Happy Holy Week

Opportunity Knox...for religious intolerance.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/09/catholics-offense-obama-appointing-pope-basher-faith-based-panel/

Happy Good Friday to everyone. 

I suppose we are just going to have to get used to the fact that each annual Christian holiday is going to be accompanied by controversy and a leftist attack of some variety. That certainly seems to be the case this year where Resurrection Sunday is concerned. In the above article, we learn of our "consensus-building" president's decision to appoint an anti-Catholic bigot to his panel of advisers for faith-based initiatives. 

Harry Knox, an openly gay advocate for homosexual rights, has gone on record and used some pretty strong language in describing the Pope and other Catholic organizations. He describes the Pope and other bishops as "discredited leaders" and groups like the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic service organization, as "foot soldiers of a discredited army of oppression." 

And why? Because...well...because he simply disagrees with them about things, that's why! 

It's one thing to disagree with prominent religious leaders on matters of faith and ideology. That's a right granted to every American citizen under the Bill of Rights. But to go on record as a presidential cabinet official and use bombastic terminology in describing those who hold a different viewpoint than you do is another thing entirely. And to suggest that their viewpoint is invalid somehow because of an alternate stance on an issue is about as un-American as you can possibly get. Not to mention disrespectful and arrogant. 

The homosexual community was quite vociferous during George W. Bush's eight years in office and loved to paint him, as well as members of his administration, as religious bigots who had it out for gays across America. Of course, this caricature is overreaching and unfair, but let's pretend for just a moment that Karl Rove or David Kuo (who served in basically the same role as Harry Knox serves in now under Obama) had actually gone on record and said something to the effect of "the homosexual community is a discredited army of foot soldiers who want to turn children into homosexuals." Can you imagine the outcry? Heads would roll, hate-speech lawsuits would ensue, and Bush's ratings would hover around 1% rather than the 30% rating he enjoyed.  William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, is quoted several times in the article and basically backs this sentiment up. He  notes, "If someone were appointed using that language about homosexuals, he would be thrown out."

Donahue is exactly right. 

Why then is it ok for someone in the Obama administration to say basically the same thing about Catholics? Or Protestants? Or Hindus? Or animal rights activists? Or anybody?

I'm not a Catholic. And as a Protestant Southern Baptist I have some sharp theological disagreements with the Catholic faith. But never should someone who uses such intolerant and hateful language be allowed to serve in a capacity that Harry Knox does, whether that language is used in disparaging Catholics or anyone else. If Obama is serious about building consensus and promoting religious tolerance, he'll give this guy the boot...and fast. 

Christians should be shocked, but not surprised. Shocked because of the hateful intolerance that characterizes Knox's language as well as the fact that he picked Holy Week to launch his hateful remarks against the Catholic church. But attacks on the Christian faith (of every denomination) has been part and parcel of our history and figures to continue until the return of Christ, and thus we should not be surprised at Mr. Knox's remarks. 

As people of faith, our response should be marked by steadfastness of conviction as well as compassion for those who vehemently oppose us. And as Americans, it is our duty to be vigilant where threats to our religious freedom and heritage are concerned. The Bill of Rights applies to everyone; whether you are a person of faith or not. No government official should be allowed to marginalize or discredit those rights. 

Fidel and Friends!

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/22078591/tremendous-amount-of-freedom.htm#q=Black+caucus

I had heard the rumors, but did not know how true they were. 

After a while, you become somewhat jaded. I mean, after seeing celebrity after moron celebrity hop on a private jet and traipse down to Cuba for a wine-and-dine event with the man who has blighted his people and violated an untold number of human rights, you really begin to think you've seen it all. 

Then you hear the rumors. A liberal Democrat from California here, one from the East Coast there. All supposedly doing basically the same thing that the Bel Airheads are doing. Then you think to yourself, "nawwwww, not our intelligent and duly elected officials. Could they really be buying this nonsense about Castro and about Cuba being a progressive and plentiful haven for its citizens?" 

Well, if that's your thought process, then I would suggest taking a moment and doing some deep breathing, so as to prepare yourself for the above video. 

Because it's true. 

Not only did a handful of democratic representatives from California make the joy-ride to Havana for a meeting with Fidel and Raul Castro as what is for some reason called "The Black Caucus," one was reported as saying to Castro, "America is still a racist nation." I hope this congressman didn't THEN give Comrade Fidel a signed picture of President and Mrs. Obama, because that would have been the gaffe to end all gaffes.   

Now we're treated to this little visual and auditory tidbit of one of the "sheeple" who made the trip who actually says during the video "the Cuban people have a tremendous amount of freedom." She goes on to say something to the effect of "we were driving around Havana and felt very safe. No police were following us. Nothing." 

Assuming that there might be a measure of truth to the congresswoman's impressions of this newfound democratic haven, would any rational person want to actually take a trip down to Miami, stand in the middle of a hoard of Cuban refugees who have been forced to leave Cuba and separate from their families because of Castro's brutality, and actually REPEAT this drivel? If so, you're a heck of a lot braver than me and God only help you if you're not wearing a bulletproof vest and/or a fireproof strait-jacket when you do repeat it. 

As to the "driving around Havana with no threat from the secret police" comment, anybody who bothers to read a news magazine (liberally biased or otherwise) can tell you that Castro has a notorious reputation for being a charmer and for arranging for visitors (many of whom are liberal and not too deep intellectually) to be squired about town with no security threats whatsoever and often to places where you won't actually see the blight, the human rights devastation, etc. Simply put, it's a dog-and-pony show of the most dishonest variety and these liberal do-gooders bought it from Castro...hook, line, and sinker. 

Hey, at the end of the day, who cares? If these people want to travel to Havana, or wherever (next stop, ladies and gentlemen: Pyongyang!) on expense accounts, it's their business. But don't come back here and try to sell intelligent Americans this baloney about Castro being committed to freedom and democracy when millions of Miami residents alone can tell you detail for detail a different story altogether. 

If you want to sell that story, you simply have to get up earlier. Especially given the time difference out on the Left Coast. 

Pray for the Captain. 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514039,00.html

Thoughts and prayers go out to Richard Phillips, captain of the Maersk Alabama, and his family. Word is, he's already tried to escape and is refusing to fully cooperate with the pirate terrorists who are holding him hostage. 

He's a brave patriot and is evidently well-respected by those in his charge. 

We hope and pray for his safe return.