them to the cross, bids us today--and every day--to choose Life, eternal life, through Him. I pray this Easter that we remember true triumph cannot be found in the things of this world. It is only found in the empty tomb. May God bless you and your family as we celebrate the risen Lord."

Tony Perkins-FRC

Danielle, think about it for a minute.

Sane people are usually pretty consistent in their beliefs. A sane person against abortion would also be against killing a born baby.

Insane people don't make sense, because something's wrong in their head. Obviously. It does not make sense to be against abortion and to be supportive of killing a baby, for any reason. Ever.

The lady was insane..and the baby was a victim of her insanity, not her religion.

(Very nice, tolerant, and objective site, by the way.) ;)

Danielle:

You will reap destruction with the vulgar words you sow against Christ.

Oh goodness, HisMan, does that mean I'm going to Hell for yet another reason? Darn. Oh wait, no. Party in Hell! wOOt!

Too bad I don't believe in that kind of stuff. Sorry.

Bethany,

Yeah, I know it's not a very tolerant site. Random website I found looking for cases of people saying they did things in the name of God or because God told them too.

Well, Danielle, considering that more than 90 percent of the world's population is religious or has faith in God, don't you think that out of that many people, odds are there will be a few nuts who make the religion or faith they represent look bad? Just because a person claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are one. The Bible says you know them by their "fruits"...those being love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, temperence, patience.
The Bible doesn't condone the murder of innocent people. It just doesn't.

I have read about atheistic serial killers there who have cut children in pieces and eaten them in soup. Does that mean that you would do the same?

Think about it.

It's true, you can't take a few nuts and establish them as representative of Christ's church.

Bethany, you look so young!

Wow, thank you, PIP! That really means a lot.... I feel old sometimes after cleaning the house all day after the kids LOL

I tend to look more at Christianities history and all the wars that the leaders of it have started, i.e. "converting" Native Americans by force, the Crusades, the Spanish Requisition, ect. Not a very peaceful or loving religion now is it?

Note to the above: But then again every religion has it's wars. Guess that's why I'm against organized religion.

Actually, Bethany, insanity isn't medical terminology: it's a legal construction to determine fitness to stand trial. It has entered our language as a colloquialism, nothing more. It’s possible that this woman suffered from a severe case of schizophrenia. Often, if left untreated, it can lead to outbursts such as this. It’s also possible that she was simply a psychopath: psychopathology often leads to a complete lack of conscious and a general lack of ability to feel compassion. I’d imagine that psychopathy, when combined with an intense religious devotion, can cause some pretty off things.

Just putting that out there. I’m a psychology minor, and currently I’m taking a forensic psychology course. It’s HIGHLY disturbing what other humans will do to each other. There’s actually a specific class of serial killer that base their killings around their religion. Most of the time, these killers focus on a particular part of society that they designate as “morally degenerate” and begin to kill them off. Occasionally, they’ll “see” demons in others, believe that sight to be a gift from their God, and believe it their duty to kill these demons.

It’s actually fairly fascinating, though it makes for some pretty depressing bedtime reading.

Actually, Bethany, insanity isn't medical terminology: it's a legal construction to determine fitness to stand trial. It has entered our language as a colloquialism, nothing more. It’s possible that this woman suffered from a severe case of schizophrenia. Often, if left untreated, it can lead to outbursts such as this. It’s also possible that she was simply a psychopath: psychopathology often leads to a complete lack of conscious and a general lack of ability to feel compassion. I’d imagine that psychopathy, when combined with an intense religious devotion, can cause some pretty off things.

Psychopathy, combined with hatred for God or dislike of people who believe in God can also cause some pretty off things, Less.

Like I said, I have read some awful stories of what athiests have done, and unless you'd like those stories to represent every one of you, you can't take a very small number of nut jobs and say they represent Christianity either.

Less,

It might also have been a severe case of post-partum depression. Sad thing is she could have gotten treated for it, but she believe that she would be healed by God if her heart was in the right place.

Sure atheists have killed, but they don't go around killing in the name of religion or lack their of. People of every background have killed, but Christianity goes beyond just the random few wackos. Look at the blood trail that it has left in it's wake.

Ah, you're right Danielle: post partum depression/psychosis might also have been at fault. And I believe you're right: she refused treatment based on her religion.

And Bethany, you're right: psychopathy in general can cause some pretty awful things. I just use that as an example because the woman was religious. And Danielle is also correct: Christianity as an organized religion has been responsible for some pretty horrible things. At one point, the Pope said that killing Muslims was a one-way ticket to heaven. You can't claim that's very pro-life. Not all Christians are like that, you're correct. But as Christianity is a monotheistic religion, it is exclusionary by its very definition. This exclusion is often seen as an excuse for violence.

* sigh *

I find it so ironic that one minute you agree that every group of people have nut jobs and psycho's in it and then in the next minute put all the horrors of the bad Christians on all of us. In the Crusades there was an entire town of Christians that was demolished because they stood up to the ones that were killing. During the holocost in Poland a good number of Catholics went to the consentration camps because they wouldn't give the nazi's the name and location of Jewish Children and the people who helped get the kids out of the country.

Saint Maximillian Kolbe, a priest, died in Auschwitz. Another man, a family man, was suppose to be put to death, but Maximillian took his place and for 3 weeks endured starvation and dehydration until he was injected with carbolic acid.

For every horror, there is a good. But no one wants to hear about that do they? Especially not on this holiday weekend.

Valerie, of course Christianity has a good side! I wasn't disputing that. I'm just saying that, as Christianity is an monotheistic religion, it is exclusionary: it excludes all over Gods. Some people use this exclusionary worldview as an excuse for violence. For that reason, I do not consider myself Christian, and I dislike the concept of organized religion.

Less -

You're not the only one that has posted about this. Thanks for the clarification.

Have a great weekend.

You too! Have a glorious Easter, however you celebrate it. ^^

Anyone can do anything in the name of God or Christianity. That does not mean that God approves or that they are followers of Christ.

To blaspheme means to take something good and call it bad. God's name is blasphemed when people who claim to be Christian do things contrary to Christ's will or when people who are Christian simply screw up, sometime willfully and sometimes by accident.

Blasphemy is also when anyone, Christian or not, speaks against the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. For some reason, the Bible says that committing the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is unpardonable. That's because the Holy Spirit is the only agent available on earth who bears witness to Christ. If you continually reject the Holy Spirit's urgings without repentance, the Bible says there's no other remedy, hence, you cannot be forgiven. So, be careful since you are playing poker with your eternal soul when you say vile and vulgar things against God.

Christ did not endorse the Crusades or murder of anyone, ever. To think that He does reflects a lack of understanding. Thsi si the Christ tha submitted Himself voluntarily to crucifixion. If He wanted to he could have wiped out every soldier in the Roman army with a single word.

Now, His word says that the government bears the sword against evildoers, so that if someone commits a murder, they pay with their lives. God is not mocked.

And having said that, Christians are not perfect. They are merely sinners who recognize that and surrender to a loving God for mercy. Besides, Christians are not the standard, Christ is the standard. If we don't measure up to His perfection, we perish. That's why He died, to take our sin upon Himself so that when God looks at us He sees Christ and not our sin. He sees Christ's perfection and not our depravity.

If you all could just step out of your comfort zones for a second and imagine a totally Holy God, who is entirely light and love, capable of anything and completely against sin and iniquity, perhaps you would see that what we have to face someday is rather overwhelming. We would do wise if we listened to His pleas to believe in His Son.

So, to think you can just blow off Christianity in some arrogant fashion you make a grave error in judgement and show no understanding. God holds those accountable who can understand that Christ lived, Christ died, Christ rose and will come again. For that is the Gospel, not whether people warred in the Crusades murdering other people or Christian did this or did that. Again, people are not the standard, God is.

I would agree, HisMan, that I don't believe that whatever divinity exists condones such actions as were taken during the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc. I believe that it’d be fairly (and justifiably) angry that such horrible actions were taken in His name. I would think that no true Christian would condone such actions either, but the fact remains that these actions were committed in the name of the Christian God. That doesn’t mean said divinity likes them, just that Christianity, as an organized religion, has a pretty bloody history.

While I believe in the basic tenant of Christianity (One Divinity and a son) I do not believe in the majority of the dogma: in fact, I find the Old Testament to be reprehensible and textually unstable. My personal beliefs are confusing without a drawn out explanation, but I draw a clear distinction between Christianity and the organized Christian churches. The churches can be violent and corrupt, whereas I like to believe that a true Christian would do nothing except out of love. I believe that whatever is up there (I hesitate to say God as it seems needlessly patriarchal) is ultimately loving and caring, and that Jesus would have been an emissary of that love. Like as not, that seems incredibly idealistic, and it probably is. But right now, at the moment, I’m okay with that.

I disagree with you and the way you spread your faith, HisMan. You seem to be virulent and insulting, and would rather judge people than love them. Few will follow a faith because someone threatens them if they refuse. Faith should be won by continuous and complete love, not threats of eternal punishment, and not by your so-called “tough love.”

"If you continually reject the Holy Spirit's urgings without repentance, the Bible says there's no other remedy, hence, you cannot be forgiven. So, be careful since you are playing poker with your eternal soul when you say vile and vulgar things against God."

Looks like I'm going to Hell. I've done nothing wrong in my life that needs repenting and I will never accept the Holy Spirit because I don't believe in it. I will never lie to myself to make people like you happy, HisMan, nor will I do so to please your God. If your God has an issue with the way that I've lived my life, I would much rather be in Hell, then by His is in Heaven.

Less, I agree with your last paragraph very much. Insulting and berating someone will not get anyone to accept your faith and I don't believe it is an approach that should be used, especially when discussing topics like these. Punching someone in the stomach won't make him your friend; Humiliating someone won't make him think you're smart. Nothing becomes accomplished. Sadly enough it is these "warrior for Christ" people that generally turn people away from the church. I know of several Catholics turned away from the church because of the renegade, Bill Donohue types. I find it very sad; I don't believe faith should be lost based on fallible human beings. I have recently stopped attending church because I became fed up with the politics, but I still consider myself very spiritual. I don't feel sprituality should be lost on the expense of other people.

That said, I believe that HisMan makes a good point when he says that the religion itself should not be judged as a function of the followers but rather God and His Word. Although I greatly disagree on the use of capital punishment. I don't think the death penalty stands, logically or ethically.

Sheesh, I didn't know it was Easter already. I mean I saw all the little eggs candies in the bakery windows and such ... it just didn't register in my mind.

Well, have a good Easter, however you celebrate; whether it's going to church, being with your family, or just treating it like every normal day.

And I think we should keep in mind that Christ preached *love* and *tolerance*, okay? I don't understand when Christians condemn others ... what would Jesus do? He'd love 'em!

For Leah. Two weeks of break from her harrowing French lycée. Woe is me, or something ...

Ciao

Let me get this straight.

When Jesse Jackson sees race bashing and calls the people on it he is heroic.

When Kim Gandy sees female bashing and calls the people on it she is a role model.

When John Hadity and Phil Kleweno sees gay bashing and calls people on it they are courageous.

But when Phil Donahue sees Catholic bashing and calls people on it he is a renagade.

Nice.

Why doesn't anyone who preaches tolerance actually live by it? Or can you only be tolerant of things you agree with and bash everyone else?

Right on the money, Valerie.

Less, Danielle, Leah, Pretty:

Not exactly sure how I've been virulent except to try to reveal what the Bible says. And I know that it is a very common reaction to attack the messenger. Would you have me not speak the truth and for that waste a lot of time on this site? Sorry, not a chance.

That's why we have so many wimpy prechers with wimpy churches because they cave to the liberal side's accusations when using words like virulent, homophobe, bigot, etc. Ooooooooooooooooooh!

I won't cave. I have more courage than that and besides, I don't want to see any one go to hell.

The words I speak are in the Bible. Read them for your self, or ignore them at your own peril.

I am not sure what definiton of love is bantered here. There's infatuation, botherly, erotic, familial, and agape types of love.

Unfortunately the English lanquage does not make those distinctions, hence, many English speaking people and Christains misuse the word love.

So when I speak truth, that is, that apart from Jesus Christ one will perish, that is an act of love The agape type which is concerned with the ultimate welfare of another). Warning someone not to touch a hot stove shows much concern for their welfare. And, as the Bible does, I will hesitate to identify a wolf in sheep's clothing, also an act of love.

I'll take all of your abuse because there's a higher calling. I will never agree with twisted logic and faith in lies that will ultimatley lead to destruction. I care too much for you guys.

Danielle, a special word to you. Please let go of your bitteness just this one time and try to hear, listen and understand. I'm not sure why you want to ravage the hand that feeds, clothes and allows you to live, however, think about this for a second, please. If what I believe and speak is true, that there is a loving God who sent His Son to die for all of us, doesn't His forbearance of your direct insults towards Him prove something to you about His nature and desire for you not to perish? I mean, He could snuff you out in a nanosecond.

But if you really believe there is a Hell and that you're going there, I mean, why beleive there's a Hell, and not believe in the God that created it (for satan, of course)? And if that God does exist, and He's showing His mercy and love by tolerating all your vile and vulgar abuse, why do you continue to reject Him. If you were to step away and view your words, belief and actions, as if they were of someone else, wouldn't they be hard to understand and very, very illogical?

HisMan:

I don’t know about the rest of the site, but I’d say that threatening posters with eternal punishment is pretty virulent. Also, can you prove that what you speak is the truth? Can you prove the Bible is real? No, you can’t, because religion is based on faith, not proof. That’s great that you have enough faith to believe these things, but the fact is that you can’t prove any of them. With that in mind, you also cannot say, without a doubt, that any of us are going to Hell.

I’ve read the entire Bible: read most of the Old Testament twice. I cannot read the Old Testament without questioning what type of God, a God that the New Testament claims loves us all and wishes for us to love each other, would “harden the heart of the Pharaoh” just to “prove his eminence,” particularly when proving that majesty meant killing the firstborn son. I’m sorry, but the Old Testament is full of violence and hatred, and I cannot accept that any deity would wish that upon anyone.

--Less

Excuse me, that ought to read "can you prove the Bible is the truth" rather than "can you prove the Bible is real."

Valerie,

You're post was right on except for "Phil Donahue".

Phil Donahue is a fallen away Catholic, married to Marlo Thomas and former talk show host.

BILL Donahue is the man you mean.

Wouldn't have corrected you, except Phil Donahue is a bum. With really nice hair.
mk

You know, MK, I was wondering about that. I looked up Phil Donahue quotes and was really really confused.

Danielle,

I tend to look more at Christianities history and all the wars that the leaders of it have started, i.e. "converting" Native Americans by force, the Crusades, the Spanish Requisition, ect. Not a very peaceful or loving religion now is it?

This is why we belong to a faith instituted by God, and not one instituted by a man.

Men do all kinds of stupid things. Even in the name of good.

We think you guys approve of abortion, believing it to be a "good" thing.

But we know it's a bad thing. And we know that what those men did in the name of Christianity were bad things too.

When I tried to tell you guys that people who claim to be pro-life except, weren't really pro-life, you asked who died and made me boss...

Well, the above is a perfect example of what happens when people claim to be something (pro-life, Christian)but by their actions (forcing people to believe, making exceptions for abortion) they prove that they are actually the opposite. (unchristian, pro-choice).

This is often called hypocrisy, or lying.

If the God that I believe in exists, then so does satan, and if satan exists wouldn't it make perfect sense to pervert God's believers in order to weaken their position? Strike at the heart, so to speak? Make people say "See, those Christians are horrible people. Who would want to be like them?" Take your focus off of God and put it on man?

Hey, you fell for it, didn't you?

mk

Less,

hereas I like to believe that a true Christian would do nothing except out of love.

If this were true then you would have stayed and shown people what a true Christian is...instead, you bailed ship.

If everyone that ever believed in anything worth believing in bailed ship because of a few bad apples, we'd be in deep shinola.

Love means you stick around in spite of the crosses.

Otherwise it's not love, it's infatuation. You may at one time have been infatuated with the church, but when that infatuation was tested, it proved too much and you buckled.

I am well aware of the faults of the Catholic church, more now than ever, which is the exact reason I fight so hard for her. I WILL NOT hand it over to heretics and fools. Even if I have to die defending it.

mk

MK, I'm not Christian. When I was Catholic, I was extraordinarily unhappy with myself. I will not defend a dogma that I disagree with. Since I left the Christian chuch, I have found more peace within myself than I thought possible. I have no problem with Christians: I have major problems with Christianity. I believe it's up to you what religion you want to follow: not my choice. But I'm not going to defend to the death a religion I have no interest in following.

MK -

HAHAHAHAHA - I'm a dweeb, I admit it!

BBBBBill Donahue.... got it!

Less - Did you find Bill Donahue? I'm sorry I led you astray and forced you to read anything by Phil Donahue! Forgive me?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

whew! I really needed that!

Oh, no worries Valerie! Phil Donahue made me laugh quite a bit, to be honest, though I didn't read much of what he wrote. His quote on suicide (permanent solution to a temperary problem) is one that I've seen tossed around quite a few times, and I'm glad I finally know who said it!

Less -

Please don't take any offense, but how old are you?

I'm asking because you sound just like me when I was 18 - (around) 25 years old. I'm not saying that I think you are young and will "turn around and see the light - (must say that in deep voice with dramatic music or the mood just won't work)". I'm just saying it is really quite odd to be reading words I think I spoke years ago.

oh - only fair - since I asked your age - I'm going to be 37 in 3 days. *sniff*

Valerie, no worries! According to most psychologists, one doesn't reach middle age until 50! You're still young and amazing!

I'm 20, actually. It's funny to me, though, just how much I've changed in the past year. I don't know how much more I'll change, but I tend to think there are a few issues I'll always feel the same about. No matter how many times my mind shifts (and believe me, that happens a lot, and I tend to revel in radical changes!) I'll always be spiritual, always be politically liberal, and always love to write. Can't say much about the rest of my personality, though.

"But when Phil Donahue sees Catholic bashing and calls people on it he is a renagade."
No...Donohue does a lot more than "call people out." In fact I'm not sure where to start...?

I feel general animosity towards someone who calls themself a Christian but focuses on demeaning other faiths or cultures rather than focusing on what makes the Catholic church great and unique. Condemnation does little, trying to push social justice issues, fight poverty, and join forces with science in helping fight the global climate change problem does very much. If a Christian is known by his/her fruits than Bill Donohue is no Christian.

As a side note I believe there is a difference between fighting injustice and not being able to take a joke. The first being fighting blatant discrimination around the country; the second being protesting comedic movies in which the comedic expense is directed towards Christians or Catholics. I agree in "calling out" discrimination where it lays. Protesting movies like Dogma, for example (in which the writer and director himself was a practicing Catholic), or crying out against South Park (come on, if taken seriously it offends everyone), portrays the Catholic position as weak and easily threatened. It's not a good image to have.

Furthermore he attacks Jews and proclaims them anti-Christian and anti-Catholic for almost no reason. On a TV show, a Rabbi who called Donohue a friend, was absolutely horrified at some of the statements he made.

In response to the pedophilia scandal, in which a decent Catholic leader would apologize, right the wrongs, and look for ways to prevent it from happening again, Donohue attempted to justify it, saying it was a homosexual scandal rather than a pedophilia one (tell that to the molested girls).
"Donohue and the Catholic League also opposed a bill proposed by the New York legislature in 2002 that would add the clergy to the list of professionals, such as physicians and teachers, who were mandated reporters of suspected child abuse under existing statutes. An exception was carved out for information specifically received in the confessional. Instead, Donohue and the Catholic League favored alternative legislation, dubbed a "poison pill" by its opponents, that would have controversially expanded the definition of "child abuse" to include consensual sexual relationships between teenagers. [18]"

In response to a rather harmless "Happy Holidays" from the white house, it seems Donohue decided to pick a fight and said that they have "capitulated to the worst elements in our culture." Never mind the fact that, say, there are several holidays near the end of the year?

He demeans Muslims without being provoked, he lobbies against devout artists (one who portrayed Jesus as being-gasp-naked), and he picks fights. This is not someone who should act as a representative of the Catholic Church. Not at all.

Less,

Who are you to question anything God would do?

Do you know what a proephcy is? Have any of the prohecies in the Bible come true? Would you think that if it had a 100% accuracy rate that you pretty much could say that the Book was rock solid truth?

I am not sure I understand your question about the Bible being real. There's about 100 of them here in my office and there all real. If you are asking as to stories in the Bible being real, well, I think any honest, competent, lawyer looking at all the evidence would say that the stories told are real beyond a shadow of a doubt. But you are right, faith is required and without faith it is impossible to please God.

See, faith requires humility. If you can't humble yourself enough to believe in God as revealed in His Word, well than He sees you as wanting to be God and guess what? You lose. Remeber, satan was cast out of heaven because he wanted to be exalted over God. I would say that satan was and is the biggest loser the universe has ever known. You're on satan's side when you reject Jesus, God revealed.

Pharoah enslaved God's chosen people and gave him numerous chances to repent through Moses. Pharoah hardened his own heart against God. God merely obliged his decision.

Whether or not you realize it, by your own words, you are also hardening you own heart towards God as Pharoah did. God gave Pharoah plenty of chances as He is giving you right now. Will you perish in the sea blaspheming His people along the way as well? I'd rather be playing in traffic on an LA Freeway than to be where you are right now.

For such a half-smart person as yourself, you don't really demonstrate a great deal of thinking ability. I mean one really has to study and make an effort at trying to understand the Bible. So, before you conclude that the God of the Bible is not the God of the Universe, I suggest that you ask Him to show you. He loves you and won't let you down if you're sincere.

HisMan,

I don't believe in Heaven or Hell, but I would much rather be in Hell than with the God that you describe.

He could strike me down in an instant? Bring it on. At least He would be doing something instead of just ignoring everything that goes on in the world.

How about you open you ears and listen to me. Forget your religion for an instance. *I* don't believe in your religion nor will I ever. Thank you for trying to "save my soul," but you help isn't wanted nor is it needed.

I'm living my life to the fullest I can and that's enough for me. Whatever happens after I die, *shrug* I don't care. I'm living right now and I'm going to enjoy it.

And now I'm off for a triple date with the Dark Morning peeps (the boyfriend's band members plus girlfriends! Weee! ^_^)

Oh and I will be reading the Bible next semester for my Humanities class. *headdesk* That'll be fun....

"If you are asking as to stories in the Bible being real, well, I think any honest, competent, lawyer looking at all the evidence would say that the stories told are real beyond a shadow of a doubt."

*spits out pop*

So the human race was produced through the incest of Adam and Eve's children? Uhh... Isn't that a sin?

PIP -

1st - South Park - Bill Donahue was recently protrayed in an episode. Here is what he said:

“I have no idea why ‘South Park’ creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker caricature me as a heartless thug. In any event, I stand convicted and have no defense. Now I have to get back to business—I hear someone just took some liberties with the Easter Bunny.”

That is funny by the way! He is making fun of the "false" image that the media has put on him.

As for "he attacks Jews and proclaims them anti-Christian and anti-Catholic for almost no reason". Sure, when comments are taken out of contents and words are added or deleted, yea, he can come off like that. But when you use his words without rearranging them and tell the whole story, thats not true. If it was, why would this happen?"

http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%203/060925_WT_ad.htm

This is a news release of the Jews against anti-Christian defamation team up with the Catholic League for religious and civil rights. (Just in case you don't know: Bill Donahue is the president of the Catholic League.)

oh - and some more when Bill Donahue defended the Jews:

http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%203/060830_dual_loyalties.htm

http://www.catholicleague.org/06press_releases/quarter%203/060719_theocrats.htm

Here are some examples of what Bill Donahue said about the pediphilia scandals and info on the NY legislature. Catalyst volume 30 number 3 April 2003: (I am including whole paragraphs so I will not be accused of editing.)

"A study by the Washington Post revealed that less than 1.5 percent of priests over the past 40 years have been accused of sexually molesting a minor. The New York Times did a study as well, covering the years 1950 to 2001: it put the figure at 1.8 percent. Currently, less than one percent of priests nationwide are under investigation. While one priest would be too many, it is important to remember that scholars who have studied this issue (Penn State’s Philip Jenkins comes quickly to mind) have determined that the incidence of abuse by priests does not differ from that of the clergy of other religions, and may even be lower."

** note - he said one priest would be too many **

"The seal of the confessional does not apply to the penitent. If someone confesses knowledge of abuse to a priest, there is nothing to stop him from contacting the authorities. Nor is there something that would prevent the priest from asking such a penitent to discuss this further in his office, thereby freeing the priest from his confessional vows. The priest could also withhold absolution until such time as the authorities were notified. In short, there are ways a priest can fulfill his duties without sacrificing anyone."

"Another problem with attempts to break the seal of the confessional is the grave implications it has for the First Amendment. Freedom of religion, and the establishment clause which keeps church and state separate, will not mean much if the state is permitted to encroach on the Church’s doctrinal prerogatives. The Sacrament of Reconciliation is not something the state can be allowed to trespass upon without doing irreparable harm to Catholicism. It would be a violation of separation of church and state of grave magnitude, having wide implications for all religions. Nothing would be sacrosanct."

"Hypocrisy is fueling this issue as well. There is no push being made to end the attorney-client privilege, just the priest-penitent privilege. Yet are we to believe that lawyers learn less about the sexual abuse of minors in confidential discussions than do priests? "

"Another hypocritical element in this is the failure of the media to discuss why mandatory sexual abuse reporting bills are being held up in the states. It is not the fault of the bishops. It is the fault of Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.

Planned Parenthood staffers find out about cases of statutory rape on a regular basis, yet they report almost none of them. We know this to be true because a sting operation conducted by a pro-life group recently reported as much. The lobbying arm of Planned Parenthood, Family Planning Advocates, has been trying to ward off any bill that would blanket all professionals equally. What they want to do is keep the exemption for abortion providers while ending the exemption for the clergy. And their friends in the ACLU are working with them, providing legal cover."

"Catholics need to check another abuse by lawmakers: far-ranging subpoenas of sensitive documents must end. For example, there is no doubt that some are using the scandal as a pretext to read internal Church memos, priest personnel files and the like. If there is something specific that is needed, that is one thing. But the mass collection of records is quite another. What is so obscene about this is that no other profession is being treated this way. Why not grab the files on members of the clergy from other religions as well? Why limit it to the clergy? Why not obtain the personnel files of teachers, psychologists, social workers, et al.?"

Here is more from "the Catalyst" written by David Reinhard, He is a writer for the Oregonian newspaper and Donahue had it put in his publications:

" But silence will not suffice. Screening out unfit candidates for the priesthood and maintaining zero-tolerance for priests who have sex with minors—a category that extends beyond pedophilia, which is about adult sexual attraction to prepubescent children—are important. It's encouraging that most dioceses have taken action. But sometimes talk is as important as action, particularly when the actions have occurred in the church's bureaucratic warrens and within secret legal settlements. "

"But the gap between the church's moral teaching and these acts—the hideous behavior and the church hierarchy's apparent tolerance of it—is great. It makes the church a natural and legitimate target of special outrage. You know these pedophile priests are a relative handful of men who've served in the priesthood over the years. You know these cases most often go back decades when pedophilia was seen more as a moral failing—"go and sin no more"—than an intractable psychological pathology.

But you also know that a single instance of sex abuse is one too many, particularly when it's committed by an alleged man of God and facilitated by the church's actions; particularly when it alienates a young person or family from God's love. "

This is not someone who you have portrayed. You have alot of quotes, but no information as to where you got them. I would love to know so I can read them for myself.

I have been a member of the Catholic League for quite sometime now. I have never heard anyone in the league demean Muslims unprovoked. He does compare the American tolerance of Muslims and the American bigotry of Catholics but that is just a comparison.

As for the nude Jesus in chocolate. It was extrememly offensive to me. Speaking of tolerance of Muslims, why doesn't that artist to the same to Mohammad and see what happens?

Jesus is MY savior and I don't give a **** if you believe it or not. A nude Jesus made of chocolate OFFENDS me! Again, I ask, WHY IS TOLERANCE ONLY GIVEN TO THOSE THAT YOU THINK DESERVE IT? Why do I and MY religion not deserve any of this so called tolerance?

Less -

"I'm 20, actually. It's funny to me, though, just how much I've changed in the past year. I don't know how much more I'll change, but I tend to think there are a few issues I'll always feel the same about. No matter how many times my mind shifts (and believe me, that happens a lot, and I tend to revel in radical changes!) I'll always be spiritual, always be politically liberal, and always love to write. Can't say much about the rest of my personality, though. "

You GO girl!!

Many will disagree with me. Keep questioning, keep exploring. And remember to keep your mind open. Don't close off certain beliefs/religions because you may have met some of the 'wrong' kind. You will change alot. I always said I would never have children, now look at me! Two children and we may look into adopting. Me? I would never have thunk it. I also said that I would never be a stay at home Mom. Well, even though Elmo is more intelligent than me some days, I love staying home. It is wonderful. But it is not for every one.

Always ask questions. And always write! I love to write too.

Danielle, the New Testament isnt that bad, but the Old Testament is torture to get through >

Valerie: I'm actually really excited about being able to explore as I have! I was really lucky to get into a college that actively encourages that. Right now, I’m actually in an Introduction to the Old Testament class. It has forced me to think so much about my religious beliefs and where I stand in the world. I’ve been through several psychology classes: that made me really question why we, as humans, think what we think. Funnily enough, I’ve also learned to never simply passively accept what those in authority teach you. You have to question absolutely everything to form your own opinions and ideals.

Oddly enough, posting on this site has really forced me to educate myself about my beliefs. I’ve been a lurker for a while, but didn’t want to post until I considered myself fully educated. So, even though I disagree with quite a few of you, you definitely have made me educate myself on an issue I’ve always felt passionately about. So thanks!

To look back on what I came from, though…it’s such a trip. I’d agree with you on that one! I can honestly say, though, that I’m thankful for each day now, and for each chance to explore myself and the world around me.

Oh! And about the adoption thing. It’s really interesting: I’ve gone from never wanting kids to talking it over with my fiancé and realizing that I really do, but I’d much prefer to adopt. Everyone I know who has done it has had an incredible and really rewarding experience. Good luck!

HisMan: If I am no one to question God’s doings, than who are you to question what place eternity has for me? How can you claim to know?

I’m actually quite secure in my beliefs. I do believe in one Divinity, and that Jesus was said Divinity’s son. That’s all I claim to know. From studying the Bible, as I have, I have come to believe that the Bible (or the Old Testament, at least) had been heavily corrupted since it was inspired by God, and is no longer an accurate reflection of God’s word. For instance, did you know that in the first three chapters of Genesis, there are two different versions of the creation story? It’s fascinating, studying the Old Testament: but when I really got down to it, the contradictions simply made no sense to me. The Divinity I believe in simply does not make mistakes. Furthermore, I see the Old Testament as being highly violent and misogynic, and I have no desire to elevate such views as holy.

--Less

"Oh! And about the adoption thing. It’s really interesting: I’ve gone from never wanting kids to talking it over with my fiancé and realizing that I really do, but I’d much prefer to adopt. "

I was the same way just a few years ago. No way, no kids. Not happening. You aren't make that thing come out of down there. lol Now I'm really looking forward to having children (not anywhere in the near future though, I still have about 5-6 years of college+grad school ahead of me). I would like to have two biological children and I also would like to adopt.

"That is funny by the way! He is making fun of the "false" image that the media has put on him."
Wow. He is quite a character, that one ;)
Actually though, he had attacked the makers of South Park before, calling them "little whores."

"If it was, why would this happen?" "
It doesn't make the things he said right. I'm not sure you can put that in context. He said, ""Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. That's why they hate this movie. It's about Jesus Christ, and it's about truth. It's about the Messiah." He was talking about the Passion of the Christ (which I respect as Gibson's testament of faith, but didn't particularly enjoy. For me, and this is my opinion, for me it was a horrifying snuff film. I much more enjoy films focusing on Christ's resurrection and ultimate salvation for humanity). The Rabbi who appeared with Donohue said, "I have got to tell you that Bill Donohue, who I otherwise love and so respect, ought to be ashamed of himself, the way he's spoken about secular Jews hating Christians. This is a bunch of crap, okay?"

"Bill Donahue is the president of the Catholic League.)"
Yes, I was quite aware of that, thanks :) I don't mean to be too harsh because I definately support a league that fights discrimination, I just don't like how Donohue tends to antagonize everything.

"incidence of abuse by priests does not differ from that of the clergy of other religions, and may even be lower.""
I think the main reason of the scandal was the Church's protection of these priests. People knew about it and covered it up. Though I agree with the idea that this is not only a Catholic thing, and the occurance is not extraordinarily high, I don't think it shouldn't be dismissed, either.

"Jesus is MY savior and I don't give a **** if you believe it or not. A nude Jesus made of chocolate OFFENDS me! Again, I ask, WHY IS TOLERANCE ONLY GIVEN TO THOSE THAT YOU THINK DESERVE IT? Why do I and MY religion not deserve any of this so called tolerance?"
This doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying we shouldn't be tolerant to Catholics--I am one, by the way (so you can give a ****..or not, whatever :P). I am just saying that Bill's character does a disservice to the Catholic faith and the Christian religion in general. I don't ever remembering saying that tolerance should only be given to a select few. I believe in tolerance for everyone. I think blatant discrimination against anybody is wrong, period. Although, I feel that too much political correctness gets in the way of the real issues. For example, (and this is my personal opinion), doing things like protesting art of Jesus made out of chocolate is distracting the league from possibly more devastating issues.

I don't understand how a statue of Jesus would be percieved as offensive in general. What about the millions of other statues that portray nudity (like classical art) and why is this special? Why does the medium (chocolate) necessitate offensiveness if it is not the nudity? Is it because it is edible? We literally eat his body and drink is blood every sunday. This is just for curiosities' sake, honestly, because it's hard to understand why its offensive. I'm not sure in real life that Jesus had a loincloth at his death, and I don't think the "chocolate" part is particularly offensive.
So, why is a statue of Jesus offensive? I mean, the artist was raised CATHOLIC, and said it was not meant as an offensive gesture. But then again, I"m really not easily offended so my "offensive" meter is all screwed up.

"This is not someone who you have portrayed. You have alot of quotes, but no information as to where you got them. I would love to know so I can read them for myself."
I don't think Donohue is unredeemable, or doesn't possess good ideas or qualities. His blaming the idea of reporting on PP is kind of odd, though. I felt like that was detracting from the idea that priests should report cases of abuse where they exist (along with doctors, teachers, and social workers). Many versions of the bill don't require a breach of confidentiality during confession (or privileged communication). But the version that Donohue supported broadened the idea of "abuse" which only made it more difficult to pass.

Here are some sources, though:
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_01_06/2005_06_30_Farmer_NYBills.htm--Donohues' support for the bill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12303873/--His calling out of Parker and Stone
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602100006--Here we are civilized, unlike those muslims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4512156.stm-in my opinion, picking a fight.
http://www.glaad.org/action/alerts_detail.php?id=3835--trying to link homosexuality with pedophilia
http://www.newsaskew.com/dogmarc/article148.html-sense of humor, please?

Because I am a Catholic as well, I don't seek here to blaspheme your faith or anythign like that. I think the idea of the Catholic League is great. But it doesn't change the fact that Donohue antagonizes people and sets himself to be such a great Catholic leader that people actually believe that these are what Catholic people and the Catholic faith is like (which is false!). I'm not saying he doesn't have redeeming qualities, and in reality he may be a good guy to grab a beer with, but he alienates people from the church. I've seen several testaments of that. He sometimes tempts me to separate more from the church. I think the Catholic League should have a leader that is tolerant and firm, focused on civil rights, social justice, and freedom rather than attacking hollywood, other faiths, and random art displays.

The level of vulgarity on this site is almost too much to bear.

My heart weeps for you Danielle.

Okay, let's all settle. HisMan, I never said anything abusive ... especially since I was talking about love. Let's not make assumptions.

Happy Easter, all.

I don't understand how a statue of Jesus would be percieved as offensive in general. What about the millions of other statues that portray nudity (like classical art) and why is this special? Why does the medium (chocolate) necessitate offensiveness if it is not the nudity? Is it because it is edible? We literally eat his body and drink is blood every sunday. This is just for curiosities' sake, honestly, because it's hard to understand why its offensive. I'm not sure in real life that Jesus had a loincloth at his death, and I don't think the "chocolate" part is particularly offensive.
So, why is a statue of Jesus offensive? I mean, the artist was raised CATHOLIC, and said it was not meant as an offensive gesture. But then again, I"m really not easily offended so my "offensive" meter is all screwed up.

Oh come on. Really.
How could we NOT see how it is offensive. If you can't, you obviously don't understand how much reverence we Christians have for our Lord. We don't just see him as some random man out there. Do you get that?

Would you be willing to try putting Mohammed in the same kind of "art", and see what Muslims think about it?

"How could we NOT see how it is offensive."
Well, we have statues of christ crucified all the time, including those displayed in church...this one is just naked, as Christ was in actuality (I can't imagine the Romans and Jews saved a loincloth for Jesus; another thing to note is that classical paintings of saints, Jesus, etc are nude and it is not seen as offensive). Is the chocolate part offensive? I'm honestly curious. The artist is well known for using food as art, so I don't think the chocolate part was meant to be offensive. It's not like he did the sculpture out of something INTENTIONALLY offensive, like cow dung or something.

"If you can't, you obviously don't understand how much reverence we Christians have for our Lord."
Obviously not. I just know that we have statues of the crucifix everywhere. And that statue was Jesus crucified. Right? Please tell me what is offensive about it. I honestly can't see it.

"We don't just see him as some random man out there. Do you get that?"
Yes, being a Christian myself, I understand that quite well.

"Would you be willing to try putting Mohammed in the same kind of "art", and see what Muslims think about it? "
Muslims are quite different, and you know that. They don't want ANY picture of Mohammed at all being made. We have pictures, statues, beads, and bread made in His image. So when an artist does the same, it's hard for me to find it offensive. What am I missing here? Please complete the picture for me.

Fear not ye; for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

He is not here; for he is risen.

Matthew 28:5-6 KJT

PIP -

I will take this one at a time.

First:
Why is it that people like to quote someone that they don't like and take it out of context? This is what Rabbi Shmuley Boteach said just before Donahue's quote"

"It (The Passion) really should win the World Wrestling Federation Oscar for best movie. It's a guy for two hours being kicked, beaten, his blood gushing everywhere. It's just a diabolical, criminal, violent mess."

Do you wanna know what was also said by Donahue on that same show?

"You have got secular Jews. You have got embittered ex-Catholics, including a lot of ex-Catholic priests who hate the Catholic Church, wacko Protestants in the same group…."

oh, and he also said this after the show:

"In short, I did not single out secular Jews as some have said. Nonetheless, I do regret using the verb "controlled," and that is because it suggests that there is some kind of cabal among secular Jews. That's nonsense."

Here is something else that happened:

"The day after our debate, Boteach was kind enough to have me on his radio show to mix it up again. During the course of that conversation, I admitted that there was a segment of the Catholic community that is anti-Semitic. I then asked him if he would agree that there is a segment of the secular Jewish community that is anti-Catholic, and he denied it without equivocation. That's also nonsense."

oh - why don't you complain about these things?

New York Times said about "The Passion" on June 24: "Significantly, in the movie industry, which tends to be liberal and secular in outlook, as well as disproportionately Jewish, few people interviewed about 'The Passion' said they had actually seen the movie."

OR

The "Today Show," Newsweek magazine, the Los Angeles Times and other media outlets have all reported on the Hollywood animus against "The Passion." As one Oscar-campaign veteran put it, "a lot of older Academy voters, who are largely Jewish, refuse to even see this movie."

hmm.. Once things are put in prospective, things look a bit different don't they?

Second:
You don't like how Donahue antagonizes things. Do you say the same about Jesse Jackson? He does the same thing. Or how about NOW? Or GLAAD? I think they antagonize things, but I feel it is within their right to point out prejudices, and sometimes antagonizing is the only way to do it. Ask any Civil liberties group.

Third:
About the priests and the "cover up". No one is dissmissing it. It is being taken very seriously in the Church. No one is saying to dismiss it! well, with the exception of anti-Catholics who have something to gain by saying that.

Fourth:
Here is what a spokesman for Barack Obama said about the statue.
"While we respect First Amendment rights and don't think the artist was trying to be offensive, Senator Obama, as a rule, isn't a fan of art that offends religious sensibilities."

It was set to be displayed beginning on Palm Sunday and end on Easter. During holy week. It is blasphomous to many religions. BTW - The Catholic League wasn't the only one that called for a boycott of the hotel that was showing it. Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu organizations all joined together for the ban. It was taken to be offensive. Or it wouldn't have been displayed during holy week. And since you are Catholic than you know that showing the crucifix during lent is not the thing to do. All Crucifix's in Catholic Churches are covered during lent. And since the artist is Catholic, then he knows this. I will say it again, it was meant to be offensive.

Fifth:
He discussed Planned Parenthood because they have been proven to be covering up sexual child abuse. That is why two states, Indiana and Kansas have ongoing investigations and pending lawsuits against them. But no one is going after Planned Parenthood like they are the Catholics, and that was his point.

What I don't think you understand is that many states have tried numerous times to make the confidentiality of the confessional against the law. But they do not do the same thing to attorneys, doctors, psychologist or psychiatrist. Don't you think that is a bit odd? This wasn't the first bill trying to do that and it wasn't the last.

Sixth:

your links....

1st link - Please read carefully. The bill made exceptions for 'abortionists'. Gee, I wonder why Planned Parenthood wanted it. Also, this isn't exactly a biased report. Plus, it doesn't mention that the bill wanted the priest confidentiality for confession removed. Meaning a Priest could go to jail just for hearing a confession. Once again, being Catholic, you should understand this. If you don't, then how about this. The reason they wanted abortionists to be eliminated is because they were afraid that no one would go get an abortion if they thought they would be turned in. Just put confession in place of abortion and maybe you will understand then.

2nd link - Maybe you should read the whole article. It is saying how Comedy Central banned a section of a South Park episode because they wanted to depict Mohammed. Which, as you stated, is against their religion. This was after the caroons ran in a Danish newspaper and people were KILLED because of it. This was not funny! Trey and Parker wanted to cause more riots. Here is what Donahue said in that article:

"The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central — that's their decision not to show the image of Muhammad or not — it's Parker and Stone," he said. "Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade."

I don't see anything wrong with calling Trey and Parker little whores once you put it in its entirity. They didn't care if the created riots in the Muslims communities. That is irresponsible.

3rd link - This is Donahue commenting on a Turkish Film (quote from the article) "which has been criticized as both anti-American and anti-Semitic for depicting American soldiers committing atrocities against Iraqi civilians and a Jewish doctor engaging in black market sales of human organs".

Now, lets see the whole quote from Donahue regarding this film:

DONOHUE: Now, you know, we just saw this in the Islamic world, the reaction, the barbaric reaction of so many people in the Muslim world because of a cartoon. I came out with a statement saying I agree with the United States, Great Britain, and the Vatican, saying that it was unnecessarily inflammatory. And I commend the media -- even though they're hypocritical, the way they act to Catholics -- for not reprinting it or showing it. But the fact of the matter is, I am less interested in [actor] Gary Busey [who appeared in the film] than I am in the Turkish officials. I read what the Turkish officials said about the movie. They thought it was great, including the prime minister.
Now, in this country, we are civilized. We don't appreciate it when somebody sticks it to you in the name of freedom of speech, sir. We condemn it. But over there, they take the uncivilized approach. And then they wonder why so many people don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it. In this country, we prize freedom of religion. They abhor it.”

What part is wrong? He is stating that when we disagree with something we are civilized about are reactions. But, as seen with that cartoon of Mohammad, the uncivilized approach happened. And, the Muslims don't believe in freedom of religion. That is why Christians in Muslims countries are put to death for being Christians.

4th link - 1st, the BBC isn't always kind to American politics. 2nd, the BBC isn't always kind to Catholics. Just look at the adjectives used in the article. Here is what Donahue says about the White House Christmas cards having nothing to do with Christmas on them:

""The Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and... they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," fumed William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. "

hmm... in the "..." part, I wonder what was elimintated? If they put the quote in its entirity do you think it would make more sense?

5th link - Taken from the GLAAD website. Not exactly a biased organization when it comes to Christianity. However, there was a study that was done by interviewing some of the convicted Priest and somewhere in there it said that the Priest were Homosexual. That is what Donahue is talking about. Of course, you don't know what he is talking about because the eliminated that part of the discussion. However, they do admit he said ""I'm not saying homosexuality causes someone to be a predator. That would be malicious." Of course they do put there 2 cents in by saying he was "hastily amending" and "accusation".

oh, they are also complaining that Kati Couric of NBC's the Today Show " was simply irresponsible." by having Donahue on the show. They also say that they called NBC to complain because they were offended. hmm... I guess it is okay for them to do that, but not Donahue.

6th link - The movie Dogma is described on this link as:

"Unlike his previous films, "Dogma" offers up two fallen angels (Matt Damon and Ben Affleck) looking for a doctrinal loophole that will give the lie to the infallibility of God, a female (and Canadian) incarnation of the Almighty (Alanis Morissette), a cardinal (George Carlin) who acts more like a used car salesman, a descendant of Jesus (Linda Fiorentino) who works in an abortion clinic, and an apostle (Chris Rock) angry because he was edited out of the New Testament. "

Extremely sacraligious, but I guess we are suppose to just sit around and not do anything when our faith is attacked. (Jesus' ancestor working in an abortion clinic is enough for me to complain and not exactly funny).

Bill Donahue gets the job done. He sees Catholics being attacked and he does something about it. He has brought many Catholics back to the Church in droves (I am one of them). We are tired of letting everyone walk all over us and then expecting us to just scratch our behinds and do nothing. I for one am glad that Donahue sits in the position that he is in.

Hopefully, this will help straighted a few things out.

Dogma is a comedic movie, it isnt meant to offend, though it may. Most movies offend someone in some way. Does that mean you may refuse to watch it or not like it? sure, but you shouldnt deny other people to right to go and see the film. However, I must say I enjoyed dogma, it was pretty funny (at least the cable released version, Im sure there was more that was cut, but eh).

Case and point being the uproar over the da vinci code, I honestly thought that was ridiculous. Its a book/movie and is FICTION, it shouldnt be that big a deal if someone chooses to read it. But thats off on a whole nother tangent

I *love* Easter. But if I have to listen to one more sermon on how Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, I will SCREAM!! I cant even find scripture to back this...so typical of conservative pastors.

"This is what Rabbi Shmuley Boteach said just before Donahue's quote"
It still makes sense in context. The Rabbi essentially said what many people thought--that it was a snuff film. And Donohue still pointed fingers and called names. Context in this situation doesn't make him less antagonistic.

"oh, and he also said this after the show:"
I am aware that he said this. Again, he didn't apologize for calling names (that all of these people just really hate the Catholic Church--nevermind that the Passion of the Christ is NOT representative of the Catholic Church), which was my main point.

"New York Times said about "The Passion" on June 24: "Significantly, in the movie industry, which tends to be liberal and secular in outlook, as well as disproportionately Jewish, few people interviewed about 'The Passion' said they had actually seen the movie.""
Yeah I think that's stupid. Just like Donohue and many of the Catholic League protested Dogma without seeing it first. If anyone offers an opinion about a movie it is only valid after watching it.

"hmm.. Once things are put in prospective, things look a bit different don't they?"
Well if you want to put things in context...since the movie was hailed as anti-semitic and older people are generally more reserved on issues, especially that of violence, it makes sense that some had no desire to see the movie. Were these elder Jewish people out there to hate the Catholic Church? Most likely not, especially since the movie wasn't representative of the Church, but Gibson's personal philosophy. There's obviously people out there that do but most religious people didn't find fault with the church but the basis of the movie. I would say these people have no right to criticize the movie if they haven't seen it. I would "call them out" if they tried to criticize it without seeing it. But that doesn't mean that they hate the Catholic Church. So in all honesty I don't know why the Catholic League became so involved in the controversy.

"You don't like how Donahue antagonizes things. Do you say the same about Jesse Jackson? He does the same thing. Or how about NOW? Or GLAAD? I think they antagonize things, but I feel it is within their right to point out prejudices, and sometimes antagonizing is the only way to do it. Ask any Civil liberties group."
Maybe I should rephrase that? Donohue antagonizes things and people that matter very little to the organization. Like the passion of the christ, and a peice of artwork. I'd rather have him antagonize actual threats to the church and its congregation.

"Here is what a spokesman for Barack Obama said about the statue."
I'm still confused as to how all of the brou-ha-ha (sp?) came about. All everyone had to do was say "postpone it a week later" if it was the timing that was offensive. Instead, they closed the whole thing down. I don't feel like it has been explained to me how the peice of art was offensive (or intentionally so). The response was so rabid but nobody has explained to me why.

"He discussed Planned Parenthood because they have been proven to be covering up sexual child abuse. That is why two states, Indiana and Kansas have ongoing investigations and pending lawsuits against them. But no one is going after Planned Parenthood like they are the Catholics, and that was his point."

If Planned Parenthood has indeed been covering up abuse then they should be investigated, like everybody else. I think the big difference in terms of media coverage was that the Catholics operate on moral clarity. The Church moved priests around rather than firing them, and these are people that the entire community trusts as a moral authority. That's probably why they have gained more publicity. Of all people, you guys should be the least surprised that a few PP's are being investigated, you guys are the ones that are so actively against the organization. It would make more sense towards your worldview that it proves the moral bankruptcy of the organization.

"What I don't think you understand is that many states have tried numerous times to make the confidentiality of the confessional against the law. But they do not do the same thing to attorneys, doctors, psychologist or psychiatrist. Don't you think that is a bit odd? This wasn't the first bill trying to do that and it wasn't the last."
Many versions of the law requiring bills do not try to break the confidentiality of the confessional. Yes, I think doing so would be a bit odd. I don't think it completely justify's Donohues' actions though (in terms of law support).

"Plus, it doesn't mention that the bill wanted the priest confidentiality for confession removed."
No, read the link further down: "Supporters of McEneny's bill note it, like Saland's, doesn't require clergy to make reports of allegations learned through privileged communication, such as confession."
Noticed how it was Donohue that said that the groups wanted exceptions. The actual debate with PP and the ACLU was the new definitions present in Saland's bill, and this affects more than "abortionists," but also social workers and counselors. It said so right in the article.

""The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central — that's their decision not to show the image of Muhammad or not — it's Parker and Stone," he said. "Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade.""
Yes, I read the whole article. I also saw the episode (big fan of the show). The entire point was about freedom of speech. As the episode proclaimed, "either all of it's okay or none of it is." They have a point. CC had the ultimate choice, they used it, the cartoonists wrote an episode that in essence told CC what they thought. Why does Donohue care? Again? This is my main point. What does this have to do with discrimination against Catholics. It has more to do with Donohue being a public figure and having a say in everything. What the cartoonists did was their business. They are funny, they are satire. They take shots at everyone because they can (that's their right). Yeah, I guess Donohue can say what he wants about it, again I'm not trying to stop Donohue from expressing his opinion, but it doesn't have much to do with the real, primary purpose of the Catholic League. Nobody here took a serious shot against Catholics. Right?

"What part is wrong? He is stating that when we disagree with something we are civilized about are reactions. But, as seen with that cartoon of Mohammad, the uncivilized approach happened. And, the Muslims don't believe in freedom of religion. That is why Christians in Muslims countries are put to death for being Christians."
These are Muslim countries. Most of the countries that are theocracies obviously have problems because they are a theocracy. Hence the NEED for a separation of church and state. I can tell you that Christian governments from the past are guilty of the same thing. In the US, where I know several Muslims, almost everyone believes in free speech and freedom of religion. He said people don't trust "Muslims." Not Muslim theocracy. Or Muslim fundamentalists. Or even, "Turkish government" or "Iran government" for example. For someone easily offended by chocolate artwork surely it is easy to see what a blanket statement that was.

"hmm... in the "..." part, I wonder what was elimintated? If they put the quote in its entirity do you think it would make more sense?"
Not much. Here is the quote in its entirety:
"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements of our culture." He continued, "To neuter Christmas, this is sending the wrong message to Christians and the culture at large."

"Not exactly a biased organization when it comes to Christianity."
Does that mean I can't use a Catholic League document either? That's not a biased organization.

"That is what Donahue is talking about. Of course, you don't know what he is talking about because the eliminated that part of the discussion."
If you watch the video it is not. But he still misrepresents homesexuality. 20-25% of victims were girls, but he STILL called the problem a "homosexual" one. It still gives the impression that all we need to do is eliminate homosexuals and we stop having a problem.

"Extremely sacraligious, but I guess we are suppose to just sit around and not do anything when our faith is attacked. (Jesus' ancestor working in an abortion clinic is enough for me to complain and not exactly funny)."
It's a COMEDY, and it's by and large about finding faith in the midst of a demoralized society. These small quarrels aren't attacks on the church but comedy points. If you want to talk about the abortion clinic thing, here is the quote (in context right?)
Metatron: I am to charge you with a holy crusade.
Bethany: For the record, I work in an abortion clinic.
Metatron: Noah was a drunk. Look what he accomplished. And no one's even asking you to build an ark. All you have to do is go to New Jersey, and visit a small church on a very important day.
Again, it's called a sense of humor. Most of the people on this site complain about political correctness, yet you still think that every joke is a personal attack on the faith (defamation). If you are really serious about saying "screw political correctness" than you can disregard what I said about blanket statements, but you can again admit that the Catholic League is wasting time on political correctness rather than true discrimination and defamation. Did I mention? The writer, Kevin Smith, is a Catholic himself. Perhaps I should bring up these quotes:
"Smith says it infuriated him that Donohue drubbed "Dogma," but passed over the September horror film "Stigmata," which reversed the plot of "Exorcist," suggesting the spirits of vengeful Catholic higher-ups can possess and abuse the bodies of innocent young girls."
"People objected to `Last Temptation of Christ' because it attributed the behavior of a normal man to the son of God. I thought, `No problem. "Last Temptation of Christ" was a drama. I'm making a comedy.' For the most part, comedies don't draw protests."
It is interesting to note the movie still by and large holds up Catholic doctrine (such as the infallibility of the Pope that is made true in heaven).

"Bill Donahue gets the job done. He sees Catholics being attacked and he does something about it. He has brought many Catholics back to the Church in droves (I am one of them). We are tired of letting everyone walk all over us and then expecting us to just scratch our behinds and do nothing. I for one am glad that Donahue sits in the position that he is in."
I can understand your position. I really can. By seeing defamation and discrimination in your life it is understandable to belong to an organization dedicated to the ending of it. And the task itself is noble.
The problem for me is not the organization but the leader (obviously). For me, someone interested in social justice and reducing discrimination, it seems like hypocrisy to focus so much on political correctness but not demand it from your own leader. If you see dogma and are deeply offended, or see artwork displayed too early in the season and are deeply offended, but defend your leader when he is outspoken against the Muslim religion and the (jewish) leaders of Hollywood, it just looks odd to me. I don't mean to be disrespectful and I dont' want to start a fight. I can imagine that you feel very invested in this group that has a very noble goal. I just can't look at situations such as these in which the argument essentially lays out, "well I am offended but I can't see why they are" and not point it out. If you want to say "let's focus on real discrimination and not political correctness" than your leader is fine, just picking some of the wrong battles. If you demand political correctness for Catholics you can't be surprised if gay people demand political correctness for gays and so on. Donohue doesn't just sit there and say his opinion, he mocks those who thinks differently and this aggressiveness is a huge turn-off for many catholics. One can say the CL stance, or a personal stance, without being such a (well let's just say it) jerk. I have seen him on the news a lot and I am only disgusted because people think he represents the Church; I think it is perfectly accurate to describe him as a "renegade" catholic. Anybody that is that aggressive on any issue can be considered renegade. If I saw a gay rights activist act the same way I'd point it out. Many people (including myself) don't want that image for the Catholic church.
Just my thoughts.

Hope you had a good Easter, Valerie. I had lots of sweets...yum.

Yes, Dan, i am a big fan of Dogma, and Kevin Smith in general. Although I thought all the hoopla on da vinci code was kind of stupid I still didn't like the book. I barely finished it, the writing was so terrible. Ugh.

Samantha, if you have a problem with this, you should really talk to your pastor about it, and ask him to show you the Biblical evidence behind his belief. Chances are, he may not even realize his error if there is one.

All pastors, conservative or not, make mistakes, and most of them are not intended. Why not not just ask your pastor to him about it instead of talking behind his back? He may agree that you are right, when faced with Biblical evidence to the contrary.

I know of other pastors who have been shown evidence that they made Biblical errors, and they publicly apologized and showed what the Bible actually had to say about the matter later on.

PIP -

What amazes me is that it is okay for Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to say what he wants because "The Rabbi essentially said what many people thought--that it was a snuff film" But it is not okay for Donahue to "say what many people thought". This is an example of not being tolerant. Just because you disagreed with Donahue, doesn't make him a renegade.

Another amazment is you seem to not like the idea that someone would protest something without seeing it. Wow! Where oh where to begin.

NOW protested Eminem without listening to music. They also protested his movie without seeing it.

Liberal activist have said that they will protest any movie that glamorizes smoking.

Many people protested The Passion without seeing it.

Please tell me I don't have to continue. This is how things get done. By the way, if I could have I would have protested the movie "Zoo" without seeing it. It is about a man who likes having sex with horses and actually died as a result (true story by the way). I believe this glorifies animal cruelty. (Along with many other animal rights activists who actually did protest the movie)

oh yea - How is "The Passion" not representative of the Catholic Church? (Real question here, not one of my sarcastic remarks.) Do you mean the Catholics didn't put money up for it so therefore it doesn't represent? Mel Gibson is a Pre-second Vatican Catholic. According to what I have heard the movie followed those teachings pretty closely. But then, that is just hearsay. I am not really versed on Pre-second Vatican.

As for "The Passion" many many many Jews actually supported the movie. I saw the movie with a jewish friend who said she didn't see any anti-semitism in it. It is just how you see life, I guess. I also didn't see any anti-semitism (SP?) But then, being Catholic, we don't 'blame' the Jews for Christs death so why would I see it that way.

"Maybe I should rephrase that? Donohue antagonizes things and people that matter very little to the organization. "
You do realize that this is a personal belief. I think the same way of NOW. But I don't call them renegades. I know that they have a different agenda than me.

okay - now for the statue. You hit it on the head. Why didn't they postpone it? There goal was to offend. If they couldn't do it on holy week, why do it at all? Someone who does artwork like that doesn't do it so as to NOT offend. If he didn't want to offend, Jesus would not have been naked. Even though many paintings have nudity in them, they are not showcased like this Jesus was to be showcased.

As to why Donahue and MANY Catholics protested the artwork is because the Crucifix, although a symbol of Christianity is used primarily with Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. This is why it was a direct attack on Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Many other religions do not hold the symbol as sacred as we do. (now, I didn't say they don't see it as sacred, just not AS sacred).

Now for South Park creators:
"Why does Donohue care? Again? This is my main point. What does this have to do with discrimination against Catholics."

He was defending the Muslim culture of not having Muhammad depicted in writing/drawings. The episode you saw did not have Muhammad in it as it was originally done because comedy central banned it, so they used Jesus instead. I know that they like to be 'shock jocks' so to speak, but there comes a time when someone becomes too reckless and someone could get injured. They become reckless because of Greed/money. Which is what Donahue was saying.

"He said people don't trust "Muslims." Not Muslim theocracy. Or Muslim fundamentalists. Or even, "Turkish government" or "Iran government" for example. "

He said "people don't trust Muslims when it comes to liberty, because they will abuse it." The context of the statement was NOT referring to Muslims in America. He was, and I say it again, referring to the Muslims that rioted and killed people because a Danish newspaper ran cartoons of Muhammed. This is what he was talking about. No freedom of speech in Muslim Countries. Not referring to Muslims in America.

okay - the White House Christmas thing... I concede to that. It was stupid.

The Dogma creator was wrong on the Stigmata thing. Donahue and many others attacked them too. They even re-edited the ending as to not offend 'as much'. If you get the DVD (which I have by the way) you can see the original ending, which is much better in my opinion. oh, did the movie trash the Catholic faith. Very much so. I saw the movie before I went back to the Church and just didn't care at that time.

Here is a list of reasons why I think Donahue needs to be taken more seriously.

1. Flags being waved around with a foot showing a downward motion with "Crush the Creche" on it. If it said Crush the Manoroh, you would have heard about it.

2. In New York, a school could no longer have 'Breakfast with Santa', they had to change it to 'Winter Wonderland Breakfast.

3. Jessica Delfino had a Merry S***mas tour. (She made a rap video that was banned from YouTube.)

4. 2006 Figures from nativity scenes were stolen or vandalized in Tucson, AZ ; Millbrae, CA; Mission Viejo, CA; Moorpark, CA; San Francisco, CA; Naugatuck, CT; Waterbury, CT (Jesus was taken, but one of the arms was left behind); Fort Walton Beach, FL; Des Moines, IA; Sioux City, IA; Ammon, ID; Chicago, IL (32 figures of baby Jesus were nabbed—they were later dumped on the lawn of a Catholic church); Jackson County, IL (two incidents); Tinley Park, IL; Floyd County, IN; Fort Wayne, IN; Montgomery County, IN; Wichita, KS; Hardin, KY; Lafayette, LA (two incidents); Youngsville, LA; Fitchburg, MA; Southborough, MA; Winthrop, ME; Portage Township, MI; Fayettville, NC; New Bern, NC; Columbus, NE (12 baby Jesus figures were stolen in one day); Plaistow, NH; Dover, OH; Utica, OH (three incidents); Artemis, PA; Bucks County, PA; Greenfield, PA; Hilton Head, SC; Halom City, TX; Santa Fe, TX; Salt Lake City, UT; Winfield, WV and West Allis, WI.

5. Two 20-year-olds, and an 18-year-old, who were arrested for stealing statues of baby Jesus from nativity scenes over the past two years hit the New York-suburban communities of Suffern and Haverstraw several times in 2005 and 2006. They were charged with 14 counts of petty larceny. However: a 20-year-old kicked a menorah in the New York suburban community of St. Jamesand was charged with a hate crime and could face seven years in prison. He is being charged with a felony.

6. CBS Corporation that owns billboards allowed the Eternal Gospel Church to use two billboards in Jeffersonville, Indiana. On them they compared the Pope to Saten.

7. 2005 Christmas vandals hit the following places: Homewood, AL; Montgomery, AL; Bella Vista, AR; Van Buren, AR; Eureka Springs, AR; Little Rock, AR; Covina, CA; Fremont, CA; Newport Beach, CA; Fresno, CA; Westminster, CO; Cape Coral, FL; St. Petersburg, FL; St. Lucie West, FL; Port Saint Lucie, FL; Delray Beach, FL; Longboat Key, FL; Galesburg, IL; Belleville, IL; West Frankfort, IL; Cohasset, MA; Brockton, MA; Quincy, MA; Londonderry, MA; Severn, MD; Glen Burnie, MD; Waltz, MI; Port Huron, MI; Marquis Point, MN; Asbury Park, NJ; Trenton, NJ; Old Bridge, NJ; Howell, NJ; Branchville, NJ; Prospect Park, NJ; Hamilton, NJ; Holbrook, NY; Pearl River, NY; Troy, NY; Hilton Head, NC; Wilmington, NC; Dayton, OH; Fremont, OH; Hamilton, OH; Cheviot, OH; Whitaker Park, OK; Medford, OR; Watsontown, PA; New Kensington, PA; South Kingstown, RI; Houston, TX; Killeen, TX; Murfreesboro, TN; Draper, UT; Fredricksburg, VA; Eatonville, WA; Seattle, WA; Madison, WI; Oak Hill, WV.

Some Christmas decorations in cemetaries were destroyed, along with their headstones. A large blindfolded Santa was found hanging from a tree in Miami Beach, FL; in Boston, vandals decapitated Santa; Santa had his throat cut in Lincoln, NE; a dead Santa turned up in Oklahoma City, OK; and a bloody Santa holding a severed head was displayed in New York City.

8. 2005 Florida Gulf Coast University Banned Christmas music from its Christmas concert.

9. the Eternal Gospel Church of Seventh-Day Adventists took out ads in newspapers. Some newspapers refused to run them because they called the Catholic Church a 'Whore' and a 'Beast'. Here are the newspapers that had no problems running it:
November 28 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; on December 1 in the Miami Herald ; on December 1 in El Nuevo Herald (Miami); on December 2 in the Dallas Morning News; on December 5 in some copies of the Greenville News (South Carolina); on December 10 in the Indianapolis Star; on December 13 in Diario Las Americas (Miami); on December 14 in the Los Angeles Times; on December 20 in the Tallahassee Democrat; and on December 22 in The Herald (Everett, Washington).

10. I'm just going to finish up here:

Seven statues of the Christ child were stolen from lawn Nativity scenes at churches and homes in Oradell, Dumont and Emerson, New Jersey.
Almost all the statues in a Nativity scene were stolen from Fontbonne College in St. Louis.
In Brooklyn, there was a series of incidents the were reported to the police. A statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary which had stood outside the front door of Our Lady of Refuge Rectory since the early 1930s was smashed to pieces; a statue of baby Jesus was also destroyed. Beer bottles were thrown through a huge stained-glass window at Holy Innocents. The body of Christ was taken down from the crucifix at Holy Cross Church and burned. Statues of Our Lady of Fatimas and the three young seers were pulverized in front of St. Jerome’s; they had stood for nearly four decades.
In Day Island, Washington, the entire Nativity scene was stolen.
In St. Albans, West Virginia, baby Jesus was stolen.
In Chicago, baby Jesus was stolen from a Nativity Scene in Daley Plaza.
In Meredith, New Hampshire an infant Jesus figurine was stolen on two occasions in one week.
In Galveston, Texas statues of the Virgin Mary were stolen from lawns and cemeteries all over the town.

I can go on and on and on.. wait, I already did. Anywho, Catholic Bashing/Christian Bashing is out of control. No one even notices anymore. It is so rampant that the news media's barely report it.

I will end with a story from my home state.

"NEW CASTLE, Ind. -- Easter Sunday was extremely difficult for parishioners of St. Anne's Catholic Church in New Castle, one day after the church was destroyed by fire in what investigators called a criminal act."

oh PIP -

I hope you had a nice Easter too. My son ate most the candy though. Bummer!

Less -

I didn't forget about you. Can you believe my family actually wanted me to fix them dinner? Geesh! The nerve! LOL

"Funnily enough, I’ve also learned to never simply passively accept what those in authority teach you. You have to question absolutely everything to form your own opinions and ideals."

I LOVE to question everything. I remember when I went to college, I was in shock. No parents telling me what to do. No rules. Then I noticed that everything was on my shoulders now and I couldn't go running to Mommy and Daddy! That is when I questioned everything. My Dad hated it when I went on the "I'm an atheist" faze.

I feel the same way about this site. In order to debate and be taken seriously you have to do a bit of research (I'm sure you can't tell that though, considering the conversation PIP and I are having. We havne't been researching anything at all ;-) I have learned so much here.

I hope you had a good Weekend/Easter.

The Easter Bunny had to go through a bit of snow here. My daughter couldn't wear the outfit I bought her because it was too cold outside. It was so cute too. All yellow with little pink flowers!

Dan, Bethany, Danielle, PIP, Less and everyone else.

Thanks! Even though I started out being upset by some posts in here, I have enjoyed the conversations. My husband and I have no family to speak of here. (my in-laws are actually less than 10 miles down the street, but hubby hasn't spoken to them in over 3 years so the holidays suck sometimes.) And My family lives all over the place. It's been nice getting my mind off things.

;-)

Valerie:

Yeah, the first semester of college was like that for me too. My rebellions have mostly been with my apperance, though: I got bored one day and got my nose pierced, in fact. My parents disliked it until I pointed out that I could have done far worse. Then I got bored again and chopped off all of my hair. This my parents liked, as they thought it was cute. Thus far I've also dyed my hair purple and streaked it blue.

Thankfully, my rebellious phase is almost over. I never went through a real religious shift during college, though, to be honest. It reafirmed my beliefs and made me more peaceful, which was nice! In general, my parents and I get along SO much better now that I don't live with them. I'm excited to be able to have real conversations with them again.

I know the feeling with the family. Most of my extended family on my mom's side is four states away, and we don't speak to my dad's side. My entire family is kind of anti-social, though, so we don't much mind being alone on Easter and whatnot. My fiance's family is big on the togetherness, though: it's a change, I can tell you!

I'm glad you had a good Easter! I got up at 5:30 and did the whole sunrise service thing. It was a Spanish mass, so that was unique. I loved it; the music was great, the homily was simple and joyous. Instead of sweets I got a bag of sunflower seeds, my favorite food and my replacement for caffine for late night essays.

--Less

"Just because you disagreed with Donahue, doesn't make him a renegade."
He can say what he wants, seriously. I'm not here to stop his free speech. Depending on how the debate (I haven't seen the clip, just the transcript) went they are probably both renegade. *shrug*

"Another amazment is you seem to not like the idea that someone would protest something without seeing it. Wow! Where oh where to begin."
It's true, I don't care who you are, you can't protest something without seeing it/hearing it/etc. and expect to be taken seriously. For example I try to reserve judgement on books until I read them/movies until I see them/music until I hear them. We are all guilty of making pre-judgments but to go public without seeing it is just stupid. Doing so it gives the impression that "your hearts are in the right place" but you don't take the time to make an intelligent discussion or debate out of it. Often times the real point of certain films are lost by doing this (take Dogma for example, depending on viewpoint you could say this about Passion as well).

"How is "The Passion" not representative of the Catholic Church?"
I just meant that it was the profession of faith by a single Catholic. Although I believe I read that the Pope enjoyed Gibson's film I think the Vatican decided to not take a stand either way, so I don't believe it was sponsored by the Vatican. Therefore the movie is not officially sponsored by the Catholic church. Criticisms about the film are open to all sides without it being a defamation of the Church. Although I believe it's okay for Donohue to have an opinion, again I'm not trying to stop him from speaking, it just seems odd how deeply defensive (offensive?) he became about the film. For a fight that big? I'd say for a fight that big he should be fighting those that personally insulted Gibson as a Catholic rather than those critiquing his film.

"As for "The Passion" many many many Jews actually supported the movie. I saw the movie with a jewish friend who said she didn't see any anti-semitism in it. It is just how you see life, I guess. I also didn't see any anti-semitism (SP?) But then, being Catholic, we don't 'blame' the Jews for Christs death so why would I see it that way."
Exactly. I didn't detect anti-semitism in it, I only pointed out that there were allegations. That and the amount of violence..I can imagine older Jewish people not being interested in seeing the movie. The violence made it hard to watch for me, I generally avoid movies with lots of violence in it.

"You do realize that this is a personal belief. I think the same way of NOW. But I don't call them renegades. I know that they have a different agenda than me."
Very much so. I'm just expressing my opinion. I personally (with many others) don't like seeing Donohue as a Catholic leader, but I'm not a member of the Catholic League so I can't take action against him or anything. Nor am I trying to. For a long time I had the idea that the CL fought true discrimination but for a while I didn't even realize that Donohue headed this organization because he seemed to talk about things that are not within it's scope (but again this is an outsiders opinion). It is also my opinion that anyone willing to ridicule someone aggessively over beliefs like Donohue does is "renegade" behavior. We all have different ideas of what is "renegade"; this is mine.

"Why didn't they postpone it?"
I think they were so threatened by all the backlash they had no choice. I can't really say from first hand knowledge because I wasn't there or anything. But in the past, protests have never been "we want this one week later." Protests have been "we don't want this." That's probably the idea they got.

"This is why it was a direct attack on Catholics and Eastern Orthodox."
I hate to be picky and everything, but couldn't the artwork be seen as his vision of the crucifix? My brother is an artist and he often paints his interpretations of things, although they may not be how they really are. That doesn't mean his paintings are intentionally offensive. I saw the statue and I think it is hard to say either way. It looks like he either made it to be an interpretaiton of a familiar symbol without intentions of offense or he could have done it with intentions, I guess. It's just really hard to tell. How can you tell for sure?

". They become reckless because of Greed/money. Which is what Donahue was saying."
I see his point--that they went too far this time. They probably wanted to get away with it (where others can't). I just see it as immaturity rather than malice. Again, I'm not easily offended so it's hard to tell sometimes :/

"Muslims that rioted and killed people because a Danish newspaper ran cartoons of Muhammed"
So now I'm a little confused. There were riots in Denmark, right? Isn't Denmark a democracy? So was it all Muslims that live outside of US/GB? Or was he only talking about Muslims in Islamic theocracies? The thing with the statement was that it is sorta hard to tell. Unless I'm missing something.

"Donahue and many others attacked them too"
Oh, well, good. At least he attacks equally. :P

"Very much so."
Dogma? Really?! I never felt that the movie held animosity either way, just poked a few jabs at religion. My mother likes the movie too (she gets sick of watching it though, it comes on TV all the time).

" Flags being waved around with a foot showing a downward motion with "Crush the Creche" on it."
Really? By who?

"In New York, a school could no longer have 'Breakfast with Santa', they had to change it to 'Winter Wonderland Breakfast."
Yea that's just stupid. Santa isn't religiously associated.

"Jessica Delfino had a Merry S***mas tour. (She made a rap video that was banned from YouTube.)"
Well, she makes her living being kind of sick. Whatever works for her. I don't think she's much of a threat.

"2006 Figures from nativity scenes were stolen or vandalized"
That sucks. Sounds like we need mroe security cars patrolling around. As a side note, how is Donohue going to cure this?

"On them they compared the Pope to Saten."
That is a valid project to take on. There are so many people who know nothign about the Catholic Church--and then just start repeating these rumors (Catholics aren't Christians, etc) without thinking. The CL should right these wrongs. Hear, hear!

"2005 Christmas vandals"
I don't think this is a problem with Christmas, just kids with discipline problems. I think Christmas is just the time where everyone starts putting their stuff on their lawns. I know several people who used to steal lawn gnomes in high school because they were bored. I just kept thinking, "those people need a friggin' hobby." Unless these vandals are doing something specifically anti-Catholic or anti-Christian?

"2005 Florida Gulf Coast University Banned Christmas music from its Christmas concert."
That's stupid. If people have a problem with Christian music, include Jewish music too, or whatever. This is what I was talking about with over-political-correctness. There is a difference between separation of church and state and trying to stop the existence of church.

"November 28 in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch"
Interesting that STL ran it considering the large amount of Catholics in the area.
I believe too that this should be pursued. Not doing so would encourage hate and intolerance.

". I'm just going to finish up here:"
I think it's wrong that the vandals are so rampant, I'm not sure that it's all just Christian hate rather than out-of-control kids. I mean, it could be Christian hate. Most of the kids in my high school that stole lawn ornaments and stuff were just bored and out of control, I don't believe they had an express hatred toward the Christian church. Obviously I don't speak on behalf of them or the perpetrators of these other vandalistic activities, I was just conjecturing on possibilities.

"Anywho, Catholic Bashing/Christian Bashing is out of control. No one even notices anymore. It is so rampant that the news media's barely report it."
I agree. It is almost a standard now. Still, i feel that the CL should pick it's battles. I think it should fight active discrimination and defamation (like the billboards, ads, etc), rather than focusing on seemingly trivial matters like the leaders of hollywood or instances where intent is unclear (at that point it seems to an outsider like you are picking a fight). Often seeing Donohue on the news make him look like he's picking a fight. The way he yells and at times mocks the other people in the debate only seems to enforce some of the Catholic stereotypes. I think he has good intentions, it just seems like he gets lost in himself and the original mission. I could just be seeing one side of Donohue, but this is his most public one ;) I can tell you I admire the way he can attack someone for something but later forgive them (as in the case with the radio broadcasters--I like how that whole conflict turned out, I'm very proud of him for forgiving them).

""NEW CASTLE, Ind. -- Easter Sunday was extremely difficult for parishioners of St. Anne's Catholic Church in New Castle, one day after the church was destroyed by fire in what investigators called a criminal act.""
I'm sorry, Valerie :(
In Oklahoma you don't find a whole lot of Catholics so I understand how many stereotypes and misconceptions (that turn into hatred) that you have to fight. I'm sorry it became so violent in your case. *hugs*
As I said before, I support the CL, I just think some of the most recent (and publicized) battles only distract from the good works and headway that are being accomplished. As someone not involved in the CL, most of its activity that I become aware of are the ones that show up in my headlines as I surf the TV or the internets.

"I hope you had a nice Easter too. My son ate most the candy though. Bummer"
Thanks!! I remember many an Easter when I get all of this candy, and then my resourceful dog (he's a friggin genius but a spoiled brat) would find a way to steal a good peice of mine. No worries. I just tell myself that candy is overrated. Cake and ice cream is where its at (I, the upcoming chef, cooked about 4 this weekend. My favorite, the angel food cake with ice cream in the middle was amazing).

" I started out being upset "
Sorry if I provoked you :( I always feel bad when I try to start conversation or ask questions or something and it starts to upset people. I never mean to make people feel bad. Part of it comes from the internets--it's hard to tell the mood or intent of the posts sometimes.

Less -

This is very creepy. I said you sounded like me, and now you act like me too! I did the same thing with my hair, but at that time Cindy Lauper was extrememly popular and she had 1/4 of the side of her head shaved and rest long with lots of colors. That is what I did. I wanted to get my nose pierced, but I chickened out. I also dressed like what my hair looked like. My Dad hated it!

"Thankfully, my rebellious phase is almost over. "
Think again! It comes back with a vegence before you turn 30. Trust me!

I love going to the Spanish Mass. I don't speak spanish (although I want to learn. Our neighbors are from Mexico and they speak Spanish to my son all the time and he is catching on, Maybe it will rub off on me!) I don't know what it is, but with the Spanish Mass the music is 10 times better. More upbeat. I have no idea why that is.

PIP -

"they are probably both renegade. *shrug*"
Hey, you may be on to something here!

"Often times the real point of certain films are lost by doing this (take Dogma for example, depending on viewpoint you could say this about Passion as well)."
Actually, the real point of people doing films is to make money. (No, I'm not cynical, not at all) and when things get like it did with those 2 movies: Free publicity baby! That is probably why Donahue was so "passionate" about The Passion. Keep it in the news.

"I'm not a member of the Catholic League so I can't take action against him or anything. "
Nothing says you can't become a member and do this. ;-)

The statue: The major complaint was that they were 'showing' it during Holy Week. They know that a nude Jesus any other time of the year is not going to cause this kind of attention. Because then, it is just "art". Like I said, it was meant to be offensive. And think of the free publicity the hotel and the artist got. (Not cynical, nope, not me!)

"So now I'm a little confused. There were riots in Denmark, right? "
No, the majority of the riots were outside Denmark. I think what is missing is the 'emotion' and the 'facts' which is easy this far from the event. The emotion of the story hijacked the facts in the media, which is understandable. If you want to, find some news articles from that time and then read what he says, it will make sense then, I think.

""Very much so."
Dogma? Really?! I never felt that the movie held animosity either way, just poked a few jabs at religion."
hahah... I was talking about Stigmata, not Dogma. I never saw Dogma based on principles, I will not find anything funny about Jesus' ancestor working at an abortion clinic. Nope, not funny to me. So why put myself throug that. And the quotes you put up about the movie, not making me want to see it.

"Really? By who?"
An athiest group, can't remember their name though. If you want me to, I'll get that info for you.

The whole stealing the nativities and Jesus and such.... When the kids/people are caught, nothing happens. That is what gets us mad. If someone does the same to any other Christmas decorations it is a hate crime, but excuses are made when it is Christian. This is why people don't even think twice about doing it. Hey - it cures bordom and won't get in trouble if caught.

I think what the problem here is: You are not emotionally invested in the problem. It would be like someone who has no emotions behind the abortion debate coming on here and reading. They would probably think we are all renegades! That's probably the difference. I see it as something that needs to be fixed. You (I think) see it as a problem but not like me.

;-)

"If someone does the same to any other Christmas decorations it is a hate crime, but excuses are made when it is Christian. "

Oops that is suppose to say.... To any other non-Christian decorations....

Valerie, I wish you went to see Dogma. The abortion clinic is literally 5 minutes of the entire movie and doesn't play a large part--it seems like it was just in there for irony's sake (and maybe the Noah being drunk line). Jay and Silent Bob are in the movie so their lines are pretty crass but if you can get over crassness and a 5 minute conversation in the abortion clinic lounge you might appreciate the message.