Category Archives: Christianity

Updated: More Pornographic Preaching From The Trinity Cesspit

Father Michael Pfleger’s mocking, sardonic, poisonous delivery at the pit in which Obama prays stands out for its repulsiveness.

The way Pfleger molds his voice and inflection to sound like a black man; the facial grimacing and exaggerated contempt-filled gestures—as repulsive as this style of preaching is, it is all the more off-putting when aped by a white man. At least he didn’t go completely tribal as did Wright at the pulpit when simulating sex to conjure Bill Clinton.

Afrikaans slang provides an alliterative direct expression stronger and way more sibilant than “Yuk:

“Sis man!”

The jamboree of media attention has not helped to focus matters. Media are satisfied that Obama has distanced himself from Rev. Revilo’s words and that their messiah was away from the pews at the time—this is the “exhaustive” criteria by which Obama’s ties to the Trinity United Church of the Anti-Christ are gauged.

As the nation’s cognoscenti have been parted from their critical faculties, let me ask once again: Is it not clear that this sort of preaching, down to the contempt-filled body language accompanying the damning of enemies, is anchored in a philosophy and a worldview espoused by Trinity?

Is it not plain that Obama can’t just “condemn” this immoral and pornographic preaching, without having to explain why he praises God in a cesspool promoting racism, eternal anti-white grievance, victimism, and hatred?

Obama must be put on the spot not for his presence or absence in the pews during sermons delivered by the pornographic preachers of the Trinity cesspit, but for his adopted philosophy of two decades.

(Please note that “pornographic” here is used in the sense of “lurid,” although undeniably, the preachers of Trinity galvanize their bodies and faces in obscene, improper gestures and grimaces.)

Update (May 31): Barack Obama has resigned from the Anti-Christ Trinity Church. This act of political expediency alters nothing in the case I’ve been making against the man. That’s the essence of a solid case: Temporal tweaking does little to explain loyalties that point toward a consistent, long-held belief system.

Updated: The Shakedown of the Catholic Church

Christianity, Criminal Injustice, Law, Pseudoscience, Psychiatry, Psychology & Pop-Psychology, Sex

On the occasion of Pope Benedict being forced to publicly capitulate to the sexual abuse industry, I’m reposting a BAB post titled “Sex, God & Greed.”

Ever wonder why the epidemic of allegations that has almost bankrupted the Catholic Church has not caught on in the UK and Europe? I venture that this is because the pop-psychology that undergirds the lion share of the allegation, and the attendant class-action law suits that ensued, is American through-and-through.

The repressed memory mythology is an American invention. As I reminded readers in my “Defense of Hierarchy & the Catholic Church,” “this victim movement has done a great deal more than try and bankrupt the Church.”

‘SEX, GOD & GREED’

In 2003, Daniel Lyons, in Forbes, hashed out all there is to say about the sexual-abuse shakedown to which the Catholic Church has been subjected. It’s worth revisiting this exceptional exposé, now that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, lamentably, has decided to capitulate, rather than fight a racket facilitated by courts that are conduits to theft. Writes Lyons:

“….The focal point of this tort battle is the Catholic Church. The Church’s legal problems are worse even than most people realize: $1 billion in damages already paid out for the victims of pedophile priests, indications that the total will approach $5 billion before the crisis is over… The lawyers are lobbying states to lift the statute of limitations on sex abuse cases, letting them dredge up complaints that date back decades. Last year California, responding to the outcry over the rash of priest cases, suspended its statute of limitations on child sex abuse crimes for one year, opening the way for a deluge of new claims. A dozen other states are being pushed to loosen their laws.”

“’There is an absolute explosion of sexual abuse litigation, and there will continue to be. This is going to be a huge business,’ MacLeish, age 50, says. A Boston-based partner of the Miami law firm of GREENBERG TRAURIG (2002 billings: $465 million)…”

Lyons and Dorothy Rabinowitz of the Wall Street Journal are the only writers I know of to have pointed out how many of these class-action claims are, if not bogus, backed by the discredited excavation of false memories. (See my “Repressed Memory Ruse”):

The repressed memory hoax “…relies on a controversial theory that has split the world of psychology into bitterly opposing camps for more than a decade: the notion that people can wipe out memories of severe trauma, then recover these repressed memories years later… Richard McNally, a Harvard psychology professor…. thinks recovered memories of trauma are questionable. He has conducted numerous studies on memory, particularly with sexual abuse victims. He says people don’t forget a trauma like anal rape. They might forget something like being fondled as a child, but that’s because the fondling was not traumatic, he argues. ‘It might be disgusting, upsetting—but not terrifying, not traumatic.’”

“McNally’s take on this subject has set off a hometown feud with Daniel Brown, an assistant clinical professor at Harvard Medical School who is a leading proponent of recovered memory. The two archrivals have never met, engaging instead in a ‘battle of the books.’
In 1998, when Brown won an award for his 786-page tome, Memory, Trauma Treatment & the Law, McNally wrote a scathing review that criticized Brown’s methodology. In March of this year McNally published his own book, Remembering Trauma, in which he bashes repressed-memory theory and criticizes Brown’s work yet again.”

Update (April 20): To the extent that there was sexual abuse in the Church—and it was never as rampant as the $2 billion-worth of lawsuits suggests—it was mostly homosexually oriented. So sanctioning marriage would not have mitigated the abuse of small boys. I can’t imagine, moreover, that by sanctioning marriage, our reader recommends that the Catholic Church bless gay marriage.

All in all, lowering moral standards in response to a moral crisis is surely not a very elevated solution. The church, therefore, need not change its tradition of celibacy.

Updated: Mitt’s Sincere Sermon

America, Christianity, Elections 2008, Judaism & Jews, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Liberty, Objectivism, Religion, The West, The Zeitgeist

I don’t think a commentator can credibly understand or expatiate upon America, in particular—and the West, in general—without reference to the Judeo-Christian tradition. Heck, one can’t appreciate the greatest composer of all times—Bach—without acknowledging the contribution of his muse—Christianity—to the glory of his music. Ditto for many other great artists.
This is why there’s a sterility and a lack of believability to the religious-hating aspects of Objectivism. As to Christopher Hitchens, he’s an ex-Trotskyite. Why would he understand America?
I say all this even though I am irreligious (although very Jewish in my thinking). America is undeniably and deeply religious.
Having no dog in the fight over Mitt’s Mormonism, I have to say, moreover, that listening to his speech about his faith was moving. Admittedly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may have some odd ideas. Not so the Mormons I know; they are very fine people. And quite magnificent is the Mormon Tabernacle Choir; it’s in fact the finest in the world.
As you can see, it’s impossible to untangle religion in the West and the glorious cultural contribution it has inspired in the faithful.
Particularly loathsome in their mocking commentary about Mitt’s sincere sermon were Keith Olbermann and his Washington-Post henchman—they compared Mitt to their idol, J. F. Kennedy, and found him lacking, to put it mildly. The two did, however, drive home how loathsome the liberal left can be.

Update: Jerri (listen to her great interviews) will enjoy this excerpt from the Hebrew Bible in the First Book Of Samuel. It’s one of the oldest, greatest, most forceful injunctions against the wickedness of centralized power. (Let me tell you, it’s so much better in the original Hebrew). How can one grasp the ancient quest for liberty without proper reverence to this tradition and its revelational component? Note that the king, warns G-d, will take a tenth of the people’s wealth. If only! Send us such a king who will enslave us to the tune of a tenth only!
1 Samuel 8

Israel Asks for a King
1 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead [a] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle [b] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Updated: The Boring Idea (Or Donny Vs. Annie)

Ann Coulter, Christianity, Judaism & Jews, Media

The verbose, vacuous Donny Deutsch had the leggy, one-trick Coulter on his big bore of a show, “The Big Idea.”

The exchange:

“Deutsch said to her: ‘You said we should throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians,’ and Coulter again replied, ‘Yes.’ When pressed by Deutsch regarding whether she wanted to be like ‘the head of Iran’ and ‘wipe Israel off the Earth,’ Coulter stated: ‘No, we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say. … That’s what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws.’”

Deutsch promptly took offense. Left-liberals, Jews included, followed. I don’t have the time or patience to search for links to their apoplexy (here’s one). However, let me say this: If Coulter was more than a brash babe (she’s looking bonny), she’d have explained (as I did in “Unlearend Rabbi Rages at Ratzinger“) that a filament of the Christian faith is the belief that the path to God is predicated on accepting Christ. The centrality in Christianity of accepting Christ is a doctrinal issue, plain and simple. To get past the Pearly Gates, Christians believe one has to accept Christ.

So what? I don’t hear Christians telling orthodox Jews to ditch their maddening dietary laws, because these make people of other faiths feel excluded.

So long as they don’t use the Rack to convert others, why do these immutable doctrinal issues matter?

On a slightly different tack (but still on the topic of Coulter and Christianity), I wrote the following in February, 2005:

“Most real people had a 9/11 moment. Ann Coulter’s call to arms was particularly memorable. For exhorting, ‘We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,’ she was even banished from National Review. This was indeed a puzzling purge, considering neoconservatives promptly adopted her recommendations, invaded Muslim countries, and killed their leaders.

The neocons have adopted all of Coulter’s recommendations, save the peaceful one. So long as it’s voluntary and doesn’t involve The Rack, I think that unleashing an army of missionaries on the Islamic patrimony would be far more efficacious than the military offensives currently underway. In fact, I’ve always suspected that an aversion to Christian conversion was at the core of the ‘girlie boys’’ horrified response to Coulter’s cri de coeur.”

Update (12:25 AM): A brief comment on Coulter’s clinging to the instant clemency Christianity offers:

Here’s more of Coulter the theologian, in the punch-up with Deutsch:

“[The New Testament] is more like Federal Express,” she barked at Deutsch. “You have to obey laws. … As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to live up to all the laws. What Christians believe—this is just a statement of what the New Testament is—is that that’s why Christ came and died for our sins.”

Yes, a Jew can’t expect to go to heaven if he whoops it up for an unjust war, and pimps for a corrupt president (that is if you believe all the heaven hocus pocus; I don’t). In Judaism, your actions determine your fate on earth and in the hereafter (the first being more important than the last).

A rabbi can’t wave a wand and absolve the wicked, as a priest does following confession. A Jew has to obey certain imperatives toward G-d and his fellow man. In other words, he must live justly and do good deeds.

So, yes: I can see the appeal amnesty express à la Christianity would hold for Coulter.