Despite Roger Ailes' claim to have been "kicked out of every damned church I've ever belonged to," his network provides a pulpit for the religious right and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops whose crusade against the ACA's birth control mandate was consistently validated on Fox. But while Ailes is non-affiliated, he does believe in God and hates atheists who are consistently attacked on Fox News. And because Ailes' personal parsonage, Fox News, is the defender of the faith - Christian, that is - it never wastes an opportunity to denigrate the atheists who filed a court case to keep the "Ground Zero Cross" (crossbeams from the 9-11 wreckage that became an object of Christian worship) out of the publicly funded museum. On this morning's Fox & Friends, the one, true Fox priest, Fr. Jonathan Morris joined in Fox's crusade (or is it jihad?) on behalf of the Ground Zero Cross
The latest development in the saga of the consecrated cross beams is the court request, to the atheists, to "better explain how displaying the artifact is “offensive” and violates members’ constitutional rights." So who better to spin this instruction, as a great "victory," than Fox priest and Tim Tebow fanboy Fr. Jonathan Morris who, earlier this year, said that this case is an example of those nasty, god fearing atheists want to OMG "ban public expressions of religion." (BTW, the cute, little padre has a new webpage that looks very similar to the Fox & Friends website. While his big, baby blues are front and center, there is no mention, in his bio, of his high position in the disgraced Legion of Christ.)
After the opening graphic, "Keeping the Faith," accompanied by a heavenly choir, Anna Kooiman described the cross as a "symbol of solace and hope to many," but "offensive to one group." (We're looking at you, atheists!) Exemplary Christian Tucker Carlson reported that the cross "could be safe" because of "a legal victory" which requires the atheists to submit "evidence justifying their case." He introduced Morris who would be explaining "why this is such a big victory." Carlson immediately distorted the case when he said that the group claims that "the Constitution protects their right never to be offended." Fact Check - the case is not based on the right not "to be offended" but the contention that the presence of the cross violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the NY Constitution.
Morris replied that the case doesn't protect the right to not be offended. He preached that it does, however, give him hope because positive things happen "from issues like this" and that "speaking out about some of the ridiculous claims of some of these activist groups, in this case activist atheist groups, is very good for the fabric of our society because the court listens to what people are talking about and they recognize that these activist groups are pushing, really, the Constitution to a place where it was never meant to be."
Roger Ailes attorney, Cardinal Dolan consigliore, Catholic Knight of Malta, and Fox friends Peter Johnson Jr. brought up the tired Fox lie that that the plaintiffs claim that the cross made them "suffer from indigestion." Fact Check - The final complaint document does NOT MENTION DYSPEPSIA. He argued that the cross is historical, not religious. Morris chirped in with validation of the lie: "Let's see some evidence of the sickness." Morris said that this is "a question of history" because the cross brought "solace" to so many. He added that, "to Tucker's point" (the only one being on his head) if people "get indigestion when they see that thing in history, there's a lot of history we need to whitewash." Foxblonde Kooiman added "it's almost like we'd have to rewrite the history books."
Morris said that "people loved that cross." Johnson then described the case as "frivolous" and disclosed that he represented some of the *parties in the lawsuit "which proves that there's no validity" to the suit. (So, uh, because he's representing a defendant, the suit has "no validity?") Morris wrapped it up: "that's why we have to keep speaking out about this."
So Fox News, in bashing atheists, is "very good for the fabric of our society?" Seriously?
*Most likely the Catholic Church of the Holy Name of Jesus which provided a priest to consecrate the beams
These fucking loons are nothing more than pathetically ignorant elements of a pseudo-religious cult with a political agenda that should we met with a radical response that serves the total destruction of the threat posed by same, by any means necessary in defense of America.
I mean, really (!): The very same people who so dearly want that crossbeam-cum-cross in the museum went literally ballistic at the very idea of there being an Islamic Cultural Centre with a praying room, nearby. They cringe visibly when walking past the entrance to an Islamic praying room in an airport. I’m old enough to have witnessed such people doing the same when passing a synagogue or a church run by another denomination.
All in the name of religious freedom, of course. … Their religion, that is.
PS: The monumental cross that collapsed was dedicated to John Paul II and, although I’m sorely tempted to interprete the event as God’s judgement on that man’s work, I can’t but think it was shoddy construction. But the other interpretation is soooooooo tempting.
The problem is not so much “religion” as resistance to constant attempts by the faithful to push their faith down the throats of others. Rather than a contrast between two belief systems (the one to believe, the other not to believe), I see this as yet another attempt to impose a religious interpretation not corroborated by any science. A damaged crossbeam is a piece of metal that should be recycled not turned into an object of worshipful pilgrimage like a weeping madonna.
Further, if we are to accept that this crossbeam-cum-cross is a message from the God worshiped by Christians, what are we to make of the monumental cross that collapsed and killed a kid in Italy a few months ago?
The idea that we can cherry pick our messages would be unworthy of the self-styled ante-letteram athiest that you say you are, so I shall refrain from suggesting that you may not actually be one.
Oh dear, I just did.
@joseph: very very well said.
Unfortunately, most believers are long on victimism and short on empathy. What others may think or believe simply does not matter to them.
I know it gets a bit tricky, given the reverence that Catholics give “objects” and “sacred relics” but, traditionally, the objects that the Church gave reverence were directly linked to Jesus, Mary, Joseph or the various saints and apostles and martyrs—not something that just happened to resemble a cross from an object that was dedicated to the world of commerce (which is exactly what the World Trade Centers were). I mean, this kind of idolatry is exactly what the Protestant Reformation was attempting to “reform.” Most Protestants don’t place a “sacred” value on mere objects, no matter how “holy” the item (unless, as with the Shroud of Turin, there is some tangential connection to Jesus—even if there’s no genuine evidence that the object is actually what they believe it to be); they may place a great deal of sentimental value on an object (look, for example, at family bibles which may be passed down over several generations—it’s not the BOOK which holds any value, but rather the link to the owner’s ancestors, just like a photo album).
THAT is the real crux (pardon the pun) of the issue. The GOVERNMENT (whatever it may be—city, state, federal) is supposed to be neutral when it comes to religion and not favor one over another (or even no religion). But the “Christians” can’t accept that. They want to force their beliefs on others (even as they whine that their beliefs are being “trampled on”). If some private church wants to take the “Ground Zero Cross” and put it on their property, fine. No problem whatsoever. But it has NO business at the Ground Zero memorial—especially when RELIGION played such a large role in the very creation of “Ground Zero” in the first place. (And—incidentally—as soon as these idiots remember the outrage THEY created over the “Ground Zero Mosque,” then they might gain some insight as to why atheists might not appreciate being subjected to a piece of metal being turned into some “holy relic.”)
Not once has an Atheist come knocking at my door trying to convert me into their way of thinking. Nor have they asked for a donation to spread their message to others or pass out pamphlets or literature to sell their beliefs, or should I say non-beliefs?
Nope, I haven’t seen or heard any atheists preaching to me on TV or radio either. Not once.