-
Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal Harming Pope's Poll Numbers
Tweet Share on Facebook April 19, 2010 Comment (24)By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Everybody has been talking about it. But now we have quantified data proving the point: Most Americans and most Catholic Americans think the Pope has done a terrible job dealing with the priest pedophilia scandal. CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey results released Friday also indicate that recent revelations about that matter have hurt the pope's standing with the public:
Fifty-nine percent of American Catholics questioned in the poll have a favorable view of the pope, down 19 points from February. Among all Americans, the slippage is even greater: from 59 percent in February to just 35 percent today. "Only a quarter of U.S. Catholics have an unfavorable view of the pope, but they don't seem satisfied with his track record on the growing and persistent scandal within the church," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said.
Now, does anyone really think the Church or the Pope might re-think how to handle this ongoing tragedy and the public relations disaster it has created for the Church? Of course not!
This is an institution, governed as it always has been, by fallible and often corrupt human beings. If anyone still believes the Pope has any sort of connection to God, I would like that person to explain how he or she can possibly continue to believe that such a connection exists under current circumstances. Please avoid using excuses for what the Church leadership has done. They provide no insight to those of us outside the church as we try hard to understand what keeps people in the church. -
Judge Wrongly Declares 'National Day of Prayer' Unconstitutional
Tweet Share on Facebook April 16, 2010 Comment (61)By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
The men and women who first settled the North American continent were religious pilgrims looking for a promised land. Upon their arrival they established compacts and agreements that recognized the power and author of a Creator whom they worshiped and to whom they gave thanks for their safe arrival and survival.
American is, as the founder’s intended, a place where religious pluralism flourishes. Nevertheless, the fact that they believed there was a linkage between faith and freedom is inescapable. The Declaration of Independence, for example, makes reference to the importance “the protection of Divine Providence” played in the struggle for liberty against the tyrannical British King.
The men who founded this country--those who wrote the documents that set forth our independence and those who established the framework for the national government--were not anti-religion nor were they irreligious. Even Thomas Jefferson, frequently depicted by historians as an unspiritual man, once wrote, “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,” a phrase inscribed on the frieze that circles the interior of his memorial in Washington, D.C.
All this is being turned on its head once again, this time by a part time federal judge in Wisconsin--she is on “senior status”--who issued a ruling Friday that the presidential proclamation declaring a “National Day of Prayer” is unconstitutional as is the congressional statute that calls upon the president to issue it.
-
Newt Gingrich Gets Hysterical Over Religious Supreme Court Case
Tweet Share on Facebook April 16, 2010 Comment (18)By John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
The legal dispute that serves as a vehicle for Newt Gingrich's screed in today's Washington Post is mildly interesting, if not particularly new. It seems that a Christian Legal Society at a public law school in San Francisco applied for travel funds and other benefits available to student clubs a few years back. It was turned down because it required that its members be Christians, which university officials, worrying about whether government should be in the business of supporting one faith over another, found discriminatory.
The school told the Christians that they were free to gather, to join, to practice their faith, and use school facilities--they just couldn't get all the benefits of full recognition, as long as they were a Christians-only club. That wasn't good enough for the Christians, so they sued, insisting that, unless they got their $200 in travel funds, they were the victims of discrimination.
It wasn't always this way, but Americans nowadays just love to be victims, don't we? We jostle and fight, all the time, for the chance to pout and weep for ourselves and cry, "Poor, poor, pitiful me" in the public square. It is very wimpy, if you ask me, yet the Supreme Court has had to rule on all sorts of these cases in recent years.
-
Polls Suggest Israel Support Is Becoming Dangerously Politicized
Tweet Share on Facebook April 16, 2010 Comment (48)By Brandon Greife, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Republicans and Democrats have plenty to argue about. From the impact of the healthcare bill to the parameters of financial regulatory reform, there is no shortage of outlets for spirited debate. But I fear that we have stoked the partisan fire beyond our ability to extinguish it. The bipartisan pro-Israel stance might be the first casualty. What has been one of the parties’ greatest areas of agreement is fast becoming another wedge issue in a heated election season.
Not all hope is lost. Unfortunately, watching the news recently you might have felt otherwise. Media coverage was slavishly devoted to covering every angle of the public disagreement between Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Obama over a new Jewish housing development in East Jerusalem. Headlines spanned everything from “Obama Criticizes Israel Over Settlement Building” to “Democrats Begin to Criticize Obama on Israel.” What fell by the news-cycle wayside was the bipartisan letter, signed by 333 Congressmen, reaffirming “the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel.”Being pro-Israel remains a strongly bipartisan position in government. The letter was cosigned by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Republican Whip Eric Cantor, Congressmen who are all too often vocal critics of one another. The recent pro-Israel policy conference sponsored by AIPAC featured Sens. Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham as speakers, two names that are rarely on the same side of any issue. Nevertheless, there are cracks in the nation’s unified stance toward Israel.
-
Health Insurance Companies Invest in Fast Food Chains
Tweet Share on Facebook April 16, 2010 Comment (6)By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Outrage of the day: Harvard researchers have discovered that some of the biggest health insurers have invested billions in fast food companies. CBS is reporting a study from the American Journal of Public Health, which found that nearly $2 billion has been invested by insurers such as Prudential Financial, Northwest Mutual and Massachusetts Mutual--who are among the life, health and disability insurers named in the article--in fast food companies such as McDonald’s, Jack in the Box, Burger King and Yum! Brands. According to CBS News:
-
Is Fox News Raising Money For Tea Party Movement?
Tweet Share on Facebook April 16, 2010 Comment (38)By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Remember when the Fox News Channel used to advertise itself as "Fair and Balanced"? I guess Fox executives have decided the ratings are better if they drop the pretense of objectivity. According to the New York Times, the network was either helping to fundraise or setting up fund-raising apparatuses for the uber-conservative Tea Party at anti-tax rallies across the country on tax day:
Fox News sent two of its biggest stars, Neil Cavuto and Sean Hannity, to be the hosts of hourlong programs from some of the rallies. Mr. Cavuto was in Atlanta, and Mr. Hannity was in Cincinnati. Seats beside Mr. Hannity’s stage were sold for $20 to $100, with the money going to the Cincinnati Tea Party.
In a related and equally entertaining development, President Obama stopped in Florida this week to raise money for the Democratic Party. According to ABC News, he suggested tea party supporters owe him a debt of gratitude:
Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser tonight, President Obama touted his administration’s tax cuts and said that the recent tea party rallies across the nation have “amused” him. “You would think they should be saying thank you,” the president said to applause. Members of the audience shouted, “Thank you.”
At least President Obama meant to be funny.
-
Obama's Soft Spot for Strong Women
Tweet Share on Facebook April 16, 2010 Comment (3)By Jamie Stiehm, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
An Imaginary Conversation over Breakfast This Week--in American and English
James: Holmes, I say, my hypothesis was confirmed when I just read in The Washington Post that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is one of President Barack Obama's favorite heads of state in the entire world. He had to greet, wine, dine, and work the magic on dozens--but he gave her a welcome kiss on both cheeks to say hello at the Nuclear Security Summit.
Sherlock: Enchantee, as they say en francais. German's not my cup of tea in the morning.
James: The day before, also in the Post, there was a front page picture of Obama with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton striding from the White House to Blair House and man, there they were, on the same page, like they'd never been at each other's throats running for president. They radiated sparks and strength, like hey: Watch out, world! The ultimate Washington power couple is coming at you now to knock your nuclear socks off. Hillary had that no-nonsense look in her eye and you know the president really likes to see that fire in a strong woman.
Sherlock: Do you mean to say that the president of the United States has got a soft spot for a strong woman?
-
The Republicans' New 'Contract With America'
Tweet Share on Facebook April 15, 2010 Comment (22)By Mary Kate Cary, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
Politico is reporting today that there is a growing debate within the GOP over what should be in the new “Contract with America”-style document that might help the party win back the House this fall. Of course, this story becomes much more interesting to reporters if they can portray it as a “split” within the Republicans, with “peril” on both sides. In sort of a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t way, Politico reports that if Republicans include too many specifics they’ll risk turning off moderates and independents; if they don’t include enough specifics they won’t be taken seriously.
Give me a break. The news here is not that they’re arguing over content, but that they’ve agreed to go forward with an organizing document. It’s great news that the GOP is putting together a document that tells voters what Republican candidates will stand for if they’re elected. I think most voters would love to see that document. Because while there has been some value in the Republicans opposing the Obama agenda, now is a good time to also say what they’re for, and what they’ll do if they win control of Congress.
-
Caps Fans Brace for More NHL Hockey Heartbreak
Tweet Share on Facebook April 15, 2010 Comment (3)By John Aloysius Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
All you Cubs and Bills fans out there will understand if I don't blog today about Sarah Palin or the Tea Party or Glenn Beck. They're getting kind of boring and predictable, anyway, eh?
Arriving tonight, here in Washington, D.C., is our annual spring ritual: living and dying with the Washington Capitals. The Stanley Cup playoffs have arrived, and--despite that lovely score in the Pittsburgh-Ottawa game last night--it is time for long-suffering Washington hockey fans to prepare for their annual dose of tension and torture and, so far, cruel disappointment.
Oh, I know. This year it is going to be different, you say. Nobody won more games in the regular season. We've got stud hosses in Alex Ovechkin and Alexander Semin and Nicklas Backstrom, and guys with muscle and heart like Brooks Laich and Mike Knuble. Besides, not every Washington team can suck.
-
Newt Gingrich: Obama's Fantasy Foreign Policy is Dangerous
Tweet Share on Facebook April 15, 2010 Comment (15)By Peter Roff, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
In the heady, hopeful years following the end of “The Great War,” the leaders of the industrialized and democratic nations believed they could end war. Throughout the 1920s they produced a series of disarmament treaties, arms limitation treaties, even an agreement--the 1928 Kellogg-Briand Pact--to outlaw war as an instrument of state policy.
The responsible leaders of the time, still in shock over the carnage that the last European continental war had produced, pinned their hopes for the future on a fantasy transcribed onto paper.
It was a dangerous idea and, ultimately, a foolish one. Three years after the pact was signed the Japanese invaded Manchuria. In 1935 Mussolini’s Italy invaded Abyssinia. In 1936 Hitler ordered German troops into the Rhineland. In 1938 Austria was annexed and Czechoslovakia dismembered. The democratic powers, seeking to preserve the peace at all costs, responded impotently. By 1939, just a decade later, the world was again at war.
The world may again be headed down this path. Not toward war, but toward what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich calls “a fantasy foreign policy” that will leave democratic nations at the mercy of madmen.
