Not that I expect much from the mainstream media, but they get more blatant with their mocking attitude and dishonest reporting about creationists. In an article stating that The Pope will debate evolution with his former students, Reuters writer Tom Heneghan reveals his ignorance of the issues. I don't really care much about what the Vatican says about Creation vs. Evolution, because they've made it clear that they don't adhere to the literal Biblical account of creation in Genesis, but I figured I'd take a look at the article, only to find this ridiculous opening paragraph:

PARIS (Reuters) - Pope Benedict gathers some of his former theology students on Friday for a private weekend debate on evolution and religion, an issue conservative Christians have turned into a political cause in the United States.

First of all, that's ridiculous simply based on the fact that it's only been a few generations since evolution teaching was the norm. Now I'm not going to turn this blog in to an evolution vs. creation blog, because I've got to much to cover already, but if you want some informed blogging on the subject with links to all top science publications, check out Creation Evolution headlines. Don't discount it because of which side they come down on or based on any one post. Dig around, they always link to all the top stories in all the top science publications and provide scientific and informed analysis, punching holes, noting where scientists discover amazing and shocking things but don't even dare try to explain their evolution, and where assumed evolution constantly gets them in trouble as new disoveries roll in every day. Make that a daily reader.

Anyway, that paragraph reveals the reader's agenda right off the bat, and it sets the tone for the whole article. Here's where a Catholic admits they don't believe the Bible should be taken literally:

But Father Stephan Horn, a German theologian organizing the pope's meeting with 39 former students, said that reflected a misunderstanding of how the so-called "student circle" works and what the Catholic Church teaches about evolution.

"We've never drawn any conclusions in our student circle," he told Reuters by telephone from Rome. "This is an open exchange of ideas that does not aim for a conclusion.

"It has nothing to do with creationism," he added, referring to a fundamentalist Protestant view that God created the world in six days as described in the Book of Genesis. "Catholic theology does not endorse creationist views."

Sorry out there Catholics, I'm not bashing you, just laying it on the line.

Then there's this bit of dishonesty:

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution has long been rejected in the United States by conservative Christians who want to have a Bible-based view of creation taught in public schools, where the church-state separation bars the teaching of religion.

More recently, Darwin's critics have campaigned to have "intelligent design" taught as a scientific alternative to evolution. President George W. Bush and other conservative politicians support this drive to "teach the controversy."

The first paragraph is crap. While convinced Christians might understand the scientific basis in creationism and think it's worthy of being taught, there is no movement to get it in to school. As for intelligent design, it is the scientific aspect without any religion. While even many conservatives don't agree with it, I suggest they look at the hoax that is global warming, and consider the possibility that the same has been done in the creation/evolution realm. It's tough to get immersed in "that world", but I encourage you to if you are truly interested. I think you'll be surprised at what you'll find, and shocked at who's really talking science and who's talking religion. The dogma of Darwinism is more annoying than the dishonesty of the modern American Democrat. Constant findings that fly in the face of the picture Darwinists have drawn, but luckily it's in pencil so they erase and try really hard to make things fit when they previously would have denied they could.

The article ends giving me a little hope for Catholic leaders, but not much. I'll wait to see what comes out of all of this:

Benedict has argued this way since his teaching days. At his inaugural mass after his election last year, he declared: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God."

Horn said Benedict and his students would probe further into this issue at their meeting: "We have to ask what is really scientific in Darwin's theory and its later development and where there are ideological elements that are unscientific."

 

I was just doing some reading over at Creation / Evolution Headlines (a daily must-read) and realized I hadn't been over to Answers in Genesis in a while, so I hopped over there to see what's new. I noticed the link to the morning devotional and feeling a little tired I figured I'd just read that, and head to bed.

I'm glad this was the one thing I checked out, because it's a great one, and I thought it was definitely worth passing along to you all.

"God, even our own God." --Psalm 67:6

It is strange how little use we make of the spiritual blessings which God gives us, but it is stranger still how little use we make of God himself. Though he is "our own God", we apply ourselves but little to him, and ask but little of him. How seldom do we ask counsel at the hands of the Lord! How often do we go about our business, without seeking his guidance! In our troubles how constantly do we strive to bear our burdens ourselves, instead of casting them upon the Lord, that he may sustain us! This is not because we may not, for the Lord seems to say, "I am thine, soul, come and make use of me as thou wilt; thou mayst freely come to my store, and the oftener the more welcome." It is our own fault if we make not free with the riches of our God. Then, since thou hast such a friend, and he invites thee, draw from him daily. Never want whilst thou hast a God to go to; never fear or faint whilst thou hast God to help thee; go to thy treasure and take whatever thou needest--there is all that thou canst want. Learn the divine skill of making God all things to thee. He can supply thee with all, or, better still, he can be to thee instead of all. Let me urge thee, then, to make use of thy God. Make use of him in prayer. Go to him often, because he is thy God. O, wilt thou fail to use so great a privilege? Fly to him, tell him all thy wants. Use him constantly by faith at all times. If some dark providence has beclouded thee, use thy God as a "sun;" if some strong enemy has beset thee, find in Jehovah a "shield", for he is a sun and shield to his people. If thou hast lost thy way in the mazes of life, use him as a "guide", for he will direct thee. Whatever thou art, and wherever thou art, remember God is just what thou wantest, and just where thou wantest, and that he can do all thou wantest.

 

Jay at Stop The ACLU recently had the chance to interview Congressman Robert Aderholt of the Fourth District of Alabama, in regards to a piece of legislation he's introduced called the "Constitution Restoration Act". Check out the interview here.

Aderholt gives this basic description of what the act is intended to do:

Basically, the purpose of CRA is to restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court and the lower Federal Courts of the United States.

It removes jurisdiction of the federal government from any case that involves the acknowledgment of God by a Public official. CRA allows each State to say for themselves how they want to approach the issue of religious expression and, in particular, the acknowledgement of God. I would argue that simply acknowledging God would be something the Framers would not want the Judicial branch involved in.

Read the rest of the interview here. Aderholt also shares his feelings on the ACLU, foreing law affecting American law, and the NSA terrorist surveillance program.

I don't see who would have a problem with this, except judicial activism supporters and those fake being offended by the 10 Commandments because they need an issue to whine about and it seems God is the number one target lately.

The Idaho Statesman, via Red Orbit has more.

 

h/t Expose the Left

Hillary Clinton apparently felt that her insane comparison of Congress to a plantation wasn't enough, so today she came up with a new one... Comparing the illegal immigrants to Jesus Christ. Ian at Expose the Left has the video as always. You've got to see her disgusting little smirk as she makes her idiotic comments.

via Newsday:

Surrounded by a multicultural coalition of New York immigration advocates, Clinton blasted the House bill as "mean-spirited" and said it flew in the face of Republicans' stated support for faith and values.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

What?! What is with this woman? Has she just accepted the fact that she'll never be President now, and has decided to turn in to the female Howard Dean, saying progressively stupid things? Maybe that's what they mean by "progressive", I never realized.

In case you somehow missed it, my reference about her comparing Congress to a Plantation is explained here:

The House "has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," said Clinton, D-N.Y. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Anyway, this is just ridiculous. We learned just last week tha Hillary and McCain were skipping around holding hands with illegals, now she's comparing them to Jesus? I'm surprised that Michelle Malkin only noted the story's headline as the "headline of the day", which reads: "Clinton vows to block bill criminalizing illegal immigrants", when the outrage is really her ridiculous comparison. Congress = Plantation? Illegal Immigrants = Jesus? What's next, "The White House is like those American Pie movies!"? Oh wait, wrong President.. Scratch that.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to be heading to my local (insert any restaurant in Nashville, or most cities in the country now), walk back to the dish room and worship my Lord and Savior(s) Juan, Jose, Javier and the gang. Who knew that when Jesus returned, he would come in the form of 10-20 million illegal immigrants to the United States and work a bunch of crappy jobs under the radar. (flips open Bible, skims through a bit of the Book of Revelation) Ah ha! Someone has clearly stolen those pages out of my Bible, that's why I'd never heard of this. Thanks Pastor Clinton!

Previous:

Hillary Clinton Tubman Lets Loose on Congressional Plantation. 'Wade in the Water' Hill.
Why Are McCain And Hillary Clinton Holding Hands With ILLEGAL Immigrants?!
Illegal Aliens Hold Massive Protest In Chicago.

 

h/t Michelle Malkin

I don't even want to post the image on my blog because it's so disgusting, but The Sheaf, a student newspaper at the University of Saskatchewan who wouldn't run the Mohammad images, had no problem mocking Jesus in a much more disgusting way. I think we've all see the hypcrisy with the rest of the media running wild with Abu Graib photos, but pixelating Mohammad images, most of which weren't even "Mohammad" images, and most of those that were, weren't even negative (unless you count the ones faked by the Imams who got the whole thing started.) But for a paper to run such a sickening cartoon portrayal of Jesus, while refusing to run the mild Mohammad images is just another example of the insanity that passes for normal on college campuses. This is of course Canada, but it isn't much better here. Actually as you probably know this week Hannity has been all over the story of Yale letting a Taliban member cut in line to get in.

Anyway, if you think you can handle the Jesus mocking cartoon they ran, check it out via Michelle Malkin

Now, for those of you who went and looked at it.... What should be done? Should we burn embassies anywhere we find them? Should we end the NHL and burn the players on a pile of maple trees? Should we hold Celine Dion hostage? Actually that last one would be our own torture.

No, you won't see anything like that, nor should you... But wait, hasn't the left blamed all the death and destruction that followed the publishing of the cartoons (that everyone knows was just an excuse for the violence these people crave to exhibit), on "incitement"? Everytime someone who isn't white/christian/Republican does something beyond reproach the "incitement" excuse comes out. All these Muslims were "incited" turn burn down dozens of embassies and kill hundreds of people simply because some cartoons were printed in Denmark. The 600 mostly black youths in Toledo were "incited" to destroy a neighborhood where less than two dozen neo-Nazis had scheduled (but never held) a rally.

Anyway, despite the fact that there are plenty of good reasons for having gone to Iraq (Clinton named most of them here, including why Iraq when others had WMDs too.), can't George Bush, using liberal logic, silence critics by claiming "incitement" by 9/11? And then likewise, shouldn't Christians terrorize the world over this cartoon and blame "incitement" and the media and everyone could then blast the paper, rather than us if we burn embassies and murder hundreds of people who have nothing to do with the cartoon?

This is just exhibit 14678-B9X of anti-Christian bias that largely gets a pass in the Americas and the world today. So you libs can keep screaming "phony" war on Christmas etc., and claim things are isolated incidents, but they just keep piling on, eventually they aren't so isolated anymore.

Small Dead Animals has full coverage of this shameful situation.

Other Blogger Reax:
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, The Theocrat, Verum Serum, Leather Penguin, Alarming News, Deborah Gyapong, Sister Toldjah, Black Sheep Press

 

I'm not Catholics, but I have to give it to the Pope here. He at least sort of takes a stand against Darwinism, unlike all the apostate Christians who today celebrated Darwin with "Evolution Sunday" (via Chicago Tribue, by way of azcentral.com). Read what the Pope had to say here (via Reuters by way of Yahoo! News).

If you read that article, the Pope comes off as kind of weak I think, but it's more than I expected and better than all those compromising their faith with Darwinian evolution.

The last two paragraphs have some things I'd like to discuss specifically:

The intelligent design debate in the United States has pitted scientists -- who are sometimes also agnostics -- against believers who claim that science can prove some life forms are so complex that they must have had a supernatural "designer."

ID supporters have been trying to get it taught as science in biology classes alongside Darwin's theory of evolution, which some Christian conservatives oppose. Its opponents rejected this as having no scientific basis at all.

Okay, in no particularly order... "Darwin's theory of evolution, which some Christian conservatives oppose!?" First of all, could that be any more of a liberal partisan swipe? "Christian Conservatives"! There is nothing "conservative" about it, roughly 80% of Americans reject Darwinian evolution. ROUGHLY 80%!!! So I guess you libs better be scared come election time, because according to Reuters' Philip Pullella and Tom Heneghan - 80% of this country is now "Christian conservatives."

Doesn't it feel great to totally bust the liberal media on a lie!? Well it does for a few seconds before you realize that most people will never know that it was a FLAT OUT lie. Then comes the depression of knowing what a misinformed public we have, who if they even read that far would have never even realized that these "journalists" were LYING.

Next... The general statement in almost every MSM article on the issue always puts this up as a battle between "science and religion". That is the biggest bunch of BS. It's a battle of interpretation of evidence and world views. This article is no different, as it pits "believers" and "scientists" against each other. So scientists who believe in creation are no longer scientists, but just "believers" now? Thanks for the clarification Reuters.

Look, it's no secret that "Intelligent Design" is a watered down version of Creationism meant to sort of be a stepping stone to mainstreaming it. But in most of these school battles, if you can cut past the liberal spin reporting, it's really only been about allowing criticism of the holes in Darwin's ToE. That's all, but the dogmatic Darwinists freak out when their golden calf is challenged. I don't have the time to sit down and make the case for you, and it's something people should come to on their own if they desire to, but if you choose to look with an open mind at the evidence, I think you can make up your own mind. As always, Creation - Evolution Headlines in recommended reading (not light reading).

Below are definite must watch videos for those just getting interested in this, as well as those already deep in it. Science/Scientists, not Religion/Clergy, despite the way the media/left tries to paint it. I never got around to watching them until December thinking it would be repetative, but they were surprisingly good and informative. I recommend watching and then deciding for yourself if you want to dig deeper. Don't buy the "religious right" "Christian fanatic" line from the media and from the left.