Columnist Cal Thomas, radio host Dana Loesch, and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins took part in a CPAC panel on religious freedom Saturday, and they pronounced that times were dire for followers of Jesus Christ.
“I feel like it’s time to make Christians a protected class,” Dana Loesch said, as the discussion reached a fevered pitch of self-pity.
After an angry mob stormed the U.S. embassy in Cairo and tore down the American flag, the embassy apologized for provoking the mob and condemned the free speech back across the Atlantic which hurt the mob's feelings.
The AP says the protesters were largely ultra-conservative Islamists.
Iran's FARS news agency says the film is the work of a group of "extremist" members of the Egyptian Coptic Church in the United States.
Al Ahram online says the film is reportedly being produced by U.S.-based Coptic-Christian Egyptians, including Esmat Zaklama and Morees Sadek, with the support of the Terry Jones Church in the United States.
Jones is the evangelical pastor who stirred controversy last year by threatening to burn a Quran in public.
CNN says the film in question is a Dutch production.
Of course, this is from an administration who endorsed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's new leading political party who not only fosters an abuse of women, oppression of Coptic Christians, murder of gays for existing, and crucifixion of political opponents and will be welcoming their leader, President Morsi, to Washington D.C. this month.
Egypt's ruling party, the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, blasted the United States after an angry Islamist mob stormed the U.S. embassy's walls and shredded an American flag over alleged offenses in a film that no one can name.
Why hasn't President Obama or the state department demanded that Egypt control its angry mob? It would seem we're the ones owed an apology after they stormed our embassy's walls and tore our flag.
That our administration still treats a religious group like a political party only further exacerbates the problem.
The President spent the somber 11th anniversary of 9/11 with his admin apologizing to Islamists when they disrespectfully desecrated our flag on 9/11, and snubbing Binyamin Netanyahu.
It is so far the only death from mob attacks in Libya and Egypt over Islamist anger at an alleged film in production by Coptic Christians focusing on Islam. The United States spent 9/11 apologizing for hurting Islamists' feelings in Egypt which incited protesters to desecrate our flag and storm the walls of the U.S. embassy.
Afterwards, President Obama rejected a meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu, saying that his schedule was full, the same day he announced another appearance on the "Late Show with David Letterman."
Is anyone surprised, though? this is the party that booed God and Jerusalem and wasn't deterred by it being broadcast on national TV.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
Egypt's ruling party, the MB, endorsed by admin, condemned US, saying we should "do a better job of protecting Islam" wapo.st/Nn0uvQ
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
What continues to exacerbate this problem is that our state dept. continues to treat a religious group, the MB, like a political party.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
Maybe we should stop the $1.5b in aid to Egypt until Egyptians can stop desecrating our flag. @usembassycairo
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
Stop sending $1.5b in aid when Egyptians STOP desecrating our flag AND telling us to "protect Islam" bit.ly/PaBPZT @usembassycairo
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
In fact, stop sending aid altogether. Why the hell are we sending billions to Egypt when we're broke? They thank us with disrespect.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
The @usembassycairo and our state dept. should demand an apology from Egypt's leadership. Control your mob.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
Disrespectful that Egyptians seek to desecrate our flag as we remember our fallen on 9/11. Morsi, control your mob.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
Meanwhile those working in @usembassycairo have to grovel for safety to a ruling party that crucifies its political opponents.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
So today on 9/11 admin apologized to Islamists who attacked our embassy and consulate, snubbed Netanyahu, what else? bit.ly/U6MGE5
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
So the "Islamic flag" used to replace US flag at the embassy looks a lot like the Al Qaeda flag: bit.ly/SCmPJ2 , bit.ly/SCmQNbOf course, Mitt Romney, GOP's nominee for President, used this attack as an excuse to attack Obama.
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) September 11, 2012
(CNN) - Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney on Tuesday issued a paper statement sharply critical of President Barack Obama over his handling of violence in the Middle East earlier in the day.
“I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," Romney said in the statement. "It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
This morning's condemnation (issued before protest began) still stands. As does our condemnation of unjustified breach of the Embassy
— US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012
2) Of course we condemn breaches of our compound, we're the ones actually living through this.
— US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012
3) Sorry, but neither breaches of our compound or angry messages will dissuade us from defending freedom of speech AND criticizing bigotryAnd the US Department of State condemned the attacks on both Libya and Egypt:
— US Embassy Cairo (@USEmbassyCairo) September 11, 2012
#SecClinton: This evening, I called Libyan President Magariaf to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in #Libya.
— StateDept (@StateDept) September 12, 2012
#SecClinton: The U.S. deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. state.gov
— StateDept (@StateDept) September 12, 2012
#SecClinton: Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. state.gov
— StateDept (@StateDept) September 12, 2012
The American Spectator does a nice job of deconstructing this ridiculous piece from a progressive blogger over at the Progressive Christian Alliance. The gist of the piece is this: Jesus was an illegal immigrant baby, thus if you are against illegal immigration, you are against Jesus and the entire story of the nativity is one big political story.
This religious outfit dilutes God’s word with its hippified humanism. Their “about” section reads like a vague intro to a self-help book. The emphasis is based on inclusion (Jesus Himself said He did not come to bring peace, but a sword Matthew 10:34) and accepting people as they are, regardless whether or not God’s law is followed. They are situational Christians: they love the Bible when they think they can cherry pick the Word and support leftist beliefs but are suspiciously silent on Scripture where it concerns life, marriage, law, and worship.
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. - Romans 13:1-3If you’re going to condescend to preach to the flock, you must preach all the Bible for consistency, as even the Devil can quote Scripture.
This week, to inaugurate my new blog at Patheos, I am offering an in-depth, feature-length retelling of the story of Jesus’ birth. In this re-imagined story, you will find all the familiar scenes and characters — the Annunciation with Mary and the angel, Elizabeth, the birth — but reworked, turned-upside down and placed in a jarringly modern and political context. My hope is that readers will be able to see this well-worn story anew this season and perhaps even recapture a small ember of the searing affront that was the birth of Christ (check out the end of this post for an excerpt from part one “Anunciación” or download the four-page e-chapter by clicking on the logo at the top).
See, every Christmas, Christians around the world retell the story of the birth of Jesus. Many set up illuminated lawn ornaments of Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus. Some dust off the Nativity mantlepieces. Others, to remember the reason for the season, defend the virtues of Christmas. Then there is the yearly attempt to make the Christmas story relevant to teenagers, as demonstrated in this years offering, “A Social Network Christmas.” With all the noise and lights, it can be difficult to remember just how jarring the birth of Jesus should be to us. A few writers, like Kurt Willems and John Dominic Crossan, have reminded us of just how confrontational or unexpected it was for Jesus to be born in the way that he was.
Often, we Christians will call the birth of Jesus a humble one, when it reality it was a humiliating one. Giving birth in a barn is not quaint. It is an affront. Giving birth among the beasts is not, I would imagine, a joyful experience, but a degrading one. Giving birth as a member of an occupied nation, an oppressed people is not exactly what we think of as a history-changing event.Just more evidence that Loesch is indeed a Conservative Christian crackpot, as is the majority of her radio show listeners and her readers over at Big Journalism.
If Jesus were born today, it would have been undocumented and gallingly political, just as it was 2,000 years ago. He would have to be born to a minority people, an oppressed, exploited and mistreated people. He would have to be born in deprivation, in humiliation. He would have to be born in the context of kenosis, of self-emptying. Jesus would have to born in circumstances that would deprive him of his basic rights, his dignity. He would have to born in the most powerful Empire in the world, but in a way that would have been ignored by everyone who held power and important positions in our world.
Only Media Matters can bury the lede of their latest Christian-bashing missive five graphs down into a story. After starting one story on Tim Tebow, the article plunges headfirst off the cliff into insanity by switching gears and blaming poverty in America on … Christians:
… but as the network exaggerates the threat to Christianity in America, it simultaneously downplays — even mocks — the very real plight facing those whom Christian teachings demand be shown compassion: the poor.I love when progressives pause their Bible-bashing long enough to pose as sudden experts on Scripture. Oh please, let’s do this. (You’ll see my reason why at the end.)
Poverty in the U.S. is on the rise. Incomes are decreasing. According to the Census Bureau, right now there are over 46 million Americans in poverty, more than there have been at any time since they started publishing poverty estimates. Fifteen percent of U.S. households are “food insecure,” meaning they lack money to properly feed themselves on a daily basis. They face a host of problems, both quantifiable and not: lack of access to health care, chronic underemployment, disrupted family life, and so on.
But to hear Fox News tell it, the poor don’t have it so bad. Earlier this year, the conservative Heritage Foundation released a report on how the ownership of household appliances demonstrates that “most of the persons whom the government defines as ‘in poverty’ are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term.” Seizing on Heritage’s laughably superficial assessment of poverty, Bill O’Reilly asked: “How can you be so poor and have all this stuff?”
1) “Poverty in the U.S. is on the rise. Incomes are decreasing. According to the Census Bureau, right now there are over 46 million Americans in poverty, more than there have been at any time since they started publishing poverty estimates.”
And when did this start exactly? The answer: with this administration. Remember when Newt Gingrich called Obama the “food stamp president?” While the Dixified minds of dog whistle progressives are certain that “food stamps” is code for “black people,” the reality is that more white Americans are on food stamps–in fact, more Americans, period, are receiving government assistance now than ever:
A record 18.3% of the nation’s total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.More:
The income data show how fragile and government-dependent the recovery is after a recession that officially ended in June 2009.
Americans on the government dole received an average of $7,427 each in benefits in 2010, up from an inflation-adjusted $4,763 in 2000 and $3,686 in 1990. Thus, benefits have more than doubled in the last 20 years! Keep in mind that the federal government pays about 90% of these benefits.How can this be? Under the Obama administration, families have watched jobs disappear, incomes shrink, food and gas prices rise, and the economy downgraded for the first time in a century.
While Media Matters is approaching Scripture from a petty and uneducated perspective (and attempting to use the spectre of knowledge to shame conservatives for not following a Marxist and decidedly anti-Christian ideology) I sincerely hope it turns into a genuine curiosity. If they must first mock it just to step a foot over the threshold, I’ll accept that, too, but I consider the issue a victory simply because they’re even discussing it.
“For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
- 2 Thessalonians 3:10
"WAR ON TEBOW" declared Fox News' The Five on Tuesday as the panel of four conservatives and Bob Beckel launched into a discussion of Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow and his frequent public declarations of his Christian faith. "What do you think scares the media most?" asked Eric Bolling. "The clean-cut, the conservative, or the Christian aspect of Tim Tebow?" GOP strategist Andrea Tantaros opined that "it's ridiculous to go after Tim Tebow. He can express whatever he wants and it takes a lot of courage to put Bible verses on your face."
The trials of Tebow have been well-covered by the Murdoch network. Yesterday, Fox News' unofficial culture war correspondent Todd Starnes wrote that Tebow "will always be a lightning rod for anti-Christian bigots," and expanded the narrative to declare that "it's become something of a sport to attack Christians in this nation," what with the "reprehensible anti-Christian propaganda" coming from Hollywood and the almost-beyond-parody "War on Christmas." Starnes even went so far as to compare the Tebow situation to Jim Crow.
The position of Fox News is clear: Christians in America are relentlessly persecuted and need Fox News as an advocate. The hitch, of course, is that Christianity remains the overwhelmingly dominant faith not just of the nation at large but also of the people elected to lead it. But the culture war needs to be fought, so insults aimed at a football player, store clerks saying "Happy Holidays," and similarly minor (or imagined) slights are embellished into organized campaigns of anti-Christian persecution.
That in and of itself is disingenuous, but as the network exaggerates the threat to Christianity in America, it simultaneously downplays -- even mocks -- the very real plight facing those whom Christian teachings demand be shown compassion: the poor.
Poverty in the U.S. is on the rise. Incomes are decreasing. According to the Census Bureau, right now there are over 46 million Americans in poverty, more than there have been at any time since they started publishing poverty estimates. Fifteen percent of U.S. households are "food insecure," meaning they lack money to properly feed themselves on a daily basis. They face a host of problems, both quantifiable and not: lack of access to health care, chronic underemployment, disrupted family life, and so on.
But to hear Fox News tell it, the poor don't have it so bad. Earlier this year, the conservative Heritage Foundation released a report on how the ownership of household appliances demonstrates that "most of the persons whom the government defines as 'in poverty' are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term." Seizing on Heritage's laughably superficial assessment of poverty, Bill O'Reilly asked: "How can you be so poor and have all this stuff?"
It's a striking contrast. One day Fox News will defend Christians from the faith-killing scourge of Rhode Island "Holiday Trees," and the next they'll mock those in need for having refrigerators but lacking "spirit." They'll insist on protecting the right to say Christian prayers in public, and attack a poor person for spending all their money at Wal-Mart. It's a clash of faith and politics that does double harm by hyping illusory threats to an empowered majority while obfuscating real problems plaguing the millions of Americans most in need of a little Christian charity.
NBC apparently edited out the phrases “indivisible” and “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance in their opening sequence for the US Open this afternoon.What those working to drive out God from America don’t realize is that man is no longer truly free once man is given domain over the basic rights of others. Do they really believe that simple man is a better arbitrator of liberty than God? Man, who has perverted, shamed, and misrepresented his faith by waging war, killing and oppressing his fellow man? Those who wish to “free” America from God want to entrust us to this sort of jurisdiction? They’ll believe in corrupt men who waste their free will over the entity who bestowed upon them free will so that they could truly be free in life and choice?
If NBC or anyone else has a problem with identifying God as the source of liberty in America, their conflict dates back further than when the new Pledge was signed into law in 1954 – it extends back to when a group of free men met in a room and created the basic framework for a free society. If you dispute the source of your rights and are willing to allow your fellow man have domain over you, realize than that the reigns of power change hands and your freedom will never be assured.
BETHESDA, Md. (AP) — An omission in the Pledge of Allegiance had NBC issuing an on-air apology Sunday during the U.S. Open.The network opened its broadcast with a montage that included children reciting the pledge, but the words "under God" and "indivisible" were omitted.
The backlash on social media was quick and harsh, with some tweets calling for a boycott of NBC.
We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago, and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation's capital for the third time," announcer Dan Hicks told viewers. "Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone, and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it."
*UPDATE: Readers on Twitter are telling me that one of the anchors has apologized on camera for the omission, saying that he is sorry if anyone was offended. If it was an error, it was made in production, though I’m still curious as to how one can accidentally omit parts of the very short Pledge of Allegiance twice.Newsbusters's Mark Finkelstein also blogged about the nonsense story, accusing NBC of "not fully apologizing":
As Noel Sheppard reported earlier, in the show-opening feature of its coverage of the final round of the US Open golf championship today, NBC--twice--edited out the words "under God" from its clip of school children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
Clearly many Americans were offended and let NBC know about it. Because later in the broadcast, host Dan Hicks issued an apology on behalf of the network. But NBC simply compounded one omission with another. The apology spoke of "a portion of the Pledge" being edited out--but never mentioned that the omitted words were "under God."
